text:
Talk:List of federal agencies in the United States

In-Q-Tel
Does that belong on the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarykitty (talk • contribs)
 * It's there now under "Government entities created by acts but are independent or other entities". It seems to have somehow been spawned by the CIA, but the exact mechanism is unclear from the article In-Q-Tel. -- Beland (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization
Hi i think yall need to look carefully at the way you type so umm next time make sure you check your capital letters. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.126.252 (talk • contribs)

House-cleaning necessary
It seems an industrious(?) IP has been editing the page. I just reverted some crud (tagged as e-mail address) put here a few days ago. The edits have left the page a hopeless, if not informative, mess. I really don't know what's needed, and what's not. I don't even have anything to contribute to government articles. However, we need a Wiki-Broom in here STAT.  2J Bäkkvire Maestro  what are you looking at? 21:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur. The article has been heavily vandalized. There is a LOT of bizarre junk in here but I don't have the time to compare it against official agency org charts and clean it all up.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Major rewrite and cleanup
I have already removed a lot of vandalism and garbage from this article. It is still in very bad shape and I am going to do some more work on it. Safiel (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Disputed
Considering the number of inaccuracies on this page and the length of time it will take to get this article in order, I have put up the Disputed tag. At the very least, visitors to this page should be warned that there are problems here. Safiel (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

IG's
Not sure why the IP address is adding IG's to the article, but I am tagging it. In addition to be totally irrelevant, it is non alphabetized and misspelled. Safiel (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

cleaned up
I have been comparing each section to each departent's official website. I've cleaned up a lot of it so far. One question- should we remove the judicial branch, the White House, etc. This is supposed to be a list of gov AGENCIES, not all gov entities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diego cullen89 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A few months ago when I was still actively editing this list, I got a bit too aggressive in adding to this. Looking at it now, it needs to be severely pruned. I will start to do so. Safiel (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

YOU GUYS FORGOT TO PUT Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers IN THE LIST.
'''YOU GUYS FORGOT TO PUT Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers IN THE LIST. I ADDED INTO THE PROPER SECTION. I KNOW ITS TIES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE HAVE RECNETLY BEEN FURTHER LOOSENED, BUT THEY ARE ARE STILL SOMEWHAT CONNECTED, SO IT IS IMPORTANT FOR IT TO BE ON THIS LIST. THANKS.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.225.48 (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed solutions for perpetually disputed List of U.S. Federal Agencies
Over two years with a cleanup tag is long enough.

I've added easily consulted References and Notes sections (sfn, please - no need to clutter References when re-citing just a few authorities, by page number if needed). But the intro is OK for now and doesn't need an unspecified cleanup tag. I've removed it and added a specific list disputed tag just above the list itself, keeping the 2010 date of the original tag to reflect the disputes chronicled above.

I've deleted a few obvious non-agencies (Congress Chartered nonprofit corporations, e.g. Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, etc.) to a single See Also reference. We need much more of that pruning: (a) add See Also link to article on entire class of non-Federal agencies (not each specific entity, please), and (b) get rid of stuff covered by that See Also. Whole sections that are not federal agencies can go away. If you want to help right now, please fill in the See Also section with Wikilinks to articles on classes of non-agency entities.

But the whole willy-nilly free form link farm needs to go entire. It's embarrassing. And unmaintainable.

As documented in the intro now, there is no single official list available that doesn't differ from another official list. It is important to state that loud and clear in intro, as I have done. That draws the line for those who would try to keep this list in perpetual dispute. It is equally important to state what particular list or rule-of-thumb we are using as our inclusion criteria. That stated, and with strict adherence to no original research policy, future disputes will end quickly.

We need to adopt a sane working definition as our criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia's list. That's been done, and in machine readable form for ready transformation into table, copyright free by authority I recommend we follow. I'll put that definition in article when ready with list so you can compare.

What this LIST really needs is a LIST format - sorry pretty Department pictures, no room in an accurate and informative Agency list for you.

