text:
Customer lifetime value

In marketing, customer lifetime value (CLV or often CLTV), lifetime customer value (LCV), or life-time value (LTV) is a prognostication of the net profit contributed to the whole future relationship with a customer. The prediction model can have varying levels of sophistication and accuracy, ranging from a crude heuristic to the use of complex predictive analytics techniques. Customer lifetime value can also be defined as the monetary value of a customer relationship, based on the present value of the projected future cash flows from the customer relationship. Customer lifetime value is an important concept in that it encourages firms to shift their focus from quarterly profits to the long-term health of their customer relationships. Customer lifetime value is an important metric because it represents an upper limit on spending to acquire new customers. For this reason it is an important element in calculating payback of advertising spent in marketing mix modeling.

One of the first accounts of the term "customer lifetime value" is in the 1988 book Database Marketing, which includes detailed worked examples. Early adopters of customer lifetime value models in the 1990s include Edge Consulting and BrandScience.

Purpose
The purpose of the customer lifetime value metric is to assess the financial value of each customer. Don Peppers and Martha Rogers are quoted as saying, "some customers are more equal than others." Customer lifetime value differs from customer profitability or CP (the difference between the revenues and the costs associated with the customer relationship during a specified period) in that CP measures the past and CLV looks forward. As such, CLV can be more useful in shaping managers’ decisions but is much more difficult to quantify. While quantifying CP is a matter of carefully reporting and summarizing the results of past activity, quantifying CLV involves forecasting future activity.

 * Customer lifetime value:
 * The present value of the future cash flows attributed to the customer during his/her entire relationship with the company.

Present value is the discounted sum of future cash flows: each future cash flow is multiplied by a carefully selected number less than one, before being added together. The multiplication factor accounts for the way the value of money is discounted over time. The time-based value of money captures the intuition that everyone would prefer to get paid sooner rather than later but would prefer to pay later rather than sooner. The multiplication factors depend on the discount rate chosen (10% per year as an example) and the length of time before each cash flow occurs. For example, money received ten years from now must be discounted more than money received five years in the future.

CLV applies the concept of present value to cash flows attributed to the customer relationship. Because the present value of any stream of future cash flows is designed to measure the single lump sum value today of the future stream of cash flows, CLV will represent the single lump sum value today of the customer relationship. Even more simply, CLV is the monetary value of the customer relationship to the firm. It is an upper limit on what the firm would be willing to pay to acquire the customer relationship as well as an upper limit on the amount the firm would be willing to pay to avoid losing the customer relationship. If a customer relationship is viewed as an asset of the firm, CLV would present the monetary value of that asset.

One of the major uses of CLV is customer segmentation, which starts with the understanding that not all customers are equally important. CLV-based segmentation model allows the company to predict the most profitable group of customers, understand those customers' common characteristics, and focus more on them rather than on less profitable customers. CLV-based segmentation can be combined with a share of wallet (SOW) model to identify "high CLV but low SOW" customers with the assumption that the company's profit could be maximized by investing marketing resources in those customers.

Customer lifetime value metrics are used mainly in relationship-focused businesses, especially those with customer contracts. Examples include banking and insurance services, telecommunications and most of the business-to-business sector. However, the CLV principles may be extended to transactions-focused categories such as consumer packaged goods by incorporating stochastic purchase models of individual or aggregate behavior. In either case, retention has a decisive impact on CLV, since low retention rates result in customer lifetime value barely increasing over time.

Construction
When margins and retention rates are constant, the following formula can be used to calculate the lifetime value of a customer relationship:

 * $$\text{Customer Lifetime Value} = \text{Margin} \cdot \frac{\text{Retention Rate}}{1+\text{Discount Rate}-\text{Retention Rate}}

$$

The model for customer cash flows treats the firm's customer relationships as something of a leaky bucket. Each period, a fraction (1 less the retention rate) of the firm's customers leave and are lost for good.

The CLV model has only three parameters: (1) constant margin (contribution after deducting variable costs including retention spending) per period, (2) constant retention probability per period, and (3) discount rate. Furthermore, the model assumes that in the event that the customer is not retained, they are lost for good. Finally, the model assumes that the first margin will be received (with probability equal to the retention rate) at the end of the first period.

The one other assumption of the model is that the firm uses an infinite horizon when it calculates the present value of future cash flows. Although no firm actually has an infinite horizon, the consequences of assuming one are discussed in the following.

Under the assumptions of the model, CLV is a multiple of the margin. The multiplicative factor represents the present value of the expected length (number of periods) of the customer relationship. When retention equals 0, the customer will never be retained, and the multiplicative factor is zero. When retention equals 1, the customer is always retained, and the firm receives the margin in perpetuity. The present value of the margin in perpetuity turns out to be the Margin divided by the Discount Rate. For retention values in between, the CLV formula tells us the appropriate multiplier.

Methodology
Simple commerce example

(Avg Monthly Revenue per Customer * Gross Margin per Customer) ÷ Monthly Churn Rate

The numerator represents the average monthly profit per customer, and dividing by the churn rate sums the geometric series representing the chance the customer will still be around in future months.

For example: $100 avg monthly spend * 25% margin ÷ 5% monthly churn = $500 LTV

A retention example

CLV (customer lifetime value) calculation process consists of four steps:
 * 1) forecasting of remaining customer lifetime (most often in years)
 * 2) forecasting of future revenues (most often year-by-year), based on estimation about future products purchased and price paid
 * 3) estimation of costs for delivering those products
 * 4) calculation of the net present value of these future amounts

Forecasting accuracy and difficulty in tracking customers over time may affect CLV calculation process.

Retention models make several simplifying assumptions and often involve the following inputs:

 * Churn rate, the percentage of customers who end their relationship with a company in a given period. Churn rate + retention rate = 100%.  Most models can be written using either churn rate or retention rate.  If the model uses only one churn rate, the assumption is that the churn rate is constant across the life of the customer relationship.
 * Discount rate, the cost of capital used to discount future revenue from a customer. Discounting is an advanced topic that is frequently ignored in customer lifetime value calculations.  The current interest rate is sometimes used as a simple (but incorrect) proxy for discount rate.
 * Contribution margin
 * Retention cost, the amount of money a company has to spend in a given period to retain an existing customer. Retention costs include customer support, billing, promotional incentives, etc.
 * Period, the unit of time into which a customer relationship is divided for analysis. A year is the most commonly used period.  Customer lifetime value is a multi-period calculation, usually stretching 3–7 years into the future.  In practice, analysis beyond this point is viewed as too speculative to be reliable.  The number of periods used in the calculation is sometimes referred to as the model horizon.

