text:
Empire (1965 film)

Empire is a 1965 American black-and-white silent art film by Andy Warhol. When projected according to Warhol's specifications, it consists of eight hours and five minutes of slow motion footage of an unchanging view of New York City's Empire State Building. The film does not have conventional narrative or characters, and largely reduces the experience of cinema to the passing of time. Warhol stated that the purpose of the film was "to see time go by."

A week after the film was shot, experimental filmmaker Jonas Mekas (who was cinematographer for Empire) speculated in the Village Voice that Warhol's film would have a profound influence on avant-garde cinema. In 2004, Empire was included in the annual selection of 25 motion pictures added to the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress, who deemed it "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".

Synopsis
Empire was filmed at 24 frames per second, and is meant to be seen in slow motion at 16 frames per second, extending its $6 1/2$-hour length to 8 hours and 5 minutes. The film consists of a stationary view of the Empire State Building lasting the entirety of the running time. The film begins with a blank white screen, a result of the camera being calibrated for nighttime filming. As the sun sets almost imperceptibly, the figure of the building emerges and its details become clearer. As the sun sets further, the building is enveloped in darkness. The building's floodlights are turned on, illuminating its upper levels and spire. Lights in the windows of other structures go on and off. In the background, a beacon atop the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company tower flashes at intervals corresponding to every 15 minutes in real time (it flashes a single time every 15 minutes and at hour it flashes the time of day). Eventually, the floodlights go dark and the image in the remainder of the film is nearly total darkness. At three points in the film, the reflections of the crew, including Warhol, are seen in the windows of the Rockefeller Foundation office, where the work was filmed, as the office lights were not shut off before the crew started shooting after changing the film magazines.

Production
The initial idea for Empire came from John Palmer, a young filmmaker affiliated with Jonas Mekas. Palmer had been sleeping occasionally on the roof of Mekas's Film Maker's Cooperative, which had an impressive view of the tower, only a few blocks away. He told Mekas that he thought an image of the floodlit building would make a good Warhol film, and Mekas passed the idea to Warhol. Around the time Warhol considered the idea, he had completed (in late 1963) his first extended-length film, the 5-hour Sleep, which shows multiple views of a man sleeping; Empire was his second long film.

In April 1964, the upper 30 floors of the Empire State Building were floodlighted for the first time in connection with the opening of the New York World's Fair in Queens. As the only floodlit skyscraper in New York City, the impact of the lighting was dramatic, with one person calling the tower's illuminated crown "a chandelier suspended in the sky". The floodlights were essential to Warhol's concept for the film, as there would be almost nothing to see without them.

For a shooting venue, Warhol made arrangements to use an office belonging to the Rockefeller Foundation on the 41st floor of the Time-Life Building at 51st Street and 6th Avenue. Cinematography took place overnight on July 24 and 25, 1964. Present for filming were Mekas, Warhol, Palmer, Gerard Malanga, Marie Desert (Mekas' girlfriend), and Henry Romney (of the Rockefeller Foundation). From the window at the northeast corner of 51st Street and 6th Avenue, the camera was pointed southeast toward the Empire State Building at 34th Street and 5th Avenue, taking in the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company tower with its blinking beacon at the corner of Madison Avenue and 24th Street, and the bulkier New York Life Insurance Company building at Madison Avenue and 26th Street.

In contrast to Warhol's earlier films, which had been shot with a Bolex camera limited to three minutes of shooting time, Empire was filmed on an Auricon camera that allowed for takes of around 33 minutes. In the Rockefeller Foundation office, Mekas framed the shot for Warhol's approval, and filming commenced at 8:06 pm, about ten minutes before sunset. Mekas' article about the shooting printed in the Village Voice the next week described a lighthearted night of filmmaking, with Warhol discoursing on the Empire State Building as the most prominent site in New York, visited by celebrities and tourists alike, and various people in the room imploring Warhol to pan the camera. Shooting wrapped at 2:42 a.m. the next day, with 654 feet of film exposed.

Empire was shot on ASA 400 Tri-X stock, push-processed to ASA 1000 to compensate for the dark conditions of filming. The push-processing gives the film a graininess that calls attention to the medium of the film stock itself during projection in a manner that Douglas Crimp compared to the way that ink in Warhol's silkscreen paintings is present as both blobs of ink and as part of the image. Each reel contains a segment of film that was exposed to incidental light during processing, which may be evidence that the final work is unedited. The complete film consists of ten reels, each lasting approximately 48 minutes when projected in slow motion at 16 frames per second, as specified by Warhol.

After the film had been developed and printed, Warhol did not have funds to pay the processor, and Palmer arranged with his mother to make the payment. In recognition of his role in conceiving, assisting with and paying for the film, Warhol listed Palmer as co-director.

Release
Empire premiered on March 6, 1965, at the City Hall Cinema in Manhattan, then the site of Mekas' Film-Makers' Cinematheque. Reporting on the premiere in his Village Voice column, Mekas did not state how many people were in the 576-seat theater, but claimed that after the film had been running for ten minutes, 30 or 40 people surrounded him and another staff member demanding their money back, "threatening to solve the question of the new vision and the new cinema by breaking chairs on our heads".

Apart from Mekas' articles, the only other extended discussion of the film around the time of its release is in two articles in Film Culture, a journal of experimental cinema that Mekas and his brother published. Gregory Battcock, a critic who was part of Warhol's circle and appears in several of his films, connected the film with other works by Warhol in terms of its focus on a subject that the viewer already generally knows. He argued this left space to emphasize other issues, particularly the physical medium of film, and the artistic use of long duration as a way of concentrating attention on these qualities. Battcock also observed that Empire had quickly become a classic of the avant garde and promised to have great if unpredictable influence on the development of film.

In 1966, Warhol and his colleagues began producing events featuring rock band the Velvet Underground; these went by several names, ultimately becoming best known as the "Exploding Plastic Inevitable." In addition to the Velvet Underground, the Exploding Plastic Inevitables featured simultaneous mixes of strobe lights, dancers, colored slides and film projections. Advertisements for the events held in the spring of 1966 in New York's East Village mention Empire among other Warhol films to be screened.

