text:
Talk:Michael Riconosciuto

This page, and several Inslaw related pages, has been vandalized by recently banned sockpuppets of Anne Teedham
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertfae (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Awkward phrasing and questionable sentences
1. The sentence: "He was interviewed after the Oklahoma city bombing on whether this type of bomb might have been used." is pointless and unencyclopedic without mentioninig the most credible interviewer involved. Or does he claim that law enforcement subjected him to an interview as part of their investigations? --Jerzy•t 18:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

2. "Riconosciuto was a main source for investigative journalist Danny Casolaro, who died in 1991 while researching INSLAW."—gives too much undeserved credit to the memory of Danny Casolaro. Casolaro was NOT an "investigative journalist"; he was a "freelance writer". Casolaro had a few credits to his name, but nothing which would have lofted him into the arena of "investigative journalism". The mere facts that Casolaro believed in some sort of massive conspiracy, that he died from a questionable suicide, and that he was investigating facts surrounding INSLAW are all outweighed by the reality that neither Time magazine, nor the publishers Little Brown, nor Time Warner placed much belief in Casolaro's ability to handle that story. Hag2 (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * changed "investigative journalist" to "freelance journalist" to conform to the Danny Casolaro page. Hag2 (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

3. is an American convicted methamphetamine chemist, or cooker.[1][nb 1]  check the reference because conspiracy to produce is not the same as production. This article does not state that he was convicted of manufacturing drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winksatfriend (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Riconosciuto was convicted in 1973 for the manufacture of PCP. He spent two years in prison.  Then, again, in 1991, he was charged with manufacturing another illegal drug.  He was convicted on seven drug-related charges.  These are all indisputable facts.  Why you want to nitpick over the relationship of the words "convicted" and "methamphetamine" and "chemist" is your own business.  The facts speak for themselves.  I see absolutely no problem, mate, with the phrase "is an American convicted metamphetamine chemist, or cooker[1]."  I think your remark (as well as your entire criticism) is based more on an emotional bias than a reality check.  ThsQ (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

4. Hag2 attempting to implicate this man in murders committed by Phillip Arthur Thompson is not just error, it is libellous and subject to legal action, particularly in consideration of ongoing murder investigations. Trial witness Vali Delahanty was a defense witness for Riconosciuto, to suggest that he is responsible for her disappearance is more than an error. Quoting Another murder connected to the INSLAW case?, second paragraph at this link http://www.michaelriconosciuto.com/articles/ "Prior to her disappearance, Delahanty told her sister and others that she had seen something she should not have seen and she feared for her life. Delahanty had related to several people before her disappearance that Michael Riconosciuto was being set up and would be arrested." The fact that Virginia McCullough chose to assist convicted serial killer Phillip Arthur Thompson during his trial by intimidating witnesses and witness families should be considered when addressing this page. To suggest that "Eventually, his shady background would implicate him in several suspicious crimes: the death of Betty Marie Cloer [7], the death of Vali Delahanty[8], and the disappearance of Valerie McDonald.[9]" is a minor error does not suffice. Here are some articles on the murder of Valerie and Thompson's role: http://www.michaelriconosciuto.com/thompson/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winksatfriend (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

5. Several persons have been inserting malicious edits around the Inslaw case, including this page, Inslaw, Danny Casolaro, Ted Gunderson and Earl Brian. Persons making efforts to discredit the lead witness to the Inslaw case should not be editing any of these pages. Hag2 has also inserted comments into the page of the investigator of record for Michael Riconosciuto, retired FBI Special Agent in Charge, Ted Gunderson. A link has been made to an article by Virginia McCullough, a person who has relentlessly maligned both Riconosciuto and Gunderson's reputations. Riconosciuto has a document archive set up with foia documents and related articles.

Attempting to characterize a person based on an expunged record for a sealed case is not acceptable, and presuming to know why a record is expunged is not sufficient. There is no record of drugs in a lab run by Michael Riconosciuto, only precursors which can and are legally used for mining platinum group metals. Audio evidence was insufficient for the jury, video evidence would have been exposed as fraudulent if the key witness, Vali Delahanty had not been abducted and murdered. EPA found no drug lab contamination despite claims by prosecution that there was so much contamination that the lab equipment had to be destroyed. Clearly the recent wave of Inslaw related editors are not interested in any of these facts. http://www.michaelriconosciuto.com/articles/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winksatfriend (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

 * *my below comment has been moved here by me from the .3-position to conform with User:Winksatfriend's 06:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC) removal of commentary, and restructing of the talkpage, as seen here . ThsQ (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Oh please give us a break on the emotional rant. If you have documents that exculpate Riconosciuto, then let us see them.  Riconosciuto's record speaks for itself.  Your allegations against Hag2 are groundless, juvenile, and cite absolutely no clear indications of anything to which you allude.

 * You have maligned Hag2 but you have shown no examples. For instance, there is no mention anywhere that Hag2 accused Michael Riconosciuto of murdering anyone. Everything that I have read so far by Hag2 has been supported by verifiable reference data.  On the other hand, nothing that you have written anywhere is supported by anything.  If someone should be banned from Wikipedia, it is a person who appears from nowhere, fails to create an account, and then begins to harangue others who attempt to get to facts.  As long as you can try to remain civil, then you may continue as an active participant in Wikipedia.  However if you continue to slam the other editors, then I imagine someone will come along and come down upon you.  You seem to overlook some truly, good, hard facts surrounding this fellow Riconosciuto.  How is it possible that Riconosciuto was accused, tried, and convicted twice of felonies which have incarcerated him for a good number of his adult years?  Is this part of a massive conspiracy?  What proof do you have of anything?  Let us see your documents, or quit this juvenile nonsense about spooks and murderers behind every door knob.  ThsQ (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Any attempt to use Thompson's murder victims to cast doubt on Riconosciuto's character should be considered suspicious. The references have been deleted, but we have them saved and the original intent of the slander is not going to be overlooked. Hag2 has no business posting on this page and cannot get even basic facts straight.Winksatfriend (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Winksatfriend ThsQ (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

5. Along with his father Marshall Riconosciuto, Michael Riconosciuto associated closely with the Tacoma, Washington conspiracy-theory-advocate Fred Crisman.[citation needed][who?][vague]

 * Hello, Hag2, I think you need to explain this sentence rather than rely upon the crosslink. That is why I inserted the "who" and "vague" inline tags.  Since this sentence is the last sentence in the lead, it carries a great deal of weight.  Right now (as written) that weight seems to drop suddenly as in the sound of a "dead weight" and a reader may feel that this fellow, Fred Crisman, is much more significant than suggested by that STUB article on him.  ThsQ (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Claim: "Computer expert"
The article's opening sentence describes him as a "computer expert." Is there any independent verification of this claim? Has anyone actually seen this guy write code?PoohbahLordHighEverythingElse (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Claim: "16-year-old with an argon laser
Based on his Bureau of Prisons profile, Mr. Riconosciuto is 64 years old as of January 23rd, 2012, which means he was born either in 1947 or very early 1948. He would have been 16 in the 1963-64 timeframe. Following the argon laser link indicates that the argon laser was invented in 1964 by William Bridges at Hughes Aircraft. So, the claim is that Mr. Riconosciuto independently invented the argon laser--and that he may even have a primogenitural claim on it. This would significantly change the history of lasers if it could be verified.PoohbahLordHighEverythingElse (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

barometric bomb
see also Mannlicher-Carcanno Bomb of Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror Riconosciuto was one of many (incl the more "reputable" Benton K. Partin) insisting ANFO couldn't do that - and some suspect a device Riconosciuto is supposed to have invented, a species of FAE or MOAB. 142.177.127.253 17:20, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 'course in the end the feds went with an ANNM theory. Partin may have been precipitous thinking it had to be ANFO, or maybe the feds went with something exotic/obscure so fewer questions would be asked. I can't find online reliable data comparing ANFO and ANNM to think on my own whether it'd make the difference ... I can't even find if ANNM is a high explosive; only a high would do that damage. Kwantus 23:36, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Deletion of material from subsection Early background in science
[This topic was moved here from User_talk:Rocksanddirt.]

[Rocksanddirt], You deleted several verifiable sections of material from subsection Early background in science. Would you please elaborate upon your reasoning. The material was easily verified by the citations which were provided:
 * 1) McCullough, Virginia (17 February 2008). "Who is puppet master, Michael Riconosciuto?". Newsmakingnews. Retrieved on 8 September 2008.
 * 2) McCullough, Virginia (18 February 2008). "Is puppet master Michael Riconosciuto pulling the strings in the Betty Cloer murder trial?". News making news. Retrieved on 20 September 2008.
 * 3) Martin, Harry (16 April 1993). "Another murder connected to the Inslaw case?/" p.18. The Napa Sentinel. Retrieved on 29 September 2008.
 * 4) Martz, Larry (11 January 1981). "The Mystery of the Diasappearing Actress Deepens". San Francisco Sunday Examiner. Retrieved on 20 September 2008.

