text:
Talk:Republicanism in the United Kingdom

Current
Needs to be edited or removed.

"The council has 29 members including Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Sri Lanka." "Syria accused the UK of discriminating against Muslims and Iran complained about the UK's record on tackling sexual discrimination."

None of these lines and others are needed in an article about Republicanism in the UK. For reasons of both giving unnesesary information and being a direct copy of:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/20080613/tuk-un-should-britain-scrap-royals-dba1618.html

The person who added it in the first place failed even to give this as a source, and when I deleted it stating my reasons (all within wikipedia guidelines: failing to acknowlege sources, direct plagurism etc.) and someone chose to put it back up without attempting to fix any of the problems that it had. If someone wants to correct the problems, then fine, but otherwise I'l just come back and delete it. TJ 1319, 14/06/08

Arguments in favour of a Monarchy - Worrying lack of balance
I admit I'm by no means a skilled Wiki editor, however upon browsing the arguments both for/against I see that whilst the Republican arguments are clean, tidy, & well-cited, the pro-Monarchy are in a poor state: a badly-cited handful. Reviewing the editing history, this essentially happened back in May 2010: review, if you will, the difference between the versions of the 22nd & 23rd of May. I recognise this might spark something of an ideological response, yet surely Wiki has a duty to provide a balanced view of the topic in question? I sincerely doubt this article manages that. - MRB 21.09.10

Merger proposal
I propose merging Scottish republicanism and Welsh republicanism into Republicanism in the United Kingdom. I think the content in Scottish republicanism and Welsh republicanism can easily be explained in the context of the republicanism in the United Kingdom, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Republicanism in the United Kingdom. --Somerby (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 * A problem with this is the United Kingdom includes Northern Ireland and Irish republicanism is markedly different from Scottish or Welsh republicanism. Helper201 (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Scottish republicanism and Welsh republicanism could be merged into Scottish nationalism Scottish independence and Welsh nationalism. The Welsh article was demerged on Northumber on 23 November. TSventon (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC) On investigation, Scottish independence is a better target than Scottish nationalism. TSventon (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * TSventon, I am definitely against a merger in the article about nationalism. Generally speaking, I am against any mergers, since then accuracy suffer. However, if they nevertheless are merged, then the better target will be Republicanism in the United Kingdom, as this discussion for English republicanism redirect showed. --Northumber (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Irish republicanism is heavily linked to republicanism in the United Kingdom as the whole history of it is based on a republic independant from the UK. As such I would back merging all them into one if needs be, or seeing as Irish republicanism is more documented, giving a small section to it and linked to the main article. Mabuska (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

 * I agree that Scottish Republicanism is somewhat redundant and that a merge is in order. However, a merger entirely into this article would not be helpful - the largest section of Scottish Republicanism is dedicated to republicanism within the nationalist movement, which is related, but not particularly relevant to UK republicanism. The page is already organised into Republicanism within the independence movement and British republicanism sections - in my view, this lends itself very well to a two-way merge where content is merged either into Republicanism in the United Kingdom, or Scottish nationalism, depending on which article it would best serve. This would lead to a better structure of the encyclopaedia overall, as the existing Scottish Republicanism page does not describe a particular ideology or political movement, but rather multiple disparate movements which happen to have republicanism in common. Akakievich (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a challenge associated with the proposal that is mentioned by Akakievich but which needs to be enlarged on. As it stands, 'Republicanism in the United Kingdom' is essentially about 'Republicanism FOR the United Kingdom' i.e. it discusses maintaining the integrity of the UK under a different kind of constitution. 'Scottish Republicanism' on the other hand is, in its current form, clearly about dissolving the UK and creating and independent Scottish republic. This article attempts to address the idea of 'Scots who support the UK becoming a republic' but fails to find a credible current example. In short, the former article is essentially about a unionist approach whilst the latter is straightforwardly nationalist in its scope. This is not to say that a merger would be impossible, but as they stand the existing articles describe support for political outcomes that are not as similar in nature as the above discussion might suggest. The same issue would seem to apply to 'Welsh republicanism'. I cannot imagine how including Irish Nationalism in a merger would be legitimate. The article opens by stating that "Irish republicans view British rule in any part of Ireland as inherently illegitimate." Such a thing may even come under the scope of Arbcom authorizing "uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to the Troubles" so please take care. I don't understand the logic of merging part of the article into Republicanism in the United Kingdom' and part into 'Scottish Nationalism'. There is next to nothing in the existing Scottish article that would end up in the UK one - in part (I theorise) because supporting the Union in Scotland is largely synonymous with supporting the monarchy just as it seems to be in Northern Ireland). Another way to say the same thing would be that any serious merger would require those interested in an article about 'Republicanism FOR the United Kingdom' accepting that a significant chunk of that article would now need to refer to the notion of dismantling the UK.  Ben   Mac  Dui  15:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Opinion polling graph error
The graphical summary has an error I'm uncertain how to fix, so I'll note it here. Where it should say "May 2011" (I think, anyway), it instead says "May 201". IcePage (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

 * It should say "May 2011". The svg file needs to be fixed. (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ralbegen, thank you for adding this graphic summary. Could you update it please, and fix the error mentioned above? TrottieTrue (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ralbegen The graphic seems to have been updated, but isn't showing correctly on the article page. I've also added some more historic poll results - I don't know if this makes a difference to the graphic summary. TrottieTrue (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is something on Wikipedia's end, I'm afraid—if you click through to see the SVG you'll see all the digits are there, it's just displaying oddly on the page. I'm reworking my graph code gradually and that might make a difference over the next couple of months! The graph on this page is based on an old version of the code I use for the graphs on Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. Ralbegen (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, I just wanted to check why it wasn't showing up correctly. I've added every relevant archive poll I can find from members of the British Polling Council, except some by Survation which have broken links on their website. TrottieTrue (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Process of changing from a constitutional monarchy to a republic
A section describing the process of changing the United Kingdom from a constitutional monarchy to a republic would be interesting. John Link (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Updates to opinion polls
I've added a few polls from this year, although with some difficulty. Savanta's January 2023 poll had figures to the decimal point, so I assumed they should be rounded up or down as appropriate. Unfortunately, this resulted in the total coming to more than 100. I left the figures as they were, as it seems to have been done elsewhere in the table. I assume that's what is done elsewhere with opinion poll tables in WP. The other trouble I had was with the table formatting. The Opdrts template was lacking the <nowiki>Wikitext</nowiki> field, and I couldn't see a way to format the cells so that the background of the Monarchy and Lead columns matched the existing cells. @Titus Gold, @Ralbegen, I can see you've both added poll results to this table so perhaps you can help - and also, please add any others from 2023 which may be missing. The graphical summary also needs updating. TrottieTrue (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Rounding meaning that numbers add up to more or less than 100 is fine. I don't understand the formatting issue you're describing; the table looks fine to me. I've updated the graph, but as there are relatively few polls covering a period of more than twenty years I don't think it needs to be updated very often! Ralbegen (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi - thank you for your reply. Good to know that my rounding is fine. I think most pollsters don't publish results to the decimal point, but Savanta do, or at least on that occasion. Yes, the table looks okay, because I made the formatting changes using the source mode editor. What I'm saying is that I couldn't change the formatting issues I referred to above using the visual editor, so I just had to finish those additions in the source editing mode. The end result is the same I think, it just seems less convenient as a way of implementing the changes. Regarding the graph, thank you - I had to reload the image file itself to refresh it, but I can see the typo in 2011 has been fixed (the updated version doesn't show on the article itself). It was hard for me to notice the graph changes, but I think that's because it has five-year intervals on it. I'm sure the issue has been polling for longer - perhaps since 1969? But going back further would possibly mean referencing newspaper articles, as the polling data itself may not be available online. Perhaps it's worth looking into. TrottieTrue (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ralbegen I’m not sure why you felt it necessary to remove the royal events I added to the opinion polls table. Yes, it’s a list of polls, and not a timeline of royal events - but I think these events I added give important context to the polls. Okay, it could be argued that not all the events are as important, in which case there may be a case for removing some. However, the flurry of polls after the Harry and Meghan interview is evident. Pollsters also often seem to conduct these polls around the time of a jubilee or royal wedding. It seems odd to me that the only event listed in the table is the death of the Queen (which apparently shouldn’t be wiki-linked?). You don’t seem to have passed comment on my other additions too, merely removed what you didn’t like (admittedly, I know it’s common on Wikipedia for people to focus on what they disapprove of, rather than showing approval for the work put into any additions, which would encourage contributors). By all means, remove events you feel are unnecessary (perhaps the deaths of the Queen Mother and Prince Philip), but I think some should remain, at least until a discussion has taken place. TrottieTrue (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There have been lots of discussions on other UK polling articles which have resolved not to include events outside of a very limited scope (see the Talk archive of Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election in particular). I don't believe that any article has included every event that has precipitated any opinion polls. I think events that would be relevant to include in this table would be changes of monarch and any referendums or laws passed that abolish or consider abolishing the institution of the monarchy; and not weddings, jubilees or deaths of non-monarchs. During the scope of the polling table, only one event meets those criteria: the death of Elizabeth. Please consider self-reverting until you've built a consensus for your desired change in line with the BRD cycle. Ralbegen (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the Talk archive you mention, and can see the need to limit the number of events added to such opinion poll tables. We should of course be discerning about adding events. The problem with your suggestion of relevant events is that these examples are rare to nonexistent, at least in the polling period being covered. Those would be important events for republicanism, but it means the table would have one event listed over thirty years. However, notability works differently for events relating to the monarchy. If an event is given a public bank holiday, I would say that it's notable. The wedding of the Sussexes and their Oprah interview less clearly meets these criteria, but both events received significant media coverage. Polling on the monarchy isn't carried out with the same level of routine frequency as political polling, so for a royalty-related event to precipitate a custom poll suggests it might be worth including. By all means, this can be discussed further. I think this Talk page would need a higher level of traffic to build a consensus on any decision. I personally think that if a royal event receives significant coverage and prompts polling to be carried out, it probably has a good basis for inclusion, but the table should be sparing with the events listed. TrottieTrue (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think adding events supports the consistent (or not) message given by the existing polling; it seems the case in other such articles with polling tables. Momentous events such as a Jubilee or Royal Wedding add context to the polls, and will be a measure of public opinion at these points in history. As there is no UK wide regular monarchy polling, polling is often in response to a Royal event, so relevant and supports the direct polling on the monarchy. I don't think adding these events detracts from the page or the information given; rather, it supports it, so I don't see the need for a reversion? Denham331 (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

