text:
Talk:War Powers Resolution

Citing Op-Ed Academic Sources??
We're citing op-eds now as an academic basis for bold claims? Sure, Washington Post Op-Ed was written by James Baker and Warren Christopher, both of which have impeccable credentials. But it's still an opinion piece, not a peer reviewed work. Honestly, we could and should do better. Per the Reliable_sources guidelines "An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text."

 * 1) ^ Baker III, James A.; Warren Christopher (July 8, 2008). "Put War Powers Back Where They Belong". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08baker.html. Retrieved 2008-07-09.  "We believe our proposal is good for the presidency because it would eliminate a law that every president since Richard Nixon has treated as unconstitutional..."

Dougbateman (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC) I second your concern, particularly per Glenn Greenwald's op ed being cited regarding 'congressional approval'. Jan civil (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

AllExperts?
Why are significant sections of this article identical in wording to War Powers Resolution at AllExperts? Unseelie 06:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Run-on sentence
This afternoon I tried to improve a confusing run-on sentence by switching phrases around (see the history page). I'm still not satisfied... I don't know enough about this. Have listed on Pages needing attention. - dcljr 05:53, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've removed this article from Pages needing attention. - dcljr 17:18, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sections removed?
Why were several sections removed on Sept. 1 by an unregistered user? I think the (now removed) "Provisions" section, in particular, is critical to the article. (objectivity note: I did not contribute any of the removed material.) Thorne 11:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably vandalism. Reverted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.219.255.117 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-03T20:43:09.

Sections where removed again by someone 4/26/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by LostAxiom (talk • contribs) 02:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Rework
This article needs some rework. It mentions little about the historical context in which the resolution was passed, it mentions nothing of the controvery about INS v. Chadha and it devotes the bulk of the article to questions about its constitutionality with little mention of the weak points of these arguments. As an example, it presents US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 as if it has implied priority over Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 (war declaration power of Congress, which Bobbitt non-chalantly belittles as a "contemporary textual preconception" reserved only for total wars). - ionel 20 February 2006

The section on constitutionality is not very clear. It gives sources of people who complain about the constitutionality and some counterpoints, but no illuminating points as to what the issue is with the law's constitutionality, the arguments back and forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.65.99 (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV
I moved the NPOV tag, because there is no longer any commentary about the current US Iraq conflict, other than reference to the AUMF and the fact it cited the War Powers Act, which is factual. I added the INS v. Chadha summary, as discussed in detail below. The only remaining NPOV section are the various questions about constitutionality -- and I renamed that section for that reason. Coragryph 18:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Declaring War in the United States
December 7, 2005

Recently, the Website Yahoo News exhibited an article (Reuters News Article, “US skewed evidence of 1964 Tonkin Attack: document”, December 2, 2005) about the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, which led to the escalation of the second Indochina War or what is more commonly known as the Vietnam War.

The article mentioned that National Security Agency Historian Robert Hanyok cited in a article he wrote that U.S. intelligence officials withheld a majority of the intelligence on the August 4, 1964 alleged North Vietnamese attack on two U.S. naval destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin. Hanyok’s article shows how far that U.S. government officials (especially, government officials in the executive branch of the U.S. government system) will go to create a case for the United States to go war. I understand that in certain cases where a good and convincing case can be made to go to war that going to war might be a necessary step that our nation needs to take like the past and present historical examples of the Second World War and the international war versus Al-Qaeda’s ideology. However, in certain cases the case that was made for the U.S. going to war appeared not to be as strong as it could have been like the cases that were made by U.S. government officials for going to war in Vietnam and currently Iraq.

The power to declare that a state of war exist between the United States and some “enemy” or “enemies” lies with the U.S. Congress in the legislative branch of the U.S. government system. The U.S. Congress should only approve a declaration or resolution for making war based on a case of 99.9 percent assuredly made by U.S. government officials in the executive branch of the U.S. government system. Making war is a serious thing and a thing that should be considered very carefully before undertaking such a drastic step.

Anon User. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.247.222.47 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-24T00:35:55.

 * Which makes me think of another related topic, since there is no declared war against country X, then they are not actually an official enemy. And all those politicians politicking about talking about "our enemies" are totally full of it.  And any such court case brought against any single individual with relation to an "enemy" is total nonsense and shouldn't receive 15 minutes in court.  Would you look at that...their semantic games to prop up false wars to defend dishonorable empire fall just like that.  There is definately not any sort of constitutional authority that authorizes any branch of government to name an "enemy" and thus it be so.  So...there you have it. It's a topic somewhat related to war making authorizations, but if someone else feels what I have written should be taken down, feel free. User:VeriGGlater 14:13 5 April, 2007

Questions Regarding Constitutionality (Previously Basis of Legality)
I was reading under this section and found nothing but opinions that have the view that the War Powers Resolution infringes on powers that executives supposedly legitimately have.

I was part expecting to find the opinion that War Powers Resolution was a give-away to militarists. That rather than challenging the executive's (coming of the Richard Nixon years and seeing how out of hand things had gotten by allowing executives to get away with this stuff over and over again) use of military with anything BUT an actual declaration of war, bar an actual invasion, the traditionally conservative federal legislative branch caved in and gave the executive branch the War Powers Resolution instead. While there is no question that executives of the US have used military forces literally hundreds of times throughout its history without a congressional declaration of war, one must keep in mind this has been primarily done by a minority (actually) rule.

Take the electoral voting franchisement of minorities, women, and finally the civil rights era when minorities get franchisement enforcement re-promised to them. Up until women could vote, over half the population could not legally have official say. Today there is still a large percentage of the population that cannot vote, namely those under the age of 18, not getting into the arguement whether it would be a good or bad thing. About the time of enfranchisement of women, 1920, was also the beginnings of the modern era of Public Relations. Woodrow Wilson turning an isolationist, anti-war pubic on to a fiery war frenzy, after having been elected on keeping the US out of WW1 is a, if not the, prime historical example of the birthing years of Public Relations. One might also note the robber barons convincing the public that their time had come and gone, but actually hiding behind the legal shields of incorporation for protecting their ill-gotten ammassed wealth and continuing to promote change in laws and popular views of what corporations are. This era extended across the century with attempts to further democratize powers and society being denounced as communism during the Red Scare era commonly known as McCarthyism. With mass media, corporate control of it, the robber barrons and arrogant political elites who continue to distrust public opinion (along with a conservative elitist corporate owned media that covers mainly political elites and their opinions and is allergic to popular "regular people" or non-electoral political movements. -the wide-spread current popular support for impeachment of the current us president is a glaring prime example.  The previous impeachment attempts or resolutions in support of such had not as wide support as the current one does-),  Given the spot-light on political elites, i.e. congress, the major political parties, etc. as the main sources of news (and authority as to what is legal and even at times real), it is no wonder claims such as the executive having the ability to use the military without the congressional declaration, and attempts to even slightly curtail it as being unconstitutional, are given such weight and coverage over other contrary views. Namely that as above: a declaration of war by the congress is the only way an executive can use the military, baring an actual invasion. In which case, the constitution spells out quite clearly that an actual real defense of the country and its people can be done immediately. User:VeriGGlater 18:28 14 March, 2007

I was reading the article and noticed that it is primarily written from the point of view that the War Powers Resolution is legal, and that it is mostly someone explaining how the Iraq War is a violation of the Act. I don't believe that this is a very neutral article, so I simply added a NPOV notice. Joby10095 15:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm not an American and don't feel I have a dog in this fight (IMO the constitutional issues here are vague and the situations of the present weren't anticipated. But the style towards the end has a rather strident tone, and there's really no need at all for capslock passages, it looks almost like a message board fight.  Whatever the struggles over POV please strive for an appropriately serious style.  No offence meant.  142.167.160.212 23:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Took me a sec, but I realized you were referring to one word in what I had typed in. So I took out the caps.  I did not realize people took that as shouting.  I just wanted emphasis.  Although with fascism running the planet as now, shouting would not exactly be out of order. Caps just make it harder to read. Yes I do have bias, as all humans do. I do not pretend the a ficticious otherwise. User:VeriGGlater 11:29 5 April, 2007

 * I moved the NPOV tag to this section, since the rest of the article is now neutral. I also renamed the section "Questions Regarding Constitutionality" since at this point that is all they are -- questions that have not been resolved by the courts. I don't know how to make such opinion any more neutral than just defining what they do and do not address. Coragryph 18:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Wikipedia articles should be evenhanded and show all sides. Shouldn't a properly written Wikipedia article be the same whether it is written by a Republican or a Democrat? (Of course, showing partisan schisms should be fine, if they are pertinent).http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_Powers_Resolution&action=edit&section=2 Editing Talk:War Powers Resolution (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In my opinion, there is no room in Wikipedia articles for hot tempered tantrums, removal well sourced facts, or substitution of "opinions" for facts (especially if such opinions are stated without sources and are contrary to the hard facts). I feel that such actions amount to vandalism of Wikipedia, and should result in discipline or removal of the parties involved. My well sourced facts were removed and substituted for sourceless opinions which were contrary to the facts.

Example of my facts being removed for unsubstantiated opinions: It is a fact that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 stated it's purpose (as stated in it's statement of purpose) was to make sure that the president and Congress share war power (before and after hostilities), in order to comply with the Constitution. This fact, and the source that I posted with it) was removed and the exact opposite was posted without giving any source. Now the Wikipedia article says that the president is the sole arbiter of what is necessary and appropriate during war.  I then showed that recent Supreme Court decisions shot down the arguments of the Bush Administration (and I gave sources for that, too).  That information was also removed.

So, as it stands, the poster and his president both are dictators of the world with unlimited power to silence anyone with facts.