Legacy
Warhol withdrew most of his film catalog (including Empire) from circulation in 1972. Film historian Callie Angell observed that the inaccessibility of the film until some years after Warhol's death in 1987, along with the assumption that a film such as Empire must be unwatchable, gave Empire a life mainly as an idea about a film that expressed Warhol's outrageousness as an artist, with some accounts lengthening it to 10 or 24 hours. In 1988, the film began to be screened again as part of the cataloguing and restoration of Warhol's films undertaken by several institutions. In 1992, the original negative was rediscovered and used to make new prints of the film.

Mechanical projectors capable of showing the film at 16 frames per second have become rarer since the 1970s, with most current machines capable of a minimum speed of 18 frames per second; when projected at this rate, the film is about seven hours and 10 minutes long. Empire is distributed by the Museum of Modern Art's Circulating Film and Video Library.

title: Empire (1965 film)


text: Category:Altos

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

title: Category:Altos


text: Category:Bassos

title: Category:Bassos


text: User talk:FriedBunny

title: User talk:FriedBunny


text:
Category:Countertenors

Classification: Performing arts: Opera: Singers: By voice type: Countertenors also: Music: Genres: Opera: Singers: By voice type: Countertenors

title: Category:Countertenors


text:
Category:Mezzo-sopranos

Classification: Performing arts: Opera: Singers: By voice type: Mezzo-sopranos also: Music: Genres: Opera: Singers: By voice type: Mezzo-sopranos

title: Category:Mezzo-sopranos


text:
Talk:Manila massacre

Copy vio?
Created hopefully non-copyvio version of page in Manila_Massacre/Temp. --Pikhq

 * You show me where I supposedly stole those two paragraphs. Give some evidence or you have no argument.--Secret Agent Man 02:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Not saying you stole anything. The page had the entire "All Rights Reserved" text of one of the references in it, which I took out. --Pikhq 03:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Holocost definition
With the definition of Holocaust, it seems not suitble for this event. Poo-T 05:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Why is it not suitable? If Users can link "Chinese Holocaust" to the "Nanking Massacre" how can this event not be part of the "Asian Holocaust" (a term coined by the people of Asia)? The Manila Massacre is just one event of many, many events. The Nanking Massacre, Unit 731, Unit 100, Bataan Death March and others were all part of the Holocaust in Asia, just like Auschwitz, Treblinka, Dachau and the massacres of POWs were part of the Holocaust in Europe. You can see for yourself that this holocaust can be found on the Wikipedia "Holocaust(disambiguation)" page.

NPOV link
Delete a link. Comparing other two references, it is not a kind of reference, as many photographes are disputed in Japan about it's explanation. Additionally, the website seems far from NPOV. For ex. http://www.kimsoft.com/2004/go-chosun.htm 'Chinese dynasty has its root in 9000 years old Korean Dynasty' --Poo-T 05:26, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Death toll attribution
It is true that Rear Admiral Iwabuchi's troops entered into street fighting with the U.S. in defiance of Gen. Yamashita's order, and their desperate act are known. But it is also known that the U.S. shore bombardment destroyed large portion of the city of Manila. Unless someone proves the attribution of the death toll is fair, I keep the tag. --Nanshu 00:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps you didn't peruse any of the links and sources that's provided. Those reliable Western and Eastern Sources, such as Hammond and Rummel, specifically stated the death toll of 100,000 civilians referred to ones killed by the Imperialists ONLY. All other deaths caused by disease, friendly fire, starvation, and exposure are deliberately excluded in those sources. Unless new sources are provided that directly contradict their investigations, there is no argument in this article. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/20centry.htm

 * My sources suggest that the 100,000 figure is a combined death toll, including deaths that could be attributed to artillery attacks by American forces, accidental killings by American occupying forces, etc. The one I can think of that gives the number as a combines total off hand is Ronald Spector's "Eagle against the Sun." The book (which seems hard to come by), "Warsaw in Asia: The Rape of Manila" by Jose Ma. Bonifacio M Escoda would seem to be a valuable one to consult on this subject. Unfortunately, I don't have any possibility of getting ahold of it. --Lendorien 06:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The sources I have read--such as Robert Leckie and Max Hastings--say that the 100,000 figure includes those killed by both sides. Max Hastings says that possibly 60 percent were killed by the Japanese.

Cleanup and possible merge/redirect?
I did a basic cleanup of the entry. I tried to remove some of the more emotionally weighted stuff to make it more encyclopaedic. It still needs proper sourcing and more detail. I don't have my books in front of me, but I'll try to add more details to the entry and sourcing this evening when I have them available. --Lendorien 20:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The article Battle for the Liberation of Manila seems to cover everything here with more detail. Perhaps a merge or redirect is in order? --Lendorien 06:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Am the author of Warsaw of Asia:The Rape of Manila. It is based mostly on the accounts of seventy-nine survivors, including American soldiers. It is the only book about the Battle of Manila with the most number of photographs, most of which have never been published before and the close up photos of those Spaniards and Filipinos who were killed. Some of the photos that have been published before now contains the names of those in the pictures. you can contact me through boni_escoda2005@yahoo Jose Maria Bonifacio Escoda I will share some of the gruesome details. The 100,000 death toll of unarmed civilians was just an estimated number made by the American Forces. It might ran between 50,000 to 75,000 The population of Manila then was just around 800,000.Many of them left for their provinces before the Battle of Manila. All the remaining survivors lost aquaintances and relatives to the uncessant shelling of the Americans and Japanese bullets, fires and bayonets. The southern part of Manila suffered. Intramuros, the anciant Walled City, was ninty-five percent destroyed.Almost all the males, including Catholic priest were murdered by the Japanese.Around five thousand of the civilians who were held as captives in Fort Santiago and hostages held in San Agustin and another churches and hospitals were killed.

The remaining districts like Malate and Ermita whihc was the seat of the social and intellectual elite were ninety-percent leveled to the ground by the American shelling and JApanese arson squads.

The civilians who were trapped in the city were either killed by American shells or Japanese grenades,fire, bayonets or bullets. The gardens became shallow grave yards.

Around four hundred women who were living in Isac Peral and Padre Faura were gang rape by the Japanese marines for three days iside the Bayview Hotel and Alhambra Apartments. The males were all killed.