I'm working on a formatted, hyperlinked, sortable table of just US Federal Agencies, as referenced, with built-in Wikilinks to agency articles and statutory links. WP:NOR, just formatting best available US Govt. data. Paulscrawl (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Independent agencies subdivision
The Independent agencies and government-owned corporations section contains further subdivision into categories (Elections, Administrative agencies, Civil Service agencies...). Where is this subdivision coming from? To be honest I would like to have the data. Or is it original research? Thank you. Griii2 (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Other agencies not in the list
I am reviewing the White House budget https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Supplemental and the documents contain partial list of agencies unfortunately in a very confusing structure. Some of the agencies mentioned in the budget that are also mentioned in the Federal Register website but are not in this list are:

 * https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/institute-of-american-indian-and-alaska-native-culture-and-arts-development
 * https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/nuclear-waste-technical-review-board
 * https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/navajo-and-hopi-indian-relocation-office
 * https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/military-compensation-and-retirement-modernization-commission

Other agencies mentioned in the budget but not in the Federal Register website but are not in this list are:

 * http://www.umwafunds.org/Pages/default.aspx
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Regional_Authority

Griii2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is United States Agency for International Development (USAID) not on the list? Or am I missing something?

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of federal agencies in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100721213241/http://www.justice.gov/odr/index.html to http://www.justice.gov/odr/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130518150541/http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/fedagencydef.pdf to http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/fedagencydef.pdf

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) 22:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on List of federal agencies in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110119174253/http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1205181920255.shtm to https://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1205181920255.shtm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110119174307/http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1205182322272.shtm to https://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1205182322272.shtm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110119174243/http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1205181428190.shtm to https://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1205181428190.shtm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110119174235/http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1205180907841.shtm to https://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1205180907841.shtm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120712204043/https://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0872.shtm to https://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0872.shtm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110916062007/http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1239039765491.shtm to https://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1239039765491.shtm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629112622/http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1250531577276.shtm to https://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1250531577276.shtm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110228154632/http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1244558032819.shtm to https://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1244558032819.shtm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110817155950/http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1250026116941.shtm to https://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1250026116941.shtm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629112746/http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1260460985178.shtm to https://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1260460985178.shtm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629112910/http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1249323508275.shtm to https://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1249323508275.shtm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629113040/http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1250090861814.shtm to https://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1250090861814.shtm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201172439/http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/faith_based to http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/faith_based
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201174233/http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/enforcement to http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/enforcement
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201195945/http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/gov_relations to http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/gov_relations
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201133318/http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/eeo to http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/eeo
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100518214644/http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp to http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201133537/http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/field_policy_mgt to http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/field_policy_mgt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201205054/http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/general_counsel to http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/general_counsel
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201162344/http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/healthy_homes to http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/healthy_homes
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201133455/http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/hearings_appeals to http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/hearings_appeals
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201173202/http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/labor_relations to http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/labor_relations
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201210712/http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/public_affairs to http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/public_affairs
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201195857/http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/sdb to http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/sdb
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201162021/http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/sustainable_housing_communities to http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/sustainable_housing_communities

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) 06:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Agencies that need more explanation
I know its probably a big project and if I knew what the lesser known agencies do I would help contribute. But some agencies could use hyperlinks with their own pages or at least more of an explanation on this page. Like I've never heard of an executive branch agency that is purely statistics. So for example make a page for it. Or do the following,

Statistics - this agency does this and that (or perhaps no longer exists)

And try to expand more on the agencies listed with no hyperlinks. Ideally each would have its own page in its own right but just improving this article could be someone knowledgeable with an agency writing a sentence or two that gives a brief explanation of what goes on there.73.226.47.72 (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Federal Advisory Committee Inclusion
Can we have a discussion of whether federally chartered committees, such as those covered by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, should be included? I see some of them scattered throughout the article, but not all of the committees kept in the full listing of them at https://www.facadatabase.gov/FACA/apex/FACAPublicAgencyNavigation are.

Dept of Defense Section looks pretty bloated.
I'm tempted to give the armed forces their own section with how huge and layered the DOD section is becoming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:346:580:AE:32B:4262:7C84:BB98 (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


text:
Grifters (band)

Grifters is an indie rock/alternative rock band based in Memphis who have released albums on Darla Records, Doink, Sonic Noise, Shangri-La Records, and Sub Pop Records. The band released five studio albums from 1992 to 1997. In the years following 1997, the band had breaks in activity with some members pursuing other musical projects and with the band sporadically touring in the years after. However, in recent years they have continued to tour on a consistent basis and have stated interest in recording new material. The band has released and reissued some of their material on Bandcamp.