Please note that I am not angry, I not trying to insult anyone, nor am I trying to be rude. I merely object to the behavior of the person. By labeling his information "sourceless" and "factually incorrect," I am not trying to insult the person who posted it, I am merely pointing out that his behavior should not be acceptable in Wikipedia.

In my opinion, tug-of-war arguments in Wikipedia articles, which result rude behavior should not be allowed. (By "tug-of-war" I mean the continual removal of another person's facts and reposting of the same information. . .a war with another poster). I think that it is rude to remove facts which disagree with "undocumented opinions." I will not play this game of tug-of-war, because I feel that it harms Wikipedia. I think that it would be more appropriate to strengthen one's own position by using facts instead of opinions, and by documenting those facts, rather than obliterating the hard work of others that was meant to improve Wikipedia.

I'd like to point out that my posts take a great deal of time to research. It takes almost no time at all for someone to vandalize my work with wrong, unproven, and partisan information. They don't need to do hours of research to post incorrect information.

I think that we have a POV (Point of View) issue in this article. This issue (war power) lends itself to partisan opinion. Republicans want to support their president's assertion that he has absolute power to decide what is appropriate and necessary (preemptive war, torture, wiretapping US citizens, etc). The courts, Congress, many citizens, world views, and international authorities (such as the UN and parties to US treaties) disagree with Bush's positions, and US Supreme Court decisions show that Bush must comply with the Congressional decisions and international treaties (if the US signed those treaties). Bush's approval rating is only about 30 percent. That means that over 60% of Americans disagrees with his positions. Don't any of the people in the majority have a right to post hard facts supporting their side? Isn't it possible to present evenhanded information showing the viewpoints of both sides?

Can anyone dare to challenge a very very weak, already disproved, sourceless, partisan opinion posted in Wikipedia? Can those few, weak, highly partisan, posters continue to remove the evenhanded hard facts which are backed up with hard proofs and represent BOTH the majority and minority views? Do sourceless opinions of a few partisan Wikipedia hot-headed posters count more than the well-sourced ever-evolving hard facts of Supreme Court decisions, Congressional laws, and international treaties?

It's one thing to disagree with a fact, and it is quite another thing to remove the fact from public view.

Surely each Wikipedia article is not supposed to be a soapbox for just one person to assert his unsupported view that his president is the dictator of the United States during wartime?

Furthermore, I don't think that Wikipedia articles were meant to be forums for arguments. I think that Wikipedia articles are supposed to support facts and evenhanded viewpoints. To be evenhanded, we must show the reasoning of all sides. A single person with a proven wrong, and unsubstantiated viewpoint (representing a small portion of US citizens) should not be allowed to vandalize Wikipedia, and remove hard facts, in my opinion.

I reiterate, I am not calling someone stupid just because they don't use (or refuse to use) facts. However, their arguments are weak. Debates are supposed to start with facts, use logic, and, then reach a conclusion. Such conclusions carry more weight than conclusions reached by someone stomping their foot on the ground and declaring themselves to be correct. I don't think that we are supposed to debate in Wikipedia. I think that we are supposed to present evenhanded facts with good sources.

Example of evenhandedness:

Since the president was given the task of using necessary and appropriate war power to enforce UN resolutions, we should show the 23 reasons (listed in factcheck.org) that President W. Bush used to support his notion that he "should" topple the Saddam Hussein regime. We should also show Bush's reasons for thinking that he "could" legally topple the Saddam regime, too. We should also show the "facts" regarding the old balance and the continually evolving balance of power among the president, the courts, Congress, and international authorities). Certainly recent court decisions clarified limits of presidential power during war.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (I and II): http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/027338.P.pd

The link above is one example of a recent Supreme Court decision that limited the power of the president. Apparently the courts disagree that Bush is a dictator by dint of war power.

Also, we must show the reasons that Bush felt that he could use war power to torture POWs and to use war power to illegally wiretap (and otherwise spy on) US citizens. To be evenhanded, we must also show reasons that the courts, international authorities (such as the UN), and Congress disagreed with Bush's war power assertions. My facts and citations were removed and opinions without citations were inserted. I tried to correct the "opinion" that the president of the United States has sole power to decide what is necessary and appropriate once a war is declared. (My citations: War Power Resolution of 1973, Hamdi v Rumsfeld 2004 (and Hamdi II), Hamdan v Rumsfeld 2006, etc). My corrections were removed and the "opinion" was reinserted. The War Power Resolution of 1973 clearly shows that the president and Congress must share war power (according to the War Power Resolution of 1973). Clearly the courts have found that the president must comply with international treaties (such as the Geneva Convention), and that the president does not have sole authority to decide how prisoners are interrogated (tortured, etc). Clearly the courts have found that the president must comply with the courts (Hamdi II, which is the appeal of Hamdi v Rumsfeld 2004), showed this. Clearly the courts and Congress agreed that the president must comply with Congressional decisions. The author put forth the idea that Congress cannot micro-manage a war. It is true that Congress is slow because many members of Congress must discuss and vote on decisions. But Congress has many powers to control wars. Congress can cut off funds (with partisan political ramifications. . .troop support issues). Congress can put limitations upon war power at the time it is granted (such as the limitations placed upon Bill Clinton in the 1998 resolution to aid Iraqi insurgents to take control of their own country without military intervention from US soldiers). And, finally, Congress can alter actions of the president (I showed citations for this, too). I don't think that it would serve Wikipedia to have a tug-of-war in the article itself with an author who refuses to prove his "opinions" and remove the facts and citations which disagree with his partisan opinions. I have no problem with someone expressing an "opinion" in a Wikipedia article, as long as they label it as such, properly attribute the opinion to a source, and respect the idea that those with opposing "facts" can also write. (User: Improve, 17:32 20 April, 2007)

The article above definitely illustrates why wikipedia is not a good source of information. Whoever wrote the response above is a delusional. (Reason) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.161.30 (talk) 08:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the fact that this article talks extensively about how this might not be constitutional, but not at all about any arguments for constitutionality. I'm not going so far as to add a tag, because I have no idea if there are any. But it seemed pretty biased towards removing this power.

War Powers Resolution (comment)
I am not aware of any Constitutionally sanctioned actions by any branch of government that ever granted the executive branch the power to declare war. In fact, Congress alone is delegated that power by the People. (Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 11.) I am not aware that the People delegated to any branch of government the power to modify the intent of the Constitution. Ostensibly, "The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that Congress and the President share in making decisions that may get the U.S. involved in hostilities."

Interestingly, Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 12 states that the power of Congress (as granted by the People) includes the raising and supoort of armies, "but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years."

I have heard many arguments about the exigencies of the global situation today, but none of them change the facts of the Constitution. It is trivial to explain that the federal government has run over the states to the detriment of the People. I hold that the people of the USA have lost the admiration of the rest of the world because the USA is considered to be a war monger.

This contribution to the discussion is not solely intended to elucidate specific elements of possible departure in further discourse on the subject, but provide a landline to the People regarding their superior position.

KendallYoung 02:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a section referencing Justice White's dissent in Chadha. I tried to keep it neutral without turning it into a "point-counterpoint" argument by just mentioning what each position was. I personally don't think Justice White is correct in his analysis, so I just stated what he did and did not address in his dissent, and linked to it for others to read. Coranth1 16:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The provisions section is awfully thin and doesn't really describe well what the War Powers Resolution does. It doesn't "give" the President any authority he didn't have under the Constitution. It doesn't "give" him 60 days. It requires that in all possible cases, the president consult with Congress before committing troops and that he report to Congress regularly on military engagements. The 60 days is the window after which, if Congress hasn't authorized the military action, the president must withdraw the troops. Richanne 04:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits
I wasn't sure what the writer was trying to do where I made most of the edits, or I would have fixed them as he intended. If someone who knows more than I would take a look at a comparison, it would be helpful. Brian Pearson 01:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Presidential Compliance
The article state that every president until George W. Bush has complied with the War Powers Resolution of 1973. However, presidents have always contended that that War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional and have regularly failed to comply with it. See Harold Koh, The National Security Constitution 39-40 (1990), as cited in Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies, Third Edition 286 (2006). Tabitha blair (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad Focus
This is all analysis as to history and constitutionality. How about the text? how about what the act itself says? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.214.184.2 (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I came to this page to see what the War Powers Resolution says. This article provides almost no useful information about that. It just has a lot of esoteric academic discussions about it's background. Ericwag (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Unidentified quote
The passage "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces," does not come from the law itself yet the text seems to imoply it does. Does anyone know where this comes from? 184.44.12.42 (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's right at the beginning of the law you cited: 50 U.S.C. § 1541(c)(3). Ketone16 (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

War Powers Resolution and Non-Self-Defense Warfare
My reading of the War Powers Resolution is that the President may introduce the armed forces into hostilities only in one of three cases (see 50 U.S.C. § 1541(c)): 1) when the Congress has declared war (per the Constitution), 2) when the Congress specifically has authorized it through statute, or 3) in self-defense (i.e., when a national emergency is created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces).  In other words, in the case of non-self-defense combat the President needs explicit prior authorization by the Congress (either in the form of a declaration of war or a specific statutory authorization) to engage in a military conflict.  Furthermore, the President must terminate hostilities within 60 days (90 days if the extension is certified to the Congress as necessary) unless the Congress explicitly has authorized the conflict (see 50 U.S.C. § 1544(b)). Since two of the three cases in which the President may introduce the armed forces into hostilities involve Congressional authorization, it seems to me that this 60 day (90 day) limit is primarily intended to address the third case, which is a response to an attack on the U.S., its territories and possessions, or its armed forces.

