text:
Talk:Jacobitism

Edits on Irish Jacobitism and Gaelic Poets
After doing some reading, I have a number of queries; I'm not alone in thinking O'Ciardha is mixing cause and effect (praise poetry is common in all cultures) but as I've said on various occasions, balance is all :).

Reading O'Ciardha in detail;

(1) I've changed the wording to more accurately reflect what the text says;

(2) ....Gaelic poets like Aogán Ó Rathaille and prose writers Nicholas Plunkett and Charles O'Kelly etc. I've removed Plunkett, because he died in 1680 (technically before Jacobitism was even a thing), while O'Ciardha doesn't mention Aogán Ó Rathaille, so not sure how he fits into this.

Two questions (simple curiosity, not urgent)

(1) There are plenty of 18th century Gaelic writers, Catholic and Protestant (Michael Coimin), whose purpose was entirely different. This seems to focus on 1685 to (vaguely) 1701; what (if anything) changed?

(2) Given the vast majority of Irish (both Gaelic and English-speaking) were illiterate, how does this provide evidence of a popular Jacobite movement?

Robinvp11 (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

 * I hope this doesn't come across as argumentative, but your opinion on the internal contradictions of Jacobitism in Ireland is not relevant. A wikipedia article is supposed to reflect the existing sources, not make new interpretations. Irish historians, notably Eamon O Ciardha, Brendan O Buachala, Sean Connolly, Padraig Lenihan and others are all in agreement that Jacobitism was dominant political ideology of Catholic Ireland in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. But currently the article the article states that Jacobitism was not important in Irish history. The trope of James as the true king who was set to return was a staple of the 'aisling' in 18th century Gaelic poetry and and songs. But currently the article imp;lies that it was just one or two isolated writers. Re Nicholas Plunkett, problem was the link to the wrong man, but the Nicholas Plunkett in question was the author of the Jacobite tract 'A light to the blind'. Online |here. Whether poetry and prose can b seaid to reflect popular attitudes is indeed debatable but it is simply not for us to say. Jdorney (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

 * I've come to the conclusion I don't understand Wikipedia collaboration. I don't mind an argument and I'm not trying to persuade you. I pick topics I'd like to learn about - I can assure you six months ago I had no fixed views on Irish Jacobitism.

 * I haven't just made statements, I've also done the work ie read the sources (provided by others, not just me) and look at others. It feels as if you've kept saying the same thing over and over. Here, I've asked two very specific questions, because I'm genuinely interested, and you've blown straight past them.

 * Irish historians, notably Eamon O Ciardha, Brendan O Buachala, Sean Connolly, Padraig Lenihan and others are all in agreement that Jacobitism was dominant political ideology of Catholic Ireland in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. If that's correct, just produce the reference (with page numbers) and then its all sorted; no objection from me.

 * "But currently the article states that Jacobitism was not important in Irish history" No, it says Some historians claim it is difficult to identify what was distinctly 'Jacobite' in Irish support for the Stuarts.[16] That's very far from being the same thing and when I tried to link it to long-term divisions within Irish society (eg land), I was told I was wrong.

 * The last two paragraphs are not written by me; I simply queried a couple of links. Produce some more, I don't have any problem with that. I will say based on Scottish Jacobitism I'm sceptical but that's a personal view and I recognise it as such.

 * I don't think I'm asking for anything unreasonable and I don't think we can ignore the fact the Stuarts disagreed with 90% of what is claimed as Jacobitism. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Thank you for you response. I am indeed saying the same thing again and again, as it is the only relevant point. You may think that Irish Jacobitism was not Jacobitism, but the existing secondary sources say different and that is the only point at issue. I don't mean this to be disrespectful but if you are coming to this with only six months knowledge you cannot claim to have a monopoly on interpretation.

 * Regarding your questions: Your point seems to be that because there were contradictions between Irish Jacobites, which here essentially means Catholics, and the Stuarts, that Irish Jacobitism did not exist or that support for the Stuarts was not genuine. And both of these are massive leaps of interpretation. Most politically active Catholics judged support for the Stuarts to be the best way of advancing their agendas until about the middle of the 18th century. And there also a religious and ideological dimension. Jacobite writers in Ireland consistently made the point that they had been punished for loyalty to the true monarchs while Protestants had been rewarded for disloyalty - both at the time of Cromwell and William II. Land was indeed an important issue but it was incorrect to link the 17th and 18th century land questions with the 19th century one. They were quite different. The 17th century land question hinged on the dispossession of Catholic gentry since the plantations of the 16th century but especially since the Cromwellian confiscations of the 1650s - themselves a punishment for Catholic support for the Stuarts. They had nothing to do with tenant rights or land redistribution like the 'land wars' of the 1880s.

 * I will come back and reference as you require after Christmas. Best, Jdorney (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Citations re Irish Jacobitism

 * A few refs to get started with: Connolly, describing the argument of his own book: "the claims of the exiled house of Stuart remained, for several decades after the treaty of Limerick, the primary political allegiance of the majority of politically conscious Catholics" (Eighteenth-Century Ireland / Iris an dá chultúr vol. 18 (2003), p.63)

 * Connolly in Oxford Handbook of Modern Irish History: "The political allegiance of the great majority of Irish Catholics, by contrast [to 18thc. Protestant 'patriots'] was to the exiled Stuart dynasty. It was a commitment that incorporated them into a pan-British movement firmly rooted in the confessional and dynastic loyalties of ancien regime Europe. In this respect, attempts to establish a direct line of succession leading to the nationalism of the Victorian and Edwardian era are misconceived".

 * O Ciardha; Jacobitism had a "pivotal place in the Irish Catholic ethos and [...] it percolated down to the lower echelons of Irish society" (Ireland and the Jacobite Cause, p.30); elsewhere he describes it as the ideology "which principally sustained Irish Catholic nationalist identity between the Glorious and French Revolutions". (p.21)

 * O Buchalla describes the legitimacy of the Stuarts as an "unquestioned orthodoxy [...] in Ireland James was looked on, by the Catholic majority, as their saviour" etc etc (The Irish Review no. 12 (Spring - Summer, 1992), p.40) Svejk74 (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Further to the above, Vincent Morely in the Princeton History of Modern Ireland, (chapter 13, the Irish Language) p. 333, 'Jacobitism was the dominant ideology in the political literature of the period but it was distinctively Irish Jacobitism that emphasized the Milesian ancestry of the Stuarts, their loyalty to Catholicism and Ireland's status as a kingdom with a Crown of its own.'

 * Also in the Princeton History of Modern Ireland, Ultan Gillen, p.59, 'Many Irish Catholics clung to their politics almost as firmly as they clung to their church. Loyalty to the Stuarts and hopes that another restoration would mean a revival in Catholic power persisted for decades.' (He also writes however that Irish non participation in the risings of 1715 and 1745 could) 'suggest caution about how far rhetorical Jacobitism reflected support for the Stuarts as opposed to discontent with the status quo for religious national or socio-economic reasons'... 'The Catholic elite abandoned Jacobitism in the 1750s as the activities of the Catholic Committee from 1751-1791 illustrate'.

 * Padraig Lenihan in Consolidating Conquest, Ireland 1603-1727, p.199 Re the Irish Brigade in France, 'It would be naive to discount the lure of pay and uniform but there remained for recruits a tangible sense of commitment to the Stuart cause.' p244-245, 'The Munster poets in turn nurtured cultural solidarity and a shared Jacobite loyalty between native gentry and the common people. The recruiting grounds of Irish soldiers in the French service suggests that Jacobitism was countrywide and that the Jacobite counter culture was strongest in Munster and above all in Cork.' (regarding the aisling poetry popular in the 18th century), 'the absent mate is usually the Stuart King in exile who may be referred to by the lexicon of Stuart legitimacy and monarchy "mac Seamus prionsa an Ri ceart (the son of the James the prince of the true king)" or by Jacobite cant and symbolism, by the lanugage of love or by mythology'. P.245 'the aisling has been dismissed as irrelevant pub talk and as formulaic...Yet the reverie indicated an acute grasp of contemporary politics... it is clear moreover that the message was intended for "the people" the Gaelic speaking peasantry of Munster'

 * Further to Eamon O Ciadhra, 'Ireland and the Jacobite cause. p374, 'Contemporary Irish poetry indicates that Jacobitism survived as a popular ideology until the transition from Jacobite to Jacobin and (Daniel) O'Connell's emergence as heir to the Stuart mantle. Irish Catholic undoubtedly displayed a fatal attachment of Jacobitism. Thousands died at Aughrim and on the battlefields of Europe while many more were killed as raparees and recruits. On a more general level, the Jacobite threat ensured the continual implementation of the penal laws which affected all Catholics. In spite of this many Irish Catholics clung grimly to the Stuart cause.'... ''Anti Jacobitism played a pivotal role in the political ethos of Irish whigs, Catholic hopes and Protestant fears mirrored each other throughout the 18th century... to dismiss these fears of the Jacobite threat as delusions is to accuse Irish Protestants of collective paranoia for most of the 18th century.' Jdorney (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Great. I appreciate the research that has gone into this.

 * This is my opening paragraph; Irish Jacobite demands included religious toleration, legislative autonomy and land ownership, issues that pre-dated the cause and continued long after it ended, while participants in the 1689 to 1691 Williamite War in Ireland showed little enthusiasm for James. Some historians claim it is difficult to identify what was distinctly 'Jacobite' in Irish support for the Stuarts. Based on your input, which of these points do you think are wrong?

 * ...that Irish Jacobitism did not exist or support for the Stuarts was not genuine. This accusation has been levelled at me several times. I've never suggested either of these things, nor disputed any of the points listed above (apart from the idea a few Gaelic writing intellectuals equals a widespread working class movement but as I've stated before, its a personal view). I've never insisted on my view to the exclusion of all others; I do believe in balance.