Thus, one of the ways to calculate CLV, where period is a year, is as follows:

 * $$\text{CLV} = \text{GC} \cdot \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{r^i}{(1+d)^i} - \text{M} \cdot \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{r^{i-1}}{(1+d)^{i-0.5}}$$

where $$\text{GC}$$ is yearly gross contribution per customer, $$\text{M}$$ is the (relevant) retention costs per customer per year (this formula assumes the retention activities are paid for each mid year and they only affect those who were retained in the previous year), $$n$$ is the horizon (in years), $$r$$ is the yearly retention rate, $$d$$ is the yearly discount rate. In addition to retention costs, firms are likely to invest in cross-selling activities which are designed to increase the yearly profit of a customer over time.

Simplified models

It is often helpful to estimate customer lifetime value with a simple model to make initial assessments of customer segments and targeting. If $$\text{GC}$$ is found to be relatively fixed across periods, CLV can be expressed as a simpler model assuming an infinite economic life (i.e., $$\text{N} \rightarrow \infty$$ ) :

 * $$\text{CLV} = \text{GC} \cdot \left(\frac{r}{1+d-r}\right)$$

Note: No CLV methodology has been independently audited by the Marketing Accountability Standards Board (MASB) according to MMAP (Marketing Metric Audit Protocol).

Uses and advantages
Customer lifetime value has intuitive appeal as a marketing concept, because in theory it represents exactly how much each customer is worth in monetary terms, and therefore exactly how much a marketing department should be willing to spend to acquire each customer, especially in direct response marketing.

Lifetime value is typically used to judge the appropriateness of the costs of acquisition of a customer. For example, if a new customer costs $50 to acquire (COCA, or cost of customer acquisition), and their lifetime value is $60, then the customer is judged to be profitable, and acquisition of additional similar customers is acceptable.

Additionally, CLV is used to calculate customer equity.

Advantages of CLV:
 * management of customer relationship as an asset
 * monitoring the impact of management strategies and marketing investments on the value of customer assets, e.g.: marketing mix modeling simulators can use a multi-year CLV model to show the true value (versus acquisition cost) of an additional customer, reduced churn rate, product up-sell
 * determination of the optimal level of investments in marketing and sales activities
 * encourages marketers to focus on the long-term value of customers instead of investing resources in acquiring "cheap" customers with low total revenue value
 * implementation of sensitivity analysis in order to determinate getting impact by spending extra money on each customer
 * optimal allocation of limited resources for ongoing marketing activities in order to achieve a maximum return
 * a good basis for selecting customers and for decision making regarding customer specific communication strategies
 * a natural decision criterion to use in automation of customer relationship management systems
 * measurement of customer loyalty (proportion of purchase, probability of purchase and repurchase, purchase frequency and sequence etc.)

The disadvantages of CLV do not generally stem from CLV modeling per se, but from its incorrect application.

NPV vs. nominal prediction
The most accurate CLV predictions are made using the net present value (NPV) of each future net profit source, so that the revenue to be received from the customer in the future is recognized at the future value of money. However, NPV calculations require additional sophistication including maintenance of a discount rate, which leads most organizations to instead calculate CLV using the nominal (non-discounted) figures. Nominal CLV predictions are biased slightly high, scaling higher the farther into the future the revenues are expected from customers.

Net profit vs. revenue
A common mistake is for a CLV prediction to calculate the total revenue or even gross margin associated with a customer. However, this can cause CLV to be multiples of their actual value, and instead need to be calculated as the full net profit expected from the customer.

Often ecommerce reporting systems will report lifetime revenue (LTR), rather than lifetime value based on net profit, due to the difficulty most ecommerce platforms have generating an accurate profit figure (i.e. calculating accurate sold item costs, marketing costs and delivery costs) on an order by order basis. Lifetime revenue can still be a very valuable and useful metric for ecommerce stores to report on in order to measure site performance.

Segment inaccuracy
Opponents often cite the inaccuracy of a CLV prediction to argue they should not be used to drive significant business decisions. For example, major drivers to the value of a customer such as the nature of the relationship are often not available as appropriately structured data and thus not included in the formula.

Comparison with intuition
More predictors, such as specific demographics of a customer group, may have an effect that is intuitively obvious to an experienced marketer but are often omitted from CLV predictions and thus cause inaccuracies in certain customer segments.

Over-values current customers at the expense of potential customers
The biggest problem with how many CLV models are actually used is that they tend to deny the very idea that marketing works (i.e., that marketing will change customer behavior). Low-value customers can be turned into high-value customers by effective marketing. Many CLV models use incorrect mathematics in that they do not take account of the value of a far greater number of middle-value customers, over-prioritizing a smaller number of high value customers. Additionally, these high-value customers may be saturated (i.e., not have the ability to buy any more products), may be the most expensive group to serve, and may be the most expensive group to reach by communication. The use of survey data is a viable way to collect information on potential customers.

CLV is a dynamic concept, not a static model
A customer lifetime value is the output of a model, not an input. If the model inputs change (e.g., marketing is effective and retention rates increase), the average CLV will increase. However, when engaging with customers in such way which cause detraction, the opposite may happen and average CLV will go down (e.g. the invoicing department sends them the wrong or unclear invoices).

title: Customer lifetime value


text: Template:South Dakota class battleship

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

title: Template:South Dakota class battleship


text:
Closure operator

In mathematics, a closure operator on a set S is a function $$\operatorname{cl}: \mathcal{P}(S)\rightarrow \mathcal{P}(S)$$ from the power set of S to itself that satisfies the following conditions for all sets $$X,Y\subseteq S$$
 * {| border="0"

 * $$X \subseteq \operatorname{cl}(X)$$
 * (cl is extensive),
 * $$X\subseteq Y \Rightarrow \operatorname{cl}(X) \subseteq \operatorname{cl}(Y)$$
 * (cl is increasing),
 * $$ \operatorname{cl}(\operatorname{cl}(X))=\operatorname{cl}(X)$$
 * (cl is idempotent).
 * }
 * $$ \operatorname{cl}(\operatorname{cl}(X))=\operatorname{cl}(X)$$
 * (cl is idempotent).
 * }

Closure operators are determined by their closed sets, i.e., by the sets of the form cl(X), since the closure cl(X) of a set X is the smallest closed set containing X. Such families of "closed sets" are sometimes called closure systems or "Moore families". A set together with a closure operator on it is sometimes called a closure space. Closure operators are also called "hull operators", which prevents confusion with the "closure operators" studied in topology.

History
E. H. Moore studied closure operators in his 1910 Introduction to a form of general analysis, whereas the concept of the closure of a subset originated in the work of Frigyes Riesz in connection with topological spaces. Though not formalized at the time, the idea of closure originated in the late 19th century with notable contributions by Ernst Schröder, Richard Dedekind and Georg Cantor.