New polls
@Titus Gold Thanks for adding the new polls. It would be good to get more information on the Republic poll. I thought it might be the same as the other, since they were both by Savanta. The sample size appears to be the same, but the results are slightly different. Hopefully we can get this confirmed soon. Savanta did a poll for CNN too recently, but this question wasn't asked. TrottieTrue (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 * No problem. Yes will look to add the exact date and any further polls in next few days. Titus Gold (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I deleted that poll until we get a good source for it. Unfortunately, Savanta do not allow non-professionals to contact them via their website. They were also behind an ITV poll done recently: . I assume they've taken out "don't know" as an option, hence the relatively high figure for not supporting a monarchy. Is this source good enough to add? TrottieTrue (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

lacking citation on the front page of the article
"More recently, in the early 21st Century, increasing dissatisfaction with the House of Windsor, especially after the 2022 passing of Elizabeth II, has led to public support for the monarchy reaching historical lows and new calls in major newspapers for its abolition." There are no citations of what specific news papers have been calling monarchial abolition nor I have I ever seen absolutely any news papers that would be described as "major" do such a thing from the time of the queen's death to now. Can we get a "citation needed" on this? 92.237.155.25 (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Another user removed this for remaining un-cited for a significant amount of time. notadev (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Differentiation between polls based on exact question asked
Looking at the tables for the November 2023 Savanta/Republic poll, I noticed there were different questions asked: one that specified the non-status quo option as the abolition of the monarchy, and another that specified that option as head of state (i.e. in the context of the public preferring that, compared to a monarchy). A May 2023 poll, also Savanta/Republic, asked just the latter question.

I believe that, because of the difference in support the non-status quo options received depending on the phrasing, polls that specify the abolition of the monarchy and ones that specify (the replacement of the monarchy with) a head of state should be separated into different tables. Having them altogether in one table muddies things, even if it's more convenient; a possible alternative could be for an additional column at the right of the table signifying what question the poll asked, such as this:

Phinbart (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Furthermore, looking further into the different range of polls, Ipsos and Opinium use completely different phrasing, asking whether respondents prefer a "republic" or a "monarchy". Regardless of how, this differentiation should be noted in the article. Phinbart (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it’s better to note the different questions in the same table. No need to do two separate tables, which rather hides these recent poll results from visitors to the article. An additional column on the right would be fine by me; I think all the polling questions on this subject are essentially asking the same thing in different ways. TrottieTrue (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the "different polling format" section used for opinion polling on Scottish independence is a good guide. Because as we have seen in poll results, the phraseology of the question is often important event if it means the same thing ultimately 129.12.32.43 (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The prefer one leaves a lot open to the "i would prefer, but" response whereas those that have a much for defined choice. 129.12.32.43 (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, as there is now a comparative pattern visible within polling using that specific question, like the leave/remain separate polling done in Scotland on their matter, i think we have the basis for a separate section. 129.12.32.43 (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * YouGov and ICM have asked a similar question to the recent polls in the past. YouGov’s tracker was based on this kind of question here. I think keeping everything in one table, with a column on the right to show which question is asked, would be preferable. Otherwise it’s like burying some of the results by putting them in a separate table. All the two-choice polls are basically asking what people would prefer. TrottieTrue (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Yougov question is "Do you think Britain should continue to have a monarchy in the future, or should it be replaced with an elected head of state?", that is a again a choice between the two and not about preference. I think having a "different polling format" for preference is important because its not a strict choice. Think of all the people you may have spoken to on the topic who say something "yes i want an elected head of state etc, but they bring in lots of tourist cash so they should probably stay etc". The preference on is much more open ended than even the YouGov one you suggested as an example. 129.12.32.43 (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The table and data is still on the page. 129.12.32.43 (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think further credence is added when a poll asked in November exactly the same respondents the two different formats of the question and it produced two very different results. One more inline with what we had seen from other pollsters and clients and the other much more different. 129.12.32.43 (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That is true, but the different questions can be incorporated into the same table with an additional column. It’s all about whether the role of the monarchy should stay the same. TrottieTrue (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But these nuances aren’t reflected in the polling questions. Someone giving your hypothetical answer would probably have opted for the monarchy when asked - respondents can’t pick two answers. You seem to be focusing on the use of the word “prefer” vs what people “want”. I don’t think there’s that much of a distinction for most people. The questions are all just variations on the same thing with different phrasing. TrottieTrue (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The big difference is that one gives nuance the other doesn't. I want to keep all the data open and visible for everyone, I just believe that because of the important difference in phraseology and resulted implications on choice and outcome, they deserve separate tables. I don't want to bury the important difference.  129.12.32.43 (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What is more, now that we have several all from the same client on the same question, we can start a tracker in its own table. Which would be ultimately more informative as it is clearer than mixing it with other result and question formats. 129.12.32.43 (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Especially when given its own subheading 129.12.32.43 (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Phinbart I wouldn’t be in favour of splitting off the polling which asks about an elected head of state. Such a table would just confuse matters. Different polling companies will ask for people’s views on the monarchy in different ways, but ultimately, it boils down to whether the public want the monarch as head of state. The option to include a column on the right-hand side to indicate the polling question would be my preference.
 * A number of polls over the years have asked people to choose between an elected head of state and a monarchy. So all the historic polls would need checking for the question asked. Someone has to maintain these articles and keep them updated: it would be easier to do that if everything was kept in one table. Denham331 (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe a separate chart would clarify the matter as it’s clear from polling data that the form of the question asked is impactful on the results. To continue the current system is more confusing as people will wonder why the polling from one client has significantly different results to others. This matter was settle in Scottish independence polling questions by having a separate table. 2A00:23C8:A867:8801:D570:E1DE:735C:E591 (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I again direct you to the YouGov tracker: . Not one of those polls from 2011 to 2022 showed support for a monarchy at less than 59% - in many cases, far higher. And none of those polls showed support for an elected head of state at higher than 25%. So there is very little basis for claiming that this question is particularly impactful on the results. What’s more, Republic have been commissioning polls for years, and there’s no evidence that these have “significantly different results to others”. For example, . That one was actually worse for Republic than a Savanta poll conducted days before. TrottieTrue (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It might be worth having a look at Opinion polling on Scottish independence. In the way you suggest for here this page gives different questions their own separate subsections/subheadings. Obviously, the same questions would need to be asked at least a couple of times to likely warrant the creation of their own section. Helper201 (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