Recently, there has been some discussion about whether President Obama will run afoul of the War Powers Resolution if he does not receive specific Congressional authorization within the 90 day limit. That question seems moot to me, since according to my reading the Libya conflict already was not legal under the War Powers Resolution from day one, since there was no Congressional authorization and it was not a self-defense action (as defined above). This Wikipedia article presently treats the Libya conflict in the same manner: as if the only issue of legality were with the 90-day limit rather than with the use of the armed forces in a non-self-defense situation without prior Congressional authorization. Is this, perhaps, missing the point? Ketone16 (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirects for the "War Powers Act" to the "War Powers Resolution" is deceptive.
The War Powers Act of November 7th, 1973 is a law passed by congress over the veto of President Nixon. I am changing the heading to correct this error. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/635679/War-Powers-Act — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usgrant7 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Founding Fathers' View of Standing Army
The previous paragraph concerning the founding fathers' view of a standing army is historically false. A two-tier approach of a small Federal standing army, plus State Militias that could be called up to supplement it during times of war, was clearly envisioned by the writers of the US Constitution. Indeed, an attempt by Elbridge Gerry and Luther Martin to introduce an explicit limit on the size of the Federal army during peacetime into the Constitution -- citing the dangers of a standing army -- was defeated on August 18, 1787 at the Constitutional Convention. I have rewritten this paragraph to better reflect history. Contributor tom (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ignored By Both Parties?
Before I do any editing, I'm seeking some clarification on the last sentence in the introduction. Specifically this part: "Despite the apparent non-ambiguity of its language, the War Powers Resolution has been regularly ignored by presidents of both parties" - The reason for my confusion is this. The two external links cited in this sentence in no way back up this statement that presidents from both parties have done this. I've done some research, and other than President Obama, I've only been able to find one other instance of a president ignoring the War Power Resolution, and that was President Clinton, when he attacked Kosovo.

President Bush had authorization under the War Powers Resolution to attack Afhganistan, and again received it before he ordered the attack on Iraq.

Is there something that I'm missing? Was there another time when a Republican president ignored the War Powers Resolution that I've missed? Because so far I've only been able to find instances of Democratic presidents ignoring the War Powers Resolution. - Seanr451 (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Right after this sentence in the intro, "Despite the apparent non-ambiguity of its language, the War Powers Resolution has been regularly ignored by presidents of both parties", these two citations are given. and Both of these articles are opinion pieces that are critical of President Bush. Neither of them support the statement that "the War Powers Resolution has been regularly ignored by presidents of both parties".

Also, further research on Wikipedia itself shows this: Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists - where the US Congress authorized the attack on Afghanistan and this: Iraq_Resolution - where the US Congress authorized the attack on Iraq.

So unless someone can provide any sort of proof that other presidents have ignored this law, I'll be deleting that sentence from the article. - Seanr451 (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've searched for more sources and have only been able to find two times in which presidents ignored the War Powers Resolution. When President Clinton ordered a bombing campaign in Kosovo in 1999, and President Obama's current campaign in Libya. This means that the statement that it's been ignored by presidents in both parties is false, as both are members of the Democratic party.

So unless anyone objects, I'm going to remove this sentence and its references: "Despite the apparent non-ambiguity of its language, the War Powers Resolution has been regularly ignored by presidents of both parties, some even declaring their belief that the act is unconstitutional.  "

And replace it with: "The War Powers Resolution was ignored by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and again by President Obama in 2011, when he failed to seek congressional approval for the attack on Libya. Some presidents have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional. " - Seanr451 (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the previous sentence was both incorrect and had sources that did not support what was actually written in the sentence, and since no one has objected, I removed the incorrect sentence and replaced it with one that is both true and sourced. - Seanr451 (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just reversed an edit that was done by an unregistered IP address that removed all reference to President Obama ignoring the War Powers Act. I sense an edit war coming with his followers who will do everything they can to force their POV everywhere, including on Wikipedia. Here are some more sources: The Washington Post - The New York Times - The FACT is that congress has disapproved the attack on Libya under the War Powers Resolution. This has been reported by multiple, reliable sources. I'm willing to change the wording of this sentence, if anyone finds it problematic or offensive, but I am unwilling to simply allow the facts to be erased by people who want to push their own POV. - Seanr451 (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to say President Obama ignored the War Powers Resolution. His administration has put forward a legal justification for why the War Powers Resolution does not apply, but that is different from completely disregarding the Resolution. Whether that justification is valid is a separate question, and whether Congress disapproves the attack is as well; if Congress disapproves but the Resolution doesn't apply (as the administration argues), then Congress's disapproval is irrelevant. I believe the statement should be removed or changed to reflect that the Obama administration has argued that the Resolution does not apply, but that this argument is not universally accepted.Npyati
 * Ok, maybe ignored isn't the correct word, perhaps you'd prefer 'disregarded'? The fact is that President Obama did not seek approval of the Libyan military action that he ordered as required by the War Powers Resolution. The fact is that Congress has already disapproved the Libyan military action under the War Powers Resolution. And the fact is that President Obama has not discontinued military action in Libya. The Supreme Court of the United States of America may indeed end up deciding that the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the Libyan military action, but until it does make that decision we have to assume that it does. Perhaps you'd like to reword the sentence in a way that reflects that? Seanr451 (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I put in a sentence using "disregarded," but changing that he "failed" to request authorization to a statement that he did not seek authorization, and including what the administration argued (didn't have time to find the citation - apologies). I think the administration probably is violating the WPR, but I don't think there's any basis for saying that we have to assume that the Libya strikes violate the WPR. If the executive and legislative branches advance divergent legal interpretations, neither of which is plainly ridiculous, on an issue that has not been substantially addressed by the Supreme Court, the matter is in controversy; there is no presumption one way or the other. If the administration's argument is not convincing, that should definitely be addressed, but I don't think it should be part of the initial description. Npyati — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.54.233 (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The War Powers Resolution of 1973 states that the President must seek approval from Congress when involved in any military action that doesn't fall within certain exceptions. The Libyan military action does not fall into any of those exceptions (response to an attack on the US, declared state of war), and you certainly cannot argue that what we're doing in Libya isn't 'military action', so once again I say that unless and until the Supreme Court rules that the Libya military action isn't in violation of the War Powers Resolution then we have to assume that it is. Seanr451 (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The sentence about President Obama not getting congressional approval was once again removed in a drive-by edit by an unregistered IP address without explanation, so I returned it to the artice. Seanr451 (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed two statements from the introduction that were added by another unregistered IP address. The statements contained "weasel words" (charges? WHO made those charges?) and the links given did not support the statements that were made. Seanr451 (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reverted yet another misleading edit by yet another unregistered IP address. It seems that many people simply aren't willing to allow the truth to be stated when it conflicts with their ideology. Seanr451 (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Another edit from an IP address: "He went to help support the revolutionary forces, they were not there to engage in combat." The problem with that quote? U.S. fires cruise missiles on Libyan air defenses http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/19/501364/main20045015.shtml So the U.S. fires over a hundred cruise missiles at Libya and that's not engaging in combat? I'm reverting that edit. - Seanr451 (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Kaspi123 keeps editing the page stating that the War Powers Resolution didn't apply to either Presidents Clinton or Obama. Congress has stated otherwise, so since he provided no proof to back up his claim I reverted his edit. - Seanr451 (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed the phrase "and again when troops entered Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden" after the mention of the military action in Libya being at odds with the War Powers Resolution, because I believe this to be an inaccurate and politically motivated statement. For one, the strike on Osama bin Laden did not exceed the time limits in the resolution for an action not requiring authorization, and more significantly, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists clearly applies as congressional authorization. Gaidig (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

unclear sentence
One argument for the unconstitutionality of the War Powers Resolution by Philip Bobbitt[18] argues "The power to make war is not an enumerated power" and the notion that to "declare" war is to "commence" war is a "contemporary textual preconception".

Have ALL presidents positively declared it unconstitutional?
The intro reads, "All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional." The citations are a 2008 Newsweek article that reads "presidents of both parties have declared it unconstitutional," and a 2011 book by Donald Rumsfeld. I do not have access to the book, but I'm suspicious that the WP article's statement is taking liberties in its interpretations of the source data. If the WP article's statement is correct, we should be able to find better sources. Can someone with access to the Rumsfeld book verify whether or not it provides ample detail to support the WP article's absolute language? MatthewBurton (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

 * That has always been a fascinating opinion, one that flies in the face of both the history of the United States of America and especially Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution. For each of those presidents claim some non-extant Constitutional authority to make war and additionally make a non-constitutional argument that Congress lacks the authority to prevent them from making war. A Declaration of war by the United States is not made by any president, it is expressly issued by Congress per Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution, regardless of the wishes of some presidents and their staff.Wzrd1 (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Fascinating or not, it needs to be better sourced if the encyclopedia says it is true. If we can't, we should modify the language to something like, "All presidents have violated the terms of the law during their time in office." MatthewBurton (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

War Powers Act of 1973
The War Powers Act of 1973 redirects here, despite the top of this page redirecting information on the War Powers Act of 1973 to it's own separate page.24.15.224.86 (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Partisan bias
Sections of this article are neither objective nor historically accurate. The only mention of the 2003 war in Iraq characterizes it as Pres. Bush's response to the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001, with minor detail. Given that the war in Iraq was launched under an objectionable (and challenged) interpretation of the War Powers Resolution, the present article's characterization is woefully thin -- to the point of inaccuracy. = ws — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springdalehistorian (talk • contribs) 19:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Non-justiciable?
At the moment, this article contains the following assertion with a citation request:
 * Clinton's actions in Kosovo were challenged by a member of Congress as a violation of the War Powers Resolution in the D.C. Circuit case Campbell v. Clinton, but the court found the issue was a non-justiciable political question.