IJA special research units
Article has the IJA special research units category list at the bottom - article needs to explain why. Tempshill 06:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be any relation; template has been removed. -- Kguirnela 07:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought death toll was 200,000
Many Filipinos told me the death toll was 200,000. I know the Japanese literally destroyed the city to the ground. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.245.58.40 (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Questions/suggestions for improvements
This article would be clearer if some more was said about the context. Can someone please fill in some background information: Why did General Tomoyuki Yamashita have to withdraw from Manila, was it because the Americans were coming? Did Vice Admiral Sanji Iwabuchi make the decision to disobey Yamashita's orders, or was it a failure of the marines to follow the chain of command? Were the marines part of the army, or a separate branch? And when there were lulls in the battle for control of the city, exactly who was fighting for control of the city, was it the IJA and the Americans, or the marines against the Americans? Which started first, the Battle of Manila or the Manila Massacre? How did the massacre come to an end? I suppose I could read the whole article on the Battle of Manila to learn more, but if this article just had a bit more explication, I wouldn't have to. Thanks in advance!--Brambleshire (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ya this has bothered me for awhile. This article need more information. 100000+ Filipinos died here I think there is more to tell about the massacre. Anyone here up to the task of adding more data? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.178.205 (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Also the allies killed many civilians on manilla... but in the article is not mentioned, it looks like a friendly U.S side of the story to me. The version of this article on the spanish wikipedia is a lot better, i could translate some things and with its proper references add it to this article.--Starlingmaximilian (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is because this article is specifically about massacres in Manila and only the Japanese deliberately murdered, raped, and tortured tens of thousands of Filipinos. The article about the Battle of Manila makes mention of the fact that many civilians were indeed killed inadvertently by American forces.172.190.146.145 (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

To answer your questions, Brambleshire: 1. General Yamashita believed he could tie up a larger number of American forces for a longer period of time if he conceeded Manila to the Americans and moved the Japanese forces into the mountains (as he did) rather than expending them in an futile battle-to-the-death in Manila. Yamashita and the IJA (Imperial Japanese Army) units did in fact tie down American forces in the Philippines until the end of the war. 2. Admiral Iwabuchi chose to disobey Yamashita's orders even though Yamashita was the senior commander of Japanese forces in the Philippines. Once the American forces surrounded Manila it became impossible for individual Japanese to leave even if they wanted to obey Yamashita's orders. 3. The marines referred to were part of the Japanese navy. 4. The Japanese forces trapped in Manila were under the command of Admiral Iawbuchi so technically it was the IJN (Imperial Japanese Navy) fighting the Americans. 5. The Battle of Manila started first. The mass killing of civilians took place after it started. 6. The massacre come to an end when the Japanese forces in Manila had been exterminated and the Battle of Manila was over.

Although I can't give you page-by-page cites this is not "original research." I hope one and all will agree that the information in written in an objective and neutral tone. However, since I don't have the cites and don't want to flamed for committing "original research" I will not add any of this information to the entry. {06:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.47.232 (talk)

Allied war crimes
The massacre was in response to the firebombing of Japanese cities by the US air force. (5.81.222.174 (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC))
 * Nonsense. The massacre ended in February 1945; the first fire bomb raid took place on 9-10 March. A more plausible explanation is that Iwabuchi was pissed that he had been humiliated by the U.S. Navy off Guadalcanal, and was burning for revenge. An even more plausible explanation is that this is simply what fanatical Japanese commanders did in that era. --Yaush (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The US air force was bombing Japanese cities in 1944. (5.81.222.174 (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC))
 * No, that bombing was against industrial targets. The U.S. firebombing against Japanese civilian populations effort started in early 1945. Binksternet (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Manila Massacre 3 Feb-3 Mar 1945. My quick scan of Spector's "Eagle Against the Sun": the first firebomb raid against Nagoya [3 Jan 1945] was unimpressive to both sides. 4 Feb the port city of Kobe was firebombed: 5 of 12 factories were damaged; of the two shipyards one was reduced to half capacity. The third and first major firebomb air raid was 25 Feb against Tokyo. After that, General Curtis Lemay began planning incendiary "area attacks" on Japanese cities without specific targets based on the fact precision bombing was negated by the seasonal poor visibility and high winds over Japan. The fourth and most destructive incendiary air raid was 9 Mar; the false confidence the Japanese had that they could easily handle a Nagoya level firebombing was then shattered. Are there reliable sources claiming that Admiral Sanji Iwabuchi even knew about the early incendiary air raids, or even that General Curtis Lemay had heard about the Manila Massacre when he ordered incendiary attacks on Tokyo? (According to Spector many Americans felt that Tokyo "had it coming" due to Japanese bombings of Chinese cities in 1937 and the Pearl Harbor Raid.) Often events follow in history without a direct cause and effect connection.--Naaman Brown (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Max Von Schuler criticism
I have removed the section regarding Max Von Schuler. As far as I can tell, he does not appear to be a notable scholar on the subject. Per WP:UNDUE and WP:RS, I don't see any reason that his opinion warrants inclusion in an encylopedia article. Gnome de plume (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Hello, Mr.Gnome de plume.

I am not sure of your definition "notable scholar", however, as I've researched, I detected some further books of which contents are similar to that of Max Von Schuler.
 * A Child in the Midst of Battle : One Family’s Struggle For Survival In War-Torn Manila Authors:Evelyn Berg Empie, Stephen H. Mette ISBN 978-0961726881

 * Manila: A Memoir of Love & Loss  Author:Purita Echevarria de Gonzalez ISBN 978-0868066981

 * The Remedios Hospital, 1942-1945 : a saga of Malate / Pedro M. Picornell Author:Picornell, Pedro M ISBN 9715550681

 * Manila: Memories of World War II, Author:Manalac, Fernando J. ISBN 9718967079

Philippine daily inquirer) Author:	Nick Joaquin ISBN 9718635009 Eddal (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Philippine Daily Inquirer presents Intramuros (Intramuros.
 * Thanks for taking a look. To be honest, I'm not sure where to draw the line between unacceptable and acceptable sources either.  But a quick review suggests to me that your sources are definitely better than the one I removed.  Gnome de plume (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

This article lacks neutrality and thus, should be more neutral, in my opinion. Eddal (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal of template message for more citations at General Yamashita's Role...
I revised text and cited the book by Allan Ryan, Yamashita's Ghost- War Crimes, MacArthur's Justice, and Command Accountability.  The book deals in detail about  Yamashita's actions and the trials leading to his execution. Additional Wikipedia articles about Yamashita's role is available at the pages for Tomoyuki Yamashita and Allan Ryan (attorney). Bryantbob (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Manila massacre


text:
Ralph (magazine)

Ralph was a monthly Australian men's magazine that was published by ACP Magazines, a division of PBL Media between August 1997 and July 2010. The format and style of Ralph was similar to other men's magazines, such as Maxim and Loaded.

