text:
Smith chart

The Smith chart (sometimes also called Smith diagram, Mizuhashi chart (水橋チャート), Mizuhashi–Smith chart (水橋スミスチャート),  Volpert–Smith chart (Диаграмма Вольперта—Смита)  or Mizuhashi–Volpert–Smith chart), is a graphical calculator or nomogram designed for electrical and electronics engineers specializing in radio frequency (RF) engineering to assist in solving problems with transmission lines and matching circuits.

It was independently   proposed by Tōsaku Mizuhashi (水橋東作) in 1937, and by Amiel Rafailovich Volpert (Амиэ́ль Р. Во́льперт)  and Phillip H. Smith in 1939. Starting with a rectangular diagram, Smith had developed a special polar coordinate chart by 1936, which, with the input of his colleagues Enoch B. Ferrell and James W. McRae, who were familiar with conformal mappings, was reworked into the final form in early 1937, which was eventually published in January 1939. While Smith had originally called it a "transmission line chart" and other authors first used names like "reflection chart", "circle diagram of impedance", "immittance chart" or "Z-plane chart", early adopters at MIT's Radiation Laboratory started to refer to it simply as "Smith chart" in the 1940s,  a name generally accepted in the Western world by 1950.

The Smith chart can be used to simultaneously display multiple parameters including impedances, admittances, reflection coefficients, $$S_{nn}\,$$ scattering parameters, noise figure circles, constant gain contours and regions for unconditional stability. The Smith chart is most frequently used at or within the unity radius region. However, the remainder is still mathematically relevant, being used, for example, in oscillator design and stability analysis. While the use of paper Smith charts for solving the complex mathematics involved in matching problems has been largely replaced by software based methods, the Smith chart is still a very useful method of showing how RF parameters behave at one or more frequencies, an alternative to using tabular information. Thus most RF circuit analysis software includes a Smith chart option for the display of results and all but the simplest impedance measuring instruments can plot measured results on a Smith chart display.

Overview

The Smith chart is a mathematical transformation of the two-dimensional Cartesian complex plane. Complex numbers with positive real parts map inside the circle. Those with negative real parts map outside the circle. If we are dealing only with impedances with non-negative resistive components, our interest is focused on the area inside the circle. The transformation, for an impedance Smith chart, is:

$$\Gamma = \frac{Z - Z_0}{Z + Z_0} = \frac{z - 1}{z + 1},$$

where $$z = \frac{Z}{Z_0},$$ i.e., the complex impedance, $$Z,$$ normalized by the reference impedance, $$Z_0$$. The impedance Smith chart is then an Argand plot of impedances thus transformed. Impedances with non-negative resistive components will appear inside a circle with unit radius; the origin will correspond to the reference impedance, $$Z_0$$.

The Smith chart is plotted on the complex reflection coefficient plane in two dimensions and may be scaled in normalised impedance (the most common), normalised admittance or both, using different colours to distinguish between them. These are often known as the Z, Y and YZ Smith charts respectively. Normalised scaling allows the Smith chart to be used for problems involving any characteristic or system impedance which is represented by the center point of the chart. The most commonly used normalization impedance is 50 ohms. Once an answer is obtained through the graphical constructions described below, it is straightforward to convert between normalised impedance (or normalised admittance) and the corresponding unnormalized value by multiplying by the characteristic impedance (admittance). Reflection coefficients can be read directly from the chart as they are unitless parameters.

The Smith chart has a scale around its circumference or periphery which is graduated in wavelengths and degrees. The wavelengths scale is used in distributed component problems and represents the distance measured along the transmission line connected between the generator or source and the load to the point under consideration. The degrees scale represents the angle of the voltage reflection coefficient at that point. The Smith chart may also be used for lumped-element matching and analysis problems.

Use of the Smith chart and the interpretation of the results obtained using it requires a good understanding of AC circuit theory and transmission-line theory, both of which are prerequisites for RF engineers.

As impedances and admittances change with frequency, problems using the Smith chart can only be solved manually using one frequency at a time, the result being represented by a point. This is often adequate for narrow band applications (typically up to about 5% to 10% bandwidth) but for wider bandwidths it is usually necessary to apply Smith chart techniques at more than one frequency across the operating frequency band. Provided the frequencies are sufficiently close, the resulting Smith chart points may be joined by straight lines to create a locus.

A locus of points on a Smith chart covering a range of frequencies can be used to visually represent: The accuracy of the Smith chart is reduced for problems involving a large locus of impedances or admittances, although the scaling can be magnified for individual areas to accommodate these.
 * how capacitive or how inductive a load is across the frequency range
 * how difficult matching is likely to be at various frequencies
 * how well matched a particular component is.

Actual and normalised impedance and admittance
A transmission line with a characteristic impedance of $$Z_0\,$$ may be universally considered to have a characteristic admittance of $$Y_0\,$$ where
 * $$Y_0 = \frac{1}{Z_0}\,$$

Any impedance, $$Z_\text{T}\,$$ expressed in ohms, may be normalised by dividing it by the characteristic impedance, so the normalised impedance using the lower case zT is given by
 * $$z_\text{T} = \frac{Z_\text{T}}{Z_0}\,$$

Similarly, for normalised admittance
 * $$y_\text{T} = \frac{Y_\text{T}}{Y_0}\,$$

The SI unit of impedance is the ohm with the symbol of the upper case Greek letter omega (Ω) and the SI unit for admittance is the siemens with the symbol of an upper case letter S. Normalised impedance and normalised admittance are dimensionless. Actual impedances and admittances must be normalised before using them on a Smith chart. Once the result is obtained it may be de-normalised to obtain the actual result.

The normalised impedance Smith chart
Using transmission-line theory, if a transmission line is terminated in an impedance ($$Z_\text{T}\,$$) which differs from its characteristic impedance ($$Z_0\,$$), a standing wave will be formed on the line comprising the resultant of both the incident or forward ($$V_\text{F}\,$$) and the reflected or reversed ($$V_\text{R}\,$$) waves. Using complex exponential notation:
 * $$V_\text{F} = A \exp(j \omega t)\exp(+\gamma \ell)~\,$$ and
 * $$V_\text{R} = B \exp(j \omega t)\exp(-\gamma \ell)\,$$

where

 * $$\exp(j \omega t)\,$$ is the temporal part of the wave
 * $$\exp(\pm\gamma \ell)\,$$ is the spatial part of the wave and
 * $$\omega = 2 \pi f\,$$ where
 * $$\omega\,$$ is the angular frequency in radians per second (rad/s)
 * $$f\,$$ is the frequency in hertz (Hz)
 * $$t\,$$ is the time in seconds (s)
 * $$A\,$$ and $$B\,$$ are constants
 * $$\ell\,$$ is the distance measured along the transmission line from the load toward the generator in metres (m)

Also
 * $$\gamma = \alpha + j \beta\,$$ is the propagation constant which has SI units radians/meter

where
 * $$\alpha\,$$ is the attenuation constant in nepers per metre (Np/m)
 * $$\beta\,$$ is the phase constant in radians per metre (rad/m)

The Smith chart is used with one frequency ($$\omega$$) at a time, and only for one moment ($$t$$) at a time, so the temporal part of the phase ($$\exp(j \omega t)\,$$) is fixed. All terms are actually multiplied by this to obtain the instantaneous phase, but it is conventional and understood to omit it. Therefore,
 * $$V_\text{F} = A \exp(+\gamma \ell)\,$$ and
 * $$V_\text{R} = B \exp(-\gamma \ell)\,$$

where $$A\,$$ and $$B\,$$ are respectively the forward and reverse voltage amplitudes at the load.

The variation of complex reflection coefficient with position along the line
The complex voltage reflection coefficient $$\Gamma\,$$ is defined as the ratio of the reflected wave to the incident (or forward) wave. Therefore,
 * $$\Gamma = \frac{V_\text{R}}{V_\text{F}} = \frac{B \exp(-\gamma \ell)}{A \exp(+\gamma \ell)} = C \exp(-2 \gamma \ell)\,$$

where $C$ is also a constant.

For a uniform transmission line (in which $$\gamma\,$$ is constant), the complex reflection coefficient of a standing wave varies according to the position on the line. If the line is lossy ($$\alpha\,$$ is non-zero) this is represented on the Smith chart by a spiral path. In most Smith chart problems however, losses can be assumed negligible ($$\alpha = 0\,$$) and the task of solving them is greatly simplified. For the loss free case therefore, the expression for complex reflection coefficient becomes
 * $$\Gamma = \Gamma_\text{L} \exp(-2 j \beta \ell)\,$$

where $$\Gamma_\text{L}\,$$ is the reflection coefficient at the load, and $$\ell\,$$ is the line length from the load to the location where the reflection coefficient is measured. The phase constant $$\beta\,$$ may also be written as
 * $$\beta = \frac{2 \pi}{\lambda}\,$$

where $$\lambda\,$$ is the wavelength within the transmission line at the test frequency.

Therefore,
 * $$\Gamma = \Gamma_\text{L} \exp\left(\frac{-4 j \pi}{\lambda}\ell\right)\,$$

This equation shows that, for a standing wave, the complex reflection coefficient and impedance repeats every half wavelength along the transmission line. The complex reflection coefficient is generally simply referred to as reflection coefficient. The outer circumferential scale of the Smith chart represents the distance from the generator to the load scaled in wavelengths and is therefore scaled from zero to 0.50.

The variation of normalised impedance with position along the line
If $$\,V\,$$ and $$\,I\,$$ are the voltage across and the current entering the termination at the end of the transmission line respectively, then
 * $$V_\mathsf{F} + V_\mathsf{R} = V \,$$

and
 * $$ V_\mathsf{F} - V_\mathsf{R} = Z_0\, I \,$$.