In seeking a citation, I find that the claim as stated appears to be false, per the linked case article and more specifically the following footnote (#5) in Campbell v. Clinton, 52 F. Supp. 2d 45:
 * In addition to standing and ripeness, the President also has argued that this case raises a non-justiciable political question. To the extent that the President is arguing that every case brought by a legislator alleging a violation of the War Powers Clause raises a non-justiciable political question, he is wrong. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210-11, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962) ("[I]t is error to suppose that every case or controversy which touches foreign relations lies beyond judicial cognizance.... [The Court instead must conduct] a discriminating analysis of the particular question posed" in order to determine whether the issue is justiciable); Mitchell v. Laird, 488 F.2d at 614 (in some instances there may be "judicial competence to determine the allocation, between the executive and legislative branches, of the powers to wage war"). Because the Court concludes that plaintiffs lack standing, however, it need not reach the issue of whether this case is one in which the judicial branch has competence to adjudicate such questions.

I will therefore boldly change the sentence to indicate that the court found that the Congressional plaintiffs lack standing, and I note all of this here to preserve a record of my reasoning, to ease rollback if necessary, and to provide a venue for discussion if such is found to be needed. —KGF0 ( T | C ) 00:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Repeated section
It appears as though the History section is just a word-for-word duplication of the Background section. Is there a need to have both sections? - 75.73.74.171 (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on War Powers Resolution. 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/20081215114422/http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm to http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.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 08:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on War Powers Resolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151005100331/http://nato.usmission.gov/issues/our_issues/libya/libya-fact-sheet2/libya-fact-sheet.html to http://nato.usmission.gov/issues/our_issues/libya/libya-fact-sheet2/libya-fact-sheet.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016025619/http://nato.usmission.gov/libya-oup-90811.html to http://nato.usmission.gov/libya-oup-90811.html
 * Added archive https://swap.stanford.edu/20090630211140/http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm to http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

What about the Gipper and Grenada?
After all... it WAS the FIRST TIME War Powers Resolution was invoked by the Congress.

Congress puts War Powers Resolution to the test for first time HOUSE VOTES BILL APPLYING WAR LAW TO GRENADA MOVE What happened?

Collective amnesia? Editors who were born under Obama administration (second one), then dropped on their collective heads? Deletionists got drunk one night and decided to alter a bit of history and since they lacked books do some good old book burning...--31.176.204.168 (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:War Powers Resolution


text:
Ōiso

Ōiso (大磯町) is a town located in Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan. , the town had an estimated population of 31,262 and a population density of 1820 persons per km². The total area of the town is 17.18 sqkm.

Geography
Ōiso is located on the coastline of central Kanagawa Prefecture, facing Sagami Bay of the Pacific Ocean. The area is generally hilly, rising to Mount Koma (168 metres) in the northwest of the centre of town. The coastline of Ōiso is sandy and is regarded as the western end of the Shōnan area. Ōiso remains a popular beach resort and holiday spot for residents of Tokyo.

Surrounding municipalities
Kanagawa Prefecture
 * Hiratsuka
 * Ninomiya

Climate
Ōiso has a humid subtropical climate (Köppen Cfa) characterized by warm summers and cool winters with light to no snowfall. The average annual temperature in Ōiso is 15.8 °C. The average annual rainfall is 2144 mm with September as the wettest month. The temperatures are highest on average in August, at around 25.7 °C, and lowest in January, at around 5.2 °C.

Demographics
Per Japanese census data, the population of Ōiso has grown steadily over the past century, with a slight drop from 2010 to 2020.

History
Ōiso is the ancient centre of Sagami Province. The exact location of the Nara period provincial government of Sagami Province is unknown, but tradition and the place name "Kōzu" place its probable location within the boundaries of present-day Ōiso.

As a minor coastal settlement, Ōiso was under the control of the later Hōjō clan of Odawara during the Sengoku period. In the Edo period, it was nominally part of Odawara Domain, and developed as Ōiso-juku, a post town on the Tōkaidō connecting Edo with Kyoto. After the Meiji Restoration and with the establishment of the district system in 1878, it came under the control of Yurugi District (淘綾郡). Ōiso became a town on 1 April 1889 with the creation of the modern municipalities system. Blessed with a temperate climate, and with convenient access to Tokyo due to the Tōkaidō Main Line railway, it was favoured as a seaside health resort by politicians and literary figures during the Meiji period after a glowing report on its location was written by noted physician Matsumoto Jun. Prime Minister Itō Hirobumi, Yamagata Aritomo, Saionji Kinmochi and Ōkuma Shigenobu, Foreign Minister Mutsu Munemitsu, writer Shimazaki Toson and zaibatsu founder Yasuda Zenjirō had summer residences in Ōiso. This popularity continued into the postwar era, and Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida also had a residence in Ōiso to which he retired after leaving politics. The former Itō, Yoshida and Shimazaki residences have been preserved as memorial museums.

Ōiso merged with neighbouring town Kokufu on 1 December 1954.

Government
Ōiso has a mayor-council form of government with a directly elected mayor and a unicameral town council of 14 members. Ōiso, together with neighboring Ninomiya, contributes one member to the Kanagawa Prefectural Assembly. In terms of national politics, the town is part of Kanagawa 15th district of the lower house of the Diet of Japan.

Economy
The local economy of Ōiso is based primarily on seasonal tourism, agriculture and commercial fishing. The town is also a bedroom community for both Tokyo/Yokohama and Odawara

Education
Ōiso has one public elementary schools and one public middle schools operated by the town government. The town has one public high school operated by the Kanagawa Prefectural Board of Education. There is also one private elementary school, middle school and high school. The private Seisa University has a campus at Ōiso.

Railway
JR East - Tōkaidō Main Line
 * Ōiso

Highway

 * (from Tokyo to Osaka, Osaka)
 * Seishō Bypass
 * Seishō Bypass
 * Seishō Bypass

Sister city relations

 * 🇯🇵 - Komoro, Nagano, since September, 1968
 * 🇯🇵 - Yamaguchi, Nagano, since April, 1973
 * 🇺🇸 - Racine, Wisconsin, United States
 * 🇺🇸 - Dayton, Ohio, United States

Local Attractions
There are several tourist attractions.
 * Shigitatsu-an
 * Sagichō Fire Festival

Wildlife
Terugasaki in Ōiso is known as location where the White-bellied green pigeons come to drink saltwater.

Notable people from Ōiso

 * Tatsuo Satō, director
 * Soeda Azenbō, street musician of the 19th century
 * Eijiro Ozaki, actor
 * Miki Sawada, benefactor and social worker

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

authors: 2023年に作成したアカウント

title: Ōiso


text:
Talk:Green papaya salad

Costume 2
In this section let's discuss only the costume and sources that would support that it's needed for readers to understand this dish. Valereee (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

 * You wanted me to post my response to you but the chat is now closed. Where do you want it? Isan1985 (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article is papaya salad. In 2021, there was an internationally recognized, historical event where papaya salad was featured in the form a country's costume.
 * "Costumes worn by pageant contestants were inspired by their countries’ myths, folklore, festivals, and apparently, even foods”.
 * The costume was designed by Saykeo Sittavong of Laos, who said of the piece, “Tammakhoung (Papaya Salad) is our national dish. It is sweet and sour, spicy and salty and it’s what first comes to mind when we talk about Lao food.”
 * – Source: [https://laotiantimes.com/2021/12/01/miss-grand-laos-spices-up-pageant-with-papaya-salad-costume/
 * Food can define culture. Trivia and facts are also important. Readers being exposed to this information will gain a better insight on the importance papaya salad has on the region. Isan1985 (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If people take issue with the costume being mention in the lead then we should create a new section under "cultural reference" as Paul_012 previously suggested. Isan1985 (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Isan1985Readers being exposed to this information will gain a better insight on the importance papaya salad has on the region. You'll have to find someone other than you saying something like that.
 * Even the costume designer's quote doesn't say that. He says "is our national dish" and "it’s what first comes to mind when we talk about Lao food". Nothing about how the costume provides a statement on the importance of papaya salad to Lao culture.
 * And even if he had said that, we can't use a quote from him to assess the importance of his own work. Period.
 * And, no, trivia is not important here on Wikipedia, and not every fact is included, per WP:ONUS. We include information that other people have discussed. Has anyone but the designer ever said anything like, "This costume shows how important papaya salad is in Laos"? Has anyone ever given it anything but a brief mention? If not, it's trivia. Valereee (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Despite my disagreement you obliviously seem to have Wikipedia's policies on your side.
 * However, I still believe that the designer is well within his right to speak about his work, as most primary sources do, and not jeopardizes his credibility or reliability. He is not making an assessment about the quality or importance of his own work. Nothing from his statement shows that there is potential for personal, financial, or political gain. He is a designer talking about his inspiration, which is more reliable than an independent person speculating upon it.
 * Context also matter! He is not asserting anything new or unsupported. He is talking about something that everyone already know about his country’s food and how it became the inspiration for his design.
 * It was a journalist covering the event, who observed that each country wore costumes inspired by their countries’ myths, folklore, festivals, and apparently, even foods. The source and context, here, I would argue is independent and reliable.
 * But if the Consensus has already been reached. Then I am going to move on and not waste anyone else's time. Thank you. Isan1985 (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Origin
In this section let's discuss only the dish's origins and sources for that. Valereee (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thai version of papaya salad on CNN GO
In this section let's discuss only "Thai variation on CNN GO" and sources that would support that it's needed for readers to understand this dish. Isan1985 (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