 * The question of whether respondents would prefer a monarchy or an elected head of state has been asked numerous times, but I don’t feel it would be helpful to those interested in the subject to give that question its own table. TrottieTrue (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think they should be differentiated because it allows for a comparison on like terms, especially given that they are all for the same client. I also think the note is less accessible for people new to the topic than a separate table. 2A00:23C8:A867:8801:D570:E1DE:735C:E591 (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, they aren’t all for the same client. As I’ve pointed out already, YouGov have asked this question multiple times for their own tracker: . So have other polling companies. It’s somewhat disingenuous for you to claim that the “note” is less accessible; a separate table would be hidden by virtue of the main table being at the top. The page visitors wouldn’t scroll down further. TrottieTrue (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also you have indicated on your profile that you support the client organisation of the polling in question so for the sake of impartiality separation of the polls may be best. 2A00:23C8:A867:8801:D570:E1DE:735C:E591 (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I’m upfront about my support for Republic, but I’m just presenting the information that arises. I’m being transparent. I strongly suspect that you have your own biases, which you aren’t declaring, and that is what is the motivation here. There would be nothing “impartial” about separating the polls. An IP editor (you?) has continually removed these polls, without bothering to add them back. Even after I asked you to stop edit warring on the article and you had come here to discuss it, you went back and split the polling table without gaining any consensus for this idea. That isn’t how these things work on Wikipedia. Hence the article is now semi-protected. TrottieTrue (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking back through polls commissioned by Republic it appears that serval forms have been used but as a strong difference in results has been generated by their latest choice of phrase it appears they have now intentionally chosen a phrase that gets results which support their constitutional preferences. Of course the results are still valid and important to include but a separate table with an explanation would provide better contextual understanding to page visitors. 2A00:23C8:A867:8801:D570:E1DE:735C:E591 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What’s more the latest poll doesn’t even specify for the U.K., it just asks which people prefer “monarchy or elected head of state”. Even other pollsters who have used a similar phrase in the past at least provide some context. Though I may allow for the fact that we are only provided with one sheet of the data table and do not know if any other context was provided or questions were asked. 2A00:23C8:A867:8801:D570:E1DE:735C:E591 (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You keep coming up with different excuses for the Republic-commissioned polls not being to your liking and therefore not belonging in the table. First it was the use of the word “prefer”, now it’s that they don’t specify that they are aimed at the UK, when that goes without saying. YouGov have uploaded the full data for this polling question: . They have also asked this question on numerous occasions before with their Tracker, and the results were not so favourable for Republic. Quite a few of the polls in the table, apart from these recent ones, use a similar question, yet you didn’t include them in your attempt at separating the tables. I feel your intention is simply to stop people from seeing polls that are less favourable to the monarchy. Putting them in a separate table below the main one will hide the polls from many people. TrottieTrue (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am personally in favour of removing the last three Republic sponsored polls. In part, this is for the aforementioned reasons of the choices offered in answer being (intentionally?) Inconsistent with the history of other polls (and the likely binary choice any hypothetical referendum would offer).
 * Additionally, we cannot ignore the that polling companies, even BCP affiliated polls are not, contrary to misconceptions, neutral actors. Within BCP guidelines, polling companies are not unreasonably, the creatures of their client, and we see it in the data of the recent Republic poll.
 * The key question is nestled in amidst framing questions (such as Prince Andrew related questions deliberately including provocative phrases like 'paedophile' engineered to direct people down a certain route in their answers. It has been suggested in favour of keeping the polls that the newer results are now offered by two different polling companies. This is true, but it's two companies carrying out surveys on behalf of the same organisation with its clear political/ideological bent.
 * Finally, speaking as a neutral who is ambivalent about the matter in question, im concerned that the entire question of these polls on this page have been colonised by people with a certain agenda which makes thek insistent on showing the unreliable recent polls out of theie own desire to support their particular cause. This is damaging for the credability of pages like this Gashmak (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we should wait to see if the polls removed are broadly consistent with others that come out in the future as then we will know if it is the impact of the question or if an accurate reflection of public sentiment. That may also be the time to renew the discussion on a separate table for more subjective rather than binary choice questions. 2A00:23C8:A806:9C01:1C27:E254:6E92:44F8 (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems reasonable enough to wait. I feel that talk of "removing" polls because of the client seems fairly biased, and ignores the fact that such questions have often been asked by polling companies before. It's funny how when polls aren't favourable to the monarchy, people suddenly want to have them removed or put elsewhere. I'm not sure how there is an "agenda" at play by wanting to include all polls on this subject. The IP editor above mentioned voter intention. Polls on this subject rarely mention VI because there is no planned election or referendum on this subject. It would be good to hear from some others who've commented about this section of the article before, such as @Ralbegen, @Red Jay, @Titus Gold. TrottieTrue (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s not that one asks voting intention, it’s that one asks a question with two definitive choices (as in what any hypothetical vote would have) whereas the other is a statement of preference which is much less defined. I don’t want them removed, I just want the important difference noted with a different table. In tracking polling supported for Scottish independence only those with a direct binary choice are listed, polling such as “I would prefer X” is not. 129.12.151.247 (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The phrasing of the question could simply be added in a "notes" or "question used" section for context. Alternatively, different tables could be made for question variations. No relevant polls should be removed entirely. Titus Gold (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I temporarily have removed them only pending consensus, I am in favour of a different table since it is a different topic. I would agree with the "compromise" section that proposes having two tables, as they are clearly two separate polling questions, and including them in the same table could confuse readers, especially with the same polls having different results, which can be especially confusing. CIN I&II (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The question of preference is still basically a binary one, with people given two options and " don't know". The other polls are basically asking for the preference of those responding, even if they don't word it that way. This poll about how people would prefer Scotland to vote is in the table for that subject: TrottieTrue (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Preference and action are not the same. One is definitive, the other not. 129.12.151.247 (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

There are a range of ways questions are asked in the table already. When I redesigned the table a couple of years ago I included a column with the question phrasing. There are plenty of all kinds in the table. I still think that having a question column is the neatest way of making the different questions clear to readers, especially when the same poll includes multiple questions that meet the scope of the table. I don't think there's anything to question on the merits of the polling questions included, or in arguments about clients, which are both irrelevant in terms of their suitability for inclusion here. Ralbegen (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 * All clients and polls by a BPC member should be included on this page. I am just saying we should follow practice seen in other places for polling when questions are asked in different ways with notably different outcomes. I think polling with definitive questions should be separated from polling on preference. The majority of polling questions ask a definitive question and the poll from November 2023 shows the impact the question can make, thus proving the need for a separate table. 129.12.151.247 (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree @Ralbegen - thank you for your input. TrottieTrue (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The clearest way is, I believe, to have two tables. That and to perhaps wait a bit to see if follow on polling in a different format generates different results. We have seen what could be one pattern already, if we start to see another concurrent pattern then separating the results would be clearest. If we only see one pattern emerging then clearly they should go together. This is what happened ultimately with the yes/no, leave/remain question in Scotland, though they do not include polling on preferences. 129.12.151.247 (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you look at the snapshot I linked above, back when there were many fewer polls, there were already a lot of questions. "Would you favour Britain becoming a republic or remaining a monarchy?", "If there were a referendum on the issue, would you favour Britain becoming a republic or remaining a monarchy?", "Do you favour Britain electing its Head of State or do you favour Britain retaining the monarchy?", "Do you think Britain should continue to have a monarchy in the future, or should it be replaced with an elected head of state?", "Do you think Britain should continue to have a monarchy, or not?", "Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? The monarchy should be abolished.", "If there were a referendum tomorrow with the question:“Should the United Kingdom remain a constitutional monarchy with the Monarch as head of state, or become a republic with a President as head of state?” How would you vote?", "Do you think Britain should continue to have a monarchy in the future, or Britain become a republic?". Three of those are from one polling company! I don't think there's a clear bimodal or trimodal division we can take straightforwardly as editors. They are pretty similar questions, and the differences can be exposed to the reader through an additional column. I suspect making an editorial call that any particular division of the questions is meaningful might be an overstep. (In any case, the status quo is to include a mixture of questions and I'd personally appreciate the polls under discussion to be restored to the table for now so I can update the graph while the page has my attention!) Ralbegen (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I’ve just reverted the removal of these polls, which I hadn’t noticed. Some editors seem rather hasty in getting rid of them. The polling table itself is a relatively new addition to the article; no-one seemed bothered about which polls were included until recently, when the results have been less favourable for the monarchy. You’re right, @Ralbegen - there are a lot of polling questions on this topic. As I’ve said before, however, they’re all pretty similar. TrottieTrue (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree, they are not all similar in style and I do believe a certain amount of experimentation went into republic’s question as the have changed their own question many times. The question they most recently asked doesn’t even mention the U.K. I believe we should either separate the polling or wait to see if other companies asking different questions produce similar results thus allowing us to discount the difference. 2A00:23C8:A806:9C01:F865:4A9D:1184:9180 (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the most recent poll is not valid for inclusion because the question doesn’t even mention the U.K., unlike all other mentioned in the list above. That means it doesn’t constitute an applied decision at all, it’s a choice between two systems of government but it doesn’t specify for who. 2A00:23C8:A806:9C01:F865:4A9D:1184:9180 (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gashmak 2A00:23C8:A806:9C01:F865:4A9D:1184:9180 (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