 * Take this; Anti Jacobitism played a pivotal role in the political ethos of Irish whigs, Catholic hopes and Protestant fears mirrored each other throughout the 18th century etc etc. I introduced Bishop Berkeley because the 1750s was the point when religion ceased to be the automatic arbiter of state loyalties and hence when Jacobitism ceased to be a relevant political movement. I removed it when challenged because the effort wasn't matched by the benefit.

 * This is an article about the ideology of Jacobitism. My theology is hazy but if God turned up and said ‘Listen, that Jesus bloke is a plant, Commandments 1 thru 8 are wrong, 9 and 10 optional’, would he be a Christian? I can't recall who it was who said ten minutes with James was enough to understand why he was in exile but the disconnect between the Stuarts and their supporters matters. Both Sarsfield and Tyrconnell toyed with the idea of making Ireland part of France for that reason; meeting Charles in 1745 ended Scots Jacobitism. Maybe too complex for a Wikipedia article but just ignoring that reality seems wrong.

 * I don't need more input; I've got what I asked for, it just seems a shame its taken so long. But I think I'm entitled to ask that before you remove sourced material, you explain why. There's no reason why there isn't room for both but I'm going to take this off my Watch list.

 * Off diving for two weeks, enjoy the holidays.Robinvp11 (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Listen, you're not getting it. You keep talking about your motivations for writing here, and your understanding of and opinions on, the subject. You might think the Irish Jacobites were wrong and their ideology misguided and inconsistent, but, I'm going to repeat again: this is absolutely irrelevant. A WP article is supposed to reflect the secondary sources in a NPOV manner, not make new interpretations.

 * Regarding this  This is my opening paragraph; Irish Jacobite demands included religious toleration, legislative autonomy and land ownership, issues that pre-dated the cause and continued long after it ended, while participants in the 1689 to 1691 Williamite War in Ireland showed little enthusiasm for James. Some historians claim it is difficult to identify what was distinctly 'Jacobite' in Irish support for the Stuarts. Based on your input, which of these points do you think are wrong?

 * Answer: Most of it. As you can see from the sources myself and another user have posted above, the consensus among historians is that there was indeed a great deal of support among Irish Catholics for James II and his successors. Moreover, the consensus among historians is that 'Jacobitism' was the dominant political ideology among Irish Catholics from the 1680s to the 1750s. They argue, per Vincent Morely (above) not that it was 'not distinctively Jacobite' but that Irish Jacobitism was 'distinctly Irish'. Furthermore regarding 'long before and long after', Irish Jacobites wanted a reversal of the Cromwellian and Williamite land settlements so that the Catholic gentry would recover their lands. This demand did not in fact outlive the Jacobite cause because by and large the Catholic gentry class was no more by then. The 1790s United Irish movement's demands were quite different from the Jacobites in that they supported secularism and an independent Irish Republic, not Catholic establishment and a Catholic king. So it is not true to say that Jacobitism in Ireland was just part of a continuum of Irish nationalism. It was distinct from what followed in many ways. Enjoy the holidays Jdorney (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Genuinely my last word; leaving the lounge and I'm exiting this article. For someone who doesn't like interpretation, you do a lot of it, because none of the points above are ones I've made.

 * I do not understand why it has taken two months and way more energy than is required to arrive at this point. This article (and many others - take a look) has been radically improved because I'm prepared to challenge. And back that up with research. I'm not going to apologise for asking others to do the same.

 * I have never suggested my content can't be changed and is the only view; add whatever you want, but if you remove Sourced content, it needs explanation. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Right then, best of luck. Jdorney (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Irish Jacobitism
The rewrite is a great piece of work and I've learnt a lot, so thanks both.

For future reference, that's how I assume collaboration works ie not persuading, but challenging each other, rather than being obstructive for the sake of it. I often find understanding why I don't agree is really helpful.

Robinvp11 (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks! In that spirit I'm wondering, re. your recent edit, why the paragraph on Catholic support needs to concern itself with why James lost the throne seeing as the previous section is supposed to describe this?

 * I find the point about the Welsh Methodist Revival a bit dubious / unimportant as the riots you are talking about (in Wrexham) mostly preceded it. They involved attacks on 'dissenting' congregations but had more to do with the legacy of the Civil War-era politics of East Denbighshire than the Revival. More to the point I'm not even sure "Stuart Catholicism prevented Jacobitism becoming a widespread movement; many pre-1745 "Jacobite" demonstrations in Wales stemmed from hostility to the 18th century Welsh Methodist revival" makes a great deal of sense as a sentence to someone coming to this looking to find out who the Jacobites - committed or opportunist - might have been!

 * To explain Stevens (and Blackbourne): I am making the point that an initial nucleus of officers and administrators joined James in France almost immediately after he fled. Stevens' Diary explains what happened to these men; many were Catholic, or had the usual links of patronage to the Stuarts, and a number later joined him in Ireland. As such they are the core of the 'exile' community that was so significant in maintaining the Jacobite links of families remaining in England.

 * Szechi also points out that the Duke of Norfolk's attempts at reconciliation were derided by most Catholics - something worth mentioning.

 * Re. the non-jurors, I think you have taken out the most important bits: that though the church was small it was disproportionately involved in all risings; also that it was ideologically committed to the idea of indefeasible dynastic right. Both of those are Szechi talking, not me.Svejk74 (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 * Right, thanks for the kind words on Irish Jacobitism section, but again, you seem to have misunderstood the process of wikipedia editing. We are not not supposed to be either challenging or explaining our opinions, or persuading others of them. Only presenting the secondary sources in a way that explains the topic as simply as possible for the average reader. To avoid conflict we supposed first to establish consensus, not on our own opinions but but how to represent the sources, on the talk page. The recent re-write of the 'political background' section is, to my mind, extremely confusing and leaves out much relevant information that was in the previous version. I think the same is true of the most recent edits on English and Scottish Jacobitism sections. Jdorney (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 * The edits to the 'Jacobitism in England section' seem to predicate on a statement "Active support for the Stuarts was restricted to a nucleus of Catholic families in the Northwest" - and that's not even what the original reference says. There was other 'active' support at various times.

 * If Jacobitism as a 'popular movement' did not exist in England in any form (however opportunistic) except for a few Catholics, then frankly I'm unsure how Szechi, or Monod, or McLynn, have written entire densely-argued books about it. As mentioned, some academics have described the Tories as essentially a crypto-Jacobite party until 1745; others have provided evidence of 'popular' (i.e. plebian) Jacobitism through the period. I think either way there needs to be some indication of what, exactly, in Toryism or the beliefs of Tories about the nature of the state and the Church led them to be "sympathetic" to Jacobitism. I think it is not necessarily simple for the general reader to understand the ins and outs of 18th century patrician ideology without some kind of background - so while simplifying things is in general a good thing, I'm not sure it makes things clearer. Fair enough if it's "overwritten" in style terms but I will challenge sourced, significant points being removed.

 * Incidentally I had to raise an eyebrow at the line "The 1649 to 1652 Cromwellian conquest of Ireland was designed to enforce the Adventurers Act and re-establish English government credit"(!) That may have been one purpose, but not even Bottigheimer expresses it quite like that...Svejk74 (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 * On the adventurers act, this is symptomatic of wider problem, getting caught up on a detail which is given far too much significance and obscures the wider point. First: the Adventurers' Act was passed to finance putting down the Irish rebellion of 1641, yes, and yes Charles I acceded to it in 1642. But the Catholic Confederates nevertheless claimed that they were fighting for the king against the parliament. There was indeed on and off negotiations and hostilities hostilities between the Royalists and the Irish Confederates int the 1640s. But a peace treaty was concluded between them in January 1649. In the Ormonde peace of 1649, they got Charles to revoke support for confiscation of Catholic owned land (among other things) in return for their putting their armed forces in Ireland under royalist control. So the Cromwellian conquest was designed primarily to put down a Royalist/Catholic resurgence in Ireland that was a threat to the new regime in England. And secondly to punish the 'barbarous' rebellion of 1641 and thirdly, yes, to confiscate land to pay off the Parliament's creditors. But 1652 Act of Settlement went much further than this and confiscated all Catholic-owned land east of the Shannon river as well the land of some Protestant Royalists. It was a punitive settlement above all.

 * Now the article here does need to go into all this; it's not an article about the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, but the current wording is confusing and misleading. The key facts to summarise here are that the majority of politically active landowning Catholics in Ireland were in support of the Royalist cause in 1649 and as a result almost all lost their land under the Commonwealth regime. For an article on Jacobitism that is the salient point. Jdorney (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits
There are many issues with the recent spate of rather radical edits. Users need to try to gain consensus on the talk page before making such sweeping changes. The alternative we are left with now is to revert all the recent edits and start again and/or to debate each point of change here. This makes the editing process far more laborious than it needs to be.

Regarding the political background section, there are a number of problems, the summary of the Civil Wars in mid 17 C is very inadequate and misleading, as if the paragraph on the Cromwellian Conquest of Ireland, re the Adventurers Act etc. The work that was done on the English and Scottish sections has been undone in favour of what is rankly a very confusing and confused narrative.

At the heart of the problem is that the editor in question seeks to present Jacobitism as the ideology of the Stuart Kings and proceed from there, pointing out at all points the inconsistencies between those kings and their supporters. When in fact Jacobitism was not a defined ideology -like, say Marxism - but a very broad term term for all of those who supported the Stuart kings. Nor is it clear that all Stuart monarchs shared the same ideas at all times at all. Because of the agenda of one user we are constantly being moved back to a very argumentative and confusing article. And not, as the article is supposed to be, a summary of the topic for the general reader. Jdorney (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Proof of Jacobite Rioting
First, the whole point is whether the riots that occurred in Dublin in 1720s can be viewed as "Jacobite'; so stating 'these Pro-Jacobite riots are proof of Jacobitism' is nonsense.