By dividing these equations and substituting for both the voltage reflection coefficient
 * $$ \Gamma = \frac{V_\mathsf{R}}{\, V_\mathsf{F} \,} \,$$

and the normalised impedance of the termination represented by the lower case $z$, subscript T
 * $$ z_\mathsf{T} = \frac{V}{\, Z_0\, I \,} \,$$

gives the result:
 * $$ z_\mathsf{T} = \frac{1 + \Gamma}{\, 1 - \Gamma \,} \,.$$

Alternatively, in terms of the reflection coefficient
 * $$ \Gamma = \frac{z_\mathsf{T} - 1}{\, z_\mathsf{T} + 1 \,} \,$$

These are the equations which are used to construct the $Z$ Smith chart. Mathematically speaking $$\,\Gamma\,$$ and $$\,z_\mathsf{T}\,$$ are related via a Möbius transformation.

Both $$\,\Gamma\,$$ and $$\,z_\mathsf{T}\,$$ are expressed in complex numbers without any units. They both change with frequency so for any particular measurement, the frequency at which it was performed must be stated together with the characteristic impedance.

$$\,\Gamma\,$$ may be expressed in magnitude and angle on a polar diagram. Any actual reflection coefficient must have a magnitude of less than or equal to unity so, at the test frequency, this may be expressed by a point inside a circle of unity radius. The Smith chart is actually constructed on such a polar diagram. The Smith chart scaling is designed in such a way that reflection coefficient can be converted to normalised impedance or vice versa. Using the Smith chart, the normalised impedance may be obtained with appreciable accuracy by plotting the point representing the reflection coefficient treating the Smith chart as a polar diagram and then reading its value directly using the characteristic Smith chart scaling. This technique is a graphical alternative to substituting the values in the equations.

By substituting the expression for how reflection coefficient changes along an unmatched loss-free transmission line
 * $$ \Gamma = \frac{B \exp(-\gamma \ell)}{A \exp(\gamma \ell)} = \frac{B \exp(-j \beta \ell)}{A \exp(j \beta \ell)} \,$$

for the loss free case, into the equation for normalised impedance in terms of reflection coefficient
 * $$ z_\mathsf{T} = \frac{1 + \Gamma}{\, 1 - \Gamma \,} \,.$$

and using Euler's formula
 * $$ \exp(j\theta) = \text{cis}\, \theta = \cos \theta + j\, \sin \theta \,$$

yields the impedance-version transmission-line equation for the loss free case:
 * $$Z_\mathsf{in} = Z_0 \frac{\, Z_\mathsf{L} + j\, Z_0 \tan (\beta \ell) \,}{\, Z_0 + j\, Z_\mathsf{L} \tan (\beta \ell) \,} \,$$

where $$\,Z_\mathsf{in}\,$$ is the impedance 'seen' at the input of a loss free transmission line of length $$\,\ell\, ,$$ terminated with an impedance $$\,Z_\mathsf{L}\,$$

Versions of the transmission-line equation may be similarly derived for the admittance loss free case and for the impedance and admittance lossy cases.

The Smith chart graphical equivalent of using the transmission-line equation is to normalise $$\, Z_\mathsf{L} \, ,$$ to plot the resulting point on a $Z$ Smith chart and to draw a circle through that point centred at the Smith chart centre. The path along the arc of the circle represents how the impedance changes whilst moving along the transmission line. In this case the circumferential (wavelength) scaling must be used, remembering that this is the wavelength within the transmission line and may differ from the free space wavelength.

Regions of the $Z$ Smith chart
If a polar diagram is mapped on to a cartesian coordinate system it is conventional to measure angles relative to the positive $x$-axis using a counterclockwise direction for positive angles. The magnitude of a complex number is the length of a straight line drawn from the origin to the point representing it. The Smith chart uses the same convention, noting that, in the normalised impedance plane, the positive $x$-axis extends from the center of the Smith chart at $$\, z_\mathsf{T} = 1 \pm j 0 \,$$ to the point $$\, z_\mathsf{T} = \infty \pm j \infty \,.$$ The region above the x-axis represents inductive impedances (positive imaginary parts) and the region below the $x$-axis represents capacitive impedances (negative imaginary parts).

If the termination is perfectly matched, the reflection coefficient will be zero, represented effectively by a circle of zero radius or in fact a point at the centre of the Smith chart. If the termination was a perfect open circuit or short circuit the magnitude of the reflection coefficient would be unity, all power would be reflected and the point would lie at some point on the unity circumference circle.

Circles of constant normalised resistance and constant normalised reactance
The normalised impedance Smith chart is composed of two families of circles: circles of constant normalised resistance and circles of constant normalised reactance. In the complex reflection coefficient plane the Smith chart occupies a circle of unity radius centred at the origin. In cartesian coordinates therefore the circle would pass through the points (+1,0) and (−1,0) on the $x$-axis and the points (0,+1) and (0,−1) on the $y$-axis.

Since both $$\,\Gamma\,$$ and $$\,z_\mathsf{T}\,$$ are complex numbers, in general they may be written as:
 * $$z_\mathsf{T} = a + j b \,$$
 * $$~ \Gamma ~= c + j d \,$$

with a, b, c and d real numbers.

Substituting these into the equation relating normalised impedance and complex reflection coefficient:
 * $$\Gamma = \frac{z_\mathsf{T} - 1}{\, z_\mathsf{T} + 1 \,} = \frac{(a - 1) + j\,b}{\, (a + 1) + j\,b \,} \,$$

gives the following result:
 * $$\Gamma = c + j d = \left[\frac{a^2 + b^2 - 1}{\,(a + 1)^2 + b^2\,}\right] + j \left[\frac{2b}{\,(a + 1)^2 + b^2\,}\right] = \left[ 1 + \frac{ -2(a + 1) }{\,(a + 1)^2 + b^2\,}\right] + j \left[\frac{+2b}{\,(a + 1)^2 + b^2\,}\right] \,.$$

This is the equation which describes how the complex reflection coefficient changes with the normalised impedance and may be used to construct both families of circles.

The $Y$ Smith chart
The $Y$ Smith chart is constructed in a similar way to the $Z$ Smith chart case but by expressing values of voltage reflection coefficient in terms of normalised admittance instead of normalised impedance. The normalised admittance $y$$T$ is the reciprocal of the normalised impedance $z$$T$, so
 * $$ y_\mathsf{T} = \frac{1}{z_\mathsf{T}} \,$$

Therefore:
 * $$ y_\mathsf{T} = \frac{1-\Gamma}{\, 1 + \Gamma \,} \,$$

and
 * $$ \Gamma = \frac{ 1 - y_\mathsf{T} }{\, 1 + y_\mathsf{T} \,} \,$$

The $Y$ Smith chart appears like the normalised impedance, type but with the graphic nested circles rotated through 180°, but the numeric scale remaining in its same position (not rotated) as the $Z$ chart.

Similarly taking
 * $$ y_\mathsf{T} = \tilde{o} + j\,\tilde{p} \,$$

for real $$\,\tilde{o}\,$$ and $$\,\tilde{p}\,$$ gives an analogous result, although with more and different minus signs:
 * $$\Gamma = c + j d = \left[\frac{1 - \tilde{o}^2 - \tilde{p}^2}{\,(\tilde{o} + 1)^2 + \tilde{p}^2\,}\right] + j \left[\frac{ -2\tilde{p} }{\,(\tilde{o} + 1)^2 + \tilde{p}^2\,}\right] = \left[ \frac{ 2(\tilde{o} + 1) }{\,(\tilde{o} + 1)^2 + \tilde{p}^2\,}- 1 \right] + j \left[\frac{ - 2 \tilde{p} }{\,(\tilde{o} + 1)^2 + \tilde{p}^2\,}\right] \,.$$

The region above the $x$-axis represents capacitive admittances and the region below the $x$-axis represents inductive admittances. Capacitive admittances have positive imaginary parts and inductive admittances have negative imaginary parts.

Again, if the termination is perfectly matched the reflection coefficient will be zero, represented by a 'circle' of zero radius or in fact a point at the centre of the Smith chart. If the termination was a perfect open or short circuit the magnitude of the voltage reflection coefficient would be unity, all power would be reflected and the point would lie at some point on the unity circumference circle of the Smith chart.

Practical examples
A point with a reflection coefficient magnitude 0.63 and angle 60° represented in polar form as $$0.63\angle60^\circ\,$$, is shown as point P1 on the Smith chart. To plot this, one may use the circumferential (reflection coefficient) angle scale to find the $$\angle60^\circ\,$$ graduation and a ruler to draw a line passing through this and the centre of the Smith chart. The length of the line would then be scaled to P1 assuming the Smith chart radius to be unity. For example, if the actual radius measured from the paper was 100 mm, the length OP1 would be 63 mm.

The following table gives some similar examples of points which are plotted on the Z Smith chart. For each, the reflection coefficient is given in polar form together with the corresponding normalised impedance in rectangular form. The conversion may be read directly from the Smith chart or by substitution into the equation.

Working with both the Z Smith chart and the Y Smith charts
In RF circuit and matching problems sometimes it is more convenient to work with admittances (representing conductances and susceptances) and sometimes it is more convenient to work with impedances (representing resistances and reactances). Solving a typical matching problem will often require several changes between both types of Smith chart, using normalised impedance for series elements and normalised admittances for parallel elements. For these a dual (normalised) impedance and admittance Smith chart may be used. Alternatively, one type may be used and the scaling converted to the other when required. In order to change from normalised impedance to normalised admittance or vice versa, the point representing the value of reflection coefficient under consideration is moved through exactly 180 degrees at the same radius. For example, the point P1 in the example representing a reflection coefficient of $$0.63\angle60^\circ\,$$ has a normalised impedance of $$ z_P = 0.80 + j1.40\,$$. To graphically change this to the equivalent normalised admittance point, say Q1, a line is drawn with a ruler from P1 through the Smith chart centre to Q1, an equal radius in the opposite direction. This is equivalent to moving the point through a circular path of exactly 180 degrees. Reading the value from the Smith chart for Q1, remembering that the scaling is now in normalised admittance, gives $$y_P = 0.30 - j0.54\,$$. Performing the calculation
 * $$y_\text{T} = \frac{1}{ z_\text{T} }\,$$

manually will confirm this.

Once a transformation from impedance to admittance has been performed, the scaling changes to normalised admittance until a later transformation back to normalised impedance is performed.

The table below shows examples of normalised impedances and their equivalent normalised admittances obtained by rotation of the point through 180°. Again, these may be obtained either by calculation or using a Smith chart as shown, converting between the normalised impedance and normalised admittances planes.