Please provide a reply within the next 24 hours to avoid WP:REVERT and WP:EW. Please reply here [below this message], in order to maintain the continuity of our disagreement. Thank you. Hag2 (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Good revert, Rocksanddirt. It appears to be entirely in keeping with WP:BLP. Newsmakingnews.com does not appear to be a reliable source, certainly not reliable enough to use as the primary reference in a very negative paragraph. One hopes User:Hag2 above will not WP:REVERT or WP:EW, but instead will use the "WP:talkpage" of the article to work with others to come to WP:CONSENSUS. Risker (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment,Risker. You wrote: "Newsmakingnews.com does not appear to be a reliable source, certainly not reliable enough to use as the primary reference in a very negative paragraph."  I believe differently.  Although Newsmaking News is certainly not The New York Times, nor The Washington Post, it does provide a degree of reliability: i.e. it maintains a position and stands legally with a prepared legal staff behind that position .  To what do you rely upon for your comment? With regard to the "negative paragraph", the items contained within those two paragraphs reference specific, accurate facts.  I will be moving this subsection within 24 hours (via "cut and paste", onto the Talk:Michael Riconosciuto page which the originator of the deletion, Rocksanddirt, may have overlooked in the beginning, and where it would be of greater benefit to all parties concerned in order "to work with others to come to WP:CONSENSUS".  Thank you,   Hag2 (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would be so kind as to link to newsmakingnews.com's editorial policy, any information that demonstrates that it stands behind its reports, or other similar information. When I go to the site, there is not even a "contact us" button on the main page. Thanks for offering to move this discussion to the Talk header, it would be fine by me to do it now, but perhaps Rocksanddirt might want to weigh in. Risker (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Risker, Thank you for suggesting that I locate News'... editorial policy. I am very busy right now, but I will attempt to locate.  Please look sometime tomorrow. Thank you.  Hag2 (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: I previously stated: "Although Newsmaking News is certainly not The New York Times, nor The Washington Post, it does provide a degree of reliability: i.e. it maintains a position and stands legally with a prepared legal staff behind that position ."

I was asked subsequently by User:Risker to provide a link to the editorial policy of ''Newsmaking News".

I too found it difficult to locate a public statement regarding the above, thus I emailed both the writer and the publisher of Newsmaking News (contested items 1 and 2).

Both replied to me quite satisfactorily with private email communications  which I will not make available to the public at this time. However both stated in words of their own that they stand behind whatever they write or publish on the Internet.

I urge any interested parties who may feel that the deleted references to the below items may not be reliable or credible write to Newsmaking News (or elsewhere as cited) with specific questions regarding verifiability and Wikipedia.
 * 1) ''Who is puppet master Michael Riconosciuto?;
 * 2) Is puppet master Michael Riconosciuto pulling the strings in the Betty Cloer murder trial?;
 * 3) Another murder connected to the Inslaw case: see the Harry Martin reprint located at Michael Riconosciuto's website; and
 * 4) The Mystery of the Diasappearing Actress Deepens: write to the San Francisco Sunday Examiner and request a photocopy of Larry Martz's January 11, 1981 article.

I have had my say and I do not wish at this time to pursue the matter further. As far as I am concerned, I can not support the writing of the article Michael Riconosciuto after 14:21, 5 October 2008. Hag2 (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: As of the time-stamp of this notice, I have returned to active monitoring and editing of this article. —Dixie Brown (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. I've been watching it too, and noticed that Anne Teedham placed a Maintenance tag several weeks ago.  I do not have problem with this; I think that it is a good idea.  I added my name. ThsQ (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There hasn't been much movement around here except you and Anne. It is worth mentioning that every one of the protestors who jumped in here on October 6, 2008, and made accusations of conflict of interests, and personal insulting remarks, has not reappear with any constructive contributions since that day.  It is also worth mentioning that prior to October 6 none of those protestors participated in any of the formation of this article from the beginning.  I am glad to see you insert a guideline in the maintenance tag about References.  There are too many editors who edit material based upon their personal opinions without providing one iota of supporting documentation. Michael Riconosciuto will not be an easy article.  It will be continually controversial.  For example, many of his supporters feel that he was directly involved in both the October Surprise, and the Inslaw Case.  But when you dig deep into the supporting documentation, his claims are only that claims supported by his own documentation, or the affidavits and testimony of less-than-reliable sources such as Robert Booth Nichols, Ari Menashe, Babayan, Bernneke, Chalmer Hayes, Ted Gunderson, James Orlin Grabbe and a bunch of other hucksters.  How's that for a sideshow.  —Dixie Brown (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

neutrality
Establishing a position of neutrality on a two-time, convicted, career criminal seems to be a stretch. Proponents of a neutral position need to cite some very good reasons why readers of this article should question the wisdom of two juries. Anne Teedham (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Riconosciuto's supporters should read Michael T. Hurley's 2004 book I Solemnly Swear, published by iUniverse, pages 163-183. Anne Teedham (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I found a reference to Riconosciuto's conviction in 1974 for burglary and bail jumping. Located at the Public Library of Law, a preview of his appeal to the conviction begins: "The defendant was charged with grand larceny. The state introduced evidence to show that the defendant had arranged for a man named Pearson to burglarize a residence and deliver the property to be stolen to him. There was testimony that following a burglary of the residence much of the stolen property was in the hands of the defendant, that the defendant had admitted he had hired Pearson to steal the property from the residence, and that the defendant had paid Pearson with drugs for committing the burglary. The defendant testified in his own behalf and admitted possessing the stolen property...." (you need to log in with an account, then use Riconosciuto in a search, then select the court case about State v. Brandon.  Located in the Brandon case is a citation to Riconosciuto's 1974 appeal i.e. 529 P.2d 1134, STATE of Washington, v. Michael James RICONOSCIUTO, No. 2623--I. )  Unfortunately, the reading of the complete case involves a hefty monthy subscription fee at the parent company Fastcase.com.    When taken in light of his conviction for PCP in 1972, and then a repeat offense for methamphetamine in 1992, it would appear that Michael Riconosciuto is a three time loser .  It also begins to shed some doubt on his "technical abilities" and on his "expertise with computers".  One must wonder: how is it possible that this "10-year-old protege of a Nobel Laureate" found himself continually before state criminal courts and also had time for technical training in VAX//1130 computer systems? —Dixie Brown (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter Videnieks
I created a stub on Peter Videnieks to fill the void which existed. It is now ready for as much additional information as we can find. I look forward to everyone's input.ThsQ (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Riconosciuto is a "political prisoner"....
It has been over six months since User: Anne Teedham inserted the tag requesting a citation from Riconosciuto's supporters that Riconosciuto is a "political prisoner" (see here). Not one supporter has provided anything substantial to back up that claim.

There has been a great deal of criticism from those supporters though. But...as I said, nothing worth substance.

Today, I inserted a reference to Anita Langley's support (located at Conspiracy Planet) only because Langley has inserted herself as Riconosciuto's cousin, as his primary contact, and as his avid supporter.

Although the citation is to an unacceptable and lower standard than Wikipedia usually permits, I do not have a problem with allowing supporters to present their position. In the same vain, I do not have a problem with allowing Virginia McCullough's writings on Riconosciuto's background to be presented.

On October 6, 2008, a great number of critics attacked this article primary because one voice in the wilderness had a conflict with McCullough. At that time, I let the criticism ride because truthfully McCullough's website is a disorganized jumble of news and commentary which is slanted heavily in one direction. This really is not much different than mainstream newspapers (magazines etc.) and their editorial positions.

When the critics attacked this article, I had my say. I have not changed now from that position. The only loss being realized here is the biography of Michael Riconosciuto.

The writer McCullough has been involved with Riconosciuto both personally and professionally for over 15 years, and maintains the only archive of valuable, chronological information that I have been able to find. With regard to the reliability of her reporting, I have yet to find it inaccurate. Her critics have attacked her personally. Which is unacceptable. If they wish to dispute her reporting, then they should present factual material that disputes her facts, not her personality. (The same could be said about Kate Dixon, though Dixon has absolutely nothing to do with anything Riconosciuto.) Hag2 (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Hag, you may be interested in looking at Dixon's disbarment- http://desertfae.com/dixon.htm. Perhaps it'll let you know the "legal backup" VM supposedly has and what types of things that "attorney" has done in the past. Better check which side you're on. desertfae (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC).