Content
Similar to its rivals FHM and Zoo Weekly, Ralph published photos of scantily-clad models and female celebrities, without revealing their genitals or nipples. This allowed for the magazine to be sold in the lifestyle sections of newsagencies, and in other retailers such as department stores and supermarkets.

The magazine featured a number of recurring characters, such as Ralph Man, Frank Muddler and Gourmet Gav. Gourmet Gav, who would take on outrageous eating challenges, would earn celebrity beyond the pages of the magazine thanks to the development of Ralph TV.

ACP Magazines described the magazine as: "Whether it is adventure, sport, fashion, travel, music, boys' toys, beautiful women, or life's essential how-tos, Ralph provides an environment that is purely Australian." Ralph featured photo shoots of Australian celebrities as well as international stars. The magazine was often cross-promoted on other ACP and PBL properties, such as promotional parties held in conjunction with Cosmopolitan, and as a sponsor of home viewer competitions during the Fox Network's rugby league coverage.

It contained the same kinds of articles published in similar titles, and ran its own poll to find "Australia's sexiest woman". The results were published in an attachment to the regular magazine each year. Unlike FHM, it featured 200 women instead of FHM ' s 100, but Ralph ' s polling only took in Australia and New Zealand (where a separate edition was produced), whereas FHM ' s poll is worldwide.

Circulation
Ralph was reported to have had a circulation of 63,155 at the end of 2009, with a readership of 267,000. Its popularity put it ahead of other ACP titles such as FHM (with 50,000 copies and 90,000 readers), but behind the market leader among men's magazines, Zoo Weekly.

On 4 June 2010, the magazine's publishing company ACP announced that Ralph would produce its final print edition at the end of the month, with the July cover date being the final monthly magazine, although the popular Girls of Ralph special issues would continue. ACP said that the Ralph website would remain, hosted on the ninemsn network and via its mobile platform. However the Ralph website now redirects to the Zoo Weekly website.

Ralph TV
Ralph TV was a weekly television series based on Ralph magazine which aired on the Nine Network. It was hosted by Craig "Lowie" Lowe and featured a trio known as "the girls of Ralph TV", newcomers Brooke Sheehan, Candice Manning and Angela Tsun. The show aired footage of the various features and pictorials from the former monthly Ralph magazine. The premiere episode aired on 7 June 2007 and each episode was repeated on Fox8. The series was produced by Endemol Southern Star.

Final Issue of Ralph Magazine
The final issue of the magazine starred Clare Werbeloff in lingerie, who became known as the Kings Cross Bogan following her eyewitness account of a shooting outside a Kings Cross nightclub, which turned out to be a hoax. Her politically incorrect report to a television news cameraman spread online via YouTube and made her an internet celebrity.

title: Ralph (magazine)


text:
Libertarian Republican

In American politics, a Libertarian Republican is a politician or Republican Party member who has advocated Libertarian policies while typically voting for and being involved with the Republican Party.

Beliefs and size
The Republican Party has historically been divided into factions. In 2012, the libertarian branch of the party was described as smaller than other branches, including Tea Party voters (the "populist, Pro-limited government Tea Party wing" of the party), pragmatic "Main Street" Republicans, and evangelical Christian conservatives. According to a 2012 New York Times analysis, libertarian Republicans have a variety of motivating issues. On economic and domestic policy, they favor deregulation and tax cuts, repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and protecting gun rights. On social issues, they favor privacy and oppose the USA Patriot Act and oppose the War on Drugs. On foreign and defense policy, libertarian Republicans are non-interventionists. Some libertarians favor abortion rights, while other libertarian Republicans oppose abortion. Two-thirds of libertarian Republicans are males.

In a 2014 Pew Research Center survey on political typology and polarization, 12% of Republicans described themselves as libertarian. In a 2023 New York Times poll of the Republican coalition, 14% of Republicans were considered Libertarian conservatives. As of August 2023, 38% support providing additional support to Ukraine, 34% support cutting corporate taxes over raising tariffs, 19% consider themselves very conservative, 45% believe abortion should be mostly or always legal, 51% are against comprehensive immigration reform, 73% say they favor the "protection of individual freedom over traditional values", and 13% want a candidate who would "fight corporations that promote woke left ideology." In the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries, 43% would vote for Donald Trump and 12% would vote for Ron DeSantis.

Organizations
The Republican Liberty Caucus, which describes itself as "the oldest continuously operating organization in the Liberty Republican movement with state charters nationwide," was founded in 1991. In the 1990s the group's chairs included Chuck Muth, Roger MacBride, and Congressman Ron Paul; in the 2000s, the group's chairs included Dave Nalle. The group's statement of principles affirms "the principle that individual rights and liberties are unlimited" and calls for free trade; the "privatization of all government assets"; the abolition of many federal agencies; the repeal of most current federal taxes in favor of a single flat income tax or national sales tax; and the phase-out of "compulsory government retirement, disability, and health programs."

The House Liberty Caucus is a congressional caucus formed by Libertarian Representative Justin Amash of Michigan, at the time a Republican. In 2014, the group "consisted of about 30 libertarian-inclined Republicans (and occasional Democratic visitors like Jared Polis)." In February 2019, Politico reported that the House Liberty Caucus had eight members. The list of congressional member organizations (CMOs) for the 118th Congress indicates that Warren Davidson is the leader of the Congressional Liberty Caucus.