Choice of Smith chart type and component type
The choice of whether to use the Z Smith chart or the Y Smith chart for any particular calculation depends on which is more convenient. Impedances in series and admittances in parallel add while impedances in parallel and admittances in series are related by a reciprocal equation. If $$Z_\text{TS} $$ is the equivalent impedance of series impedances and $$Z_\text{TP} $$ is the equivalent impedance of parallel impedances, then
 * $$Z_\text{TS} = Z_1 + Z_2 + Z_3 + ... \,$$
 * $$\frac{1}{Z_\text{TP}} = \frac{1}{Z_1} + \frac{1}{Z_2} + \frac{1}{Z_3} + ... \,$$

For admittances the reverse is true, that is
 * $$Y_\text{TP} = Y_1 + Y_2 + Y_3 + ... \,$$
 * $$\frac{1}{Y_\text{TS}} = \frac{1}{Y_1} + \frac{1}{Y_2} + \frac{1}{Y_3} + ... \,$$

Dealing with the reciprocals, especially in complex numbers, is more time-consuming and error-prone than using linear addition. In general therefore, most RF engineers work in the plane where the circuit topography supports linear addition. The following table gives the complex expressions for impedance (real and normalised) and admittance (real and normalised) for each of the three basic passive circuit elements: resistance, inductance and capacitance. Using just the characteristic impedance (or characteristic admittance) and test frequency an equivalent circuit can be found and vice versa.

Using the Smith chart to solve conjugate matching problems with distributed components
Distributed matching becomes feasible and is sometimes required when the physical size of the matching components is more than about 5% of a wavelength at the operating frequency. Here the electrical behaviour of many lumped components becomes rather unpredictable. This occurs in microwave circuits and when high power requires large components in shortwave, FM and TV broadcasting.

For distributed components the effects on reflection coefficient and impedance of moving along the transmission line must be allowed for using the outer circumferential scale of the Smith chart which is calibrated in wavelengths.

The following example shows how a transmission line, terminated with an arbitrary load, may be matched at one frequency either with a series or parallel reactive component in each case connected at precise positions.

Supposing a loss-free air-spaced transmission line of characteristic impedance $$Z_0 = 50 \ \Omega$$, operating at a frequency of 800 MHz, is terminated with a circuit comprising a 17.5 $$\Omega$$ resistor in series with a 6.5 nanohenry (6.5 nH) inductor. How may the line be matched?

From the table above, the reactance of the inductor forming part of the termination at 800 MHz is
 * $$Z_L = j \omega L = j 2 \pi f L = j32.7 \ \Omega\,$$

so the impedance of the combination ($$Z_T$$) is given by
 * $$Z_T = 17.5 + j32.7 \ \Omega\,$$

and the normalised impedance ($$z_T$$) is
 * $$z_T = \frac{Z_T}{Z_0} = 0.35 + j0.65\,$$

This is plotted on the Z Smith chart at point P20. The line OP20 is extended through to the wavelength scale where it intersects at the point $$L_1 = 0.098 \lambda\,$$. As the transmission line is loss free, a circle centred at the centre of the Smith chart is drawn through the point P20 to represent the path of the constant magnitude reflection coefficient due to the termination. At point P21 the circle intersects with the unity circle of constant normalised resistance at
 * $$z_{P21} = 1.00 + j1.52\,$$.

The extension of the line OP21 intersects the wavelength scale at $$L_2 = 0.177 \lambda\,$$, therefore the distance from the termination to this point on the line is given by
 * $$L_2 - L_1 = 0.177\lambda - 0.098\lambda = 0.079\lambda\,$$

Since the transmission line is air-spaced, the wavelength at 800 MHz in the line is the same as that in free space and is given by
 * $$\lambda = \frac{c}{f}\,$$

where $$c\,$$ is the velocity of electromagnetic radiation in free space and $$f\,$$ is the frequency in hertz. The result gives $$\lambda = 375 \ \mathrm{mm}\,$$, making the position of the matching component 29.6 mm from the load.

The conjugate match for the impedance at P21 ($$z_{match}\,$$) is
 * $$z_{match} = - j (1.52),\!$$

As the Smith chart is still in the normalised impedance plane, from the table above a series capacitor $$C_m\,$$ is required where
 * $$z_{match} = - j 1.52 = \frac{-j}{\omega C_m Z_0} = \frac{-j}{2 \pi f C_m Z_0}\,$$

Rearranging, we obtain
 * $$C_m=\frac{1}{(1.52) \omega Z_0} = \frac{1}{(1.52)(2 \pi f) Z_0}$$.

Substitution of known values gives
 * $$C_m = 2.6 \ \mathrm{pF}\,$$

To match the termination at 800 MHz, a series capacitor of 2.6 pF must be placed in series with the transmission line at a distance of 29.6 mm from the termination.

An alternative shunt match could be calculated after performing a Smith chart transformation from normalised impedance to normalised admittance. Point Q20 is the equivalent of P20 but expressed as a normalised admittance. Reading from the Smith chart scaling, remembering that this is now a normalised admittance gives
 * $$y_{Q20} = 0.65 - j1.20\,$$

(In fact this value is not actually used). However, the extension of the line OQ20 through to the wavelength scale gives $$L_3 = 0.152 \lambda\,$$. The earliest point at which a shunt conjugate match could be introduced, moving towards the generator, would be at Q21, the same position as the previous P21, but this time representing a normalised admittance given by
 * $$y_{Q21} = 1.00 + j1.52\,$$.

The distance along the transmission line is in this case
 * $$L_2 + L_3 = 0.177\lambda + 0.152\lambda = 0.329\lambda\,$$

which converts to 123 mm.

The conjugate matching component is required to have a normalised admittance ($$y_{match}$$) of
 * $$y_{match} = - j1.52\,$$.

From the table it can be seen that a negative admittance would require an inductor, connected in parallel with the transmission line. If its value is $$L_m\,$$, then
 * $$-j1.52 = \frac{-j}{\omega L_m Y_0}= \frac{-jZ_0}{2\pi f L_m}\,$$

This gives the result
 * $$L_m = 6.5 \ \mathrm{nH}\,$$

A suitable inductive shunt matching would therefore be a 6.5 nH inductor in parallel with the line positioned at 123 mm from the load.

Using the Smith chart to analyze lumped-element circuits
The analysis of lumped-element components assumes that the wavelength at the frequency of operation is much greater than the dimensions of the components themselves. The Smith chart may be used to analyze such circuits in which case the movements around the chart are generated by the (normalized) impedances and admittances of the components at the frequency of operation. In this case the wavelength scaling on the Smith chart circumference is not used. The following circuit will be analyzed using a Smith chart at an operating frequency of 100 MHz. At this frequency the free space wavelength is 3 m. The component dimensions themselves will be in the order of millimetres so the assumption of lumped components will be valid. Despite there being no transmission line as such, a system impedance must still be defined to enable normalization and de-normalization calculations and $$Z_0 = 50 \ \Omega\,$$ is a good choice here as $$R_1 = 50 \ \Omega\,$$. If there were very different values of resistance present a value closer to these might be a better choice.

The analysis starts with a Z Smith chart looking into R1 only with no other components present. As $$R_1 = 50 \ \Omega\,$$ is the same as the system impedance, this is represented by a point at the centre of the Smith chart. The first transformation is OP1 along the line of constant normalized resistance in this case the addition of a normalized reactance of -j0.80, corresponding to a series capacitor of 40 pF. Points with suffix P are in the Z plane and points with suffix Q are in the Y plane. Therefore, transformations P1 to Q1 and P3 to Q3 are from the Z Smith chart to the Y Smith chart and transformation Q2 to P2 is from the Y Smith chart to the Z Smith chart. The following table shows the steps taken to work through the remaining components and transformations, returning eventually back to the centre of the Smith chart and a perfect 50 ohm match.

3D Smith chart
A generalization of the Smith chart to a three dimensional sphere, based on the extended complex plane (Riemann sphere) and inversive geometry, was proposed by Muller, et al in 2011.

The chart unifies the passive and active circuit design on little and big circles on the surface of a unit sphere, using a stereographic conformal map of the reflection coefficient's generalized plane. Considering the point at infinity, the space of the new chart includes all possible loads: The north pole is the perfectly matched point, while the south pole is the completely mismatched point.

The 3D Smith chart has been further extended outside of the spherical surface, for plotting various scalar parameters, such as group delay, quality factors, or frequency orientation. The visual frequency orientation (clockwise vs. counter-clockwise) enables one to differentiate between a negative / capacitance and positive / inductive whose reflection coefficients are the same when plotted on a 2D Smith chart, but whose orientations diverge as frequency increases.

title: Smith chart


text:
Talk:Atlantic Ocean Road

Name
Various seemingly official sites name the road as Atlantic Road in English and not Atlantic Ocean Road, even though the latter would be a better literal translation of the Norwegian. Colin 't Hart (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.visitmolde.com/en/The-Atlantic-Road/
 * http://www.theatlanticroad.com/
 * http://www.atlantic-road.com/
 * http://www.visitnorway.com/the-atlantic-road
 * Yet the one official book about the road calls it the "Atlantic Ocean Road". The article clearly starts off which stating both English names. Arsenikk (talk)  08:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Untitled
The original text said "8.274 m road". Well, I'm going to assume they at least mean kilometre! I went to the English version of the listed Norwegian web site and it also said "8.274 m" but I find it hard to believe they are referring to metres here. Can someone clarify? RedWolf 04:09, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

 * It means 8 km and 274 m as the Norwegian convention is to use "," as decimal separator, not ".". --hans 13:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Frequent used location for making car ads according to (norwegian article) http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/05/04/reise/konkurranse/reisequiz/norge/6044878/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.202.13 (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Much Much Better Picture
http://twistedsifter.com/2009/12/picture-of-the-day-december-10-2009/

Follow this link, please can someone put this image on the article. Thanks Colt .55 (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A more original URL path to the photo is http://www.flickr.com/photos/29335203@N06/2929289555/ It has the permisson tag © All Rights Reserved and is therefore not allowed to be uploaded to Wikimedia/Wikipedia. Only photos which are free to copy and modify can be used.--BIL (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Filtered for applicability these are the Flickr images we can consider uploading to Wikimedia Commons. __meco (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it not possible to ask the owner? Afterall, it will greatly improve the quality of the article. Colt .55 (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

A map
This article should have a map! --Hordaland (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now there are two. --BIL (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Junction list
I won't formally review this article at GAN since Arsenikk recently reviewed one of my nominations (Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive), but I will offer this critique. Why isn't there some kind of junction list table for the roadway? Adding one that complies with MOS:RJL isn't required by the MOS section (1b) of the GA criteria, but I'd say that one should be added to "address[] the main aspects of the topic" (3a), namely what other roads it intersects along its route.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I've now added a junction list, hopefully meeting the MOS criteria. Arsenikk (talk)  17:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Atlantic Ocean Road. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/62Bwgszh5?url=http://www.turistveg.no/en/atlanterhavsvegen to http://www.turistveg.no/en/atlanterhavsvegen
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.riksantikvaren.no/?module=Articles;action=Article.publicShow;ID=114073

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Atlantic Ocean Road


text:
Wesleyan Church

The Wesleyan Church, also known as the Wesleyan Methodist Church and Wesleyan Holiness Church depending on the region, is a Methodist Christian denomination in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, South Africa, Namibia, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Indonesia, and Australia. The church is aligned with the Wesleyan-Holiness movement and has roots in the teachings of John Wesley. It adheres to Wesleyan-Arminian doctrine and is a member of the World Methodist Council.