There are polls in the article already which don't mention the UK or Britain by name, and there have been for a long time. Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election is full of polls that ask "If there were a general election held tomorrow, which party would you vote for?"—the respondents are presumably bright enough to figure out what they're being asked! Ralbegen (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 * I suppose we will just have to wait for additional polling with varied questions to see if the findings of the recent ones are consistent or if questions have an impact on results. 2A00:23C8:A806:9C01:F865:4A9D:1184:9180 (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 * I have removed the specific polls in question from the article while discussion occurs, since they do not fit the formatting of the chart previously. As per Wikipedia policy, the status quo should stay until consensus is made to alter from it, the status quo not including these polls in the article. CIN I&II (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As well I want to clarify that I am Strongly Opposed to the inclusion of these polls, as they do not fit the formatting or purpose of the chart as it sits on the article. CIN I&II (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Compromise
Clearly there is no consensus on the “prefer” polls so i concur with the suggestion of having distinct tables with those polls in their own table with their own subheading and explanations. As was done with the yes/no, leave/remain polling in Scotland. It’s that or editing wars will continue. It’s the compromise solution. 31.94.12.117 (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 * In the interest of compromise I have added the second section with a table, paying attention to include the results from one poll which asked both questions. Hopefully this is a solution we can all agree on rather than having edit wars. 2A00:23C8:A806:9C01:8D40:D210:F0FD:6C5B (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That isn't really a compromise, though, is it? That's one perspective, the other being that it should be all one table.
 * You cite the example of the Indyref page, but every election polling page aggregates the poll results, despite subtle differences in question formulation.
 * The compromise is detailing differences in question within one table. Hookorcrook (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hookorcrook Yes, exactly. The "compromise" is a rather skewed interpretation of the word. Rather disingenuously, the editor above is playing "peacemaker" by resolving the situation to their preference. It's funny how both this user and the other one who removed the polls recently have done so unilaterally. This has resulted in the article again being given protection. TrottieTrue (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with this, since the proposal to include them in the chart does make it more confusing to a reader, as the polls are with entirely different question. It would be especially confusing to include several poll results in the same table, since they are different questions that clearly are meant separate. I have removed the polls pending consensus on this topic, but I am in favour of this compromise proposal. CIN I&II (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Removing the polls has absolutely no consensus. The two options are whether to have separate tables based on the questions put, or to aggregate polls on the topic of monarchy, but explain that polls have slightly different questions.
 * I personally don't see the argument for separating the polls, since many polls on many pages aggregate multiple questions being put on the same topic. I also don't see as there's much difference between the types of questions either.
 * Regarding your later comment, the status quo was actually to aggregate polls, prior to the the edit wars and suggestions that this should (for some reason) follow the template of the Scottish Independence page.
 * Clearly, though, there really isn't consensus there, but people continuosly making unilateral edits to have the polls their way is asinine. And once again, I can see no valid arguments for just deleting polls, that is plain vandalism. Hookorcrook (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article for a week to stop the current edit war. Please notify me or any other administrator if a consensus about the content is formed, so the protection can be removed. If there is no consensus, there must be no further edit warring even if the current protection expires. See WP:DR for standard dispute resolution procedures. That boils down to drafting then posting an WP:RFC to attract outside attention. Also, add neutrally worded notifications at any relevant noticeboards or wikiprojects. I will watch this page for a while and may have suggestions about an RfC draft if wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Based on the previous pattern, there is a strong chance that the edit warring will continue after the current protection expires. At present, there is no consensus. What is the next step if the edit warring does continue without any consensus? Should 'Requests for protection' be used, or not? TrottieTrue (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would argue that if no consensus is reached then status quo of the article stating only the polls which have historically been put in it should remain, since that already was the standard prior to the proposal by TrottieTrue, who has edit warred with several users to try to add the polls without consensus CIN I&II (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It would not be a good idea to repeat a contested edit without a clear and positive consensus when the current protection expires. Doing that would look like edit warring and may result in a block. Please notify me if I miss a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment polling table formatting
This page has seen numerous edit wars back and forth over how to display polls regarding the popularity of a republic versus monarchy. Multiple unilateral edits have been made, and the article has had to be protected several times.

The proposals so far are as follows:

 * Option A: Separate tables, which would see each question split into its own table, e.g. "do you want an elected head of state?" and "do you support the monarchy?"
 * Option B: One aggregate table, with a section outlining the differences in the question put.

Other options may be applicable too.

Hookorcrook (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 * I think one aggregate table really is the only sensible option. This has only become an issue since the recent polls showing declining support for the monarchy. When one looks at the table and opens the links to different historic polls, a wide range of questions have been asked.
 * But they are essentially all asking respondents to choose between the status quo option of the monarchy as head of state, or a republic with an elected head of state. Whenever the polls have been separated into a new table recently, it has only included the three recent ones, despite similar questions being asked by other pollsters, such as YouGov (over a ten year period).
 * The editors doing this separation of the polls have not gone through the entire table to check what else might need moving.
 * However, I think the objections raised to these polls are actually just a smokescreen to delegitimise and bury results that monarchists dislike, with nebulous arguments about the framing of the questions.
 * These recent results have shown the highest figure in support of a republic, and the lowest figures in support of the monarchy. Therefore, they represent quite a shift in public opinion.
 * A second table would essentially bury these polls by putting them further down, as most visitors would just look at the first table. Furthermore, the two tables would need to be kept updated. I’m not sure that those editors separating the polls actually have an interest in keeping them on the article, since some of the edits have simply removed the polls altogether.
 * The table needs to be kept up to date with new polls. That is already a task that few editors have an interest in.
 * My preferred option would be to leave the table as it has been: including all relevant polls on whether to keep the monarchy as it is or replace it with something else. If we must, then add a column with a key to the type of question asked. This would involve editors going through each and every historic poll to determine the footnote which should be used. Even the questions asking about the same two options will have been phrased differently over the years (hence we have had the pedantic argument over the use of "prefer" in the recent polling questions - see previous discussions). Some have wanted these polls removed because they haven’t specifically mentioned the UK, when it should be obvious to respondents that the question is about the UK. So a lot of the arguments we’ve seen are bad faith ones with the intention to remove the polls altogether. TrottieTrue (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am in favour of the argument for separate tables, which I think is the only rational argument, because the polls are very explicitly different questions and cover different results. It would be extremely abnormal to the average reader for the same poll to have two different results, and so including them in the same table when they ask distinctly different questions (which yield different results when asked) would be disingenuous and would not be a positive to a reader. It is not encyclopaedic to include these polls which asked concerning if a person "preferred" an option, or if they actually wanted it implemented, and the table has historically been kept to be if a person wants them implemented, not just a preference.
 * I think as well that whenever the User:TrottieTrue says that "However, I think the objections raised to these polls are actually just a smokescreen to delegitimise and bury results that monarchists dislike, with nebulous arguments about the framing of the questions." and "I’m not sure that those editors separating the polls actually have an interest in keeping them on the article, since some of the edits have simply removed the polls altogether." I do think that they are attempting to silence dissenting opinions on the formatting and the retaining of these specific polls to attempt to make the encyclopaedic decision a political one. I want to be very explicit in stating that my opposition to including these polls in this table, and my past edits to remove them from the article are non-political, and are not related to some "smokescreen to delegitimise and bury results that monarchists dislike". I think that whenever the user says these things it's an active want to push their own political interests through Wikipedia without warrant, as it is very clear that the polls are for different questions, and including them in the same table would not be in line with any other article, yet instead the user wants to make this a political argument and try to paint any critique as political. This is not political, it's simply a discussion on if the table would keep or not keep these few polls which show results that are not consistent with the questions asked in any other section of the article.
 * I would also like to get ahead of the critique of that I did remove them from the article, which I entirely stand by that I did, since I was removing them pending consensus and even included in my edit summary that I am in favour of them being placed in another table. I would argue that keeping them in the table instead is a misrepresentation of the truth, since it instead includes polls which are not consistent with the other ones in the table. I think it is disingenuous to claim that polls which ask a different question are "represent[ing] quite a shift in public opinion", since these polls ask an entirely different question, which is very explicitly highlighted in one of the polls having both questions separated in it. It is not correct, in my opinion, to claim that polls which represent a different question are representative of a shift in opinion, since these polls are not the same as the previous ones. I would entirely want them in the article though, since it is still an important question, and I would be very interested in how many other historical polls asked the question of preference rather than the question of if something should be done.

