text:
New York State Route 28

New York State Route 28 (NY 28) is a state highway extending for 281.69 mi in the shape of a "C" between the Hudson Valley city of Kingston and southern Warren County in the U.S. state of New York. Along the way, it intersects several major routes, including Interstate 88 (I-88), U.S. Route 20 (US 20), and the New York State Thruway twice. The southern terminus of NY 28 is at NY 32 in Kingston and the northern terminus is at US 9 in Warrensburg. In Kingston, NY 28 is co-designated as Interstate 587 from its southern terminus at NY 32 to the roundabout linking it to the Thruway (I-87).

NY 28 was originally assigned in 1924, to an alignment extending from Colliersville in the south to Utica in the north via Ilion. From Colliersville to Cooperstown, the highway followed its current routing (excluding minor realignments); north of Cooperstown, NY 28 was routed along several state highways that now have other designations. The route was extended south to Kingston and north to Warrensburg as part of the 1930 renumbering of state highways in New York. At the same time, NY 28 was realigned between Cooperstown and Mohawk to follow its modern routing. Other than minor realignments in Kingston, Oneonta, Herkimer, and Oneida County, NY 28 has remained the same to this day.

Ulster County
NY 28's southern terminus is with NY 32 (Albany Avenue) in the city of Kingston. The route heads north, then northwest on Colonel Chandler Drive, a four-lane freeway. The roadway is also designated and signed as I-587, which begins at NY 32 as well. Although Colonel Chandler Drive is built to Interstate Highway standards, it has no intermediary interchanges. After crossing over the Esopus Creek into Ulster, I-587 terminates at a roundabout that links I-587 and NY 28 to the New York State Thruway (I-87) at exit 19.

West of I-87, the route becomes a four-lane expressway crosses the Blue Line of Catskill Park and becomes the Onteora Trail. Not long afterward, the highway meets US 209 by way of a cloverleaf interchange. Past US 209, the highway becomes a four-lane arterial road and enters a rural area as it heads northwest into the center of the state park.

Near the eastern tip of the Ashokan Reservoir, in the town of Kingston, NY 28 intersects the eastern terminus of NY 28A. West of NY 28A, NY 28 continues towards the north and west along the northern edge of the reservoir. In West Hurley, the route intersects the southern terminus of NY 375. It proceeds along the reservoir to its western end in the town of Olive community of Boiceville, where NY 28A reconnects to the route. Here the mountains begin to loom over the road, with Mount Tremper dominating the view to the north as the route continues along Esopus Creek into the town of Shandaken after passing the southern terminus of NY 212 at Mount Pleasant. At Phoenicia, the largest settlement since Kingston, NY 214 reaches its southern terminus at the highway.

Past Phoenicia, the surrounding slopes become steeper as the road and creek curve around Panther Mountain, one of the Catskill High Peaks, to the south. At Allaben, the Shandaken Tunnel crosses under the road, bringing water from Schoharie Reservoir into the creek. The road and creek start bending to the south to the hamlet of Shandaken, where the town hall on the south side of the road is followed by the southern terminus of NY 42's northern segment. As NY 28 continues trending southwest, the valley becomes less developed. Balsam Mountain, another High Peak, looms ahead.

The northern terminus of NY 42's southern segment marks the small hamlet of Big Indian, after which Esopus Creek crosses for the last time, turning south to its source at Winnisook Lake. The road begins a sustained climb over the next two miles paralleling an Esopus tributary, Birch Creek, up to Pine Hill. At the road to Belleayre Ski Center, in Highmount, the last junction before it leaves the Catskill Park and enters Delaware County, it is for the first time signed as a north–south route.

Delaware and Otsego counties
Across the county line in Middletown, the highway shifts towards the west. NY 28 begins a concurrency with NY 30 in Margaretville, with the routes paralleling the East Branch of the Delaware River. After crossing the Delaware River, the route ends its concurrency with NY 30, and NY 28 continues northwest through Andes as Main Street and Delaware Avenue. In the village of Delhi, the highway becomes known as Andes Road and has a short concurrency with NY 10 in the village center. North of Delhi, it continues north towards the hamlet of Meredith, proceeding west past the hamlet. In Franklin, NY 28 makes a 90-degree turn to the north at the roundabout intersection with the eastern end of NY 357.

Once in Otsego County, it traverses an s-curve before veering to the east to follow the southern bank of the Susquehanna River through the town of Oneonta. The route initially connects to the city of Oneonta, which is located across the river from NY 28, via Main Street. Shortly afterward, NY 28 meets NY 23. The route turns north, overlapping NY 23 along the four-lane James F. Lettis Highway. The two routes cross the River and enter the Oneonta city limits before separating at I-88 exit 15. NY 23 continues north on the arterial, while NY 28 joins I-88 eastward out of the city.

Back in the town of Oneonta, the overlap between NY 28 and I-88 continues along the northern bank of the Susquehanna toward the hamlet of Emmons, where the expressway meets County Route 47 (CR 47) at exit 16. The overlap ends at exit 17 in Milford; however, NY 28 remains in close proximity to the Susquehanna River, which turns northward at the interchange. Roughly 0.75 mi north of I-88, the highway passes over NY 7 with no access between the two. After another 0.75 mi, the route meets D.K. Lifgren Drive (unsigned NY 992G), a connector providing access between Routes 7 and 28. North of Goodyear Lake, a body of water situated 1 mi north of Lifgren Drive, the highway parallels the Susquehanna to the village of Milford, where it intersects the southern terminus of NY 166.

The highway continues northward along the banks of the Susquehanna to the village of Cooperstown, home to the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Inside the village, the route is initially known as Chestnut Street. Two blocks from the business district of the village, it intersects NY 80, which occupies Chestnut Street north of this point. Both routes turn west, overlapping each other as the routes leave the village. The portion of the highway between the southern border of the village of Cooperstown and the northern intersection with Grove Street is maintained by the village, and is the only section of the route not maintained by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). Routes 28 and 80 head towards the northwest, passing by the now-abandoned Cooperstown Airport. In Otsego, the NY 28/80 concurrency ends at the intersection of NY 205. NY 28 continues northward as it passes Canadarago Lake. In Richfield Springs, the highway has a concurrency with US 20 for 0.5 mi. North of US 20, the highway exits Otsego County.

Herkimer and Oneida counties
In German Flatts, NY 28 becomes Columbia Street and intersects the western terminus of NY 168. In Mohawk, NY 28 intersects and has a brief overlap with NY 5S. After crossing the Mohawk River, NY 28 becomes Mohawk Street and meets I-90 (New York State Thruway) at exit 30. In the village of Herkimer, NY 28 has a concurrency with NY 5. North of NY 5, NY 28 begins to parallel the West Canada Creek. In Middleville, it intersects the western terminus of NY 29 and the northern terminus of NY 169. The highway executes a 90-degree turn at the three-route junction. NY 28 continues towards the north paralleling the West Canada Creek. In Poland, NY 28 begins a wrong-way concurrency with NY 8.

In Deerfield, Oneida County, NY 28 splits from NY 8. NY 28 crosses the West Canada Creek and leaves Oneida County for about 3 mi, then re-crosses the creek and enters Oneida County again. In Trenton, NY 28 joins NY 12 northward toward Barneveld. In Barneveld, NY 12 and NY 28 intersect NY 365. NY 28 splits from NY 12 in Remsen and heads toward the northeast, passing through numerous lakes and reservoirs. In Forestport, it enters Adirondack Park as it parallels the Adirondack Mountains.

NY 28 briefly reenters Herkimer County, but does not have any major junctions. NY 28 passes the Fulton Chain Lakes, among several other large lakes, as it winds through the Adirondack Park.

Hamilton and Warren counties
The Fulton Chain Lakes which NY 28 has been following extend into Hamilton County. The highway soon reaches the settlement of Long Lake as it passes south of Raquette Lake. In the hamlet of Blue Mountain Lake, the route begins a wrong-way concurrency with NY 30; the concurrency ends in the hamlet of Indian Lake. East of NY 30, NY 28 begins to shift towards the south.

NY 28 enters Warren County paralleling the Hudson River. In North Creek, it intersects the eastern terminus of NY 28N. The highway continues towards the south opposite to its original course. In Wevertown, it intersects NY 8. It continues towards the southeast paralleling the Hudson River and in Warrensburg, NY 28 comes to an end at a "Y" intersection with US 9.

Ulster and Delaware Turnpike
In 1802, the Ulster and Delaware Turnpike was chartered by the New York State Legislature "for improving and making a road from the west line of the Town of Salisbury in the State of Connecticut to the Susquehanna River at or near the Town of Jericho (now Bainbridge)". The portion of the Ulster and Delaware Turnpike east of the Hudson River was also commonly known as the Ulster and Salisbury Turnpike or the Salisbury Turnpike. West of the river, the turnpike connected Kingston to modern-day Bainbridge. At that time it followed modern NY 28 west from Kingston up to the Delaware County hamlet of Andes. From Andes, the turnpike alignment left NY 28 to follow modern CR 2 to De Lancey, NY 10 to Walton, and NY 206 to the Village of Bainbridge. The turnpike crossed the river via the Kingston-Rhinecliff Ferry and used modern Rhinecliff Road and West Market Street to the village center of Rhinecliff, then roughly followed modern-day NY 308 to the hamlet of Eighmyville. It continued east from there using part of present-day CR 52 to eventually connect with and follow the route of current NY 199. The turnpike corporation operated through the late 19th century.