Near the end of 2014, the Wesleyan Church had grown to an average of 516,203 adherents weekly in around 5,800 churches worldwide, and was active in almost 100 nations. In 2017, there were 140,954 members in 1,607 congregations in North America, and an average worship attendance of 239,842.

Wesleyan Life is the official publication. Global Partners is the official non-profit missions organization. The Wesleyan Church world headquarters are in Fishers, Indiana, United States.

History
The Wesleyan Methodist Connection was officially formed in 1843 at an organizing conference in Utica, New York, by a group of ministers and laymen splitting from the Methodist Episcopal Church. The split was primarily over their objections to slavery, though they had secondary issues as well, such as ecclesiastical polity. Orange Scott presided as the meeting formed a federation of churches at first calling themselves the Wesleyan Methodist Connection, a name chosen to emphasize the primacy of the local church, and the intended nature of the denomination as a connection of churches. Other leaders at the organizing conference were La Roy Sunderland, who had been tried and defrocked for his antislavery writings, Lucious C. Matlack, and Luther Lee, a minister who later operated an Underground Railroad station in Syracuse, New York.

The denomination sponsored traveling preachers on the frontier and into Canada, where they appealed to workingmen and farmers. Typical was Rev. James Caughey, an American sent to Ontario by the Wesleyan Methodist Church from the 1840s through 1864. He brought in converts by the score, most notably in the revivals in Canada West 1851–53. His technique combined restrained emotionalism with a clear call for personal commitment, coupled with follow-up action to organize support from converts. It was a time when the Holiness Movement caught fire, with the revitalized interest of men and women in Christian perfection. Caughey successfully bridged the gap between the style of earlier camp meetings and the needs of more sophisticated Methodist congregations in the emerging cities.

In addition to advocating for abolitionism, the early Wesleyan Methodists championed the rights of women. In 1848, the Wesleyan Chapel in Seneca Falls, New York, hosted the Seneca Falls Convention, the first women's rights convention. It is commemorated by the Women's Rights National Historical Park in the village today. Luther Lee, General President in 1856, preached at the ordination service of Antoinette Brown (Blackwell), the very first woman ordained to the Christian ministry in the United States. The Alliance of Reformed Baptists of Canada ordained the very first woman to the ministry in Canada in the late 1800s. At General Conference in 1867, a resolution was adopted favoring the right of women to vote (as well as the right of freedmen—blacks). This was 44 years before the US constitution was amended to ensure women voting privileges.

In 1966 the Wesleyan Methodist Church merged with the Alliance of Reformed Baptists of Canada and in 1968 with the Pilgrim Holiness Church. It spread through revivals emphasizing a deepening experience with God called holiness or sanctification. Heart purity was a central theme. During this period of time, many small churches developed through revivals and the emphasis of entire sanctification (taught by John Wesley, but not emphasized by some mainline Methodists). As many as 25 or 30 small denominations were formed and eventually merged with other groups to enlarge the church. The church was strong in missionary and revival emphasis. The merger took place in 1968 at Anderson University, Anderson, Indiana. Some conferences and local churches of the Wesleyan Methodist Church objected to the merger, thus resulting in a schism of the Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist Connection with the Wesleyan Church, as well as the creation of the Bible Methodist Connection of Churches and Bible Methodist Connection of Tennessee around 1968. The Pilgrim Holiness Church of New York (formed in 1963) and Pilgrim Holiness Church of the Midwest (formed in 1967) were also established around this time, with the former in response to the tendency of centralization of the larger Pilgrim Holiness Church and the latter in response to the merger.

Beliefs
The Wesleyan Church has the following core values:
 * Biblical authority
 * Christlikeness
 * Disciple-making
 * Local church-centered
 * Servant leadership
 * Unity in diversity

In addition, the Wesleyan Church holds to the following articles of religion:

 * Faith in the Holy Trinity — There is one true God, united in three persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 * The Father — the Father created all things, and that all humans are created in the image of God. God, in love, seeks out and receives penitent sinners.

 * The Son of God — Jesus Christ is the Son of God, conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, fully God and fully man. He died on the cross and was buried as a sacrifice both for original sin and all human transgression and to reconcile us to God. He was raised bodily from the dead, ascended into heaven, and intercedes at the Father's right hand, until he returns to judge all humanity.

 * The Holy Spirit — The Holy Spirit administers grace to all and is the agent in conviction for sin, in regeneration, in sanctification, and in glorification.

 * The sufficiency and full authority of the Holy Scriptures for salvation — The Old and New Testaments are the inspired and infallible Word of God, inerrant in their original manuscripts, superior to any human authority and sufficient for all things necessary to salvation. The Bible has been transmitted to the present without corruption of any essential doctrine.

 * God's Purpose for Humanity — The divine law is summarized in the commands to love God with all one's heart and to love one's neighbor as oneself. All persons, therefore, ought to seek to obey God and to preserve and promote for others the exercise of every natural right.

 * Marriage and the Family — People are made in the image of God. Marriage is designed by God as a metaphor for His relationship with His covenant people. Therefore, human sexuality ought only to be expressed in heterosexual monogamy. Marriage has the highest priority among social organizations, and was divinely designed for reproduction. Extramarital and same-sex relationships are immoral and sinful.

 * Personal Choice — Humans were created with the ability to choose between right and wrong. But, since the fall, humans cannot choose right on their own, because of original sin. Humans are inclined toward sin and cannot, on their own, call on God or exercise faith. But God, through Christ, provides to each person prevenient grace, allowing each to choose salvation.

 * Sin: Original, Willful, and Involuntary — All of creation suffers the consequences of Adam and Eve's disobedience and groans for redemption. Each person is born with a bent toward sinning, which manifests itself in outward acts of unrighteousness. Failures in judgment and involuntary flaws are not to be equated with willful sin but still require the atonement of Christ for forgiveness. Willful sin is when a free moral agent volitionally chooses to transgress a known law of God. Such sin will result in a loss of fellowship with God, self-absorption, an inability to live righteously, and, ultimately, eternal separation from God. The atonement of Christ is the only remedy for sin, whether original, willful or involuntary.

 * The Atonement — Christ's crucifixion allows redemption for the whole world. It is the only foundation of salvation from sin. The atonement covers those who mentally cannot choose salvation, but individuals who are mentally accountable must accept the gift of salvation of their own free will.

 * Repentance and Faith
 * Affirms that salvation is by grace alone but must be accepted by the believer. Denies the Reformed view of unconditional election.
 * Affirms that repentance precedes saving faith.
 * Affirms that faith is the only condition for salvation. Directly negates any need for good works to attain salvation. Does not negate good works as evidence of salvation.
 * Affirms that saving faith publicly acknowledges Christ as Lord.
 * Affirms that the saved will identify with the church.

 * Justification, Regeneration, and Adoption — Asserts that when one repents and has saving faith in Christ, in that same moment that person is:
 * Justified: Granted full pardon for all sin, guilt, and penalty of sins.
 * Regenerated: Reborn spiritual life in Christ with a distinct capacity for love and obedience to God.
 * Adopted: Given full rights, privileges, and responsibilities of a child of God.

 * Good Works — Reaffirms that humankind is justified by faith and affirms that good works are evidence of salvation.

 * Sin After Regeneration — Affirms it is possible for a believer to sin after regeneration in salvation and that there is grace and forgiveness for repentant believers.

 * Sanctification
 * Initial: The work of the Holy Spirit in the moment of conversion in a new believer to be separated from sin to God.
 * Progressive: The continual work of the Holy Spirit to grow the believer in love and more perfect obedience.
 * Entire" The perfecting of the believer in love and empowerment for service. It follows in lifelong growth in grace and knowledge.

 * The Gifts of the Spirit — Asserts that the Holy Spirit gives gifts to people, for the benefit of the Church, but that the Holy Spirit himself is the most desirable gift.

 * The Church — The Christian Church is the entire body of believers (both living and those died and in heaven). Jesus Christ is the founder and only head of the Church, which is not identified with any particular institution or denomination. The Church is called to preach the Word of God, administer the sacraments, and live in obedience to Christ. A local church is a body of believers formally organized for the purposes of evangelism, discipleship, and worship. The Wesleyan Church is a denomination within the greater, invisible Church, and that invisible church encompasses Christians who hold to a variety of differing beliefs, not just Wesleyan beliefs.

 * The Sacraments
 * Baptism — Baptism is a sacrament commanded by our Lord and administered to believers. It works as a symbol and as part of the new covenant of grace.
 * The Lord's Supper — The Lord's Supper is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death, our hope in his return, and a sign of Christian love for one another.

 * The Second Coming of Christ — Asserts that Christ will return, fulfilling numerous biblical prophecies and that this certain event should inspire proper living and evangelization.