Examples
The usual set closure from topology is a closure operator. Other examples include the linear span of a subset of a vector space, the convex hull or affine hull of a subset of a vector space or the lower semicontinuous hull $$\overline{f}$$ of a function $$f \colon E \to \mathbb{R} \cup \{ \pm \infty \}$$, where $$E$$ is e.g. a normed space, defined implicitly $$\operatorname{epi}(\overline{f}) = \overline{\operatorname{epi}(f)}$$, where $$\operatorname{epi}(f)$$ is the epigraph of a function $$f$$.

The relative interior $$\operatorname{ri}$$ is not a closure operator: although it is idempotent, it is not increasing and if $$C_1$$ is a cube in $$\mathbb{R}^3$$ and $$C_2$$ is one of its faces, then $$C_2 \subset C_1$$, but $$\operatorname{ri}(C_1) \ne \emptyset \ne \operatorname{ri}(C_2)$$ and $$\operatorname{ri}(C_1) \cap \operatorname{ri}(C_2) = \emptyset$$, so it is not increasing.

In topology, the closure operators are topological closure operators, which must satisfy

 * $$\operatorname{cl}(X_1 \cup\dots\cup X_n) = \operatorname{cl}(X_1)\cup\dots\cup \operatorname{cl}(X_n)$$

for all $$n\in\N$$ (Note that for $$n=0$$ this gives $$\operatorname{cl}(\varnothing)=\varnothing$$).

In algebra and logic, many closure operators are finitary closure operators, i.e. they satisfy

 * $$\operatorname{cl}(X) = \bigcup\left\{\operatorname{cl}(Y) : Y\subseteq X \text{ and } Y \text{ finite} \right\}.$$

In the theory of partially ordered sets, which are important in theoretical computer science, closure operators have a more general definition that replaces $$\subseteq$$ with $$\leq$$. (See .)

Closure operators in topology
The topological closure of a subset X of a topological space consists of all points y of the space, such that every neighbourhood of y contains a point of X. The function that associates to every subset X its closure is a topological closure operator. Conversely, every topological closure operator on a set gives rise to a topological space whose closed sets are exactly the closed sets with respect to the closure operator.

Closure operators in algebra
Finitary closure operators play a relatively prominent role in universal algebra, and in this context they are traditionally called algebraic closure operators. Every subset of an algebra generates a subalgebra: the smallest subalgebra containing the set. This gives rise to a finitary closure operator.

Perhaps the best known example for this is the function that associates to every subset of a given vector space its linear span. Similarly, the function that associates to every subset of a given group the subgroup generated by it, and similarly for fields and all other types of algebraic structures.

The linear span in a vector space and the similar algebraic closure in a field both satisfy the exchange property: If x is in the closure of the union of A and {y} but not in the closure of A, then y is in the closure of the union of A and {x}. A finitary closure operator with this property is called a matroid. The dimension of a vector space, or the transcendence degree of a field (over its prime field) is exactly the rank of the corresponding matroid.

The function that maps every subset of a given field to its algebraic closure is also a finitary closure operator, and in general it is different from the operator mentioned before. Finitary closure operators that generalize these two operators are studied in model theory as dcl (for definable closure) and acl (for algebraic closure).

The convex hull in n-dimensional Euclidean space is another example of a finitary closure operator. It satisfies the anti-exchange property: If x is in the closure of the union of {y} and A, but not in the union of {y} and closure of A, then y is not in the closure of the union of {x} and A. Finitary closure operators with this property give rise to antimatroids.

As another example of a closure operator used in algebra, if some algebra has universe A and X is a set of pairs of A, then the operator assigning to X the smallest congruence containing X is a finitary closure operator on A x A.

Closure operators in logic
Suppose you have some logical formalism that contains certain rules allowing you to derive new formulas from given ones. Consider the set F of all possible formulas, and let P be the power set of F, ordered by ⊆. For a set X of formulas, let cl(X) be the set of all formulas that can be derived from X. Then cl is a closure operator on P. More precisely, we can obtain cl as follows. Call "continuous" an operator J such that, for every directed class T,
 * J(lim T) = lim J(T).

This continuity condition is on the basis of a fixed point theorem for J. Consider the one-step operator J of a monotone logic. This is the operator associating any set X of formulas with the set J(X) of formulas that are either logical axioms or are obtained by an inference rule from formulas in X or are in X. Then such an operator is continuous and we can define cl(X) as the least fixed point for J greater or equal to X. In accordance with such a point of view, Tarski, Brown, Suszko and other authors proposed a general approach to logic based on closure operator theory. Also, such an idea is proposed in programming logic (see Lloyd 1987) and in fuzzy logic (see Gerla 2000).

Consequence operators
Around 1930, Alfred Tarski developed an abstract theory of logical deductions that models some properties of logical calculi. Mathematically, what he described is just a finitary closure operator on a set (the set of sentences). In abstract algebraic logic, finitary closure operators are still studied under the name consequence operator, which was coined by Tarski. The set S represents a set of sentences, a subset T of S a theory, and cl(T) is the set of all sentences that follow from the theory. Nowadays the term can refer to closure operators that need not be finitary; finitary closure operators are then sometimes called finite consequence operators.

Closed sets
The closed sets with respect to a closure operator on S form a subset C of the power set P(S). Any intersection of sets in C is again in C. In other words, C is a complete meet-subsemilattice of P(S). Conversely, if C ⊆ P(S) is closed under arbitrary intersections, then the function that associates to every subset X of S the smallest set Y ∈ C such that X ⊆ Y is a closure operator.

There is a simple and fast algorithm for generating all closed sets of a given closure operator.

A closure operator on a set is topological if and only if the set of closed sets is closed under finite unions, i.e., C is a meet-complete sublattice of P(S). Even for non-topological closure operators, C can be seen as having the structure of a lattice. (The join of two sets X,Y ⊆ P(S) being cl(X $$\cup$$ Y).) But then C is not a sublattice of the lattice P(S).

Given a finitary closure operator on a set, the closures of finite sets are exactly the compact elements of the set C of closed sets. It follows that C is an algebraic poset. Since C is also a lattice, it is often referred to as an algebraic lattice in this context. Conversely, if C is an algebraic poset, then the closure operator is finitary.

Pseudo-closed sets
Each closure operator on a finite set S is uniquely determined by its images of its pseudo-closed sets. These are recursively defined: A set is pseudo-closed if it is not closed and contains the closure of each of its pseudo-closed proper subsets. Formally: P ⊆ S is pseudo-closed if and only if
 * P ≠ cl(P) and
 * if Q ⊂ P is pseudo-closed, then cl(Q) ⊆ P.

Closure operators on partially ordered sets
A partially ordered set (poset) is a set together with a partial order ≤, i.e. a binary relation that is reflexive (a ≤ a), transitive (a ≤ b ≤ c implies a ≤ c) and antisymmetric (a ≤ b ≤ a implies a = b). Every power set P(S) together with inclusion ⊆ is a partially ordered set.

