text:
Rosemary Brown

Rosemary Brown may refer to:

 * Rosemary Brown (Canadian politician) (1940–2003), first black woman to be elected to a provincial legislature in Canada
 * Rosemary Brown (spiritualist) (1916–2001), English composer, reportedly a transcriber of the musical works of deceased composers
 * Rosemary Brown (born 1951), birth name of the singer and Irish presidential candidate Dana Rosemary Scallon
 * Rose Browne (1897–1986), African-American engineer, educator and author
 * Rosemary Brown (swimmer) (born 1961), Australian swimmer
 * Rosemary Brown (American politician) (born 1970), Republican member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives
 * Rosemary Fowler (née Brown), British physicist

title: Rosemary Brown


text: Talk:Rosemary Brown

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

title: Talk:Rosemary Brown


text:
Dulce

Dulce may refer to:

Places

 * Dulce, New Mexico, United States, a census-designated place
 * Dulce Base, in conspiracy theories a secret American military facility near the census-designated place
 * Golfo Dulce, Costa Rica
 * Dulce River (disambiguation)

People

 * Dulce (given name)
 * Dulce (footballer), Brazilian footballer Dúlcia Maria Davi (born 1982)
 * Dulce (Filipino singer), stage name of Filipino singer and actress Maria Abellare Llamedo-Cruzata (born 1961)
 * Dulce (Mexican singer), Mexican singer and actress Bertha Noeggerath Cárdenas (born 1955)
 * Dulce Gardenia, stage name of Mexican professional wrestler Javier Márquez Gómez (born 1992)

Music

 * Dulce (album), by Sun City Girls, or the title song, 1998
 * "Dulce" (song), by Francisca Valenzuela, 2006

Food and drink

 * Dulce (wine), a sweet variety of sparkling wine

title: Dulce


text:
West Lebanon

West Lebanon may refer to:
 * West Lebanon, Indiana, United States
 * West Lebanon, New Hampshire, United States
 * West Lebanon, Ohio, an unincorporated community
 * West Lebanon, Pennsylvania, United States

title: West Lebanon


text:
Forest Recreation Ground

The Forest Recreation Ground is an open space and recreation ground in Nottingham, England, approximately one mile north of the city centre. This urban space is bounded by the neighbourhoods of Forest Fields to the north, Mapperley Park to the east, Arboretum to the south and Hyson Green to the west. It is best known as the site of the city's famous annual Goose Fair.

History
The name "Forest" derives comes from the Middle Ages when the land that is now a recreation ground was part of the Sherwood Forest that once extended from the city of Nottingham to the north of Nottinghamshire. The site was the southernmost part of Sherwood Forest and was part of the open area known formerly as "The Lings" which, largely covered by gorse and scrub, extended into the parishes of Lenton, Radford and Basford.

The site of the Forest was one of the original areas to be protected in perpetuity by the 1845 Nottingham Inclosure Act, which set aside some 80 acre of Sherwood Forest for public recreational use. In commemoration, the Mayor of Nottingham planted the "Inclosure Oak" which can still be seen at the Mansfield Road entrance to the Forest. Joseph Paxton, a leading gardener and architect of the nineteenth century, was responsible for the criss-cross formation of walkways.

For over 300 years the Forest has been home to sport, including horse racing, cricket and football. It was home to Nottingham Racecourse by 1773, and it remained there until it moved to its current location at Colwick, south east of Nottingham, at the end of the 19th century. Nottingham Forest Football Club first played their games on the Forest after their formation in 1865, hence the club's name.

Standing at the Mansfield Road entrance is Forest Lodge, built in 1857. This Grade II listed building was originally used as a Police or Keeper's Lodge and a police cell can still be seen at basement level. A red granite monument stands at the Monument Gate on Forest Road East, commemorating the fallen of the Boer War.

By comparison with its sporting heritage, the use of the Forest for the city's traditional Goose Fair is relatively recent. The fair has existed since at least 1541, but it only moved to the Forest in 1928, from its previous long term home in the city's Old Market Square.

Cultural events
The city's Goose Fair is held on the Forest in October of every year. Other smaller travelling fairs and circuses take place on the recreation ground throughout the year, usually coinciding with local school holidays.

Sports and recreation
The Forest Recreation Ground boasts floodlit hard surface courts and grass pitches for ball games, and a traditional bowling lawn. There is also an enclosed children's playground. These facilities are maintained by Nottingham City Council.

Parkrun
A parkrun is run at the grounds each week.

Flora and fauna
The Forest Recreation Ground supports many important habitats and species. Mature trees include turkey oak, English elm, English oak, sessile oak, rowan, silver birch, common lime and horse chestnut. Additionally, there have been more recent plantings of London plane, beech, various maples and silver lime. Perennials include autumn crocus, spring crocus, bluebell, ramsons, primrose, wild privet, hazel and guelder rose.

Certain parts of the Forest play host to relic meadow flora such as meadow foxtail, short-stemmed meadow-grass, Yorkshire fog, red clover, white clover, oxeye daisy, germander speedwell and meadow saxifrage.

With such an abundance of habitat, the Forest attracts many birds such as nuthatches, treecreepers, mistle thrushes, tawny owls, song thrushes, great spotted woodpeckers and chaffinches.

The caves of the Rock Cemetery are a Geological County Wildlife Site. The thin turf here supports early and silver hairgrass, harebells, bird's-foot trefoil and spiked sedge. Conspicuous insects include the holly blue, hornets and cockchafer beetles.

Public transport
The Forest is home to a park-and-ride site, with spaces for more than 950 cars. Nottingham Express Transit's Forest tram stop is adjacent to the car park, and provides frequent services to and from the city centre and other city locations.

Restoration of the Forest
As with much urban parkland, the Forest has been threatened by development. Proposals for a recreation centre, to be built on the eastern fringes of the Forest, were rejected following public opposition to loss of green space. However, mature trees and greenery at the northwest corner of the ground have been cut down to provide 989 parking spaces for the Park & Ride that serves the "Forest" stop for Nottingham Express Transit.

As at summer 2008, the Forest was the subject of a public consultation to decide on regeneration priorities, to be funded by an expected Heritage Lottery Fund award. For the last four years, Nottingham City Council and Nottingham's Partnership Council have worked on plans to restore the parkland to its former glory and to better serve the needs of today's park users. The project is also backed by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) and by local organisations such as Friends of the Forest.

The Forest's £5.2 million restoration project was completed during September 2013. The project encompassed: the restoration and refurbishment of the lodge (now office space) and the pavilion (which now houses a new café, public toilets and office space); the reparation and improvement of footpaths; replacement of park benches, improvements to access to sporting facilities; the amelioration of lighting and security; the expansion of planting areas; and the creation of higher-quality activity areas for young people. Additionally, railings were erected, for example the new green-coloured metal fences next to the bus stop near the Forest's Mansfield Road entrance, as well as the custom panelled columns. In design, these railings are very similar to the historic ones nearby.

The final phase of the Forest project created a sports zone with new sports pitches and changing rooms, paid for by the Premier League, the Football Association and Sport England. Work started on the sports zone in November 2014 and completed on 28 October 2015 with an opening event and the unveiling of a plaque in memory of local community activist Jim Taylor who was a driving force behind the project.

Friends of the Forest
‘Friends of the Forest’ is a not-for-profit organisation, funded by donations and public subscription. It supports efforts to maintain the Forest as an accessible, open, green space which has historic importance for the City of Nottingham. Friends of the Forest has worked with Nottingham City Council to prioritise refurbishment and replanting, and to organise voluntary activities that benefit the Forest and increase local awareness of green issues.

title: Forest Recreation Ground


text:
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Archive 2.1

See Arbitration policy

Looks good
Bravo for coming up with a clear and fair policy (not that I had doubts you would). I am sure we could quibble all day long on minor issues, but the core of it is, I believe the policies here are fair and will result in fair arbitration. Whether or not it is "optimal" is not the point (I say this in an attempt to forestall an interminal argument here over the minutiae of the policy) -- it is good, and that's what I want. Thank you. Jwrosenzweig 00:32, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks Jw. If a few more people respond along similar lines, we should be able to get onto a solid basis pretty soon. :) Martin 01:35, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Terminology
Instead of the word "trial", perhaps a better term would be "hearing"? The first word implies that law is being meted out, while the second does not imply that, & is less formal or intimidating. After all, the worst the Arbitration Committee can is ban someone from Wikipedia, not to deprive that person of life, liberty or property. -- llywrch 03:18, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * That sounds like a good idea, Llywrch. I'll make the change. Martin 21:15, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Now to change the words in the body. (I'd do it myself, but I don't want to set a precedent for non-Arbitration folks messing witht he meta page.) -- llywrch 00:25, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Done it (I think, unless I missed some). --Camembert 00:34, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Expression of concern
Generally, I think the policy looks good, but the last provision under "Who takes part" bothers me. I recognize that if arbitrators are to act as a panel, it's better that at least a majority of the panel participate. But if a majority is subject to recusal, it doesn't feel right to ignore that and proceed as if there weren't any issues about the potential fairness of the arbitrators. Especially if most of the potential recusals fall "on one side" of the dispute. A decision by a panel that should have recused itself could be viewed as highly unjust. Rather, since I think such a scenario would be very unusual, the solution could be to consult with Jimbo before proceeding, and perhaps allow substitute arbitrators for the occasion. --Michael Snow 22:57, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, I see what you mean. The thinking behind that part of the policy was that if a user in arbitration had made such a nuisance of himself that virtually every regular Wikipedian (including arbitrators) were affected, it wouldn't be practical or particularly useful for arbitrators to recuse themselves simply because they were in the same position as everyone else. The idea, I think, is that the chances of a majority of arbitrators having conflicts of interest under any other circumstances would be vanishingly small. But the policy could probably be worded to deal with that possibility more directly, and certainly your idea of consulting Jimbo before going on seems a good one (in the short term at the very least). I won't change the policy just now, however, partly to see if anyone else has any ideas, partly out of laziness. --Camembert 23:26, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure whether us arbitrator's being basically good people is likely to convince you at all, but I would like to think that we could judge a case fairly even in that (unlikely) set of circumstances.
 * Incidentally, Jimbo has a general veto on all arbitration decisions anyway, so if he felt that we were being unfair in the manner you describe, then he'd veto us. Martin 23:49, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I sort of suspected that the scenario Camembert describes had influenced this particular provision. I think the real solution is implied in that comment. Namely, that in cases involving particularly obnoxious vandals, who might call for mass recusals, that arbitrators resist the temptation to recuse themselves out of an abundance of caution. I'm not sure if my distinction is clear, but in this situation I would prefer that arbitrators decline to recuse themselves (even though somebody may request it), rather than recusing themselves and then reconstituting the panel with the recused members afterward. As for Martin's comment, my concern here is about the process, and not due to any doubts about the good faith of the arbitrators or the limits on their authority. --Michael Snow 00:10, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Hmm, I think you're proposing an aesthetic change then - the practical effects would be similar (we'd still be able to judge such cases), but I can see that it has a nicer feel. Also, it would mean that if six had some conflict of interest and one had huge, major, life-threatening conflicts of interest, then we'd go forward with one recusal, not none. Do I understand you right? Martin 00:27, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, I think you do. Reasonable people will understand that Arbitrator X doesn't have to recuse herself just because she once reverted one of Vandal Y's edits. Whereas going forward with a panel full of huge, major conflicts of interest seems like a very bad idea. (And I certainly hope nobody's conflict of interest ever becomes life-threatening.) --Michael Snow 00:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've removed that point, and replaced it with "Arbitrators will not be required to recuse themselves for trivial reasons - merely reverting an edit of a user in arbitration, for example, will likely not be seen as a serious enough conflict of interest to make recusal necessary." Does that seem OK? We can fiddle with it some more if not. --Camembert