 * Hi, Dixie. I'm not too sure I understand what you are doing here.  I've taken a hard look at your current editorial additions.  The structural changes suggest that you intend to develop material around Cloer, Delahanty, electrostatic heat transfer, Wackenhut, etcetera.  But, until, something is "written" about those areas, I do not believe that it is necessary to have their subheadings included in the main article.  Also, I wonder if the details about Cloer and Delahanty are going to lead to controversy?  We need to balance all writing of information carefully and according to the basic principles of Wikipedia.  Originally, your material on Cloer and Delahanty suggested "unsupported innuendo". From the sound of what you have written above, your approach to this article may be too aggressive.  Anne Teedham (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance tag: Anne, I noticed that User:SlimVirgin made several sweeping alterations to Dixie's "editorial additions". I contacted SlimVirgin requesting that she consult here first. I considered reverting but none of the alterations (neither Slim's nor Dixie's) are controversial so I doubt that anything is worth mentioning. On the other hand, Slim's approach was unsettling for two reasons: the "underconstruction" tag was clearly in place on the article, and the "maintenance" tag was clearly in place here. What's the sense of having those tags if they are ignored? I put the "underconstruction" tag back in place. Theo ThsQ (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

structure
Dixie, User:SlimVirgin removed your subheadings, but I don't think that the removal is all that important. I have a fair idea of where you're heading with these things. I was glad to see the headings though because it gave me areas to concentrate upon for background info. With regard to the overall structure: I did not like what Slim did with the subheadings so I altered them according to a chronological adjustment, and labeled them that way. My reasoning goes like this: the use of the word "biography" is silly; the whole article is his biography. Basically the dates are only incidental guide posts. After the article takes greater shape the actual subheadings will develop worthy titles of their own. I see no need at the moment to title something such as Biography, or Allegations, or Prison until all that becomes apparent. For example, in Prison we could shuffle the information about his first prison sentences into the same subsection with the third conviction but a shuffle like that would destroy the overall chronological development. I prefer to see the article developed chronologically first. Then if it is important to reorganize everything (say into subsections such as writings, inventions, crimes...) then we might consider that. Until then, though, chronology seems to be the way to go. ThsQ (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This article requires a major overhaul
Several areas of malicious tampering have occurred. Insertion of homicide accusations have been removed. References to a book, a paid work contracted by John P. Nichols, the subject of homicide investigations of which this individual was a party to, have been removed. Reference to expunged legal issues have been removed, the records have been expunged and references do not belong here, even if reported in error by media sources. References to mental illness cannot be countered without publishing personal documents and since there was no competency hearing during trial, the facts of competency were never put into evidence. Allegations of incompetence due to claims of intelligence matters are clearly overridden as the subject has provided ample FOIA documents with B1 exemptions, exemptions by Executive order and B3 exemptions, National Security redactions. http://www.michaelriconosciuto.com/foia/Winksatfriend (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)winksatfriend

Several dead links have been removed. In addition, the section referencing Riconosciuto as a friend of Ben Kalka has been removed. Anyone familiar with this case would know that Kalka attempted to extort Riconosciuto and his word about Riconosciuto being suicidal should be construed as a threat, nothing friendly about it. The quoted article suggests homicide victim Paul Morasca was a friend of Kalka, yet a third party was required to make introductions. In light of the provable friendship existing between Paul Morasca and Michael Riconosciuto, this is clearly a false assertion. http://www.michaelriconosciuto.com/cabazon/servicecontracts/Winksatfriend (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)winksatfriend

Prison
I can't find a citation for this, I checked to see the inmate finder didn't find him, it was used previousely but he is not showing now. Off2riorob (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I opened a discussion on your page, but should have checked here first. I'm new at this, so I'm still getting proper protocol figured out. While he should be showing on the locator, I don't really think pointing out a person's physical location is appropriate. Do you think this reference should be removed? Winksatfriend (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)winksatfriend
 * We need a strong up to date citation to support such a statement that he is in jail, I would say considering the length of sentence and the dates that me is likely not in jail any more, if no one comes forward with a citation to support him at this time being in jail it clearly should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't have any problem finding where he was located. Using the Bureau of Prison's Inmate Locator, you have two choices: Riconosciuto's Inmate No. 21309-086, or his full name Michael James Riconosciuto.  Both searches produce the previously stated fact that Riconosciuto is incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution, Terminal Island (San Pedro, California) until his release date 06-03-2017.  You can't find a stronger citation then that.  Riconosciuto was sentenced in 1992 to 30 years.  2017 probably accounts for his "early release date" if applicable.24.170.225.180 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Cabazon
Documents from Riconosciuto archives have been the subject of recently reopened cold case homicide investigations.

The comment is very vague and I am left asking, so? why? what happened? when?

The citations are also weakly associated to the subject and the comment. The first one is what looks like a photocopy of some original document that is on a blind site and therefore untrustable, the third citation does no mention the subject at all and the second citation has these comments about the subject....

Computer programmer Michael Riconosciuto wrote in an affadavit that major modifications to the program were made in Indio.

"The parties that were involved in the distribution of this software were involved in covert operations. They were involved in Nicaragua and Central America. And they were involved in operation in the Middle East," said Riconosciuto in an 1993 interview.

I don't think this comment is worthy of inclusion under these circumstances. Off2riorob (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I know this skeletal reference is not sufficient, it was late and there is much more that needs to be done to fix this area, I probably shouldn't have started the section until I had more information assembled. There are breaking stories, I may have messed up a link, I had an entirely wrong link up at first. I also linked to his personal document archive to establish that documents being discussed in media actually do come from him, although I would prefer to link to the specific documents, rather than a page. This section will be improved once there has been sufficient time to develop it, but if you think it should be removed until more links and verification can be put into place, then I don't have a problem with that. Also, if it is not appropriate to put links to a subject's personal documents in support of a statement or position, please let me know. If this person has a document archive which contains actual documentation (as opposed to personal research) related to ongoing media interests, it seems to be a non-typical issue. Thanks for your input. Winksatfriend (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)winksatfriend
 * We don't have a deadline here, lets take our time and allow other comments, feel free to ask me for any guidance you need, we have tomorrow and the day after...and the day after if we like, regards, till tomorrow. Off2riorob (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

For future reference
[https://web.archive.org/web/20081121122455/http://archives.cjr.org/year/93/3/spooky.asp Berlet, Chip. "Big Stories, Spooky Sources." Columbia Journalism Review, May-June 1993.] -Location (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Riconosciuto. 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/20081024204513/http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/INSLAW/inslaw_hr.report to http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/INSLAW/inslaw_hr.report

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) 01:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

 * In the first paragraph showing reference sources ([3][4] validating Michael Riconosciuto's claim that he had been threatened by the DoJ for his allegations about Inslaw/Promis software theft and back-door modification have either been removed or changed and no longer provide reference sources. Unusually, one the sources is the Internet Web Archive which usually is a safe reliable archive for news articles etc.
 * Have these links been deliberately altered by someone? Or has someone removed the original articles from the Internet Web Archive? It's unusual for Web archival sites to remove archived Web pages especially news stories. 2A04:4A43:8ADF:F656:FD4F:1F1:D038:4B7 (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of Bua report in the lede?
It is unclear to me whether or not we should include the Bua report's critique of Riconosciuto in the lede.

See this discussion on the Mueller report:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_264#Mueller_Report

I think the raw report should be moved from the lede. -- Hunan201p (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

inconsistencies
being invited to Stanford, and being offered Navy college scholarship. did he take them up? did he study engineering at one point so as to work as an "engineer for a mine" ? who is Hercules company and how is it related to rhe article? 84.215.194.129 (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Image Request
Emiya1980 (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Michael Riconosciuto


text:
Category:Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania

Articles and categories related to Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania.

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


text:
Hentriacontane

Hentriacontane, also called untriacontane, is a solid, long-chain alkane hydrocarbon with the structural formula CH3(CH2)29CH3. It is the main component of Paraffin wax.

It is found in a variety of plants, including peas (Pisum sativum), Acacia senegal, Gymnema sylvestre and others, and also comprises about 8–9% of beeswax. It has 10,660,307,791 constitutional isomers.

title: Hentriacontane


text:
Vegas (disambiguation)

Vegas (Spanish for fertile valleys) is short for Las Vegas, a major city and tourist destination in the United States.