Second, every time I've been challenged, I've gone away and looked at Sources (look at the list). I didn't think I needed to remind a 'historian' of the considerable body of work done by George Rude and others on the role of crowds in the 18th century. But obviously I did, so I provided a direct reference and two others - why not read them? The idea rioting around a Jacobite celebration therefore means it was Jacobite is similar to arguing the current Dublin gang warfare is about Irish union, because some members used to be part of Continuity IRA.

Third I strongly object to having edits reversed on the grounds of non-neutral POV, particularly by someone who so far has displayed zero willingness to say 'Yeah, I might be wrong' and is still using the same two sources they started with.

Fourth I say I'm not an expert deliberately because it stops me assuming I'm always right and makes me challenge myself.

I don't want a response; I don't need to be told yet again I'm wrong. What I'd like is for others to be willing to do what I've done and challenge their views. That's not unreasonable.

Robinvp11 (talk)

 * I know that some contemporary reports put the rioting down to "Popish rabble", but my own understanding (bearing in mind I'm just coming to this part of the discussion myself) is that Jacobite typology was quite clearly followed, down to the adoption of the slogan "High Church and Ormond" (showing that at least some of the disturbances were not Catholic in origin) and followed widespread reports that Ormond was involved in an invasion plot; this is why several academics have characterised them as "Jacobite" and as evidence of Jacobite discourse permeating a 'popular' level (O Ciardha, Connolly), which I thought was the whole point of that particular section. I don't really see that the description of the clashes as 'ritualised' by Garnham (sourced to the same 'Popish rabble' commentator) necessarily negates the idea of the riots as Jacobite in character. His point is that urban violence was "discriminating and controlled", not that they can be regarded in isolation from theur political context. Svejk74 (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 * They're not my views. I'm just making sure the sources are accurately represented. And will continue to do so. BestJdorney (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Principle or law?
The lead says I thought that it was more than a principle, that it was actually enshrined in laws like the English Bill of Rights? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There’s nothing in the Bill of Rights or any other statute that explicitly says anything like that. It’s not law. But the unstated principle underlying the Bill of Rights and inspired by John Locke was exactly that, and that was part of the ideology of the Whigs subsequently. The sentence wording is a little overstated in that it “created the principle” in the minds of some but by no means all (eg Tories) of the political class of the time. DeCausa (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I just made an edit to my original question, changing the template to a one; I was attempting to quote the article, not invoke a Wikidata item. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. I realize now that you are right. I had effectively mentally translated the quote I provided into "constitutional monarchy".  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps saying that it 'validated' the principle might be most accurate - as you noted, contract theory was part of political discourse a little earlier than the Revolution itself.

 * I suppose it's important to remember that, in an era when government was still seen to reflect a larger moral order, that the rapidity and (initial) bloodlessness of the Revolution was perceived as confirmation of divine approval. Its success gave proof that it was, after all, the right thing to do; the morally correct interpretation of how power should operate. Conversely, James began to believe God did not want him restored, after setbacks in Ireland.

 * Something I've touched on in parts of the article is that a lot of Jacobite discourse, like the sermons of Episcopalian ministers in Scotland, made a great deal of various subsequent national misfortunes as proof that the nation, having collectively sinned by backing the wrong horse, was suffering a kind of ongoing divine wrath. It links in to an observation by someone (McLynn? Szechi?) that one of the few shared traits among senior Jacibites was that they tended to be more devout in general, whether Catholic or Anglican. Svejk74 (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think ‘validated’ probably overstates it even further. The issue with that sentence is that it implies that it was universally accepted (excluding the Jacobites of course). It was however a partisan Whig point of view. Non-Jacobite Tories (I.e as the 18th century progresses) wouldn’t have accepted it. There’s a difference between the ‘official’ position between England and Scotland. The Claim of Right in Scotland explicitly had James losing the crown in consequence of his misdeeds. However, the English Convention Parliament stuck to the theory that his flight constituted abdication. I think that sentence should begin “For the Whigs and their sympathisers the Revolution affirmed the principle of a contract...” DeCausa (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Problem is that first, you have to then define "Whigs" beforehand in the lead and second, this doesn't really articulate the fact that many Tories were complicit in the Revolution (albeit using a fair bit of ideological sleight of hand around indefeasible right to justify participation). Perhaps "for much of Parliament", rather than "for the Whigs..."? Svejk74 (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The benefit of Wikipedia’s pipe linking is that you wouldn’t have to define it - just link to Whigs (British political party). Tories were complicit of course and ultimately all became Hanoverians later. But that doesn’t mean they signed up to that principle. Nevertheless, I’d be happy with your suggestion. DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion re Peace and War factions
This is in response to the question raised as to whether divisions within the Patriot Parliament and Peace and War factions are the same. Just here for the record.

Most historians view 1691 as a dividing line in Irish history and date the so-called ‘Protestant Ascendancy’ from that point. Before that, the Irish political/economic elite was split (broadly) into three main factions; Protestant nonconformists, Gaelic Catholics and a moderate centre consisting of Church of Ireland Episcopalians and Old/New “English” Catholics.

That is a simplification but good enough here; the Restoration land settlement was specifically designed by Ormond to exclude Gaelic Catholics, with the exception of Clancarty (the main Confederate supporter of the 1649 alliance) and Antrim. You can trace a direct link from divisions within the Catholic Confederacy in the 1640s (Rinuccini excommunicated those Catholic leaders who signed up to the alliance with Ormond), to arguments within the Patriot Parliament and the “Peace” v “War” factions in 1691.

The basic split was between negotiation and military action; Tyrconnell opposed the land reforms in 1689 because he recognised that (a) confiscations would inevitably create a Protestant clique akin to O’Neill who would oppose any settlement and (b) it would set the scene for further confiscations of Catholic land if they lost. Before 1691, some sort of negotiated settlement was possible; after, it was not. And so yes, the general issue was the same and it matters because it was from that point onwards that Irish Catholics and Protestants saw themselves as distinct nations. Robinvp11 (talk) 10:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

 * ...with the caveat that the "Old English / Old Irish" division used by 19th century and earlier historians isn't always that helpful - as I noted in the Williamite War article, many of the 'War Party' leaders were 'Old English' (or in the case of Dorrington, actually English).

 * Part of the issue is, I think, that Jacobite historiography around the 1689-91 war itself reflects the factional split, as other than James's memoirs the two main sources are A Light to the Blind (pro-Tyrconnell) and Macariae Excidium (very much the 'Old Irish' perspective). The two 'parties' were undoubtedly real but the narrative around them is harder to untangle, having been exploited for a long time to rationalise Jacobite failure amongst other things.

 * I suppose I should also add, how much detail do we need to go into here? Would some of this material make more sense in the Williamite War article itself? Svejk74 (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

 * The problem here is one user's continual leaps of interpretation based on his own understanding and reading. All this article is supposed to do is give a clear factual overview, based on the secondary sources. No doubt there is an ideological and class/ethnic similarity in some ways between Confederate Catholic divisions over the Ormonde Peace treaties in 1646 and 49, the debates of the Parliament of 1689 and the war and peace factions of 1690-91. But the fact is that they were not the same contexts and not the same people and not the same issues. To take just the most obvious example; Patrick Sarsfield, who led the 'war' faction was of mixed 'Old English' and 'Old Irish' ethnicity, his family was a beneficiary of the 1660 Act of Settlement that restored their lands and not as far as I know, an opponent of Tyrconnell's land proposals in 1689. Which clearly shows that the 'war vs peace' argument in Irish Jacobitism in 1690-91 cannot be reduced to those terms. Jdorney (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

(a) Since I've never made any reference to Jacobite divisions being Old/New, whatever Irish, the reference to Sarsfield is irrelevant.

(b) I've removed any mention of the "Land issue" in regards to the War and Peace Party, since that seems to be an issue.

(c) ''The problem here is one user's continual leaps of interpretation based on his own understanding and reading. All this article is supposed to do is give a clear factual overview, based on the secondary sources.'' Using this criteria, please list those sections you consider irrelevant and I will happily remove them. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 * (A) See the extensive talk section above where you did just that.
 * (B) Ok, but there are other problems. In the latest version, e.g. the explanation of the land issue, of necessity short anyway, relating to the 1652 Cromwellian confiscations and 1660 partial restoration of such lands has been deleted. So now meaningless to reader unless they already know these things.
 * (C) The principle problems are: an intro, the 'political background' section, which per your edits, now no longer mentions that the Stuart monarchy was overthrown in 1649, briefly, but tangentially, mentions that it was restored in 1660. But does manage to include three (faulty) paragraphs on the Irish wars of the 1640s (e.g. the English Parliament did an army, they just would not agree that it be under Charles I's command), musings on the nature of divine right in Catholicism, and the edicts of Fontainbleu (all irrelevant). Nor does it include anything on why Jacobites regarded the 1688 Revolution as illegitimate. :::Finishing with the (to say the least highly debatable) contention that no foreign power wanted the Stuarts restored, presented as fact.
 * Whenever anyone tried to tackle any of these areas you always either revert or edit until unrecognisable. Jdorney (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

chronology broken
This chronological ordering of this article is severely broken. It starts off well enough, but then starts over again from the beginning. Needs some serious editing... Tstexture (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

 * Can you be more specific, bearing in mind the Lead summarises the article, with the detail appearing in the body, so no article would necessarily be purely chronological. Plus its isn't intended to be structured in that way; ie "Background" (what was it all about), then separate sections on how that played out in the three kingdoms. Thanks. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

 * Given it's a complex subject with very different characteristics in each of the three kingdoms, the current structure is the best I could come up with. Not sure a purely chronological approach could even be made to work.Svejk74 (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jacobitism


text:
Ōasa, Hiroshima

Ōasa (大朝町) was a town located in Yamagata District, Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan.