Designation
NY 28 was designated in 1924, by the New York State Department of Transportation from Colliersville (near Oneonta) north to Utica. At the time, NY 28 began at then-NY 9 in Colliersville and headed north on its current alignment to Cooperstown. NY 28 separated from its modern routing and continued to Springfield north of Cooperstown on what is now NY 80. Between Springfield and Richfield Springs, the highway utilized what is now US 20. At Richfield Springs, the highway turned north onto modern NY 167 and followed the current alignments of NY 167 and NY 168 to the village of Mohawk. Here, the highway turned westward, using a small portion of its current alignment and the present-day NY 5S corridor to connect to Utica by way of Ilion.

In 1924, what is now NY 28 was part of NY 19 from Kingston to Margaretville (where NY 19 turned north to follow modern NY 30 to Grand Gorge), NY 9 from Oneonta to Colliersville, NY 28 from Colliersville to Cooperstown, NY 2 from Trenton to Forestport, and NY 10 from North Creek to Wevertown. The remaining portions of modern NY 28 were unnumbered. By 1926, the portion of current NY 28 from Margaretville to Meredith was designated as part of NY 64. Past Meredith, NY 64 continued north to NY 23 on Palmerville Road, McDougal Road, Rathbun Road, and Prosser Hollow Road. Additionally, the segment of modern NY 28 from Middleville to Trenton was designated as part of NY 29. Between 1926 and 1930, what is now NY 28 between Blue Mountain Lake and North Creek became part of NY 10A, a highway extending from Long Lake to North Creek via Blue Mountain Lake.

In the 1930 renumbering, NY 28 was extended south from Colliersville to Kingston largely by way of its current alignment along the Ulster and Delaware Turnpike. North of Cooperstown, the route was realigned to follow its modern routing between Cooperstown and Mohawk, then extended into the North Country through Wevertown to Warrensburg along its present alignment. Between Colliersville and Cooperstown, the route remained unchanged. The small portion of NY 10A that did not become part of NY 28 in the renumbering was incorporated into NY 10.

Realignments
In Oneida County, NY 28 originally broke from its modern alignment southeast of Barneveld to follow modern CR 56 into the village. At Mappa Avenue, then carrying NY 12, NY 28 turned north, overlapping NY 12 north along Mappa Avenue through the village. Outside of Barneveld, NY 12 and NY 28 were routed on Plank Road and what is now CR 82 before rejoining their modern alignment near the Remsen community of East Steuben. NY 28 was rerouted slightly c. 1940 to enter Barneveld via an extension of Trenton Falls Road and Mappa Avenue. Both NY 12 and NY 28 were realigned onto a new four-lane roadway from Barneveld to East Steuben in the 1950s.

Within Kingston, NY 28 initially began at the intersection of Broadway and East Chester Street, which was part of US 9W at the time. From there, NY 28 followed Broadway, Albany and Clinton avenues, North Front Street, and Washington Avenue through the city to Ulster, where it joined its modern routing at what is now the roundabout leading to New York State Thruway exit 19. When the initial plans for the Interstate Highway System were outlined by the Bureau of Public Roads in the 1955 Yellow Book, a highway was planned for the NY 28 corridor. This highway was included as part of the 1500 mi expansion to the system in 1957. Construction began on the roadway, which became Colonel Chandler Drive, in December 1958. It was designated as I-587 and became part of a rerouted NY 28 upon its completion in July 1960. NY 28 continued to extend eastward from Colonel Chandler Drive along Broadway to US 9W until its truncation to NY 32 in the early 1980s. Washington Avenue, bypassed by the new freeway, is now designated as NY 981K, an unsigned reference route 0.41 mi in length, from Hurley Avenue to NY 28.

In the vicinity of Oneonta, NY 28 originally crossed the Susquehanna River by way of Main Street. The route followed Main Street through the city to Colliersville, where it turned north onto D.K. Lifgren Drive to rejoin its modern alignment. From downtown Oneonta to Colliersville, NY 28 overlapped NY 7. NY 28 was rerouted to follow its current alignment between Main Street south of Oneonta and D.K. Lifgren Drive near Colliersville in the early 1980s, following the completion of what is now NY 28 from I-88 exit 17 to D.K. Lifgren Drive. The portion of Main Street between NY 28 and NY 7 (0.67 mi long) is now designated as NY 992D while D.K. Lifgren Drive (0.50 mi in length) is now NY 992G.

In Herkimer, NY 28 originally continued on Mohawk Street past South Caroline Street. The route then turned north onto Prospect Street and continued across modern NY 5 to West German Street where it met NY 5. NY 28 then turned west and began to overlap NY 5. Two blocks later, NY 5 turned south onto North Washington Street, and NY 28 continued along German Street for .4 mi before meeting its modern alignment. By 1978, a new alignment of NY 5 was built through Herkimer, and NY 28 had been placed on its modern alignment. Farther north at Kast Bridge, NY 28 crossed West Canada Creek via modern CR 7 (West End Road) then crossed the creek once again and met its modern alignment. Between 1967 and 1978, the creek was straightened and NY 28 was realigned along the west bank, which eliminated the two crossings.

Memorial designation
On June 14, 2004, Governor George E. Pataki announced that a 1 mi portion of the highway in the Town of Hurley in Ulster County was to be designated as the "New York State Troopers T. Michael Kelly and Kenneth A. Poorman Memorial Highway". During May 2000, troopers Kelly and Poorman were killed on this stretch of NY 28, when their police cruiser was struck by a tractor-trailer.

Suffixed routes

 * NY 28A (19.82 mi) is an alternate route of NY 28 along the southern edge of the Ashokan Reservoir in Ulster County. It was assigned c. 1933.
 * NY 28B was a spur route connecting NY 28 in Remsen to Prospect in Oneida County. When the route was initially assigned c. 1936, it began at NY 12 and NY 28 in Barneveld and overlapped with then-NY 287 to Prospect, from where NY 28B continued northwest to NY 12 and NY 28 in Remsen by way of Prospect Road. NY 28B was truncated to Prospect in the early 1950s and removed in the mid-1960s. It is now known as NY 920V, an unsigned reference route.
 * NY 28N (50.95 mi) is a northerly alternate to NY 28 between Long Lake and North Creek in Adirondack Park. It was assigned as part of the 1930 renumbering of state highways in New York.

title: New York State Route 28


text:
Talk:Killing of Nick Berg

Video link
Is it really necessary to have an external link to the video footage? Is Wikipedia a portal for snuff movies now?? If people really want to see it (for whatever reason) they can find it through Google. I see no value in encouraging people to watch it.

Toloatzin (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It's there and serves a genuine purpose. What may be a stomach churning point in history is history and should be accounted for, both good and not so good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.203.94 (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

 * years ago while trying to see the footage for myself, a video posted on a foreign website which i found thru google virused my computer. a reliable link with protection on it would be nice actually.  put content advisories on it, but there should be one.  Cramyourspam (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

 * months later. yep. sure would.Cramyourspam (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

 * year later. still would still be nice. yep. Cramyourspam (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

 * two years later. yep. Cramyourspam (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

 * So, you've had two years. Why haven't YOU done something about it? fishhead64 (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Moved inappropriate external links here

 * Who killed Nick Berg? - The Sydney Morning Herald (May 29, 2004)
 * What happened to Nick Berg? - The Baltimore Chronicle (June 7, 2004)
 * - The Guardian Unlimited (May 12, 2004)
 * Berg beheading: No way, say medical experts The Asia Times (May 22, 2004)
 * Berg's encounter with 'terrorist' revealed - CNN (May 13, 2004)
 * Berg, Al Qaeda linked before - The New York Daily News (May 14, 2004)
 * The Philadelphia Daily News (May 17, 2004)
 * Berg Had Been Advised to Leave Iraq - Associated Press news story
 * A Father's Day Message, Both Parties Have Betrayed America By Michael Berg, CounterPunch.
 * Father of Beheaded Iraq Hostage Blames Bush Administration For Son's Death - Interview by Democracy Now! on August 24, 2004.