Founding, early years and Sub Pop records: 1989–1997
""Dave got the band going about eight and half years ago. He found Scott through a lot of tapes and just decided he wanted to work with this weirdo, basically..."" The band originally formed in the late 1980s as A Band Called Bud, with vocalist/guitarist Scott Taylor, bassist Tripp Lamkins, and vocalist/drummer Dave Shouse who founded the band and became its leader. After being renamed Grifters (after the novel by Jim Thompson) by 1990, Shouse joined Taylor on guitar, with Stanley Gallimore taking over on the drums. Songwriting duties were shared between Shouse, Taylor, and Lamkins. For several years in the 1990s, they recorded primarily at Easley McCain Recording and were closely affiliated with Memphis's Shangri-La Records label. Jeff Buckley was a vocal supporter of The Grifters and was close friends with the band.

The band released its first album on the Sonic Noise label in 1992, titled So Happy Together. The album had a very abrasive lo-fi sound with considerable noise, an approach to recording that was later avoided on subsequent releases. Following this, One Sock Missing succeeded in 1993 on Shangri-La Records. The album was similar to the first, albeit featured less lofi and noise signifying the cleaner sound that would become standard on later material. The album was much more successful than the first and garnered the band its first positive critical reception. Soon after, Crappin' You Negative was released in 1994 and garnered even greater critical acclaim, featuring an even mix of lo-fi and commercial production. The album is highlighted as the "pick" of the artist's discography by Allmusic, signifying it as their favorite release of the band.

The band then released Ain't My Lookout in 1996, the first on Sub Pop records. The band developed a clean and commercial sound on the album, with the lo-fi qualities of past material being devoid on this release. Following this, the band released its fifth and final album, titled Full Blown Possession in 1997 on sub pop records. The album largely continued the clean and commercial sound of their recent albums.

Disbandment and side projects: 1997–2001
Following the breakup of the band, each member pursued different projects. Dave Shouse worked on his side project Those Bastard Souls started in 1995, later to become his primary band. The project also featured vocalist and violinist Joan Wasser (Joan as police woman), drummer Kevin March (Dambuilders/later GBV member), Michael Tighe (Jeff Buckley collaborator/guitarist) and bassist/pianist Matt Fields (Red Red Meat).

Those Bastard Souls released two albums, its first in 1996 as an anonymous solo project of Shouse titled Twentieth Century Chemical. With the second titled Debt and Departure in 1999, featuring Wasser, March, Tighe and Fields first introduced on the album. The project became inactive in 2001. The Grifters would tour on a sporadic basis in the following years, but with no more new material since the late 90s.

Recent years to present: 2001–present
The band had a reunion tour in 2013, followed by another in 2014 to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Crappin' You Negative. As of 2021, the band continues to tour and has shown interest in recording new material.

Discography
as A Band Called Bud:
 * Dad full length cassette (Doink Records, 1989)
 * Shark 7 flexi disc with The Martini Age (Kreature Comforts,1989)

Albums

 * So Happy Together LP/CD (Sonic Noise, 1992)
 * One Sock Missing LP/CD (Shangri-La, 1993)
 * Crappin' You Negative LP/CD (Shangri-La Records, 1994)
 * Ain't My Lookout LP/CD (Shangri-la Records/Sub Pop, 1996)
 * Full Blown Possession LP/CD (Sub Pop, 1997)
 * Possible Obstructed View - Live CD (Limited Edition Self-Produced, 2014)

EPs

 * Disfigurehead EP 7-inch (Doink Records, 1990)
 * The Kingdom of Jones EP 7-inch (Doink Records, 1991)
 * The Eureka E.P. 10-inch/CD (Shangri-La Records, 1995)
 * The Doink Years 10-inch reissue of Disfigurehead and The Kingdom Of Jones (Shangri-La Records, 1996)
 * The Doink Years CD reissue of Disfigurehead and The Kingdom Of Jones (Shangri-La Records, 2006)