As of 2003, the town had an estimated population of 3,711 and a density of 41.01 persons per km2. The total area was 90.50 km2.

On February 1, 2005, Ōasa, along with the towns of Chiyoda, Geihoku and Toyohira (all from Yamagata District), was merged to create the town of Kitahiroshima.

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

title: Ōasa, Hiroshima


text:
Chiyoda, Hiroshima

Chiyoda (千代田町) was a town located in Yamagata District, Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan.

As of 2003, the town had an estimated population of 10,594 and a density of 61.93 persons per km2. The total area was 171.07 km2.

On February 1, 2005, Chiyoda, along with the towns of Geihoku, Ōasa and Toyohira (all from Yamagata District), was merged to create the town of Kitahiroshima.

title: Chiyoda, Hiroshima


text:
Toyohira, Hiroshima

Toyohira (豊平町) was a town located in Yamagata District, Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan.

As of 2003, the town had an estimated population of 4,270 and a density of 32.68 persons per km2. The total area was 130.66 km2.

On February 1, 2005, Toyohira, along with the towns of Chiyoda, Geihoku and Ōasa (all from Yamagata District), was merged to create the town of Kitahiroshima.

title: Toyohira, Hiroshima


text:
Vance D. Brand

Vance DeVoe Brand (born May 9, 1931) is an American naval officer, aviator, aeronautical engineer, test pilot, and NASA astronaut. He served as command module pilot during the first U.S.-Soviet joint spaceflight in 1975, and as commander of three Space Shuttle missions.

Brand's flight experience includes 9,669 flying hours, which includes 8,089 hours in jets, 391 hours in helicopters, 746 hours in spacecraft, and checkout in more than 30 types of military aircraft. As of June 1, 2024, he is the last surviving crew member of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project.

Early life and education
Brand was born May 9, 1931, in Longmont, Colorado, and is the son of Rudolph William Brand (1903–1984) and Donna Mae Brand (DeVoe; 1908–1998). He was active in Troop 64 of the Boy Scouts of America in Longmont, where he achieved its second highest rank, Life Scout. Brand graduated at Longmont High School in 1949, and at the University of Colorado at Boulder he received a Bachelor of Science degree in business in 1953 and another B.S. degree, in aeronautical engineering, in 1960. He was a member of the Sigma Nu fraternity and of the International Order of DeMolay. In 1964 he completed a Master of Science degree in business administration at UCLA.

Military service
Brand was a commissioned officer and naval aviator with the United States Marine Corps from 1953 to 1957. His military assignments included a 15-month tour in Japan as a jet fighter pilot. Following his release from active duty, Brand continued service in United States Marine Corps Reserve and Air National Guard jet fighter squadrons until 1964, reaching the rank of major.

Civilian test pilot
Employed as a civilian by the Lockheed Corporation from 1960 to 1966, he worked initially as a flight test engineer on the United States Navy's P-3 Orion aircraft. In 1963, Brand graduated from the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School (Class 33) and was assigned to Palmdale, California as an experimental test pilot on Canadian and German F-104 programs. Prior to selection to the astronaut program, Brand worked at the West German F-104G Flight Test Center at Istres, France as an experimental test pilot and leader of a Lockheed flight test advisory group.

NASA career
One of the 19 pilot astronauts selected by NASA in April 1966, Brand initially was a crew member in the thermal vacuum chamber testing of the prototype command module (alongside astronauts Joe Engle and Dr. Joseph Kerwin) and support crewman on Apollos 8 and 13. During the Apollo 13 crisis, Brand was CAPCOM during the PC+2 burn. Later he was backup Command Module Pilot for Apollo 15, and was likely to be named to the prime crew of Apollo 18 before that mission was canceled. Brand was backup commander for Skylabs 3 and 4. When Skylab 3's CSM had problems with its Reaction Control System, Brand was put on standby to command a rescue mission with backup Pilot Don Lind; however, the crew stood down when it was decided that the problem did not require the rescue mission to be launched. As an astronaut, he held management positions relating to spacecraft development, acquisition, flight safety and mission operations. Brand flew on four space missions; Apollo–Soyuz, STS-5, STS-41-B, and STS-35. He logged 746 hours in space and commanded three missions. Brand was the last member of his astronaut class to remain active with NASA, and was the only Apollo-era astronaut to pilot the Space Shuttle in the post-Challenger era.

Brand departed the Astronaut Office in 1992 to become Chief of Plans at the National Aerospace Plane (NASP) Joint Program Office at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. In September 1994, he moved to California to become Assistant Chief of Flight Operations at the Dryden Flight Research Center, then Acting Chief Engineer, Deputy Director for Aerospace Projects, and Acting Associate Center Director for Programs. He retired from NASA in January 2008.

Apollo–Soyuz Test Project
Brand was launched on his first space flight on July 15, 1975, as Apollo Command Module Pilot on the Apollo–Soyuz Test Project mission. This flight resulted in the historic meeting in space between American astronauts and Soviet cosmonauts. Other crewmen on this nine-day Earth-orbital mission were Apollo Commander Thomas Stafford, Apollo Docking Module Pilot Deke Slayton, Soyuz Commander Alexei Leonov, and Soyuz Flight Engineer Valeri Kubasov. The Soyuz spacecraft was launched at Baikonur Cosmodrome, and the Apollo was launched 7½ hours later at the Kennedy Space Center. Two days later, the two spacecraft docked successfully. The linkup tested a new docking system and demonstrated international cooperation in space. There were 44 hours of docked joint activities which included four crew transfers between the Apollo and the Soyuz. Six records for docked and group flight were set on the mission and are recognized by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale. Apollo splashed down in the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii, on July 25, and was recovered by USS New Orleans (LPH-11), completing a 217-hour mission. The mission almost ended in disaster when, during the final stages of the mission, the crew was exposed to near fatal amounts of nitrogen tetroxide gas. The reaction control system had been inadvertently left on during descent, and the poisonous fumes were sucked into the capsule as it drew in outside air. Brand briefly lost consciousness and all three crewmen required hospitalization in Hawaii for a number of weeks after landing.

STS-5

Brand was commander of Space Shuttle Columbia for STS-5, the first fully operational flight of the Space Shuttle program, which launched on November 11, 1982. His crew comprised Colonel Robert Overmyer, pilot, and two mission specialists, Dr. Joseph P. Allen and Dr. William B. Lenoir. STS-5, the first mission with a four-man crew, demonstrated the Shuttle as operational by the successful first deployment of two commercial communications satellites from the Shuttle's payload bay. The mission marked the Shuttle's first use of an upper-stage rocket for payloads, the Payload Assist Module (PAM-D). The satellites were deployed for Satellite Business Systems Corporation of McLean, Virginia, and TELESAT of Ottawa, Canada. Two FAI records for mass to altitude were set on the mission. Numerous flight tests were performed to ascertain Shuttle performance. STS-5 was the last flight to carry the Development Flight Instrumentation package to support extensive flight testing. The STS-5 crew concluded the 5-day orbital flight of Columbia with the landing approach through a cloud deck to Runway 22 at Edwards Air Force Base, California on November 16, 1982. Mission duration was 122 hours.

STS-41-B
Brand commanded Challenger with a crew of five on the tenth flight of the Space Shuttle program, STS-41-B. The launch was on February 3, 1984. His crew included Commander Robert L. Gibson, pilot, and 3 Mission Specialists, Captain Bruce McCandless II, Dr. Ronald McNair, and Lt. Col. Robert L. Stewart. The flight accomplished the deployment of two Hughes HS-376 communications satellites which failed to reach desired geosynchronous orbits due to upper-stage rocket failures. This mission marked the first flight checkout of the Manned Maneuvering Unit and the Manipulator Foot Restraint with McCandless and Stewart performing two untethered extravehicular activities. Shuttle rendezvous sensors and computer programs were flight-tested for the first time. The 8-day flight of Challenger ended with the first landing on the runway at the Kennedy Space Center on February 11, 1984.

Brand was training initially for STS-51-H on Atlantis in November 1985. That mission was canceled and re-manifested as STS-61-K, a Spacelab mission which would have launched on Columbia in October 1986. That mission was canceled by the Challenger disaster.

STS-35
Brand again commanded Columbia on the 38th flight of the shuttle, this time with a crew of seven, on STS-35. The night launch on December 2, 1990, started a nine-day mission devoted to round-the-clock astronomical observations. Crewmen included the pilot, Col. Guy Gardner; three mission specialists, John M. Lounge, Dr. Robert A. Parker and Dr. Jeffrey A. Hoffman; and two payload specialists, Dr. Samuel T. Durrance and Dr. Ronald A. Parise. The 13-ton payload consisted of the three ASTRO-1 ultraviolet (UV) telescopes and the Broadband X-ray Telescope. More than 200 Orbiter maneuvers were required to point the telescopes. This Shuttle flight, one of the first dedicated to astronomy, provided a rich return of science data with emphasis on observations of very active celestial objects. A night landing was made on December 10, to Runway 22 at Edwards Air Force Base. Mission duration was 215 hours.