 * The problem with the removal of this point is that we are now somewhat hamstrung in the case of a troll deliberatly targetting the Arbitrators; if he sucessfully pisses off enough of the Arbitrators that they feel that they should recuse themselves, then there will be no ability to hand down a decision &emdash; the troll would only be 'legally' blocked by decree of the Board.
 * Yes, I admit, this is a possibly unlikely situation, but still...
 * James F. (talk) 00:57, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I would say that if a troll targeted an arbitrator by, for example, sending them nasty emails and calling them names and the arbitrator didn't respond, then that is trivial, and said arbitrator should not feel the need to recuse themselves. It's tricky, of course, because what counts as "trivial" is a matter of opinion, but I don't see how we can be more objective without really losing flexibility. If you, James, or Michael, or anybody really, can come up with something better, then by all means change it (if you just want to revert to what we had before, then I won't mind that either - I may have been a little too bold in just making the change as I did). --Camembert

 * I'm happy to concede that my concerns are probably moot, and that there's probably no better way of phrasing it :-)
 * James F. (talk) 11:01, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * As currently phrased, it's at least good enough to resolve my concerns. If the arbitrators are alert in how they handle recusals, I'm fairly confident the committee will never have a situation where a majority will feel compelled to recuse themselves. And if that did happen, I think the emergency would warrant bypassing arbitration and taking the problem directly to Jimbo and/or the Board. Trolls can target arbitrators all they want, but I certainly would argue that it's not the conduct of the litigant that determines whether recusal is necessary, it's really the conduct of the arbitrator that matters. Accordingly, this depends on the arbitrators exercising good judgment in all their Wikipedia activities, because everything you do will reflect on your ability to serve as an arbitrator. --Michael Snow 16:54, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Binding referral
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote "let us invest the Mediation Committee with an explicit power of binding referral to the Arbitration Committee".

 * My guess is that this is motivated by the "emergency session" situation, where a mediator would try and refer something, and Jimbo wouldn't do anything. I'd imagine that once we are official, mediators referring a case would lead to four votes to accept in short order.

 * However, we could make that official, so referrals from the mediation committee would be automatically accepted. I'm unsure on the issue.

 * The policy already states "The arbitrators will hear disputes that have been referred to it by the mediation committee", but that's a guideline. Perhaps it should be an absolute rule? Martin 13:28, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cross-posted to the mailing list: I completely agree with Cimon. If participants in mediation have followed all the steps of the dispute resolution process, mediation has failed, and the mediation committee recommends arbitration, is there any reason the arbitrators still need to vote on whether to accept the case? Can they not trust the mediation committee to make these referrals?

The necessity to go through the additional stage of voting on acceptance of cases seems a waste of time if the mediators have already decided that arbitration is the best route for the person they are referring. I'm not saying they can't veto the referral if they really think that's best, but couldn't the default be acceptance of cases we refer to them rather than the insistence of a vote every time? Angela. 14:07, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * I completely agree that the mediation committee needs to be able to directly refer cases to the arbitration committee. The mediation and arbitration committees are an important step forward and hve been doing good work, but for them to operate well, it seems that there needs to be more of a feeling among Wikipedians that they are effective. While it's clear that everyone involved has been working hard, having to wait for Jimbo to refer cases seems to have become a structural problem; many have felt that "things are on hold" or "nothing is happening" and problems remain unresolved and/or continue until the committees can come to the end of the process for a given problem.

 * I also think that this change should acompany a lighter touch in general by sysops and developers on the one hand, and adoption of things like the three-revert rule so that some of the more tedious and tenacious conflicts (like edit wars) can be reined in on the other.

 * I think these steps will increase the effectiveness of all the energy that's being put into keeping them moving forward and staying active. By developing some clarifications of guidelines to help make the various systems and groups that keep Wikipedia functioning well (sysops, bureaucrats, developers, the two committees, and Jimbo's role), I'm certain that we can all work together better than they are currently doing. BCorr ? Брайен 14:47, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * The referral from Jimbo is a temporary feature. When the proposed arbitration policy goes live, we can accept requests by anyone, not just Jimbo, provided that there are four votes to accept. Martin 15:17, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * The arbitration committe must control its own docket and not have matters forced on them. Ask yourself, what kind of a case would not receive the approval of four arbitrators? Fred Bauder 17:31, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * It is less a case of whether the referral would get four votes, but more about the time that it takes for the voting and acceptance of a case to occur. Is this additional step of voting necessary if the case has been referred from the mediation committee?

 * Also, why does the policy say "The arbitrators will hear disputes that have been referred to it by the mediation committee" if that is not always going to be the case? Either it should be the case, or you should change it to say you will only accept it where the mediation committee refers it to you and it gets four votes. Angela. 20:18, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * It expresses our policy that such matters will ordinarily be heard, but we reserve the option to not hear a matter as we have in the case of some matters referred by Jimbo. Remember the parties to the dispute must still frame some issue we think we might be able to decide. Fred Bauder 20:54, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

What do you suggest we do when a conflict is not fixed by mediation (or rejected by mediators) and rejected by arbitration ? Do we then refer to Jimbo ? Do we individually fix it ? Do we set another committee to do so ? Are do we just try to forget about it ? FirmLittleFluffyThing

 * Generally, I'd anticipate rejecting and referring cases: perhaps to the courts, perhaps to Jimbo, perhaps to a community vote, perhaps to community consensus. Martin 00:02, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good work
I like all of it, a job very well done! My questions are relating to how new arbitrators would be chosen, how they would step down, and when such circumstances would occur. Would the number of arbitrators stay constant? Also, another side issue (and vitally important one I'd say!) is when will ee have an arbitration commitee for article content disputes? There are many situations where reasonable people disagree, and the present arbitration commitee seems geared entirely towards the unreasonable amongst us ;) Anyhow, thank you for your integrity, and keep up the good work! Cheers, Sam Spade 19:59, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Jimbo, when he selected us for the roles, split us into three groups (I term them 'tranches', for want of a better term); he said that future Arbitrators will be selected by election, one tranche per year-end — I, being of tranche alpha, will have my position up for election in some 9 months or so. As to how nominations are to be made, who will be allowed to stand, whether sitting members will be allowed to stand for continued membership, whether former Arbitrators can stand, and if so, after what period of rest, how many Arbitrators we will need in future, whether we use a FPTP or STV or otherwise voting system, and many other things, these are Yet To Be Decided (tm). However, two of our number have unilaterally stepped down since the beginning, now; whether this will trigger a by-election in future, well, perhaps. Feel free to start suggesting things on a new page, such as Wikipedia talk:Arbitrator Committee selection proceedure or whatever.
 * As for article disputes, we do take them on; we merely forsee that it is unlikely that this will be the bulk of our work.
 * James F. (talk) 23:04, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I think the details of this will be dealt with by Jimbo-fiat towards Autumn: it'll want to tie in with mediator elections, and perhaps elections to the Wikimedia boards too. Martin 00:02, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Ahh, mediators already have an election process. So it's just us who are lagging. Martin 00:51, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Purge required
I wish to call for a purge of the arbitration committee. All active members have demonstrated partiality, and three in particular have been so derelict that nothing short of their immediate expulsion or resignation would be acceptable.