Vegas may also refer to:

Places

 * Vegas Creek, Nevada, an historical place located southeast of Las Vegas
 * Vegas, Cayey, Puerto Rico, a barrio
 * Vegas, Yauco, Puerto Rico, a barrio

People

 * Dimitri Vegas (Dimitri Thivaios, born 1982), Belgian DJ
 * Jhonattan Vegas, Venezuelan golfer
 * Johnny Vegas, English actor and comedian
 * Koke Vegas (Jorge Ruiz Ojeda, born 1995), Spanish football goalkeeper
 * Lolly Vegas, musician
 * Mr. Vegas, Jamaican dancehall singer
 * Pat Vegas, musician
 * Sebastián Vegas (born 1996), Chilean footballer
 * Tony Vegas, member of the turntablist DJ crew Scratch Perverts

Algorithms and technology

 * Magix Vegas Pro, video and audio editing software
 * Orange Vegas, a touchscreen mobile phone released by Orange in 2009
 * TCP Vegas, a congestion avoidance algorithm
 * VEGAS algorithm

Games

 * Fallout: New Vegas, a 2010 video game
 * Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas, a 2006 video game
 * Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2, a 2007 video game

Groups

 * Vegas (band), a Greek band
 * Vegas (duo), a musical collaboration of Terry Hall and David A. Stewart

Albums

 * Vegas (The Crystal Method album)
 * Vegas (Vegas album), Hall and Stewart's 1992 album

Songs

 * "Vegas" (Doja Cat song), a 2022 song by Doja Cat from the 2022 film Elvis
 * "Vegas" (Sleeper song), a 1995 song by Sleeper
 * "Vegas", a 2014 song by Bad Meets Evil from Shady XV
 * "Vegas", a 2007 song by Calvin Harris from I Created Disco
 * "Vegas", a 2000 song by New Found Glory from New Found Glory
 * "Vegas", a 2007 song by Sara Bareilles from Little Voice
 * "Goin' to Vegas", a 1998 song by Jimmy Ray from Jimmy Ray

Television

 * Vegas (1978 TV series), an American crime drama television series on ABC
 * Vegas (2012 TV series), an American period drama television series on CBS
 * Vegas (New Zealand TV series), a New Zealand drama television series on TVNZ
 * "Vegas" (Malcolm in the Middle), a 2003 episode
 * "Vegas" (Roseanne), a 1991 episode
 * "Vegas" (Stargate Atlantis), a 2009 episode

Other arts, entertainment, and media

 * Vegas (pinball machine)
 * Vegas, part three of the limited series Herogasm as part of The Boys comic book franchise

Other uses

 * Vegas Oil and Gas, a petroleum exploration company in Egypt

title: Vegas (disambiguation)


text: Wikipedia:Multilingual ranking/October 2004


text:
Category:Internet protocols

This category contains network protocols used primarily on the Internet (whether standardised or not).

title: Category:Internet protocols


text:
Talk:2007 Ontario general election

Opinion polls
Should there be consistent standards for the opinion polls? Two SES polls currently show undecided voters, although the links also show stats with just committed voters. All other polls simply show committed voters. I think the SES polls and all future polls should just show committed votes as a consistent criterion. Readers can still check links and footnotes for varying details in each poll. The same logic applies to election results: spoiled ballots and non-voters usually aren't counted in percentage totals. G(A)IA, 2007.09.01 @ 01.53 UTC.

 * I agree, and have changed the numbers. Undecideds are overwhelmingly people who simply won't end up voting and keeping track of them doesn't say much about how the province will vote. - SimonP 14:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I definitely agree. The undecided voters are often put into the polls. As with the SES one that says the Liberals at 30% and PC's at 30%, if you read that same PDF, it has them both at 35%, and the NDP at 19%...but on the wiki page it says NDP 16 because of the whole undecided thing. Get rid of it I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.46.136 (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I disagree because the undecided voters do turn into voters, and they affect the accuracy of the poll. The aggregate poll, at least in SES's case, is point five percent more accurate.  Furthermore, over time, the undecided goes down, as people make up there mind.--Abebenjoe 23:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I see no evidence that when "undecided voters do turn into voters...they affect the accuracy of the poll." In fact, the most accurate poll to predict the last federal election was an SES poll that excluded undecided voters.  Evidence such as this suggests that undecided voters who do end up voting seem to cast their votes in proportion with decided voters.  Beyond this reason is the matter of having consistent criteria between polls in order to make intelligible comparisons between them.  There might be merit in creating a separate chart with polls that show undecided voters in order to address this phenomenon (a point that could be debated further).  In the meantime, the polls in the current chart should only show committed voters for comparison purposes and consistency.  G(A)IA, 2007.09.13 @ 02.34 UTC.

 * Again, I disagree with your point that undecided voters are insignificant. However, I've changed the entire poll section to reflect committed voters, with aggregate (all voters surveyed) results in the footnotes.--Abebenjoe 17:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I never said "undecided voters are insignificant," just that that whatever is significant about that group is inconsistent with the current chart. I agree that, when the information is available, polls that show undecided voters should have these statistics shown somewhere (just not in a chart of polls based on criteria that excludes undecided voters).  I think showing them in footnotes is a good idea.  I also wouldn't want to discourage anyone from creating a separate chart or even another section in the article that deals with undecided/uncommitted voters and the issues that pertain to this group.  G(A)IA, 2007.09.13 @ 20.45 UTC.

 * I think too it should be separately noted somewhere. It looks like that was written in the edit summary box but it's not reflected in the content page at all... it's still as it was with the undecided factored in which makes things very confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kflack (talk • contribs) 04:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In an unrelated story, I think they might have one or two new ones out now, it's oct 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dofer49- (talk • contribs) 01:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What was bad faith about my edit?
Can somebody explain to me why my contribution was reverted as being of "bad faith" by Nat?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ontario_general_election%2C_2007&diff=155127801&oldid=155116595

Maybe I'm just new to this whole wikipedia thing, but I read over the page on "good faith" edits and Nat's decision puzzled me (especially considering that the 'good faith' page even had specific sections on dealing with new wikipedians, which I am).

Is adding a site with polling trends and a meta-analysis of seat projections for the Ontario election bad faith? Can somebody please explain to me what exactly is 'bad faith' about what I did?

The contribution was not causing "deliberate disruption just to prove a point." The contribution was not "playing games with policies." And the contribution -- adding the only site with a meta-analysis of the Ontario general election that I'm aware of -- is most certainly not intended as vandalism.

Nat seems to think that including the information in the analysis does more harm than good to the article than having it does.

Can I get some feedback from people as to what they think and/or how to go about reverting this change?