Awards and honors

 * JSC Certificate of Commendation (1970)
 * Two NASA Distinguished Service Medals (1975 & 1992)
 * Two NASA Exceptional Service Medals (1974 & 1988)
 * Zeta Beta Tau's Richard Gottheil Medal (1975)
 * Wright Brothers International Manned Space Flight Award (1975)
 * two VFW National Space Award (1976 & 1984)
 * Sigma Nu Distinguished Alumnus of the Year Award (1976)
 * University of Colorado Alumnus of the Century (1 of 12) (1976)
 * AIAA Special Presidential Citation (1977)
 * two American Astronautical Society's Flight Achievement Award for 1976
 * AIAA Haley Astronautics Award (1978)
 * JSC Special Achievement Award (1978)
 * Harmon Trophy (Astronaut) (1993)
 * FAI De la Vaulx Medal (1983)
 * Three NASA Space Flight Medals (1983, 1984, 1992)
 * Distinguished Visiting Lecturer at University of Colorado (1984)
 * Vance Brand Airport in Longmont, CO named in his honor (1988)
 * De Molay Hall of Honor (1989)
 * two FAI V. M. Komarov Diplomas (1983 & 1991)
 * University of Colorado George Norlin Award (1991)
 * De Molay Legion of Honor (1993)
 * International Space Hall of Fame (1996)
 * U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame (1997)
 * Meritorious Executive, U.S. Senior Executive Service (1997)
 * Honorary Doctor of Science degree from University of Colorado (2000)
 * International Aerospace Hall of Fame (2001)
 * Oklahoma Aviation and Space Hall of Fame (2005)
 * Tsiolkovsky Gold Medal of the International Aeronautical Federation (2005)
 * ASE Crystal Helmet Award (2005)
 * Sigma Nu Hall of Fame (2010)
 * Honorary Citizen of Kaliningrad
 * DeMolay International Hall of Fame

Personal life
Brand is married to the former Beverly Ann Whitnel and has two daughters and four sons: Susan Nancy (born April 30, 1954), Stephanie Brand Lowery (born August 6, 1955), Patrick Richard (born March 22, 1958), Kevin Stephen (born December 1, 1963), Erik Ryan (May 11, 1981), and Dane Vance (born October 1, 1985). He currently resides with his wife in Tehachapi, California.

Philanthropy
In 2019, Brand donated 40 acres of land to the Rocky Mountain Conservancy, which is the nonprofit arm of Rocky Mountain National Park, hoping to expand the national park that he has visited throughout his life. He had purchased the land in 1967. The 40 acres of rugged terrain, located near Estes Cone and roughly 4 miles from Longs Peak, borders Rocky Mountain National Park on two sides. The United States Congress will need to approve the boundary change for this acreage to be officially incorporated into the national park.

title: Vance D. Brand


text:
Green Line (CTA)

The Green Line is a rapid transit line in Chicago, Illinois, operated by the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) as part of the Chicago "L" system. It is the only completely elevated route in the "L" system. All other routes may have various combinations of elevated, subway, street level (at grade), or freeway median sections.

The Green Line utilizes the system's oldest segments, dating back to 1892. It extends for 20.695 mi, with 30 stops between Oak Park/Forest Park (Harlem/Lake) and Chicago's West Side, to the Loop, and then to the South Side neighborhoods of West Englewood (Ashland/63rd) and Woodlawn (Cottage Grove/63rd). As of 2022, 19,018 passengers board this line each weekday.

Lake Street Elevated
Beginning at the yard and inspection facilities in Forest Park, the Green Line runs east through Oak Park towards the city on an embankment adjacent to Metra's Union Pacific West Line tracks from the Harlem Avenue terminal, on the border of Oak Park and Forest Park, to a point just west of Laramie Avenue. Here, the Green Line tracks diverge from the railroad embankment and continue east on a steel elevated structure directly above Lake Street, a major east–west thoroughfare.

The "L" bridges a couple of railroad tracks (the Belt Railway of Chicago's main line and Union Pacific's Rockwell Subdivision) before entering downtown Chicago at Clinton Street. East of Clinton Street, the route bridges Metra's Union Pacific railroad tracks (which terminate just south of here at Ogilvie Transportation Center) and the Chicago River before joining the Union Loop "L" tracks at Wells Street.

The Loop
In downtown Chicago, the Green Line operates over the famous Union Loop "L" structure along with Brown Line (Ravenswood), Orange Line (Midway), Pink Line (Douglas) and Purple Line Express (weekday rush hours only) trains. However, Green Line trains operate both ways over the Lake Street and Wabash Avenue sides only, and does not use the Wells Street and Van Buren Street sides of the Loop.

The Green Line is the only line in the "L" system that has two entry/exit points to the elevated Loop, the only "L" line that runs in both directions on the Loop, and the only route that uses the Loop but does not terminate there. Its route uses the Wabash and Lake sides of the Loop, which are also used by the Orange, Pink, Purple and Brown Lines, which operate around the Loop and then return to their route terminal.

South Side Elevated
Leaving the Loop at Tower 12, the tracks continue along Wabash Avenue and follows an "S" curve (which was realigned in 2002) to the west and south now following the alley between Wabash Avenue and State Street to 40th Street. This 3.8 mile section is the oldest part of Chicago's "L" system. On this segment, the Green Line shares tracks with the Orange Line between the Loop and 17th Street. Passengers can transfer between the two lines at Roosevelt/Wabash station.

The other stations on this section are at Cermak–McCormick Place and 35th–Bronzeville–IIT, adjacent the Illinois Institute of Technology campus and the Chicago Police Department Headquarters. At 40th Street, the route turns east to Indiana station, then turns south between Calumet and Prairie Avenues to the Garfield station and continues south to 59th Street where the route splits into two branches—the Englewood (Ashland/63rd) branch and the Jackson Park (East 63rd) branch. Prior to 1994 (and the Green Line's major renovation) the East 63rd branch extended as far east as Stony Island Avenue. It was shortened to University in 1982 and Cottage Grove in 1996.

Ashland branch
The Ashland branch continues south and west following 59th Street, Princeton Avenue and 63rd Street to the Ashland terminal in West Englewood. The yard and inspection shop lie to the south between the old Racine station and the Ashland/63rd terminal. The "L" tracks continues west to a stub end at Hermitage Avenue, a prediction for a future extension of the route westward, however, those plans were canceled in the late 1970s. Prior to 1992, the Englewood branch had two additional stops at Wentworth and Harvard, closed by the CTA for service cuts. Halsted/63rd is the only remaining stop on the 3.1 mi route.

The Englewood branch was permanently renamed the Ashland branch as of March 2013 according to the CTA.

Jackson Park branch
The Jackson Park branch continues south from the mainline between Calumet and Prairie Avenues, passing the old yard and inspection facilities at 61st Street in Washington Park. South of here, the route curves east over 63rd Street and follows it to the current terminal at Cottage Grove/63rd in Woodlawn. Prior to 1994, the Jackson Park branch of the Green Line once terminated at University/63rd and before that, at Stony Island/63rd from 1893 until 1982. In addition to losing the University/63rd station, the Jackson Park branch also lost the 61st Street station and the 58th Street station in 1994.

Operating hours and headways
The Green Line operates weekdays from 4 a.m. to 1 a.m., and Saturdays and Sundays from 5 a.m. to 1 a.m. Between Harlem/Lake and Garfield, trains run on a minimum headway of 12 minutes, decreasing to as few as 10 minutes during weekday rush hours. Headways are doubled on the branches to Ashland/63rd and Cottage Grove.

Rolling stock
The Green Line is operated with the Bombardier-built 5000-series railcars. The 5000-series cars officially began running on the Green Line on July 1, 2012, after the Pink Line became fully equipped with the new cars. As additional 5000-series cars were assigned to the Green Line, the remaining 2400-series cars were reassigned to the Red, Purple and Orange Lines to finish their service lives. Occasionally, 2600-series and 3200-series railcars were used on the Green Line, though these were loaned from the Blue, Brown, and Orange Lines, and only when the Green Line was short on cars.

With the 5000-series cars now completely equipping the Green Line fleet after the last of the 2400-series cars were reassigned in mid-May 2013, the borrowing of 2600-series cars and 3200-series cars is no longer necessary. The Green Line was the second line to be fully equipped with the 5000-series cars, following the Pink Line. Frequently, the Green and Pink Lines borrow each other's cars when either line is short on cars. Trains operate using six cars full time as of 2020.

History

The Green Line operates over the two oldest sections of the Chicago "L". The South Side section started operation in 1892 when Chicago was preparing for the World's Columbian Exposition of 1893 in Jackson Park. The initial section was built to provide inexpensive mass transportation service between downtown Chicago and the exposition site. This first section of the Chicago and South Side Rapid Transit Railroad between Wabash Avenue and State Street went into service on June 6, 1892. It extended from Congress Street only as far south as 39th Street (Pershing Road). At that time a large part of the south side was little more than prairie, but by May 1, 1893, when the pioneer "L" line was completed to Jackson Park, construction of homes, apartment buildings and commercial properties was booming in the area.

Continued expansion of the area development was reflected in construction of the Englewood, Normal Park, Kenwood and Stock Yards branches of the South Side "L" between 1905 and 1908. Of these, only the Englewood and Jackson Park branches remain: because of insufficient patronage, the Normal Park, Stock Yards and Kenwood branches were closed in the 1950s.

The Lake Street Elevated was Chicago's second rapid transit line. It began operation from a terminal at Madison and Market streets to Lake Street and California Avenue on November 6, 1893. The line was gradually extended westward to Laramie Avenue on April 29, 1894; to Austin Avenue on April 15, 1899; to Wisconsin Avenue, Oak Park using street railway trackage on May 15, 1899 (closed in 1902), and to Marengo Avenue, Forest Park, on May 14, 1910.