Cabinet-level officials

 * Former Director Mick Mulvaney of the Office of Management and Budget; former acting White House Chief of Staff; former U.S. Representative from South Carolina

Representatives

 * Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky – described as "a Northern Kentucky Republican with libertarian leanings," Massie is a "self-styled libertarian" who has received libertarian support, although he has also described himself as a "'constitutional conservative' within the Republican Party."
 * Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida – self-describes as a "libertarian populist" and described by media as having a "strong libertarian streak".
 * Representative Tom McClintock of California – described as "libertarian leaning" by Reason magazine.
 * Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina - Described to have a "fusion" of Libertarian views

Former representatives

 * Former Representative Justin Amash of Michigan – Chairman of the Liberty Caucus; left Republican Party in 2019 to become an Independent. He is now a registered member of the Libertarian Party and thus became the first Libertarian member to hold a seat in Congress. In 2024, however, he announced he would run for U.S. Senate as a Republican.
 * Former Representative Denver Riggleman of Virginia
 * Former Representative Dana Rohrabacher of California
 * Former Representative Mark Sanford of South Carolina (also a former governor of South Carolina) – a Republican, he's often described as holding libertarian views; claimed to have turned down an offer from Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson to be his vice presidential running mate in the 2016 election.
 * Former Representative Ted Yoho of Florida
 * Former Representative Bob Barr of Georgia
 * Former Representative Kerry Bentivolio of Michigan
 * Former Representative Connie Mack IV of Florida – described as "a staunch fiscal conservative...with libertarian tendencies."
 * Former Representative Ron Paul of Texas – longstanding Libertarian Republican icon; unsuccessfully ran for president in 1988 as the Libertarian nominee, and in 2008 and 2012 as a Republican candidate.

Senators

 * Rand Paul, U.S. Senator from Kentucky (2011–present) – is sometimes regarded as libertarian-leaning, and has on multiple occasions described himself as such when discussing matters like the national debt and other economic issues, domestic surveillance, foreign military intervention, and the war on drugs. However, David Boaz of the Cato Institute notes that "Paul doesn't claim to be a libertarian, and he takes positions that many libertarians disagree with."
 * Mike Lee, U.S. Senator from Utah (2011–present) – described as an economic and civil libertarian.

Former senators

 * Barry Goldwater, former U.S. Senator from Arizona (1953–1965, 1969–1987)
 * Mark Hatfield, former U.S. Senator from Oregon (1967–1997)
 * Jeff Flake, former U.S. Senator from Arizona (2013–2019)

State governors

 * Chris Sununu, 82nd Governor of New Hampshire (2017–present) – As a Republican governor of New Hampshire, Sununu has been described as a "moderate-libertarian".

Former governors

 * Gary Johnson, 29th Governor of New Mexico (1995–2003) – served two terms as governor as a Republican and ran for President as a Republican in 2011, but switched from the Republican Party to the Libertarian Party later that year, serving as the Libertarian nominee for president in 2012 and 2016 and running for the U.S. Senate as a Libertarian in 2018.
 * William Weld, 68th Governor of Massachusetts (1991–1997) – As a Republican governor of Massachusetts, Weld self-identified as a libertarian Republican. Later, Weld drifted toward the Libertarian Party. In 2006, Weld unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination for New York governor; he gained the Libertarian Party endorsement that year before dropping out of the race. In 2016, Weld joined the Libertarian Party to run for vice president as the running mate of Gary Johnson. In 2019, Weld rejoined the Republican Party to launch a primary challenge to President Donald Trump.

State legislators

 * Nick Freitas, Virginia state Delegate (2015–present) – Unsuccessfully ran for U.S. Senate in 2018. Described as having a "conservative voting record and libertarian streak."
 * Anthony Sabatini, Florida state representative (2018–present) – candidate for 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida for Florida's 7th congressional district. Described as a "libertarian-conservative".

Former

 * Eric Brakey, former Maine state senator (2014–2018) Unsuccessfully ran for U.S. Senate in 2018. Worked for Ron Paul's 2012 campaign, led the Defense of Liberty PAC.
 * Richard Tisei, former Massachusetts state senator and state Senate minority leader; identifies as a "traditional Northeast libertarian" in the social and fiscal senses.

Authors and scholars

 * Nobel Prize–winning economist Milton Friedman

Others

 * Glenn Jacobs, professional wrestler with WWE and current Republican Mayor of Knox County, Tennessee.
 * Kennedy, TV commentator and former MTV VJ
 * Grover Norquist, anti-tax activist and Republican figure; economic libertarian identified with "support for supply-side economics and skepticism about climate science."
 * P. J. O'Rourke, humorist, author – libertarian-conservative Republican, although he endorsed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential campaign.
 * Austin Petersen, former Libertarian Party presidential candidate and former Republican candidate for US Senate in Missouri in 2018.
 * Wayne Allyn Root, author and radio host
 * Peter Schiff, investment broker – described as "libertarian" or "libertarian-leaning"; unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination for the 2010 election for U.S. Senate in Connecticut.
 * Mark Spitznagel, hedge fund manager
 * Peter Thiel, Silicon Valley businessman, PayPal co-founder – a registered Republican and self-described libertarian.

title: Libertarian Republican


text:
John Esposito

John Louis Esposito (born May 19, 1940) is an American academic, professor of Middle Eastern and religious studies, and scholar of Islamic studies, who serves as Professor of Religion, International Affairs, and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. He is also the founding director of the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding at Georgetown.

Biography
For nearly twenty years after completing his Ph.D., Esposito had taught Religious studies (including Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam) at the College of the Holy Cross, a Jesuit college in Massachusetts. At the College of the Holy Cross, Esposito held the Loyola Professor of Middle East Studies position, was the chair of the Department of Religious Studies, and director of the College of the Holy Cross' Center for International Studies. At Georgetown University, Esposito holds the position of University Professor and teaches as both Professor of Religion and International Affairs and Professor of Islamic Studies.

Esposito completed his doctoral studies under the supervision of the influential Islamic scholar Isma'il Raji al-Faruqi. He published Islam and Politics in 1984, and Islam: The Straight Path in 1988. Both books sold well, going through many editions. In addition to more than 35 books, he is editor-in-chief of a number of Oxford reference works including The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, The Oxford History of Islam, The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World (six vols.), and Oxford Islamic Studies Online.