108.58.107.174 (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate to what? Many of these are credible news sources. Seems whoever you are you've just removed anything negative that might cast doubt on the Berg family account of what happened. Anon IP editors don't get to make such sweeping, obviously biased changes, a logged in editor wouldn't get away with it. A few of these are dead links but many are articles or archives of articles from legit sources, NY Times, Sydney Morning Herald, CNN, NY Daily News, AP Newswire via Yahoo. Status4 (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nick Berg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040614105829/http://www.macon.com:80/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/counties/chester_county/8683572.htm to http://www.macon.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/counties/chester_county/8683572.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Quote
I removed the quote here because it is already parphrased in the text and it is not clear what the quote adds at all.VR talk 18:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It adds journalistic accuracy. --Grufo (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How exactly is the current article inaccurate? Also we are writing an encyclopedia and Wikipedia is not a newspaper.VR talk 21:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe WP:NOTNEWSPAPER says nothing about why you should remove a direct quotation with an unbalanced personal rendering of it. --Grufo (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What exactly is unbalanced about this? VR talk 17:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have already answered to this question. --Grufo (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

User has removed twice a direct quotation from the article,  using a misleading edit summary (“added The Guardian”),, after , stating that “it is not clear what the quotation adds that the paraphrase doesn't already include”.

Before their intervention (edit summary: “added The Guardian”) the paragraph looked like this:

Currently it looks like this:

I believe that the removal of the sentence has the effect of impoverishing Wikipedia's accurate report of information. And, by reducing the space given to the “further threats”, has the apologetic effect of unbalancing the quotation towards America's Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, although the latter have no actual part in the death of Nick Berg. --Grufo (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is the current version not accurate? And how exactly is it unbalanced? VR talk 18:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The current version is more unbalanced because the original sentence dwells on Abu Ghraib using only few words (“Muslim men and women in Abu Ghraib”), while what it does the most is indulging in threats (“is not redeemed except by blood and souls. You will not receive anything from us but coffins after coffins ... slaughtered in this way”), and is poorer because an original quotation has been removed from the page without a valid motivation (actually using a misleading edit summary). --Grufo (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding imbalance, which POV is not reflected in the current version? It certainly mentions "threatens further deaths. The video also threatens U.S. President George W. Bush and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf."
 * The quotation has been replaced with a paraphrased text, which is what the The Guardian says about it.VR talk 19:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * “Regarding imbalance, which POV is not reflected in the current version?”
 * Simply the original POV, which is that of indulging in threats rather than denouncing Abu Ghraib.
 * “The quotation has been replaced with a paraphrased text, which is what the The Guardian says about it.”
 * On the contrary, The Guardian reports the quotation verbatim.
 * --Grufo (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Its confusing for the same discussion to take place in two different sections, but Grufo insists on on having two separate sections on the exact same discussion.VR talk 21:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You have created your paragraph while I was creating mine, then you have merged mine with yours without notice. At a certain point the only thing I saw was that my paragraph had a different title, therefore I restored what I had originally written. --Grufo (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe this is not going anywhere. I will move the discussion to Dispute resolution noticeboard. --Grufo (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

, after your removal of the original quotation and your will to stretch the mention of Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, I have constructively tried to find a compromise where both points of view were cohabiting, both your wish to emphasize Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse and my wish to keep an original quotation simply as it is. So, the paragraph looked like this:

"During the video, the man reading the statement said the killing was in revenge for the abuse at Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse and threatens further deaths: "So we tell you that the dignity of the Muslim men and women in Abu Ghraib and others is not redeemed except by blood and souls. You will not receive anything from us but coffin after coffin ... slaughtered in this way." The video further threatens U.S. President George W. Bush and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf."

But yet, despite my proposal to be constructive and inclusive, you have reverted my proposal and re-inserted your own version. Now that you know what my concerns are, could you please explain why you still believe that we should accept the removal of the quotation as it is, and why exactly you think it is so important to remove such quotation from Wikipedia? --Grufo (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Here's the larger quote from NYT:
 * "For the mothers and wives of American soldiers, we tell you that we asked the U.S. administration to exchange this hostage with some of the detainees in Abu Ghraib, and they refused. So we tell you that the dignity of the Muslim men and women in Abu Ghraib and others is not redeemed except by blood and souls. You will receive nothing from us but coffin after coffin slaughtered in this way. Does Al Qaeda need any more excuses? And how does a free Muslim sleep comfortably watching Islam being slaughtered, and its dignity being drained? The shameful photos are evil humiliation for Muslim men and women in the Abu Ghraib prison. Where is the sense of honor, where is the rage? Where is the anger for God's religion? Where is the sense of veneration for Muslims, and where is the sense of vengeance for the honor of Muslim men and women in the Crusaders prisons? Regarding you, Bush, Dog of the West, we are giving you good news which will displease you. Your worst days are coming, with the help of God. You and your soldiers will regret the day when your feet touched the land of Iraq and showered your bravery on shelters of Muslims."

 * Are you looking to include this entirely in the article? I think the NYT article gives a good summary and interpretation of this quote and its best to include that in the article instead of the long quote. The quote is nothing but terrorist propaganda. VR talk 03:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course it is terrorism propaganda, it is the statement of terrorists. I would be in favor of including the entire text, in my opinion it constitutes a unique report, unsummarizable otherwise. --Grufo (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried to summarize it here. I'm not saying my summary is perfect, but I think its good and based on reliable sources. Unlike the quote, it also includes description of what's going on. I actually left a quote in there - its a quote by Nick Berg. Given that this article is about Nick Berg, a quote capturing his last words is probably alright.VR talk 13:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Is this DUE?
There seem to be some questions over the Berg killing video not what it purports to be. I found an article in the Sydney Morning Herald and this one from Al-Jazeera covering the issue. Is it WP:DUE to include this in the article? VR talk 03:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Killing of Nick Berg


text:
User:Gillo

I'm a graduate student at Brown University earning my Masters in Queer Theory and History. I'm currently working on my thesis (homosexuality during the Renaissance) and I'd love input, so drop me a line!

title: User:Gillo


text:
Prejudice (legal term)

Prejudice is a legal term with different meanings, which depend on whether it is used in criminal, civil, or common law. In legal context, prejudice differs from the more common use of the word and so the term has specific technical meanings.

Two of the most common applications of the word are as part of the terms with prejudice and without prejudice. In general, an action taken with prejudice is final. For example, dismissal with prejudice forbids a party to refile the case and might occur because of misconduct on the part of the party that filed the claim or criminal complaint or also as the result of an out-of-court agreement or settlement. Dismissal without prejudice (Latin: salvis iuribus, lit. 'to preserved rights') allows the party the option to refile and is often a response to procedural or technical problems with the filing that the party may correct by filing again.

Etymology
The origin of the word in its legal sense is prejūdicium, 'a preceding judgement or decision'.

Criminal law
Depending on the country, a criminal proceeding which ends prematurely due to error, mistake, or misconduct may end as being dismissed with prejudice or without prejudice.

Legal communications (documents and discussions) should only be labelled “without prejudice”, when such communication is putting forward terms to try to settle the commercial dispute or shows a willingness to negotiate.

If the case ends without prejudice, the accused in the case (the defendant) may be retried. If the case ends with prejudice, the effect on the defendant (for the purpose of punishment) is the equivalent of a finding of not guilty, and they cannot be retried.

Some countries, however, allow the prosecution to appeal any acquittal.

United States
In the United States, if there is a mistrial, or the case is overturned on appeal, generally this is without prejudice and (in the case of a decision overturned on appeal) either all of the case is retried, or, if not all of the case is overturned, the parts that were overturned, such as a sentencing hearing, are retried. If the case is dismissed because of prosecutorial misconduct, it will typically be dismissed with prejudice, which means that the defendant cannot be retried.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits that "any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb". Outside of mistrial or appeal, the rule for whether or not a case is dismissed with or without prejudice thus depends on what condition the case is in and whether "jeopardy" has attached to the case. If jeopardy is attached to a case, a dismissal or a resolution is "with prejudice" and the case can never be litigated again. In the case of a trial by jury, jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled, and a dismissal (for prosecutorial misconduct or harmful error) at that point must be with prejudice. In the case of a bench trial (trial by the judge only), jeopardy attaches when the first witness in the case is sworn.

If a criminal case is brought to trial and the defendant is acquitted, jeopardy is attached to the case, and it can never be retried. If the defendant was convicted and his conviction is overturned, jeopardy is not attached because the defendant is considered to simply be in the same state they were before the case was tried.

If a person is brought to trial where they are charged with a particular crime and is convicted of a lesser offense, the conviction for a lesser offense is an acquittal of any higher-level offense (for example, a conviction for second-degree murder is an acquittal of first-degree murder). If the conviction is later overturned, the maximum the defendant can be retried for is the crime to which they were convicted; any higher charge is acquitted and thus is with prejudice.

Civil law
Within legal civil procedure, prejudice is a loss or injury, and refers specifically to a formal determination against a claimed legal right or cause of action. Thus, in a civil case, dismissal without prejudice is a dismissal that allows for re-filing of the case in the future. The present action is dismissed, but the possibility remains open that the plaintiff may file another suit on the same claim. The inverse phrase is dismissal with prejudice, in which the plaintiff is barred from filing another case on the same claim. Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment and the case becomes res judicata on the claims that were or could have been brought in it; dismissal without prejudice is not.

Common law
In many common law jurisdictions, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Singapore, the phrase has several usages.