 * Resurrection of the Dead — Asserts that all will be raised from the dead at Christ's return, damnation for the lost and life for the saved, and that the resurrection body will be a spiritual body but still personally recognizable.

 * Judgment of All Persons — Asserts a final judgment for all humans before God, regardless of the individual's beliefs, and asserts God's omniscience and eternal justice.

 * Destiny — Asserts that Scripture teaches there is life after death, and the fate of each person is determined by God's grace and their individual response, evidenced through moral character rather than arbitrary decree of God. Heaven and Christ's presence is the place for those who choose God's salvation given through Christ, but hell and separation from Christ is the resulting place for those who neglect the great salvation.

Organizations and relations
Local churches are organized into a network of districts with equal representation of clergy and laity at their annual conferences. Each has an elected administrator known as the district superintendent and has a district board of administration with both lay and clergy serving. National and multi-national networks are called general conferences with strong national leadership and meet every four years. The North American General Conference has one General Superintendent, Dr. Wayne Schmidt.

Currently, general conferences exist in the Philippines, the Caribbeans, and North America, though The Wesleyan Church has recently begun a process of "internationalization" in which areas and regions of the world have the opportunity to form their own general conferences. Though it is too early to predict which general conferences will be formed in the coming years, the eventual shift is inevitable. The overarching goal of the internationalization process is to create a global network of partnership and not a "top-down" leadership structure within the worldwide church.

Official names by region
According to the 2012 Wesleyan Church Discipline, the official name of the denomination is The Wesleyan Church. However, different names may be used by different units of the church for practicality and localization. The following are the official names of the denomination, for the various organizational units:
 * Australia: The Wesleyan Methodist Church of Australia
 * Bougainville: The Wesleyan Methodist Church of Bougainville
 * Brazil: Igreja Evangélica Wesleyana
 * British Isles: The Wesleyan Holiness Church
 * Cambodia: 'The Wesleyan Church of Cambodia'
 * Canada: The Wesleyan Church
 * Caribbean: The Wesleyan Holiness Church of the Caribbean
 * Chile: Ministerio Evangelistico y Misionero “Cristo es la Unica Respuesta”
 * Colombia: La Iglesia Wesleyana de Colombia
 * Costa Rica: Iglesia Wesleyana Internacional de Costa Rica
 * Egypt: The Standard Wesleyan Church
 * Ghana: The Standard Wesleyan Church
 * Guyana: The Wesleyan Church
 * Haiti: L’Eglise Wesleyenne d’Haiti
 * Honduras: Mision Methodista Sión
 * India, Central: The Wesleyan Methodist Church of Central India
 * India, East: The Wesleyan Methodist Church of East India
 * India, Western: The Wesleyan Methodist Church of Western India
 * Indonesia: Gereja Wesleyan Indonesia (GWI)
 * Lahore: "The Wesleyan Methodist Church in Pakistan"
 * Liberia: The Wesleyan Church of Liberia
 * Mexico: Iglesia Evangelica Los Peregrinos
 * Mozambique: Igreja Emmanuel Evangelica Wesleyana
 * Myanmar: The Wesleyan Methodist Church
 * Namibia: The Wesleyan Church in Namibia
 * New Zealand: Wesleyan Methodist Church of New Zealand
 * Nicaragua: Asociación Mundial de Iglesias Wesleyanas de Nicaragua
 * Pakistan: The Wesleyan Church in Pakistan
 * Panamá: Iglesia Cristiana Wesleyana de Panamá
 * Peru: Iglesia Wesleyana Peregrina
 * Philippines: The Wesleyan Church of the Philippines
 * Poland: Ewangeliczny Kościół Metodystyczny w Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej
 * Puerto Rico: Iglesia Evangélica Wesleyana
 * Sierra Leone: The Wesleyan Church of Sierra Leone
 * South Korea: Jesus Korea Wesleyan Church
 * South Africa: The Wesleyan Church of Southern Africa
 * Suriname: De Wesleyaanse Gemeente
 * Tonga: Free Wesleyan Church
 * United States: The Wesleyan Church
 * Venezuela: Iglesia Evangélica Wesleyana
 * Zambia: Pilgrim Wesleyan Church of Zambia
 * Zimbabwe: The Wesleyan Church

Sister denominations and fraternal relations
The Wesleyan Church is a part of the holiness movement, and as such, follows many of the same teachings as similar denominations that follow Wesleyan traditions. At times in its history, it has sought merger with both the Church of the Nazarene and the Free Methodist Church, both of which practice very similar doctrine.

The Wesleyan Church is a member of the following organizations:
 * National Association of Evangelicals
 * World Methodist Council

Seminaries, universities, colleges, and schools in the U.S. and Canada
Affiliated with The Wesleyan Church are five universities and one seminary:
 * Houghton University (New York)
 * Indiana Wesleyan University (Indiana)
 * Kingswood University (New Brunswick)
 * Oklahoma Wesleyan University (Oklahoma)
 * Southern Wesleyan University (South Carolina)
 * Wesley Seminary (Indiana)

Wesleyan Publishing House
The Wesleyan Church runs its own publishing house located in Indianapolis, Indiana. Its mission is to "be a leader in communicating the message of holiness through the publication of quality resources for local churches and ministries around the world."

Districts
The Wesleyan Church in North America is organized in the following 22 districts:
 * Atlantic (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the US state of Maine)
 * Central Canada (central and western Canada)
 * Chesapeake (Delaware, Maryland, Northern Virginia, Washington D.C.)
 * Crossroads (North and Central Indiana)
 * Florida
 * Great Lakes (Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin)
 * Greater Ohio
 * Indiana South
 * Kansas
 * Kentucky-Tennessee
 * Mountain Plains (Colorado, Nebraska, Texas, Louisiana, and New Mexico)
 * North Carolina East
 * North Carolina West
 * Northeast (Eastern Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Eastern New York (including the NYC Metro Area & Long Island), Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont & Massachusetts)
 * Northwest (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming)
 * Pacific Southwest (California, Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii)
 * Penn York (Central New York, Western Pennsylvania)
 * Shenandoah (Virginia and West Virginia)
 * South Carolina
 * South Coastal (Georgia, Alabama, and much of Mississippi)
 * Tri-state (Oklahoma, Arkansas and Missouri)
 * Western New York

Wesleyan Church of Sierra Leone
John Augustus Abayomi-Cole, a creole from Freetown attended the 1887 General Conference of the Wesleyan Methodist Church of the United States. He implored the Connection to send missionaries to Sierra Leone. This led to a small mission led by Rev. Henry Johnston being dispatched there in 1889. This was the first step towards the foundation of the Wesleyan Church of Sierra Leone.

Academics

 * Keith Drury – writer and professor of religion at Indiana Wesleyan University
 * Ronald Enroth – Christian author and professor of sociology at Westmont College, and graduate of Houghton College
 * Ken Schenck – New Testament scholar
 * Jerry Pattengale – founder of purpose-guided education, director of Green Scholars Initiative, executive director at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C, Indiana Wesleyan University graduate

Athletes

 * Erik Lefebvre – goalkeeper for the Charlotte Eagles soccer team, formerly played for Houghton College
 * Brandon Beachy – pitcher for the Atlanta Braves, Major League Baseball team, formerly played for Indiana Wesleyan University

Authors

 * Mary Ann Lyth – English missionary, teacher, translator of the Bible into Fijian

Clergy

 * Adam Crooks – early Wesleyan Methodist minister, responsible for a number of early church plants in the denomination.
 * Frank Ritchie – Pastor of Commoners Church, A Wesleyan Methodist Community in New Zealand. "Rev. Frank is an ordained Wesleyan Methodist minister. He’s convinced that as we open our lives to the presence of God, the natural outcome is a world more tuned towards justice."
 * Rufus Lumry – American circuit preacher, outspoken abolitionist and leading Illinois organizer of the Wesleyan Methodist Connexion, which eventually became the Wesleyan Church.
 * Jo Anne Lyon – pastor, author, international leader, founder of World Hope International, global advocate, general superintendent emeritus.
 * John C. Maxwell – prolific writer and former senior pastor at Skyline Church.
 * Orange Scott – president of the convention that formed the Wesleyan Methodist Connexion, which eventually became the Wesleyan Church.

Politicians

 * Joseph Kofi Adda – Member of Parliament in Ghana, graduate of Indiana Wesleyan University
 * Jean Breaux – Indiana state senator representing the 34th District, graduate of Indiana Wesleyan University
 * Ghassan Hitto – former opposition prime minister of Syria, graduate of Indiana Wesleyan University
 * Randy Truitt – Indiana state representative from the 26th District, graduate of Indiana Wesleyan University

Scientists and inventors

 * Thomas Bramwell Welch – a Methodist Episcopal pastor, developed a pasteurization process to prevent grapes from fermenting, thus creating grape juice instead of wine

title: Wesleyan Church


text:
Talk:Declaration of war by the United States

Untitled
I will do my part at our local pizza place by leaving the parmesan shaker top perched precariously on top of the cheese container. ~Semper Fi~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.119.18 (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This article fails to include the many, many military conflicts between the USA and American Indian nations that meet the technical definition of foreign wars and are consistently referenced as such. This list might begin with the Cherokee-American Wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:4580:13D0:60E5:AF2:2DDA:F18 (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Who Wrote The Civil War Paragraph
It is written as if The Civil War was wrong based on the idea that it was illegal, I dont know if this person knows anything about the Constitution, since they say all the points making it an illegal war are based on the Constitution. Especially that no new states may be formed without approval from Congress, and all powers not given to the Federal Government are given to the State; gives them the right to secede. Whoever wrote this article please put some references, and rewrite it making it clearer, or just delete the whole section or maybe most of the whole article as its one of the worst I've seen on Wikipedia, especially since it just has to do with how, when and why we've declared war.

--KC-W (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the second paragraph relating to the Civil War. That was the work of a single editor back in March, and that editor appears to have been attempting to justify the secession through his own arguments based on the Constitution and Articles of Confederation. An interesting argument, but more appropriate for a scholarly work, and not an encyclopedia.

