text:
Three-fifths Compromise

The Three-fifths Compromise was an agreement reached during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention over the inclusion of slaves in a state's total population. This count would determine: the number of seats in the House of Representatives; the number of electoral votes each state would be allocated; and how much money the states would pay in taxes. Slave holding states wanted their entire population to be counted to determine the number of Representatives those states could elect and send to Congress. Free states wanted to exclude the counting of slave populations in slave states, since those slaves had no voting rights. A compromise was struck to resolve this impasse. The compromise counted three-fifths of each state's slave population toward that state's total population for the purpose of apportioning the House of Representatives, effectively giving the Southern states more power in the House relative to the Northern states. Free blacks and indentured servants were not subject to the compromise, and each was counted as one full person for representation.

In the United States Constitution, the Three-fifths Compromise is part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) later superseded this clause and explicitly repealed the compromise.

Text
In the U.S. Constitution, the Three-fifths Compromise is part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [italics added]."

Confederation Congress
The three-fifths ratio originated with an amendment proposed to the Articles of Confederation on April 18, 1783. The amendment was to have changed the basis for determining the wealth of each state, and hence its tax obligations, from real estate to population, as a measure of ability to produce wealth. The proposal by a committee of the Congress had suggested that taxes "shall be supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex, and quality, except Indians not paying taxes". The South immediately objected to this formula since it would include slaves, who were viewed primarily as property, in calculating the amount of taxes to be paid. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his notes on the debates, the Southern states would be taxed "according to their numbers and their wealth conjunctly, while the northern would be taxed on numbers only".

After proposed compromises of one-half by Benjamin Harrison of Virginia and three-fourths by several New Englanders failed to gain sufficient support, Congress finally settled on the three-fifths ratio proposed by James Madison. But this amendment ultimately failed, falling two states short of the unanimous approval required to amend the Articles of Confederation (New Hampshire and New York opposed it).

Federalist Papers 54–55
Madison explained the reasoning for the 3/5 in Federalist No. 54 "The Apportionment of Members Among the States" (February 12, 1788) as:

"'We subscribe to the doctrine,' might one of our Southern brethren observe, 'that representation relates more immediately to persons, and taxation more immediately to property, and we join in the application of this distinction to the case of our slaves. But we must deny the fact, that slaves are considered merely as property, and in no respect whatever as persons. The true state of the case is, that they partake of both these qualities: being considered by our laws, in some respects, as persons, and in other respects as property...Let the case of the slaves be considered, as it is in truth, a peculiar one. Let the compromising expedient of the Constitution be mutually adopted, which regards them as inhabitants, but as debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants, which regards the SLAVE as divested of two fifths of the MAN...The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. It is the character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and it will not be denied, that these are the proper criterion; because it is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is disputed them in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants."

Madison later expanded further in Federalist No. 55 "The Total Number of the House of Representatives" (February 15, 1788) as explaining that the 3/5 had to do with estimating the population size of slaves at the time as well:

"Within three years a census is to be taken, when the number may be augmented to one for every thirty thousand inhabitants; and within every successive period of ten years the census is to be renewed, and augmentations may continue to be made under the above limitation. It will not be thought an extravagant conjecture that the first census will, at the rate of one for every thirty thousand, raise the number of representatives to at least one hundred. Estimating the negroes in the proportion of three fifths, it can scarcely be doubted that the population of the United States will by that time, if it does not already, amount to three millions."

Constitutional Convention
During the Constitutional Convention, the compromise was proposed by delegate James Wilson and seconded by Charles Pinckney.

When he presented his plan for the frame of government to the Convention on its first day, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina proposed that for the purposes of apportionment, a "House of Delegates" be determined through the apportionment of "one Member for every thousand Inhabitants 3/5 of Blacks included." The Convention unanimously accepted the principle that representation in the House of Representatives would be in proportion to the relative state populations, but it initially rejected his proposal regarding apportionment of the black population along with the rest of his plan. Delegates opposed to slavery proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers.

The proposal to count slaves by a three-fifths ratio was first presented on June 11, and agreed to by nine states to two with only a brief debate. It was debated at length between July 9 and 13 (inclusive) when it was initially voted down by the members present at the Convention six to four. A few Southern delegates, seeing an opportunity, then proposed full representation for their slave population; most states voted no. Seeing that the states could not remain united about counting the slaves as five-fifths without some sort of compromise measure, the ratio of three-fifths was brought back to the table and agreed to by eight states to two.

Debate
Gouverneur Morris from New York doubted that a direct tax, whose burden on Southern states would be increased by the Three-fifths Compromise, could be effectively leveled on the vast United States. The primary ways of generating federal revenue, he said, would be excise taxes and import duties, which would tax the North more than the South; therefore, the taxation provision was irrelevant, and the compromise would only increase the number of pro-slavery legislators.

Northern delegates argued only voters should be accounted for. Southern delegates countered, claiming slaves counted just as much as voters, despite Northerners questioning why slaves should be held by Southerners.

Compromise and enactment
After a contentious debate, the compromise that was finally agreed upon—of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers—reduced the representation of the slave states relative to the original proposals, but improved it over the Northern position. An inducement for slave states to accept the Compromise was its tie to taxation in the same ratio, so that the burden of taxation on the slave states was also reduced.

A contentious issue at the 1787 Constitutional Convention was whether slaves would be counted as part of the population in determining representation of the states in the Congress or would instead be considered property and, as such, not be considered for purposes of representation. Delegates from states with a large population of slaves argued that slaves should be considered persons in determining representation, but as property if the new government were to levy taxes on the states on the basis of population. Delegates from states where slavery had become rare argued that slaves should be included in taxation, but not in determining representation.

The proposed ratio was, however, a ready solution to the impasse that arose during the Constitutional Convention. In that situation, the alignment of the contending forces was the reverse of what had been obtained under the Articles of Confederation in 1783. In amending the Articles, the North wanted slaves to count for more than the South did because the objective was to determine taxes paid by the states to the federal government. In the Constitutional Convention, the more important issue was representation in Congress, so the South wanted slaves to count for more than the North did.

"Much has been said of the impropriety of representing men who have no will of their own.... They are men, though degraded to the condition of slavery. They are persons known to the municipal laws of the states which they inhabit, as well as to the laws of nature. But representation and taxation go together.... Would it be just to impose a singular burden, without conferring some adequate advantage?"

Before the Civil War
By excluding two-fifths of slaves in the legislative apportionment based on population (as provided in the constitution), the Three-fifths Compromise provided reduced representation in the House of Representatives of slave states compared to the free states. Viewed the opposite way, by including three-fifths of slaves in the legislative apportionment (even though they had no voting rights), the Three-fifths Compromise provided additional representation in the House of Representatives of slave states compared to the free states, if representation had been considered based on the non-slave population. Based on the latter view, in 1793, for example, Southern slave states had 47 of the 105 seats, but would have had 33 had seats been assigned based on free populations. In 1812, slave states had 76 seats out of 143 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 seats out of 240, instead of 73. As a result, Southern states had additional influence on the presidency, the speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court until the American Civil War. In addition, the Southern states' insistence on equal numbers of slave and free states, which was maintained until 1850, safeguarded the Southern bloc in the Senate as well as Electoral College votes.

Historian Garry Wills has speculated that without the additional slave state votes, Jefferson would have lost the presidential election of 1800. Also, "slavery would have been excluded from Missouri ... Jackson's Indian removal policy would have failed ... the Wilmot Proviso would have banned slavery in territories won from Mexico ... the Kansas-Nebraska bill would have failed." While the Three-fifths Compromise could be seen to favor Southern states because of their large slave populations, for example, the Connecticut Compromise tended to favor the Northern states (which were generally smaller). Support for the new Constitution rested on the balance of these sectional interests.

Debate
Before the Civil War aspects of the Constitution were subject for significant debate by abolitionists. The Garrisonian view (William Lloyd Garrison (1805–1879), a prominent American abolitionist best known for his widely read anti-slavery newspaper The Liberator of the 1830s) of the Constitution was that it was a pro-slavery document and only completely dividing the Union could satisfy the cause of anti-slavery.

Following a bitter series of public debates including one with George Thompson, Frederick Douglass took another view, pointing to the Constitution as an anti-slavery document:

"But giving the provisions the very worse construction, what does it amount to? I answer—It is a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding States; one which deprives those States of two-fifths of their natural basis of representation. A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State, as a basis of political power under the Constitution. Therefore, instead of encouraging slavery, the Constitution encourages freedom by giving an increase of “two-fifths” of political power to free over slave States. So much for the three-fifths clause; taking it at is worst, it still leans to freedom, not slavery; for, be it remembered that the Constitution nowhere forbids a coloured man to vote."

After the Civil War
Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) later superseded Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and explicitly repealed the compromise. It provides that "representatives shall be apportioned ... counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." A later provision of the same clause reduced the Congressional representation of states who denied the right to vote to adult male citizens, but this provision was never effectively enforced. (The Thirteenth Amendment, passed in 1865, had already eliminated almost all persons from the original clause's jurisdiction by banning slavery; the only remaining persons subject to it were those sentenced for a crime to penal servitude, which the amendment excluded from the ban.)