Ottawastudent 04:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There was nothing that indicated your edits were done in bad faith. The only problem with your edit was the addition of a website that basically gave the same information as one or two of those site already listed. That is why I had your edits reverted. It is my personal opinion that we already have too many external links on this page. Please see WP:NOT. Regards, nattan g 04:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? Please point me to which of the other external links that have a meta-analysis of seat projections or please point me to the other external links which have 6 month polling trend graphs with rolling averages.Ottawastudent 04:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just a blog (assumably yours) with a few numbers in it. Whoop-dee-doo. If your blog was as comprehensive as say, Democraticspace, it would be valuable. However, yours is more blog (and very opinionated at that). I'm dont think calling the NDP "cowards" is NPOV at all.-- Earl Andrew - talk 05:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay so first the agurment was that the edit was in bad faith -- something I'm still waiting to hear an apology on. Then it was that Nat, the Tory, felt that 8 is too many external links which is ridiculous since other comparable articles, such as the one on the 40th Canadian federal election has 21 external links and that election date isn't even set yet.  Now I'm being told that the external link was not NPOV.  What wasn't neutral about what I linked to?  What was baissed about it?  It includes every poll (including one that nodice forgot), it treats all parties equally.  It is not written from a partisan perspective.  Did I link to a post that called the NDP "cowards"?  If Earl Andrew is opposed to linking to this resource just because somewhere else on that site (somewhere not linked to), in the completely different political opinions section of that site, there is criticism going on which is critical of the NDP, then, I have to ask, who's really being of bad faith here?  I don't see what's different between Paulitics and Greg Morrow's Democraticspace.com.  Greg's Democraticspace has a section which is unbaissed -- it's the section which was linked to on this article.  But Greg also has very progressive opinions on a variety of issues and he discusses them regularly.  So Earl, what's REALLY your gripe with the external link?  The link's purpose is not to rival Democraticspace, that would be silly.  The link was inserted because it was the only meta-analysis on the internet of the seat projections for this election and that, I believe, is significant and worth including.  So, and let's be fair here Earl, either including the only meta-analysis of the entire election helps the article, or it's harmful to provide that information.  It was not in bad faith.  It was not compromising the article by making too many links, and the page linked to was just as NPOV as the portion of Greg's Democraticspace which was linked to. Ottawastudent 15:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Distinguish stats from analysis; foreground POV of analysis to retain NPOV. Stats should not be removed because they’re not “as comprehensive as say, Democraticspace.”  This is strange reasoning for two reasons:  Firstly, the stats provided by the source in question are objective, even if the analysis of them isn’t (that’s the nature of analysis — some people just foreground their ideology while others don’t).  Secondly, democraticSPACE, while very comprehensive, is far from objective or even democratic for that matter.  Case in point:  There have been four recent threads on democraticSPACE about funding religious schools in Ontario with over 70 comments between them.  The position of democraticSPACE has been to support the Liberal status quo on the issue while dismissing the U.N. Commissions that have found Ontario’s education system in violation of human rights.  democraticSPACE is favouring statistics from The Fraser Institute (one of the most neo-conservative think-tanks out there) instead of the U.N. findings.  No one should have a problem with democraticSPACE taking this position and using stats from The Fraser Institute, but since the majority of responses have been critical the website has been censoring and pulling down some of the most critical comments that cite different positions and different stats.  As of the time of this posting, two of these threads have been shut off to further comments.  I write this as a cautionary note to those who dismiss stats from alternative sources in the name of “objectivity” or “democracy.” Censorship in the name of whatever bogus reason — whether on Wikipedia, democraticSPACE, or elsewhere — should not be tolerated.  The stats in question here should not be removed for the reasons given thus far.  Providing analysis, too, is also fine so long as it is made clear that it is coming from a particular perspective.  NPOV is *not* about negating POV (an impossible task), it is about fairly weighing significant POVs.  G(A)IA 20:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since it looks as though nobody has any further objections or constructive criticism to having this information included, I'm going to re-introduce the external link into the article.Ottawastudent 01:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I object. I don't really care what the other articles have or don't have. The point is, there are way to many "forcaster"/blog sites already listed. And also, the site that you added is basically a regurgitation of the information already posted on the other websites. The way we do things here is by consensus, and there is clearly no consensus to add the external link. Therefore, I am removing the external link as there is no consensus to add Ottawastudent's external link and per policy. nattan g 00:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Nat, the way we do things is that you have to give a logical reason for why something should or shouldn't be included, you can't just state it without backing that up merely because you happen to have decided on your own that you don't like the site. Now, you first claimed that the edit was in bad faith.  When challenged with this contention, you then changed your tune and said that there are too many links -- which I demonstrated to be demonstrably false since the Canadian 40th General Election page has 300% more external links than this page does and that election isn't even under way yet.  Moreover, your claim that the article has too many links is also laughable because there was a new 'forecaster/blog' site linked to earlier today and you hypocritically had no objections at all to that one.  You just decided that you didn't like the site that I included.  So, how can we take your actions seriously when it's clear that you don't actually believe what you yourself argued previously.  So if you're going to hold the opinion that this article has too many links, then you're going to have to explain why this article should be different from all others, since objectively, this article DOESN'T have too many links.  You can't merely assert it as if you're the god of what gets on Wikipedia.  You then write that there is no useful information on the linked site.  I have already asked you to back up this contention, and you ignored me and merely reverted my edit without responding in good faith to my request.  When you actually answer my questions in good faith and explain why including this site harms the article, then I would say it's reasonable to remove it.  Until that time, you're merely engaging in an immature pissing contest which I have no interest in participating in.Ottawastudent 01:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see External links, which states that one should never add a link to one's own page, and also that links to blogs are to generally be avoided. - SimonP 15:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP - Well, clearly we don't have a serious problem with linking to blogs since the article links to Greg Morrow's blog. However, that said, I was not aware that it was considered bad form to link to one's own site.  So, given that realization -- and as it is a valid argument against me re-introducing the link (as opposed to Nat's arguments above) -- I will not attempt to re-introduce the external link due to possible conflicts of interest on my part.  As an aside, however, I do believe that the only meta-analysis and the only universal swing projection are useful tools, so I do believe some other wikipedia user ought to consider its inclusion on its merits, but I will not personally attempt to re-introduce it.Ottawastudent 19:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am adding an external link to Paulitics Projection Page. I agree that their blog is not referencable material, but Paul's calculations using the UBC Antweiler Election Forecaster is the only current application. Similarly, the Swing Model is based on sound methodology. Neither of these projections is available on a consistent basis on the web, yet they are most valuable and insightful to those seeking such studies. Paul's two models were added last week to our 6-model avg at TrendLines based on their merits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredhutter (talk • contribs) 01:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

the editor of the "paulitics" blog seems to think that a certain editor (nat) is only saying his site should not be included, because he is a tory. first of all, that makes me sick, and that comment made me lose all respect for the editor, as I myself am a tory. secondly, despite what I think about the editor, the blog does offer information that is not avilable on other sites, that being an analysis of predictions. This is something that is valuable as it's important to keep in mind the differing methodoligies. What's needed is not to target a single link, but to come up with a rule for all future elections about these kind of prediction/projection sites. so in summary. site = good, editor = bad, having no set rules to deal with these situations = worse 74.14.16.208 05:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessment
I have assessed this as a B Class, given its detail and organization, although it really needs some more cleanup and prose. I have assessed this as low importance, as it is a highly specialized topic within Canada. Cheers, CP 02:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Freedom and COR parties
Whos adding the candidate numbers for those parties? they haven't nominated anyone yet according to there websites and if they have tell me where to get the info because nobody is putting the parties candidates in the list by region. 70.54.2.165 21:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the Freedom Party is currently running 2 candidates. I doubt that the CoR will run any candiadates, seeing as their candidate numbers have been dwindling since 1990. Morgan695 02:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

both FP candidates announced on the forum Free Dominion Nickjbor 05:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes we'll see if the Cor party has become defunct and if the Freedom party runs less candidates then the libertarians!

74.14.147.223 23:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

LEEDS-GRENVILLE GREENS
I know who the damn Green candidate for leeds-grenville is, the GPO just hasn't updated the page yet. Jeanie Warnock will even be at my house tomorrow where we'll start collecting signatures for the returning officer.

74.14.146.93 00:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Then put that in your edit summary, don't just randomly add uncited information (as you've done often in the past). Morgan695 00:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been involved with the GPO/GPC since I was 12 years old, I'm sure thats more then you can say. Heres the news article from the Recorder and Times. That would be the Brockville newspaper. Where I live in the riding: http://newsfeed.recorder.ca/cgi-bin/LiveIQue.acgi$rec=23697 Lets now assume that when I add a Green candidate to the list, i know what the hell i'm talking about alrighty.

Political junky 01:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CIVIL - one should always take a polite tone in Wikipedia discussions. Knowing "what the hell you're talking about" is not enough to post information on Wikipedia (especially if such information has only been posted in a local newspaper, and not the GPO official website), you must cite a link in an edit summary. Thank you. Morgan695 01:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

 * "don't just randomly add uncited information (as you've done often in the past)." was very uncivil, not everything needs citation, especially not clear facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.56.254 (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the article, You need to read it to understand that yes, she is the candidate in the riding. shes also in the PROCESS of creating her own campaign site, I personally have a couple of signs up on my lot, and i'm sure if you contacted the GPO they can confirm Jeanie is actually the candidate as I was just on the phone with her a few minutes ago. You really shouldn't concern yourself with something I know all about and you've shown to me you know very little about.

Political junky 01:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support or experience with a party does not give you superiority over all articles and topics related to it. WP:CITE states that one must cite "material challenged or likely to be challenged", such a candidate who has only been referenced in a local newspaper with a limited audience. Morgan695 02:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That may be true, however not only am i involved with the party, not only involved with the CA, not only involved with the campaign to elect Jeanie Warnock, but also live in the riding with a sign supporting the candidate. So no, I don't expect superiority over every issue, but when it comes to my party, my riding, my candidate, and i'm being challenged by some one who knows absolutly nothing about her, the riding, or the campaign in leeds-grenville I question whos writting many of the articles on Wikipedia. Political junky 02:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I have not once 'challenged' the validity of your edit. I removed the candidate's name because there was no citation on the GPO offical website, which tends to have preference over local newspapers. Furthermore, the fact that I do not live in your riding does not make your edits superior to mine. You are free to edit the article on my riding as you see fit - Wikipedia is 'the free encyclopedia', after all. Morgan695 02:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, if a candidate has not yet collected the 25 signature needed to officially run as a candidate in Ontario, then he/she is still not officially on the ballot and therefore cannot be placed on this list. Until Elections Ontario has officially recognize the candidate or his/her name is on his/her party's website, he/she should remain off this list until that happens. nattan g 07:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

 * WP is an enclycopedia and not a blog roll. Entries should have sources and are very strict when it come to  Biographies of living persons.  The candidate may have even told you they are going to be a candidate, but until it official and verified, then you can't put it on the page for Ontario general election, 2007.  You may want to place the information on the candidate's page, but only if it is a major incident.  Just summarizing the candidate's plan for a year before the election would be Undue Weight -- Statsone  16:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Untrue, We placed candidates on this page even before an election was called. Jeanie is verified as the candidate with the Green Party of Ontario and will be submitting her information to elections ontario later today. Again, we've been adding candidates even before the election was called so you and I both know that its a load of dung saying they have to be registered in order to be on wikipedia. http://www.vote-green.ca/jeanie.warnock

I'd also like to note, you all thought Mark Raby was the Green candidate until a few days ago. I know Mark personally and he only expressed light interest in running, never once committing to run. Please contact the GPO if you don't trust me with the issue.