Before I take the trouble to spell out the charges, however, I would like to be told where such complaints should be filed. Shorne 19:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Injunctions
It seems that the ArbComm is moving towards a general practice of imposing temporary injunctions (which expire once the ArbComm comes to a final decision on the arbitration matter) against *both* the complainant and the respondent banning both of them from editing certain articles. Such a policy, to my mind, a) will have the effect of discouraging complainants from coming forward in the first place - why make a complaint if you will effectively be punished for doing so b) is at odds with judicial and quasi-judicial practice at least in the Anglo-Saxon and American derived legal systems which most editors on the English language wikipedia are accustomed to c) may have the effect of "blaming the victim" or at least punishing him or her. I would propose that either a) such deliberation related injunctions against the complainant not be permitted under ArbComm policy or b) at the very least they be as narrow as possible ie only relating to article(s) in which the parties involved in the complaint have actually been in conflict or which are *very* closely related. I brought an ArbComm complaint against another editor for personal attacks. Without any finding of fact I am now facing a temporary injunction from editing any and all articles related to a) flags b) facsism and c) Canada (there are hundreds - maybe thousands of "Canada"-related articles) despite the fact that the only sites of dispute (indeed the only articles that the complainant edits) are those related to flags. This strikes me as unjust and I am considering withdrawing my request for arbitration as a result. (see Requests for arbitration/ArmchairVexillologistDon/Proposed decision AndyL 13:51, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * IMO this is a less a problem with policy than a problem a couple of arbiters have w you. Its pretty clear they disapprove of you generally, and that this case has taken on a life of its own:

 * "...AndyL's edit-warring and POV-pushing need to be considered as well. ➥the Epopt of the Cabal 17:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * ... Agreed. James F. (talk) 22:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)"

 * [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 14:41, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A suggestion for a summary page of Arbitration Committee decisions
The current Arbitration archives looks like it is mostly organized for the benefit and convenience of the Arbitrators. Having dug through those archives so that I could get a better idea of how the Arbitration Committee makes their decisions, and what those decisions might be, I know that it is a tough slog through the archives. It would be great to have some sort of more organized summary of the Arbitration decisions. Creating this summary would be a great way for a couple of the Members Advocates (such as User:Imaglang) to become more familiar with the Arbitration Committee's decisions. It would be nice if the decisions were grouped by the type of decision, and then some sort of template created so that each dispute could be easy understood, with links to the Dispute, Talk, Evidence, and Proposed decision pages, rather than the much condensed format that the Arbitration archives uses. I am also going to put a copy of this suggestion on the talk page for the Assoc. of Members' Advocates. gK ¿? 10:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suggested Change
Considering the degree to which the arbcom still has problems with semi-active members and members who never vote on a case, and considering that the committee is slowing to the glacial pace so unfondly remembered by people from five months ago, I'd like to suggest two possible fixes.

First, that the default position of all arbitrators be assumed as "recuse." That is, until an arbitrator explicitly accepts a case, they are assumed to be recused from that case. If an arbitrator does not vote on a finding or proposal, whether in favor, opposed, or "Neutral - still thinking about it" for, say, a week, assume they're recusing from that specific finding (Which I think should be allowed). This should help keep the necessary majorities to a level consistent with the number of actual arbitrators we have.

Second, that the committee be expanded by 4-8 members. Ideally, this expansion would take place either in parallel with the first idea, or with an explicit note that a vote of 7 arbitrators will always be enough to pass something. The point of these members would be to keep the committee with a functional number of people on every case - not to just increase the number of people who go AWOL.

Otherwise, I have to say, I'm extremely worried about the fact that the committee is so narrowly functional, particularly as the infusion of new blood didn't seem to lead to any sort of lasting solution. Snowspinner 16:30, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Recusal policy
I've been involved in two recent cases where the issue of Arbcom member recusal has been a problem. Currently the Arbitration policy indicates recusals should occur for members who have conflicts of interest, but this policy is vague and essentially unenforceable and leaves it to the member with the conflict of interest to do so voluntarily. This policy is in severe need of stronger definition and clarification, or else it will remain essentially meaningless. Specifically: The policy should also specifically address motions for recusal, indicating that persons requesting recusal need to specifically identify which of these grounds is being used and cite diffs, as well as an enforcement mechanism if the member does not voluntarily recuse himself despite evidence. Rangerdude 23:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Arbcom members who have advocated the position of a party to a case in an earlier stage of dispute resolution (e.g. the original talk page disptue on the article itself, user RfC's, and mediation) should recuse themselves.
 * Arbcom members who are named parties to a Request for Arbitration, who file a Request for Arbitration themselves, or are named participants in the dispute over which Arbitration is being sought should recuse themselves.
 * Arbcom members who have significant adversarial editing relationships outside of Arbitration with a named party outside of Arbitration should recuse themselves.
 * Arbcom members who have significant collegial editing relationships outside of Arbitration with a named party outside of Arbitration should recuse themselves.
 * Arbcom members who have significant personal relationships, be they collegial or adversarial, outside of Wikipedia with a named party outside of Arbitration should recuse themselves.

 * What on earth is a significant collegial relationship, besides what we want to foster between all our editors? Phil Sandifer 00:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * For example: somebody who frequently team edits with an Arbcom member. Also, this has absolutely nothing to do with encouraging or discouraging editors from communicating with each other. It's about whether or not an Arbcom member will be biased in hearing a case because it involves one of his friends. If an Arbcom member and another editor want to work together on lots of articles that's great for regular article development. It doesn't work so well though where fairness is concerned when a friend of an Arbcom member has a case before the Arbcom. Rangerdude 00:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What you are asking encourages arbitrators not to edit, though, if they want to be able to do their work as an arbitrator well. This is tremendously counterproductive. Phil Sandifer 00:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not at all. An arbitrator can still edit all he wants. I simply make the reasonable expectation that he'll recuse himself when a friend is a party in the case. That doesn't mean he has to stop being friends with that person or stop editing other articles with him. It simply means in that particular case there's reason to believe that he might be biased in the way he reviews it due to personal interests. This request is no less reasonable than dismissing a juror who is also the defendant's golfing buddy. Surely you would agree that it would be wrong for an Arbcom member to propose a minor "slap on the wrist" to an editor who did wrong but was his friend when the penalty would be heavier if it were anybody else. Rangerdude 01:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * While I understand your motives, what you have posted above is way too complicated. IMHO what is needed is a policy that says arbitrators must recuse if there is a conflict of interest, and then guidelines on what such a conflict of interest might be with the caveat that if there is any doubt they should err on the side of recusal. The guidelines should be simple, eg: they should recuse if:
 * They are a party to the dispute, or another significant* current or recent dispute with the same user(s) or about the same topic. *one that involves/ed a lengthy RfC, Mediation, or Arbitration is a significant dispute.
 * They have played a significant part in enforcing a previous decision regarding the topic/user(s).
 * Other arbitrators ask them to
 * There is a consensus amoung the parties that they should recuse
 * They do not feel able to be neutral.
 * Above all they should really be common sense. Thryduulf 01:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thryduulf - Thanks for your suggestions. Something along the lines of what you propose would be a great improvement on the present state of things, and I'd happily support them. I'd add one more bullet point:
 * They have a strong personal relationship in real life to one or more users in the dispute. This includes all immediate family, and close personal or professional relationships.

That would give us a recusal policy something along the lines of the following. Rangerdude 05:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Policy Arbcom members should recuse themselves from a case in the event of a conflict of interest involving one or more of the parties to the case. Some conflicts of interest in which an Arbcom member should recuse include if: Above all Arbcom members should use common sense and decide whether their involvement affects the ability of all parties to receive a fair and unbiased hearing. When there is doubt, Arbcom members should err on the side of recusal.
 * They are a party to the dispute, or another significant current or recent dispute with the same user(s) or about the same topic. A significant dispute is defined as any that involves or involved a lengthy RfC, Mediation, or prior Arbitration case.
 * They have played a significant part in enforcing a previous decision regarding the topic or user(s) involved in the Arbitration.
 * Other arbitrators ask them to recuse themselves.
 * There is a consensus among the parties that they should recuse themselves.
 * They have a strong personal relationship in real life to one or more users in the dispute. This includes all immediate family, and close personal or professional relationships.
 * They do not feel the would be able to maintain neutrality while reviewing the case.