After the Reconstruction Era came to an end in 1877, the former slave states subverted the objective of these changes by using terrorism and other illegal tactics to disenfranchise their black citizens, while obtaining the benefit of apportionment of representatives on the basis of the total populations. These measures effectively gave white Southerners even greater voting power than they had in the antebellum era, inflating the number of Southern Democrats in the House of Representatives as well as the number of votes they could exercise in the Electoral College in the election of the president.

The disenfranchisement of black citizens eventually attracted the attention of Congress, and, in 1900, some members proposed stripping the South of seats, related to the number of people who were barred from voting. In the end, Congress did not act to change apportionment, largely because of the power of the Southern bloc. The Southern bloc comprised Southern Democrats voted into office by white voters and constituted a powerful voting bloc in Congress until the 1960s. Their representatives, re-elected repeatedly by one-party states, controlled numerous chairmanships of important committees in both houses on the basis of seniority, giving them control over rules, budgets and important patronage projects, among other issues. Their power allowed them to defeat federal legislation against racial violence and abuses in the South, until overcome by the civil rights movement.

Historical interpretation
There is a persistent and sometimes contentious debate among historians, legal scholars, and political scientists over whether the Three-Fifths Compromise should be construed to support the notion that slaves were conceived of not only demographically, but also ontologically, three-fifths of a person or whether the three-fifths was purely a statistical designation used to determine how many representatives Southern states would have in Congress. A frequent claim made in favor of the former argument is that previous electoral precedent held that one man was equivalent to one vote, and the fact that the compromise explicitly tied personhood to votes provides a basis for an ontological reading of the compromise as implying that enslaved people lacked full personhood. Supporters of the statistical argument dispute that ontological considerations were present in the mind of Congress at the time or that the Three-Fifths Compromise had any regard for such notions in its purpose and function. However, it is generally agreed upon and historiographically reflected that enslaved people had no legal recourse or standing to challenge or participate in any kind of electoral legislation or activities of their own accord, which was confirmed 70 years later by the Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford. This inequality in electoral rights did not substantively change until after the passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Books

 * Amar, Akhil Reed (2005). America's Constitution: A Biography. New York: Random House, pp. 87-97.

title: Three-fifths Compromise


text:
Glückel of Hameln

Glückel of Hameln (גליקל בת ר' יהודה לייב האַמיל; also spelled Glückel, Glüeckel, Gllckl Hamel or Glikl of Hamelin; also known as Glikl bas Judah Leib) (c. 1646 – September 19, 1724) was a German Jewish businesswoman and diarist. Written in her native tongue of Western Yiddish over the course of thirty years, her memoirs were originally intended to be an ethical will for her children and future descendants. Glückel's diaries are the only known pre-modern Yiddish memoirs written by a woman. The Memoirs of Glückel of Hameln provide an intimate portrait of German-Jewish life between the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries and have become an important source for historians, philologists, sociologists, literary critics, and linguists.

Naming conventions
Glückel was a popular name in the Middle Ages. The name “Glückel” is diminutive of "Glück," the German translation of the Hebrew name “Mazal,” meaning “good fortune.” Mazal was exclusively used by Sephardic Jews, while Ashkenazi Jews used either the German variations of "Glück" and "Glueck" or the Yiddish version "Glick." The ending "el" is a diminutive which indicates "little" or "little one" and was used in the Yiddish and German variations of Glückel, Glukel, Glukil, Glickel, and Glikel. The pseudo-aristocratic variation "Glückel von Hameln" was used by the editor of the memoir's first publication in Yiddish.

Despite being referred to by many different variations, her preferred name would have most likely have been "Glikl bas Judah Leib," meaning "Glikl daughter of Judah Leib," in keeping with Jewish naming traditions of her time.

Life and death
Glückel was born into a wealthy family in the city of Hamburg in 1646 or 1647, one of six children born to Judah Joseph Leib and his second wife Beila. She had one brother, Wolf, and five sisters: Rebekah, Elkel, Hendele, and Mate. Her father was a successful diamond trader and parnas, a leader in the Jewish community; her mother was also involved in business. In 1649, when Glückel was less than three years old, her family and the rest of Hamburg's Ashkenazic Jewish community was expelled to Altona. Her father had been so respected in Hamburg that he was the first German Jew permitted to return. Glückel's father ensured that all of his children were both pious and well-educated, including his daughters. Although she was unable to study the Torah, Glückel received a formal education in a Cheder, the traditional Jewish primary school, where she learned Hebrew and the basics of Judaism.

When she was twelve years old, Glückel was betrothed to Hayyim of Hameln, whom she married in 1660 at the age of fourteen. After the marriage, the couple lived in the groom's parents’ home in Hameln. A year after their marriage, the couple moved in with Glückel's parents in Hamburg, where Hayyim began dealing in gold and became an affluent businessman. A year after that, they became parents for the first time. Glückel assisted her husband in trading seed pearls, eventually taking over the family business when he died in 1689. She was one of few women who traveled by themselves to conduct trade at European markets and fairs. In addition to her business dealings, Glückel also maintained an extremely active social life which often required extensive travel. Her memoirs tell of travels to cities as varied as Amsterdam, Bamberg, Danzig, Hanover, Hildesheim, Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Leipzig, Berlin, Vienna, Metz, and Paris.

Glückel and Hayyim had a total of fourteen children, thirteen of whom survived to adulthood: Zipporah (c. 1661), Nathan (c. 1663), Mata (c. 1666), Mordechai (c. 1670), Hannah (c. 1672), Loeb (c. 1673), Esther (c. 1677), Joseph (c. 1677), Hendelchen (c. 1678), Samuel (c. 1680), Freudchen (c. 1684), Moses (c. 1685), and Miriam (c. 1686). Glückel took great pride in the fact that many of her children were married into some of the most prominent Jewish families of Europe.

In 1700, eleven years after Hayyim's death, Glückel remarried. Although she had rejected a number of proposals, she finally acquiesced as she believed that remarrying would ultimately benefit her children by protecting their future. Her second husband was Cerf Levy, a successful banker and parnas from Metz. Two years after their marriage, Levy failed financially, losing not only his own fortune but hers as well. Still deep in the throes of bankruptcy, Levy died in 1712, leaving Glückel a widow for the second time. Ever fearful of becoming a burden to her children, Glückel lived alone until falling too ill to care for herself in 1715. At the age of seventy, after much pleading from her children, she moved in with her daughter Esther and her son-in-law Moses.

Glückel died from natural causes on September 19, 1724, in Metz.

History of the memoirs
In 1691, two years after the death of her beloved husband, Glückel began writing her memoirs in an attempt to comfort herself during her immense grief. At the time she was a 46-year-old widow with twelve children, eight of whom remained unmarried. She initially stopped writing the diaries in 1699, shortly before her second marriage to Cerf Levy, but resumed in 1715 while she was living with her daughter following her second husband's death. Glückel completed the seventh and final book in 1719.

Glückel was born two years before the end of the Thirty Years' War. She lived through, and subsequently wrote about, many other notable historical events, including but not limited to Charles X Gustav of Sweden's war on Denmark, the Khmelnytsky Uprising of 1648, the expulsion of the Jewish population of Hamburg to Altona, the scandal of the "Messianic pretender" Sabbatai Zevi, the Franco-Dutch War, and the War of the Spanish Succession. Glückel's stories reveal much about the often frightening and precarious situation under which the Jews of northern Germany lived during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.

Glückel's diaries, a rare account of an ordinary woman, provide a glimpse into day-to-day life among the Jewish inhabitants of northern Germany in the 17th century. The diaries are the sole pre-modern diary written by a woman in Yiddish. Glückel tells of how she guided the financial and personal destinies of her children through marriage arrangements, engaged in business travel and trade, and generally spent her life promoting the welfare of her large family. Glückel wrote of both her own and her first husband's families in great detail because she wanted her children to know about their lineage. She was explicit that the works were to be preserved for future generations, fearing that her children's children or grandchildren would one day know nothing of their family history.

The memoirs amalgamate several Jewish literary traditions: the Tsava'ah, or ethical will; the Tekhines, or women's prayer books; the Sefer musar, or book of moral instruction; the Mayse bukh, or Yiddish storybook; and the "Family Scroll."

Book One
The opening pages of Glückel's book include details of her reasons for writing, as well as the underlying beliefs that will come to define her entire narrative. She explains that she began writing her memoirs following the death of her husband of nearly thirty years, Hayyim of Hameln. She explicitly states that she does not wish to write a book of morals for her children to follow; she believes that the Torah provides all of the necessary instructions and thus should be studied diligently. She also states that she intends to complete the memoirs as a series of "seven little books."