A function cl: P → P from a partial order P to itself is called a closure operator if it satisfies the following axioms for all elements x, y in P.
 * {| border="0"

 * x ≤ cl(x)
 * (cl is extensive)
 * x ≤ y implies cl(x) ≤ cl(y)
 * (cl is increasing)
 * cl(cl(x)) = cl(x)
 * (cl is idempotent)
 * }
 * cl(cl(x)) = cl(x)
 * (cl is idempotent)
 * }

More succinct alternatives are available: the definition above is equivalent to the single axiom

 * x ≤ cl(y) if and only if cl(x) ≤ cl(y)

for all x, y in P.

Using the pointwise order on functions between posets, one may alternatively write the extensiveness property as idP ≤ cl, where id is the identity function. A self-map k that is increasing and idempotent, but satisfies the dual of the extensiveness property, i.e. k ≤ idP is called a kernel operator, interior operator, or dual closure. As examples, if A is a subset of a set B, then the self-map on the powerset of B given by μA(X) = A ∪ X is a closure operator, whereas λA(X) = A ∩ X is a kernel operator. The ceiling function from the real numbers to the real numbers, which assigns to every real x the smallest integer not smaller than x, is another example of a closure operator.

A fixpoint of the function cl, i.e. an element c of P that satisfies cl(c) = c, is called a closed element. A closure operator on a partially ordered set is determined by its closed elements. If c is a closed element, then x ≤ c and cl(x) ≤ c are equivalent conditions.

Every Galois connection (or residuated mapping) gives rise to a closure operator (as is explained in that article). In fact, every closure operator arises in this way from a suitable Galois connection. The Galois connection is not uniquely determined by the closure operator. One Galois connection that gives rise to the closure operator cl can be described as follows: if A is the set of closed elements with respect to cl, then cl: P → A is the lower adjoint of a Galois connection between P and A, with the upper adjoint being the embedding of A into P. Furthermore, every lower adjoint of an embedding of some subset into P is a closure operator. "Closure operators are lower adjoints of embeddings." Note however that not every embedding has a lower adjoint.

Any partially ordered set P can be viewed as a category, with a single morphism from x to y if and only if x ≤ y. The closure operators on the partially ordered set P are then nothing but the monads on the category P. Equivalently, a closure operator can be viewed as an endofunctor on the category of partially ordered sets that has the additional idempotent and extensive properties.

If P is a complete lattice, then a subset A of P is the set of closed elements for some closure operator on P if and only if A is a Moore family on P, i.e. the largest element of P is in A, and the infimum (meet) of any non-empty subset of A is again in A. Any such set A is itself a complete lattice with the order inherited from P (but the supremum (join) operation might differ from that of P). When P is the powerset Boolean algebra of a set X, then a Moore family on P is called a closure system on X.

The closure operators on P form themselves a complete lattice; the order on closure operators is defined by cl1 ≤ cl2 iff cl1(x) ≤ cl2(x) for all x in P.

title: Closure operator


text:
Resolving power

Resolving power is the capacity of an instrument to resolve two points which are close together.

Specifically, resolving power may refer to:

 * Angular resolution
 * Spectral resolution
 * Optical resolution
 * Resolution (mass spectrometry)

title: Resolving power


text:
Talk:Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah

Incomplete - What about the madness???
Something should be said about the theory that he suffered from madness near the end of his life. One could also mention the beliefs of the Druze people.

I have never heard of the theory that he suffered from madness. In fact, the article is biased and does not give the perspective of the Druze.

Without any malice to the authors, I think this entire article needs to be re-written and more organized along chronological lines. One comes away from it with the feeling that one has learned nothing about the subject. True, the Caliph was extremely controversial, but even the talk page is a mish-mash of criticisms without any contributions towards clarity. Just the fact that he is the center of the Druze religion is enough to warrant a ton of research into this person, and an article that explains the man in relation to his times, rather than comes across as a list of names he was called, is needed. A lack of valid original research may be the cause of all of this, so one may not be able to fault the authors of the article, but I believe that this person is too important to leave an article in wikipedia.org about him in the chaotic state in which it currently stands.Daniel Sparkman (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Eccentric Behavior????
None of the information is cited, therefore there is no justification for its inclusion. There is no proof for any erratic or eccentric behavior in the academic literature. It needs to be removed or cited ASAP. Until it can be cited, I am removing it from the article.

 * I agree completely. I removed the section. --DRC27 (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately no one has attempted to cite that section, but I imagine it would be relatively easy. He had a reputation as "the mad caliph" because contemporary people said so - we didn't make it up for Wikipedia. We will just have to find those sources that say it. And is there nothing written about this in academic literature? I highly doubt it. Even if it is not true, it would be worth discussing as an historical myth. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

 * The Encyclopedia of Islam, at least the second edition (which is the only one I can read online where al-Hakim's article is available), talks about his eccentric behaviour, along with everything else, positive and negative. It also has a lengthy list of primary and secondary sources. I don't see how the statement that there is no proof of this in academic literature can be supported. I suppose we will now hear that the EI, and everything else that mentions al-Hakim's eccentricities, is Sunni propaganda? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Regardless of whether or not al-Hakim behaved erratically, the section needs to be cited in order to not violate Wikipedia standards. I have reviewed the archives of the talk page for this article and it seems like there is bias on both sides; those who wish to paint a picture of al-Hakim as a violent eccentric and those who wish to describe him as a rational caliph. Chances are neither view is completely true. In citing any eccentric behavior, we should take care to describe it in such a manner so as to not incite hostility. For example, instead of saying something along the lines of "al-Hakim was eccentric" we should say "al-Hakim has been described as eccentric by..." Having done some work on the Fatimid caliphate, I am aware of the historical documents available to historians. Al-Hakim in particular had many enemies, Christian and Muslim, and many of the sources describing his reign come from such people. This is not to say the testimonia are false, but we should consider their origin and relay the information as objectively as possible. The academic study of history is more an analysis of historical facts than a compilation of historical records. We should keep this in mind. --DRC27 (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree. I apologize for my assumptions about your motives. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Disappearance
I have here a copy of 'Millennium' by Felipe Fernandez-Armesto in which al-Hakim's disappearance is claimed to have occurred following his retirement to his observatory where he studied astronomy with the aid of an astrolabe rather than during a night-time journey into the al-Muqattam hills. Can somebody clarify which it is? --J — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.36.143 (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"The Mad Caliph"
It seems the question of the label "Mad Caliph" has been edit warred here a number of times, including the two discussions below (which I have brought here to centralise the debate), the discussion immediately above, as well as Talk:Al-Hakim_bi-Amr_Allah/Archive_1 from the archives.