 * "Thai variation som tam has been listed at number 46 on World's 50 most delicious foods compiled by CNN Go in 2011 and 2018" http://www.cnngo.com/explorations/eat/worlds-50-most-delicious-foods-067535 and https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/world-best-food-dishes/index.html
 * This is another great trivia about papaya salad. I don't believe it is appropriate being mention in the lead. We should find a more appropriate place for it. Maybe in the body of the article as Paul_012 suggest? Isan1985 (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It speaks about the acclaim of the dish, so I don't see why it couldn't be in the lead. Exactly where in the body of the article do you want to move it to? –Turaids (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with creating a new section for all that information but it seems like you guys have decided. Isan1985 (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I too don't think this is probably important enough for the lead. I think it could go into maybe a description section? I do think it adds to the reader's understanding of the dish that it's considered very delicious. And the source is independent, so it's usable. Valereee (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

National dish of Laos
(moving from costume section)
 * Is it common for the Lao to dress up as the green papaya salad? If not, that might not be the most relevant example of describing its significance in Laos. And surely there has to be a better source for the salad being the national dish of Laos than some fashion designer. –Turaids (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Valereee (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

 * @Turaids, I moved this comment from the costume section because we're getting too many different discussions. Let's focus on the costume in that section.
 * I don't think there's any question it's one of the national dishes of Laos, per this article from Deutsche Welle. That doesn't mean it's not also a national dish of other countries. Valereee (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

 * I've added to the lead and the history section that it's a national dish of both Laos and Thailand. Valereee (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning the fact that the salad is considered a national dish in Laos, but rather that it makes no sense to quote a fashion designer on that. –Turaids (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Turaids. Valereee (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

 * I never claim that the costume or the designer's statement is definitive proof that papaya salad is Laos’ National Dish – I only attempted to summarized a Journalist's observations and interview with a primary source about his inspiration for the papaya salad costume as representation of his country's food. I was content with the original edit, before it was deleted by Valereee. I am even with Paul_012 about creating a new section.
 * My contention (see edit history for how we got here in the first place):
 * 1) Both trivia facts are important to understanding the dish. a) CNNGo (Readers: "must be very delicious") and b) Papaya Salad costume (Readers: "Lao people pick this food to represent them"). I have no problem and would not delete any of them.
 * 2) If trivia facts are subject for deletion then why is Valereee engaging in editorial bias and not applying the rule equally. Isan1985 (talk) 08:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Isan1985, I'm saying the fact a food has been called, in a reliable and independent source, one of the most delicious in the world, is not trivia. I am disagreeing with you that this is trivia. The article is about the dish. The source is talking about an important aspect of the dish: that it is considered one of the 50 most delicious dishes in the world.
 * How are you seeing  it's considered delicious as a trivial piece of information about a food? The way a food tastes is probably the most important aspect of that food. Valereee (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact I'm talking myself into it actually belonging in the lead after all lol... Valereee (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Actually, I see what you're saying about it being in the lead. But I would suggest it say "Papaya salad has been listed at number 46 on World's 50 most delicious foods compiled by CNN Go in 2011 and 2018" instead. I am looking at the links and the sources did not say, "The Thai variation". Isan1985 (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * They all say "46. Som tam, Thailand...A traditional Thai dish you can't resist...To prepare Thailand's most famous salad" so I'm not sure how that's not saying the Thai variation? I'm not married to Thailand being mentioned in the lead, though. We could say 'a variation' or something. Not really all that important that it's the Thai version. Valereee (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about Laos nationalism, place of origin, tone, and bias on the Green Papaya Salad page
This page is specifically about Green papaya salad, not Tam maak hung. It's important to note that this dish is not only found in Laos, as it is also eaten in Myanmar, Cambodia, Malaysia, and Vietnam, each with their own unique name for the dish. Additionally, it's worth mentioning that the term "maak hung" is of Khmer origin, which further supports the idea that the dish is not exclusive to Laos. 2001:FB1:88:A95C:C189:BC7B:98D8:BE5D (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue at hand is the origin of the salad, not where it is popular. Where it is popular is a different matter than its origin. Its popularity should not preclude that wp:reliable sources state it likely originated in Laos. It is also eaten in many English speaking countries, which makes it wp:notable and enabling its mention in the English-language Wikipedia. Areas the salad is popular in might be of note and could be added with citations. Adakiko (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said, the page is about Green Papaya Salad, not Tam Maak Hung. The problem is that what you consider to be 'reliable sources' have only made a claim that Thai som tam 'possibly' originated from Laos, which has no evidence. Myanmar also has a green papaya salad called 'သင်္ဘောသီးသုပ်', as well as Malaysia and Cambodia. 2001:FB1:88:A95C:AD7B:54CB:7BDA:CB74 (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reflects what reliables sources say and some of those sources saying that the salad "possibly" originated in Laos is definitely better than no sources saying anything about it originating in Thailand. I do agree with you that attributing most of the existing sources to green papaya salad's Laotian origin is very questionable. The first source just lists "National Dishes" and writes that "Green papaya salad (somtam) and sticky rice are a combination that is genuinely Laotian." or in other words eating green papaya salad together with sticky rice is characteristic of Laotians. The second source simply calls it "Laotian national dish". The third source only lists green papaya salad as something to try in Laos. The fourth source is the only one clearly stating that the green papaya salad is "actually Laotian in origin", but a single newspaper article is a far cry from a consensus. –Turaids (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Green papaya salad


text:
Trust metric

In psychology and sociology, a trust metric is a measurement or metric of the degree to which one social actor (an individual or a group) trusts another social actor. Trust metrics may be abstracted in a manner that can be implemented on computers, making them of interest for the study and engineering of virtual communities, such as Friendster and LiveJournal.

Trust escapes a simple measurement because its meaning is too subjective for universally reliable metrics, and the fact that it is a mental process, unavailable to instruments. There is a strong argument against the use of simplistic metrics to measure trust due to the complexity of the process and the 'embeddedness' of trust that makes it impossible to isolate trust from related factors.

There is no generally agreed set of properties that make a particular trust metric better than others, as each metric is designed to serve different purposes, e.g. provides certain classification scheme for trust metrics. Two groups of trust metrics can be identified:
 * Empirical metrics focusing on supporting the capture of values of trust in a reliable and standardized way;
 * Formal metrics that focus on formalization leading to the ease of manipulation, processing and reasoning about trust. Formal metrics can be further classified depending on their properties.

Trust metrics enable trust modelling and reasoning about trust. They are closely related to reputation systems. Simple forms of binary trust metrics can be found e.g. in PGP. The first commercial forms of trust metrics in computer software were in applications like eBay's Feedback Rating. Slashdot introduced its notion of karma, earned for activities perceived to promote group effectiveness, an approach that has been very influential in later virtual communities.

Empirical metrics
Empirical metrics capture the value of trust by exploring the behavior or introspection of people, to determine the perceived or expressed level of trust. Those methods combine theoretical background (determining what it is that they measure) with defined set of questions and statistical processing of results.

The willingness to cooperate, as well as actual cooperation, are commonly used to both demonstrate and measure trust. The actual value (level of trust and/or trustworthiness) is assessed from the difference between observed and hypothetical behaviors i.e. those that would have been anticipated in the absence of cooperation.

Surveys
Surveys capture the level of trust by means of both observations or introspection, but without engaging into any experiments. Respondents are usually providing answers to a set of questions or statements and responses are e.g. structured according to a Likert scale. Differentiating factors are the underlying theoretical background and contextual relevance.

One of the earliest surveys are McCroskey's scales that have been used to determine authoritativeness (competence) and character (trustworthiness) of speakers. Rempel's trust scale and Rotter's scale are quite popular in determining the level of interpersonal trust in different settings. The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI) is an example of an exhaustive, theory-driven survey that can be used to determine the level of trust within the organisation.

For a particular research area a more specific survey can be developed. For example, the interdisciplinary model of trust, has been verified using a survey while uses a survey to establish the relationship between design elements of the web site and perceived trustworthiness of it.

Games
Another empirical method to measure trust is to engage participants in experiments, treating the outcome of such experiments as estimates of trust. Several games and game-like scenarios have been tried, some of which estimate trust or confidence in monetary terms (see for an interesting overview).

Games of trust are designed in a way that their Nash equilibrium differ from Pareto optimum so that no player alone can maximize their own utility by altering his selfish strategy without cooperation, while cooperating partners can benefit. Trust can be therefore estimated on the basis of monetary gain attributable to cooperation.

The original 'game of trust' has been described in as an abstracted investment game between an investor and his broker. The game can be played once or several times, between randomly chosen players or in pairs that know each other, yielding different results.

Several variants of the game exist, focusing on different aspects of trust as the observable behaviour. For example, rules of the game can be reversed into what can be called a game of distrust, declaratory phase can be introduced or rules can be presented in a variety of ways, altering the perception of participants.

Other interesting games are e.g. binary-choice trust games, the gift-exchange game, cooperative trust games, and various other forms of social games. Specifically the Prisoners Dilemma are popularly used to link trust with economic utility and demonstrate the rationality behind reciprocity. For multi-player games, different forms of close market simulations exist.

Formal metrics
Formal metrics focus on facilitating trust modelling, specifically for large scale models that represent trust as an abstract system (e.g. social network or web of trust). Consequently, they may provide weaker insight into the psychology of trust, or in particulars of empirical data collection. Formal metrics tend to have a strong foundations in algebra, probability or logic.

Representation
There is no widely recognised way to attribute value to the level of trust, with each representation of a 'trust value' claiming certain advantages and disadvantages. There are systems that assume only binary values, that use fixed scale, where confidence range from -100 to +100 (while excluding zero), from 0 to 1 or from [−1 to +1); where confidence is discrete or continuous, one-dimensional or have many dimensions. Some metrics use ordered set of values without attempting to convert them to any particular numerical range (e.g. See for a detailed overview).