Book One provides much of the backstory of Glückel's life. In this book, Glückel tells of her childhood in Hamburg. Though the second chapter begins with her birth, there is almost no reference to her childhood and upbringing except to mention that her father ensured that all of his children, male and female, received both secular and religious education. She mentions that her mother worked making gold and silver lace. Glückel recalls experiences of anti-semitism and how her community was severely impacted by the expulsion of Jews to Altona around 1650. Glückel illustrates her family's importance in the community by noting that her father was the first German Jew allowed to resettle in Hamburg. She has memories of the so-called "Swedish Winter" when the Swedes went to war with the King of Denmark, a monarch who she remembered as great man and friend to the Jews. Glückel also tells of the devastating effect that the plague had on Hamburg's Jewish community, including the death of her grandmother.

Glückel reveals that her father had been a widower when he married her mother. She remembers the circumstances of her sister Hendele's engagement to the son of Reb Gumpel of Cleves, in which Hendele received 1,800 Reichsthalers as her dowry, the most anyone had ever been dowered in Hamburg. Glückel recalls that the match been the most important in all of Germany and that "the whole world admired its excellence and the size of the dowry."

Book Two
Book Two is one of the shortest of the seven books, and it is also the most joyful. This book begins with Glückel's betrothal to Hayyim of Hameln at age twelve and their marriage two years later; the relationship was arranged by her father. After Glückel and Hayyim were married in Hameln, they moved in with his parents where she was "alone with strangers in a strange world." She recalls her first impressions of Hameln being "a dull shabby hole" and "back-country town where lived only two Jews." She was ultimately not discouraged by her new surroundings, however, because of how well she was treated by her in-laws, especially her father-in-law, Joseph Hameln.

She spends most of the second book giving details about Hayyim's family. She tells the story of Hayyim's eldest brother, Moses, who was shot and killed while being robbed on the way to his own wedding. Joseph's second son, Abraham, was a brilliant Talmud scholar who faced many hardships in his life, including difficulties conceiving without what was rumored to be mystical intervention. Hayyim had a sister named Yenta, who experienced great personal turmoil after marrying the son of the wealthy Sussmann Gans of Minden-on-the-Weser. The fourth child of the family, Samuel, studied in Poland and married the daughter of the prominent Rabbi Sholem of Lemberg. Glückel never met the fifth child, Isaac, who died at age fifty in Frankfort-on-the-Main. Glückel writes very little about Hayyim's sister Esther, stating instead that "all the world knows the excellent woman she was." The seventh child, Loeb, lived in Bonn. He died young "but in riches and honor." Hannah was the eighth child who, like Loeb, also died very young; she, however, was without any wealth. Hayyim was the ninth child, referred to in this book as "your faithful father." He is not discussed at length in the chapter, however, as Glückel advises that the details will be found in the coming pages instead.

Book Three
Signs of Glückel's business acumen begin to appear in Book Three. She reveals that her husband took business and financial advice from her and no one else, stating that he did nothing in business without her knowledge. Glückel mentions that she drafted a business contract when her husband took ill on a trading trip to Leipzig, a prime example of her husband's utmost confidence in her business capabilities. Hayyim's illness in Leipzig was particularly stressful for Glückel because of the well-known danger that the city posed to Jews. Although Jews were allowed to do business at the Leipzig Fair due to the high taxes they paid, they had not been allowed to live in Saxony since 1537. Glückel knew that if Hayyim had died in Leipzig, it would have been difficult to recover his body for a proper Jewish burial and that all of his possessions would be forfeited, resulting in major personal as well as financial damages.

In this book, Glückel tells of the commotion caused by the false prophet Sabbatai Zevi and how it impacted her family. As the plague continues, Glückel explains of the difficulty of conducting trade and receiving mail, as well as the strange illness and remarkable recovery of her daughter Zipporah, to whom she refers as the "Virgin of Peinholz." Over the course of Book Three, Glückel gives birth to two more daughters, Mata and Hannah. Unfortunately, at age three, Mata contracted a mysterious and painful illness which made her hands and feet swell; she died four weeks later.

Book Four
Glückel has another child in this volume, a son named Mordecai. Glückel gives more insight into her social and economic status by mentioning that she employs a servant named "Elegant Sam," who had been a replacement for a "Clumsy Sam." Zipporah follows in her mother's footsteps and is also engaged at age twelve, and the townspeople place bets on her marriage. Glückel tells of her embarrassment when, during the marriage ceremony, it was discovered that the ketubah, or Jewish marriage contract, had not been written; although the wedding proceeded without the official contract, this went against custom and Glückel feared that the community would react negatively. Zipporah's wedding is the first of many which are described at length in the memoirs. Glückel mentions the attendance of nobility as well as the performance of the "Dance of Death." Glückel suffers the loss of her beloved sister Hendel, who is buried in Emmerich. She mentions the dangers of sailing from Wangerooge to Hamburg due to pirates. By this time, her son Nathan is fifteen and becomes involved in the family business. Glückel and Hayyim have another daughter, Esther.

Glückel details many economic woes, including the loss of 11,000 Reichsthalers in one year. In a stroke of bittersweet luck, Glückel's father dies after suffering from gout and she gives birth to her son, Loeb, after sitting shiva. Glückel details the distribution of her father's will, which left 1,600 Reichsthalers to her mother and about 1,400 Reichsthalers to each of his children; although Glückel's husband and brother-in-law were entitled to a claim of half the share of a son, they insisted that the money be given to Glückel's mother and her children only. Glückel details the excellent treatment of her mother by her sons-in-law after she became a widow. Glückel notes that her mother's age at widowhood was forty-four and remarks on the fact that she never remarried. Glückel also mentions the existence of other female-authored wills, indicating that her memoirs were not an anomaly for the time.

She gives her impressions of the war between the King of France, Holland, and the Emperor. Hayyim again falls ill on a business trip, this time in Halberstadt. Glückel's father-in-law had died three years before she began writing the fourth book, and she tells a story about her daughter Hannah's experience with a ghostly presence the night before he died. She writes of her husband's experience with shneim asar chodesh, the twelve-month period of mourning for one's parent. Her mother-in-law died two years later at age eighty-two and was buried next to her husband. Glückel celebrates her daughter Esther and son Nathan both becoming engaged, but she also mourns losing an unnamed child in infancy. She describes her experience of giving birth every two years, a period which had begun with her daughter Hendele; two sons, Samuel and Moses, and two daughters, Freudchen and Miriam, followed. The book ends with the death of Hayyim, the "crown of [her] head," in 1689. She laments being left with eight unmarried children and mentions that the four married children also still need help.

Book Five
Book Five deals extensively with the sickness and eventual death of Hayyim. On January 11, 1689, he fell on a sharp stone, agitating his already long-suffering and "badly twisted bowels." Hayyim initially refused to call for a doctor for want of privacy, but he eventually calls for Abraham Lopez, a physician and "chirurgeon-barber." Glückel offers her body to console or comfort her dying husband, but he refuses her because she is "unclean" due to menstruation and had not visited the mikveh. Hayyim dies on Shabbat while reciting the first lines of the prayer Shema Yisrael: "Hear O'Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One!" He is buried January 16, 1689, after which the customary week of mourning commenced. Glückel describes her grief in great detail and also reveals that she felt that she was forgotten by the community after the mourning period ended.

Hayyim died 20,000 Reichsthalers in debt, but Glückel's business acumen ensured that the debts were completely cleared within a year. Life gradually returns to normal as Glückel officially takes over control of the business and family. She describes difficulty with her son Loeb's marriage plans as well as business decisions. After Loeb falls deep into debt after going into business for himself in Berlin, she begins to see the city as cursed. This feeling deepens after her daughter Hendele falls sick and dies there, only seventeen weeks after she got married. She describes how a trusted Talmud teacher misled her son Joseph at the age of fourteen. Glückel recalls the murders of Abraham Metz and Aaron ben Moses, a story which illustrates the complicated relationships that existed between Jews and Gentiles in Hamburg.

Book Six
Book Six opens with a sense of deep regret. Glückel describes her second marriage as the "change in life [she] sought to avoid." She interprets her second marriage as a punishment for her sins, especially for not committing herself to God after Hayyim's death. She tells of her secret betrothal to Cerf Levy, a widower from Metz, which occurred in June 1699. She relates the story of King Jedijah from Araby to illustrate how even good intentions, such as her desire to protect her children by remarrying, can sometimes go terribly wrong.

Although Glückel agrees to the marriage with the assurance that her new husband was a wise businessman who would offer her "nothing but abundance," she recalls her extreme hesitation. She details difficulties with both her new step-children and the Levy family's staff which included two manservants, two maids, and "numerous lackeys." Glückel describes how distraught she was after she learned her troubled son Loeb had died, expressing her grief with the story of King David and his son Absalom. Glückel ends Book Six expresses her fears for her family with a desperate plea for God's forgiveness: "May the Almighty God spare us and Israel from further evil, and in His great mercy and grace forgive us sinners all our debts, and lead us back to the Holy Land, that our eyes may see the rebuilding of Thy holy house and our glory restored!"