Singles

 * "Soda Pop" 7-inch (Shangri-La Records, 1992)
 * "Corolla Hoist" 7-inch (Shangri-La Records, 1992)
 * "Under the Ground" split 7-inch (with Crain; Simple Machines, 1993)
 * "Holmes" 7-inch (Darla Records, 1994)
 * "Bronze Cast" 7-inch (Shangri-La Records, 1994)
 * "Dildozer" split 7-inch (with Fluffy Kitty; Cherry Smash, 1994)
 * "I'm Drunk" split 7-inch (with Guided by Voices; Now Sound, 1994)
 * "Queen of the Table Waters" 7-inch (Sub Pop Records, 1994)
 * "Stream" 7-inch (Derivative Records, 1995)
 * "Slipknot" 7-inch (Super 8 Records, 1996)
 * "Last Man Alive" 7-inch (Sub Pop Records, 1996)
 * "Wicked Thing" 7-inch (Sub Pop Records, 1997)

Various-artist compilation appearances

 * "She Blows Blasts Of Static" on Altered States of America, cassette, (Lime Lizard, UK, 1993)
 * "Black Fuel Incinerator" on Why Do You Think They Call It Pop? 10-inch (Pop Narcotic,1993)
 * "Make It Happen" on Ten Cent Fix, CD, (Jiffy Boy, 1993)
 * "Spaceship" on A Day in the Park, CD, (Now Sound, 1994)
 * "Look What You've Done To Me Now" on The Smitten Love Song Comp, CD, (Karate Brand, 1994)
 * "Under The Ground" on Working Holiday!, CD, (Simple Machines, 1994)
 * "The Want (live)" on Half-Cocked: The Motion Picture Soundtrack CD (Matador, 1995)
 * "Roadside Monument" on Mike McGonigal's Chemical Imbalance: 1984-1996, Vol.3, No.1, (Chemical Imbalance, 1995)
 * two songs on Barristers: Two Years In The Alley CD, 1996
 * "Empty Yard" on Red Hot + Bothered: The Indie Rock Guide Book to Dating CD (Red Hot Organization/Kinetic, 1995)
 * "Corolla Hoist (live at WMBR)" on MAGNET/Darla Single 7-inch (Magnet Magazine/Darla Records, 1996)
 * "Wicked Thing" on Spring Lineup - A Compilation Of Sub Pop's Heavy Hitters Promo CD, (Sub Pop Records, 1997)
 * "Holmes" on The Basement Recordings: Live at Cicero's, CD, (On The Clock, 1997)
 * "The Muffin Man" on Rudy's Rockin' Kiddie Caravan CD, (Bloodshot Records, 1997)
 * "Radio City Suicide" on Chicago Cab Soundtrack, CD, (Loosegroove Records, 1998)
 * five singles on Shangri-La: 10 Years, CD, (Shangri-La Records, 1998)
 * two singles on Darla 100, CD, (Darla Records, 2000)
 * "Hits Keep Comin" on The Unaccompanied Voice: An A Capella Compilation, CD, (Secretly Canadian, 2000)
 * "Confidential" on Shangri-la Projects: B-Sides, CD, (Shangri-La Records, 2006)

Bootlegs

 * No Particular Slogan, (2×CD, singles compilation)
 * That's Not French, (live bootleg recorded at The Bottleneck Lawrence, Kansas, 2000)

Videos

 * "Banjo" & "Whatever Happened To Felix Cole" - VHS video single (Shangri-La Records 1995)
 * "Last Man Alive" (directed by Russell Bates, 1996)

Film appearances

 * Half-Cocked directed by Suki Hawley & Michael Galinsky. The Grifters appear as themselves and perform "The Want" live

Members

 * Gordon Scott Taylor: Vocals, Guitar
 * William David "Dave" Shouse: Vocals, Guitar, Keyboards
 * Russell "Tripp" Lamkins III: Bass, Guitar, Keyboards
 * Stanley Noyel Gallimore: Drums