==> Bringing from my talk page
 * Which "Western literature" are you talking about? Even if he is referred as being mad in western books, don't they mention his name alongside? Besides, he's not known as "the mad caliph", he might be said to have been mad by his dissident rivals and subsiquent patron historians. Our aim is to be accurate while being neutral.
 * Encyclopedia Britannica's page concerning "Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah" is not accurate and is highly misleading. Please don't use that as a source.
 * How do you know of al_hakim being "extremely well known by this name"? Britanica? That book about crusades? Both are thoroughly unreliable.
 * My edit is not vandalism, it is a correction. PukaChAo 03:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DistributorScientiae (talk • contribs) 03:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

==> Bringing from DistributorScientiae's talk page
 * I was not the editor that reverted your change, but I do believe in inclusion of the name. A search for that term in Google books shows multiple sources using that to refer to him: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q=mad+caliph&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp&ei=DfE6UKqwFumoyAG564DwAg&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=ccbd65a7f6b1790d&biw=1920&bih=934
 * I tried looking for a source that took issue with that name, as then we could cite that notable source and make a statement like "He is referred in many works in Western Literature as the "Mad Caliph" but this term is seen as derogatory by some, such as [and then here we would note which notable took issue with that name]." Wikipedia has standards on who is notable (so it can't just be some blog), I am hoping there is a historian that makes this arguement or perhaps a leader of the Druze.
 * One of the main reason he is often referred to by this name is his erratic behavior when it comes to persecution of minorities, flipping back and forth without any apparent logic. This is usually brought up in contrast with the rest of the Caliphs in history who in general were far more tolerant. This term is also used to signify that his behavior doesn't make sense in either the culture of Egypt nor the precepts of Islam, so one should not seek to blame his behavior on either of these.
 * Because the statement that he is called this can be verified by multiple sources the statement meets wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, that is why its removal is seen as vandalism.
 * --Wowaconia (talk) 04:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I had not seen that you had taken the information out again, so this time I will be the person to undo your change and replace that information as it meets the criteria for inclusion (as mentioned above). You should note that in order to prevent what are called "edit wars" Wikipeida has a set of rules and regulations concerning controversy over articles. If you still have issues with the inclusion of the term "Mad Caliph" you can call for a greater discussion on the matter in the article's own discussion page which is accessed by clicking on the "talk" tab at the top of the page.--Wowaconia (talk) 04:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added sourced statements from historians that lay out why he is referred as the Mad Caliph, for reasons similar to what I stated above. I still would like to find a notable source that took issue with the term altogther - I can't believe a Druze would not take issue with that term, but we need to find a notable source rather than put words into people's mouths.--Wowaconia (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

 * In response to the points made, I agree with Wowaconia. I also understand and respect that that Al-Hakim is an important figure in a number of Shia Ismaili reglions, particularly the world's 15 million Nizaris and the 2 million Druze (which, by the way, is an important point which is missing in the lead).
 * Here are another couple of good sources and, both of whom claim that the label "Mad Caliph" came about as a result of Sunni chroniclers trying to bad mouth him.
 * A good equivalent for this issue is Ivan the Terrible, who rather than being "terrible" as we understand it today, was in fact one of Russia's most important and successful leaders - it was under his reign that Russia was transformed from an inward looking medieval state into a fast expanding multi-ethnic empire. The "the Terrible" epithet came about because of a translation error.
 * DistributorScientiae, wikipedia does not shy away from such issues because they are sensitive, or because old western historians were wrong. Wikipedia precedent suggests we should deal with it in a positive fashion, explaining to readers that he was called the "Mad Caliph", but that this label was erroneous for x, y, z reasons. The Ivan the Terrible example is a good template to follow.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly it should be mentioned, but not in the lead paragraph, where it is currently. Maybe a "legacy" section or something. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at improving the structure of the article as a whole, and also trying to get the balance right on this delicate point. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those scholars who take issue with the term, I have expanded the segment by taking quotes from the sources you found, hopefully that should help balance the article. I couldn't determine that they were Sunni, so I changed that to "partisan" as that seems easily supported by the referrences. --Wowaconia (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Originality
Please do not indulge in elaborate religious discussion in this historical article. Please do not add entire quotes of Nissim Dana as this an independant article and must be written as originally as possible. Thanks. DistributorScientiae 12:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DistributorScientiae (talk • contribs)

 * I don't think you understand wikipedia if you are calling for original research, see No original research. The use of quotations of reputable scholars is actually a requirement in wikipeida, see Verifiability. If you desire to delete quotations please give a better reason than you think the article needs to be more "original". The quotes are clearly cited, authors are clearly credited and therefor thier inclusion is not plagiarism. In addition they are brief. If you want to write your own work on the subject independent of wikipedia standards, you should do so in a blog post not here. Wikipeidia is not a blog, see WP:NOTBLOG.
 * --Wowaconia (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

 * While it is legit for you to quote historians here and there, it's certainly not a necessity. What we need to do here is to extract information from the sources and frame it in an informative and concise manner. If what you're saying is true why not read that book instead? Why waste time on an encyclopedia article? You might have noticed that, while I have deleted quotations, I have been careful of not leaving out any key information, and the reference remains intact. While you are quoting Nissim Dana's work, my I bring it to your notice that his work contains many factual, historical errors, and the tone in which he writes is opinionated, and is not encyclopedic. I do not accuse anyone of plagiarism here. I am not creating original work here-i'm not writing fiction-I'm simply stating the same information contained in the quotations in from of neutral sentences. But you are being extremely discourteous by arrogantly reversing my edits. And by the way, I am not unaware of the guidelines, pages you are referring me to.
 * --DistributorScientiae 00:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And now i have reversed your reversal. FYI - Muawiah was not a warrier. So much for the the scholarship of Nissim Dana. DistributorScientiae (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

 * When you say its "not a necessity" to quote historians/scholars/experts in a wikipeida article you are flatly mistaken. Wikipeida standards demand them. When you question Nissim Dana, you just assert your own opinion, what notable historians have raised any questions about Nissim Dana's work? That work is published by an academic publishing house and held up to academic standards, it is not self-published. Why should anyone believe your "neutral sentences" over that of an expert? In your January seventh edit you included "much to the grievance of Sunni populace" where did you get that from? The answer is from nowhere. you assumed it to be true without citing anything but your own imagination. It was pure conjecture, pure original research.

 * A noted historian's reasearch vs an unknown wikipedia editor's feelings on the matter, sorry but wikipeida standards favor the actual historian. Further I think many would easily argue that if a leader commands a general to move troops and take up positions that leader can be described as a warrior. A simple Google search can find that Muawiya ordered his general Abul Awr to move 10,000 troops to block water access at Siffin to Ali's army along with other tactical decesions at the Battle of Siffin.

 * Please provide reasons for your deletions rather than you don't like the words. Wikipedia is not a blog so one person's opinion is not authoritative, things are run by consensus and the standards reached by that. One such standards is the need to quote reliable sources. You can persist on reversing things in an attempt to dominate the article but if you don't follow Wikipedia's standards they terminate your account and block your internet access address.
 * --Wowaconia (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes it demands that the work be previously be researched, however, the research work is may or may not included in an article directly. What we require is an article, not excerpts.