Dismissal
A civil matter which is "dismissed with prejudice" is over forever, because the claim cannot be refiled. This is a final judgment, not subject to further action, other than appeal to a higher court. Absent a successful appeal, the plaintiff is prohibited from bringing any other lawsuit based on the claim.

If it is an involuntary dismissal, the judge has determined that the plaintiff has brought the case in bad faith, has failed to bring the case in a reasonable time, has failed to comply with court procedures, or on the merits after hearing the arguments in court. The dismissal itself may be appealed.

If it is a "voluntary dismissal with prejudice", it is the result of an out-of-court agreement or settlement between parties that they agree is final.

If the case is dismissed "without prejudice", the lawsuit can be filed again by the plaintiff. Typically, before a defendant has answered the suit or made a motion in the case, a plaintiff may file for "dismissal without prejudice" more easily and may do so for tactical reasons such as filing in a different jurisdiction.

Settlement negotiations
The term "without prejudice" is used in the course of negotiations to settle a lawsuit. It indicates that a particular conversation or letter cannot be tendered as evidence in court. It can be considered a form of privilege. This usage flows from the primary meaning: concessions and representations made for the purpose of settlement are simply being mooted for that purpose, and are not meant to actually concede those points in litigation.

Such correspondences must both be made in the course of negotiation, and represent a genuine attempt to settle a dispute between the parties. A prohibition exists on documents marked "without prejudice" being used as a façade to conceal facts or evidence from the court. As a result, documents marked "without prejudice" that do not actually contain any offer of settlement may be used as evidence, should the matter proceed to court. Courts may also decide to exclude from evidence communications not marked "without prejudice" that do contain offers of settlement.

The House of Lords' 2019 ruling in the case of Ofulue v Bossert UKHL 16 confirmed that the public policy intention behind the without prejudice rule, which serves to encourage the parties in dispute to speak freely in order to settle the issues between them, should enjoy "wide protection", and therefore only in exceptional cases could statements issued "without prejudice" be used in evidence.

The term "without prejudice save as to costs" is a change to the above and refers to a communication that cannot be exhibited in court until the end of the trial, when the court awards legal costs to the successful party unless some other order is made because an offer was unreasonably rejected. This is also called the Calderbank formula, from Calderbank v Calderbank (2 All E.R. 333, 1976), and exists because English courts have held that "without prejudice" includes for the purposes of costs, as in Court of Appeal, in Walker v. Wilshire (23 QBD 335, 1889):

"Letters or conversations written or declared to be "without prejudice" cannot be taken into consideration in determining whether there is a good cause for depriving a successful litigant of costs."

Statutory provision
UK freedom of information law renders certain information exempt from disclosure obligations where its publication "would, or would be likely to", prejudice any of the interests protected by statutory provision. Freedom of information jurisprudence on the test for "prejudice" was developed in the tribunal case of Hogan v Oxford City Council (2005) where the applicable interests to be protected need to be identified, the nature of the prejudice being contemplated, and the likelihood of the prejudice occurring.

Prejudicial actions
An action (such as an error made by the court) is prejudicial if it substantially affects a litigant's legal rights. Thus, a harmless error would not be prejudicial, while plain error is sometimes defined as a highly prejudicial error. An error that is determined not to have been prejudicial will typically not be considered a reversible error.

A court may sometimes explicitly reassure a litigant that an action will not prejudice them. For example, if a defendant left an important document at home that was needed for the court hearing, the court may assure them that continuing the proceedings to a future date will not prejudice them in any way—that is, that it will not affect the court's judgment in a way that disfavors them. Or a court may assure a litigant that agreeing to a temporary arrangement, e.g. concerning custody of an asset whose ownership is disputed, will not prejudice their rights with regard to the eventual judgment of the court in the case. In other words, the litigant will not be waiving any rights other than those they're specifically agreeing to temporarily waive.

In English criminal law, from the moment a suspect is charged until judgment is given, it is not permitted to report on matters that may be given in evidence – or that might otherwise influence the jury – before this evidence is presented. Unless the court directs otherwise, media may report the evidence given in court but may not speculate on its significance. These restrictions are normally removed after judgment is given, unless to do so might prejudice another prosecution in progress.

title: Prejudice (legal term)


text:
Template talk:Politics of the United States

Comment
It should be obvious that this "series" is unacceptable at the top because it pushes relevant photographs towards the bottom in exchange for not so relevant links. If it is not converted into a footer, I will revert en masse.--Jiang 00:23, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * It is hardly obvious - Politics of the United Kingdom has worked very effectively this way, and people find it much more instructive to have a series header than a photograph. Many Wikipedia article series head an article, especially with general overviews such as these. Please look around the music genre boxes for example. Headers are a common part of Wikipedia, used in city, country pages, history etc. Why not in politics? These pages are clearly a series.

 * These aren't biographies, where the photo of course deserves a place at the top. These are descriptions of institutions. The pictures are either just examples of processes in action, or the buildings. And to be honest, the buildings should have their own sites, if the pictures are that important to you. If you think the politics header is basic - then expand it. It's supposed to be a start. Many people have little idea of the workings of governments and these headers help them to find their way around. I don't know whether you find it so ludicrous because you are very familiar with this particular political system, but the idea would be to extend this to every political system in the world, standardize, and by thus pointing out missing pages, encourage growth. That way, lesser known/understood political systems will become comprehendable and transparent. Pteron 00:37, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

The claims that the Politics of the United Kingdom has "worked very effectively this way" and that "people find it much more instructive to have a series header than a photograph" are entriely substantiated. There is no evidence that people generally prefer these series boxes pictures and there's the discussion to suggest that quite a few are opposed to the idea, and making listings that seem to have no clear chronological order into footers (instead of series boxes) seems to be the compromise action (mediaWiki:cults and Template:Jesus were spared deletion this way). Take a look at the proposed series boxes policy. There is previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article series and Wikipedia talk:Page footers. Just because "series" exist elsewhere doesn't make it appropriate here. The UK articles have fewer pictures because their govt websites are copyrighted.

I don't like the idea of this grouping of articles at all, but am willing to allow it to sit at the bottom of the article. If people are clueless in the field of American politics, wouldn't directing them to politics of the United States be much more efficient than throwing in a link to the Senate Majority Leader? If the Senate Majority Leader is relevant and ever comes up, then it would be obviously linked in the article itself and linking it on the side wouldn't be necessary. IMO, which is unsubstantiated like yours, people ignore these boxes. They're just there because theyre pretty.

I don't buy your argument that those pictures have less relevacny, or at least less relevancy than the group of links. The building is not just a building, but a symbol of the institution itself. Examples of the processes in action helps the reader develop a mental image of what he/she is reading, making the article more memorable. Just like how a biography describes not what a person looks like, but what he did, an article on an institution describes not what the building looks like, but what the institution does. Institutions are just like biographies. A photo of the House chamber is more relevant in the House article than a link to the Vice President.--Jiang 01:02, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The sites you have linked to show that people are actually quite divided on this issue. The list is much clearer than in most cases - it simply lists the highest government organs. While you could argue that some cases merit placing the list below a picture (the political parties might be such candidates - I'm unhappy cluttering the top of that article), no one is talking about eliminating a picture. If, as you are hoping, people actually read the article, they will be fed visual impulses soon enough. Boxes at the bottom are for less clearly related topics.

 * The idea is that the reader start with the more general topic and then, without having to search the article, can jump to the next relevant page . Pages tend to link to superordinate and subordinate topics, but not to ones on the same level. For instance an article on the Courts will link to politics of the United States and to different types of courts, but not to the President, etc. But someone trying to grasp the big picture might want to see how these two topics interrelate, without flipping back to the 'main article' every time.

 * The boxes serve an important purpose besides informing people about other connected topics - they also offer a host of red links to be added to. Even for the United States, an overview of elections is simply missing! There, I didn't know that - did you? This will cause people to work on the top level of hierarchy and from those subpages more and more red links will open up possibilities to write. Of course, for the US, the politics sections are pretty complete for the most part, but many countries' political systems' entries look very very bleak. And please, don't say, "aha - then form a WikiProject" - that's a great idea, and worth considering, but then these boxes would be even more necessary to alert people to the existance of that project.

 * First off though, a few paradigms are needed - and the US is at least a good system to go for to get people motivated to look at a box and give suggestions on how to modify it. This is how the wiki works, as you know - experimentation. Politics boxes are untested. The field is perfectly coherent and often badly connected. If the US politics page did a semi-decent job describing the American political system, perhaps we really wouldn't need a series box. This is not the case however. Before threatening with deletion, perhaps you should wait what other people say about this... We're sure to hear from others now that I provocatively placed the boxes at the top of the articles. I have my position, but it isn't doctrinaire and I may be willing to back off from it, once I've heard more opinions. Pteron 01:49, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

While people remain divided on the issue, converting non-chronological grouping into footers is the general compromise and standard practice. This is the first objection to converting a series into a footer that I've seen. The debate is over whether to have them at all. The issue is not over whether to put the picture there or not, but whether a link the Senate Majority Leader in an article on the House of Representatives is more relevant than a photograph of the House chamber. Of course readers will still see the picture, but which do you want them to see first? I do not see how this grouping of articles is more cohesive than some other footer articles. What has House have to do with the Chief Justice? One is a chamber of the Congress, the other is a position on the Supreme Court.