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

title: Grifters (band)


text:
Talk:Battle of Puná

Untitled
i find some language use very interesting, referring especially to the battle of puna.... such emotional discriptions seem only to deceive... but what do i know. Notes:
 * the use of the Quechua Tahuantinsuyu to refer to the Inca Empire seems pretty counterintuitive, especially given that the former now redirects to the latter. Fixed.
 * It's unclear that the plural of "Inca" is singular in construction. Until this can be conclusively proven either way, I'll revert Zenyu's edits to avoid confusion (I use "the Incas" to denote Quechua inhabitants of the Empire and "the Inca" in reference to the monarch, as does Prescott - this distinction may become important later in the campaign). Albrecht 17:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Inca, like sheep, is plural as well as singular. But if you think "Incas" is clearer in this case, you wouldn't be the first to use it. I was just trying to be make the word usage more consistent across the pages that use the word. I think you may be right in this case, Inca as in emperor and Inca as in people is an annoying ambiguity in itself. Zenyu 19:40, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Battle
The article relies exclusively on the Spanish chronicles for its account of the conquistadors' superior weaponry single-handedly overcame the vast disparity in numbers between the conquistadors and the Incas. However, the Nova episode "The Great Inca Rebellion," aired in 2011, reanalyzed one of the battles of the Spanish conquest using forensic and legal history evidence. Although the exact battle was not specified, it probably has parts that apply to other battles, including Puná, if it was a different battle. Among the statements in the episode was "The chronicles try to justify the conquest. And in order to magnify the glory of the Spaniards, they exaggerate." In other words, we can't trust what the chronicles.

The episode covered the discovery of wounds discovered on the battlefield consistent with steel weaponry like what the conquistadors brought. However, it also mentioned that the vast majority of injuries found at the site were blunt force injuries more consistent with New World weaponry.

I'm not aware of any source that provides any evidence for an alternative explanation of the Battle of Puná to that of the Spanish chronicles, in the absence of which no alternative theory should be presented in this article. However, there is published work that calls into question the reliability of those chronicles and their specific agenda that could have led to outright distortion of the record. Should the questions about the accuracy of the chronicles be simply mentioned, with a possible link to a source that discusses it in more detail?

Scott Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.97.104.30 (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Battle of Puná


text:
Talk:IPCC Third Assessment Report

(William M. Connolley 17:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I've created this page because I want to link to it. At the momemnt I'm a bit unsure how big it should be. I think that most text should be on the IPCC page as at present.

Titular acronym
This shouldn't have an acronym for a title. I'm just not sure whether to move it to Third Assessment Report, IPCC Third Assessment Report, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report. I'm leaning toward the second. Opinions? —Simetrical (talk) 06:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 09:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Well as long as the short form remains to link to I don't much mind. But... the first is out (other bodies might also issue third reps), the second has an acronym in the title :-) and the third is wordy but probably best.

The second includes an acronym, of course, but the third is just insanely wordy. I mean, seriously: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report. Forget it, I'm going with the second. —Simetrical (talk) 23:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stub type
(William M. Connolley 09:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Re the stub type: there is some history on that; Icairns changed it. I thought sci was better than geo. Possibly (if stub types are to proliferate) we could have a report-stub too. Or an intergovernmental bodies stub. OR a climate stub. I couldn't decide so did nothing.

 * Nevertheless, climatology has no relation to geography, not by any stretch of the imagination. I have to wonder what was going through Icairns' head.

 * Report-stub is too narrow, and intergovernmental-bodies-stub is way too narrow. Climate, I think, also probably doesn't make it; the stub categories page says that new stubs should be created only for categories with a hundred pages or more, although that rule seems to be completely ignored (Bush-stub?!).

 * Ah, I have it! The IPCC was founded by the UN, right?  We can use the UN-stub!  Or do you think the connection is too tenuous? —Simetrical (talk) 23:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 21:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)) There are quite a lot of climate pages: glossary of climate change (and that only includes the ch ones, by and large)

 * Seems to me like rather a lot of those are only tangentially related to climate, and wouldn't deserve a climate-stub tag if they were stubs. But I've broadened the UN-stub, so now it's definitely suitable for use for this page. —Simetrical (talk) 22:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite
I tried to fill this out as much as possible, make it a stand-alone article with links to other subjects (including "See Also" as not including things referenced or listed in the article, and as many inline references/links to other wiki pages as possible in the article), and for it to be accurate and descriptive. I included references to the WGs that handle different subjects, named for what they described the groups as being on their "about" page. For example, their current organization lists 3 WG and the TF, I tried to pull out short descriptions based upon what they said. Trouble is, their own link for WG III isn't working....... Sln3412 07:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Canonical IPCC citations
See Talk:IPCC Third Assessment Report/citation for citation forms and data.
 * ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