Book Seven
According to Glückel, the final book "contains both pleasures and pains, as does the world itself." In this book, both her son Samuel and her second husband die. Samuel dies less than two years after the move to Metz and leaves behind a pregnant widow. After twelve years of marriage, Cerf dies on July 24, 1712. Glückel was unable to recover even her initial dowry because his business was in such a state of ruin at the time of his death. She recalls the dissatisfaction of living in the home of Jacob Marburg, an otherwise unidentified Metz resident who provided her with a room which featured "neither hearth nor chimney." Being old and ill, she had difficulty getting up the twenty-two stairs which led to her bedroom. Despite her previous protests, Glückel eventually gives in to her son-in-law Moses Krumbach's demands to move in with him and his wife, Esther. In 1715, she finally moves in with her daughter and son-in-law and experiences life in a rapidly changing Metz. The memoirs close with the following passage:"'In the month of Nisan, 5479 [March–April 1719], a woman was kneeling by the bank of the Moselle, washing her dishes. It was about ten o'clock at night, and of a sudden it became as light as day, and the woman looked in the Heavens, and the Heavens were opened, like unto a...[word illegible]...and sparks flew therefrom; and then the Heavens closed, as one closes a curtain, and all was dark again. God grant that it be for our good!'"

Translations
The original manuscript was lost, but a copy made by Glückel's son Moses survived. The family copy was used to create the first printed edition entitled Zikhroynes (Yiddish for "Memoirs"), which was edited by David Kaufmann and published in 1896. Bertha Pappenheim, one of Glückel's great-granddaughters, published the first German translation of the Memoirs in 1910. In 1913, an alternate abridged German translation by Alfred Feilchenfeld was published and, due to its immense popularity, went into its fourth edition by 1923. Feilchenfeld's edition eventually became the basis of the first English translation by Marvin Lowenthal, published in 1932 and reissued in 1960 and 1977. In 1962, Beth-Zion Abrahams offered a more accurate English translation of the original Kaufmann edition. An abridged Hebrew translation based on the Feilchenfeld edition was published by A. Z. Rabinowitz in Tel Aviv in 1930. Joseph Berenfeld completed a full translation of the memoirs into modern Yiddish in 1967.

Legacy and descendants
The permanent exhibition at the Jewish Museum Berlin (Jüdisches Museum Berlin) featured Glückel of Hameln from 2001 to 2017. "Two Millennia of German-Jewish History" was broken down into fourteen periods spanning from the Middle Ages to the present, with Glückel representing the Baroque period. The exhibit has been closed since 2017 for a complete redesign and is expected to re-open on August 23, 2020. It is still unclear if Glückel will be featured in the new redesign.

Her memoirs have been adapted several times. Margoa Winston's fictionalized "Glückel Von Hameln: a Dramatization of Her Autobiography" appeared in print in 1941. Adrienne Cooper and Frank London of the Great Small Works theater troupe brought the memoirs to the stage in the early 2000s. The production combined puppetry with European storytelling traditions and was performed in both Yiddish and English.

In 2016, a street in Hamburg was named after Glückel. Glückel-von-Hameln-Straße is located in the borough of Altona, the same place to which her family and all other Hamburg Jews were exiled in 1648.

Because her family lineage is so well documented, it has been possible to identify many of her descendants. Among these are notable figures such as Bertha Pappenheim, Heinrich Heine, and Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch.

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

title: Glückel of Hameln


text:
Province of New Hampshire

The Province of New Hampshire was an English colony and later a British province in New England. It corresponds to the territory between the Merrimack and Piscataqua rivers on the eastern coast of North America. It was named after the English county of Hampshire in southern England by Captain John Mason in 1629, its first named proprietor. In 1776 the province established an independent state and government, the State of New Hampshire, and joined with twelve other colonies to form the United States.

Europeans first settled New Hampshire in the 1620s, and the province consisted for many years of a small number of communities along the seacoast, Piscataqua River, and Great Bay. In 1641 the communities were organized under the government of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, until Charles II issued a colonial charter for the province and appointed John Cutt as President of New Hampshire in 1679. After a brief period as a separate province, the territory was absorbed into the Dominion of New England in 1686. Following the collapse of the unpopular Dominion, on October 7, 1691 New Hampshire was again separated from Massachusetts and organized as an English crown colony. Its charter was enacted on May 14, 1692, during the coregency of William and Mary, the joint monarchs of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Between 1699 and 1741, the province's governor was often concurrently the governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay. This practice ended completely in 1741, when Benning Wentworth was appointed governor. Wentworth laid claim on behalf of the province to lands west of the Connecticut River, east of the Hudson River, and north of Massachusetts, issuing controversial land grants that were disputed by the Province of New York, which also claimed the territory. These disputes resulted in the eventual formation of the Vermont Republic and the U.S. state of Vermont.

The province's economy was dominated by timber and fishing. The timber trade, although lucrative, was a subject of conflict with the crown, which sought to reserve the best trees for use as ship masts. Although the Puritan leaders of Massachusetts ruled the province for many years, the New Hampshire population was religiously diverse, originating in part in its early years with refugees from opposition to religious differences in Massachusetts.

From the 1680s until 1760, New Hampshire was often on the front lines of military conflicts with New France and the Abenaki people, seeing major attacks on its communities in King William's War, Dummer's War, and King George's War. The province was at first not strongly in favor of independence, but with the outbreak of armed conflict at Lexington and Concord many of its inhabitants joined the revolutionary cause. After Governor John Wentworth fled New Hampshire in August 1775, the inhabitants adopted a constitution in early 1776. Independence as part of the United States was confirmed with the 1783 Treaty of Paris.

Before colonization
Prior to English colonization, the area that is now northeastern New England was populated by bands of the Abenaki, who lived in sometimes-large villages of longhouses. Depending on the season, they would either remain near their villages to fish, gather plants, engage in sugaring, and trade or fight with their neighbors, or head to nearby fowling and hunting grounds; later they also farmed tobacco and the "three sisters": corn, beans, and squash. The seacoast was explored in the early years of the 17th century by English and French explorers, including Samuel de Champlain and John Smith.

Early English settlement
Permanent English settlement began after land grants were issued in 1622 to John Mason and Sir Ferdinando Gorges for the territory between the Merrimack and Sagadahoc (Kennebec) rivers, roughly encompassing present-day New Hampshire and western Maine. Settlers, whose early leaders included David Thomson, Edward Hilton and his brother William Hilton, began settling the New Hampshire coast as early as 1623, and eventually expanded along the shores of the Piscataqua River and the Great Bay. These settlers were mostly intending to profit from the local fisheries. Mason and Gorges, neither of whom ever came to New England, divided their claims along the Piscataqua River in 1629. Mason took the territory between the Piscataqua and Merrimack, and called it "New Hampshire", after the English county of Hampshire.

Conflicts between holders of grants issued by Mason and Gorges concerning their boundaries eventually led to a need for more active management. In 1630, Captain Walter Neale was sent as chief agent and governor of the lower settlements on the Piscataqua (including Strawbery Banke, present-day Portsmouth), and in 1631 Captain Thomas Wiggin was sent to govern the upper settlements, comprising modern-day Dover, Durham and Stratham. After Mason died in 1635, the colonists and employees of Mason appropriated many of his holdings to themselves. Exeter was founded in 1638 by John Wheelwright, after he had been banished from the neighboring Massachusetts Bay Colony for defending the teachings of Anne Hutchinson, his sister-in-law. In the absence of granting authority from anyone associated with the Masons, Wheelwright's party purchased the land from local Indians. His party included William Wentworth, whose descendants came to play a major role in colonial history. Around the same time, others unhappy with the strict Puritan rule in Massachusetts settled in Dover, while Puritans from Massachusetts settled what eventually became Hampton.

Because of a general lack of government, the New Hampshire settlements sought the protection of their larger neighbor to the south, the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In 1641, they collectively agreed to be governed from Massachusetts, provided the towns retained self-rule, and that Congregational Church membership was not required for their voters (as it was in Massachusetts). The settlements formed part of that colony until 1679, sending representatives to the Massachusetts legislature in Boston. Mason's heirs were in the meantime active in England, seeking to regain control of their territory, and Massachusetts was coming under increasing scrutiny by King Charles II. In 1679, Charles issued a charter establishing the Province of New Hampshire, with John Cutt as its first president.

First royal charters
In January 1680, Cutt took office, ending Massachusetts governance. However, Cutt and his successor, Richard Waldron, were strongly opposed to the Mason heirs and their claims. Consequently, Charles issued a second charter in 1682 with Edward Cranfield as governor. Cranfield strongly supported the Mason heirs, making so many local enemies in the process that he was recalled in 1685. In 1686, the territory was brought into the Dominion of New England, an attempt to unify all of the New England colonies into a single government. The New Hampshire towns did not suffer as much under the rule of Sir Edmund Andros as did Massachusetts. After word of the Glorious Revolution reached Boston, Massachusetts authorities conspired to have Andros arrested and sent back to England. This left the New Hampshire towns without any colonial administration, just as King William's War erupted around them. Subjected to significant French and Indian raids, they appealed to Massachusetts Governor Simon Bradstreet, who oversaw them until William III and Mary II issued new, separate charters in 1691 for both Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

1691 charter
Samuel Allen, a businessman who had acquired the Mason claims, was appointed the first governor under the 1691 charter. He was equally unsuccessful in pursuing the Mason land claims, and was replaced in 1699 by the Earl of Bellomont. Bellomont was the first in a series of governors who ruled both New Hampshire and the Province of Massachusetts Bay. Until 1741 the governorships were shared, with the governor spending most of his time in Massachusetts. As a result, the lieutenant governors held significant power. The dual governorship became problematic in part because of territorial claims between Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Since the southern border of the original Mason grant was the Merrimack River, and the Massachusetts charter specified a boundary three miles north of the same river, the claims conflicted, and were eventually brought to the king's attention. In 1741, King George II decreed what is now the border between Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and separated the governorships, issuing a commission to Benning Wentworth as New Hampshire governor.