There is also a disagreement about the semantics of some values. The disagreement regarding the attribution of values to levels of trust is specifically visible when it comes to the meaning of zero and to negative values. For example, zero may indicate either the lack of trust (but not distrust), or lack of information, or a deep distrust. Negative values, if allowed, usually indicate distrust, but there is a doubt whether distrust is simply trust with a negative sign, or a phenomenon of its own.

Subjective probability
Subjective probability focuses on trustor's self-assessment about his trust in the trustee. Such an assessment can be framed as an anticipation regarding future behaviour of the trustee, and expressed in terms of probability. Such a probability is subjective as it is specific to the given trustor, their assessment of the situation, information available to him etc. In the same situation other trustors may have a different level of a subjective probability.

Subjective probability creates a valuable link between formalisation and empirical experimentation. Formally, subjective probability can benefit from available tools of probability and statistics. Empirically, subjective probability can be measured through one-side bets. Assuming that the potential gain is fixed, the amount that a person bets can be used to estimate his subjective probability of a transaction.

Uncertain probabilities (subjective logic)
The logic for uncertain probabilities (subjective logic) has been introduced by Josang, where uncertain probabilities are called subjective opinions. This concept combines probability distribution with uncertainty, so that each opinion about trust can be viewed as a distribution of probability distributions where each distribution is qualified by associated uncertainty. The foundation of the trust representation is that an opinion (an evidence or a confidence) about trust can be represented as a four-tuple (trust, distrust, uncertainty, base rate), where trust, distrust and uncertainty must add up to one, and hence are dependent through additivity.

Subjective logic is an example of computational trust where uncertainty is inherently embedded in the calculation process and is visible at the output. It is not the only one, it is e.g. possible to use a similar quadruplet (trust, distrust, unknown, ignorance) to express the value of confidence, as long as the appropriate operations are defined. Despite the sophistication of the subjective opinion representation, the particular value of a four-tuple related to trust can be easily derived from a series of binary opinions about a particular actor or event, thus providing a strong link between this formal metric and empirically observable behaviour.

Finally, there are CertainTrust and CertainLogic. Both share a common representation, which is equivalent to subjective opinions, but based on three independent parameters named 'average rating', 'certainty', and 'initial expectation'. Hence, there is a bijective mapping between the CertainTrust-triplet and the four-tuple of subjective opinions.

Fuzzy logic
Fuzzy systems, as trust metrics can link natural language expressions with a meaningful numerical analysis.

Application of fuzzy logic to trust has been studied in the context of peer-to-peer networks to improve peer rating. Also for grid computing it has been demonstrated that fuzzy logic allows to solve security issues in reliable and efficient manner.

Properties of trust metrics
The set of properties that should be satisfied by a trust metric vary, depending on the application area. Following is a list of typical properties.

Transitivity
Transitivity is a highly desired property of a trust metric. In situations where A trusts B and B trusts C, transitivity concerns the extent to which A trusts C. Without transitivity, trust metrics are unlikely to be used to reason about trust in more complex relationships.

The intuition behind transitivity follows everyday experience of 'friends of a friend' (FOAF), the foundation of social networks. However, the attempt to attribute exact formal semantics to transitivity reveals problems, related to the notion of a trust scope or context. For example, defines conditions for the limited transitivity of trust, distinguishing between direct trust and referral trust. Similarly, shows that simple trust transitivity does not always hold, based on information on the Advogato model and, consequently, have proposed new trust metrics.

The simple, holistic approach to transitivity is characteristic to social networks (FOAF, Advogato). It follows everyday intuition and assumes that trust and trustworthiness apply to the whole person, regardless of the particular trust scope or context. If one can be trusted as a friend, one can be also trusted to recommend or endorse another friend. Therefore, transitivity is semantically valid without any constraints, and is a natural consequence of this approach.

The more thorough approach distinguishes between different scopes/contexts of trust, and does not allow for transitivity between contexts that are semantically incompatible or inappropriate. A contextual approach may, for instance, distinguish between trust in a particular competence, trust in honesty, trust in the ability to formulate a valid opinion, or trust in the ability to provide reliable advice about other sources of information. A contextual approach is often used in trust-based service composition. The understanding that trust is contextual (has a scope) is a foundation of a collaborative filtering.

Operations
For a formal trust metric to be useful, it should define a set of operations over values of trust in such way that the result of those operations produce values of trust. Usually at least two elementary operators are considered:

 * fusion that provides a quasi-additive functionality, allowing to consolidate trust values coming from several sources;
 * discounting that provides a quasi-multiplicative functionality, allowing the advice/trust opinion provided by a source to be discounted as a function of the trust in the source, which is the principle for transitive trust computation.

The exact semantics of both operators are specific to the metric. Even within one representation, there is still a possibility for a variety of semantic interpretations. For example, for the representation as the logic for uncertain probabilities, trust fusion operations can be interpreted by applying different rules (Cumulative fusion, averaging fusion, constraint fusion (Dempster's rule), Yager's modified Dempster's rule, Inagaki's unified combination rule, Zhang's centre combination rule, Dubois and Prade's disjunctive consensus rule etc.). Each interpretations leads to different results, depending on the assumptions for trust fusion in the particular situatation to be modelled. See for detailed discussions.

Scalability
The growing size of networks of trust make scalability another desired property, meaning that it is computationally feasible to calculate the metric for large networks. Scalability usually puts two requirements of the metric:

 * The elementary operation (e.g. fusion or discount) is computationally feasible, e.g. that relationships between context of trust can be quickly established.
 * The number of elementary operations scale slowly with the growth of the network.

Attack resistance
Attack resistance is an important non-functional property of trust metrics which reflects their ability not to be overly influenced by agents who try to manipulate the trust metric and who participate in bad faith (i.e. who aim to abuse the presumption of trust).

The free software developer resource Advogato is based on a novel approach to attack-resistant trust metrics of Raph Levien. Levien observed that Google's PageRank algorithm can be understood to be an attack resistant trust metric rather similar to that behind Advogato.

title: Trust metric


text:
Naka District, Kanagawa

Naka District (中郡) is a district located in central Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan. It currently consists of two towns, Ōiso, and Ninomiya. The majority of the area of the city of Hadano and the entire cities of Hiratsuka and Isehara were formerly part of Naka District.

As of 2009, the district had an estimated population of 62,522 and a density of 2,380 persons per km2. The total area was 26.26 km2.

Towns and villages

 * Ninomiya
 * Ōiso

History
Naka District was one of the four subdivisions of Sagami Province established by the later Hōjō clan of Odawara during the Sengoku period. In the Edo period, it was nominally part of Odawara Domain, although large portions were tenryō territory controlled by the shōgun in Edo through various hatamoto.

Timeline
After the Meiji Restoration and with the establishment of the district system in 1878, the territory came under the control of Ōsumi District (大住郡) and Yurugi District (淘綾郡). On March 26, 1896, these two districts were joined to form the modern Naka District, which initially consisted of five towns and 23 villages. Hiratsuka was elevated to city status in 1932, followed by Hadano in 1955 and Isehara in 1971.

authors: 2023年に作成したアカウント

title: Naka District, Kanagawa


text:
Nakai, Kanagawa

Nakai (中井町) is a town located in Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan. , the town had an estimated population of 9,155 and a population density of 460 persons per km2. The total area of the town is 20.02 sqkm.

Geography
Nakai is located in the southwestern part of Kanagawa prefecture, at the eastern end of Ashigarakami district. One-third of the town area in the northwestern part of the Oiso Hills is forest, all of which is privately owned, with agricultural land and the town located along the river between the hills. The Nakamura River runs through the town in the west and the Kuzugawa River runs through the town in the east. Due to the landslide caused by the 1923 Great Kanto Earthquake, the river in the north was blocked and Lake Shinsei. In the southwestern part of the town are hills of about 200 to 300 meters, and the slopes are dotted with mandarin orange fields.

Surrounding municipalities
Kanagawa Prefecture
 * Hiratsuka
 * Odawara
 * Hadano
 * Ninomiya
 * Ōi

Climate
Nakai has a humid subtropical climate (Köppen Cfa) characterized by warm summers and cool winters with light to no snowfall. The average annual temperature in Nakai is 13.4 °C. The average annual rainfall is 2144 mm with September as the wettest month. The temperatures are highest on average in August, at around 24.2 °C, and lowest in January, at around 2.9 °C.

Demographics
Per Japanese census data, the population of Nakai peaked around the year 2000 and has declined slightly since then.

History
During the Edo period, the area around present-day Nakai was part of Odawara Domain in Sagami Province. After the Meiji Restoration, it became part of Ashigarakami District in Kanagawa Prefecture. Nakai village was formed on April 1, 1889 with the establishment of the modern municipalities system. It merged with neighboring Iguchi village on April 1, 1908. The village was elevated to town status on December 1, 1958.

Government
Nakai has a mayor-council form of government with a directly elected mayor and a unicameral town council of 13 members. Nakai, together with the other municipalities in Ashigarakami District and Minamiashigara city, collectively contributes one member to the Kanagawa Prefectural Assembly. In terms of national politics, the town is part of Kanagawa 17th district of the lower house of the Diet of Japan.

Economy
The town economy is primarily agricultural, with dairy farming, mandarin oranges predominating. An industrial zone established near the Tōmei Expressway has attracted a number of industries, including Fuji Xerox, Terumo and Nippon Express.

Education
Nakai has three public elementary schools operated by the town government. The town does not have any public middle school or high school.

Transportation
Nakai has no train service, and is not on a national highway, although the Tōmei Expressway bisects the town. Nakai can be reached by Kanagawa Prefectural Route 71 or 77.

Noted People from Nakai

 * Bassui Tokushō, Muromachi period Zen priest
 * Hiroko Sato, singer, actress

title: Nakai, Kanagawa


text:
Ōi, Kanagawa

Ōi (大井町) is a town located in Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan. , the town had an estimated population of 17,313 and a population density of 1201 persons per km². The total area of the town is 14.41 sqkm.