 * Also to clarify the question, I think that it should be separated into the tables of "Should the United Kingdom..." and "Would you prefer the United Kingdom..." in order to be most similar to the questions asked in the 24–26 Nov 2023 Savanta poll, which included both questions in it. CIN I&II (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "I want to be very explicit in stating that my opposition to including these polls in this table, and my past edits to remove them from the article are non-political"
 * Edits plural? You have only removed the polls once using that account. Are you implying that previous editors removing the polls were also you? TrottieTrue (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I accidentally used plural when I meant singular. CIN I&II (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Separate article? From a cursory reading of past discussions, I couldn't see if creating a new, separate article about polling on this topic was considered. This is sometimes done in other potentially contentious topics, and could help address the space allocation issue in this article. It can also create a more suitable space to cover the longer analysis of the polls (e.g. question phrasing as mentioned above) and criticism where appropriate. spintheer (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting idea. If the subject was notable enough, it could have its own article - but I'm not sure it would meet notability requirements at the moment. TrottieTrue (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." from WP:GNG seems to apply reasonably well in this case. I haven't looked at this topic at length, however, so I'll leave it for someone else to try and make that case. spintheer (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are more than two questions asked. The table includes questions which distinguish between a monarchy (the status quo) or a change to a republic, typically with an elected head of state. Users preoccupied with a single poll are imagining a very different reality in terms of consistency of questions asked, especially in a series that has lasted for decades, than actually exists. There are a lot of very similar questions asked, and all those included are pretty much synonymous. They do not include questions such as approve/disapprove of the institution of the monarchy, just respondents' preference between two options, one of which is clearly the monarchy and one of which is clearly a republic. Some of them suggest a hypothetical referendum, some of them are just abstract preferences. There are many ways to cut them up in ways that would not enhance user understanding. My preference remains to include a column with the question wording for each poll, so that the information is fully available to readers and any difference, real or perceived, in results based on those questions are left to their interpretation rather than instituting an artificial division based on the judgment of editors. Ralbegen (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that the main thing is that the question on if they "should" or if they would "prefer" elicits extremely different responses. While in an average discussion these two words may not immediately seem apparent as different arguments, the polling varies wildly whenever the question changes, which very much differentiates them as a separate question. I think that creating a separated section for polls with different questions is highly beneficial, especially since, as TrottieTrue said, there may be previous polling data that used either both or used the preference question and may have just been put into the table without a focus on it, so there clearly is enough focus on each question that, in my opinion, it is notable enough for a second table on it. CIN I&II (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hookorcrook The better choice, in my opinion, is Option B: "One aggregate table, with a section outlining the differences in the question put."
 * I don't see anything wrong with a separate article for the polls, but that should still retain the data in one table. The questions we are discussing are all variations on whether the UK should retain a constitutional monarchy or not. The perceived differences in phrasing are purely semantics. Denham331 (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I would propose doing things in the way it’s done on Leadership approval opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, with a table section the same that is used there called "Question wording", which I think would fall under option B of what is proposed here. Helper201 (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Very happy for a column in the table to specify the question wording! Ralbegen (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would also be happy for it to specify wording, however I would wonder how specifically that would be specified here? I think it's somewhat easy on the ones without the preference is easy, since you can write "Keep/Abolish", however how would the ones based off of preference be done? CIN I&II (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Cover

Decided to split into stub articles and make Cover a disambiguation page, firstly because I'd intended to link to the (pop) Music definition and the extra information would be out of context, and secondly because I get the feeling that people would be more inclined to expand upon the various sections if they had their own articles. Opinions / Suggestions here or on my talk page. nsh 00:35, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * Good idea. When dealing with the musical definition, make sure any information in this article is covered by cover version and link directly to that.  You might also want to check if there are already suitable articles for some of the other definitions. --HappyDog 16:48, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

True or false??
True or false: one of the articles in this dis-ambiguation page is an article blanket can re-direct to. 66.245.86.226 15:05, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * False, I'd say; the usual meaning of "blanket" is the piece of fabric, which should have its own article, and this disambig should mention "cover" as used for blankets on beds, and link to blanket. Since we're not a dictionary, we want to arrange things so as to get people to articles with real content as efficiently as possible, however they're titled. Stan 15:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Why isn't there a link for blanket from here, though? The word cover is quite commonly used to refer to a blanket. --Muna (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Top item needs attention
cover (container) needs drastic attention. a page for book cover would also be good, i'll add it to requests page. --Quiddity 21:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Coverzone
The term coverzone in the Controlled permeability formwork article sent me here, but this term does not seem to be mentioned here. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There two options for you: 1) unlink that term in the article where you found it because it's obviously not helpful; or 2) write an article obout "coverzone" as used in concrete construction and link to that article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Undo of edit linking to coverswim.com
A user linked to what is presumably their website, coverswim.com in this article. The edit has been undone, please undo the undo if that was in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.162.43.117 (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Cover


text:
IBM 7950 Harvest

The IBM 7950, also known as Harvest, was a one-of-a-kind adjunct to the Stretch computer which was installed at the United States National Security Agency (NSA). Built by IBM, it was delivered in 1962 and operated until 1976, when it was decommissioned. Harvest was designed to be used for cryptanalysis.

Development
In April 1958, the final design for the NSA-customized version of IBM's Stretch computer had been approved, and the machine was installed in February 1962. The design engineer was James H. Pomerene, and it was built by IBM in Poughkeepsie, New York. Its electronics (fabricated of the same kind of discrete transistors used for Stretch) were physically about twice as big as the Stretch to which it was attached. Harvest added a small number of instructions to Stretch, and could not operate independently.

An NSA-conducted evaluation found that Harvest was more powerful than the best commercially available machine by a factor of 50 to 200, depending on the task.

Architecture
The equipment added to the Stretch computer consisted of the following special peripherals:
 * IBM 7951 — Stream coprocessor
 * IBM 7952 — High-performance core storage
 * IBM 7955 — Magnetic tape system, also known as TRACTOR
 * IBM 7959 — High-speed I/O exchange

With the stream processing unit, Harvest was able to process 3 million characters a second.

The TRACTOR tape system, part of the HARVEST system, was unique for its time. It included six tape drives, which handled 1.75 in tape in cartridges, along with a library mechanism that could fetch a cartridge from a library, mount it on a drive, and return it to the library. The transfer rates and library mechanism were balanced in performance such that the system could read two streams of data from tape, and write a third, for the entire capacity of the library, without any time wasted for tape handling.

Programming
Harvest's most important mode of operation was called "setup" mode, in which the processor was configured with several hundred bits of information and the processor then operated by streaming data from memory — possibly taking two streams from memory — and writing a separate stream back to memory. The two streams could be combined, used to find data in tables, or counted to determine the frequency of various values. A value could be anything from 1 to 16 contiguous bits, without regard to alignment, and the streams could be as simple as data laid out in memory, or data read repeatedly, under the control of multiple nested "do"-loop descriptors, which were interpreted by the hardware.

Two programming languages, Alpha and Beta (not be confused with Simula-inspired BETA programming language) were designed for programming it, and IBM provided a compiler for the former around the time the machine was delivered.

Usage
One purpose of the machine was to search text for key words from a watchlist. From a single foreign cipher system, Harvest was able to scan over seven million decrypts for any occurrences of over 7,000 key words in under four hours.

The computer was also used for codebreaking, and this was enhanced by an early distributed networking system codenamed Rye, which allowed remote access to Harvest. According to a 1965 NSA report, "RYE has made it possible for the agency to locate many more potentially exploitable cryptographic systems and 'bust' situations. Many messages that would have taken hours or days to read by hand methods, if indeed the process were feasible at all, can now be 'set' and machine decrypted in a matter of minutes". Harvest was also used for decipherment of solved systems; the report goes on to say that, "Decrypting a large batch of messages in a solved system [is] also being routinely handled by this system". The Harvest-RYE system became an influential example for computer security; a 1972 review identified NSA’s RYE as one of two “examples of early attempts at achieving ‘multi-level’ security.”

Harvest remained in use until 1976, having been in operation at the NSA for fourteen years. Part of the reason for its retirement was that some of the mechanical components of TRACTOR had worn beyond use, and there was no practical way to replace them. IBM declined to re-implement the architecture in a more modern technology.

title: IBM 7950 Harvest


text:
Andy Thompson (Canadian politician)

Andrew Ernest Joseph Thompson (14 December 1924 – 3 February 2016) was a Canadian politician. Thompson was leader of the Ontario Liberal Party and later served as a Senator. He was elected as the Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP) for the west-end Toronto Dovercourt electoral district in 1959. He was elected the Ontario Liberal Party's leader in 1964. His physical health began to fail in late 1966 forcing him to retire as the Liberal leader. He was appointed to the Canadian Senate in 1967, forcing him to resign his provincial seat in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. He attracted media attention in 1997 and 1998 for making few appearances in the Senate over the past decade. His health issues never really went away, and gave that as his explanation for his truancy. He became the first Senator ever stripped of his office staff, salary and expense account for truancy, in 1998. A month later he resigned in order to receive his pension.

Early life and career
Andrew was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland, in 1924, the fourth child of Joseph Stanley Thompson and his wife Edith Florence Magill. Andrew and his two older brothers, Robert and Hudson, were educated at Monkton Combe School in England from 1936 to 1939, with Andrew first attending Monkton Combe Junior School from 1936 to 1938. After emigrating to Canada, he attended Oakwood Collegiate in Toronto. He was a student at the University of Toronto from 1942 to 1943 until he joined the Royal Canadian Navy during World War II as a Sub-Lieutenant, serving aboard minesweepers. He was discharged after the war in 1946 with the rank of Lieutenant. He completed his education at Queen's University and received a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1947. He received a Master of Social Work from the University of British Columbia in 1949. He worked in the federal civil service, becoming Regional Liaison Officer for the Prairie Provinces, Canadian Federal Department of Citizenship & Immigration and serving as a special assistant to federal Liberal leader Lester B. Pearson. In 1959, he married Amy Riisna whom he met at a Liberal conference in Couchiching. They lived in downtown Toronto on St. George Street and raised one daughter.

Provincial politics
Thompson was first elected as a Member of Provincial Parliament in the 1959 Ontario election as a candidate of the Ontario Liberal Party in the Toronto riding of Dovercourt. Thompson was close friends with federal Liberal cabinet minister Walter Gordon having organized his federal candidacy in the federal equivalent of Thompson's Dovercourt constituency.