Wentworth broadly interpreted New Hampshire's territorial claims, believing that territories west of the Connecticut River belonged to New Hampshire. In a scheme that was effective at lining his own pockets, he sold land grants in this territory for relatively low prices, but required parts of the grants to be allocated to himself. These grants brought New Hampshire into conflict with the Province of New York, the other claimant to the territory. King George III in 1764 ruled in New York's favor, setting off a struggle between the holders of the New Hampshire Grants and New York authorities that eventually resulted in the formation of the state of Vermont. The controversy also resulted in the replacement of Wentworth by his nephew John, who would be the last royal governor of the province.

Since the province was on the northern frontier bordering New France, its communities were frequently attacked during King William's War and Queen Anne's War, and then again in the 1720s during Dummer's War. Because of these wars the Indian population in the northern parts of the province declined, but settlements only slowly expanded into the province's interior. The province was partitioned into counties in 1769, later than the other twelve colonies that revolted against the British Empire.

American Revolution
Twelve other colonies joined with New Hampshire in resisting attempts by the British Parliament to impose taxes. After the American Revolutionary War began in April 1775, the province recruited regiments that served in the Siege of Boston, and was the first former European colony to formally establish an independent government, as the State of New Hampshire, in January 1776.

Demographics
From 1630 to 1780, the population of New Hampshire grew from 500 to 87,802. In 1623, the first permanent English settlements, Dover and Rye, were established, while Portsmouth was the largest city by 1773 with a population of 4,372. The black population in the colony grew from 30 in 1640 to 674 in 1773 (ranging between 1 and 4 percent of the population), but declined to 541 (or 0.6 percent of the population) by 1780.

In New Hampshire, unlike some of the other New England Colonies, the Puritan Congregational church was not the established church in the colony. Following the First Great Awakening (1730–1755), the number of regular places of worship in New Hampshire had grown to 46 in 1750 (40 Congregational, five Presbyterian, and one Anglican), and to 125 regular places of worship by 1776 (78 Congregational, 27 Presbyterian, 13 Baptist, four Friends, two Episcopal, and one New Light Congregational).

title: Province of New Hampshire


text:
Talk:List of domesticated animals

Gayal Removal
I propose the Gayal be removed from the list, but I would prefer someone with more experience do it. The wikipedia description for Gayal only lists it as "semi-domesticated," which should not be on this list. It is unsourced, even in that claim, and unsourced for date of domestication. This is a list of animals we have concrete domestication archaeological records on, and I guess modern well sourced exemplars. The Gayal fits neither description, best I can tell.Johnfromtheprarie (talk)

Suggestions to nuke the article/prevent the list from ballooning
The "tame and partially domesticated animals" section is still rife with uncited entries and entries that cite isolated instances (e.g., the nilgai row's citation is a single person temporarily using a single nilgai as a work animal). Simply being kept or bred in captivity does not semi-domestication make. I propose removing every entry that lacks a citation of widespread human use or captive breeding that has led to some significant or widespread physical or behavioral change (e.g., non-wild-type color morphs and widespread tame behavior in budgerigars and cockatiels) or human dependency. Many animals on that list, contrary to the preceding paragraph, are not altered to any notable degree from wild-type animals and easily could be released into the wild (including the cited nilgai individual, which literally was released to the wild).