In 1988, he was elected president of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA). He has also served as president of the American Academy of Religion and president of the American Council for the Study of Islamic Societies. He served as Vice Chair of the Board of Directors of the Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy from 1999 to 2004 he was a member of the World Economic Forum’s Council of 100 Leaders, the High Level Group of the U.N. Alliance of Civilizations and the E. C. European Network of Experts on De-Radicalisation. He was an advisor to the award-winning, PBS-broadcast documentary Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet (2002), produced by Unity Productions Foundation. A recipient of the American Academy of Religion’s 2005 Martin E. Marty Award for the Public Understanding of Religion and of Pakistan’s Quaid-e-Azam Award for Outstanding Contributions in Islamic Studies, in 2003 he received the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University Award for Outstanding Teaching.

Esposito founded the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University in 1993 and is its founding director. The center received a $20 million endowment from Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal "to advance education in the fields of Islamic civilization and Muslim-Christian understanding and strengthen its presence as a world leader in facilitating cross-cultural and inter-religious dialogue."

Esposito is a Catholic.

Editor

 * The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, as editor (2009, 5 volume set) ISBN 978-0-19-530513-5
 * The Oxford History of Islam, as editor (2004) ISBN 0-19-510799-3
 * The Islamic World: Past and Present, as editor (2004, 3 volume set) ISBN 0-19-516520-9
 * The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, as editor (1995, 4 volume set) ISBN 0-19-506613-8
 * The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, as editor (1994) ISBN 0-19-512559-2

Books

 * Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, coauthored with Dalia Mogahed (2008) ISBN 978-1-59562-017-0
 * What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam (1st edition: 2002. 2nd edition: 2011) ISBN 978-0-19-979413-3
 * The Future of Islam (2010) ISBN 0-19-516521-7
 * Islam: The Straight Path (1st edition: 1988, 3rd edition: 2004) ISBN 0-19-518266-9
 * Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam (2002) ISBN 0-19-515435-5
 * Women in Muslim Family Law, coauthored with Natana J. Delong-Bas (2nd edition: 2002) ISBN 0-8156-2908-7
 * Makers of Contemporary Islam, coauthored John Voll (2001) ISBN 0-19-514128-8
 * The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? (3rd edition: 1999) ISBN 0-19-513076-6
 * Political Islam: Radicalism, Revolution or Reform (1997) ISBN 1-55587-168-2

Collections
This section may include written or editorial contributions to collections of works by various scholars.
 * Islamophobia: The Challenge of Pluralism in the 21st Century as coeditor with Ibrahim Kalin (2011) ISBN 978-0-19-975364-2
 * Islam in Asia: Religion, Politics, & Society, as editor (2006) ISBN 0-19-504082-1
 * Turkish Islam and the Secular State: The Gulen Movement, as coeditor with M. Hakan Yavuz (2003) ISBN 0-8156-3040-9
 * Modernizing Islam: Religion in the Public Sphere in the Middle East and Europe, as coeditor with Francois Burgat (2003) ISBN 0-8135-3198-5
 * Iran at the Crossroads, as coeditor with R.K. Ramazani (2000) ISBN 0-312-23816-9
 * Muslims on the Americanization Path?, as coeditor with Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad (2000) ISBN 0-19-513526-1
 * Islam, Gender and Social Change, as coeditor with Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad (1997) ISBN 0-19-511357-8
 * Islam and Politics, as editor (1st edition: 1984, 4th edition: 1998) ISBN 0-8156-2774-2
 * Islam and Democracy, as coeditor with John Voll (1996) ISBN 0-19-510816-7
 * Voices of Resurgent Islam, as editor (1983) ISBN 0-19-503340-X

title: John Esposito


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rfl

rfl
final (12/0/0) ending 05:03, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Rafał Pocztarski is a careful, thorough contributor who has made 2166 edits since July 2 (and hundreds more on other languages). He's an extremely hard worker who would use sysop abilities to tirelessly improve the place. – Quadell (talk) (help)  05:05, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

I hereby proudly indicate my acceptance of the nomination. Rafał Pocztarski 08:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) The nominator, of course.    – Quadell (talk) (help)   05:05, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) jni 16:21, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) 172 18:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, a good choice. J OHN C OLLISON [ Ludraman] 10:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) M7it 17:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Dittaeva 20:47, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:42, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes. --Lst27 ( t a l k )  02:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) GeneralPatton 03:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Andre ( talk )A| 17:44, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Sure. - RedWordSmith 20:57, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. ffirehorse 01:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments
 * Good user, made some really constructive comments over at FAC. GeneralPatton 03:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

 * A. I think I would anticipate helping with my Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags which I would be able to update myself instead of asking someone else, though that is not such a big deal. I am not really sure what I would start doing which I am not already doing. I suppose that reverting vandalism will be much faster. Reading the articles referenced on the reading list will hopefully give me some ideas.

 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

 * A. I am particularly pleased with my Image:25 pair color code chart.png which I have written in PostScript. I am somewhat pleased with the Creative Commons templates mentioned above. I don’t really think there are any articles I am particularly pleased with, because I would consider my editions and corrections made to the articles just a side effect of reading them. I think I like some of my comments on the talk pages which were interesting to write, like those on Talk:Pseudoscience and Talk:Creation vs. evolution debate. I like the articles that I started and which were later expanded by other people, like some of those linked in my user page, because they are interesting to read. But still, writing is just a side effect of reading.

 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?

 * A. Yes, other users have caused me stress. I usually deal with it by group therapy. Seriously, what kind of question is that? I have been in conflicts over editing, and in fact I seem to be in one as we speak, as my removal of redundant categories in Multi-level marketing article has just been reverted. (Should an article be explicitly added to its main category and also to every supercategory that one is directly and indirectly a subcategory of?) But I don’t remember any conflicts more serious than that, probably because I prefer to voice my opinion than to participate in edit wars. I think that writing about myself is causing me stress, so I will stop now to deal with it. Rafał Pocztarski 08:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rfl


text:
Montauk Highway

Montauk Highway is an east–west road extending for 95 mi across the southern shore of Long Island in Suffolk County, New York, in the United States. It extends from the Nassau County line in Amityville, where it connects to Merrick Road, to Montauk Point State Park at the very eastern end of Long Island in Montauk. The highway is known by several designations along its routing, primarily New York State Route 27A (NY 27A) from the county line to Oakdale and NY 27 east of Southampton. The portion of Montauk Highway between Oakdale and Southampton is mostly county-maintained as County Route 80 and County Route 85 (CR 80 and CR 85, respectively).