Political junky 17:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Now you have a source. I still think it would be better to wait until she has actually files her application as it would be official at that time. -- Statsone  17:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussions on this page
Would everyone please read the top of this page. Where it links to: | What Wikipedia is not - a FORUM

Quoting from the page:

 *  Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. Also, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate. Wikipedians who wish to hold casual discussions with fellow Wikipedians can use the IRC channels, such as #wikipedia. Note that this is an IRC channel, not a message board.

This means, this page is for discussion on how to improve the article. Debate as to who wins the elections should be taken elsewhere. Please keep in mind NPOV and SOAP -- Statsone  04:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

 * where are these non-page-related comments? I dont see any. were they deleted from the history? I do come here to improve the article, but in order to do that it requires discussion, like for example, why this was posted. Nickjbor 07:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Why is there NO mention that catholic schools have funding because of the Canadian constitution? The section is bias and should reflect the history. spstarr 12:23, 12 October 2007 (EDT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.44.230 (talk)

 * Uh?

 * Without taking sides or making one side or user more important than other, how about ( Some have been archived):

 * It's looking to me like the next election will give
 * Ontario legislature was in a minority position...kinda like the recent Québec elections
 * Do you support the green party

 * Talk on who is winning or losing or the actual campaign do not belong on this page. It may even be best to track some incidents and place a summary on the candidate's page, or riding's page, or party's page at the end of the campaign.  -- Statsone  16:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Good resoruce for info on candidates
http://www.elections.on.ca/en-CA/CandidatesAndParties/Candidates/CandidateContactInfo.htm Nickjbor 07:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits and format
When placing an entry please sign them by placing 4 ~ at the end of your entry. Your user name and a time and time stamp will be added automaticcaly.

Also, when responding to another entry, use as many : (colon's) as needed to indent. This make it easier to read comments. -- Statsone  16:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawals?
How should withdrawals be indicated? -- Zanimum 16:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

 * If the candidate is no longer a candidate, his/her name should be removed from our list. nattan g 17:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Okay, because I know with municipal elections, some withdraw too late to be removed from the ballot. --  Zanimum 17:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If they are on Election Ontario's list, then they haven't withdrawn officially. Electors can still vote for them, so leave them on the list, but I would suggest asterisking the candidate stating not campaigning.  If they actually withdrew, before September 18th at 2;00 p.m., then Nat's suggestin makes the most sense.--Abebenjoe 17:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Independents
I'm adding all the ind's listed here http://www.elections.on.ca/en-CA/CandidatesAndParties/Candidates/CandidateContactInfo.htm 74.13.125.185 07:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC) that was me BTW. Nickjbor 07:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Need some help with the colours for the smaller parties running candidates
self explained Political junky 19:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I added the colours for the CoR and Reform, and judging by the Republican Party's website, I'd guess lavender grey (#BDBBD7). Special Needs has no website, so it'll be hard to find it's colour. Morgan695 20:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I made one for the Republicans. Morgan695 20:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Another question about one of the new parties, On the Party chart special needs is listed as having two candidates however in the list of candidates there is only one, anybody know of the second candidate if any? I'd choose a darker grey for the party now to avoid having the same colour as the independents.

74.14.147.119 00:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There are no "smaller parties", only people like you trying to limit choice and frame the debate. 70.178.56.254 21:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Split article, move candidates to own page
Now that we have a completed list from Elections Ontario, we should split the article and make the Candidates List its own article. My suggestion is to link to the page from this article. The Ontario general election, 2007 is now 85KB, so it is rather big by Wiki standards. Comments? --Abebenjoe 08:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think like the 2003, General election everything should stay on one page.

74.14.147.119 11:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is now 94kb. I've decided to be bold and remove the 'Candidates' section from the main page. Morgan695 02:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

if this is allowed to stay this way, without candidates, then the candidates list from the 2003 ontario election will have to be moved, to stay consistant. as will the list from the 2007 quebec election, as quebec has more ridings then Ontario does. Nickjbor 10:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Then change the Quebec page. At over 35K, the Candidates page on its own is large, so keeping it in this article, unnecessarily makes this article too large.  The size of the this article, even without the candidates section, suggests even more segmentation into seperate articles is likely.--Abebenjoe 03:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The current way is the standard for all new election articles in Canada. --Cloveious 00:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

whos the second special needs party candidate
As far as I know theres only Danish (there leader) running, so why does it say 2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.147.119 (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * John Rubino in Trinity-Spadina is the second. Morgan695 18:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NONDP.PNG
Image:NONDP.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews interview ?
I noticed the addition of this text to at least 2 candidates' table entry (Suzanne Fortin, Martin Hyde). Since wikinews looks very official and just about blends in with wikipedia, I wonder if those are fake entries and if so, should be removed asap? (I am new to Wikipedia and don't know if there is some arrangement with wikinews) Ottawahitech 08:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I just discovered that Wikipedia has an entry about Wikinews, and and in particular Wikinews. After reading it I still wonder if the candidates who are using this method of providing information about themselves are simply avoiding the kind of scrutiny that other candidates must endure in order to have information added about them to Wikipedia, or is Wikinews part of wikipedia and subject to the same stringent publishing criteria?
 * Ottawahitech 09:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

An encylopedia should not be endorsing any one news source, regardless of who the founder of both is. Nickjbor 10:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with quoting Wikinews, anymore than quoting the Toronto Star or The Globe and Mail. It's filling a gap that the mainstream media is not covering.--Abebenjoe 03:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * n:User:Zanimum is conducting the interviews. Any concerns should be directed to him and to Wikinews. I write for Wikinews. It's an official news source and a sister-project of Wikipedia. These entries are not fake, if they were they would be deleted by me or one of the other admins. FellowWikip e dian 17:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Leaders and "other parties"
Someone has reverted this edit to a previous version:

(cur) (last) 21:18, 4 October 2007 70.178.56.254 (Talk) (62,178 bytes) (undo)

Elections are about the future, and choice. This article should not be used as a propaganda tool to frame the debate. A list of the leaders in parties that offer a candidate in every riding is just as relevant to the 2007 Election as leaders from past elections.

This topic is not about the current government, but about October 10th's Election.

I will be restoring my edit.

Further, the candidates were presented in alphabetical order, again, to present the topic in a more neutral manner.

 * Changed "Other parties" to "All registered parties of Ontario" the former label was dismissive. Wikipedia should be neutral on the presentation of these facts. Wageslave 21:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Will be re-ordering All registered parties of Ontario to be alphabetical shortly. Wageslave 21:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Parties were placed in the following order, ommitting boilerplate words like "party" "ontario" and using the intended purpose of the Party's title (for example, "Special" instead of "People")

communist confederation family freedom green liberal libertarian progressive republican reform special —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wageslave (talk • contribs) 21:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Im going to remove that list which is now redundant due to the infobox. nattan g 22:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I concur. 70.178.56.254 15:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Prediction?
Based on the information so far, which party could be predicted to form the next government, based on the number of seat it will attain and the number of seats the other provincial parties will also attain? Please answer ASAP the elections are tomorrow in my area and I want to know if I'm voting for the majority

-- • Storkian • 23:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) This talkpage is for discussion of the article, not the election itself, and 2) you should vote for the party who you feel best represents you, not based on who you believe will form the government. Morgan695 02:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ontario elections collaboration on Wikinews
There is urgent need to collaborate on the Ontario election coverage article (also see, Results of 2005 British Columbia, Canada General Election) on Wikinews. Any help is appreciated from editors on Wikipedia. FellowWikip e dian 17:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Voter turnout
I can't do this because I am a new user but if somebody could add a section about voter turnout (52.8% http://www3.elections.on.ca/internetapp/realtimehome.aspx?lang=en&channel_id={923146e7-4d81-42a8-99f0-e61f5ab50387}&lang=en) and compare it to previous years- important given the dissatisfaction with the central issues of the campaign —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.249.202 (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I've added a brief section per your request. It could probably be expanded a bit with properly documented analysis of the reasons for such a low turnout, but of course it's not Wikipedia's business to speculate — if we want to analyze this, we can only do so by directly quoting and citing verifiable media discourse on the topic. Bearcat 00:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Just some statistical information as possible leads.
Just some statistical information as possible leads.

Reference.