The construction of the Lake Street Elevated led to a political quarrel in west suburban Cicero, which at the time included Oak Park and Austin. In 1898, Austinites, having a majority on Cicero's town council, used political influence to allow the extension of the Lake Street line from the city border at Laramie Avenue (then called 52nd Avenue) into their community. This infuriated other Cicero residents, who retaliated the following year by holding a joint election to force Austin's annexation to the City of Chicago. Much to the dismay of local residents, this effort succeeded, and Austin became part of Chicago in 1899. A century later, Oak Park commuters, who had come to depend on the service, were among the most vocal critics of the Green Line's closure for rehabilitation.

From 1913 until 1993, the Englewood and Jackson Park branches were part of the North–South Route in various service configurations operating from the north side through the Loop and to the south side. On October 17, 1943, the Englewood and Jackson Park services were rerouted into the State Street subway to provide improved crosstown access through the heart of city and to alleviate congestion on the over-crowded Union Loop Elevated. On July 31, 1949, during the north–south rapid transit service revision by the CTA, the Howard–Englewood/Jackson Park route was created, operating via the State Street subway, using the 13th Street portal.

On May 6, 1969, the Englewood branch was extended to the current Ashland Avenue-West Englewood Terminal, replacing the outmoded facilities at the 1907-built Loomis station which were demolished. On December 12, 1982, the Jackson Park branch was shortened to University because of structural deterioration at the Dorchester Bridge which carried the route across the Illinois Central Railroad to the former Stony Island/63rd terminal which closed on March 4, 1982, and was later demolished.

The Lake Street "L" would remain largely unchanged until 1948, when a number of its historic passenger stations were closed and demolished in an attempt to promote the "A" and "B" skip-stop express train service to speed up traffic flow. On October 28, 1962, the western two and one-half mile section of the line which operated at street level was elevated along the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad right-of-way opening new elevated stops at Central, Austin, Ridgeland, Oak Park, and Harlem.

In September 1969, the Lake Street "L" was united with the new Dan Ryan Line to form the West–South Route (Lake-Dan Ryan), operating from Forest Park through downtown via the Union Loop "L" to 95th/Dan Ryan. The Lake–Dan Ryan routing was to fulfill the service implementation outlined in the 1968 Chicago Central Area Transit Plan. However, when that subway project was canceled in 1979, Lake–Dan Ryan service remained and lasted for 24 years.

In February 1993, the South Side sections of the North–South and West–South Routes were "switched" south of Roosevelt Road, creating the current Red Line (Howard–Dan Ryan) and the Green Line (Lake–Englewood/Jackson Park). After the reconfiguration, both the Red and Green Lines lost their "A" and "B" skip-stop service and began serving all stations at all times. As stated earlier, the Green Line's routing united the two oldest segments of Chicago's "L"-Subway rail network.

In January 1994, the Green Line closed for the largest transit rehabilitation project in the city's history. The Green Line reopened on May 12, 1996, with much of the renewal work completed and with the exception of a few stations. Six stations (Homan, Halsted, 58th, 61st, University, and Racine) were closed permanently following the rehabilitation project, which angered many commuters who depend on the Green Line.

In September 1997, after political pressure brought on by community leaders, the Jackson Park branch was shortened again from University to Cottage Grove after previous attempts by the city, CTA, and other agencies to extend the route eastward to Dorchester, immediately west of the Illinois Central Railroad. This had seemed logical to the Dorchester Terminal, due to the fact that the Metra Electric District and South Shore Line both share a station along the IC ROW, at 63rd Street.

In April 1998, the Green Line, like the Purple Line and the Douglas branch of the Blue Line (now the Pink Line) lost its 24-hour service due to budget cuts, and operates only between the hours of 4 a.m. and 1 a.m weekdays.

Incidents
On February 4, 1977, an accident occurred on the sharp left-hand curve at Wabash/Lake. Two trains were involved, one was the Ravenswood Line with the second being the Lake-Dan Ryan Line. The Ravenswood train was stopped waiting for the clearance to proceed. The motorman of the Lake-Dan Ryan train failed to see the signals warning him of a stopped train. What occurred was a rear-end collision, the initial collision was only minor. However the motorman continued to apply power forward; which led to three cars being pushed off the elevated tracks to the street below. The fourth car was dangling while still attached to the other four cars on the track. Eleven deaths were reported with more than 180 injuries.

On May 28, 2008, a derailment was reported, with approximately 24 injuries. Two train cars on the four-car train appeared to be derailed, with the leading car abutting the one behind it at an angle of approximately 150 degrees. The train cars were separated at a switching point near 59th Street.

On August 5, 2015, a derailment was reported near 63rd and Calumet in Chicago's Washington Park neighborhood. The train derailed around 2:40 p.m., the third of the four-car train was the one to derail. No one was injured, firefighters had to help over 80 passengers off the train; two of which were in wheelchairs. Service was suspended between the Cottage Grove and Garfield stops. Service was back to normal in the affected stops around 7:15 p.m.

On June 6, 2019, a Green Line train derailed near the 47th station, injuring seven people.

Green Line expansion
During the 2010s, the Green Line has undergone significant expansion in an attempt to attract more transit riders and improve upon its service connectivity on the West Side, Loop, and South Side communities. The Morgan/Lake station opened in May 2012 in response to the growing Fulton Market and West Loop areas. It was followed by the opening of the new Cermak–McCormick Place station in February 2015, serving the historic Motor Row District and McCormick Place Convention Center. Both stations were designed by Chicago-based Ross Barney Architects.

The Garfield station's $43 million reconstruction project, completed in January 2019, restored its original 1892-built station house and improved the in-service station house. It included escalator and elevator enhancements and new platform canopies, lights, graphics, public artwork, and streetscape. The project created a new "Garfield Gateway" station in the Washington Park neighborhood on the South Side.

A new station is being constructed on the Lake Street "L" at Damen/Lake, replacing a former station at that site from 1893 to 1948. Designed by world-renowned architectural firm Perkins + Will, who also designed the Cumberland station on the O'Hare Extension in 1980, the new $60 million Damen station will fill the 1.5-mile distance between the California and Ashland stations.

Along the Green Line South, the former 58th Street station, which was located approximately 3/8 mile south of the Garfield station and one-block north of the Englewood and Jackson Park branches, had been bereft of a transfer facility between the diverging Green Line services since 1994. The branch lines themselves consists of only two stations (Halsted and Ashland/63rd on the Englewood branch; King Drive and Cottage Grove on the Jackson Park Branch).

While no official plans have been developed to build future stations on the Green Line South, the possibility of a new Stony Island/63rd terminal station to serve Hyde Park, South Shore, the Museum of Science and Industry, and the proposed Barack Obama Presidential Center would be very advantageous. A major benefit would be the resurgence of passenger and traffic volumes on the Englewood and Jackson Park branches to those prior to 1982, with more modern, attractive, and convenient transit service on the South Side "L", thus supplementing, and not competing with the Dan Ryan branch of the Red Line.

title: Green Line (CTA)


text:
Yamagata District, Hiroshima

Yamagata (山県郡) is a district located in northwestern Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan.

As of 2003, the district has an estimated population of 29,978 and a density of 30.34 persons per km2. The total area is 988.11 km2.

Atomic bomb survivor Toshiyuki Mimaki lives in Yamagata district.

Towns and villages

 * Akiōta: founded on October 1, 2004 from the merger of the towns of Kake and Togouchi, and the village of Tsutsuga
 * Kitahiroshima: founded on February 1, 2005 from the merger of the towns of Chiyoda, Geihoku, Ōasa and Toyohira

title: Yamagata District, Hiroshima


text:
Kurose, Hiroshima

Kurose (黒瀬町) was a town located in Kamo District, Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan.

As of 2003, the town had an estimated population of 25,294 and a density of 396.21 persons per km2. The total area was 63.84 km2.

On February 7, 2005, Kurose, along with the towns of Fukutomi, Kōchi and Toyosaka (all from Kamo District), and the town of Akitsu (from Toyota District), was merged into the expanded city of Higashihiroshima and no longer exists as an independent municipality.

title: Kurose, Hiroshima


text:
Fukutomi, Hiroshima

Fukutomi (福富町) was a town located in Kamo District, Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan.

As of 2003, the town had an estimated population of 2,879 and a density of 47.42 persons per km2. The total area was 60.71 km2.

On February 7, 2005, Fukutomi, along with the towns of Kōchi, Kurose and Toyosaka (all from Kamo District), and the town of Akitsu (from Toyota District), was merged into the expanded city of Higashihiroshima and no longer exists as an independent municipality.

title: Fukutomi, Hiroshima


text:
Toyosaka, Hiroshima

Toyosaka (豊栄町) was a town located in Kamo District, Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan.

As of 2003, the town had an estimated population of 4,269 and a density of 58.83 persons per km2. The total area was 72.56 km2.

On February 7, 2005, Toyosaka, along with the towns of Fukutomi, Kōchi and Kurose (all from Kamo District), and the town of Akitsu (from Toyota District), was merged into the expanded city of Higashihiroshima and no longer exists as an independent municipality.

title: Toyosaka, Hiroshima


text:
Daiwa, Hiroshima

Daiwa (大和町) was a town located in Kamo District, Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan.

As of 2003, the town had an estimated population of 7,262 and a density of 59.58 persons per km2. The total area was 121.88 km2.

On March 22, 2005, Daiwa, along with the town of Kui (from Mitsugi District), and the town of Hongō (from Toyota District), was merged into the expanded city of Mihara and no longer exists as an independent municipality.

title: Daiwa, Hiroshima


text:
Kōchi, Hiroshima

Kōchi (河内町) was a town located in Kamo District, Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan.

As of 2003, the town had an estimated population of 6,712 and a density of 79.26 persons per km2. The total area was 84.68 km2.