Any thoughts, suggestions, or changes?Rangerdude 05:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes. Arbitrators should not err on the side of recusal - it is important not to empower users to start fights with arbitrators they do not want to hear their cases. Phil Sandifer 05:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * How would asking the Arbcom members themselves to err on the side of recusal empower users to start fights? The "common sense" clause at the end of the policy should curtail that. If a user makes a frivolous recusal request that common sense dictates they should disregard, then the arbcom member simply disregards it. If there is a genuine issue of doubt though, requesting them to err on the side of recusal is perfectly legitimate. Might I also ask why you seem so hostile to a more detailed recusal policy when the current one is so inadequate? I don't deny that frivolous recusal requests are undesirable, but right now they are not much of a problem. Arbcom members who should recuse but don't/won't are though in many recent cases. Rangerdude 05:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * We still haven't established that the current policy is "so inadequate". Taking past cases, can anyone cite specific instances of incorrect recusals? -Willmcw 17:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * And more specifically, instances of incorrect results in cases you were not involved in? After all, you're hardly unbiased in your own cases. Phil Sandifer 18:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Fred Bauder participated in Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone despite having been involved in a visible personal dispute in another arbitration request by User:Wilkes the same week this case was accepted. Kelly Martin also recently participated in the Silverback case despite having been in an extensive dispute with Silverback on an RfC, ANI, and at her bureaucrat nomination request. I was not involved in either of those cases, yet both reveal Arbcom members who were unwilling to recuse themselves in cases where their past disputes with the same editors provided sufficient reason to question their impartiality toward those particular editors. In my own experience, Jayjg was a vocal participant in the earlier RfCs and talk page disputes that led to the current Cberlet case. He vocally espoused Cberlet's side in that dispute throughout, making it a classic case for recusal. When asked to do so he also refused. Regardless of where you stand on any of these cases, the aforementioned arbcom members were sufficiently involved to a degree that makes their impartiality questionable. Yet none recused, and all refused specific requests for recusal since the current recusal policy is unspecific and virtually unenforceable. Rangerdude 20:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * "Jayjg was a vocal participant in the earlier RfCs and talk page disputes that led to the current Cberlet case"? Hardly - I believe you managed to find a couple of brief comments made half a year ago. You've also tried to force recusal on entirely different (and even more spurious) grounds. Jayjg (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Note: Jayjg voted in favor of User:Cberlet twice in the user RfC that led to the Arbcom case he refused to recuse himself from . It was half a year old, but so were the other diffs in the same case that Jayjg had no trouble voting in favor of to assess penalties (though strangely none against Cberlet, who he supported from the beginning). Rangerdude 04:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The User:Ted Wilkes instance was not obviously a "personal dispute". The only discussions I see between them relate to arbitration matters. Please provide diffs if you see something else. Regarding Sliverback, it appears as if he picked a fight with Kelly Martin. In neither instance did other members of the ArbCom call for their recusal, nor did all the parties. So all we have are claims by one side of these conflicts. That leaves only the first cause in your list of reasons to recuse. That reason seems so broad that it would restrict the ability of ArbCom members to particiapte in the enforcement of ArbCom decisions. In practice, their involvement has been helpful, particularly when it comes to clarifying the decision or its parameters. Also, it is not clear that in these cases the ultimate disposition would have been any different. In the Silverback case, Martin did not frame the decisions, and her votes mirror those of the rest of the ArbCom. So it is not clear that her participation had any effect on the outcome. The purpose of the ArbCom is not to provide a legal courtroom, it is to deal with editors who disrupt the project. -Willmcw 20:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ted Wilkes filed a RfAr against Fred Bauder. Fred then voted for an arbitration case against Wilkes less than a week later. That's about as personal as it gets. Regarding Silverback, it takes two to fight and Kelly Martin indisputably did her share of it. As to effecting the outcome of the Arbcom, that is a red herring. The issue is impartiality and fairness by a particular member. Rangerdude 21:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So filing an RfAr against an ArbCom member would be a way of forcing them to recuse themselves? That sounds like a bad policy. -Willmcw 02:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Not necessarily. It would depend entirely on how the arbcom member responded to that RfAr. Keep in mind that the proposal says significant disputes, with significant meaning a lengthy and involved mediation, RfC, or arbitration. If the case was truly frivolous, the Arbcom member would simply abstain from voting on it and let the other members of the committee reject it. He could still vote in another case with the same editor who filed it, as he would not have been involved in a substantial dispute. If on the other hand he responded to the RfAr against himself by voting in it (which would be wrong in any circumstance - an Arbcom member should not be able to vote on cases about himself) and by participating in disputes over it, then yes he would need to recuse himself. In Fred's case, his error was voting not to accept Wilkes' RfAr against him. Doing so created a conflict of interest, where there would've been none if he simply let the other Arbcom members decide to reject it. Rangerdude 04:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It is bad policy to have situations such have recently occured, where most of the arbiters should have recused, and yet they did not. It is no "wikilawyering" to ask to be reviewed by a neutral party. Have things gone that far wrong? Sam Spade 03:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree, and lately "wikilawyering" has been tossed around as a pejorative of convenience by Arbcom members as an excuse to dismiss posts by editors who point out that they aren't following their own rules. If we're going to have a recusal policy it needs to be enforced and enforceable. Otherwise they might as well remove the thing. I'd rather be tried before a committee that admitted it was a Star Chamber up front than one that pretends to operate with fairness, impartiality, and freedom from conflict of interest yet disregards those principles whenever they become inconvenient. Power corrupts, and right now there's nothing keeping a check on the power of the Arbcom. Rangerdude 04:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Both the Silverback and the Wilkes cases seem to me clear cases of trolling for recusals. Should an editor go out of their way to piss off members of the arbcom, they ought not be shielded from the consequences of that. Otherwise, it would be far too easy to select the more hardline arbitrators and serially piss them off to obtain a more favorable committee. Phil Sandifer 04:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

 * That assessment is mistaken. The key variable here is not an editor supposedly "trolling for recusals" but rather how the Arbcom member responds. If the Arbcom member responds by staying above the fray and not taking the bait, then no. A recusal would not be necessary at all. But if the Arbcom member jumps in and starts quarreling with the other editor then he has only himself to blame for recusal. Rangerdude 04:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I think your view is very much misguided, and leaves arbitrators crippled in responding to criticism of them. Phil Sandifer 04:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

 * How can it leave an Arbcom member "crippled" if they and they alone are responsible for the way that they address problem users? You seem to want the Arbcom members to have their cake and eat it too - to be able to engage in fights with other editors all over wikipedia and then turn around and impose penalties on the people they fought with for fighting. I'm saying that is inapproprate for self evident reasons, and all this proposal is saying is if you quarrel extensively with a user you shouldn't be able to be the prosecution, judge, and jury against him in a case. That's not an excessive or burdensome restriction on an Arbcom member's freedom - that's responsibility and common sense. Quite frankly, that you would see this simple request as anything other than fair is a very disturbing indicator about the way wikipedia is headed. Rangerdude 04:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

 * No - I want arbitrators to be able to answer users when they are criticized without being accused of bias in later arbcom cases. The moral of this should be simple - don't pick fights with arbitrators. Don't pick fights with anyone, at that, but especially not arbitrators - its dumb. Phil Sandifer 04:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

 * FYI, have the proponents of this policy change read Arbitration policy/Procedure for changing this policy? -Willmcw 04:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Archive 2.1


text:
W. Richard Stevens

William Richard (Rich) Stevens (February 5, 1951 – September 1, 1999) was a Northern Rhodesia–born American author of computer science books, in particular books on Unix and TCP/IP.

Biography
Richard Stevens was born in 1951 in Luanshya, Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia), where his father worked for the copper industry. The family later moved to Salt Lake City, Utah, Hurley, New Mexico, Washington, D.C., and Phalaborwa, South Africa. Stevens attended Fishburne Military School in Waynesboro, Virginia. He received a bachelor's degree in aerospace engineering from the University of Michigan in 1973 and both a master's degree (in 1978) and PhD (in 1982) in systems engineering from the University of Arizona. He moved to Tucson in 1975 where he was employed at Kitt Peak National Observatory as a computer programmer until 1982. From 1982 until 1990 he was Vice President of Computing Services at Health Systems International in New Haven, Connecticut. Stevens moved back to Tucson in 1990 where he pursued his career as an author and consultant. He was also an avid pilot and a part-time flight instructor during the 1970s.

Stevens died in 1999, at the age of 48. In 2000, he was posthumously awarded the USENIX Lifetime Achievement Award.

Books

 * 1990 – UNIX Network Programming – ISBN 0-13-949876-1
 * 1992 – Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment – ISBN 0-201-56317-7
 * 1994 – TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 1: The Protocols – ISBN 0-201-63346-9
 * 1995 – TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 2: The Implementation (with Gary R. Wright) – ISBN 0-201-63354-X
 * 1996 – TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 3: TCP for Transactions, HTTP, NNTP, and the UNIX Domain Protocols – ISBN 0-201-63495-3
 * 1998 – UNIX Network Programming, Volume 1, Second Edition: Networking APIs: Sockets and XTI – ISBN 0-13-490012-X
 * 1999 – UNIX Network Programming, Volume 2, Second Edition: Interprocess Communications – ISBN 0-13-081081-9
 * 2003 – UNIX Network Programming Volume 1, Third Edition: The Sockets Networking API – ISBN 0-13-141155-1 (with Bill Fenner, and Andrew M. Rudoff)
 * 2005 – Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment, Second Edition – ISBN 0-321-52594-9 (with Stephen A. Rago)
 * 2011 – TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 1: The Protocols (2nd Edition) – ISBN 0-321-33631-3 (with Kevin R. Fall)
 * 2013 – Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment, Third Edition – ISBN 0-321-63773-9 (with Stephen A. Rago)

RFCs
Stevens also co-authored several Request for Comments (RFC) documents for the Internet Engineering Task Force, the process by which the Internet's "technical and organizational notes" are disseminated. Stevens' RFCs covered updates to the Berkeley sockets API for IPv6, as well as a standard method of congestion control for TCP sessions.

 * Stevens, W. R., and Thomas, M. 1998. "Advanced Sockets API for IPv6," RFC 2292
 * Gilligan, R. E., Thomson, S., Bound, J., and Stevens, W. R. 1999. "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6," RFC 2553
 * Allman, M., Paxson, V., Stevens, W. R. 1999. "TCP Congestion Control," RFC 2581

title: W. Richard Stevens


text:
Urokotori

A urokotori (うろこ取り) is a utensil used in Japanese cuisine to remove the scales from the skin of fish before cooking. Although it is possible to remove the scales with a knife, this is more difficult and there is a higher risk of cutting the skin of the fish, especially with small fishes; knife-scaling also risks cutting one's hand.

The urokotori is pulled across the skin of the fish from the tail to the head repeatedly to remove the scales.

title: Urokotori


text:
Cavite City

Cavite City, officially the City of Cavite (Lungsod ng Cavite, Spanish and Ciudad de Cavite), is a 2nd class component city in the Philippines. According to the 2020 census, it has a population of 100,674 people.

The city was the capital of Cavite Province from its establishment in 1614 until 1954 when it was transferred to the newly created city of Trece Martires near the center of the province. It began as the small port town of Cavite Puerto that prospered during the early Spanish colonial period, when it served as the main seaport of Manila. It hosted the Manila-Acapulco galleon trade and the port was used for other heavy and large sea-bound ships. Thereafter, San Roque and La Caridad, two formerly independent towns of Cavite province, were added to the city, to form one municipality. Presently, Cavite City now includes the communities of San Antonio (including Cañacao and Sangley Point), the southern districts of Santa Cruz and Dalahican, and the outlying islands of the province, such as the historic Corregidor Island.

Etymology
The city has been known by at least two Tagalog names, the first being Tangway, which was the name given to the area by Tagalog settlers. Tangway simply means "peninsula". The second is Kawit or "hook", referring to the hook-shaped landform along the coast of Bacoor Bay, and from which the Chinese Keit and Spanish Cavite are in turn derived.

Early history
The early inhabitants of Cavite City were the Tagalogs ruled by the Kampilan and the bullhorn of a datu, the tribal form of government. According to folklore, the earliest settlers came from Borneo, led by Gat Hinigiw and his wife Dayang Kaliwanag, who bore seven children. Archaeological evidence in the coastal areas shows prehistoric settlements.