Part of the issue, I feel, is how the article's introductory paragraph welcomes "undomesticated but captive-bred on a commercial scale, or commonly wild-caught, at least occasionally captive-bred, and tameable". In what sense do either of those descriptions necessarily make an animal semi-domesticated? In what way has, say, the European eel undergone any bit of the domestication process? Disambiguation, or perhaps a separate article ("List of animals widely kept in captivity" or something), would help produce a more manageable list. Shuvuuia (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Please join my efforts. I am being a little more cautious than that (I am kind of erring on the side of keeping an animal if there is, at least, evidence of widespread captive breeding, ranching, or other human use), and I'm checking the source page for an animal rather than just going with what's listed here, but I would welcome help.
 * Please, as I have done, post a list of what you want to remove, and give people 2 weeks or so to object, we have had *so* many edit wars on this page, so I don't want anyone just removing a giant chunk of entries without warning.
 * Maybe you can start from the bottom, so we don't duplicate effort too much, or you could just start from where I left off (currently grey rat snakes). In fact, I think the current "ripe" set hasn't been removed (starting from palm cockatoos).  I've been busy with other things lately, and haven't kept up with this page.  Tamtrible (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I note many potentially questionable entries that should be at least discussed:
 * Eels: Every eel farm in existence raises wild-caught larvae. Several of the cited references clarify that we have yet to figure out how to breed them in captivity. Being bred in captivity feels like it'd be a base requirement for any definition of "semidomestication".
 * Chinese spiny frog: Its article notes that farming operations are "likely" based on wild-caught tadpoles, similar to eels
 * Mopane moth: As well, the citation describes a process involving raising wild-caught eggs; no indication of captive breeding
 * Nilgai, ruddy mongoose, Javan mongoose, fishing cat: The provided citations describe isolated instances, and no further human use is mentioned in their articles
 * Sika deer: The provided citation describes an essentially wild population in Japan
 * Black-legged seriema: Use as a guard animal isn't mentioned on the black-legged seriema's article, and the cited reference for this on the red-legged seriema's article is a dead link. Reference can easily be found online for use of red-leggeds as guard birds, but not black-leggeds. Remove unless a citation can be provided
 * Flathead grey mullet: The provided citation, which is also used for the corresponding section on its article, does not mention aquaculture at all
 * Giant Pacific octopus: The provided citation doesn't specify which octopus species is being farmed in that instance. Further human use is not mentioned in its article
 * Greater grison: Use as a pest control animal is not mentioned in its article as with the lesser grison, and no citation is provided
 * Coatis: Neither the provided citation nor their articles suggest that coatis are bred in captivity for the pet industry
 * Celebes warty pig, chital, Tian Shan wapiti, water deer, Bubal hartebeest, bat-eared fox, yellow-throated marten, large bamboo rat, lesser bamboo rat, Parma wallaby, black francolin, mountain bamboo partridge, rain quail, stubble quail, kalij pheasant, Swinhoe's pheasant, Salvadori's pheasant, Edward's pheasant, Siamese fireback, Montezuma quail, mountain quail, scaled quail, elegant quail, Gambel's quail, California quail, plum-headed finch, northern spiny-tailed iguana, tiger salamander, wood frog, northern leopard frog, yellow snapper, New Zealand green-lipped mussel: No citations provided, and captive human use are not mentioned in any of their articles
 * Caracal, steppe lemming: No citation, and the corresponding section in their articles are tagged WP:CITENEED
 * Japanese horseshoe crab: No citation, not mentioned in its article. While we're at it, experiments in captive breeding have been attempted for the Atlantic horseshoe crab, but have yet to take off on a wide scale
 * Purple dye murex: No citation, captive breeding not mentioned in its article (and I can't find reference to it being anything other than harvested from the wild)
 * Genets, raccoons, common kusimanse, Egyptian mongoose, rusty-spotted cat, cacomistle, Arctic fox, swift fox, kit fox, corsac fox: No citations provided for any of these being kept as pest control; this isn't mentioned on their articles either. Genets, raccoons, and the kusimanse are described as occasionally being kept as exotic pets. That, IMO, should not qualify by itself to make the list, especially if there's no evidence that they are widely captive bred for this purpose.
 * Southern tamandua: The provided citation does not mention human use, and the corresponding section in its article is tagged WP:CITENEED
 * Northern tamandua: The provided citation does not mention human use, and neither does its article
 * Some further suggestions for page cleanliness:
 * That companion parrots are listed as a singular unit raises the question of how necessary rows for individual parrot species are, as all of them are pretty much only kept as companion birds
 * Rankin's dragon: Redundant with "Central bearded dragon and related species"
 * Similarly, Cacatua, Cuora, Taurotragus, Struthio, Lampropeltis, Oncorhynchus, and Lithobates could afford to be combined into one row each. None of them have any significant difference in use or degree of domestication within the genus. Listing northern green frogs separately from American bullfrogs only serves to make the page load more slowly.
 * Guanaco, vicuña, red fox: These are already mentioned as the wild ancestors of llamas, alpacas, and domesticated silver foxes respectively. Do the wild forms necessarily need to be listed again?
 * Poison dart frogs: Numerous species are kept as pets, including many more than the two that are arbitrarily listed. Perhaps change to Dendrobatidae spp. and leave it at that?
 * The "degree and type of domestication" column is also a bit of a mess. As described, several animals are unjustifiably listed as being "Captive-bred". Hamsters, kissing gourami, and various carp species are labeled "Domesticated" - if so, why aren't they in the previous table? Why are ratites, piranha, and stingless bees singled out as "Semi-domesticated"? That label adds no useful information, as it is unclear what "semi-domestication" even means in this context, and I suggest it be removed.
 * To be quite honest, this list feels like it's muddying what "partial domestication" means. I think that most people would agree it'd be inappropriate to list animals like rhinos and tigers on this list - but then why should alligators and crocodiles be listed? Crocodiles and tigers are both commercially farmed for their parts, widely kept as pets, and captive bred for these purposes, and arguably tigers are "domesticated" to a greater degree than crocodilians due to the appearance of, and selective breeding for, non-wild-type phenotypes (white and golden tigers). I reiterate my endorsement for a redefinition of what should qualify for this article
 * Shuvuuia (talk) 04:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just delete everything that is not strictly domesticated (but is rather a wild animal that can be tamed)? Then we can add a section in the lede describing how there are many animals that may be tame and kept in captivity, but that doesn't meet the definition of domesticated. Steven Walling • talk  01:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Because "domesticated" is... fuzzy. After many, many, many edit wars, we came to the conclusion that we'd split the page into "This is definitely domesticated" and "This might be somewhere on the path to domestication", and the criteria for the latter are some indication (either on their page or in citations quoted here) of 1. relatively widespread human use in some capacity (eg not just one or two idiots keeping one as a pet), and 2. either captive breeding outside of zoos/reintroduction programs, or meeting the Elephant Exception (such a long history of human use beyond simple predation that... we've probably done *something* to affect their breeding, if only by accident).
 * I'm kind of one of the curators of this page, and I... really don't want the edit wars back, please. Tamtrible (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, consensus can change, but I certainly also don't want to blow up an old fight either. What do you think about paring down some of the uncited examples in the "tamed" section? Steven Walling • talk  05:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The process I've decided on, mostly to avoid edit wars (I have no idea how many times I had to put leopard geckos back on the list), is propose your deletions here, give people at least 2 weeks or so to object, then go ahead and nuke anything that hasn't been objected to. I think I have some that were "ripe" back in March or something that never got deleted, though I need to rescue them from archiving again.
 * And that's only for mass deletions. If there's a single entry that's obviously absurd (though please at least quickly check the page for the animal to make sure it's not just "obviously absurd" because you've never heard about it), go ahead and just nuke it, I just don't want anyone to have 23 entries they've poured their heart and soul into vanish without warning, ya know?  Tamtrible (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comments: I am in the process of digesting the information in this article. I just came to this page and saw the above information by and  of which I have only glanced at. I have concerns about the presentation the page currently presents (the layout needs a lot of work) as well as many entries. There is a huge difference in a wild animal, someone might call a pet thus referred to as domesticated, animals that might be in capture but will never be domesticated, and some wild animals that certain people can acquire, that requires much training and special accommodations (cages) specific to that animal, to include special licenses. In other words, a person cannot run to the pet store and buy one, or even some speciality shop. In Florida: Class I wildlife is a defined list of species that are considered to present a real or potential threat to human safety. Possession of Class I wildlife requires a permit. Due to the nature and habits of Class I species, Class I wildlife may not be possessed as a personal pet. This includes Felidae, Cheetahs (Acinonyx jabatus), Crocodylia (captive bred crocodiles, alligators, caimans, and gharials), including Black caimans (Melanosuchus niger), Cercopithecidae (Old world monkeys), Baboons (genus Papaio), Hominidae (Great apes), Chimpanzees (genus Pan), Ursidae (Bears), Rhinocerotidae (Rhinoceros), Elephantidae (Elephants), and Hippopotamidae (Hippopotamuses). This is just one state. Louisiana law 5-76 of its Code states that "it shall be unlawful to own, keep, possess, maintain, or harbor any exotic/wild animal." If special permits are required then I think the sourcing, referenced or in a note, needs to be present.
 * Applicants for Class II wildlife must submit 1000 hours of experience in the care, feeding, handling and husbandry with the taxonomical family being applied for. This indicates that the listing of an American alligator as a pet is erroneous. There are many on the list that is dubious, many without references that should be deleted.
 * In fact, the only real solution is some mass deletions, per Walling, which would include those with no sourcing or at least links to the article that does mention that the entry is domesticated. --  Otr500 (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Whatever our relationship with elephants is, it's literally millenia old. Similarly, animals like cheetahs have been used by humans for centuries.  Presence on this article does not mean that an animal is safe to have around, nor is it any kind of endorsement of keeping one as a pet, it's just a record of "Yeah, humans have kept this critter around intentionally, for yeah long, for these purposes."
 * Feel 100% free to slap a "citation needed" on any claims you consider dubious. Or delete them, if you go to the source page for the animal and see absolutely no mention (even indirectly) of that kind of use.  But if you want to do a big change (like deleting a bunch of purposes from a bunch of entries), please propose it on the talk page, and give people a chance to object.
 * And please don't be like the people who kept removing "meat" as a purpose from things (like dogs and horses) that most Westerners (or at least most Americans) don't think of as food. Tamtrible (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to quote you, and reply in bits, because you said a lot.
 * Certainly. I note many potentially questionable entries that should be at least discussed:
 * Eels: Every eel farm in existence raises wild-caught larvae. Several of the cited references clarify that we have yet to figure out how to breed them in captivity. Being bred in captivity feels like it'd be a base requirement for any definition of "semidomestication".
 * Sounds like there are, at least, serious efforts to breed European eels and short-finned eels in captivity, that have met with some success. I might leave those.  The rest can definitely go.
 * Chinese spiny frog: Its article notes that farming operations are "likely" based on wild-caught tadpoles, similar to eels
 * agreed.
 * Mopane moth: As well, the citation describes a process involving raising wild-caught eggs; no indication of captive breeding
 * agreed.
 * Nilgai, ruddy mongoose, Javan mongoose, fishing cat: The provided citations describe isolated instances, and no further human use is mentioned in their articles
 * Nilgai: weak evidence of prior semidomestication, so I'd give it a second look. The rest I agree with.
 * Sika deer: The provided citation describes an essentially wild population in Japan
 * But there are a couple of mentions of farming or other human use on their page. Read "introduced populations" and "velvet antlers".
 * Black-legged seriema: Use as a guard animal isn't mentioned on the black-legged seriema's article, and the cited reference for this on the red-legged seriema's article is a dead link. Reference can easily be found online for use of red-leggeds as guard birds, but not black-leggeds. Remove unless a citation can be provided
 * agreed.
 * Flathead grey mullet: The provided citation, which is also used for the corresponding section on its article, does not mention aquaculture at all
 * I'd give this one a second look, the page does mention aquaculture, but it may be just raising wild eggs/babies.
 * Giant Pacific octopus: The provided citation doesn't specify which octopus species is being farmed in that instance. Further human use is not mentioned in its article
 * agreed.
 * Greater grison: Use as a pest control animal is not mentioned in its article as with the lesser grison, and no citation is provided
 * agreed.
 * Coatis: Neither the provided citation nor their articles suggest that coatis are bred in captivity for the pet industry
 * agreed.
 * Celebes warty pig, chital, Tian Shan wapiti, water deer, Bubal hartebeest, bat-eared fox, yellow-throated marten, large bamboo rat, lesser bamboo rat, Parma wallaby, black francolin, mountain bamboo partridge, rain quail, stubble quail, kalij pheasant, Swinhoe's pheasant, Salvadori's pheasant, Edward's pheasant, Siamese fireback, Montezuma quail, mountain quail, scaled quail, elegant quail, Gambel's quail, California quail, plum-headed finch, northern spiny-tailed iguana, tiger salamander, wood frog, northern leopard frog, yellow snapper, New Zealand green-lipped mussel: No citations provided, and captive human use are not mentioned in any of their articles
 * That's a lot, I'll just mention the ones I have possible issue with.
 * Warty pig: it mentions domestication, though there is "citation needed". Presumably bred for meat, just like other pigs.  I'd leave it for now.
 * Wapiti: farms are mentioned, I'd at least dig a little before nuking.
 * Bubal hartebeest: weak evidence of ancient domestication, no strong opinion.
 * bat-eared fox: mention of "commercial use", I'd probably leave it unless you're willing to poke and see if it's captive-bred or not. Maybe flag it as "citation needed", and see if someone can provide one.
 * black francolin: there's mention of aviculture, including breeding.
 * I know there are at least some quail raised for meat and eggs, though I'm not sure which. Montezuma's quail's page specifically mentions captive breeding, and you might do a quick check elsewhere to see what quail species are most commonly raised for eggs.
 * I think you meant Northeastern, I agree that it and the Mexican spiny-tailed ig should both go. Leave the black, though.
 * I'm *kind* of inclined to leave the tiger salamanders. I think they're one of the more common pet salamanders, and while it explicitly says there's no *large-scale* breeding going on, I think there's a fair amount of smaller-scale breeding.  I'd at least... leave them on the first pass, maybe with a "citation needed".