CBC ELECTION RESULTS The CBC headline reads, "McGuinty Wins Massive Majority", however of the 8.4 million eligible voters only 52.6 % or 4.4 million voters cast a vote,  of these  42.6% or  790,810 cast a  vote for a Liberal Candidate,  and of these 23,566 cast a vote directly for Premier McGuinty, (50.04% of the votes in his riding) as all other ridings cannot vote for the party leader. This leaves 47.4% of the eligible voters not voting, 57.4% of those that voted or 2,525,600 voters, a majority of voters,  who did not vote for a Liberal Candidate in the province, and even in Mr. McGuinty's riding, 49.96% of  voters in his riding did not vote for him. The move to change the electoral system, to represent minority parties failed to pass by over 63% because the changes would give more power to non-elected party members, however if we look at the details of the current system there are other ways to make changes to a system that empowers a minority, in many cases one individual, who we call  a Premier over the Majority. Seems that more logical electoral reforms include the use of run-off elections (used by parties to elect the party leader), an opportunity for voting seperately for a Premier, and giving our elected representatives 'free votes' on every vote, by eliminating the dictatorial power to the Premier, as is the case in most Municipal councils and the position of the Mayor, who gets one equal vote on all votes. If my numbers are correct of all eligible voters, 8.4 million, only 23,566 voted for the Premier, and that is .2 %; now that is not a system that can state that "a majority" of the vote supporting Mr. McGuinty, and in fact 57.81 % of all voters did not vote liberal in the province; odd what a parliamentary system can do to a free vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesarjbsquitti (talk • contribs) 22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the political system in Ontario has one voting for the local rep only, there is no vote for the party leader, nor the party. (merely indirectly)

The leader with the most elected party representatives, in majority governments forms the government. A detail that is important since the elected representatives have little power in government as the Premier calls the shots.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 14:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

McGuinty's victory speach.
It would be a great idea if someone could find the victory speach of Mr. McGuinty for future reference.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 20:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Target Seats
Target seats need to be updated desperatly, they follow 2003 results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.24.182 (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the idea. Target seats are the ridings that each party came within 15% of winning in the last election. Morgan695 21:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Numbers
The numbers don't add up on the results chart, we're about 8,000 votes over the vote count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Political junky (talk • contribs) 01:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's because the results are unoffical and therefore inaccurate. Actual results will be released within the coming weeks. Morgan695 02:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the results are inaccurate, we're saying on that chart that there were 9,000 more voters then there actually were. That is far more inaccurate then unofficial results. this isn't including the independent candidates, so actually, we're farther off then originally thought.74.15.24.182 17:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Another note on numbers: I like the regional breakdown section, but the PC seats add up to 25, and they won 26. What seat wasn't counted? MJR (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ondpsmall.png
Image:Ondpsmall.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ontlibsmall.png
Image:Ontlibsmall.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Maps
Can somebody explain to me why we need Image:Ontario elections 2007.png and Image:Ontario2007.PNG? Bearcat (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pcposmall2.png
Image:Pcposmall2.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:GPO logo.jpg
The image Image:GPO logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

 * Image:Ontarioliberallogo.PNG

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --22:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox inclusion
It has been generally accepted to only use the infobox to outline the details of the parties that held seats before or after the election. 117Avenue (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, in that case I propose that an exception be made in this particular case, because anyone who watched the campaign would agree that the Greens were a notable presence in it, and every polling company included the party in its polls. It is historically unheard of in Ontario politics for any party that did not win a seat to get 8% of the vote, as almost always such parties get below 1%. The only other case that comes close is Family Coalition from 1987-1995, which reached a high-water mark of 2.7%. Since this is an article about the election campaign, I think it would be proper for the infobox to mention it. Otherwise, the casual reader is left asking where all the votes went, since the changes in popular vote in the infobox don't add up by 5%. Esn (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Generally accepted by whom? you? As Esn said in his response, the Greens presence was felt during the 2007 election and the party was included in all opinion polling. If you look to the 2008 federal election and the 2011 federal election as examples you will see my point. The Greens did not have an elected member prior to either of those elections and in 2008 they did not elect a member. Yet they were very much a factor running full slates and in 2008, getting a seat at the debates. You can also look to the British Columbia provincial election pages too dating back to 2001. Its just a basic point of information for readers looking to become informed to include all parties who mustered more than a small fraction of support. This isn't a partisan debate, this is an online encyclopedia. Political junky (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why was the Green Party of Canada included in the 2008 debate, and not the 2011? Because they had a sitting MP. Was the Green Party of Ontario included in the 2007 debate? 117Avenue (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but they were a significant presence in it. They were widely covered in election coverage. Ross Perot won 8% of the vote in the 1996 US presidential election, carried no states, yet is still mentioned in the infobox because he was an unusually successful 3rd-party candidate and (like here), without the inclusion of those votes in the infobox, the casual reader is left wondering where the extra percentages went. Esn (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Green Party a legitimate fourth party?
I removed the Green Party from the infobox. They did not win any seats in this election. They have never won a seat in any Ontario election and under the current system are unlikely to ever win a seat. While they did garner marginal popular support, I do not believe this warrants inclusion as a '4th party' in the description of this election. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is old, so please ignore my previous comments. The current consensus is to include parties garnering over 5% of the popular vote. It was looking like the Green party would be included in the 2014 election, with the polls over 5%, but with only 4.8% they were removed. 117Avenue (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, there isn't a standing consensus of Wikiproject Canada that a party should be included in the infobox if it gets at least five per cent of the popular vote but wins no seats; the editors of this article may have established a variant consensus among themselves for this article in isolation, but there's no established consensus that it's the "standard" for Canadian elections across the board. So no, this article doesn't get to make up its own special rule for itself different from the rules that apply to other provincial or federal elections — there's a discussion at WP:CANTALK to review and reaffirm what the consensus should be, but it's unresolved as of today and nobody has shown evidence that the existing consensus permits inclusion in the infobox on a popular vote threshhold even for a party with no actual representation in the applicable legislature. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:2007 Ontario general election


text: Category:Cambria County, Pennsylvania

title: Category:Cambria County, Pennsylvania


text:
Category:Camden County, New Jersey

Articles and categories related to Camden County, New Jersey.

title: Category:Camden County, New Jersey


text:
Alexander Kilham

Alexander Kilham (20 July 1762 – 20 December 1798 ) was an English Methodist minister.

Early life
He was born to parents Simon and Elizabeth Kilham at Epworth, Lincolnshire, possibly at a former farm, now known as Prospect House, otherwise 79 High Street.

Ministry
He was admitted by John Wesley in 1785 into the regular itinerant Methodist ministry. He became minister of a circuit in Sheffield; and also the leader and spokesman of the democratic party in the Connexion which claimed for the laity the free election of class-leaders and stewards, and equal representation with ministers at Conference. They also contended that the ministry should possess no official authority or pastoral prerogative, but should merely carry into effect the decisions of majorities in the different meetings.

Kilham further advocated the complete separation of the Methodists from the Anglican Church. In the controversy that ensued he wrote many pamphlets, often anonymous, and frequently provocative. For this he was arraigned before the Conference of 1796 and expelled, and he and William Thom then founded a movement initially called ‘The New Itinerancy’, then the Methodist New Connexion (1798, merged since 1907 in the United Methodist Church), and now part of the Methodist Church of Great Britain following the Methodist Union of 1932. Methodist church governance now largely reflects Kilham's ideas.

Kilham and Thom jointly wrote the Out-lines of a constitution; proposed for the examination, amendment and acceptance, of the members of the Methodist New Itinerancy, which was published in 1797.

He died in 1798, and the success of the church he founded is a tribute to his personality and to the principles for which he strove. Kilham's second wife, Hannah Kilham née Spurr (1774–1832), whom he married only a few months before his death, became a Quaker, and worked as a missionary in the Gambia and Sierra Leone; she transcribed to writing several West African languages.

title: Alexander Kilham


text:
Most recent common ancestor

In biology and genetic genealogy, the most recent common ancestor (MRCA), also known as the last common ancestor (LCA), of a set of organisms is the most recent individual from which all the organisms of the set are descended. The term is also used in reference to the ancestry of groups of genes (haplotypes) rather than organisms.

The MRCA of a set of individuals can sometimes be determined by referring to an established pedigree. However, in general, it is impossible to identify the exact MRCA of a large set of individuals, but an estimate of the time at which the MRCA lived can often be given. Such time to most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) estimates can be given based on DNA test results and established mutation rates as practiced in genetic genealogy, or by reference to a non-genetic, mathematical model or computer simulation.

In organisms using sexual reproduction, the matrilineal MRCA and patrilineal MRCA are the MRCAs of a given population considering only matrilineal and patrilineal descent, respectively. The MRCA of a population by definition cannot be older than either its matrilineal or its patrilineal MRCA. In the case of Homo sapiens, the matrilineal and patrilineal MRCA are also known as "Mitochondrial Eve" (mt-MRCA) and "Y-chromosomal Adam" (Y-MRCA) respectively.