As for your example on how an article on the courts lacks a link to the president, I don't see why the presidency would have anything to do with the "big picture". The "big picture" exists at [Politics of the United States]. If the two subjects are related, the link will exist, as it should, and creating an extra link to the side is not necessary. Otherwise, the link to the presidency is irrelevant. If someone wants to learn about the preisdency, the can put their cursor over the upper right hand corner field, insert the title "POTUS" and press "Go". It's simple enough. This listing is clearly not a "series" since if I really wanted to learn all there was to know about the US govt, I could learn about the supreme court before I learned about the Congress. Furthermore, why the Senate Majority Leader and not the House Majority Leader? Why the House Speaker and not the President PRo Temp of the Senate? Whether to include certain positions in the government is arbitary. I don't understand what you mean by "next relevant page". If this "series" is meant to link parallel articles, it does a bad job. "Federal government", "senate", and "congress" all sit on different levels. There's also no parallelism with the govt positions, between political parties and government institutions, nor with the single link to "election". In any case, there's no reason not to make this a footer. LEt people see things and click once theyre done with reading the article.

The argument that this helps alert people of red links is flawed. The purpose of our edits is to improve the content and look of an article and just that. We are interested only in the final product and not the process. Requests to get articles written can be done at Requested articles or one may just spam all the relevant talk pages (even this is not recommended, to say the least of spamming articles themselves). We could try something like Template:BuddhismOpenTask, but to spam the article space (if we disregard the other reasons for keeping this thing) is highly inappropriate. That aside, I don't ask that this listing be removed. The same could be accomplished if it sat at the bottom of the article.

I'm not intersted in deleting this, just modifying this to reflect its importance in the article. IF there's something wrong with the US politics page, then fix that. This is no excuse for a bad page over there. --Jiang 05:24, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * If I receive no further response to my objections, I will revert. I would like to see a footer, but I don't see an easy way to make one. The grouping here is illogical. --Jiang 08:47, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Government!
Most of the items listed in that box involve U.S. Government, not U.S. politics. This primary caption should read "This article is part of the series Government of the United States" and it should be renamed MediaWiki:GovernmentUS. Kingturtle 16:38, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Let's save the trouble of having to move this. What the mediawiki is called matters little. Just change the content on the page. --Jiang 20:35, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Is this "series" active?
I noticed the series "Politics and Government of the United States", and got interested: I have been looking around for the series to join, and can't find anything. I finally found this discussion, and its 2 ½ years old. So, I'm trying to find out what happened here. Anyone have any information? Richiar 00:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Libertarians?
Does the Libertarian party really merit mention on this template when no other third parties do? --Jfruh (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Swapped legislative/executive...
...as per the order they appear in the constitution. Historic anomalies notwithstanding, the executive was never meant to be the dominant branch; privilege of place is unwarranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.244.192 (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Well done! I swapped out House and Senate for the same reason. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Politics of the United States sidebar templates
There is a second template at Template:Politics of the United States sidebar templates. Bebestbe (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit request
Hi. Please replace the beginning of the section with the following, which adds a heading and updates the template's categorization:

Edit request
"ran of" should be "ran on" —Preceding unsigned comment added by RCFleischer (talk • contribs) 14:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC) timothy had a good idea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.9.25.24 (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki for Macedonian
Can you please add mk:Шаблон:Политика на САД to the interwiki of this page. I cannot do it myself as it is locked. Thank you --B. Jankuloski (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki for Danish
Could you please add da:Skabelon:USA's politik to the interwiki section of this template. Thanks in advance. --Broadbeer (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request
A new article, Governor (United States), is now on line. Please change:  ** Governors  to:  ** Governors (List) Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request - Political Parties link
Several of the menu names in this list actually link to an article. It would be appropriate for "Political Parties" to link to Political parties in the United States. Right now there are links only to specific political parties as far as I can tell; it would make sense for the category to link to an article on US political parties in general. If an admin could make this edit to create this link I'd appreciate it. Thanks Locke9k (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Renewing request for this link to be added. Some response one way or another would be appropriate.  I am presently considering requesting unprotection of this page as the talk page seems to be so little monitored that requesting admin changes is nearly impossible.  Locke9k (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

edit request
The section on congressional comparisons with parliamentary systems states that a Parliament is made up of all 3 branches of government, executive, legislative and judicial. This isn't true, generally parliaments only contain the executive and legistaive, the judiciary is independent in all democratic states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackBeNimble (talk • contribs) 06:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 2007sa

Camel-case
There are a few cases of camel-case in this template: "Political Parties", "Party Leaders", "State Courts", and "Local Government". Parties, leaders, courts and government are not names, nor are they titles (in this context). Should be corrected, but the template is protected. LarRan (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. — RockMFR 13:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Tnavbar
Use navbar instead of Tnavbar. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 20:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Template:Tnavbar simply redirects to Template:navbar. —  Jake   Wartenberg  21:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. It will just keep this clean. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 05:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. — RockMFR 13:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Various links
Could somebody make these fixes? All are permitted under R2D as templates are exempt from the "Do no fix redirects" guideline. Just some link fixes:

Circuit Courts of Appeal Governors Legislatures (List) Other countries  TJ   Spyke   00:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Checked; in the existing template;

 * In "Judiciary", "Circuit Courts of Appeal" is linked to United States court of appeals which redirects to United States courts of appeals
 * In "Subdivisions", "Governors" is linked to List of current United States Governors which redirects to List of current United States governors
 * Also in "Subdivisions", "Legislatures (List)" (ie the word "List") is linked to List of U.S. state legislatures redirects to List of United States state legislatures
 * In the footer, "Other countries" links to Politics of present-day nations and states, which redirects to Outline of political science

 * 👍 - so I recommend making the changes as requested  Chzz  ►  03:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Done, thanks to the requester and my diligent helper monkey. Skomorokh,  barbarian  05:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit request
Please add Category:Exclude in print to the template page. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 14:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume adding it to the /doc page is okay? If so, ✅ — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's brilliant, thanks. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 15:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Subdivisions?
A bit misleading. The states are not subdivisions of the federal government. The arrow, in fact, points the other way. The federal government is a union of the constituent states. As such, the category called Subdivisions would be better entitled as Federalism and linked to the article Federalism in the United States. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Let's give it a try, see what other people think. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong link with Chinese interwiki
This template should be linked to zh:Template:美國政治 instead of zh:Template:美國政冶. I have no authority to correct it. Please fix it. --Pubuhan (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation
State court should be disambiguated to State court (United States). StAnselm (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 192.133.12.101, 21 February 2011
The article states that, "The second youngest governor ever elected was J. Neely Johnson of California, when he was elected in 1855 at the age of 30," but William Sprague was 29 when he became governor of RI in 1860.

192.133.12.101 (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not this template which states this, so you are probably posting this to the wrong page. Please try the talk page of the article which says this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Add category
Please add Category:"Part of a series on" templates into the template.  A. Z. Colvin  •  Talk  23:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Nhajivandi, 3 September 2011
Hello I would like to add Term limits in the United States in the Election secton of this templete because it is part of US politics and it should be in there.

Thank you Nhajivandi (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure where they would fit. Perhaps you would like to experiment on Template:Politics of the United States/sandbox and then give time for other editors to comment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Presidency/Executive
Would it be possible to change the Presidency header to Executive as this is how it is laid out in the constitution plus the section contains things like the Cabinet. -- Barryob  (Contribs)   (Talk)  16:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done The original justification for "Presidency" seems to have been changing adjectives to nouns.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Politics_of_the_United_States&diff=228463699&oldid=225507733] But "Executive" can also be a noun with this meaning. Anomie⚔ 19:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Change back to point to politics box, not sandbox
I noticed that this doesn't show up correctly on the articles it is put on. It shows "This template is part of the series:" even on articles where it should change to say "This article is part of the series:". It used to say "this article" and really should say that since it is generally used on articles (I hesitate to say only used there, because I don't know that for a fact). I'm not an admin, so I can't change it. Started looking into it and saw where the code was changed from to. Really, a live template like this shouldn't ever point to a sandbox. There are plenty of other ways to show examples of proposed changes. I see some of the discussion at Template talk:Politics box and might post there if no one replies here after a while. But needing/suggesting changes like that doesn't mean we change the live template first. Anyway, I think correcting this will also answer the CapitalR's question in their last edit on this template about VTE not working right. This does show, then, that the sandbox template being proposed needs some fixing to make it work correctly. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed the sandbox template to say "article" instead of "template". Simply changing this template to not use the sandbox messed something up so I couldn't do it -- I'm not sure what the issue is yet. --CapitalR (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Medo9
House word, means Home, the House word calling for House of Representatives No name of Speaker of the House of Representatives, Name of Parliament Speaker in all Politics templates No name of President of the United States Senate, Name of Parliament Speaker in all Politics templates Medo9 (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. You'll have to be much more clear in what you want changed. Anomie⚔ 16:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixes
Could somebody make these fixes? All are permitted under R2D as templates are exempt from the "Do no fix redirects" guideline. Just some link fixes:

Party leaders Other countries  TJ   Spyke   06:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed the Party leaders link, but the other one is actually not in this template, but in a meta-template used by this one. I'll look into fixing it there.  --CapitalR (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed them both now. --CapitalR (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

States governments
The template mention state governors before state legislatures, but nearly all states mention the legislative before the executive in their state constitution. So it must be modified. John Doe 1346 (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

update to use a standard sidebar template, rather than a sandbox template
please replace the code of this template with [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Politics_of_the_United_States/sandbox&oldid=521068105 this version] of the sandbox (see [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Politics_of_the_United_States/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=521068105 diff] and testcases). this change does several positive things let me know if there are any problems. you may also want to semiprotect the two meta-templates if you are worried about vandalism. Although, I guess that isn't a problem if we were using a sandbox template before? Frietjes (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Uses sidebar with collapsible lists, rather than a sandbox template, which allows us to eliminate all the messy div statements, and not worry about someone actually using the sandbox.
 * 2) Fixes the "atlas" link at the bottom of the sidebar, which was missing the "the" before "United States".
 * 3) Fixes the "view / edit / discuss" links at the bottom of the sidebar, which were missing the "the" before "United States".
 * 4) Fixes the wrapped title, by slightly increasing the sidebar width
 * Yes check.svg Done Anomie⚔ 22:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Overstyling
per discussion at MOS:ACCESSBILITY, I have undone the overstyling. Frietjes (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2017
The first sentence of the second paragraph of this article is factually incorrect. The current occupant of the Oval Office is the 45th individual to hold the office. 137.254.7.172 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template . Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2017
Oh, bother, please ignore the previous edit request. It is correct that 44 PERSONS have held the office. Sorry ... 137.254.7.172 (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Requesting removal of seals
Per WP:ICONDECORATION, the seals should be removed as they are purely decorative, and quoting User:Howard the Duck, "The seals are horribly indistinguishable at that size." Jeremy ( Message ) 14:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2023
Can you use the template? Thank you. 143.44.165.210 (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Color of show/hide links
When the implementation of collapsible lists changed from for using class collapsible to mw-collapsible, the show/hide links got same color as other links, blue, which are difficult to see on the red background. I suggest the color is changed back to white. It can be done with a rule for .mw-collapsible-text in a templatestiles page. Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 08:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

 * My suggestion is in Template:Politics of the United States/sandbox. I moved styles parameters and inline styles to Template:Politics of the United States/styles.css. The show/hide links are white. They and the link in the title line also now have white underlining when you hover over them. Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I see no objections, so I'll use sandbox version now. Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


text:
Petticoat affair

The Petticoat affair (also known as the Eaton affair) was a political scandal involving members of President Andrew Jackson's Cabinet and their wives, from 1829 to 1831. Led by Floride Calhoun, wife of Vice President John C. Calhoun, these women, dubbed the "Petticoats", socially ostracized Secretary of War John Eaton and his wife, Peggy Eaton, over disapproval of the circumstances surrounding the Eatons' marriage and what they deemed her failure to meet the "moral standards of a Cabinet Wife".

The Petticoat affair rattled the entire Jackson administration and eventually led to the resignation of all but one Cabinet member. The ordeal facilitated Martin Van Buren's rise to the presidency and was in part responsible for Calhoun's transformation from a nationwide political figure with presidential aspirations into a sectional leader of the Southern United States.

Background
Margaret "Peggy" Eaton was the eldest daughter of William O'Neill, owner of the Franklin House, a boarding house and tavern located in Washington, D.C., a short distance from the White House, that was a well-known social hub popular with politicians and military officials. Peggy was well-educated for a woman of that era – she studied French and was known for her ability to play the piano. William T. Barry, who later served as Postmaster General, wrote "of a charming little girl ... who very frequently plays the piano, and entertains us with agreeable songs".

As a young girl, her reputation had already begun to come under scrutiny because of her employment in a bar frequented by men, as well as her casual bantering with the boarding house's clientele. In her later years, Peggy reminisced, "While I was still in pantalettes and rolling hoops with other girls, I had the attention of men, young and old; enough to turn a girl's head."

When Peggy was 15 years old, her father intervened to prevent her attempt to elope with an Army officer. In 1816, the 17-year-old Peggy married John B. Timberlake, a purser in the United States Navy. Timberlake, aged 39, had a reputation as a drunkard and was heavily in debt. The Timberlakes became acquainted with John Eaton in 1818. At the time, Eaton was a wealthy 28-year-old widower and newly elected U.S. Senator from Tennessee, despite not yet having reached the constitutionally-mandated minimum age of 30. He was also a long-time friend of Andrew Jackson.

Once Timberlake told Eaton of his financial troubles, Eaton unsuccessfully attempted to have the Senate pass legislation that would authorize payment of the debts Timberlake had accrued during his Naval service. Eventually, Eaton paid Timberlake's debts and procured him a lucrative posting to the U.S. Navy's Mediterranean Squadron; many rumormongers asserted that Eaton aided Timberlake as a means to remove him from Washington, in order for Eaton to socialize with Peggy.

While with the Mediterranean Squadron, Timberlake died on April 2, 1828. This served to fuel new rumors throughout Washington, suggesting he had taken his own life as the result of Eaton's supposed affair with Peggy. Medical examiners concluded Timberlake had died of pneumonia, brought on by pulmonary disease.

Controversy
Jackson was elected president in 1828, with his term set to begin on March 4, 1829. He was reportedly fond of Peggy Timberlake and encouraged Eaton to marry her. They were wed on January 1, 1829, only nine months after her husband's death. Customarily, it would have been considered proper for their marriage to have followed a longer mourning period.

Historian John F. Marszalek explains his opinion on the "real reasons Washington society found Peggy unacceptable": "She did not know her place; she forthrightly spoke up about anything that came to her mind, even topics of which women were supposed to be ignorant. She thrust herself into the world in a manner inappropriate for a woman. ... Accept her, and society was in danger of disruption. Accept this uncouth, impure, forward, worldly woman, and the wall of virtue and morality would be breached and society would have no further defenses against the forces of frightening change. Margaret Eaton was not that important in herself; it was what she represented that constituted the threat. Proper women had no choice; they had to prevent her acceptance into society as part of their defense of that society's morality."

When Jackson assumed the presidency, he appointed Eaton as Secretary of War. Floride Calhoun, Second Lady of the United States, led the wives of other Washington political figures, mostly those of Jackson's cabinet members, in an "anti-Peggy" coalition, which served to shun the Eatons socially and publicly. The women refused to pay courtesy calls to the Eatons at their home and to receive them as visitors, and denied them invitations to parties and other social events. Emily Donelson, niece of Andrew Jackson's late wife Rachel Donelson Robards and the wife of Jackson's adopted son and confidant Andrew Jackson Donelson, served as Jackson's "surrogate First Lady". Emily Donelson chose to side with the Calhoun faction, which led Jackson to replace her with his daughter-in-law Sarah Yorke Jackson as his official hostess. Secretary of State Martin Van Buren was a widower and the only unmarried member of the Cabinet; he raised himself in Jackson's esteem by aligning himself with the Eatons.

Jackson's sympathy for the Eatons stemmed in part from his late wife Rachel being the subject of innuendo during the presidential campaign, when questions arose as to whether her first marriage had been legally ended before she married Jackson. Jackson believed these attacks were the cause of Rachel's death on December 22, 1828, several weeks after his election to the presidency.

Eaton's entry into a high-profile Cabinet post helped intensify the opposition of Mrs. Calhoun's group. In addition, Calhoun was becoming the focal point of opposition to Jackson; Calhoun's supporters opposed a second term for Jackson because they wanted Calhoun elected president. In addition, Jackson favored and Calhoun opposed the protective tariff that came to be known as the Tariff of Abominations. U.S. tariffs on imported goods generally favored Northern industries by limiting competition, but Southerners opposed them because the tariffs raised the price of finished goods but not the raw materials produced in the South. The dispute over the tariff led to the nullification crisis of 1832, with Southerners – including Calhoun – arguing that states could refuse to obey federal laws to which they objected, even to the point of secession from the Union, while Jackson vowed to prevent secession and preserve the Union at any cost. Because Calhoun was the most visible opponent of the Jackson administration, Jackson felt that Calhoun and other anti-Jackson officials were fanning the flames of the Peggy Eaton controversy in an attempt to gain political leverage. Duff Green, a Calhoun protégé and editor of the United States Telegraph, accused Eaton of secretly working to have pro-Calhoun Cabinet members Samuel D. Ingham and John Branch removed from their positions.