 * Regarding:"much to the grievance of Sunni populace"- you might notice that the entire paragraph was,and is, dedicated to that very subject. It is not out of place. However, you can still remove it in particular since it does bring in some redundancy in mentioning.

 * Regarding Nissim Dana, Nissim Dana is a human being.

 * Yup. Muawiyah was not a warrier.

 * Rather than being constructive and building on my work, you are incessantly undoing my edit in it's entirety. On top of that, you are giving me meaningless sermons on Wikipedia standards this and Wikipedia standards that.

 * --DistributorScientiae (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is an organization, it has standards set up by consensus. If you don't like the rules either raise a consensus to change them or don't participate. If you demand that people use a cement ball during a game of football people see that your trying to change the rules of the game and ask you to leave. If you want to make a new game with new rules somewhere else your free to do so. Wikipeida has rules/standards arrived by consensus, if you don't want to work within those you can make a new work somewhere else with different rules - your own blog.

 * I understand that your opinion is that Muawiyah was not a warrior - but your opinion in wikipeida is meaningless. My opinion in wikipeida is meaningless. Only expert's opinions hold any meaning here. Yes Nissim Dana is a human, but he is a human being that is an expert on the subject of this article therefor his opinion has meaning here. Both you and I are anonymous people with access to the internet who went on wikipedia, our opinions are not worth anything to some other reader trying to learn about the subject - therefor Wikipedia demands we cite experts. Wikipedia standards state "When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy." As the subject of this article brings out a highly charged response from many readers and editors, the use of small direct quotations (properly credited) is given to show that it is not one anonymous editors reading/personal interpretation of an expert's statement.

 * If you wish to challenge the statement that Muawiyah was a warrior cite some experts on the matter in the talk page, a consensus might be reached that these experts outweigh Nissim Dana and changes could be made then. If you just want to insist that due to your ability to get on the internet and have an opinion the article must be made to conform to your personal whims - such a position is not persuasive.--Wowaconia (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

third or sixth caliphate
The opening sentence states he "was the third Fatimid caliph", with a reference to a MIT handout, but surely he was the sixth (and the third was Al-Mansur Billah). Jojairus (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I corrected this, notes from a college course are not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. I changed it and pointed to a reliable source that clearly has him as the sixth Fatimid caliph like every other reliable source. -Wowaconia (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Assertions about the Druze, not up to wiki standards
I reverted the following material that was added and asserts things about the Druze and/or "aggressive historians" who are unnamed and apparently are deemed "aggressive" solely by the opinion of the editor who inserted the statements. The reference given appears to merely be a self published web site and as such would not raise to the level of reliable source by wiki standards.

Perhaps if the statements were reworked they could meet wiki-standards as a critique of the Druze position. I place them here, should anyone wish to under take this endeavor --Wowaconia (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

 * The Druze movement became a main tool of the aggressive historians to discredit al-Hakim and contrived baseless stories arount it. He had however tried to control the Druzes in Egypt and Syria with drastic measures, but most of them had migrated in the mountains of Lebanon.

 * Al-Hakim was anxious to promulgate Ismailism throughout the Muslim world and to convince the Muslims that he was the rightful Imam- Caliph. If this was a difficult, it would be even more so to convince them that he was an incarnation of the Divinity to boost his alleged claim. Al-Hakim's belief is seen in a personal letter which he wrote to one of his officials: "I fear no one; beg from no one except my God to whom I submit and from whom I receive all bounties. My Prophet is my grandfather; my Imam is my father and my religion is sincerity and justice." ("Itti'az", p. 403) Makrizi writes in his "Khitat," p. 286) that in 403/1012, al-Hakim had engraved on his seal these words: "By the help of God, the Almighty and Protector, the Imam Abu Ali is the victorious."

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah. 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/20130327053334/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/976/cu3.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/976/cu3.htm

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) 20:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead image
I've removed the current lead image as it is not a portrait of al-Hakim, it's just a fresco from the 11th-century at Cairo's Islamic Art Museum. The museum's own literature and other sources make this clear (e.g. p.50 of this book, p. 14 of this book, and so on). The file name, which is merely chosen by whoever uploaded it, is the only thing claiming otherwise and is not a reliable source in itself. Maybe the image could be relevant here as an example of art from this time, but it should not be used as lead image either way: per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, an article about a person should not have a lead image that portrays a person other than the subject. Obviously, it would simply mislead readers of the page who expect the image to be of Al-Hakim. Articles for other Fatimid caliphs feature coins minted with the caliph's name as their lead image, so I've followed that example and replaced it with one such image from al-Hakim's time, but feel free to pick another. R Prazeres (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

House of Wisdom
The citation style in this article is generally way too slapdash for WP today - so many citations are to 'Random, P45' or 'Bunkum, 1847' - I'd argue for a complete cleanup of what is a really quite Augean stable. In particular, I intend to remove the section claiming he established the 'House of Wisdom', which pretty much every source available will tell you was established by Harun Al Rashid something like three hundred years earlier. Any objections? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

 * It appears he founded the House of Knowledge, a different creation altogether from the House of Wisdom of Harun Al Rashid. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Issa ibn Nestorius or Nasturis?
Is Nasturis a misspelling, or the Arabic version of Nestorius? Arminden (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Contradictory information cited by Britannica

 * "He is perhaps best remembered by his destruction of the church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem (1010), a measure which helped to provoke the Crusades...." --The Encyclopedia Britannica, vol 2, page 96

And yet the sentence added by Snowstormfigorion states:
 * "However, it is worth noting that the church was reconstructed by al-Hakim's son al-Zahir before the Crusades, and as such his actions cannot be seen as a direct cause of the Crusades." --using The Encyclopedia Britannica.

As such I will be removing said sentence, since it clearly contradicts what the source provided by Snowstormfigorion states. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 * The above is followed by "but was only part of a general scheme", as such, wouldn't it be valid? Snowstormfigorion (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Not really, since the rest of the sentence clearly does not support what you are trying to reference.