The highway was one of the original through highways of Long Island, initially extending from Jamaica in the New York City borough of Queens to Montauk Point. Within Queens, the road is now known as Merrick Boulevard, and for its entire run in Nassau County, the road is Merrick Road, with the Montauk Highway designation picking up in Amityville. The designations assigned to the road have also changed over time: Montauk Highway was the original route of NY 27 until most of it was superseded in purpose by Sunrise Highway, and for a brief time all of Montauk Highway west of Southampton was signed as NY 27A. It is still the southernmost through route on Long Island, although it has been realigned in several locations.

Route description
Montauk Highway begins at the Nassau–Suffolk county line, where it connects to Merrick Road. It heads east along the southern shore of Long Island, carrying NY 27A from Amityville to Oakdale. The highway generally narrows to two lanes in most places, especially through communities of which it forms the main street, such as Amityville, the village of Babylon, West Islip, Bay Shore, the hamlet of Islip, East Islip, Great River, Oakdale, Sayville, Patchogue, and Center Moriches. In these places, Montauk Highway is often called Main Street. In addition to being called Montauk Highway and Main Street in Suffolk County, it is also historically known as South Country Road, a name that is only used by former segments today.

NY 27A ends at NY 27 exit 46A in Oakdale, giving way to CR 85 along Montauk Highway. As CR 85, Montauk Highway runs through the hamlets of Oakdale, West Sayville, Sayville, Bayport, and Blue Point to the village of Patchogue, where the designation ends at CR 19. East of CR 19, Montauk Highway (known within the village as West and East Main streets) continues as a village-maintained street to the eastern village line, where it becomes CR 80, the designation that comprises most of Montauk Highway. Proceeding east from Patchogue, Montauk Highway runs through progressively less-densely populated communities. The segment east of Station Road in North Bellport and CR 36 in Brookhaven still contains old concrete pavement, a common practice of the mid-20th century. East of Speonk, the highway enters the Hamptons, the small-town, farming and summer resort communities especially popular with New York City summer vacationers.

Montauk Highway forms the main street of most of the communities in the Hamptons, such as Westhampton, Quogue, and Hampton Bays. CR 80 ends west of the village of Southampton at Knoll Road, at which point Montauk Highway becomes state-maintained again as NY 900W, an unsigned reference route. This ends at the Southampton village line, leaving Montauk Highway as a village-maintained street until it reconnects to NY 27 northeast of the village center. Now part of NY 27, Montauk Highway is the major, and occasionally the only through road in the area, passing through Bridgehampton, East Hampton, and Amagansett to reach Montauk. The highway and NY 27 end at a loop in the road at Montauk Point.

Background
Montauk Highway was planned as the southernmost all-weather road on Long Island. It began in Jamaica, the county seat of Queens County and an important railroad junction located in the east-central part of the county. Montauk Highway was routed in a southeasterly direction toward the Atlantic Ocean coastline of Long Island, turning in an east-northeasterly direction in current Nassau County to more or less parallel the shore through Suffolk County, ending at Montauk Point, the easternmost point of land on the South Fork of the island. As an all-weather road, Montauk Highway has rarely been breached by even serious storms; however, portions in the Hamptons were flooded out by the New England Hurricane of 1938.

The current road is no longer a single route-designated road. In Queens, it is a city street known as Merrick Boulevard. Through Nassau County, it is a two-to-four lane highway with traffic lights known as Merrick Road. This name is derived from the community of Merrick, through which the road passes. As such, the Montauk Highway name now applies to the section that lies within Suffolk County.

Initial designations
Montauk Highway and Merrick Road were designated as NY 27 from the New York City line to Amagansett in the mid-1920s. From East Patchogue to Brookhaven, NY 27 followed South Country Road instead, which was part of Montauk Highway at the time. The NY 27 designation was extended eastward along Montauk Highway to Montauk Point by 1930. On February 24, 1930, South Country Road was added to the Suffolk County highway system as CR 36. NY 27 and Montauk Highway were realigned to directly connect East Patchogue and Brookhaven via North Bellport.

NY 27 was realigned west of Oakdale c. 1931 to follow Sunrise Boulevard (the predecessor to Sunrise Highway), a new, parallel highway to Merrick Road and Montauk Highway between the New York City line and Massapequa and several local roads from Massapequa to Montauk Highway at Oakdale. The former routing of NY 27 on Montauk Highway from Massapequa to Oakdale became NY 27A, which connected to NY 27 in Massapequa by way of County Line Road. NY 27A was extended eastward along Montauk Highway to Patchogue in the early 1950s, after NY 27 was realigned to follow a new highway between Oakdale and Patchogue. A limited-access highway extension of NY 27 to Shirley opened to traffic in the late 1950s, at which time NY 27A was extended eastward along NY 27's former routing to meet NY 27 in Shirley.

Construction on a new alignment for NY 27 between NY 24 in Hampton Bays and Montauk Highway near Water Mill began by 1961 and was completed around 1962. The section of Montauk Highway between the two locations became part of NY 27A, even though it did not connect to any other part of the route. An extension of the Patchogue–Shirley limited-access highway to the vicinity of Eastport was completed as a realignment of NY 27 by 1964, allowing NY 27A to be extended once more along Montauk Highway. NY 27A was also extended east to Hampton Bays at this time, connecting to the segment of NY 27A between Hampton Bays and Water Mill and creating an overlap with NY 27.

Maintenance transfers
Ownership and maintenance of Montauk Highway between Oakdale and the town of Southampton was gradually transferred from the state of New York to Suffolk County during the 1960s and 1970s. The portion from the Patchogue village line east to NY 24 in Hampton Bays was turned over to the county on October 6, 1966, while the segment between NY 24 and Knoll Road was given to Suffolk County on February 15, 1968. This section of Montauk Highway became CR 80, a route 32.50 mi in length. The CR 80 designation was previously used for the Nesconset–Port Jefferson Highway, a road acquired by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and designated NY 347 in 1966.