Geography
Ōi is located in hilly southwestern Kanagawa Prefecture, bordering on the Tanzawa Mountains. The Sakawa River runs through the western end of the town. The Oiso Hills stretch from the northeastern and eastern part of the town, and the area from the center to the south of the town is flat. The Sakawa Weir (aqueduct), which is a diversion of the Sakawa River, flows through the central portion of the town to join the Kikugawa River that flows towards Odawara to the south. The flat lands are mostly paddy fields, and 10% of the town area and more than 30% of the cultivated land area are paddy fields. In addition, fruit trees such as mandarin oranges are also cultivated in the hills.

Surrounding municipalities
Kanagawa Prefecture
 * Odawara
 * Hadano
 * Nakai, Matsuda, Kaisei

Climate
Ōi has a humid subtropical climate (Köppen Cfa) characterized by warm summers and cool winters with light to no snowfall.

Demographics
Per Japanese census data, the population of Ōi has recently plateaued after a long period of growth.

History
During the Edo period, the area around present-day Ōi was part of Odawara Domain in Sagami Province. After the Meiji Restoration, it became part of Ashigarakami District in Kanagawa Prefecture. On April 1, 1889, the district of Ashigarakami was administratively divided into villages, including Kaminaka, Soga, Yamada and Kaneda with the establishment of the modern municipalities system. On November 3, 1943, the villages of Yamada and Kaminaka merged to form the village of Aiwa. Aiwa later lost a portion of its territory to neighboring Nishihadano on June 20, 1956. The remaining portion merged with Kaneda and portions of Soga to form Ōi on April 1, 1956.

Government
Ōi has a mayor-council form of government with a directly elected mayor and a unicameral town council of 14 members. Ōi, together with the other municipalities in Ashigarakami District and Minamiashigara city, collectively contributes one member to the Kanagawa Prefectural Assembly. In terms of national politics, the town is part of Kanagawa 17th district of the lower house of the Diet of Japan.

Economy
The economy of the Ōi is primarily agricultural.

Education
Ōi has three public elementary schools and one public middle school operated by the town government. The town has one public high school operated by the Kanagawa Prefectural Board of Education.

Railway
JR Tokai – Gotemba Line
 * Kami-Ōi - Sagami-Kaneko

Highway

 * (Ōi-Matsuda Interchange)

title: Ōi, Kanagawa


text:
Matsuda, Kanagawa

Matsuda (松田町) is a town located in Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan. , the town had an estimated population of 8,971 and a population density of 237,6 persons per km². The total area of the town is 37.75 sqkm.

Geography
Matsuda is located in hilly western Kanagawa Prefecture. The Sakawa River, Kawaoto River, Nakatsu River and their tributaries form the outline of the town. In the north, the 1,200m-class high peaks of the Nishi-Tanzawa Mountains, with parts of the town within the borders of the Tanzawa-Ōyama Quasi-National Park.

Surrounding municipalities
Kanagawa Prefecture
 * Hadano
 * Minamiashigara
 * Kaisei, Yamakita, Ōi

Climate
Matsuda has a humid subtropical climate (Köppen Cfa) characterized by warm summers and cool winters with light to no snowfall. The average annual temperature in Matsuda is 12.5 °C. The average annual rainfall is 2144 mm with September as the wettest month. The temperatures are highest on average in August, at around 23.5 °C, and lowest in January, at around 1.6 °C.

Demographics
Per Japanese census data, the population of Matsuda peaked around the year 1990 and has declined since.

History
During the Edo period area around present-day Matsuda was part of Odawara Domain in Sagami Province. After the Meiji Restoration, it became part of Ashigarakami District in Kanagawa Prefecture. On April 1, 1889 Ashikagakami District was administratively divided into several villages, including the villages of Yadoriki and Matsuda, with the establishment of the modern municipalities system. The growth of Matsuda was favored by the opening of Matsuda Station the same year, and it attained town status on April 1, 1909. Shin-Matsuda Station opened in 1927. On April 1, 1955, Yadoriki merged into Matsuda. A new town charter was promulgated in 1989, leading to the "Matsuda Plan 21" in the year 2001.

Government
Matsuda has a mayor-council form of government with a directly elected mayor and a unicameral town council of 12 members. Matsuda, together with the other municipalities in Ashigarakami District and Minamiashigara city, collectively contributes one member to the Kanagawa Prefectural Assembly. In terms of national politics, the town is part of Kanagawa 17th district of the lower house of the Diet of Japan.

Education
Matsuda has two public elementary schools and two public middle schools operated by the town government. The town does not have any public high school, but there is one private high school.

Rail
JR Tokai – Gotemba Line Odakyū Odawara Line
 * Matsuda
 * Shin-Matsuda

Highway

 * (Ōi-Matsuda Interchange)

Local attractions
Some local attractions include Sakawa River fishing, Tanzawa Mountain Range hiking, paragliding and camping, and blueberry, tangerine and sweet potato harvesting. Other attractions include the local matsuri, the Matsudayama Herb Garden, Children's Museum, Nature Hall, the ridable miniature railway, the Yadoriki Petting Zoo & Dog Park, Yadoriki Fishing Area, two golf courses, and the Matsuda Health & Welfare Center onsen.

Events

 * Matsuda Sakura Festival (late February)
 * Wakaba Festival (May 5)
 * Herb Festival (June and October)
 * Yadoriki Hotaru (Firefly) Festival (June)
 * Matsuda Tourism Festival (August)
 * Emmei Temple Festival (December 28)

Sister city relations

 * 🇯🇵 Yokoshibahikari, Chiba, Japan, from November 3, 2003

title: Matsuda, Kanagawa


text:
Yamakita, Kanagawa

Yamakita (山北町) is a town located in Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan. , the town had an estimated population of 9,468 and a population density of 42,1 persons per km². The total area of the town is 224.70 sqkm.

Geography
Yamakita is located in the mountainous western portion of Kanagawa Prefecture, bordering Shizuoka and Yamanashi Prefectures. Much of the town is within the boundaries of the Tanzawa-Ōyama Quasi-National Park. Yamakita is approximately 50 kilometers west of Yokohama. Lake Tanzawa is located in the center of the town.

Surrounding municipalities
Kanagawa Prefecture Yamanashi Prefecture Shizuoka Prefecture
 * Sagamihara
 * Hadano
 * Minamiashigara
 * Nakai
 * Matsuda, Kaisei
 * Kiyokawa
 * Dōshi, Yamanakako
 * Oyama

Climate
Yamakita has a humid subtropical climate (Köppen Cfa) characterized by warm summers and cool winters with light to no snowfall. The average annual temperature in Yamakita is 11.6 °C. The average annual rainfall is 2042 mm with September as the wettest month. The temperatures are highest on average in August, at around 22.8 °C, and lowest in January, at around 0.4 °C.

Demographics
Per Japanese census data, the population of Yamakita has declined since the postwar period.

History
During the Edo period the area around Yamakita was part of Odawara Domain, along with most of western Sagami Province. After the cadastral reforms of the early Meiji period, Kawa village was one of several villages established within Ashigarakami district, Kanagawa Prefecture on April 1, 1889 with the creation of the modern municipalities system. In the Meiji era, the town prospered as a transportation hub with the opening of the Tokaido Main Line railway, but when the line changed its route due to the opening of the Tanna Tunnel, its role rapidly declined. Kawa village was elevated to town status on April 1, 1933 and renamed Yamakita. It merged with neighboring Kyowa, Shimizu and Miho villages on February 1, 1955 and further expanded by annexing the Hirayama area of former Kitaashigara village on April 1, 1955.

Government
Yamakita has a mayor-council form of government with a directly elected mayor and a unicameral town council of 14 members. Yamakita, together with the other municipalities in Ashigarakami District and Minamiashigara city, collectively contributes one member to the Kanagawa Prefectural Assembly. In terms of national politics, the town is part of Kanagawa 17th district of the lower house of the Diet of Japan.

Economy
The economy of Yamakita is based primarily on agriculture and forestry.

Education
Yamakita has two public elementary schools and two public middle schools operated by the town government. The town has one public high school operated by the Kanagawa Prefectural Board of Education, and there is one private high school.

Railway
JR Tokai – Gotemba Line
 * Higashi-Yamakita - Yamakita - Yaga

Highway

 * (Ōi-Matsuda interchange)

Local attractions

 * Mount Ōno
 * Shasui Falls
 * Nakagawa Cedar

Hot springs

 * Nakagawa Hot Springs

Camping areas

 * Yamakita Town Friendship Village
 * Lake Tanzawa Campsite
 * Lake Tanzawa Lodge
 * West Tanzawa Nakagawa Lodge
 * West Tanzawa Cottage Camp Ground

Parks

 * Kawamura Castle ruins Historical Park
 * Yamakita Railway Park

Festivals

 * Yamakita Cherry Blossom Festival (end of March ~ beginning of April)
 * Lake Tanzawa Fireworks Festival
 * West Tanzawa Autumn Momiji Festival

Events

 * Lake Tanzawa Fishing Festival
 * Lake Tanzawa Canoe Marathon
 * Lake Tanzawa Marathon
 * Christmas in Lake Tanzawa

Sports

 * Sakawa River Golf Club

Notable people from Yamakita

 * Yoshimi Ozaki, marathon runner

title: Yamakita, Kanagawa


text:
Kaisei, Kanagawa

Kaisei (開成町) is a town located in Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan. , the town had an estimated population of 18,335 and a population density of 2800 persons per km2. The total area of the town is 6.56 sqkm. It is the smallest municipality in Kanagawa Prefecture in terms of area.