The age of the human MRCA is unknown. It is no greater than the age of either the Y-MRCA or the mt-MRCA, estimated at around 200,000 years.

Unlike in pedigrees of individual humans or domesticated lineages where historical parentage is known, in the inference of relationships among species or higher groups of taxa (systematics or phylogenetics), ancestors are not directly observable or recognizable. They are inferences based on patterns of relationship among taxa inferred in a phylogenetic analysis of extant organisms and/or fossils.

The last universal common ancestor (LUCA) is the most recent common ancestor of all current life on Earth, estimated to have lived some 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago (in the Paleoarchean).

MRCA of different species
The project of a complete description of the phylogenetic relationships among all biological species is dubbed the "tree of life". This involves inference of ages of divergence for all hypothesized clades; for example, the MRCA of all Carnivora (i.e. the MRCA of "cats and dogs") is estimated to have diverged some 42 million years ago (Miacidae).

The concept of the last common ancestor from the perspective of human evolution is described for a popular audience in The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins (2004). Dawkins lists "concestors" of the human lineage in order of increasing age, including hominin (human–chimpanzee), hominine (human–gorilla), hominid (human–orangutan), hominoid (human–gibbon), and so on in 40 stages in total, down to the last universal common ancestor (human–bacteria).

MRCA of a population identified by a single genetic marker
It is also possible to consider the ancestry of individual genes (or groups of genes, haplotypes) instead of an organism as a whole. Coalescent theory describes a stochastic model of how the ancestry of such genetic markers maps to the history of a population.

Unlike organisms, a gene is passed down from a generation of organisms to the next generation either as perfect replicas of itself or as slightly mutated descendant genes. While organisms have ancestry graphs and progeny graphs via sexual reproduction, a gene has a single chain of ancestors and a tree of descendants. An organism produced by sexual cross-fertilization (allogamy) has at least two ancestors (its immediate parents), but a gene always has one ancestor per generation.

Patrilineal and matrilineal MRCA

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is nearly immune to sexual mixing, unlike the nuclear DNA whose chromosomes are shuffled and recombined in Mendelian inheritance. Mitochondrial DNA, therefore, can be used to trace matrilineal inheritance and to find the Mitochondrial Eve (also known as the African Eve), the most recent common ancestor of all humans via the mitochondrial DNA pathway.

Likewise, Y chromosome is present as a single sex chromosome in the male individual and is passed on to male descendants without recombination. It can be used to trace patrilineal inheritance and to find the Y-chromosomal Adam, the most recent common ancestor of all humans via the Y-DNA pathway.

Approximate dates for Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam have been established by researchers using genealogical DNA tests. Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived about 200,000 years ago. A paper published in March 2013 determined that, with 95% confidence and that provided there are no systematic errors in the study's data, Y-chromosomal Adam lived between 237,000 and 581,000 years ago.

The MRCA of all humans alive today would, therefore, need to have lived more recently than either.

It is more complicated to infer human ancestry via autosomal chromosomes. Although an autosomal chromosome contains genes that are passed down from parents to children via independent assortment from only one of the two parents, genetic recombination (chromosomal crossover) mixes genes from non-sister chromatids from both parents during meiosis, thus changing the genetic composition of the chromosome.

Time to MRCA estimates
Different types of MRCAs are estimated to have lived at different times in the past. These time to MRCA (TMRCA) estimates are also computed differently depending on the type of MRCA being considered. Patrilineal and matrilineal MRCAs (Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam) are traced by single gene markers, thus their TMRCA are computed based on DNA test results and established mutation rates as practiced in genetic genealogy. The time to the genealogical MRCA (most recent common ancestor by any line of descent) of all living humans cannot be traced genetically because the DNA of the great majority of ancestors is completely lost after a few hundred years. It is therefore computed based on non-genetic, mathematical models and computer simulations.

Since Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam are traced by single genes via a single ancestral parent line, the time to these genetic MRCAs will necessarily be greater than that for the genealogical MRCA. This is because single genes will coalesce more slowly than tracing of conventional human genealogy via both parents. The latter considers only individual humans, without taking into account whether any gene from the computed MRCA actually survives in every single person in the current population.

TMRCA via genetic markers
Mitochondrial DNA can be used to trace the ancestry of a set of populations. In this case, populations are defined by the accumulation of mutations on the mtDNA, and special trees are created for the mutations and the order in which they occurred in each population. The tree is formed through the testing of a large number of individuals all over the world for the presence or lack of a certain set of mutations. Once this is done it is possible to determine how many mutations separate one population from another. The number of mutations, together with estimated mutation rate of the mtDNA in the regions tested, allows scientists to determine the approximate time to MRCA (TMRCA) which indicates time passed since the populations last shared the same set of mutations or belonged to the same haplogroup.

In the case of Y-Chromosomal DNA, TMRCA is arrived at in a different way. Y-DNA haplogroups are defined by single-nucleotide polymorphism in various regions of the Y-DNA. The time to MRCA within a haplogroup is defined by the accumulation of mutations in STR sequences of the Y-Chromosome of that haplogroup only. Y-DNA network analysis of Y-STR haplotypes showing a non-star cluster indicates Y-STR variability due to multiple founding individuals. Analysis yielding a star cluster can be regarded as representing a population descended from a single ancestor. In this case the variability of the Y-STR sequence, also called the microsatellite variation, can be regarded as a measure of the time passed since the ancestor founded this particular population. The descendants of Genghis Khan or one of his ancestors represents a famous star cluster that can be dated back to the time of Genghis Khan.

TMRCA calculations are considered critical evidence when attempting to determine migration dates of various populations as they spread around the world. For example, if a mutation is deemed to have occurred 30,000 years ago, then this mutation should be found amongst all populations that diverged after this date. If archeological evidence indicates cultural spread and formation of regionally isolated populations then this must be reflected in the isolation of subsequent genetic mutations in this region. If genetic divergence and regional divergence coincide it can be concluded that the observed divergence is due to migration as evidenced by the archaeological record. However, if the date of genetic divergence occurs at a different time than the archaeological record, then scientists will have to look at alternate archaeological evidence to explain the genetic divergence. The issue is best illustrated in the debate surrounding the demic diffusion versus cultural diffusion during the European Neolithic.

TMRCA of all living humans
The age of the MRCA of all living humans is unknown. It is necessarily younger than the age of either the matrilinear or the patrilinear MRCA, both of which have an estimated age of between roughly 100,000 and 200,000 years ago.

A study by mathematicians Joseph T. Chang, Douglas Rohde and Steve Olson used a theoretical model to calculate that the MRCA may have lived remarkably recently, possibly as recently as 2,000 years ago. It concludes that the MRCA of all humans probably lived in East Asia, which would have given them key access to extremely isolated populations in Australia and the Americas. Possible locations for the MRCA include places such as the Chuckchi and Kamchatka Peninsulas that are close to Alaska, places such as Indonesia and Malaysia that are close to Australia or a place such as Taiwan or Japan that is more intermediate to Australia and the Americas. European colonization of the Americas and Australia was found by Chang to be too recent to have had a substantial impact on the age of the MRCA. In fact, if the Americas and Australia had never been discovered by Europeans, the MRCA would only be about 2.3% further back in the past than it is.

Note that the age of the MRCA of a population does not correspond to a population bottleneck, let alone a "first couple". It rather reflects the presence of a single individual with high reproductive success in the past, whose genetic contribution has become pervasive throughout the population over time. It is also incorrect to assume that the MRCA passed all, or indeed any, genetic information to every living person. Through sexual reproduction, an ancestor passes half of his or her genes to each descendant in the next generation; in the absence of pedigree collapse, after just 32 generations the contribution of a single ancestor would be on the order of 2−32, a number proportional to less than a single basepair within the human genome.

Identical ancestors point
The MRCA is the most recent common ancestor shared by all individuals in the population under consideration. This MRCA may well have contemporaries who are also ancestral to some but not all of the extant population. The identical ancestors point is a point in the past more remote than the MRCA at which time there are no longer organisms which are ancestral to some but not all of the modern population. Due to pedigree collapse, modern individuals may still exhibit clustering, due to vastly different contributions from each of ancestral population.

title: Most recent common ancestor


text: Category:Bedford County, Tennessee

title: Category:Bedford County, Tennessee


text: Category:Chattooga County, Georgia

title: Category:Chattooga County, Georgia


text: Category:Delta County, Colorado

title: Category:Delta County, Colorado


text: Category:Douglas County, Oregon

title: Category:Douglas County, Oregon


text: Category:Franklin County, Pennsylvania

title: Category:Franklin County, Pennsylvania


text: Category:Grafton County, New Hampshire

title: Category:Grafton County, New Hampshire