On February 7, 2005, Kōchi, along with the towns of Fukutomi, Kurose and Toyosaka (all from Kamo District), and the town of Akitsu (from Toyota District), was merged into the expanded city of Higashihiroshima and no longer exists as an independent municipality.

title: Kōchi, Hiroshima


text:
Kamo District, Hiroshima

Kamo (賀茂郡) was a district located in Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan.

On March 22, 2005, the town of Daiwa, along with the town of Hongō (from Toyota District), and the town of Kui (from Mitsugi District), was merged into the expanded city of Mihara. Kamo District was dissolved as a result of this merger.

The district is now consisted of the areas of Aki-ku of the city of Hiroshima, Kure, Takehara, Higashihiroshima and Mihara.

Municipalities as of 1889 Municipal Status enforcement)

 * Aga (阿賀村)
 * Itaki (板城村)
 * Uchinoumi (内海村)
 * Uchinoumiato (内海跡村)
 * Kanaga (賀永村)
 * Kamikurose (上黒瀬村)
 * Kawakami (川上村)
 * Kawajiri (川尻村)
 * Kumanoato (熊野跡村)
 * Gōda (郷田村)
 * Gōhara (郷原村)
 * Shitami (下見村)
 * Shimoichi (下市村)
 * Shimokurose (下黒瀬村)
 * Shimono (下野村)
 * Shimominaga (下三永村)
 * Shōno (荘野村)
 * Shiwahori (志和堀村)
 * Zōga (造賀村)
 * Teranishi (寺西村)
 * Nakagiri (中切村)
 * Nakakurose (中黒瀬村)
 * Nigata (仁方村)
 * Nishishiwa (西志和村)
 * Nishitakaya (西高屋村)
 * Nominoo (乃美尾村)
 * Noro (野路村)
 * Hayatahara (早田原村)
 * Hara (原村)
 * Higashishiwa (東志和村)
 * Higashitakaya (東高屋村)
 * Higashino (東野村)
 * Hiro (広村)
 * Misonou (御薗宇村)
 * Mitsu (三津村)
 * Mitsuguchi (三津口村)
 * Yoshikawa (吉川村)
 * Yoshitomi (吉土実村)
 * Yokkaichijirōmaru (四日市次郎丸村)

(Total of 39 villages)

Timeline (April 1, 1889~March 31, 1956)

 * April 1, 1889 - Municipal status enforcement. They were 39 villages within the district.
 * April 17, 1889 - The village of Shimoichi was renamed and elevated to town status to become the town of Takehara (1 town, 38 villages).
 * October 1, 1890 - The village of Yokkaichijirōmaru was renamed and elevated to town status to become the town of Saijō (2 towns, 37 villages).
 * April 12, 1893 - The village of Mitsu was elevated to town status to become the town of Mitsu (3 towns, 36 villages).
 * January 1, 1896 - The village of Uchinoumi was elevated to town status to become the town of Uchinoumi (4 towns, 35 villages).
 * May 1, 1897 - The village of Aga was elevated to town status to become the town of Aga (5 towns, 34 villages).
 * January 1, 1907 - The village of Nigata was elevated to town status to become the town of Nigata (6 towns, 33 villages).
 * January 1, 1922 - The village of Kawajiri was elevated to town status to become the town of Kawajiri (7 towns, 32 villages).
 * January 1, 1922 - The town of Mitsuguchi was elevated to town status to become the town of Mitsuguchi (8 towns, 31 villages).
 * April 1, 1928 - The city of Kure absorbed the town of Aga, and the towns of Kegoya and Yoshiura (both from Aki District) (7 towns, 31 villages).
 * January 1, 1929 - The village of Uchinoumiato was renamed as the village of 安登村.
 * July 1, 1939 - The town of Saijō absorbed the villages of Shitami, Misonou, Yoshitomi and Teranishi to create the town of Saijō (7 towns, 27 villages).
 * April 21, 1941 - The village of Kure absorbed the town of Nigata, and the village of Hiro (6 towns, 26 villages).
 * April 1, 1942 - The villages of Nakagiri and Noro were merged to create the village of Noro (6 towns, 25 villages).
 * January 1, 1943 - The town of Mitsu, and the village of Hayatahara were merged with the village of Kidani (from Toyota District) to create the town of Akitsu (6 towns, 24 villages).
 * January 1, 1944 - The towns of Uchinoumi and Mitsuguchi, and the village of Noro were merged to create the town of Yasuura (5 towns, 23 villages).
 * April 1, 1950 - The localities of Saijōhigashi and Teraie (within the town of Saijō) were split from Saijō to become the village of Teranishi (5 towns, 24 villages).
 * June 10, 1950 - The village of Zōga absorbed the village of Tono (from Toyota District).
 * March 1, 1951 - The village of Kumanoato was moved to Aki District (5 towns, 23 villages. Later the town merged into the city of Hiroshima on November 1, 1974)
 * April 1, 1952 - The town of Takehara absorbed the village of Shimono to create the town of Takehara (5 towns, 22 villages).
 * April 1, 1952 - The village of Teranishi was elevated to town status to become the town of Teranishi (6 towns, 21 villages).
 * March 31, 1954 - The villages of Nishitakaya and Higashitakaya were merged to create the village of Takaya (6 towns, 20 villages).
 * March 31, 1954 - The villages of Kamikurose, Shimokurose, Nakakurose and Nominoo were merged to create the town of Kurose (7 towns, 16 villages).
 * March 31, 1954 - The town of Takehara absorbed the village of Higashino and the village of Ōnori and parts of the village of Minamigata (all from Toyota District) (7 towns, 15 villages).
 * January 1, 1955 - The town of Saijō absorbed the localities of Shimominaga and Kamiminaga from the village of Kanaga (7 towns, 14 villages).
 * March 31, 1955 - The town of Takehara absorbed the village of Shōno, and the village of Tamari (from Toyota District) were to create the town of Takehara (7 towns, 13 villages).
 * March 31, 1955 - The town of Kurose absorbed the locality 小多田・国近 from the village of Itaki.
 * March 31, 1955 - The town of Saijō absorbed the villages of Gōda and Itaki (excluding 小多田・国近). At this point, the village of Itaki dissolved (7 towns, 11 villages).
 * March 31, 1955 - The village of Takaya absorbed the village of 小谷村 (from Toyota District) and was elevated to town status to become the town of Takaya (8 towns, 10 villages).
 * August 1, 1955 - The villages of Shiwahori, Nishishiwa and Higashishiwa were merged to form the town of Shiwa (9 towns, 7 villages).

As of March 31, 1956 (before the change to the municipalities within both Kamo and Toyota Districts)

 * Akitsu (安芸津町) → Moved to Toyota District (merged into the city of Higashihiroshima on February 7, 2005)
 * Kawajiri (川尻町) → Moved to Toyota District (merged into the city of Kure on April 1, 2004)
 * Kurose (黒瀬町) → Remained in Kamo District
 * Saijō (西条町) → Remained in Kamo District
 * Shiwa (志和町) → Remained in Kamo District
 * Takaya (高屋町) → Remained in Kamo District
 * Takehara (竹原町) → Moved to Toyota District (merged with the town of Tadanoumi, Toyota District on November 11, 1958, and moved to the city of Takehara)
 * Teranishi (寺西町) → Remained in Kamo District
 * Yasuura (安浦町) → Moved to Toyota District (merged into the city of Kure on March 20, 2005)
 * Ato (安登村) → Moved to Toyota District (split and merged into the towns of Kawajiri and Yasuura, Toyota District, on April 1, 1958, and dissolved)
 * Kanaga (賀永村) → Moved to Toyota District (split and merged into the town of Saijō, Kamo District, and the town of Takehara, Toyota District, on September 30, 1956, and dissolved)
 * Kawakami (川上村) → Remained in Kamo District
 * Gōhara (郷原村) → Remained in Kamo District
 * Zōga (造賀村) → Remained in Kamo District
 * Hara (原村) → Remained in Kamo District
 * Yoshikawa (吉川村) → Remained in Kamo District

(Total of 9 towns, 7 villages)

As of April 1, 1956 (after the change to the municipalities within both Kamo and Toyota Districts)

 * Kurose (黒瀬町)
 * Kōchi (河内町)
 * Saijō (西条町)
 * Shiwa (志和町)
 * Daiwa (大和町)
 * Takaya (高屋町)
 * Teranishi (寺西町)
 * Toyosaka (豊栄町)
 * Fukutomi (福富町)
 * Kawakami (川上村)
 * Gōhara (郷原村)
 * Zōga (造賀村)
 * Nyūno (入野村)
 * Hara (原村)
 * Yoshikawa (吉川村)

(Total of 9 towns, 6 villages)

Timeline (April 1, 1956~March 22, 2005)

 * April 1, 1956 - 4 towns and 1 village within Toyota District moved to Kamo District, while 4 towns and 2 villages within Kamo District moved to Toyota District. At this time, the district had 9 towns and 6 villages.
 * September 1, 1956 - The villages of Kawakami, Hara and Yoshikawa were merged to create the town of Hachihonmatsu (10 towns, 3 villages).
 * September 30, 1956 - The town of Kōchi absorbed the village of Nyūno (10 towns, 2 villages).
 * September 30, 1956 - The town of Saijō absorbed parts of the locality of Nika from the village of Kanaga (the remaining parts merged into the town of Takehara).
 * October 1, 1956 - The city of Kure absorbed the village of Gōhara, the town of Tennō, and the village of Shōwa (from Aki District) (10 towns, 1 village).
 * January 1, 1958 - The town of Takaya absorbed the village of Zōga (10 towns).
 * October 1, 1959 - The town of Saijō absorbed the town of Teranishi (9 towns).
 * April 20, 1974 - The towns of Saijō, Shiwa, Takaya and Hachihonmatsu were merged to create the city of Higashihiroshima (5 towns).
 * February 7, 2005 - The towns of Fukutomi, Kurose, Kōchi and Toyosaka, along with the town of Akitsu (from Toyota District) were merged into the expanded city of Higashihiroshima (1 town).
 * March 22, 2005 - The town of Daiwa, along with the town of Hongō (from Toyota District), and the town of Kui (from Mitsugi District), was merged into the expanded city of Mihara. Kamo District was dissolved as a result of this merger.

title: Kamo District, Hiroshima


text:
Hongō, Hiroshima

Hongō (本郷町) was a town located in Toyota District, Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan

As of 2003, the town had an estimated population of 10,991 and a density of 133.73 persons per km2. The total area was 82.19 km2.