Eaton took his revenge on Calhoun. In 1830, reports had emerged which accurately stated that while Calhoun was Secretary of War and Jackson was a major general in the U.S. Army, Calhoun had favored censuring Jackson for his 1818 invasion of Florida. These reports infuriated Jackson. Calhoun asked Eaton to approach Jackson about the possibility of Calhoun publishing his correspondence with Jackson at the time of the Seminole War. Eaton did nothing. This caused Calhoun to believe that Jackson had approved the publication of the letters. Calhoun published them in the Telegraph. Their publication gave the appearance of Calhoun trying to justify himself against a conspiracy, which further enraged the president.

Resolution
The dispute was finally resolved when Van Buren offered to resign, giving Jackson the opportunity to reorganize his Cabinet by asking for the resignations of the anti-Eaton Cabinet members. Postmaster General William T. Barry was the lone Cabinet member to stay, and Eaton eventually received appointments that took him away from Washington, first as governor of Florida Territory, and then as minister to Spain.

On June 17, the day before Eaton formally resigned, a story appeared in the Telegraph stating that it had been "proved" that the families of Ingham, Branch, and Attorney General John M. Berrien had refused to associate with Mr. Eaton. Eaton wrote to all three men demanding that they answer for the article. Ingham sent back a contemptuous letter stating that, while he was not the source for the article, the information was still true. On June 18, Eaton challenged Ingham to a duel through Eaton's brother in law, Dr. Philip G. Randolph, who visited Ingham twice and the second time threatened him with personal harm if he did not comply with Eaton's demands. Randolph was dismissed, and the next morning Ingham sent a note to Eaton discourteously declining the invitation and describing his situation as one of "pity and contempt". Eaton wrote a letter back to Ingham accusing him of cowardice. Ingham was then informed that Eaton, Randolph, and others were looking to assault him. He gathered together his own bodyguard and was not immediately molested. However, he reported that for the next two nights Eaton and his men continued to lurk about his dwelling and threaten him. He then left the city and returned safely to his home. Ingham communicated to Jackson his version of what took place, and Jackson asked Eaton to explain himself. Eaton admitted that he "passed by" the place where Ingham had been staying, "but at no point attempted to enter ... or besiege it".

Aftermath
In 1832, Jackson nominated Van Buren as minister to Great Britain. Calhoun killed the nomination with a tie-breaking vote against it, claiming his act would "...kill him, sir, kill him dead. He will never kick, sir, never kick." However, Calhoun only made Van Buren seem the victim of petty politics, which were rooted largely in the Eaton controversy. This raised Van Buren even further in Jackson's esteem. Van Buren succeeded Calhoun as vice president when Jackson won a second term in 1832. Van Buren thus became the de facto heir to the presidency and succeeded Jackson in 1837.

Although Emily Donelson had supported Floride Calhoun, after the controversy ended Jackson asked her to return as his official hostess; she resumed these duties in conjunction with Sarah Yorke Jackson until returning to Tennessee after contracting tuberculosis, leaving Sarah Yorke Jackson to serve alone as Jackson's hostess.

John Calhoun resigned as vice president shortly before the end of his term and returned with his wife to South Carolina. Quickly elected to the U.S. Senate, he returned to Washington not as a national leader with presidential prospects but as a regional leader who argued in favor of states' rights and the expansion of slavery.

In regard to the Petticoat affair, Jackson later remarked, "I [would] rather have live vermin on my back than the tongue of one of these Washington women on my reputation." To Jackson, Peggy Eaton was just another of many wronged women whom over his lifetime he had known and defended. He believed that every woman he had defended in his life, including her, had been the victim of ulterior motives, so that political enemies could bring him down.

Legacy
Historian Robert V. Remini said that "the entire Eaton affair might be termed infamous. It ruined reputations and terminated friendships. And it was all so needless." Historian Kirsten E. Wood argues that it "was a national political issue, raising questions of manhood, womanhood, presidential power, politics, and morality."

The 1936 film The Gorgeous Hussy is a fictionalized account of the Petticoat affair. It features Joan Crawford as Peggy O'Neal, Robert Taylor as John Timberlake, Lionel Barrymore as Andrew Jackson, and Franchot Tone as John Eaton.

title: Petticoat affair


text:
User talk:Howay

Hi. Please disambiguate "Java" on your user page. For example, Java. Thanks. RedWolf 00:27, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Howay


text:
Sanctuary (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)

"Sanctuary" is the 30th episode of the American science fiction television series Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, the tenth episode of the second season.

This episode was written by Frederick Rappaport, Gave Essoe, and Kelley Miles, and directed by Les Landau. It aired on November 29, 1993 in broadcast syndication.

Set in the 24th century, the series follows the adventures on Deep Space Nine, a space station located near a stable wormhole between the Alpha and Gamma quadrants of the Milky Way Galaxy, near the planet Bajor. In this episode, alien refugees from the Gamma Quadrant attempt to claim Bajor as their home.

Plot
A damaged vessel comes through the wormhole, and its passengers, a woman and three men, are transported aboard Deep Space Nine. The universal translator is unable to translate their language for several minutes, but they seem to trust Major Kira, who escorts them around the station until they are able to communicate.

The woman, Haneek, explains that her people, the Skrreeans, were conquered by a species called the T-Rogorans, who were, in turn, conquered by an empire known as the Dominion. Commander Sisko promises to help Haneek and her people find a new homeland, and when several more Skrreean ships come through the wormhole, they are welcomed warmly. Kira and Haneek become friends.

As more and more Skrreeans arrive on the station, some residents, including Quark, begin to resent their presence; Quark's nephew Nog pulls a prank on Haneek's belligerent son Tumak and Tumak retaliates with violence. The situation deteriorates into a violent scuffle between Nog and Tumak's group of friends. Haneek begins to fear that she will not find Kentanna, the Skrreeans' long-sought legendary homeworld. However, the Skrreean leaders decide that Bajor is the Kentanna they seek. Sisko suggests a nearby planet, Draylon II, as a reasonable alternative, but the Skrreeans are adamant in their decision. They meet with representatives of the Bajoran government, who refuse to allow them to relocate there; a famine is spreading, and the Bajoran government does not believe it can support the Skrreean population.

Tumak takes one of the Skrreean ships and heads to Bajor. At Sisko's request, Haneek tries to convince him to disengage his engines because the ship has a dangerous radiation leak, but Tumak ignores his mother's pleas. Two Bajoran vessels approach him in order to tow him to safety, but Tumak refuses to shut down his engines. A firefight ensues, resulting in the destruction of Tumak's ship due to the radiation leak.

The Bajoran government maintains its decision to refuse asylum, so the Skrreeans have no choice but to move to Draylon II. Hurt over her son's death and angry with the Bajorans, Haneek's final words to Kira are bitter. She reminds Kira that the Skrreeans were farmers, and could have helped Bajor overcome the famine. Haneek departs with her people, leaving Kira ashamed, contemplating Haneek's words.

Reception
Reviewing the episode for Tor.com in 2013, Keith R.A. DeCandido gave it a rating of 5 out 10, saying there was "plenty to like" about the episode but also expressing disappointment with several aspects of it, including the ending.

In 2020, io9 listed this as one of the "must-watch" episodes of the series.

Releases
It was released on LaserDisc in Japan on June 6, 1997 as part of the half season collection 2nd Season Vol. 1, which had 7 doubled sided 12" discs. The discs had English and Japanese audio tracks.

On November 11, 1997, "Second Sight" and "Sanctuary" were released on double sided LaserDisc in the United States.

On April 1, 2003 Season 2 of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was released on DVD video discs, with 26 episodes on seven discs.

This episode was released in 2017 on DVD with the complete series box set, which had 176 episodes on 48 discs.

title: Sanctuary (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)


text:
Gna!

Gna! was a centralized location where software developers could develop, distribute and maintain free software. The service was shut down in 2017 after 13 years in service for dozens of software projects and millions of downloads served.

In August 2022, Gna! was relaunched by Loïc Dachary as a paid service for hosting Forgejo instances.

History
In the beginning, GNA (recursively acronymed "Gna's Not Axis"), was an association formed by Loïc Dachary for the distribution of free software.

On the 12 April 2001, GNA turned into the French chapter of Free Software Foundation (FSF).

At the end of 2003, the GNU Savannah server was replaced by FSF after a security compromise. A dispute broke out between FSF, who owned Savannah, and Savannah's maintainers, including developers of the Savannah software over the levels of administration the FSF should be given. FSF announced that it was going to switch to GForge, leaving frayed tempers among the developers, as result of a conflict about Savannah maintainers' role.

In January 2004, Loïc Dachary (who also started GNU Savannah) and several former GNU Savannah maintainers set up "Gna!" as a continuation of the Savannah project, but hosted on servers owned by the Free Software Foundation France. Gna! is paradoxically recursively acronymed "Gna's Not an Acronym!". It is managed by a self-organized team, supported by Free Software Foundation France.

For the hosted projects, Gna! provides source code version control (CVS, and SVN), a download space, project monitoring facilities, etc.