 * Northern leopard frogs are used for research, I'd leave 'em.
 * green-lipped mussel: there is mention of captive breeding (hatcheries), as well as extensive aquaculture (for meat) from mostly wild-sourced eggs. I'd leave it.
 * The rest are fine.
 * Caracal, steppe lemming: No citation, and the corresponding section in their articles are tagged WP:CITENEED
 * Still, I'd leave 'em for now. There are enough more clear-cut ones to remove.  Maybe stick a "citation needed" on this page, too.
 * Japanese horseshoe crab: No citation, not mentioned in its article. While we're at it, experiments in captive breeding have been attempted for the Atlantic horseshoe crab, but have yet to take off on a wide scale
 * Agreed. Unless someone can find a citation of successful captive breeding, nuke 'em.
 * Purple dye murex: No citation, captive breeding not mentioned in its article (and I can't find reference to it being anything other than harvested from the wild)
 * There's weak mention of past captive breeding (the bit about ancient Minoans). I'm inclined to leave it, but I wouldn't cry if it was removed.
 * Genets, raccoons, common kusimanse, Egyptian mongoose, rusty-spotted cat, cacomistle, Arctic fox, swift fox, kit fox, corsac fox: No citations provided for any of these being kept as pest control; this isn't mentioned on their articles either. Genets, raccoons, and the kusimanse are described as occasionally being kept as exotic pets. That, IMO, should not qualify by itself to make the list, especially if there's no evidence that they are widely captive bred for this purpose.
 * Another long one.
 * genets: I know we're not supposed to use original research here, but I happen to know that they were one of the critters used as pest control on ships (like ship's cats, but, y'know, not.) I'd at least leave them during the first pass.
 * raccoons: there's enough evidence that they're kept as pets semi-frequently, they were farmed for fur for a while, and so forth that I'd leave 'em.
 * kusimanse: the page specifically mentions captive breeding, and their use in the exotic pet trade. We don't want to keep *every* possible exotic pet, but at least where there's known multi-generational captive breeding (ie captive bred animals with captive bred parents), I'd leave 'em.  Again, there's enough total nonsense to remove, we can scrutinize things like this a little harder on the second pass.  Maybe slap a "citation needed" on it.
 * Egyptian mongoose: some hints of captive breeding type use, at least leave it for the first pass.
 * again, if I didn't mention it, it's probably fine to nuke.
 * Southern tamandua: The provided citation does not mention human use, and the corresponding section in its article is tagged WP:CITENEED
 * Northern tamandua: The provided citation does not mention human use, and neither does its article
 * Some further suggestions for page cleanliness:
 * That companion parrots are listed as a singular unit raises the question of how necessary rows for individual parrot species are, as all of them are pretty much only kept as companion birds
 * It's why I'm being a bit harsher on any parrot entries, but there is a significant difference between, say, a budgie vs a crested cockatoo. It's not like the assorted congenerics, parrots are a higher-order clade.  I'm fine with winnowing down the individually listed parrots a good bit, especially if you can get a parrot expert to help, but I'd at least leave a. the most common ones, and b. at least one example each from each major type...
 * Rankin's dragon: Redundant with "Central bearded dragon and related species"
 * They have a different domestication date, though I might slap that one with a "citation needed" to see if it actually is a Thing.
 * Similarly, Cacatua, Cuora, Taurotragus, Struthio, Lampropeltis, Oncorhynchus, and Lithobates could afford to be combined into one row each. None of them have any significant difference in use or degree of domestication within the genus. Listing northern green frogs separately from American bullfrogs only serves to make the page load more slowly.
 * In general, feel absolutely 100% free to group congenerics without significant differences in use, domestication date, and so on, as long as you're keeping all of the individual species. Please propose here, as with deletions, if you want to reduce a clade to "and related species", preferably based on at least *some* indication that the ones you're leaving out are less commonly used/kept/bred/whatever.
 * Guanaco, vicuña, red fox: These are already mentioned as the wild ancestors of llamas, alpacas, and domesticated silver foxes respectively. Do the wild forms necessarily need to be listed again?
 * I'd say no. Same with chickens, probably.
 * Poison dart frogs: Numerous species are kept as pets, including many more than the two that are arbitrarily listed. Perhaps change to Dendrobatidae spp. and leave it at that?
 * I think I may have done some kind of check on that, and the listed ones are actually bred in captivity. But I'd have no real issue with turning the entry into a spp. instead of a specific one.
 * The "degree and type of domestication" column is also a bit of a mess. As described, several animals are unjustifiably listed as being "Captive-bred". Hamsters, kissing gourami, and various carp species are labeled "Domesticated" - if so, why aren't they in the previous table? Why are ratites, piranha, and stingless bees singled out as "Semi-domesticated"? That label adds no useful information, as it is unclear what "semi-domestication" even means in this context, and I suggest it be removed.
 * I'd prefer not to remove it, but I agree that it needs to be *majorly* cleaned up. It's primarily there to indicate things like what changes have been made to the organism.  Maybe it needs a rename, to clarify the purpose.  Basically, the "proper" use of the column is for things like what you see on the Java sparrow, the Siamese fighting fish, and so on.  I'd be 100% OK with someone going through and deleting all of the "captive bred", "semidomesticated", and so on, just leaving the things like "largely unchanged from wild-type", "X, Y, and Z changes", and other actual specific, meaningful things.
 * To be quite honest, this list feels like it's muddying what "partial domestication" means. I think that most people would agree it'd be inappropriate to list animals like rhinos and tigers on this list - but then why should alligators and crocodiles be listed? Crocodiles and tigers are both commercially farmed for their parts, widely kept as pets, and captive bred for these purposes, and arguably tigers are "domesticated" to a greater degree than crocodilians due to the appearance of, and selective breeding for, non-wild-type phenotypes (white and golden tigers). I reiterate my endorsement for a redefinition of what should qualify for this article
 * The thing is... maybe tigers *should* be listed, if we're captive-breeding them semi-extensively outside of zoos. The point of this isn't to match people's ideas of what's "actually" domesticated (or at least potentially somewhere along the path to domestication), it's to list what has *actually* been farmed, ranched, kept as a pet, or otherwise used, as well as captive bred enough that we have at least potentially altered its genotype for our own purposes. Tamtrible (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like I skipped the tamanudas. They both look fine to delete, to me.
 * Consider all of the above (barring the ones I objected to) "ripe" on September 9 or so. Tamtrible (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * All fair objections, and I agree a less stringent initial round of nuking is appropriate.
 * Sika deer: Agree to retain, but remove the weak citation
 * Flathead gray mullet: I found a paper on aquaculture for this species, so retain.
 * Tian Shan wapiti: Ultimately I would replace this one with elk (Cervus canadensis) in general. North American elk subspecies are not uncommonly ranched in the United States and Canada for meat and hunting, and there exist citeable publications for this (plus, anecdotally, I live in a part of the United States where elk ranches exist).
 * Bat-eared fox: The citation for "commercial use" on its article does not describe them being intentionally kept as pest control. It only contains, and I quote: "Bat-eared foxes are an efficient and important predator on harvester termites, which are considered a serious pest of rangeland". With no reason to think they've been kept in captivity, remove.
 * Egyptian mongoose: The citations provided where its article discusses captive individuals seem to pertain exclusively to zoo populations. Remove.
 * Rankin's dragon: The Pogona page states: "The central bearded dragon is the most common species in captivity, as well as one of the most popular pet reptiles, with some smaller species such as Pogona henrylawsoni being used as substitutes where less housing space is available.". So the Rankin's dragon, being the second most commonly kept species of Pogona, is the "related species" being referred to. The two entries should be combined anyways since they're congeneric; the difference in domestication date isn't particularly well-attested for either, and some "genus" entries have dates like "the late 20th century", so I see no reason why not to combine them into a single "bearded dragon" row.
 * For animals with weak evidence of historical domestication (nilgai, Celebes warty pig, Bubal hartebeest), disclaimers should be added to their entries. Saying that these animals may have been historically domesticated is very different from saying that they were/are.
 * I wasn't suggesting to remove the "Degree and type of domestication" column altogether, apologies if it came across that way. I was suggesting to delete the labels "domesticated" and "semi-domesticated" because they add no useful information. We're on the same page here.
 * If the point of this list is indeed to list species that have been widely farmed or captive bred, then I think the article text should be tweaked to better reflect this. Contrary to what the preceding paragraph implies, many animals in this table are not noticeably altered physically from the wild-type, nor behaviorally beyond sometimes taming (which doesn't even completely take off in some captive populations), and many of them could be released into the wild with little issue. While some of these animals (e.g., reindeer, ball pythons) are showing changes consistent with the domestication process, others (e.g., crocodiles, many of the fish) do not, and as thus the existing implications are potentially misleading. For example, the "Degree and type of domestication" column could be renamed to "Degree of change from wild population". Shuvuuia (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Everything you said seems reasonable.
 * How about "Changes from wild population/notes"? It's always useful to have a column where you can say "and here's this other relevant thing".  It's where we can put "disputed historical domestication" for things like the warty pig, the murex, and so on.  Tamtrible (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I like that. The more relevant info, the better. Shuvuuia (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Tamtrible, so you will know, I have been on Wikipedia for a good while and do not edit war. If I hit a "snag" I am able to navigate through it. There are four of us looking at this and you are active on the article. I will likely not do a lot of editing, at least for a while, just working with those that are active and willing to collaborate. I am very versatile at navigating without battles. As I said, I just arrived here and still looking things over. As long as there is collaboration I will be appeased.
 * There does need to be an understanding that this is an attempt to list animals world-wide (an international view) and this must be considered as far as the listings. However, this is an English (en) version of Wikipedia and this has to be taken into consideration. There are many animal rights groups so being vague by omission of content, supported by sourcing, could have ramifications. The United Kingdom and the United states have various laws concerning pets, wild animals, and exotic animals.
 * Surprisingly, as of 2021 there are no laws in England against the personal eating of cats and dogs. Jann Arden is campaigning in Canada to stop the air shipping of horses to Japan.
 * There are eight states with laws actually prohibiting the consumption in the US. The Dog and Cat Meat Trade Prohibition Act of 2018 (DCMTPA) makes it illegal to ship, sale, and transportation, of animals for the "purpose of slaughter for human consumption". In 2023 the Save America's Forgotten Equines (SAFE) Act, as an addition to the DCMTPA, includes horses.
 * However, using the term "pet" needs to be definitive. There are strange people all over the world but something listed as a "pet" needs to be clearly understood by links or citations.
 * There are sites like National Geographic that provides some insight, Domesticated animals are animals that have been selectively bred and genetically adapted over generations to live alongside humans.
 * Pets are another story. The ASPCA refers to pets as "companion animals" such as dogs, cats, horses, rabbits, ferrets, birds, guinea pigs and select other small mammals, small reptiles and fish. The Animal Welfare Institute considers that horses can be pets. Some show horses are treated better than many humans in castle like "barns". Paws also defines "pets". The ASPCA further defines pets as "companions in the home, or in close daily relationship with humans". Some of these organizations are vehemently against horses being sold for slaughter.
 * The US ended regulation of horse slaughtering in 2007 effectively ending the practice in the US. Horses were slaughtered in Texas at least as late as 1999-2001 and shipped to Canada, referred to as chevaline, mostly for exporting to European and Asian countries. More countries than most imagine eat horse meat. As an interstate truck driver (48 states and Canada) I hauled swinging beef to speciality and butcher shops in the US and Canada, I never hauled "swinging horse meat" but heard the company did. However, the trade is big in Canada and horses are shipped from the US to Canada to be slaughtered mainly to be shipped overseas. In 2013, 72,000 horses were slaughtered in Canada. [https://www.google.com/search?q=Latest+Canadian+horse+meat&rlz=1C1JZAP_enUS1040US1042&oq=Latest+Canadian+horse+meat&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigATIHCAQQIRigATIHCAUQIRirAjIHCAYQIRirAjIKCAcQIRgWGB0YHjIKCAgQIRgWGB0YHtIBCTExNjI3ajBqOagCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 This was still going on in 2023 but there are calls to end this. Horses are actually flown live overseas for fresh slaughter. My point is that even the beloved US horses are sold as meat, however, this does not need to be of prominence in the article.
 * Concerns: 1)- The list, it looks to me like, would be far better presented in alphabetical order for ease of navigation with possibly some tweaking to look better. The "Purposes" column can utilize various notes that will allow the content to be shortened making the article look batter, 2)- There is no realistic argument to those on the list where the article itself identifies (usually in the lead) that an animal is domesticated or where it is clear. If an article uses "Domesticated" (or variants like "Domestic") in the title, or lead, that is one thing, but I see no point in using it over and over again, using redirects to the actual title name, 3)- The word "pet" is used in some cases where it "might" be contested.
 * I may be slow to respond but plan on looking more closely when I can. At this point I am only "looking" and making suggestions I have seen on a cursory look. Thanks, -- Otr500 (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The table is sortable, so people can sort it by name if they want, but because of BC vs AD (or BCE vs CE, not sure which the article is using), sorting by domestication date doesn't always work, so that's the default sort.
 * If you can come up with a good scheme for shorthanding the "purposes" column, that would be lovely.
 * Agreed on removing unnecessary "domesticated"s. If there's something more specific (eg "lab rat"), leave it, but otherwise the species common name can stand alone.
 * Feel free to either remove pet from a few entries, or make a list of the ones you consider dubious if you want to remove it from a lot of entries. We went through and cleaned up the purpose column once, but it was a while ago.  I'm sure it's accumulated some cruft since then.  Tamtrible (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's been a month, I'd consider that enough time for objections. Moving forward with cleanup. Shuvuuia (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm also gonna add a comment before the Partially Domesticated table, asking to propose new entries here before adding them to the article. That could help keep the list from becoming unmanageable going forward. Shuvuuia (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Prior deletion log (most dates removed to prevent weirdness)
Only including the stuff that hadn't already been nuked.