--uFu (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Misleading paragraph?
"Extremely heated debate developed in the United States beginning on or around September 11, 2001. Opponents of the uses of military force since began to argue, chiefly, that the Iraq War was unconstitutional, because it lacked a clear declaration of war, and was waged over the objection of a significantly sized demographic in the United States."

This paragraph seems to imply that the Iraq War is directly connected to 9/11.68.238.4.77 03:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

 * The two events are obviously related. Removed the "verification needed" tag. This opinion from the USDOJ,, is in large part a response to the "heated debate" subsequent to 9/11 regarding presidential authority to conduct military actions absent formal declarations of war. Azi Like a Fox 00:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This united states are young. We are the rable that sent the British gentry running home, those of use that choose to live free, that believed a person has a right to be whom they wish, whom they could be. This war was not started by free men, a free man has no reason for war. Only men with hate in their haert and want begains such things.Only men of hate elected or not start such killings. Free men let and be let, understand that life is worth more then buildings,land,power or pride,. People are free ! choose to be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.6.75.198 (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV
This entire article is written as if the phrase "Declaration of War" had specific meaning under US law. There is no defined legally required format for "Declaration(s) of War." Therefore, the article takes a point of view. That is, it assumes the authors view of the meaning of "Declaration of War" is correct. The article is not really salvagable in the manner it is constructed and needs a major re-write to avoid the blunder. --138.162.0.41 20:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * US Constitution, Article One, Section Seven: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

 * It would be silly and confusing to not use phrases like "declare war" or "declaration of war" when that is the very text of the US Constitution.

 * Furthermore, "declaration of war" is the standard term that everyone uses about this subject, even if your claim is correct that it isn't a specific legal term. (I wonder about your claim. Got a citation for that?)

 * If yours is the reason for the NPOV, then I think the flag should be removed immediately.

 * I checked the history of the NPOV flag -=- and the person who put it on gave no reasoning (that I could see) and it was an anonymous user, anyway. I say remove it. (I won't, only because I'm not actively engaged in this article.)

 * The article isn't perfect but it's about as neutral as any others here on Wikipedia regarding law and politics. If users detect a bias, correct the passage -- don't just slap a NPOV flag on it!

 * --Calan 04:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * the declaration of war is from the point of view of the US constitution Realfakebezalbob (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Jeanette Rankin
I don't think the House vote for declaration of war against Japan in 1941 was indeed unanimous. Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin voted against it, according to both my memory and the article about her. I would change it, but I'm not sure how many members of the House of Representitives there were in 1941. Kairos 04:18, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There were 435. See United States Congressional Apportionment. -- Seth Ilys 04:20, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, in both the "December 7, 1917, HR: 365-1" and "December 8, 1941, HR: 388-1" votes, the "1" was Jeannette Rankin -- maybe that could be mentioned in the article... AnonMoos 01:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

War on Terrorism
Yesterday I made a few minor edits so that military conflicts were refered to not by their military operation names (i.e. Operation Just Cause) but by their colloquial names. I retained the operation names as an a.k.a.

Today Copperchair changed "Invasion of Afghanistan a.k.a. Operation Enduring Freedom" to "War on Terrorism a.k.a. Operation Enduring Freedom." I have reverted the change but post here because I'm not sure if this will be controversial due to the political overtones.

My justification for the revert is that War on Terrorism is generally understood to refer to a global campaign not confined to any particular conflict or country. It's a "meta" term not unlike the "War on Crime" or "War on Cancer." I reverted for reasons of clarity.

I also wonder whether the operation names should be included at all.

68.174.9.162 19:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I think you've got a good idea here. Colloquial names are better than military operation names. I simply changed it to 'Enduring Freedom' because I really didn't know what else to call it, and I say that "Just Cause" was already used.

I believe you should specify by the proper name then use a.k.a. to refer to a more non-specific term. Common usage does not supercede definition usually (tissue/kleenex). Also, by referring to, say, operational names in cases that lack a declaration of war (e.g. 90's gulf war) the separate stages of the overall conflict can be made clearer (desert shield vs. desert storm). Using this you can hopefully then more clearly define a broader colloquial term such as "The Gulf War." The parts better define the whole, but an absolutely clear whole name would be better if possible (occam razor). The complexity of these descriptions belie the political complexities that bore them, (Bush and Co. said current iraq conflict would take under a year ('03-'04), M. Daniels said total costs would be well under 100BUSD; as of Jan 07 many speculate full pull out to be outside of '09 and total costs between 1T and 2TUSD) and show the shifting nature of the conflicts (WMD to nation building to civil conflict intervention).

However, Copperchair's insistence on calling the invasion of Afghanistan the "War on Terror" is simply incorrect. The War on Terror is a concept that refers to a larger conflict that is not strictly married to any specific war, battle, opearation or arrest. Congress authorized war with the Taliban. They didn't say, 'hey go get terrorists' and Afghanistan is where the army ended up.

While I think it's absurd to say so, Bush claims the Iraq War was part of the war on terror. The arrest of the Buffalo sleeper cell a while back was certianly part of it. Any actions taken against militant Islamic inspired terrorists is part of the war on terror. Spaltavian 19:45, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I won't change it again. And Spaltavian, you are absolutely right about the Iraq war/War on Terrorism lie. Copperchair 08:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

A LIE??? By what definition is Saddam Hussein not a terrorist? 12.144.20.254 18:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

By what definition are YOU not a terrorist? --Booch 20:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, define terrorist. A person who commits criminal acts is not necessarily a terrorist. I would say that generally speaking a terrorist is concerned with spreading an ideology and working on a complex, but smale scale operation (in comparison to a full scale military, or even a special ops operation) that tries to achieve maximum political advantage, for instance. In this regard SH doesn't fit the definition at all, including the fact that the allegations of a connection between 9/11 and Iraq are completely unfactual. Killing some people doesn't make you a terrorist. What Saddam did was just dictatorial 101. North Korea does not engage in terrorism by this definition as well. State sponsored acts of hostility are not terrorism by this definition as well, although a state could sponsor a terrorist operation. Threatening to build a nuke by a state is not terrorism (Iran currently), imo. When Lenin and Hitler slaughtered people they were not acting as terrorists. There is a lengthy article on wikipedia on terrorists and terrorism which you may find useful.

It doesn't matter if Bush is satan incarnate, and he invaded Iraq cause he was bored. Connections between Al-Queda and Hussein are also irrelevant. Iceland hand no ties to Nazi Germany, but that did not mean its invasion was not part of WWII. The connection between 9/11 and the Iraq War is entirely state side. 9/11 caused a change in policy, part of which is called the War on Terror. The War on Terror, is not a literal war, although it does involve warfare. rather it is like the War on Drugs. The War on Terror is not just a war on Al-queda, but on all terrorist threats, real or imagined. The same way the PATRIOT act is still the PATRIOT act, even though it may lack patriotism. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

War Powers Resolution
I quote:
 * It should also be pointed out that the Second Gulf War should really not be considered separate from the first Gulf War. Saddam Hussein signed a Cease Fire Agreement on April 4th, 1991 that halted military action. He then proceeded over the next 12 years to violate 17 U.N. resolutions, including that Cease Fire Agreement. Therefore the so called "Second Gulf War" is, in reality, a RESUMPTION of the FIRST Gulf War based on Saddam Hussein vacating the agreement.

I believe this to be a NPOV statement, and in fact biased for the current conflict in Iraq. Perhaps it should be reworded to read something like "One argument supporting the current conflict in Iraq is…" or something like that. --Micahbrwn 17:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

 * It also seems to ignore the conventions for naming conflicts. For example, the 1st and 2nd Barbary wars. really I don't see how it is relative to this article. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Declaration of war vs "Military engagements authorized by Congress"
Is there a NPOV objective distinction between a "Declaration of War" and a "Military engagement authorized by Congress"? I'm worried it may merely be an attempt by critics of the USA's foreign policy to portray the .Andjam 05:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, Congress seems to think there is an objective distinction, since they went to the trouble of actually declaring war in some cases and not in others. "Military engagement authorized by Congress" is pretty bland wording, it's hard for me to see how it could POV. I mean, what else should we call it? They objectively are not a declarations of war, to call them such would be inaccurate. Spaltavian 08:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

 * The appropriate term should be "statutory authorization", which is the word embodied in the Article 2(c)(2) of the 1973 War Powers Resolution. LordKadghar 19:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Formatting problems
The page has some serious formatting problems. The article as it currently stands has the words "Headline text" and other meta-information strewn across the top of the table. I'm not familiar enough with wiki markup to fix it.

I restored the page to a previous version.--81.83.223.152 15:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Doe v. Bush
It seems to have passed notice, but the First Circuit United States Court of Appeals ruled in 2003 with regards to constitutional declarations of war by Congress in a case called Doe v. Bush. In their ruling the Court holds essentially that if it walks like a declaration of war and quacks like a declaration of war, then it's a declaration of war, whether or not the magic words "declaration of war" are any part of the text of the Congressional action.

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/03-1266-01A.pdf

Operation Allied Force? And NPOV
No mention in this article is made of the US's participation in the air war against Yugoslavia in 1999, aka Operation Allied Force. Was there a Congressional authorization under the War Powers Act for this action? I do recall that a Congressman with ethnic roots in the region (was it Kucinich?) called for a formal declaration of war against Serbia so as to place the conflict more firmly under international norms and law.

Also, what exactly is the NPOV dispute over the "The War Powers Resolution" section? There doesn't seem to be any discussion of it here. --Jfruh (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Invasion of Panama
I'm pretty sure Congress never gave authority to Pres. George H.W. Bush for the use of force in Panama. I just weeded through every House of Reps. resolution related to American use of force abroad and the only thing they ever issued out of committee was a declaration of sorrow for the loss of American life and commendation to the President for an expressed goal to bring the troops home soon. If somebody could fix the article that would be great. unsigned

 * Put a link to House of Reps. resolutions here.--Patchouli 01:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone had vandalized the table with the removal of Manuel Noriega from power.--Patchouli 01:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Constitution
Any reason NOT to mention what the U.S. Constitution has to say on the subject (Article 1 Section 8)? I don't want to start a war over this, but the Constitution is pretty important rewinn 05:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Border War / Pancho Villa
I couldn't find anything to support the assertion that the USA declared war against Pancho Villa as an individual. It's not included in the tables listing declared or undeclared wars. Nor is it included in the article on Pancho Villa, or the Pancho Villa Expedition. I didn't find any article on the (relevant) Border War. This makes me seriously question the completeness of those tables. --Booch 21:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

After World War II, Congress voluntarily limited its use of the power to declare war to issuing authorizations of force.
Is there a citation for this assertion? 165.124.253.153 20:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Removed, as no one provided a citation even after a fact tag was in place for more than three months. --Brouhaha (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh?
"The Korean War was not a war authorized by the U.S. Congress. President Harry S. Truman cited authority under United Nations resolutions."