Spanish colonial era
On May 16, 1571, the Spanish conquistador Miguel López de Legazpi declared the region a royal encomienda, or royal land grant. Spanish colonizers settled in the most populated area (present-day Kawit) and called it Cavite. The old Tangway at the tip of the Cavite Peninsula, across Bacoor Bay, was referred to as Cavite la Punta, meaning "Point of Cavite" or Cavite Point. Upon discovering that because of its deep waters Cavite la Punta was a suitable place for the repair and construction of Spanish ships and galleons, the Spanish moved their settlement there and called it Cavite Nuevo (New Cavite) or plainly Cavite. The first settlement was renamed "Cavite Viejo" (and in the early 20th century, regained its former name, Kawit). In 1582, the Spanish founded Cavite City with 65 Spanish Households.

In 1590, the Spaniards fortified Cavite Nuevo with a muralla (high thick curtain walls) on its western, northern, and eastern sides while the side fronting Bacoor Bay remained open. Fort Guadalupe on the easternmost tip was built at the same time, and the town became the Puerto de Cavite (Port of Cavite) or Cavite Puerto. The Fort of San Felipe Neri and Porta Vaga gate were constructed in 1595 and completed in 1602. Puerta Vaga (corrupted to Porta Vaga) was the port city's barbican, the western and only principal entrance from San Roque. It was flanked by the western wall, protected by two bastions at its north and southern end. The wall and gate were also separated from the mainland by a moat, which made the town like an island.

Cavite was officially founded as a town in 1614 with Tomás Salazar as the earliest known gobernadorcillo recorded. At the same time, the town became the capital of the new politico-military province of Cavite, established also in 1614. Like some other provinces during the Spanish era, the province adopted the name of its capital town [e.g., Bulacan, Bulacan; Tayabas, Tayabas (now Quezon province); Tarlac, Tarlac; Manila, Manila province ; Balayan, Balayan Province (now Batangas); Taal, Taal (now Batangas); and the present Batangas, Batangas].

San Roque was founded as a separate town in 1614. In 1663, during the Spanish evacuation of Ternate, Indonesia, the 200 families of mixed Mexican-Filipino-Spanish and Papuan-Indonesian-Portuguese descent who had ruled over the Christianized Sultanate of Ternate and included their Sultan who converted, were relocated to Ternate, Cavite plus Ermita, Manila and San Roque, Cavite. The years: 1636, 1654, 1670, and 1672; saw the deployment of 70, 89, 225, and 211 Latin-American soldiers from Mexico at Cavite. San Roque was later placed under the civil administration of Cavite, Puerto, until it was granted the right to be a separate and independent municipality in 1720. La Caridad, formerly known as La Estanzuela of San Roque, separated and was founded as a town in 1868. The Spanish Governor General Jose de la Gardana granted the petition of the people led by Don Justo Miranda to make barrio La Estanzuela an independent town.

City of Churches
As the town developed, it also became a cosmopolitan town that attracted the different religious orders to set up churches, convents, and hospitals within the limited confines of the fortified town. The Franciscan Hospital de San Jose (Saint Joseph Hospital) was built for sailors and soldiers in 1591, the San Diego de Alcala convent in 1608, the Porta Vaga (La Ermita), Our Lady of Loreto (Jesuit), San Juan de Dios (St. John of God), Santo Domingo (Dominicans), Santa Monica (Recollects), and San Pedro, the port's parish church. At the most, the fortified town enclosed eight churches, the Jesuit college of San Ildefonso, public buildings and residences, which served the needs of its population of natives, soldiers and workers at the port, transients, and passengers on board the galleons.

It was also during those times when it was called "Tierra de Maria Santisima" (Land of Most Holy Mary) because of the popularity of the Marian devotion in this place. Plazas and parks were evidence of importance: Plaza de Armas was across from San Felipe Fort, Plaza de San Pedro was across from the church, and Plaza Soledad was across from Porta Vaga, Plaza del Reparo was at the bayside.

Manila-Acapulco Galleon Trade
The Port of Cavite (Puerto de Cavite) was linked to the history of world trade. Spanish galleons sailed every July to Acapulco (Mexico) while another ship sailed from Acapulco to Cavite. Galleons and other heavy ocean-going ships were not able to enter the Port of Manila along the Pasig River because of a sand bar that limits entrance to the riverport only to light ships. For this reason, the Port of Cavite was regarded as the Port of Manila, the main seaport of the capital city.

At the height of the Manila-Acapulco Galleon Trade, the Port of Cavite was the arrival and departure port of the Spanish galleons that brought many foreign travelers (Mostly Spaniards and Latinos) to its shores. The Port of Cavite was fondly called Ciudad de Oro Macizo meaning the "City of Solid Gold". The Chinese emperor at one time sent some of his men to the place they called Keit (Cavite) to search for gold. Marilola Perez in her 2015 Thesis "Cavite Chabacano Philippine Creole Spanish: Description and Typology" describes a large number of Mexicans settling in Cavite and spreading to Luzon, integrating into the local population and leading peasant revolts. (Page 10) Mexicans weren't the only Latin Americans in Cavite, as there were also a fair number of other Latin Americans, one such case was the Puerto Rican, Alonso Ramirez, who became a sailor in Cavite, and published the first Latin American novel entitled "Infortunios de Alonso Ramirez"

Between 1609 and 1616 the galleons Espiritu Santo and San Miguel were constructed in the shipyard of the port, called the Astillero de Rivera (Rivera Shipyard of Cavite), sometimes spelled as Ribera.

San Roque isthmus
The narrow San Roque isthmus or causeway (now M. Valentino Street) connected Cavite Puerto to San Roque town, its only border town. Maps from the 17th century show that this narrow isthmus was wider, as wide as the town itself. Problems with rising water and the encroaching waves that plagued Cavite Puerto since the beginning must have eroded the land into a narrow isthmus.

American invasion era
Control over the port was turned over to the Americans by Spain after the Treaty of Paris of 1898 at the turn of the 19th century. At the start of the American era, Cavite Puerto became the seat of the U.S. Naval Forces in the Philippines. It was redesigned to make way for modern ships and armaments. The ruinous historical structures like Fort Guadalupe were demolished, along with most of Fort San Felipe.

Local government administration was under the renamed Presidentes municipales with the direct supervision of the American Army Officers (the first being Colonel Meade). The first Filipino Presidentes municipales were appointed: Don Zacaria Fortich for Cavite Puerto, Don Francisco Basa for San Roque, and Don Pedro Raqueño Bautista for Caridad.

In 1900, the Caviteños tasted their first election under the American regime. They elected in each pueblo or town, local officials called Presidente municipal, Vice-Presidente municipal and a Consejo (council) composed of Consejales (councilors). They elected Don Gregorio Basa as Presidente Municipal of the town now known as Cavite City.

In 1901, the Philippine Commission approved a municipal code as the organic law of all local governments throughout the country. In its implementation in 1903, the three separate pueblos of Cavite Puerto, San Roque, and La Caridad were merged into one municipality, which was called the Municipality of Cavite. By virtue of a legislative act promulgated by the First Philippine Assembly, Cavite was again made the capital of the province. Subsequently, its territory was enlarged to include the district of San Antonio and the island of Corregidor. The Municipality of Cavite functioned as a civil government whose officials consisted of a Presidente Municipal, a Vice-Presidente Municipal and ten Consejales duly elected by the qualified voters of the municipality.

In 1909, Executive Order No. 124, of Governor-General W. Cameron Forbes, declared the Act No. 1748 annexing Corregidor and the islands of Caballo (Fort Hughes), La Monja, El Fraile (Fort Drum), Santa Amalia, Carabao (Fort Frank) and Limbones, as well as all waters and detached rocks surrounding them, to the Municipality of Cavite.

Cityhood
Under the Philippine Commonwealth, Assemblyman Manuel S. Roxas, sponsored Commonwealth Act No. 547 elevating Cavite town to a chartered city. Upon approval into law on September 7, 1940, the executive function of the city was vested in a City Mayor appointed by the President of the Philippine Commonwealth. The legislative body of the City of Cavite was vested on a Municipal Board composed of three electives, two appointives, and two ex-officio councilors, the presiding officer of which is the City Mayor.

Japanese occupation era
On December 10, 1941, two days after an attack that had destroyed American air defenses at Clark Field and three days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Japanese Imperial Forces destroyed Cavite Naval Base and bombed Cavite City.

Later, after Japan seized the Philippines, Japanese leaders appointed at least two city mayors of Cavite City.

The island of Corregidor played an important role during the Japanese invasion of the Philippines. The island was the site of two costly sieges and pitched battles—the first during the first months of 1942, and the second in January 1945—between the Imperial Japanese Army and the U.S. Army, along with its smaller subsidiary force, the Philippine Army.

In 1945 during the fight for the liberation of the country from Japanese hands, the US and Philippine Commonwealth military bombarded the Japanese forces stationed in the city, completely destroying the old historic port city of Cavite. The old walls and the Porta Vaga gate were damaged. Most of the structures were destroyed while some of the church towers remained. The city was littered with bomb craters.

After the war, the city's local administration resumed the way it was before the war. The walls, gates, and ruins of the old city were later removed. Only the bell tower of the Santa Monica Church of the Recollects and the two bastions of Fort San Felipe remain of the old city.

Transfer of provincial capital
Republic Act No. 981, passed by the Congress of the Philippines in 1954, transferred the capital of the province from Cavite City to the newly established Trece Martires. Subsequently, the city charter was amended. By virtue of an amendment to the charter of Cavite City, the City Mayor, City Vice Mayor and eight councilors were elected by popular suffrage. The first election of city officials was held in 1963.

During the Marcos dictatorship
The Philippines' gradual postwar recovery took a turn for the worse in the late 1960s and early 1970s, with the 1969 Philippine balance of payments crisis being one of the early landmark events. Economic analysts generally attribute this to the ramp-up on loan-funded government spending to promote Ferdinand Marcos’ 1969 reelection campaign. In 1972 - one year before the expected end of his last constitutionally allowed term as president in 1973 - Ferdinand Marcos placed the Philippines Martial Law. This allowed Marcos to remain in power for fourteen more years, during which Cavite went through many social and economic ups and downs. It was around the time Martial Law was declared, in 1972, that Mayor Manuel S. Rojas was assassinated in the nearby town of Bacoor, Cavite.