As discussed at Talk:Global warming, I have worked out (and hopefully debugged! but feel free to check) a set of canonical citations (references, actually), with working links, for the principal IPCC documents as demonstated below. If there are no objections I will upgrade the existing citations in this article to this format. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

 * (pb: )

 * (pb: )

 * (pb: )

 * (pb: )

 * Updated forms. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anyone is much concerned about this article, so as long as I am working on the citations I may also do any other straightening that seems necessary. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Done. I have also rewritten the lede to remove some unnecessary material, and elaborated some of the bare urls that were posing as citations.  The latter are a little klunky-looking, but no one wanted to bother with a reflist before so I am not going to feel bad about this. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Re edit war
,, and anyone else: Quite aside from any other good reason for blocking 108.73.112.237, I think , adding "title=Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report" to a citation, ought to be allowed. It seems to be a good faith attempt to clear one of the "Missing or empty title=" error messages that now plague us. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The ips were blocked for abuse per WP:Block evasion - anyone may re-instate the edit (make it their own) if they deem it valid. Vsmith (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You and William seemed to be going at it so hard at it I was fearful of getting run over. One yellow smoke, coming up. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on IPCC Third Assessment Report. 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/19960101/http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm to http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160330214626/http://grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg1%2Findex.htm to http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg1%2Findex.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160514070847/http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg2%2Findex.htm to http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg2%2Findex.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170227094845/http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg3%2Findex.htm to http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg3%2Findex.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060913043522/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/ to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on IPCC Third Assessment Report. 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/20071011201618/http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm to http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20051007110044/http%3A//www.greenfacts.org/studies/climate_change/ to http://www.greenfacts.org/studies/climate_change/

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) 02:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Logo.svg

title: Talk:IPCC Third Assessment Report


text:
Postal voting

Postal voting is voting in an election where ballot papers are distributed to electors (and typically returned) by post, in contrast to electors voting in person at a polling station or electronically via an electronic voting system.

In an election, postal votes may be available on demand or limited to individuals meeting certain criteria, such as a proven inability to travel to a designated polling place. Most electors are required to apply for a postal vote, although some may receive one by default. In some elections postal voting is the only voting method allowed and is referred to as all-postal voting. With the exception of those elections, postal votes constitute a form of early voting and may be considered an absentee ballot.

Typically, postal votes must be mailed back before the scheduled election day. However, in some jurisdictions return methods may allow for dropping off the ballot in person via secure drop boxes or at voting centers. Postal votes may be processed by hand or scanned and counted electronically. The history of postal voting dates back to the 19th century, and modern-day procedures and availability vary by jurisdiction. Research, focused on the United States and using data from states where postal voting is widely available—California, Oregon and Washington—shows that the availability of postal voting tends to increase voter turnout.

Electoral laws typically stipulate a series of checks to protect against voter fraud and allow for the integrity and secrecy of the submitted ballot to be maintained. Known instances of fraud are very rare. Coordinated, large-scale fraud by postal voting is likely hard to pull off undetected because the large number of interested parties (such as officials, political operators, and journalists) as well as a large number of scholars and analysts who are capable of detecting statistical outliers in vote totals signifying large-scale fraud. Officials can confirm instances of fraud by checking signatures and conducting basic detective work.

All-postal voting
All-postal voting is a form of postal voting in which all electors receive their ballot papers through the post, not just those who requested an absentee ballot. Depending on the country, electors may have to return their ballot papers by post or they may be allowed to deliver them by hand to specified drop-off locations. All-postal voting is used in several states in the United States and in Switzerland, and was used in 2016 in the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey as well as in four regions of the United Kingdom in the 2004 European Parliament election.

There is some evidence that all-postal voting leads to higher turnout than in-person voting or mail-in voting that requires voters to first request a ballot (rather than receive it automatically).

Australia
At the 2016 Australian federal election, there were 1.2 million postal votes cast, amounting to 8.5 percent of total votes.

Postal voting in Australia was introduced for federal elections in 1902, and first used at the 1903 election. It was abolished by the Fisher government in 1910, following claims that it was open to abuse and biased towards rural voters. The Cook government's bill to restore postal voting was one of the "triggers" for the double dissolution prior to the 1914 election. Postal voting was eventually restored by the Hughes government in 1918 and has not been challenged since, although the provisions and requirements have been amended on a number of occasions.