Lady Amherst's pheasant--no indication of captive breeding, or even of individuals kept in captivity to any significant extent (just "introduced populations")

Tian Shan wapiti--no indication of captivity

Shortfin molly: is it bred in captivity? Fish expert wanted

Rainbowfish: same question, same expert needed

Tiger salamander--minimal mention of captive breeding, no mention of anything like pethood or research (barred tiger salamander is fine, though)

Stopped at the "companion parrots" entry. Though I'm a bit dubious of the palm cockatoo, anyone have a reference or whatever for them being captive bred?...

 * Re: the palm cockatoo - is this useful? The World Parrot Trust also has some info about breeding them in captivity (click the 'care' tab). Iloveparrots (talk)

 * Since the "companion parrot" entry exists for the entire clade, and the first link you gave me explicitly says that they're not that commonly kept as pets, I'm... kind of inclined to remove them anyways. And the "care" tab on your second link gives some details on how they breed, but doesn't really clarify whether or not they breed well in captivity.

 * You likely know more than most about what parrot species are commonly kept as pets. Since the "companion parrot" entry exists to more or less cover the entire clade, care to pick out, say, the 25 most common species kept as pets, so we can remove at least most of the rest?  Maybe leave a representative sample of any particularly divergent subgroups, with an "and related species" (as I did with the bearded dragons), just to cover all the bases.

Nuked the early January set, leaving the late January set for now since there are some questions.

New candidates:

I'm officially listing the palm cockatoo as "no real indication of captive breeding outside of zoos", and thus up for deletion unless someone tells me otherwise. Especially since the "companion parrot" entry exists. In fact, because of that, I'm going to be a little tougher on individual parrot listings.

Eastern kingsnake. The other subspecies are listed on the page as popular, that one isn't.

Similarly, Mexican, black, Honduran, Nelson's, and Sinaloan milk snakes aren't specifically mentioned as captive bred.

Also, if someone would congeneric the kingsnakes and milk snakes, that would be lovely. And any citation for grey-banded king snakes being used as pest control?...

Gray rat snakes aren't listed as pets or captive bred.

Ripe on March 6th.

Tamtrible (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

More semidomesticated cleanup
Now that we've gone through a round of deletions, I'd like to suggest another round of improvement: gathering citations for each taxon to demonstrate widespread commercial use. These can be taken from the animal's own articles where applicable. Every species that currently lacks a good citation (including if their article lacks citations) would be tagged with Template:Citation needed in the meantime - not deleted yet, but I think it should be clear where evidence of common human use is needed. Thoughts? Shuvuuia (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Sounds fair to me. Though I wouldn't necessarily restrict it only to things with widespread *commercial* use, just... widespread human use that isn't either simple predation, or use of purely wild-caught animals (outside of the elephant exception).  If there are a substantial number of hobby breeders of a particular pet, for example, I think that qualifies an animal even if there isn't particularly widespread actual commercial use.  But, same basic idea.  Tamtrible (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Eagles

 * The article lists the Golden and Bald eagles under the "Tame, partially domesticated, and widely captive-bred animals" with the location listed for the Golden eagle as "Europe, North America, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Africa, Australia", and the Bald eagle location is "North America, Europe, Russia, Africa, Australia" and the purpose for both as "falconry, intercepting, pest control, show, pets"
 * These need to be edited for corrections. Various laws protect many birds beginning with the Lacey Act of 1900 (amended in 2008) and the Weeks–McLean Act of 1918.
 * The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 was the beginning of protection in the US and Canada. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d, 1940) included two eagles offering complete protection, with the only exceptions being by permits. The act is supported by international conventions with Canada, Japan, Mexico and Russia. The Golden eagle is critically Endangered in the Czech Republic and Albania, where future protection laws are likely.

title: Talk:List of domesticated animals