The human rights abuses, crony capitalism, propagandistic construction projects, and personal expensive lifestyles of the Marcos Family prompted opposition from various Filipino citizens despite the risks of arrest and torture.

One of the more prominent victims of Martial Law was Cavite City resident and University of the Philippines student leader Emmanuel Alvarez. Alvarez, a descendant of Katipunan General Pascual Alvarez, became one of the desaparecidos of Martial law under Ferdinand Marcos when he was accosted by two men believed to be military personnel while commuting from his home in Cavite City on January 6, 1976, and never seen again. He is formally been honored as a hero of Philippine democracy, having had his name etched on the wall of remembrance of the Philippines' Bantayog ng mga Bayani.

Reclamation
In the latter part of the 1960s or early 1970s, the land adjacent to the San Roque isthmus was reclaimed. The new land is now occupied by the San Sebastian College – Recoletos de Cavite and some residential houses. The present Cavite City Hall is built where the north tower end of the western wall was, which was already partly reclaimed by 1945.

Half of the old port city, including Fort San Felipe, is now occupied by Naval Base Cavite and is closed to the public. The old historic core of Cavite is now part of the San Roque district of Cavite City and is referred to today as either Fort San Felipe or Porta Vaga. The former location of the Porta Vaga gate, the western wall, and its towers are now occupied by the Governor Samonte Park.

Geography
The City of Cavite occupies most of the hook-shaped Cavite Peninsula that juts into Manila Bay. The peninsula is bounded by Bacoor Bay to the southeast. The peninsula ends at two tips – Sangley Point and Cavite Point. Cañacao Bay is the body of water formed between Sangley Point and Cavite Point. The latter was the location of the old historic Port of Cavite. Both Bacoor and Cañacao Bays are inland bays of the larger Manila Bay. The city's only land border is the Municipality of Noveleta to the south.

The city is the northernmost settlement in the Province of Cavite, which lies southwest from Manila with a direct distance of about 11 km but about 35 km by road. Sangley Point, the former location of the United States Sangley Point Naval Base, is the northernmost part of the city, peninsula and province. The former American military naval base has since been converted into a Philippine military base.

The historic island of Corregidor, the adjacent islands and detached rocks of Caballo, Carabao, El Fraile and La Monja found at the mouth of Manila Bay are part of the city's territorial jurisdiction.

Climate
Cavite city has a tropical wet and dry climate (Köppen climate classification Aw), with a pronounced dry season from December to April and quite a lengthy wet season from May to November that brings abundant rainfall into the city.

Subdivisions
The city proper is divided into five districts: Dalahican, Santa Cruz, Caridad, San Antonio, and San Roque. These districts are further subdivided into eight zones and a total of 84 barangays.

Barangays
Cavite City is politically subdivided into 84 barangays. Each barangay consists of puroks and some have sitios.

 * Barangay 1 (Hen. M. Alvarez)
 * Barangay 2 (Hen. C. Tirona)
 * Barangay 3 (Hen. E. Aguinaldo)
 * Barangay 4 (Hen. M. Trias)
 * Barangay 5 (Hen. E. Evangelista)
 * Barangay 6 (Diego Silang)
 * Barangay 7 (Kapitan Kong)
 * Barangay 8 (Manuel S. Rojas)
 * Barangay 9 (Kanaway)
 * Barangay 10-M (Kingfisher)
 * Barangay 10-A (Kingfisher A)
 * Barangay 10-B (Kingfisher B)
 * Barangay 11 (Lawin)
 * Barangay 12 (Love Bird)
 * Barangay 13 (Aguila)
 * Barangay 14 (Loro)
 * Barangay 15 (Kilyawan)
 * Barangay 16 (Martines)
 * Barangay 17 (Kalapati)
 * Barangay 18 (Maya/Pisces)
 * Barangay 19 (Gemini)
 * Barangay 20 (Virgo)
 * Barangay 21 (Scorpio)
 * Barangay 22 (Leo)
 * Barangay 22-A (Leo A)
 * Barangay 23 (Aquarius)
 * Barangay 24 (Libra)
 * Barangay 25 (Capricorn)
 * Barangay 26 (Cancer)
 * Barangay 27 (Sagittarius)
 * Barangay 28 (Taurus)
 * Barangay 29 (Lao-lao/Aries)
 * Barangay 29-A (Lao-lao A/Aries A)
 * Barangay 30 (Bid-bid)
 * Barangay 31 (Maya-maya)
 * Barangay 32 (Salay-salay)
 * Barangay 33 (Buan-buan)
 * Barangay 34 (Lapu-lapu)
 * Barangay 35 (Hasa-hasa)
 * Barangay 36 (Sap-Sap)
 * Barangay 36-A (Sap-sap A)
 * Barangay 37-M (Cadena de Amor)
 * Barangay 37-A (Cadena de Amor A)
 * Barangay 38 (Sampaguita)
 * Barangay 38-A (Sampaguita A)
 * Barangay 39 (Jasmin)
 * Barangay 40 (Gumamela)
 * Barangay 41 (Rosal)
 * Barangay 42 (Pinagbuklod)
 * Barangay 42-A (Pinagbuklod A)
 * Barangay 42-B (Pinagbuklod B)
 * Barangay 42-C (Pinagbuklod C)
 * Barangay 43 (Pinagpala)
 * Barangay 44 (Maligaya)
 * Barangay 45 (Kaunlaran)
 * Barangay 45-A (Kaunlaran A)
 * Barangay 46 (Sinagtala)
 * Barangay 47 (Pagkakaisa)
 * Barangay 47-A (Pagkakaisa A)
 * Barangay 47-B (Pagkakaisa B)
 * Barangay 48 (Narra)
 * Barangay 48-A (Narra A)
 * Barangay 49 (Akasya)
 * Barangay 49-A (Akasya A)
 * Barangay 50 (Kabalyero)
 * Barangay 51 (Kamagong)
 * Barangay 52 (Ipil)
 * Barangay 53 (Yakal)
 * Barangay 53-A (Yakal A)Air Force
 * Barangay 53-B (Yakal B)Navy
 * Barangay 54-A (Pechay A)
 * Barangay 54-M (Pechay)
 * Barangay 55 (Ampalaya)
 * Barangay 56 (Labanos)
 * Barangay 57 (Repolyo)
 * Barangay 58 (Patola)
 * Barangay 58-A (Patola A)
 * Barangay 59 (Sitaw)
 * Barangay 60 (Letsugas)
 * Barangay 61 (Talong; Poblacion)
 * Barangay 61-A (Talong A; Poblacion)
 * Barangay 62 (Kangkong; Poblacion)
 * Barangay 62-A (Kangkong A; Poblacion)
 * Barangay 62-B (Kangkong B; Poblacion)

Demographics
According to the 2020 census, it has a population of 100,674 people, with a density of undefined PD/km2.

Religion
According to 2000 census data, Christianity is the most prevalent religion in Cavite City, where a majority of Caviteños practice Roman Catholicism. Other Christian religious groups in the city include the Aglipayan Church, Iglesia Ni Cristo (I.N.C), Jehovah's Witnesses, United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP), Jesus Is Lord Church (JIL), The United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Churches, Baptists and Bible Fundamental churches, Seventh-day Adventist Church, Members Church of God International or Ang Dating Daan, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and other UPC churches. A Muslim minority is also present in the city.

Nuestra Señora de la Soledad de Porta Vaga
The Nuestra Señora de la Soledad de Porta Vaga (Our Lady of Solitude of Porta Vaga) is the patroness of Cavite City. She is revered by Catholics as the Celestial Guardian and Protector of the entire Province of Cavite since her arrival in Cavite shore. The image of Our Lady of Porta Vaga is designated as a National Cultural Treasure by the National Museum. This is the oldest existing dated Marian painting in the Philippines.

The image of the virgin is painted on a canvas. The virgin is depicted as a lady in mourning. Mary, garbed in black and white attire, seems to be on her knees as she contemplates the passion of her son. Before her are the crown of thorns and the nails instrument of Christ's passion. An inscription was found at the back of the painting – ''A doze de Abril 1692 años Juan Oliba puso esta Stma. Ymagen Haqui'', which means,"The sacred image was placed here by Juan Oliba on April 12, 1692". This particular icon was used to bless the galleon plying between Cavite and Acapulco (Mexico) during formal sending off ceremonies. Thus, she was also called the Patroness of the Galleons.

The image was originally enshrined at the Ermita de Porta Vaga, a small church located adjacent to the Porta Vaga gate of Cavite, Puerto, and was destroyed during the last World War. The image is presently enshrined at the San Roque Parish Church, one of the three parishes in the city.

Languages
Chabacano is a Spanish-influenced creole language formerly spoken by majority of the people living in the city of Cavite. Chabacano emerged sometime after the arrival of the first Spaniards and Mexicans in the late 16th century. During this period, the people that lived near the military arsenal in Cavite City put themselves in contact with the Spaniards and Mexicans and began to incorporate in their own dialect many Spanish words, which then gave birth to the creole. Majority of residents today speak Tagalog.

Today, Chabacano is generally considered to be dying with only a fraction of the people, mostly elderly, able to speak the language. According to the Philippine professor, Alfredo B. German who wrote a thesis on the grammar in Chabacano dialect, the present conditions no longer favor the disenrolment of the same one. There are many probable reasons for the diminishing of Chabacano, among these being the massive arrival of Tagalog-speaking migrants to the city of Cavite, and intermarriage.

One of the poets and Philippine writers, Jesus Balmori expressed himself in Chabacano. He was a great admirer of the dialect and wrote several verses in it. Another admirer of this dialect was Don Jaime de Veyra, the illustrious writer and famous Philippine historian, who feared more than all the probable extinction of the Chabacano when he wrote the following prophetic lines, "I am afraid that the inevitable absorption of the "Tagalog invasion" on one side and the invasion of the English on the other hand, will wipe out or extinguish this inherited Castilian language in existence with his last representatives in the following generation." Professor Gervacio Miranda who also wrote a book in Chabacano said in his preface the following thing, "My only objective to write this book is to possibly conserve in written form the Chabacano of Cavite for posterity," fearing the extinction of the dialect.