He made his name in the Ontario legislature in March 1964 when he assailed Attorney-General Fred Cass over Bill 99, which would have amended the Police Act to allow the Ontario Police Commission to interrogate individuals in secret leading to it being derisively referred to as the "Police State Bill". The scandal forced Cass to resign and enhanced Thompson's reputation considerably. He was elected leader of the party in the fall of 1964 when he defeated Charles Templeton on the sixth ballot.

Thompson suffered a physical breakdown in late 1966 as a result of his involvement in an automobile accident in which two elderly women were seriously injured. He also had existing health problems, specifically a heart murmur, combined with exhaustion, high blood pressure and a lengthy bout of influenza. On the advice of doctors, Thompson resigned as leader in November 1966 without ever having led his party in an election. He was succeeded as Liberal leader by Robert Nixon.

Senator
Thompson was named to the Senate of Canada on 6 April 1967. His time in the Senate was relatively uneventful. He kept a low profile but in 1997 was exposed as having the worst attendance of any currently sitting Senator. Thompson claimed he was unable to attend Senate sessions due to illness, but continued to draw his salary by showing up for a few days at the beginning of each session. At the time Senate rules stated that as long as a Senator did not miss two complete consecutive sittings and proper medical certificates were provided for absences, they would be in good standing.

With growing media attention on Thompson's absences from the red chamber, the Reform Party made Thompson's absence a cause celebre, repeatedly pointing to the fact that he was living in Mexico. Reform Members of Parliament hired a Mariachi band and served burritos in the lobby of the Senate to draw attention to the issue. Thompson was held up as an example of why the Senate needed to be reformed.

The resulting furore led to Thompson being expelled from the Liberal caucus on 19 November 1997. On 12 December 1997, Senator Colin Kenny moved that he be commanded to appear before Senate to explain his absence. On 16 December they voted in favour of the Kenny motion. A subcommittee reported on 19 February recommending that Thompson be found in contempt and that he be suspended for the remainder of the session. The Senate voted to strip him of his privileges and other benefits. Later they found Thompson in contempt of the upper chamber for not complying with orders to return to Ottawa to explain his attendance record, resulting in the suspension of his salary and tax-free expense allowance. In December 1997, Thompson lost his Senate office and other privileges. Some Senators disagreed with the suspension, arguing that it was too lenient and that he should have been expelled from the chamber instead. He resigned on 23 March 1998, 20 months ahead of his scheduled retirement but was still able to collect a pension.

The media's exposure of Thompson's attendance and his colleagues' tolerance of it led the Senate to toughen the rules governing its members and sick leave while also increasing the financial penalties for missing too many sittings during a session. Thompson died on 3 February 2016, at the age of 91 after years of declining health.

title: Andy Thompson (Canadian politician)


text:
African-American Vernacular English

African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) is the variety of English natively spoken, particularly in urban communities, by most working- and middle-class African Americans and some Black Canadians. Having its own unique grammatical, vocabulary, and accent features, AAVE is employed by middle-class Black Americans as the more informal and casual end of a sociolinguistic continuum. However, in formal speaking contexts, speakers tend to switch to more standard English grammar and vocabulary, usually while retaining elements of the non-standard accent. AAVE is widespread throughout the United States, but is not the native dialect of all African Americans, nor are all of its speakers African American.

As with most English varieties spoken by African Americans, African-American Vernacular English shares a large portion of its grammar and phonology with the rural dialects of the Southern United States, and especially older Southern American English, due to the historical enslavement of African Americans primarily in that region.

Mainstream linguists maintain that the parallels between AAVE, West African languages, and English-based creole languages are existent but minor, with African-American Vernacular English genealogically tracing back to diverse non-standard dialects of English as spoken by the English-speaking settlers in the Southern Colonies and, later, Southern United States. However, a minority of linguists argue that the vernacular shares so many characteristics with African creole languages spoken around the world that it could have originated as its own English-based creole or semi-creole language, distinct from the English language, before undergoing a process of decreolization.

Origins
African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) may be considered a dialect, ethnolect or sociolect. While it is clear that there is a strong historical relationship between AAVE and earlier Southern U.S. dialects, the origins of AAVE are still a matter of debate.

The presiding theory among linguists is that AAVE has always been a dialect of English, meaning that it originated from earlier English dialects rather than from English-based creole languages that "decreolized" back into English. In the early 2000s, Shana Poplack provided corpus-based evidence (evidence from a body of writing) from isolated enclaves in Samaná and Nova Scotia peopled by descendants of migrations of early AAVE-speaking groups (see Samaná English) that suggests that the grammar of early AAVE was closer to that of contemporary British dialects than modern urban AAVE is to other current American dialects, suggesting that the modern language is a result of divergence from mainstream varieties, rather than the result of decreolization from a widespread American creole.

Linguist John McWhorter maintains that the contribution of West African languages to AAVE is minimal. In an interview on National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation, McWhorter characterized AAVE as a "hybrid of regional dialects of Great Britain that slaves in America were exposed to because they often worked alongside the indentured servants who spoke those dialects..." According to McWhorter, virtually all linguists who have carefully studied the origins of AAVE "agree that the West African connection is quite minor."

However, a creole theory, less accepted among linguists, posits that AAVE arose from one or more creole languages used by African captives of the Atlantic slave trade, due to the captives speaking many different native languages and therefore needing a new way to communicate among themselves and with their captors. According to this theory, these captives first developed what are called pidgins: simplified mixtures of languages. Since pidgins form from close contact between speakers of different languages, the slave trade would have been exactly such a situation. Creolist John Dillard quotes, for example, slave ship captain William Smith describing the sheer diversity of mutually unintelligible languages just in The Gambia. By 1715, an African pidgin was reproduced in novels by Daniel Defoe, in particular, The Life of Colonel Jacque. In 1721, Cotton Mather conducted the first attempt at recording the speech of slaves in his interviews regarding the practice of smallpox inoculation. By the time of the American Revolution, varieties among slave creoles were not quite mutually intelligible. Dillard quotes a recollection of "slave language" toward the latter part of the 18th century: "Kay, massa, you just leave me, me sit here, great fish jump up into da canoe, here he be, massa, fine fish, massa; me den very grad; den me sit very still, until another great fish jump into de canoe; but me fall asleep, massa, and no wake 'til you come...." Not until the time of the American Civil War did the language of the slaves become familiar to a large number of educated Whites. The abolitionist papers before the war form a rich corpus of examples of plantation creole. In Army Life in a Black Regiment (1870), Thomas Wentworth Higginson detailed many features of his Black soldiers' language. Opponents of the creole theory suggest that such pidgins or creoles existed but simply died out without directly contributing to modern AAVE.

Phonology
Many pronunciation features distinctly set AAVE apart from other forms of American English (particularly, General American). McWhorter argues that what truly unites all AAVE accents is a uniquely wide-ranging intonation pattern or "melody", which characterizes even the most "neutral" or light African-American accent. A handful of multisyllabic words in AAVE differ from General American in their stress placement so that, for example, police, guitar, and Detroit are pronounced with initial stress instead of ultimate stress. The following are phonological differences in AAVE vowel and consonant sounds.

Final consonant groups or clusters in AAVE have been examined as evidence of the systematic nature of this language variety, governed by specific rules. Additionally, such analyses have been utilized to bolster arguments concerning the historical origins of AAVE. Consonant cluster reduction is a phonological process where a final consonant group or cluster, consisting of two consonant sounds, is simplified or reduced to a single consonant sound. The analysis of consonant cluster reduction in AAVE assumes that, initially, final clusters are present and intact in the language. For example, the word "tes" in AAVE originates from "test", with the final "t" of the "st" consonant cluster being deleted in word-final position.

Vowels

 * African American Vowel Shift: AAVE accents have traditionally resisted the cot-caught merger spreading nationwide, with pronounced  and  traditionally pronounced, though now often . Early 2000s research has shown that this resistance may continue to be reinforced by the fronting of , linked through a chain shift of vowels to the raising of the , , and perhaps  vowels. This chain shift is called the "African American Shift". However, there is still evidence of AAVE speakers picking up the cot-caught merger in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in Charleston, South Carolina, Florida and Georgia, and in parts of California.
 * Reduction of certain diphthong forms to monophthongs, in particular, the vowel  is monophthongized to  except before voiceless consonants (this is also found in most White Southern dialects). The vowel sound in  ( in General American) is also monophthongized, especially before, making boil indistinguishable from ball.
 * Pin–pen merger: Before nasal consonants (,, and ),  and   are both pronounced like , making pen and pin homophones. This is also present in other dialects, particularly of the South. The pin-pen merger is not universal in AAVE, and there is evidence for unmerged speakers in California, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
 * The distinction between the  and   vowels before liquid consonants is frequently reduced or absent, making feel and fill homophones (fill–feel merger).  and  also merge, making poor and pour homophones (cure–force merger).