Prior to Federation in 1901, Western Australia introduced a form of postal voting in 1877 with strict eligibility criteria. South Australia introduced postal voting for seamen in 1890, and a further act in 1896 gave postal votes to any elector who would be more than 15 mi from home on election day, as well as for any woman unable to travel "by reason of her health". Victoria passed a similar law in 1899, and the first federal postal voting legislation was also modelled on the 1896 South Australian act.

Procedure
Postal voting at a federal level is governed by the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and administered by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). Postal votes are available to those who will be absent from their electoral division through travel, or who those are unable to attend a polling booth due to illness, infirmity, "approaching childbirth", caring responsibilities, reasonable fears for their safety, religious beliefs, imprisonment, status as a silent elector, or employment reasons.

Eligible voters may make a postal vote application (PVA) prior to each election, or apply for status as a "general postal voter" and receive a postal ballot automatically. Postal voters receive their ballot(s) and a prepaid envelope containing their name and address, as well as a predetermined security question from the PVA. Voters are required to sign the envelope and provide the correct answer to the security question. They are also required to have a witness sign and date the envelope. As of 2016, postal votes were able to be received and entered into the count up to 13 days after election day. Following the 2016 election, it was observed that the strict scrutiny process afforded to postal votes was a "significant contributor" to delays in declaring the results of close elections.

Austria
Austria enabled postal voting in 2007 by amending Article 26 of the Constitution of Austria. Electors request an electoral card that can be completed in person or in private and sent via post. In the 2017 election, roughly 780,000 postal ballots were cast representing 15% of all ballots. In 2019, this number has increased to 1,070,000.

Canada
The ability to vote when in-person voting is not possible was first introduced with the federal Military Voters Act in 1917, giving all Canadian soldiers and their spouses the right to vote. Public servants became eligible in 1970. The right was further extended to civilian support personnel on Canadian Forces bases in the 1977. In 1993, Bill C-114 extended the special ballot vote (Special Voting Rules) by mail to all Canadian citizens.

Use of special voting rules, including mail voting, has grown with each election. In the 42nd general election (2015), the number of voters increased by 117 percent over the previous election to roughly 619,000. This number grew to roughly 660,000 in the 43rd election (2019) representing 3.6 percent of electors.

Finland
Finland introduced vote by post in 2019 for eligible voters living permanently abroad and eligible voters staying abroad at the time of the elections.

France
Postal voting existed in France until 1975, when it was banned (except in very limited circumstances) due to fears of voter fraud. The highly publicized use of widespread postal voting in the 2020 United States presidential election has reignited debate in France about the use of postal voting, but no consensus or concrete plans exist for reintroducing it.

Germany
Postal voting is common in Germany, with 47% of the electorate voting by post in the 2021 general election. Absentee voting has existed in Germany since 1957, originally in order to ensure that all German citizens, especially the old, sick, and disabled, and citizens living abroad, have the opportunity to participate in elections. At first, postal voters had to state why they could not cast their vote in person on Election Day; but this requirement was dropped in 2008, allowing everyone to use postal voting. Like in many other countries, in more recent years voting by mail has become increasingly popular among younger and non-disabled citizens residing within the country; as such, various tools are being developed to help citizens, both domestic and abroad, more easily apply for postal voting.

Greece
Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis announced that postal voting will be used in the European Parliament Elections on June 9, 2024. He also said that the adoption of this option in European Parliament elections serves as a precursor to its implementation in national elections, which will be held in 2027

Hungary
Hungarian citizens living abroad who do not have an official address in Hungary are allowed to vote by mail. They are only allowed to vote for party lists, but not for local representatives. In the last parliamentary election in 2018, 267,233 votes (4.6% of all votes) were submitted via mail. 48% of all valid postal votes were submitted from Romania.