Geography
Kaisei is located on the eastern bank of the Sakawa River, in western Kanagawa Prefecture.

Surrounding municipalities
Kanagawa Prefecture
 * Odawara
 * Minamiashigara
 * Yamakita, Matsuda, Ōi

Climate
Kaisei has a humid subtropical climate (Köppen Cfa) characterized by warm summers and cool winters with light to no snowfall. The average annual temperature in Kaisei is 13.6 °C. The average annual rainfall is 2221 mm with September as the wettest month. The temperatures are highest on average in August, at around 24.4 °C, and lowest in January, at around 3.2 °C.

Demographics
Per Japanese census data, the population of Kaisei has grown steadily since the 1970s.

History
The area of modern Kaisei was part of Odawara Domain in Sagami Province during the Edo period. After the Meiji Restoration, the area became part of Ashigarakami District in Kanagawa Prefecture and was divided into several villages with the establishment of the modern municipalities system on April 1, 1889. The town of Kaisei was founded on February 2, 1955 through the merger of Sakata village and Yoshidajima village. It was connected by train on March 14, 1985.

Government
Kaisei has a mayor-council form of government with a directly elected mayor and a unicameral town council of 12 members. Kaisei, together with the other municipalities in Ashigarakami District and Minamiashigara city, collectively contributes one member to the Kanagawa Prefectural Assembly. In terms of national politics, the town is part of Kanagawa 17th district of the lower house of the Diet of Japan.

Economy
The economy of Kaisei is based primarily on agriculture and forestry. The main industry is a factory owned by Fujifilm.

Education
Kaisei has two public elementary schools and one public middle school operated by the town government. The town has one public high school operated by the Kanagawa Prefectural Board of Education.

Railroad
Odakyū Odawara Line
 * Kaisei

Highway

 * Kanagawa Prefectural Routes 78, 712, 720

title: Kaisei, Kanagawa


text:
Ashigarakami District, Kanagawa

Ashigarakami District (足柄上郡) is a district located in western Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan. Most of the mountainous district is sparsely populated, and is part of the Tanzawa-Ōyama Quasi-National Park. Parts of the cities of Hadano and Odawara, and the entire city of Minamiashigara were formerly part of Ashigarakami District.

As of 2009, the district had an estimated population of 67,954 and a density of 224 persons per km2. The total area was 303.44 km2.

Towns and villages

 * Nakai
 * Ōi
 * Matsuda
 * Yamakita
 * Kaisei

History
Ashigarakami District was one of the ancient subdivisions of Sagami Province, per the Nara period Ritsuryō system, under the name as Ashinokami District (足上郡). The area was under control of the later Hōjō clan in the Sengoku period, and part of Odawara Domain during the Edo period. Following disasters caused by eruptions of nearby Mount Fuji, a portion also came to be held as tenryō territory administered by the Tokugawa shogunate.

Timeline
After the Meiji Restoration, it initially formed part of the short-lived Ashigara Prefecture, before was established as a district of Kanagawa Prefecture under the cadastral reform of 1878. In 1889, it was administratively divided into 26 villages.

On April 1, 1972, part of Ashigarakami District became the city of Minamiashigara.

title: Ashigarakami District, Kanagawa


text:
Hakone

Hakone (箱根町) is a town in Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan. , the town had a population of 10,965, and total area of 92.82 sqkm.

Hakone is a notable spa town and a popular tourist destination due to its many hot springs being within view of nearby Mount Fuji, the most visited mountain in Japan.

Geography
Hakone is located in the mountains in the far west of the prefecture, on the eastern side of Hakone Pass. Most of the town is within the borders of the volcanically active Fuji-Hakone-Izu National Park, centered on Lake Ashi.

Surrounding municipalities
Kanagawa Prefecture Shizuoka Prefecture
 * Odawara
 * Yugawara
 * Minami-ashigara
 * Gotemba
 * Susono
 * Mishima
 * Oyama
 * Kannami

Climate
Hakone has a humid subtropical climate (Köppen Cfa) characterized by warm summers and cool winters with light to no snowfall. The average annual temperature in Hakone is 13.3 °C. The average annual rainfall is 2221 mm with September as the wettest month. The temperatures are highest on average in August, at around 24.0 °C, and lowest in January, at around 2.9 °C.

Demographics
Per Japanese census data, the population of Hakone peaked around the year 1970 and has declined since.

History
Hakone is the location of the Hakone Gongen, a noted Shinto shrine which is mentioned in Heian period literature. During the Genpei War, after his defeat at the Battle of Ishibashiyama in neighboring Manuzuru, Minamoto no Yoritomo prayed at this shrine for victory over his enemies.

As with the rest of Sagami Province, the area came under the control of the later Hōjō clan of Odawara during the Sengoku period. After the start of the Edo period, Hakone-juku was a post station on the Tōkaidō highway connecting Edo with Kyoto. It was also the site of a major barrier and official checkpoint on the route known as the Hakone Checkpoint (箱根関所), which formed the border of the Kantō region. Under the Tokugawa shogunate, all travellers entering and leaving Edo along the Tōkaidō were stopped here by officials and their travel permits and baggage were examined to enforce Tokugawa laws that restricted the travel of women and weapons.

After the start of the Meiji Restoration, Hakone became a part of the short-lived Ashigara Prefecture before becoming part of Ashigarashimo District in Kanagawa prefecture in August 1876. Hakone attained town status in 1889. The imperial household established the summer Hakone Imperial Villa close to the lake. During the Meiji period, the area developed into a summer resort for the wealthy of Tokyo and the foreign settlement in Yokohama.

After a merger with five neighboring towns and villages in September 1956, it reached its present boundaries.

Government
Hakone has a mayor-council form of government with a directly elected mayor and a unicameral town council of 14 members. Hakone, together with neighboring Manazuru and Yugawara, contributes one member to the Kanagawa Prefectural Assembly. In terms of national politics, the town is part of Kanagawa 16th district of the lower house of the Diet of Japan.

Economy
The economy of Hakone is strongly dominated by the tourist industry. Hakone is noted for its onsen hot spring resorts, which attract both Japanese and international visitors, due to its proximity to the greater Tokyo metropolis and to Mount Fuji. Sights include the volcanically active Ōwakudani geysers and Hakone Shrine on the shore of the lake, as well as the Hakone Botanical Garden of Wetlands. In April the cherry blossoms (sakura) and in autumn the Miscanthus sinensis (susuki) are noted sights.

Hakone has a number of art museums, including the Hakone Open-Air Museum and Pola Museum of Art.

Major events include the annual JLPGA CAT Ladies Golf tournament and the Hakone Ekiden, a long distance collegiate foot race, held at the New Year, which runs from Tokyo to Hakone and back over two days, partly in commemoration of the couriers who ran the Tōkaidō road.

One famous hotel in Hakone is the historic Fujiya Hotel in Miyanoshita, which was patronized by noted literary figures, politicians and foreign dignitaries in the Meiji, Taishō, and early Shōwa eras.

A noted local handicraft is a kind of marquetry called Yosegi.

Hakone is also well-known among anime fans for being the main location in the manga and anime series Neon Genesis Evangelion, in which it has been renamed Tokyo-3, and there are numerous attractions related to the franchise offered in the town. In 2017, Hakone was included as one of 88 anime pilgrimage sites for 2018 by the Anime Tourism Association. In 2020, new decorations were introduced to the city in the anticipation of the release of the final film of the Rebuild of Evangelion tetralogy.

Education
Hakone has three public elementary schools and one public middle school operated by the town government. The town does not have a public high school. There are also two private elementary schools, one private middle school, and one private high school. (Kanrei Shirayuri Gakuen Junior/Senior High School). The private Seisa University also has a campus in Hakone.

Railway
Odawara and Mishima, the terminus of the Odakyū Odawara Line, 70 minutes from Shinjuku, Tokyo. From Odawara, the Hakone Tozan Line continues into various resort towns in Hakone. Odakyu also runs the Romancecar limited express between Shinjuku and Hakone-Yumoto. From Gōra, the terminus of Hakone Tozan Line, the Hakone Tozan Cable Car funicular goes to Sōunzan. Ōwakudani can be reached by Hakone Ropeway from Sounzan and the lake, while the lake is crisscrossed by cartoonishly decorated "pirate" ships for tourists. There is also Hakone Komagatake Ropeway, which goes to the top of Mount Komagatake. A popular "Hakone Free Pass", allowing unlimited use of most forms of transport for several days, is available. Hakone Free Pass can be bought at Shinjuku Station, Odawara Station, any other chief station along Odakyū Odawara Line, Hakone-Yumoto Station, Gōra Station, any other chief station along Hakone Tozan Line, Sōunzan Station, Tōgendai Station, Sengoku-Annaijo Bus Stop, Moto-Hakone Port, Hakone-Machi Port, and JR Gotemba Station Bus Information.

 * Hakone Tozan Railway
 * Hakone-Yumoto - Tōnosawa - Ōhiradai - Miyanoshita - Kowakidani - Chōkoku-no-Mori - Gōra
 * Hakone Tozan Cable Car
 * Gōra - Kōen-Shimo - Kōen-Kami - Naka-Gōra - Kami-Gōra - Sōunzan
 * Hakone Ropeway
 * Sōunzan - Ōwakudani - Ubako - Tōgendai

Highways

 * Hakone Shindō
 * Hakone Turnpike
 * Ashinoko Skyline
 * Hakone Turnpike
 * Ashinoko Skyline

Sister cities

 * Tōyako, Hokkaidō, since July 4, 1964
 * Jasper, Alberta, Canada from July 4, 1972
 * Taupō, New Zealand, from October 7, 1987
 * St. Moritz, Switzerland, from November 2, 2014 (Friendship City)

title: Hakone