Consonants

 * Word-final devoicing of, , and , whereby, for example, cub sounds similar to cup, though these words may retain the longer vowel pronunciations that typically precede voiced consonants, and devoicing may be realized with debuccalization (where is realized as , for instance)
 * AAVE speakers may not use the fricatives (the th in "thin") and  (the th of "then") that are present in other varieties of English. The phoneme's position in a word determines its exact sound.
 * Word-initially, is normally the same as in other English dialects (so thin is ); in other situations, it may move forward in the mouth to  (Th-fronting).
 * Word-initially, is  (so this may be ). In other situations,  may move forward to.
 * Realization of final ng, the velar nasal, as the alveolar nasal (assibilation, alveolarization) in function morphemes and content morphemes with two or more syllables like -ing, e.g. tripping  is pronounced as  (trippin) instead of the standard . This change does not occur in one-syllable content morphemes such as sing, which is  and not . However, singing is . Other examples include wedding → , morning → , nothing → . Realization of  as  in these contexts is commonly found in many other English dialects.
 * A marked feature of AAVE is final consonant cluster reduction. This is a process by which the pronunciations of consonant clusters at the end of certain words are reduced to pronouncing only the first consonant of that cluster. There are several phenomena that are similar but are governed by different grammatical rules. This tendency has been used by creolists to compare AAVE to West African languages since such languages do not have final clusters.
 * Final consonant clusters that are homorganic (have the same place of articulation) and share the same voicing are reduced. For instance, test is pronounced since  and  are both voiceless; hand is pronounced  (alternatively  or ), since  and  are both voiced; but pant is unchanged, as it contains both a voiced and a voiceless consonant in the cluster. It is the plosive ( and ) in these examples that is lost rather than the fricative; the nasal is also either preserved completely or lost with preservation of nasality on the preceding consonant. Speakers may carry this declustered pronunciation when pluralizing so that the plural of test is  rather than . The clusters,  are also affected.
 * More often, word-final, , and are reduced, again with the final element being deleted rather than the former.
 * For younger speakers, also occurs in words that other varieties of English have  so that, for example, street is pronounced.
 * Clusters ending in or  exhibit variation in whether the first or second element is deleted.
 * Similarly, final consonants may be deleted (although there is a great deal of variation between speakers in this regard). Most often, and  are deleted. As with other dialects of English, final  and  may reduce to a glottal stop. Nasal consonants may be lost while nasalization of the vowel is retained (e.g., find may be pronounced ). More rarely,  and  may also be deleted.
 * Use of metathesized forms like aks for "ask" or graps for "grasp".
 * General non-rhotic behavior, in which the rhotic consonant is typically dropped when not followed by a vowel; it may also manifest as an unstressed  or the lengthening of the preceding vowel. Intervocalic  may also be dropped, e.g. General American story  can be pronounced, though this doesn't occur across morpheme boundaries.  may also be deleted between a consonant and a back rounded vowel, especially in words like throw, throat, and through.
 * The level of AAVE rhoticity is likely somewhat correlated with the rhoticity of White speakers in a given region; in 1960s research, AAVE accents tended to be mostly non-rhotic in Detroit, whose White speakers are rhotic, but completely non-rhotic in New York City, whose White speakers are also often non-rhotic.
 * is often vocalized in patterns similar to that of (though never between vowels) and, in combination with cluster simplification (see above), can make homophones of toll and toe, fault and fought, and tool and too. Homonymy may be reduced by vowel lengthening and by an off-glide.

"Deep" phonology
McWhorter discusses an accent continuum from "a 'deep' Black English through a 'light' Black English to standard English," saying the sounds on this continuum may vary from one African American speaker to the next or even in a single speaker from one situational context to the next. McWhorter regards the following as rarer features, characteristic only of a deep Black English but which speakers of light Black English may occasionally "dip into for humorous or emotive effect":
 * Lowering of before, causing pronunciations such as  for thing (sounding something like thang).
 * Word-medially and word-finally, pronouncing as  (so  for month and  for mouth), and  as  (so  for smooth and  for rather. This is called th-fronting. Word-initially,  is  (so those and doze sound nearly identical). This is called th-stopping. In other words, the tongue fully touches the top teeth.
 * Glide deletion (monophthongization) of all instances of, universally, resulting in (so that, for example, even rice may sound like rahss.)
 * Full gliding (diphthongization) of, resulting in (so that win may sound like wee-un).
 * Raising and fronting of the vowel of words like strut, mud, tough, etc. to something like.

Tense and aspect
Although AAVE does not necessarily have the simple past-tense marker of other English varieties (that is, the -ed of "worked"), it does have an optional tense system with at least four aspects of the past tense and two aspects of the future tense. The term TMA marker is used for forms that are an integral part of the predicate phrase. The markers gon, done, be, and been were defined as markers of future tense, completive aspect, habitual aspect, and durative aspect, respectively. The habitual "be" helps to create emphasis and a state of being. However, these can function together but function separately as well.

Syntactically, I bought it is grammatical, but done (always unstressed, pronounced as /dən/) is used to emphasize the completed nature of the action.

Harvard professor Sunn m'Cheaux says the immediate future tense (for example "I'ma") originated in the Gullah language (an English creole), which uses "a-" instead of "-ing" for this type of verb inflection.

As phase auxiliary verbs, been and done must occur as the first auxiliary; when they occur as the second, they carry additional aspects:
 * He been done working means "he finished work a long time ago".
 * He done been working means "until recently, he worked over a long period of time".

The latter example shows one of the most distinctive features of AAVE: the use of be to indicate that performance of the verb is of a habitual nature. In most other American English dialects, this can only be expressed unambiguously by using adverbs such as usually.

This aspect-marking form of been or BIN is stressed and semantically distinct from the unstressed form: She BIN running ('She has been running for a long time') and She been running ('She has been running'). This aspect has been given several names, including perfect phase, remote past, and remote phase (this article uses the third). As shown above, been places action in the distant past. However, when been is used with stative verbs or gerund forms, been shows that the action began in the distant past and that it is continuing now. suggests that a better translation when used with stative verbs is "for a long time". For instance, in response to "I like your new dress", one might hear Oh, I been had this dress, meaning that the speaker has had the dress for a long time and that it isn't new.

To see the difference between the simple past and the gerund when used with been, consider the following expressions:
 * I been bought her clothes means "I bought her clothes a long time ago".
 * I been buying her clothes means "I've been buying her clothes for a long time".

Auxiliaries in African American Vernacular English are related in a typical pattern. They can be grouped into negative forms and affirmative forms for each of the words. For example, "had" is an affirmative form, while "hatn" is the corresponding negative form. These same auxiliaries can be used to mark sentences for the anterior aspect. As another example, was marks type 1 sentences. These are sentences that are interpreted by default as being in the present tense but actually refer to a time before the present. Take, for instance, "She at home": the word was can be inserted to mark this sentence, making the marked equivalent "She was at home". Auxiliaries such as these also have opposing negative and affirmative forms. In its negative form the auxiliary verb "wadn" is used to convey the opposing affirmative form. I

In addition to these, come (which may or may not be an auxiliary ) may be used to indicate speaker indignation, such as in Don't come acting like you don't know what happened and you started the whole thing ("Don't try to act as if you don't know what happened, because you started the whole thing").
 * Finna corresponds to "fixing to" in other varieties. It is also written fixina, fixna, fitna, and finta.

Irrealis mood marker refers to be in AAVE. In AAVE be can have no tense. When this utterance occurs it is taking the future and the modality to refer to a current event that may be less than real

Modals

A specific part of AAE has certain functions such as modality. Modal properties such as double modals are used within AAE (e.g. might could), and double modals are multifaceted in their use. However, they can function as adverbs such as “might could”. Although there is a layer of pragmatics and semantics with the double modal usage; specifically the use of “might could” differs.

Negation
Negatives are formed differently from most other varieties of English:

 * Use of ain't as a general negative indicator. As in other dialects, it can be used where most other dialects would use am not, isn't, aren't, haven't, and hasn't. However, in marked contrast to other varieties of English in the US, some speakers of AAVE also use ain't instead of don't, doesn't, or didn't (e.g., I ain't know that). Ain't had its origins in common English but became increasingly stigmatized since the 19th century. See also amn't.
 * Negative concord, popularly called "double negation", as in I didn't go nowhere; if the sentence is negative, all negatable forms are negated. This contrasts with standard written English conventions, which have traditionally prescribed that a double negative is considered incorrect to mean anything other than a positive (although this was not always so; see double negative).
 * In a negative construction, an indefinite pronoun such as nobody or nothing can be inverted with the negative verb particle for emphasis (e.g., Don't nobody know the answer, Ain't nothing going on.)

While AAVE shares these with Creole languages, use data from early recordings of African Nova Scotian English, Samaná English, and the recordings of former slaves to demonstrate that negation was inherited from nonstandard colonial English.