 * "He is perhaps best remembered by his destruction of the church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem (1010), a measure which helped to provoke the Crusades, but was only a part of a general scheme for converting all Christians and Jews in his dominions to his own opinions by force."
 * You honestly think that supports your sentence? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I guess I didn't throughly read it then, my bad. I'll see if I can find a different source. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead should be amended
Half of the entire lead shouldn't be taken by one historian's quote on al-Hakim. It really should be (traditionally) a summarization of the most important points of this article Danial Bass (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah


text: Template:North Carolina class battleship


text:
GNU Multiple Precision Arithmetic Library

GNU Multiple Precision Arithmetic Library (GMP) is a free library for arbitrary-precision arithmetic, operating on signed integers, rational numbers, and floating-point numbers. There are no practical limits to the precision except the ones implied by the available memory (operands may be of up to 232−1 bits on 32-bit machines and 237 bits on 64-bit machines). GMP has a rich set of functions, and the functions have a regular interface. The basic interface is for C, but wrappers exist for other languages, including Ada, C++, C#, Julia, .NET, OCaml, Perl, PHP, Python, R, Ruby, and Rust. Prior to 2008, Kaffe, a Java virtual machine, used GMP to support Java built-in arbitrary precision arithmetic. Shortly after, GMP support was added to GNU Classpath.

The main target applications of GMP are cryptography applications and research, Internet security applications, and computer algebra systems.

GMP aims to be faster than any other bignum library for all operand sizes. Some important factors in doing this are:
 * Full words are the basic type for all arithmetic.
 * Different algorithms are used for different operand sizes; algorithms which are more efficient with large numbers are not used when dealing with small numbers.
 * Assembly (specialized for different processors) are used in the most common inner loops to optimize them as much as possible.

The first GMP release was made in 1991. It is constantly developed and maintained.

GMP is part of the GNU project (although its website being off gnu.org may cause confusion), and is distributed under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL).

GMP is used for integer arithmetic in many computer algebra systems such as Mathematica and Maple. It is also used in the Computational Geometry Algorithms Library (CGAL).

GMP is needed to build the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC).

Examples
Here is an example of C code showing the use of the GMP library to multiply and print large numbers:

This code calculates the value of 7612058254738945 × 9263591128439081.

Compiling and running this program gives this result. (The  flag is used if compiling on Unix-type systems.)

For comparison, one can write instead the following equivalent C++ program. (The  flags are used if compiling on Unix-type systems.)


text:
Schizaeales

Schizaeales is an order of ferns (class Polypodiopsida).

Description
While the three clades of Schizaeales are all well-distinguished from one another by numerous morphological characters, members of the order all have dimorphic fertile and sterile fronds and lack well-defined sori. Their sporangia have a horizontal annulus that lies below and completely encircles the top of the sporangium. The two genera Actinostachys and Schizaea (except for Microschizaea) in the family Schizaeaceae have subterranean gametophytes without chlorophyll.

Classification
In the molecular phylogenetic classification of Smith et al. in 2006, the Schizaeales were placed in the leptosporangiate ferns, class Polypodiopsida. Three families, Anemiaceae, Lygodiaceae, and Schizaeaceae were recognized. The linear sequence of Christenhusz et al. (2011), intended for compatibility with the classification of Chase and Reveal (2009) which placed all land plants in Equisetopsida, reclassified Smith's Polypodiopsida as subclass Polypodiidae and placed the Schizaeales there, with the same three families. The classification of Christenhusz and Chase (2014) placed all members of the Schizaeales in a more broadly defined Schizaeaceae, reducing the three existing families to subfamilies as Anemioideae, Lygodioideae, and Schizaeoideae. The PPG I classification (2016) returned to the three-family definition of the order.

Historically, the ferns in this order were once all lumped into the family Schizaeaceae in the old order Filicales. However, although they are demonstrably related, these ferns differ markedly, and so three groups have now been elevated to family status:

 * The family Schizaeaceae are generally small ferns with forking fronds and a distinctive, somewhat non-fern-like, appearance.
 * The family Anemiaceae look very fern-like and are typically terrestrial or epipetric.
 * The family Lygodiaceae, or climbing ferns, look very ferny but are highly distinctive in their growth habit: the rachis of the frond is long and flexible, with indeterminate growth, so that the fronds form climbing or trailing vines.

At one time some workers believed the water ferns (order Salviniales) to be allied to this order because of certain structural similarities, but modern cladistic studies have ruled out any special alliance.

Evolution
Schizaeales had a northern hemisphere concentration as late as the Mesozoic, but by the Quaternary, there was a clear shift to a southern hemisphere distribution.

title: Schizaeales


text:
Stalwarts (politics)

The Stalwarts were a faction of the Republican Party that existed briefly in the United States during and after Reconstruction and the Gilded Age during the 1870s and 1880s. Led by U.S. Senator Roscoe Conkling—also known as "Lord Roscoe"—Stalwarts were sometimes called Conklingites. Other notable Stalwarts included Benjamin Wade, Charles J. Folger, George C. Gorham, Chester A. Arthur, Thomas C. Platt, and Leonidas C. Houk. The faction favored Ulysses S. Grant, the eighteenth President of the United States (1868–1876), running for a third term in the 1880 United States presidential election.

The designation of "Stalwart" to describe the faction was coined by James G. Blaine, who would later lead the rival "Half-Breed" faction during the Garfield administration. Blaine and his political organization formed an informal coalition with the Stalwarts during the presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes, supporting patronage and advocating on behalf of Southern blacks. The Maine Senator also frequently joined Stalwarts in voting against nominations of reformers by President Hayes who received the support of Democrats and staunch Half-Breed Republicans. Blaine applied the term to commend Conkling's faction as devoted loyalists to the Republican Party's principles.

Stalwarts were the "traditional," "Old Guard" Republicans who advocated for the civil rights of African-Americans and opposed Rutherford B. Hayes's efforts to enact civil service reform. They were pitted against the "Half-Breeds" (classically liberal moderates) for control of the Republican Party. The most prominent issue between Stalwarts and Half-Breeds was patronage. The Half-Breeds worked to enact moderate civil service reform, and finally helped pass the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. This was signed by Arthur, who became President after the assassination of James A. Garfield, a Half-Breed. Stalwarts favored traditional machine politics.

Background
During the American Civil War and afterwards, congressional Radical Republicans feuded with Conservative Republicans who generally opposed efforts by Radical Republicans to rebuild the Southern U.S. under an economically mobile, free-market system  and thrived politically on antipathy towards civil rights and black suffrage, and with Moderate Republicans, who were less enthusiastic than Radical Republicans about Black suffrage even though they otherwise embraced civil equality and the expansion of federal authority during the American Civil War.

Over time, the power of the Radical Republicans disintegrated as members became disenchanted with the associated corruption during the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant. Many remaining Radicals, unwavering in their tactic of "waving the bloody shirt" and their defense of black civil rights, formed the Stalwarts, including but not limited to Roscoe Conkling, Frederick T. Frelinghuysen, John A. Logan, Zachariah Chandler, Benjamin Butler, William B. Allison, Benjamin Wade, and Oliver P. Morton.