On March 22, 2005, Hongō, along with the town of Daiwa (from Kamo District), and the town of Kui (from Mitsugi District), was merged into the expanded city of Mihara and no longer exists as an independent municipality.

title: Hongō, Hiroshima


text:
Akitsu, Hiroshima

Akitsu (安芸津町) was a town located in Toyota District, Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan.

As of 2003, the town had an estimated population of 12,023 and a density of 184.74 persons per km2. The total area was 65.08 km2.

On February 7, 2005, Akitsu, along with the towns of Fukutomi, Kōchi, Kurose and Toyosaka (all from Kamo District), was merged into the expanded city of Higashihiroshima and no longer exists as independent municipalities.

Akitsu's local specialties include oysters and potatoes.

title: Akitsu, Hiroshima


text:
Robert F. Overmyer

Robert Franklyn "Bob" Overmyer (July 14, 1936 – March 22, 1996) was an American test pilot, naval aviator, aeronautical engineer, physicist, United States Marine Corps officer, and USAF/NASA astronaut. Overmyer was selected by the Air Force as an astronaut for its Manned Orbiting Laboratory in 1966. Upon cancellation of the program in 1969, he became a NASA astronaut and served support crew duties for the Apollo program, Skylab program, and Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. In 1976, he was assigned to the Space Shuttle program and flew as pilot on STS-5 in 1982 and as commander on STS-51-B in 1985. He was selected as a lead investigator into the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster in 1986, retiring from NASA that same year. A decade later, Overmyer died while testing the Cirrus VK-30 homebuilt aircraft.

Early life and education
Overmyer was born on July 14, 1936, to Rolandus Overmyer (1906–1967) and Margaret June Overmyer ( Fabian; 1909–1979) in Lorain, Ohio, but considered Westlake, Ohio, his hometown. Overmyer was active in the Boy Scouts of America and earned the rank of First Class. He graduated from Westlake High School in 1954 and earned a Bachelor of Science degree in physics from Baldwin–Wallace College in 1958, and a Master of Science degree in aeronautics with a major in aeronautical engineering from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in 1964.

Marine Corps
Overmyer entered active duty with the Marine Corps in January 1958. After completing Navy flight training in Kingsville, Texas, he was assigned to VMA-214 in November 1959. He was assigned to the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in 1962 to study aeronautical engineering. Upon completion of his graduate studies, he served one year with Marine Maintenance Squadron 17 at MCAS Iwakuni, Japan before being assigned to the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base, California. He was chosen as an astronaut for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) program in 1966.

Overmyer logged over 7,500 flight hours, with over 6,000 in jet aircraft.

NASA
The MOL program was canceled in 1969 and Overmyer was selected as part of NASA Astronaut Group 7, where his first assignment was engineering development on the Skylab Program from 1969 to 1971. From 1971–72, he was a support crew member for Apollo 17 and was the launch capsule communicator (CAPCOM). From 1973–75, he was a support crew member for the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project and was the NASA CAPCOM in the mission control center in Moscow. In 1976, he was assigned duties on the space shuttle Approach and Landing Tests (ALT) program and was the prime T-38 Talon chase pilot for Orbiter Free-Flights 1 and 3. In 1979, he was assigned as the deputy vehicle manager of OV-102 (Columbia) in charge of finishing the manufacturing and tiling of Columbia at the Kennedy Space Center in preparation for its first flight. This assignment lasted until Columbia was transported to the launch pad in 1980.

STS-5
Overmyer was the pilot for STS-5, the first fully operational flight of the shuttle program, which launched from Kennedy Space Center, Florida, on November 11, 1982. He was accompanied by spacecraft commander Vance D. Brand and two mission specialists, Joseph P. Allen and William B. Lenoir. STS-5, the first mission with a four-man crew, clearly demonstrated the shuttle as fully operational by the successful first deployment of two commercial communications satellites from the orbiter's payload bay. The mission marked the first use of the Payload Assist Module (PAM-D) and its new ejection system. Numerous flight tests were performed throughout the mission to document shuttle performance during launch, boost, orbit, atmospheric entry and landing phases. STS-5 was the last flight to carry the Development Flight Instrumentation (DFI) package to support flight testing. A Getaway Special, three Student Involvement Projects and medical experiments were also included on the mission. The STS-5 crew successfully concluded the five-day orbital flight of Columbia with the first entry and landing through a cloud deck to a hard-surface runway and demonstrated maximum braking. Mission duration was 122 hours before landing on a concrete runway at Edwards Air Force Base, California, on November 16, 1982.

STS-51-B
Overmyer was the commander of STS-51-B, the Spacelab-3 (SL-3) mission. He commanded a crew of four astronauts and two payload specialists conducting a broad range of scientific experiments from space physics to the suitability of animal holding facilities. STS-51-B was also the first shuttle flight to launch a small payload from a "Getaway Special" canister. STS-51-B launched at 12:02 p.m. EDT on April 29, 1985, from Kennedy Space Center, Florida, and landed at Edwards Air Force Base, California, at 9:11 a.m. PDT on May 6, 1985. STS-51-B completed 110 orbits of Earth at an altitude of 190 nautical miles.

In 1986, Overmyer was involved in the recovery of the Challenger disaster crew remains and was also one of NASA's lead investigators into the incident.

Overmyer retired from NASA and the Marine Corps in May 1986.

Post NASA
After retiring from the space industry, Overmyer commenced his own consulting business, Mach Twenty Five International, Inc. He consulted with major aerospace corporations and the National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) as well as writing a column for the British magazine Space Flight News. In March 1988, he joined the Space Station Team at McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, where he led crew and operations activities for seven years. He retired from McDonnell Douglas in April 1995 and expanded the scope of Mach Twenty Five International, continuing his aerospace consultation work as well as speaking engagements and writing.

Test pilot
Overmyer continued his career as a general aviation test pilot. Having former experience with aeronautical testing at both U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School and NASA, he joined Duluth, Minnesota-based aircraft manufacturer Cirrus Design (now called Cirrus Aircraft) as a test pilot in November 1995. He contributed to stall testing of the company's first design, the Cirrus VK-30 kit aircraft, which first flew in 1988. He also performed early certification testing for the Cirrus SR20, which was certified in 1998 and helped pioneer the use of glass cockpits, composite materials and ballistic parachutes in the light production aircraft industry.

Death and family
Overmyer died in a plane crash on March 22, 1996, near the Duluth International Airport while testing the VK-30. He was testing the plane's wing for full-flap stall recovery characteristics at aft center of gravity limits when the aircraft departed controlled flight. He was interred at Arlington National Cemetery and is survived by his wife, Katherine, and three children: Carolyn Marie (born 1966), Patricia Ann (born 1968), and Robert Rolandus (born 1970).

Organizations and honors
Overmyer was a member of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots, Experimental Aircraft Association, and Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.

He was awarded the Air Force Meritorious Service Medal in 1969 for duties with the USAF Manned Orbiting Laboratory program; the Marine Corps Meritorious Service Medal in 1978 for duties as the chief chase pilot and support crewman for the Shuttle Approach and Landing Test Program; an Honorary Doctor of Philosophy degree from Baldwin–Wallace College, December 1982; the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School Distinguished Engineers Award in January 1983; the Distinguished Flying Cross (1983); and the NASA Space Flight Medal (1983).

There is an Ohio Historical Marker in Clague Park, Westlake, Ohio, commemorating his life and career.

title: Robert F. Overmyer


text:
Yasuura, Hiroshima

Yasuura (安浦町) was a town located in Toyota District, Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan.

As of 2003, the town had an estimated population of 12,596 and a density of 198.27 persons per km2. The total area was 63.53 km2.

On March 20, 2005, Yasuura, along with the towns of Ondo, Kurahashi and Kamagari (all from Aki District), and the towns of Toyohama and Yutaka (all from Toyota District), was merged into the expanded city of Kure and no longer exists as an independent municipality.

title: Yasuura, Hiroshima


text:
Kawajiri, Hiroshima

Kawajiri (川尻町) was a town located in Toyota District, Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan.

As of 2003, the town had an estimated population of 10,017 and a density of 594.48 persons per km2. The total area was 16.85 km2.

On April 1, 2004, Kawajiri was merged into the expanded city of Kure and no longer exists as an independent municipality.

title: Kawajiri, Hiroshima


text:
Toyohama, Hiroshima

Toyohama (豊浜町) was a town located in Toyota District, Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan.

As of 2003, the town had an estimated population of 2,065 and a density of 177.25 persons per km2. The total area was 11.65 km2.

On March 20, 2005, Toyohama, along with the towns of Ondo, Kurahashi and Kamagari (all from Aki District), and the towns of Yasuura and Yutaka (all from Toyota District), was merged into the expanded city of Kure and no longer exists as an independent municipality.

title: Toyohama, Hiroshima