Festivals and events
The city is home to the Annual Cavite City Water Festival or Regada, held every 17th and 24th day of June. It is a festive and religious celebration of the feast of St. John the Baptist. Regada started in 1996 and features the "Paulan" or "Basayawan", which is a street party where celebrators dance under water sprinklers. Another celebration is the Feast for the Our Lady of Solitude of Porta Vaga, which is annually observed by local Catholics during every second Sunday of November.

Other notable holidays include the observance of Julián Felipe's birthday (January 28). Felipe, who composed the Philippine National Anthem, was born and raised in Cavite City. The city's Charter Day, known locally as simply Cavite City Day, which commemorates the signing of the city charter in 1940, is held every September 7.

Cuisine
Food in Cavite City is influenced by its Spanish heritage combined with Filipino tradition. One popular native dish is bacalao (sauteed codfish), which is served during the Lenten season. A variation of bibingka locally known as bibingkang samala can also be found in the city. This delicacy is made of glutinous rice (malagkit), coconut milk and sugar.

Transportation
The only road connecting Cavite City to the rest of Luzon is the National Route 62, which begins at P. Burgos Avenue in Caridad district and continues towards Noveleta as the Manila–Cavite Road (not to be confused with Manila-Cavite Expressway). A proposal to construct an expressway from Kawit to Cavite City via Bacoor Bay has been raised to the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). When realized, the expressway would serve as a link to Manila-Cavite Expressway (CAVITEx).

Cavite City has one airport, Danilo Atienza Air Base, located at Sangley Point. The airport is operated by the Philippine Air Force. It was formerly a US Naval Base, called Naval Station Sangley Point, until it was turned over to the Philippine government in 1971. There are proposals to convert the base into a civilian airport, as a solution to the overcrowding of Ninoy Aquino International Airport.

As of 2019, no active water-based public transportation services were based in Cavite City. Metrostar Ferry, which began operations in 2007, used to serve trips from San Roque district to Pasay, Metro Manila. A new service from the Intramuros district of Manila to the nearby town of Noveleta to the south debuted in January 2018 and is currently the nearest water-based transport to the city.

Utilities
Water services are currently provided by Maynilad. Meanwhile, electric services are currently provided by Meralco.

Flag
The flag of the city was created by Mayor Timoteo O. Encarnacion, Jr. and was adopted by the Sangguniang Panlungsod through Resolution No. 95-081 dated September 6, 1995, in time for the 55th Cavite City Charter Day. The meaning, symbol and significance of the flag components:
 * The two red strips symbolize courage and bravery.
 * The middle green strip symbolizes progress and advancement
 * The half sun has a twofold meaning. If the rising sun, it means hope, dreams, and visions for progress. If the setting sun stands for the sunset that can be seen in the city's western shores.
 * The five yellow stars symbolize the five districts of Cavite City.
 * The three sets of waves below the half sun, in three colors of navy blue, light blue and white. It signifies that Cavite City is a peninsula surrounded by water while the three colors represent Cañacao Bay, Bacoor Bay and Manila Bay.

Seal
The current seal of the city was designed by Mayor Timoteo O. Encarnacion, Jr. It was adopted by the Sangguniang Panlungsod through Resolution No. 140-90, then approved by the Local Executive on September 7, 1990. On November 3, 1993, the National Historical Institute and the president, through the Department of the Interior and Local Government issued a Certificate of Registration recognizing the new seal.

The shield stands for bravery and fortitude. The colors red, white, blue, yellow stand for the loyalty of the people to its government. The inclusion of the rays portrays the role of Cavite as one of the original provinces that rose up in arms against Spanish domination in 1896 in the Philippine Revolution.

The white triangle inscribed within the shield with the letters KKK at the corners represents the part played by The city in the organization of the Katipunan. Don Ladislao Diwa of the city was one of the triumvirate who organized the patriotic group. Many Katipuneros came from the city.

Within the white triangle are symbols representing various events:
 * At the bottom of the triangle is a fort with figures "1872" symbolizing the Cavite mutiny of 1872 at the Cavite Arsenal.
 * At the background is a map of the city including the island of Corregidor representing the role of the island in the city's history.
 * The obelisk at the left memorializes the Thirteen Martyrs of Cavite who were executed by the Spaniards on September 12, 1896.
 * The sheet music at the right symbolizes Julián Felipe, composer of the Philippine National Anthem who was from the city.
 * The fort symbol representing the Royal Fort of San Felipe and its role in the city and country's history being the place where the "thirteen martyrs of Cavite" were detained and where the Cavite mutiny of 1872 took place.
 * The scroll on the uppermost portion of the triangle contains the City motto "Para Dios y Patria" ("For God and Country") in Chabacano dialect to emphasize the native dialect of the city.
 * The green laurel leaf encircling the right and left portions of the KKK triangle symbolizes victories by reason.

Notable personalities

 * Nash Aguas
 * Herminia Victoriano y Amador
 * Eliodoro Ballesteros
 * Roman Basa
 * Elpidia E. Bonanza
 * Purificacion Borromeo
 * Ladislao Diwa
 * Roman Faustino
 * Julián Felipe
 * Glaiza Heradura
 * Joel Lamangan
 * Celeste Legaspi
 * Mona Lisa
 * Edna Luna
 * Lily Marquez
 * Raquel Monteza
 * Mercedes Matias-Santiago
 * Efren Peñaflorida
 * Manuel S. Rojas
 * Ollie dela Peña
 * Olivia Salamanca
 * Leopoldo Salcedo
 * Rosendo E. Santos Jr.
 * Ferdinand Topacio
 * Thirteen Martyrs of Cavite

Sister cities
Cavite City has one sister city, as designated by Sister Cities International:
 * 🇪🇸 Melilla, Spain
 * 🇺🇸 San Diego, California, United States

title: Cavite City


text:
Talk:D'Hondt method

2004 Comments
I don't understand how d'hondt system may be applied in open list system. In fact I believe this is not possible.

May anybody review this? Explaining how is that possible or removing the reference to the use in open lists systems.

 * I know for a fact that it is possible, because it is used in Finland. Each vote is give to a person who is always on a list . The number of elected candidates in a list is counted as in the closed list system. The people who get elected within a list are the ones who have got the most votes.

 * Clarification on the issue of ranking candidates on an open-list:
 * The amounts of "personal" (you only vote for a person, not a list) votes for each candidate are first used to determine each candidates ranking on the individual list. The candidate with the highest amount of pvotes gets first place, the candidate with the second highest second place etc. The votes are then distributed as in a closed-list system, using the order established by the personal votes. This procedure is explained in the linked open-list article, which I think is sufficent for the purposes of this article which mainly describes the method of seat distribution. Rackham 03:16, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

d'Hondt method in Estonia
Estonian electoral system is a special case in at least two different ways. Firstly, there is a 5% threshold, but it does not mean that "any list which does not receive that threshold will not have any seats allocated to it, even if it received enough votes to otherwise have been rewarded with a seat". In Estonia, for any candidate, even if appearing on a party list which fails to reach the nationwide threshold, receiving the simple quota in one's electoral district is sufficient for receiving the seat in parliament (in the 1st round of vote counting). It is only in the 2nd (district level) and 3rd round (nationwide, modified d'Hondt method) of vote counting that mandates are awarded only to those candidate lists which have received more than the threshold of 5% of the votes nationally. Secondly, Estonia does not use a "typical d'Hondt system" as the (modified) method is used "only" in the 3rd round of vote counting. However, this does not mean that only very few mandates are allocated according to the d'Hondt system. There are 101 seats in the Estonian parliament and in the past elections the breakdown between the mandates awarded in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd (" d'Hondt* ") rounds of counting have been the following: in 1992: 17, 24, 60*; in 1995: 15, 34, 52*; in 1999: 11, 44, 46*; and in 2003: 14, 60, 27*.--3 Löwi 16:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyone do a fuller explanation?
The example of how the d'Hondt method works isn't really very clear. Perhaps a simpler example could be provided with more step-by-step working? I know this isn't a maths textbook, but I don't see the point of an example at all if it doesn't explain it. El T 08:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC.

EVEN my mother language is not english. I´ll try to explain you which is the approach. The problem related the edited is that the way in that divisors are calculated is wrong. I'll modify the page. But in any case the best external link I have found out is the next one http://www.elecciones.mir.es/web2004mir/menu_izq.htm# the problem is that it is in spanish.