Characteristics
The remedy of the Stalwarts was drastic enough. Their program was the return to the radicalism of Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, with no quarter shown to unrepentant rebels or their allies among the Northern Democrats or their new recruits from the muddle-headed, mushy-hearted “liberals” in the Republican fold. Their instrument was the machine, well oiled with patronage, turning out rewards for the regulars and punishments for the recalcitrants, manned by reliable manipulators who knew which side their bread was buttered on and wanted no interference from that “man milliner Curtis” or any other visionary “snivel service” reformers. The candidate must be no goody-goody like “Granny Hayes,” but a strong, red-blooded man who identified patriotism with Republicanism and would stand no nonsense from “traitors” to the country or to the party. That man they found in General Grant—not the generous Grant of Appomattox, but the “tawdry Caesar” of the Enforcement Acts. The Stalwarts were mostly identifiable through their support of the presidency and re-election of Ulysses S. Grant. The 1880 Republican National Convention was the event in which the group participated most prominently. Of the Stalwarts present, most were from former Confederate states, with others being from New York, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, home to some prominent Republican leaders. Deemed as loyalists to the policies pursued under the Grant administration, they stood in favor of hard money, high tariffs, waving the bloody shirt, and Southern Republicanism led by freedmen and carpetbaggers.

Although commonly described as "conservative", Stalwarts were not uniformly bound on ideology aside from their advocacy of spoils system politics and African-American civil rights. Some members, including John A. Logan, broke with the standard Republican Party position on the issue of protective tariffs and favored lower rates.

Stalwarts were more cautious in policy than non-Stalwarts, preferring to avoid controversial policies popular with other Republicans, such as a higher protective tariff. This caution led the Stalwarts to support the nomination of Grant, a popular former president, at the 1880 Republican National Convention.

Conkling rebukes Hayes in Port Collector fight
The Collector of the Port of New York was a powerful and prized political position, with the officeholder being able to control a central location of trade between the United States and other nations. New York had for many years hitherto been managed by the powerful patronage machine of Sen. Conkling, with opponents of the New York boss vying for control.

President Hayes attempted to wrest control of the Port from Conkling to no avail, twice picking his own political acolytes to the post only to have the nominations defeated in the Senate by the New York senator, who successfully rallied Republicans to his side. Among Hayes' earlier nominations to the post of New York Collector of Customs was Theodore Roosevelt Sr., the father of future president Theodore Roosevelt. The nomination of Roosevelt Sr. was defeated due to overwhelming Republican opposition in the U.S. Senate. The Stalwarts' opposition towards Roosevelt Sr. was joined by James G. Blaine, while Half-Breeds George F. Hoar and Stanley Matthews voted for the nomination.

Conkling later managed to secure the position of New York Customs House boss for close machine ally and future president Chester A. Arthur.

Hayes and Sherman fire Arthur
Arthur's tenure was marked with corruption and extensive preference of party loyalties over qualifications. He was known to have turned a blind eye to corruption in the New York Customs House, in addition to hiring thousands of Republicans for government jobs on the mere basis of partisan affiliation.

Following an investigation of the Customs House in 1877, President Hayes and Secretary of the Treasury John Sherman, a Half-Breed, fired Arthur the following year. This decision was criticized even by congressional members of the Blaine faction, who began to distance themselves from Hayes. The Hayes administration subsequently emerged victorious in several intraparty battles, successfully nominating Edwin Atkins Merritt and Silas W. Burt to prominent positions in New York. Although Republican opposition towards Hayes considerably eroded in contrast to the defeat of Roosevelt Sr.'s nomination, the Stalwarts and Blaine faction remained, at this point, informally united in persistent antipathy towards the president's reform advocacy.

1880 Republican National Convention

In 1880, Stalwarts led by Conkling, Logan, and Simon Cameron fiercely advocated nominating former president Ulysses S. Grant for a non-consecutive, third presidential term. The Half-Breeds advocated the nomination of Senator George F. Edmunds of Vermont, while the Blaine faction sought a presidential term for James G. Blaine. Although Grant had previously pushed for some degree of civil service reform as president, he became disenchanted with Hayes' efforts to effectively dismantle the Stalwarts' patronage machines. Conkling, who previously was a close ally to Grant during the latter's presidency, once again became a right-hand man.

The Stalwarts, in a bid for power within their own party in spite of their loss of power due to the rise in popularity of the Democratic Party, stubbornly supported the nomination of Ulysses S. Grant, who, if elected, would be serving a third, non-consecutive term. Bitter factionalism emerged, primarily between the Conkling and Blaine wings of the party. Chief allies of Blaine, William P. Frye and Eugene Hale, proved unable to thoroughly debate the shrewd Conkling, who "humiliated" Frye in a manner deemed "half sneer and half insult."

A stalemate ensued between the Half-Breeds, Blaine faction, and the Stalwarts, so a compromise was struck by the Blaine faction and supporters of John Sherman to nominate James A. Garfield, with Chester A. Arthur, former Collector of the Port of New York, as his running mate, to satisfy the Stalwarts and thereby ensure their support for the general election. For the vice presidential pick, Garfield at first proposed nominating Treasury of the Secretary John Sherman, a staunch Half-Breed, Moderate Republican, and supporter of civil service reform who Stalwarts loathed. In an appeal to party unity for both factions to be somewhat pleased, Conkling ally Chester "Chet" Arthur became Garfield's running mate, to the horror of Half-Breeds who pejoratively dubbed him as Conkling's "creature." The pair narrowly would win the general election in November that year.

Decline
After the Republican victory in November 1880, President Garfield and Conkling fought bitterly and publicly over patronage in Conkling's home state of New York. Garfield, with assistance and advice from Blaine, won the battle, and Conkling and Platt resigned from the Senate, convinced that they would be easily re-elected by the New York legislature. However, Garfield was shot by a self-proclaimed "Stalwart of the Stalwarts", Charles J. Guiteau, on July 2, 1881, and Arthur became President of the United States upon Garfield's death on September 19, 1881. The shock of the assassination broke both Conkling's power and that of the Stalwarts, and Conkling's former protege Arthur helped to create civil service reforms in his term, in part because he felt that he had to follow up on and finish Garfield's work.

The Pendleton Act passed with no Senate Republican opposition. Remaining Senate Stalwarts, including John A. Logan, William B. Allison, J. Donald Cameron, voted for passage. Only seven House Republicans (being Benjamin F. Marsh, James S. Robinson, Robert Smalls, William Robert Moore, Orlando Hubbs, John Robert Thomas, and George Washington Steele) voted against passage of the Pendleton Act.

In the 1884 United States presidential election, Conkling and Platt opposed the Republican Party renomination of their former ally Arthur. The nomination went to James G. Blaine, who Conkling continued loathing and refused to lend any support to in spite of the vice presidential selection going to Stalwart John A. Logan. When asked to campaign for the ticket, Conkling remarked: "I don't engage in criminal practice."

In some states such as Wisconsin, the term "stalwart" continued to be used in reference to the conservative element of those states' Republican parties in contrast to the progressive elements, well into the 1930s.

title: Stalwarts (politics)