A notable exception to other free software community portals is Gna's strict licensing restrictions: only GNU General Public License compatible projects may be developed on the server. This is one of the reasons why it is significantly smaller than other portals. Its small userbase is advertised as a positive because it generally aids in the quick resolution of problems; a process which can take weeks on the larger sites.

In November 2016, the Gna! project announced it would soon be closing down, and explained "soon" to mean "within 3 months [of February 2017], or when the hardware dies."

On 24 May 2017, Gna! servers were shut down.

In April 2022, Loïc Dachary and Aravinth Manivannan launched a paid service for hosting Gitea (later Forgejo) instances, called Hostea. In August 2022 Hostea was renamed to Gna!.

Archive
Gna! project have been archived by Archive Team. Code repositories, sites, downloads, mailing lists from Gna! can be found at [https://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=Gna! Gna! Archiveteam] page.

Impact and reception
Among other projects Gna! hosted the popular software MyPaint and the games Freeciv, The Battle for Wesnoth, Warzone 2100, Hedgewars, and Warmux; providing 100,000s of software downloads every month to the users.

title: Gna!


text: User talk:68.20.13.155

title: User talk:68.20.13.155


text:
Talk:Naked Lunch

Plot summary?
This section analyzes how the plot of the story relates to other works, but it doesn't summarize the the plot. Could someone either rename this section or revise it. --69.85.216.191 00:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Done 80.5.156.202 (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a particularly weak college paper. "The manner in which the novel is written might induce the reader to see only part of the picture—as much as he wants to see. It often happens that something mentioned in the book reappears much later producing thus a series of intratextual relationships and echoes. This idea, relating to different perspectives within a larger picture, is itself a theme which runs throughout this book. The novel's mix of taboo fantasies, peculiar creatures (like the predatory Mugwumps, perhaps a reference to the Mugwump political movement although it is not clear), and eccentric personalities all serve to unmask mechanisms and processes of control, and have led to much controversy. By decentralizing the plot Burroughs produces a series of interrelated literal caricatures, satires, and parodies throughout the novel." Full of opinions poorly expressed. This book deserves better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.122.108 (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite get the plot summary. It suddenly speaks of somebody called AJ without explaining this acronym. Is this AJ the Agent Lee? If so, it is not mentioned anywhere. If it is somebody else, the summary must be missing something. I can't really fix this as I haven't read the book myself. 195.197.205.34 (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Agree, Who is AJ? Siggimund (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Plot summary definitely needs a thorough rework. Many notable aspects and sections of the book, like the Black Meat, the detailed explanation of the political factions of Interzone, the Mugwumps and their use, "hassan's rumpus room", the role of Dr. Benway, are barely decribed, if at all. – AllArtAfterAll (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The Luncheon on the Grass
Earlier versions of this article have included the un-cited assertion that Scholarly research has also suggested Manet's Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe (The Luncheon on the Grass) of 1863 as Burroughs' inspiration for the title. At least six different editors have removed this claim

Despite being removed and re-added so often, this claim has never been cited. I've read about this novel extensively, and I have yet to find a published source that discusses this theory, let alone supports it. Per WP:PROVEIT: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material".

If anyone plans to re-add this line, please include a proper source or discuss here. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Naked Lunch


text:
User talk:80.221.10.56

Hi there. Great job fixing all those pagan links! I've listed you on Great editing in progress. moink 00:39, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi there; I'm impressed with your editing. I didn't expect an unregistered user to make changes indicating a good familiarity with Wikipedia. I encourage you, to create a permanent user account if you haven't already, which will allow others to identify you more easily, allow you to participate in certain polls, and allow you to upload images. Derrick Coetzee 01:22, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:80.221.10.56


text:
List of presidents of the Royal Society

The president of the Royal Society (PRS), also known as the Royal Society of London, is the elected Head of the Royal Society of London who presides over meetings of the society's council.

After an informal meeting (a lecture) by Christopher Wren at Gresham College, the Royal Society was officially founded on 28 November 1660 when a group of academics decided to found "a College for the Promoting of Mathematical Experimental Learning", acquiring a Royal Charter on 15 July 1662. King Charles II granted the society a royal charter in 1662, formally establishing it as the "Royal Society of London." The Royal Charter nominated William Brouncker as president and stipulated that future presidents should be elected by the Council and Fellows of the Society at anniversary meetings each year on St. Andrew's Day (30 November).

The details of the presidency were described by the second Royal Charter, which did not set any limit on how long a president could serve. There were considerable fluctuations in the president's term of office until well into the 19th century. By then, sentiment had turned against electing wealthy amateurs solely because they might become patrons of the society, and in 1847 the society decided that Fellows would be elected solely on scientific merit. Since the 1870s, it has been usual (with a few exceptions) for each President to serve for exactly five years. Under the current statutes, a president cannot serve for more than five years. The current President is Sir Adrian Smith who began his 5-year tenure on 30 November 2020.

Historically, the duties of the president have been both formal and social. Under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, the President was one of only a few people authorized to certify that a particular experiment on an animal was justified, and in addition he acted as the government's chief (albeit informal) advisor for scientific matters. At the same time, the President was tasked with entertaining distinguished foreign guests and scientists.

The changeover of presidents occurs on the Royal Society Anniversary Day, the weekday on or nearest to 30 November, after the departing President's Anniversary Address. Of the 26 presidents since 1901, 18 have been Nobel laureates (seven in Physiology or Medicine, four in Physics and seven in Chemistry). Many past presidents, including all those in the 20th century, have been appointed to the Order of Merit.

Sir Joseph Banks was the longest serving president of Royal Society.

title: List of presidents of the Royal Society


text:
Starsailor (album)

Starsailor is the sixth studio album by Tim Buckley, released on Herb Cohen's Straight Records label in November 1970. Starsailor marks Buckley's full embrace of avant-garde and jazz-rock styles into his music. Although it alienated elements of his fanbase upon release, it also contains his best known song, "Song to the Siren", which was written much earlier than the rest of the material. Bunk Gardner, a former member of the Mothers of Invention, joined Buckley's backing band to record the album. Also, Buckley began working again with lyricist Larry Beckett, after a three-album hiatus.

Leontyne Price attended a concert in New York City during the supporting tour and told Buckley, "Boy, I wish they were writing things like that for us opera singers," to which Buckley responded, "Well, do what I did; get your own band."

"Starsailor" is a literal English rendering of the Greek-derived word "astronaut."

Renewed interest
"Song to the Siren" has been covered by a variety of artists, most notably by This Mortal Coil, which featured on their 1984 album It'll End in Tears. John Frusciante, in 2009, covered this song on his album The Empyrean. Amen Dunes covered the song on their 2015 EP release Cowboy Worship. The British trance act Lost Witness also released a remix single, entitled "Did I Dream (Song to the Siren)".

While the revival of "Song to the Siren" renewed interest in Buckley amongst independent artists in the 1980s, the success of his estranged son, Jeff Buckley, in the 1990s, inspired indie rock artists to look at the career of his father. The British band Starsailor took their name from this album.

The album had a brief reissue on CD by the Enigma Retro label, but like the other Tim Buckley release on the Straight Records label (1969's Blue Afternoon), it drifted out of print due to legal battles over who owned the rights to the music. This stems back to a 1976 separation and lawsuit between Herb Cohen and Frank Zappa, the co-owners of Straight Records. As a result, many of the albums released on Straight (including Captain Beefheart's Lick My Decals Off, Baby) are very difficult to find on CD. In 2006, the album was released on the iTunes Music Store, making it available to the general public once more. In 2007, 4 Men With Beards reissued the album on vinyl, as well as the rest of Tim Buckley's nine-album catalogue. However, CD copies of this and Blue Afternoon remained out of print and difficult to find on the market until the release in 2017 of The Complete Album Collection box set.

Reception and legacy
Starsailor was featured at #50 in Pitchfork's 2004 list of The 100 Best Albums of the 1970s. Reviewer Dominique Leone said of the album, "Starsailor is a masterpiece in every sense. It captured its maker at his freest and most willing to throw caution and sales to the wind, while simultaneously at his most creative and most capable of pulling off songs and moods that, from practically anyone else, would sound cartoonish, clumsy and confused."

In addition, Starsailor was selected as the 47th best rock record of all time in the 1987 book The Top 100 Rock 'n' Roll Albums of All Time.

In 2000 it was voted number 507 in Colin Larkin's All Time Top 1000 Albums.

Track listing
All music written by Tim Buckley.

Personnel

 * Musicians
 * Maury Baker – percussion
 * John Balkin – double bass, electric bass
 * Tim Buckley – guitar, 12-string guitar, vocals
 * Bunk Gardner – alto flute, tenor saxophone
 * Buzz Gardner – trumpet, flugelhorn
 * Lee Underwood – guitar, piano, pipe organ

 * Technical
 * Tim Buckley – producer
 * Stan Agol – engineer
 * Herb Cohen – executive producer

 * Visual
 * Ed Thrasher – art direction and photography
 * L.J. Moche – repackaging for 1989 remastered CD version

title: Starsailor (album)