If Congress didn't 'authorize' it in some way where did Truman get the money? Misleading choice of words.

Don't you find it a bit odd that we have prominent mention of the intervention in the Bolshevik Revolution, an incredibly minor skimish in Paraquay, a note on the fight with the Apache's being quite long but we have no mention whatsoever of The Amevican Civil War?

I don't think "There are many undeclared "wars" missing from this list. The United States fought in Korea in 1870 and in Nicaragua in 1927." quite covers it.

And it would be a bit of a stretch to say Congress didn't 'authorize' it, although there was certain no DOW from the Fedearal Congress. But to mention Paraquay and leave out the Civil War (not to mention the American Revolution and the Phillipine Insurrection) leaves me speechless. Ks28 22:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Kenneth Schultz

List of US military interventions since 1890
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html It is quite long. What, if not war, is war making, i.e. troops fighting. I do not have the time now. And it would probably be added. What if not "The use of troops" is the obvious definition of war. The "suppression of silver miners' strike by the Army" in IDAHO, 1892 would not be considered war by today's mainstream. But it certainly was understood by all sides involved back then. Only those that ordered it probably called it something different, especially with the yellow journalism of that day that held the same economic interests as the bosses. The strikers I'm sure understood that there was a war declared on them. Maybe it was called "humanitarian intervention" or "securing of interests". The first "NPOV" here is a joke. It's just that the constitution has always been ignored when those with power view their interests to be threatened. So they ensure there is "no defined legally required format for "Declaration(s) of War." " But it is pretty common sense that the congress alone has the ability to authorize the executive the power to order troops to fight, using the words "declare war" as written in the US constitution. (State & Fed gov't can also order troops if actually or about to be attacked, as per the constitution) Whatever. The above entire list should be added as undeclared wars. But I thought there should be debate about it first. 21:25, 29 October 2006 -Shazbotz

World War Two - who declared war first?
Japan attacked on the 7th and then sent a declaration of war. Had the US received it when they declared war in turn? Does US law require it when the enemy has already made a declaration of war?

Likewise on the 11th, was it Nazi Germany that declared war first? It seems to have been the same day, but what was the sequence?

--GwydionM 20:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Now confirmed - the other side started it. --GwydionM 18:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't know if it is required, but traditionally each nation makes its own declaration. a declaration doesn't start a war, just makes it official. There have been plenty of cases where one nation has attacked another, and the result is not war. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * the japense WERE going to declare war before pearl harbor but some delay caused the declaration to be announced after the bombing Realfakebezalbob (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Gwydion, declaring war is not the same as starting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.113.30.83 (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be plagarised anyway
This article was lifted off another website (and, therefore, is plagiarized unless done so by the original author): http://experts.about.com/e/d/de/declaration_of_war_by_the_united_states.htm Neither the Wiki article nor the “All Experts” article has links to the other, so I cannot tell which came first. Either way this article has significant shortcomings – not the least of which is the grossly inadequate list of “undeclared” wars. Recktenbenwald 00:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Look at the very bottom of the other page: it says This is the "GNU Free Documentation License" reference article from the English Wikipedia.

 * I agree it could be improved. --GwydionM 18:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The War Between the States?
Why is the largest war in US histoy not included on the list of (undeclared) wars? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frissell (talk • contribs) 15:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Removing NPOV tag
Since no one objected and this article is a objective as most on Wiki, I'm removing the tag. --Calan 05:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

American Civil War
Where would the American Civil War fit in here? Ripberger 01:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, the US Congress never declared war on the Conferency in large part because it was felt that such a declaration would give legitmacy to the Confederate govt. It also would have been virtually unheard of C. 1860 to declare war on a seperatist goverment; the norm at the time would have been to just send the troops in to (attempt to) put the revolt down. Jon 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

War on Poverty, War on Drugs, etc.
Would this article be the place to mention U.S. presidential or congressional initiatives to which their authors applied the word "war" to? There's an article on Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty and Richard Nixon's War on Drugs, for example, and perhaps other "wars" as well. patsw 18:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Confusing first paragraph
First paragraph needs to be cleaned up. It is too biased with too many legalisms and opinion mixed in with fact. The definition should be stated clearly first and then any debate should remane further down the article. Or it is just too confuisng. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.63.110 (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hungary
It's noted that an argument could be made that the US twice declared war on Hungary. This argument is VERY valid, as Austria-Hungary was a personal union and dual monarchy. "It is not to be confused with a federation, which internationally is considered as a single state." The two states were both sovereign, but sharing a head of state. They are essentially two separate states. I would support changing those few sentences for these reasons. Grsz11 23:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

One big table
This page might work better if it had one big table that incorporated all U.S. military actions, whether there was a specific declaration of war, whether there was a congressional authorization of military force, or whether there was not declaration or congressional authorization. There's a good list of U.S. military actions here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Operation Just Cause
I removed Operation Just Cause from the list of authorized operations because I read that the operation was not authorized before or during the operation itself and I was not able to find any post-fact authorization. I could be wrong. If someone knows better and you know where Congress authorized the operation I invite the revert.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A Useful Reference on this Topic
May I suggest that those who are at work on this page have a look at the very useful book by Brien Hallett, The Lost Art of Declaring War (1998, Uni. of Illinois Press)? Someone who had examined Hallett would be able to clarify the sections on the ‘Controversy’ and the ‘Current status of the US debate’. --M.H. d. Ä. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.10.4 (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

 * The Lost Art of Declaring War --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Presidential Signature?
There appears to be a conflict between this and another article. The question is whether or not a formal declaration of war requires the President to approve of it. I know that there are pictures of FDR signing declarations of war against Japan and Germany, but was he required to do so? The Resolution (law) article says that Congress can declare war through a joint resolution which seems to imply that Presidential approval is not required. This article specifically, does not say either way. So which is it? Andy120290 (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how this has worked in the real world but, the US Const. Art. 1 Sec. 7 reads in part, "Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill." 76.99.142.49 (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Pasha informally declares war, May, 1801.
From Wikipedia, First Barbary War:

Consequently, in May 1801, the Pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate.

In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."

This was certainly an informal way for the Pasha to declare war, and Congress responded to authorize fighting, but legally, was this an early, if not the first time the United States of America fought a war without declaring it? Some people seem to think this was a modern development, but maybe not. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct dates for U.S. Declarations against Germany & Italy
Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

The chart displaying formalized declaration of war by the USA previously showed the U.S. Congress as having declared was on Germany & Italy on December 11th, 1941. That is an error; 12/11/41 is the date Germany declared war on the USA (not sure when Italy so declared). The U.S. Congress actually issued formal declarations of war against Germany on January 10, and Italy on January 12 (1942).

Unfortunately, I was not familiar with the somewhat esoteric format of the display chart, hence the date for U.S. Declaration of War upon Italy is shifted one column farther to the right than it should be (thus pushing all the rest of the Italy-related data one column over to the right in turn). If someone better versed in the technical rigours of that charting code would be so helpful as to fix my (undoubtedly minor) error, that would be ideal. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 * This http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/germwar.shtml, this http://johnshadegg.house.gov/RSC/DeclarationofWar.PDF, and this http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-10-08-congress-war.htm all indicate the declarations of war against Germany and Italy occurred on December 11, 1941. Unless you have another source that disproves these, the December 11 date stands. Andy120290 (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 * In point of fact, my 1959 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia does state quite definitively that the U.S. Congress declared war on Germany on January 10th, 1942, and on the Kingdom of Italy on January 12th, 1942. But I will endeavour to locate a readily verifiable online source (albeit probably not tonight) before I seek to change those dates again. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"Declaration of War," or otherwise, against Algiers on May 10, 1815
The Miller Center of Public Affairs, of the University of Virginia, would seem to claim that the Congressional authorization of military action against the then city-state of Algiers, constituted a formal declaration of war. The relevant text is as follows: "'''May 10, 1815

'With Madison having secured a declaration of war'' on Algiers, Captain Stephen Decatur leads a flotilla from New York against the Mediterranean pirates, who attack American ships during the War of 1812. Algiers surrenders on June 30.'''"

http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/keyevents/madison

Do we have a reliable source, or sources, which definitively claim otherwise?