Capitalization?
Is is "D'Hondt" or "d'Hondt" ? 68.39.174.238 20:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Definitely d'Hondt. Wikipedia's design can't handle initial letters being lowercase for some reason. El T 15:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Not so definitely, since he was Belgian and it is a custom there to capitalize the first letter of the first prefix in a surname. Check the text at Victor_D'Hondt. And for all dutch-speaking countries it is true that if the given name is missing, the first letter of the first prefix will be capitalized. Therefore the phrase "the D'Hondt method" should contain a capitalized D also if the name was from the Netherlands. See Dutch_name. -- Mipmip 15:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually there is some inconsistency here! According to Dutch name it should not be capitalized:
 * "In Flanders tussenvoegsels of personal names always keep their original orthography: mevrouw van der Velde, mevrouw J. van der Velde and Jan Vanden Broucke."
 * whereas the Victor D'Hondt article states the complete opposite:
 * "Confusion may arrive when reading Dutch articles on D'Hondt, since in Dutch, when using the full name one should write: Victor d'Hondt (with a small d), while the surname all by itself would be D'Hondt (with a capital D). However, in Flemish it is always capitalized, hence: Victor D'Hondt."
 * I'm not Flemish, so someone who is should check this and correct one of the two articles :) -- Mipmip 15:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to d'Hondt, based on how it's spelled in official Northern Ireland legislation:. That could be wrong, of course, so it can be reversed in that case. William Quill (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Why I've removed the image
I've removed the image because it was not representative. They didn't use proper d'Hont, but a modified version. At Finnish parliamentary election, 2003 you can see a party with more votes has less seats, so it can not be pure d'Hont. --83.36.162.72 00:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

 * The parties are: Swedish People's Party 8 seats, 128,824 votes and Christian Democrats  7 seats 148,987 votes --83.36.162.72 00:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It surely can be a natural consequence of applying D'Hondt in many constituencies; in one constituency such 'reverse' outcome cannot be, but when you add up votes and seats in many constituencies, it can happen.--Bancki 12:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Then, it was not an example of applying d'Hondt, but of adding the resolts of havinf applyed d'Hondt several times... ---81.38.174.231 14:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Just add one more seat to the example in the article, and you'll see party B getting 4 seats, against the 3 seats that party A has.201.29.225.26 (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Proportionality
We have to be careful sayin D'Hondt is less proportional than the Sainte-Laguë method, as there is no standard measure of "disproportionality". This is important to remember when discussing all electoral formulas. D'Hondt is a proportional method, in contrast with say Imperiali methods. - Matthew238 07:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Proportionality
There is a common standard method in Maths to evaluate the deviation of a serial of values against a reference. See the standard deviation function (stdev) in the Excel worksheet. So, instead of using the average value as the reference, one may use the values comming from a proportional division and compare these "good" values againts the "bad" values of method results. So it is possible to measure a quality of a proportional method, in a form accepted anywhere. BUT, in politics, a electoral method is good if it fits the politics agenda. So, the discussion of a good method only using math is too much "theorical" and may be away from the reality.

The Webster method and its equivalent Saint-Lague method are considered the best ones for the proportionality. I have check it for some 50 values using the modified "standard" deviation (square of differences between a proportional representation (integer numbers) and the exact proportional division (real numbers). That sentence seems pretty right. AlvaroAnjo 11:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Webster / Sainte-Lague is the most proportionate - that's why it's usually chosen to apportion seats over territorial constituencies. Balynski & Young have written a book about that. However, it has other flaws: a party with >50% of the votes can get <50% of the seats and a party can win a seat by splitting in two (or two parties may loose one by merging) - that's why D'Hondt is usually chosen between parties.--Bancki 13:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

An applet
Hello,

it would be really neat to have an external link to an applet demonstrating the d'Hondt method. I myself haven't found one yet.Evilbu 18:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see there is one behind this Prince Edward Island page, but one would have to rework the java somewhat. Maybe write to them for permission? -- Seejyb 21:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

d'Hondt method in Bulgaria
Starting with 2007 european parliament elections in Bulgaria, the d'Hondt method was changed in favor of Largest Reminder Method AlexStanev 12:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed text from article

 * An important result of the method is that a single popular candidate can "draw with him" a lot of lesser-known party colleagues with few personal votes. Also, if the party colleagues with less support fail to pass the threshold, then the elected candidate also represents the failed candidates. For example, candidate B promises to eliminate the dog tax, but is not elected. Then, the votes gained by B benefit party colleague A, who proposes the elimination of dog tax (although not compelled to do so), which was originally B's promise.

I removed the above text from the article as it was uncited, and without some form of citation to explain it seemed to make no sense whatsover. Where do dog taxes come into this? And d'hondt is used in party list systems which, as far as I know, don't ever use individual candidate thresholds. If someone thinks it actually makes sense and can tidy it up, by all means reinsert it, but right now I have no earthly idea what it is the article was actually trying to say. - Chrism would like to hear from you 02:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * It seems to refer to single transferable vote. ?Tamfang (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not true for single transferable vote -- the other candidates have to get their own votes (even if they're lower down on the ballots of the popular candidate's voters). It seems instead to be referring to the open-ballot scheme discussed above as used in Finland. 150.108.157.180 (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

An alternative interpretation of the D'Hont system
The D'Hont system is equivalent to the following statistical criterion. If each party is a bin, and the (normalized to sum=1) number of votes is the probability of a stone to fall in that bin, then the distribution given by the D'Hont system gives the most probable distribution of a given number of stones among the bins. For instance, if there are 2 parties A and B, with 100, and 160 votes respectively, and 4 seats. The D'Hont system predicts A=1 and B=3 seats. In the bin/stones analogy the probability of falling in bin A is p(A)=0.38462 and p(B)=0.61538. Then the probability of falling 1 stone in A, and 3 in B is p(1,3)=pA*pB^3*4!/(1!*3!)=0.35853, whereas for instance the probability of falling 2 in A and 2 in B is p(2,2)=pA^2*pB^2*4!/(2!*2!)=0.33612. So that it is more likely to fall 3 stones in B an 1 in A, than falling 2 in A and 2 in B. In the same way the other possibilities can be computed (A=0 B=4, A=3 B=1,...) and the more likely is A=1, B=3. I can't give a mathematical demonstration for this, but I wrote some Octave programs and tested on a huge number of cases and in it was verified in all cases. I wonder if it is a known fact. I know original research material is not suitable to Wikipedia, but perhaps it is a well known property and someone can point to a reference. Mariostorti (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Presumably - given the apostrophe - the correct pronunciation of d'Hondt is "Dont" and not "de Hont", although annoyingly the latter pronunciation is consistently used in Northern Ireland. Any sources on how it should be pronounced? Mooretwin (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Government Formation
I'm going to wait a few days for objections first, but I'm liable to remove the paragraph on "government formation", seeing as how the process of government formation in parliamentary systems is entirely independent of the voting system. (If you wanted an relevant "government formation" aspect of d'Hondt, you could describe the assignement of ministry positions in the Northern Ireland agreement. That's not at all what the paragraph in the article refers to, though.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.157.180 (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to raise the same issue. I quite agree, and personally (as a Finn) I find it vexing how the media in this country are trying to tell us this is how it works. Government formation is done through negotiations among the parties.--Rallette (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

D'Hondt and Jefferson
Applied to the above example of party lists, this extends as integers from 85,001 to 93,333

The example has been changed. 85,001 and 93,333 refer to an older version of this page

Current example

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D%27Hondt_method&oldid=326714515

85,001 and 93,333 result from Votes per Seat 85,000 93,333 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.79.57.4 (talk) 05:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Denmark, D'Hondt and Sainte-Laguë
I'm wondering whether Denmark should figure on both the list of countries using the D'Hondt method and the Sainte-Laguë method. Denmark uses both D'Hondt (135 seats) and Sainte-Laguë (40 seats) to (s)elect the 175 Danish members of the Folketing as documented by the link to the of the description of the Danish electoral system by the Danish Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Interior (note: As portfolios are often divided and combined, the relevant bit is the Interior, whose civil servants are responsible the organisation of all elections in Denmark, though of course aided by municipal civil servants "on the ground"). I've posted this issue on the talkpage of the Sainte-Laguë method as well (section: "Denmark, D'Hondt and Sainte-Laguë - see the article on D'Hondt"), but prefer any comments/discussions/pro et contra to be posted here so as to keep it simple.
 * Mojowiha (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Example with 9 seats
I´d like to know what would happen if there are 9 seats instead of 8 in the example, because there´s a tie with 20000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.238.87 (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I wondered that, too, so I came over to Talk. I don't see anything in a quick Google search to suggest whether the 9th or 10th seats would go to Parties A, B, or D. I guess that an extension would have to be written in to the law, stating what would happen in the event of a tie. For example, perhaps the Largest Remainder Method takes over. In that case, Party A would have -0.09 remainder, Party B would have 0.13, and Party D would have 0.78. This is based on the new "true proportion" column values (9 seats instead of 8) and the number of seats already awarded to each party at this point. So if that rule was used, Party D would be awarded the seat, which seems fair to me.

Here's the table at the point of deciding who to award to next: Myrkron (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on D'Hondt method. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090419131607/http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2005/Jun/croissantJun05.asp to http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2005/Jun/croissantJun05.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Allocation Example is NOT using d'Hondt
The initial description of the d'Hondt calculation is correct, stating, "s is the number of seats that party has been allocated so far, initially 0 for all parties."

But then continues, "The total votes cast for each party in the electoral district is divided, first by 1, then by 2, then 3." The Example grid that follows then uses this method, where ALL parties' vote totals are divided by the same divisor each round.

In d'Hondt, the divisor is only incremented for the winner of each round.

Ref: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI(2016)580901

The older example on this talk page, with 9 seats and 5 parties, is a correct example.

When the correct d'Hondt method is applied to the current example, the same results are achieved, so this could be an alternate way of making the same calculation, but it's not d'Hondt and definitely does not agree with the equation at the top of the section.

Nlaslett (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I have updated it with a correct example. It was my first edit to Wikipedia so I apologise if there are any mistakes in formatting or anything.

--Taxi For Maicon (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

As already stated, not only is the Allocation section not using d'Hondt method (divisors), it is using the formula for a completely different Droop/Hagenbach-Bischoff method (quotas). This is unacceptable and needs to get fixed ASAP. Sources: Taagepera, R., & Shugart, M. S. (1989). Seats and votes: The effects and determinants of electoral systems. New Haven: Yale University Press. (p. 31); Nohlen, D. (1990). Wahlrecht und Parteiensystem. Opladen: Leske Verlag + Budrich GmbH. (p. 81); Lijphart, A. (1994) Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945-1990. New York: Oxford University Press. (p. 155-157, 192); Farrell, D. M. (1997) Comparing Electoral Systems. London: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf. (p. 62-64) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.172.8 (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction
This passage would seem to contradict itself:

"The D'Hondt method minimizes the number of votes that need to be left aside so that the remaining votes are represented exactly proportionally. Only the D'Hondt method (and methods equivalent to it) minimizes this disproportionality. Empirical studies based on other, more popular concepts of disproportionality show that the D'Hondt method is one of the least proportional among the proportional representation methods."

Does D'Hondt minimize disproportionality—or not? -- Calion | Talk 14:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

s and s
In the Procedure section, the algebraic symbol s is used first for the number of seats won so far by a party and then for the total number of seats to be assigned. Change one or the other, but to what? —Tamfang (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:D'Hondt method