Other grammatical characteristics

 * The copula be in the present tense is often dropped, as in Russian, Hebrew, Arabic and other languages. For example: You crazy ("You're crazy") or She my sister ("She's my sister"). The phenomenon is also observed in questions: Who you? ("Who're you?") and Where you at? ("Where are you (at)?"). This has been sometimes considered a Southern U.S. regionalism, though it is most frequent in Black speech. On the other hand, a stressed is cannot be dropped: Yes, she is my sister. The general rules are:
 * Only the forms is and are (of which the latter is anyway often replaced by is) can be omitted; am, was, and were are not deleted.
 * These forms cannot be omitted when they would be pronounced with stress in General American (whether or not the stress serves specifically to impart an emphatic sense to the verb's meaning).
 * These forms cannot be omitted when the corresponding form in standard English cannot show contraction (and vice versa). For example, I don't know where he is cannot be reduced to *I don't know where he just as in standard English forms the corresponding reduction *I don't know where he's is likewise impossible. (I don't know where he at is possible, paralleling I don't know where he's at in standard English.)
 * Possibly some other minor conditions apply as well.
 * Verbs are uninflected for number and person: there is no -s ending in the present-tense third-person singular. Example: She write poetry ("She writes poetry"). AAVE don't for standard English doesn't comes from this, unlike in some other dialects which use don't for standard English doesn't but does when not in the negative. Similarly, was is used for what in standard English are contexts for both was and were.
 * The genitive -'s ending may or may not be used. Genitive case is inferrable from adjacency. This is similar to many creoles throughout the Caribbean. Many language forms throughout the world use an unmarked possessive; it may here result from a simplification of grammatical structures. Example: my momma sister ("my mother's sister")
 * The words it and they denote the existence of something, equivalent to standard English's there is or there are.
 * Word order in questions: Why they ain't growing? ("Why aren't they growing?") and Who the hell she think she is? ("Who the hell does she think she is?") lack the inversion of most other forms of English. Because of this, there is also no need for the "auxiliary do".
 * Relative clauses which modify a noun in the object or predicate nominative position are not obligatorily introduced by a relative pronoun.

Vocabulary
AAVE shares most of its lexicon with other varieties of English, particularly that of informal and Southern dialects; for example, the relatively recent use of y'all. As statistically shown by Algeo (1991: 3-14), the main sources for new words are combining, shifting, shortening, blending, borrowing, and creating. However, it has also been suggested that some of the vocabulary unique to AAVE has its origin in West African languages, but etymology is often difficult to trace, and without a trail of recorded usage, the suggestions below cannot be considered proven. Early AAVE and Gullah contributed a number of words of African origin to the American English mainstream, including gumbo, goober, yam, and banjo.

Compounding in AAVE is a very common method in creating new vocabulary. The most common type of compounding is the noun–noun combination. There is also the adjective–noun combination, which is the second most commonly occurring type of combination found in AAE slang. AAE also combines adjectives with other adjectives, less frequently, but more so than in standard American English.

AAVE has also contributed slang expressions such as cool and hip. In many cases, the postulated etymologies are not recognized by linguists or the Oxford English Dictionary, such as to dig, jazz, tote, and bad-mouth, a calque from Mandinka. African American slang is formed by words and phrases that are regarded as informal. It involves combining, shifting, shortening, blending, borrowing, and creating new words. African American slang possess all of the same lexical qualities and linguistic mechanisms as any other language. AAVE slang is more common in speech than it is in writing.

AAVE also has words that either are not part of most other American English dialects or have strikingly different meanings. For example, there are several words in AAVE referring to White people that are not part of mainstream American English; these include gray as an adjective for Whites (as in gray dude), possibly from the color of Confederate uniforms; and paddy, an extension of the slang use for "Irish". "Red bone" is another example of this, usually referring to light skinned African Americans.

"Ofay", which is pejorative, is another general term for a White person; it might derive from the Ibibio word afia, which means "light-colored", from the Yoruba word ofe, spoken in hopes of disappearing from danger. However, most dictionaries simply say its etymology is unknown.

Kitchen refers to the particularly curly or kinky hair at the nape of the neck, and siditty or seddity means "snobbish" or "bourgeois".

AAVE has also contributed many words and phrases to other varieties of English, including chill out, main squeeze, soul, funky, and threads.

Influence on other dialects
African-American Vernacular English has influenced the development of other dialects of English. The AAVE accent, New York accent, and Spanish-language accents have together yielded the sound of New York Latino English, some of whose speakers use an accent indistinguishable from an AAVE one. AAVE has also influenced certain Chicano accents and Liberian Settler English, directly derived from the AAVE of the original 16,000 African Americans who migrated to Liberia in the 1800s. In the United States, urban youth participating in hip-hop culture or marginalized as ethnic minorities are also well-studied in adopting African-American Vernacular English, or prominent elements of it: for example, Southeast-Asian Americans embracing hip-hop identities.

Urban versus rural variations
The first studies on the African American English (AAE) took place in cities such as New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, to name a few. These studies concluded that the African American Language (AAL) was homogeneous, which means that AAE was spoken the same way everywhere around the country. Later, sociolinguists would realize that these cities lacked the influence of the rural south; the early studies had not considered the representation of the south of America, which caused the AAE studies to change. To make those changes, the newer studies used the diversity of the country and took into consideration the rural south.

African-American Vernacular English began as mostly rural and Southern, yet today is mostly urban and nationally widespread, and its more recent urban features are now even diffusing into rural areas. Urban AAVE alone is intensifying with the grammatical features exemplified in these sentences: "He be the best" (intensified equative be), "She be done had her baby" (resultative be done), and "They come hollerin" (indignant come). On the other hand, rural AAVE alone shows certain features too, such as: "I was a-huntin" (a-prefixing); "It riz above us" (different irregular forms); and "I want for to eat it" (for to complement). Using the word bees even in place of be to mean is or are in standard English, as in the sentence "That's the way it bees" is also one of the rarest of all deep AAVE features today, and most middle-class AAVE speakers would recognize the verb bees as part of only a deep "Southern" or "country" speaker's vocabulary.

Local variations
There are at least 10 distinct regional accents in AAVE, and regional patterns of pronunciation and word choice appear on social media.

Regional variation in AAVE does not pattern with other regional variation in North American English, which broadly follows East-to-West migration patterns, but instead patterns with the population movements during the Great Migration, resulting in a broadly South-to-North pattern, albeit with founder effects in cities that already had existing African American populations at the beginning of the Great Migration. There is no vowel for which the geographic variation in AAVE patterns with that of White American English.

New York City AAVE incorporates some local features of the New York accent, including its high vowel; meanwhile, conversely, Pittsburgh AAVE may merge this same vowel with the  vowel, matching the cot-caught merger of White Pittsburgh accents, though AAVE accents traditionally do not have the cot-caught merger. Memphis, Atlanta, and Research Triangle AAVE incorporates the vowel raising and  vowel lowering associated with White Southern accents. Memphis and St. Louis AAVE are developing, since the mid-twentieth century, an iconic merger of the vowels in and, making there sound like thurr. Californian AAVE often lacks a cot-caught merger, especially before nasals.

Social perception and context
African-American Vernacular suffers from persistent stigma and negative social evaluation in American culture. By definition, as a vernacular dialect of English, AAVE has not received the social prestige of a standard dialect, leading to widespread and long-standing misconceptions that it is a grammatically inferior form of English, which linguistics research of the twentieth century has refuted. However, educators and social commentators traditionally have advocated for eliminating AAVE usage through the public-education system for a variety of reasons, ranging from a continued belief that AAVE is intrinsically deficient to arguments that its use, by being stigmatized in certain social contexts, is socially limiting. Some of the harshest criticism of AAVE or its use has come from African Americans themselves. A conspicuous example was the "Pound Cake speech", in which Bill Cosby criticized some African Americans for various social behaviors, including the way they talked.

Educators traditionally have attempted to eliminate AAVE usage through the public education system, perceiving the dialect as grammatically defective. In 1974, the teacher-led Conference on College Composition and Communication issued a position statement affirming students' rights to their own dialects and the validity of all dialects. Mainstream linguistics has long agreed with this view about dialects. In 1979, a judge ordered the Ann Arbor School District to find a way to identify AAVE speakers in the schools and to "use that knowledge in teaching such students how to read standard English." In 1996, Oakland Unified School District made a controversial resolution for AAVE, which was later called "Ebonics". The Oakland School board approved that Ebonics be recognized as a language independent from English (though this particular view is not endorsed by linguists), that teachers would participate in recognizing this language, and that it would be used in theory to support the transition from Ebonics to Standard American English in schools. This program lasted three years and then died off.

Although the distinction between AAVE and General American dialects is clear to most English speakers, some characteristics, notably double negatives and the omission of certain auxiliaries (see below) such as the has in has been are also characteristic of many colloquial dialects of American English. There is general uniformity of AAVE grammar, despite its vast geographic spread across the whole country. This may be due in part to relatively recent migrations of some African Americans out of the American South (see Great Migration and Second Great Migration) as well as to long-term racial segregation that kept these speakerse living together in largely homogeneous communities.

title: African-American Vernacular English