 * I am not familiar with the conflict with Algiers, but it is not uncommon for sources, such as books and what-not, to use the phrase "declare war" and the like even when a formal war declaration was not passed. For example, I have heard some variant on the phrase "President Bush declared war on Iraq" even thought there was no formal war declaration. Most likely, whoever wrote the web page was not familiar with the technical definition of a war declaration. You can be sure that all formal war declarations are listed in the article. If there was another good source, the Algiers conflict might go into the "Military engagements authorized by Congress" section. Andy120290 (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

 * The conflict itself is already listed in the article; its merely a question of whether it is being presented in the appropriate table. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Korean War conclusion
The end of the Korean War was accomplished by the legal, binding document called the Korean Armistice Agreement. Wikisource link now provided in the article. Also see Armistice for info (and discussion) as to the legal effects of an armistice. Any info regarding the aftermath of the Korean War vis-a-vis a peace treaty is off-topic and should be avoided. Besides, the PRC Army was a signatory to the Armistice -- if there is no peace treaty in Korea, does that mean that a "state of war" continues with China? Hardly. Any arguments that say the Korean War continues is POV notwithstanding recent skirmishes and attacks, etc. --S. Rich (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Operation Enduring Freedom was not sanctioned by the Security Counsel
Hi. I wanted to point out a discrepency bettween this paragraph and this list. Operation Enduring Freedom was not per se sanctioned by the UN according to the former, whereas the UN Resolutions sanction by article 51 a memberstate's righ to defend itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilocus (talk • contribs) 04:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"Citation needed"
All the citations needed can be found at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf. Sorry, I'm not apt at citing; I've recently discovered the tool in the bar at the top does not cite in the proper format, so I've pretty much stopped trying to add citations. When it gets more user friendly I'll try again.Yopienso (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 * This got no traction, so I went ahead, figuring a gap is worse than a golly. I know the citations are made poorly, but it's my best shot, and I think more helpful to the reader than a "Citation needed." I'm assuming someone will be along to put the citations in proper order.
 * The document I cite is from the Congressional Research Service, updated March 8, 2007. It is very detailed and thoroughly reliable. Pages are numbered CRS-1, CRS-2, etc. The information I accessed there today is summarized:
 * Mexico, p. 4
 * Austria-Hungary, p. 5
 * Hungary, p. 5
 * Romania, p. 6 (Called Rumania.)
 * Yopienso (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean all the "citation needed" tags in a certain section? This said nothing about Geronimo and the American Indian Wars, and a tag was there. (I've since changed the wording to allow for more ambiguity) Either way, thanks for your work to try to get rid of those tags. Kansan (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

UN approval
what is the role of congress in the approving UN security council resolutions? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would recommend asking that at the Wikipedia reference desk. Kansan (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

insurrection act
could the insurrection act be relevant? I noticed this article mentions the American civil war, but not other internal conflicts that the government was a part of. Although the Civil War seems to be the only one where rebels were given belligerent status. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

ISIL
I've been hearing various things about whether the U.S. is actually in a state of war with ISIL. Should we add this to the page, or wait until we have a conclusive answer? Jontiben (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Declaration of war by the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Unattributed assertion in the lead
The lead contains

The who tag there is dated April 2010.

That assertion may have been sourced from the description seen on Google Books for this book (" Many have postulated 'Declaration(s) of War' must contain that phrase as or within the title. Many oppose that reasoning." -- click More there to see that). I'm not sure whether or not that assertion is repeated or expanded upon inside the book itself. Perhaps some editor who has access to the book can check that and, if so, attribute and support that assertion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Declaration of war by the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130828005906/http://history.state.gov:80/milestones/1861-1865/Confederacy to http://history.state.gov/milestones/1861-1865/Confederacy

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Declaration of war by the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://history.state.gov/milestones/1861-1865/Confederacy
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100910042906/http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Revert: five wars out of (however many)
Here, I've reverted the addition of "out of twelve" by an anon. The edit summary of the reverted edit led me to this article on the Portuguese Wikipedia, which does list twelve wars. That referred-to article corresponds to the List of the lengths of United States participation in wars article hee, which currently lists 25 wars. It looks me as if some reconcilliation, some clarification, and some supporting cites are needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


text:
Powder River (Wyoming and Montana)

Powder River is a tributary of the Yellowstone River, approximately 375 mi long in northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana in the United States. Combined with its tributary, the South Fork Powder River, it is 550 miles long. It drains an area historically known as the Powder River Country on the high plains east of the Bighorn Mountains.

It rises in three forks in north central Wyoming. The North and Middle forks rise along the eastern slope of the Bighorn Mountains. The South Fork rises on the southern slopes of the Bighorn Mountains west of Casper. The three forks meet on the foothills east of the Bighorns near the town of Kaycee. The combined stream flows northward, east of the Bighorns, and into Montana. It is joined by the Little Powder near the town of Broadus, and joins the Yellowstone approximately 50 mi downriver from Miles City, Montana. The Powder River was so named (in the English language as well as in local indigenous languages) because the sand along a portion of its banks resembles powder or dust.

title: Powder River (Wyoming and Montana)


text:
User:Pteron

About me
My name is Thomas Wieczorek and I am a 23-year-old student of English, American History and African Studies from the University of Cologne in Cologne, Germany.

I was born in Brighton, England in 1980. In 1987 I moved to Cologne, where I still live. In 2000, I graduated from high school and have been studying at the University of Cologne ever since, with the exception of the 2003/2004, which I spent at the University of Rochester in Rochester, Monroe County, New York

Academically, my interests include American studies (literature, film & history), postmodernism, cultural studies & film studies, psychoanalysis & deconstruction / poststructuralism, race, gender & queer studies, globalization & diaspora / postcolonial studies, esp. Africana studies.

I stumbled upon Wikipedia in late February 2004 and was instantly enthralled. I've been a Wikipedian since February 27. Depending on how I am disposed on a given day, I write on any of the above, a vast array of pop-cultural topics, anything pertaining to Germany and biographies (because they are easy to do research on). I am very interested in adding more information on African culture, as this subject area has apparently been scandalously neglected in Wikipedia. I also translate articles from Germany's Wikipedia. For this reason I have recently joined the laudable WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias. I am also engaged in the 'Translation into English' and the Critical Theory projects.

My Contributions
Articles I've written (w), rewritten (r), translated (t) or significantly contributed to (c) - (s = stub) nota bene: 66.67.220.114 was me, too, while I resided in Rochester

 * Literature: Murakami Haruki (r) | List of African writers (w) | List of African writers (by country) (w)
 * Politics: Theodor Heuss (t) | Roman Herzog (t) | Bundesadler (w/s) | Template:PoliticsGermany (w)
 * Cologne culture: Willy Millowitsch (w) | Volkstheater Millowitsch (w) | Kölsch (beer) (r) | Kölsch (dialect) (r)
 * Music: Beginner (w) | Brothers Keepers (w) | D-Flame (w) | Torch (rapper) (t/s) | Die Fantastischen Vier (t/s) | German hip hop (c) | Fettes Brot (t/s) | Krumping (w) | Samy Deluxe (w/s) | Afrob (w) | Rödelheim Hartreim Projekt (w)
 * Media: Tagesschau (t) | Lindenstraße (t) | Das Erste (t) | ZDF (t) | Wetten, dass..? (t)
 * Linguistics: Swahili (c)
 * Philosophy/Critical Theory/Psychoanalysis: Oedipus complex (r) | Luce Irigaray (w/s) | Laura Mulvey (w/s) | Theodor Adorno (t) | Arnold Gehlen (t) | Paulin J. Hountondji (w/s)
 * Pictures: University of Rochester, Mold, Rochester skyline

de:Benutzer:Pteron fr:Utilisateur:Pteron sw:User:Pteron

title: User:Pteron


text:
Nancy Kress

Nancy Anne Kress (born January 20, 1948) is an American science fiction writer. She began writing in 1976 but has achieved her greatest notice since the publication of her Hugo- and Nebula-winning novella Beggars in Spain (1991), which became a novel in 1993. She also won the Nebula Award for Best Novella in 2013 for After the Fall, Before the Fall, During the Fall, and in 2015 for Yesterday's Kin. In addition to her novels, Kress has written numerous short stories and is a regular columnist for Writer's Digest. She is a regular at Clarion Workshops. During the winter of 2008/09, Nancy Kress was the Picador Guest Professor for Literature at the University of Leipzig's Institute for American Studies in Leipzig, Germany.

Biography
Born Nancy Anne Koningisor in Buffalo, New York, she grew up in East Aurora and attended college at SUNY Plattsburgh and graduated with an M.A. in English. Before starting her writing career she taught elementary school and then college English. In 1973, she moved to Rochester to marry Michael Joseph Kress. They had two sons, and divorced in 1984. At that time, she went to work at Stanton and Hucko, an advertising agency. She was married to Marcos Donnelly from 1988 to 1994.

In 1998, she married fellow author Charles Sheffield, who died in 2002 of a brain tumor. Kress moved back to Rochester, New York, to be near her grown children. In 2009, she moved to Seattle. In February 2011, she married author Jack Skillingstead.

Work
Kress tends to write hard science fiction, or technically realistic stories, often set in a fairly near future. Her fiction often involves genetic engineering and, to a lesser degree, artificial intelligence. There are many invented technologies shared between her stories, including "genemod", to refer to genetic engineering, and "foamcast", a lightweight and sturdy building material that appears in many of her novels and short stories.

By conducting extensive research, she keeps her topics within the realm of possibility; however, as Kress clarified for one Locus interviewer, with regards to her partner and fellow science fiction writer, "[Sheffield] pronounces it science fiction, and I pronounce it science fiction."

Kress also loves ballet, and has written stories around it.

Awards

 * Nebula Award
 * Best Short Story winner (1986): "Out of All Them Bright Stars", F&SF March 1985
 * Best Novella (1991): Beggars in Spain  (Axolotl Press / Pulphouse Feb. 1991) / Asimov's April 1991
 * Best Novelette (1998): "The Flowers of Aulit Prison", Asimov's Oct./Nov. 1996
 * Best Novella (2007): "Fountain of Age",  Asimov's July 2007
 * Best Novella (2012): "After the Fall, Before the Fall, During the Fall", Tachyon Publications
 * Best Novella (2014): "Yesterday's Kin", Tachyon Publications
 * Hugo Award
 * Best Novella (1992): Beggars in Spain (Axolotl Press / Pulphouse Feb. 1991) / Asimov's April 1991
 * Best Novella (2009): "The Erdmann Nexus", Asimov's Oct./Nov. 2008
 * John W. Campbell Memorial Award
 * Best Novel (2003): Probability Space, (Tor Sep. 2002)
 * Theodore Sturgeon Award
 * Best Short Science Fiction (1997): "The Flowers of Aulit Prison", Asimov's Oct./Nov. 1996

Interviews

 * 1993 interview at ConFuse
 * 1996 interview
 * 2000 interview at Fictionwise
 * 2001 interview excerpts in Locus Magazine
 * 2007 interview at Writer Unboxed
 * 2008 interview at Dark Roasted Blend
 * 2008 interview at Futurismic
 * 2008 interview at Feminist SF – The Blog!
 * 2010 interview excerpts in Locus Magazine
 * 2016 interview excerpts in Locus Magazine
 * 2016 interview in Lightspeed, focusing on the release of The Best of Nancy Kress

 * Anna Kendall at LC Authorities, with 1 record

title: Nancy Kress