Although most of Montauk Highway between Patchogue and the village of Southampton was now maintained by the county, NY 27A continued to follow the road eastward to NY 27 northeast of Southampton. It was finally cut back to its current eastern terminus in Oakdale on March 29, 1972, after ownership and maintenance of Montauk Highway between Oakdale and CR 19 in Patchogue was transferred from the state to the county. The new 8.24 mi county road was redesignated CR 85, a number used for the Smithtown Bypass until 1966, when that road was transferred to NYSDOT and designated NY 347. A 2.85 mi section of Montauk Highway between Knoll Road to the west village line of Southampton at Tuckahoe Lane was retained by the state of New York and designated NY 900W, an unsigned reference route.

Between the east end of CR 98 and the vicinity of the west end of CR 71, the Suffolk County Department of Public Works had once planned to widen the road from two lanes to four lanes.

Realignments
Over the years, Montauk Highway has been realigned in several locations. The former segments are now known by another name or as Old Montauk Highway, notably at Theodore Roosevelt County Park east of Montauk, where new Montauk Highway heads northeast through Montauk Point State Park while Old Montauk Highway heads east as a narrow hilly road next to the shoreline. Other significant realignments include the aforementioned rerouting between East Patchogue and Brookhaven and another in the vicinity of Eastport, where CR 71 (Old Country Road) was part of Montauk Highway between the current road and Eastport–Manor Road (CR 55). From there, Montauk Highway turned south along CR 55 to reconnect to its modern routing. Another former section is located between Montauk Beach and Montauk, where the modern road was altered to bypass the former to the north. The old road breaks from the current highway inside Hither Hills State Park and heads through Montauk Beach before rejoining the highway between South Dearborn Place and Second House Road.

Many smaller sections also exist:
 * Great River: a segment split in two broken as a result of the Oakdale Merge, both used to access fishing areas in Connetquot River State Park: Bubble Falls and Rattlesnake Brook
 * Sayville: Amy Drive to Old Broadway Avenue
 * Brookhaven: in front of a private residence near Yaphank Avenue
 * South Haven: Old South Country Road
 * Mastic: Old Montauk Highway from Washington Avenue to Mastic Road
 * Moriches: from Barnes Road on the East Lake of the Forge River to an undetermined location
 * Center Moriches: private road east of Old Neck Road leading to houses north of the LIRR Montauk Branch.
 * East Moriches: Camp Paquatuck to Mill Pond Lane.
 * Speonk: Old Montauk Highway in the vicinity of Mill Road
 * Water Mill: Old Country Road
 * Wainscott: Old Montauk Highway in the vicinity of Wainscott Stone Road
 * Amagansett: Skimhampton Road and Further Lane as well as Old Montauk Highway connected by a now-abandoned segment of Old Montauk Highway that ran parallel to Bluff Road
 * Napeague: Cranberry Hole Road (unsigned CR 33) and Napeague Meadow Road.
 * Montauk: two segments of Old Montauk Highway, including one in Camp Hero State Park

In popular culture

 * Paul Simon "drove the Montauk Highway" in the song "Dazzling Blue" on the album So Beautiful or So What.

title: Montauk Highway


text:
1957 New Zealand general election

The 1957 New Zealand general election was a nationwide vote to determine the shape of the New Zealand Parliament's 32nd term. It saw the governing National Party narrowly defeated by the Labour Party. The 1957 elections marked the beginning of the second Labour government, although this administration was to last only a single term.

Background
The National Party had formed its first administration after the 1949 elections, and had been re-elected in the 1951 elections and the 1954 elections. As its third term in office continued, however, the Prime Minister, Sidney Holland, became increasingly ill. Holland's memory began to fail, and he is believed to have suffered a mild heart attack during the Suez Crisis. A mere two months before the 1957 election, Holland was persuaded by his party to step down; Keith Holyoake, his deputy, became Prime Minister. The Labour Party was still led by Walter Nash, who had been Finance Minister in the first Labour government.

The 1957 election campaign was dominated largely by financial issues, particularly introduction of the PAYE tax system. As a campaign promise, Labour announced that in the year that PAYE commenced, there would be a flat rebate of £100 on income tax — National attacked this as an election bribe. Labour also campaigned to abolish compulsory military training. National made no great changes to its policy platform, and Holyoake largely retained the Cabinet he had inherited from his predecessor.

MPs retiring in 1957
Six National MPs intended to retire at the end of the 31st Parliament. No Labour MPs retired.

Jack Massey also left parliament at the election. He intended to stand again in but was deselected as a candidate by the National Party.

The election
The date for the main 1957 election was 30 November. 1,252,329 people were registered to vote, and turnout was 92.9%. This turnout, although only average for the time, was not to be equalled or exceeded until the 1984 election. The number of seats being contested was 80, a number which had been fixed since 1902.

The Labour candidate for Clutha, Bruce Waters, died the day before the general election, and the election there was postponed to 18 January 1958. The unusual situation of an electorate vote being delayed due to the death of a candidate did not occur again until the 2023 election.

Party standings
The 1957 election saw the governing National Party defeated by a narrow two-seat margin. It had previously held a ten-seat majority. National won a total of thirty-nine seats, while the Labour Party won forty-one. In the popular vote, National won 44% to Labour's 48%. The Social Credit Party won 7% of the vote, a drop from its previous result of 11%. It still won no seats.

Votes summary

The table below shows the results of the 1957 general election:

Key

|colspan=8 style="background-color:#FFDEAD" | General electorates

| Hauraki | style="background-color:;" | | colspan=3 style="text-align:center;background-color:;" | Arthur Kinsella | style="text-align:right;" | 1,161 | style="background-color:;" | | style="text-align:center;" | Brevat William Dynes

|colspan=8 style="background-color:#FFDEAD" | Māori electorates

Table footnotes:
 * }

Post-election events
A number of local by-elections were required due to the resignations of incumbent local body politicians following the general election:

 * Hugh Watt resigned his seat on the Auckland Harbour Board on 17 December 1957 after his appointment to cabinet.
 * There were two by-elections for the Christchurch City Council. Councillors Mabel Howard and John Mathison also resigned their seats following their election as cabinet ministers at the formation of the Second Labour government causing a by-election to replace them on the council. Likewise Robert Macfarlane resigned as Mayor of Christchurch upon his selection as Speaker of the New Zealand House of Representatives. Macfarlane was succeeded as mayor by councillor George Manning. McFarlane was elected for one of the vacant seats on the council, with the other seats being won by Bill Glue, Bill MacGibbon and Peter Skellerup.

title: 1957 New Zealand general election