India
Postal voting in India is done only through the Electronically Transmitted Postal Ballot Papers (ETPB) system of Election Commission of India, where ballot papers are distributed to the registered eligible voters and they return the votes by post. When the counting of votes commences, these postal votes are counted first before the counting of votes from the electronic voting machines of all other voters. Only certain categories of people are eligible to register as postal voters. People working in the union armed forces and state police as well as their wives, and employees working for the Government of India who are officially posted abroad can register for the postal vote, these are also called service voters. Additionally, people in preventive detention, disabled and those above the age of 65 years old can use postal vote. Prisoners can not vote at all. Media persons too have been allowed to use the postal ballot to cast their vote. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) has alleged that postal ballots "will adversely effect the verifiability of a large number of voters, thus, transparency and integrity of the process", and expressed concerns with "instances of manipulation and malpractice" with postal ballots.

Indonesia
Eligible Indonesians living abroad are able to vote by mail in national elections by registering at the Indonesian overseas election commission in their country of residence. Beside presidential elections, they are also able to vote in DPR elections. All overseas Indonesian voters are included in the Jakarta 2nd constituency, which also contains Central and South Jakarta.

Italy
Since 2001 Italian citizens living abroad have the right to vote by mail in all referendums and national elections being held in Italy (provided they had registered their residence abroad with their relevant consulate).

Malaysia
In Malaysia, opposition leader and former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim alleged that postal votes have been used by the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition in securing seats in certain constituencies. He also said that in one particular constituency (Setiawangsa), he claimed that his Parti Keadilan Rakyat had actually won during the 2008 elections, before 14,000 postal votes came in awarding the incumbent BN parliamentarian the seat with a majority of 8,000 votes. In Malaysia, only teachers, military personnel, and policemen based away from their constituencies are eligible to submit postal votes.

Mexico
In Mexico, since the 2006 federal elections, postal voting for people living abroad has been permitted. A request can be made to the National Electoral Institute which then sends the ballots outside the country.

Norway
Postal voting is accepted for voters who are staying abroad and are not close to a foreign station or other voting place. Voters can request ballots to be sent to them. Voters are also allowed to write their own ballots.

Philippines
Mail-in ballots are an option for Overseas Filipinos in select countries only. The general practise for local and overseas absentee voting in Philippine elections requires that ballots be cast in person at select polling places, such as a consulate office.

Singapore
Singaporean citizens living abroad may vote by post in presidential and parliamentary elections.

Spain
In Spain, for European, regional and municipal elections, voters who will be absent from their town on election day or are ill or disabled, may request a postal vote at a post office. The application must be submitted personally or through a representative in case of illness or disability certified by a medical certificate.

Switzerland
Swiss federal law allows postal voting in all federal elections and referendums, and all cantons also allow it for cantonal ballot issues. All voters receive their personal ballot by mail and may either cast it at a polling station or mail it back. As of 2019, approximately 90% of Swiss voters cast ballots using Remote Postal Voting.

United Kingdom
Absentee voting in the United Kingdom is allowed by proxy or post (known as postal voting on demand) for any elector. Postal voting does not require a reason, apart from in Northern Ireland, where postal voting is available only if it would be unreasonable to expect a voter to go to a polling station on polling day as a result of employment, disability or education restrictions. Postal voting is common in the United Kingdom; 8.4 million postal votes were issued, 18% of the UK electorate (18.2% England, 19.4% Scotland, 19.4% Wales and 1.9% N.Ireland) in the 2017 general election.

Proxy voting is allowed for people who will be away, working, or medically disabled, anyone eligible to vote in the election may be a proxy for close relatives and two unrelated people. The proxy voter for an elector can also be a postal voter, known as Postal Proxy voting. If a person becomes unable to vote in person within 6 days of an election, including up to 5pm on the polling day, they can apply for another person to vote on their behalf as an emergency proxy.

Postal voting in the UK has been (allegedly) subject to fraud, undue influence, theft and tampering; other forms of voting have also been subject to fraud. The number of cases reported to or by the Electoral Commission however is low. "[T]hese concerns need to be balanced by the fact that it is entirely legitimate for political parties to encourage electors to vote, be it in person or by post".

United States

In the United States, postal voting (commonly referred to as mail-in voting, vote-by-mail or vote from home ) is a process in which a ballot is mailed to the home of a registered voter, who fills it out and returns it via postal mail or by dropping it off in-person at a voting center or into a secure drop box. Deadlines are set under state law, with some states requiring ballots be received by election day and others allowing ballots to be received after election day so long as they are postmarked by election day. Vote-by-mail is available in both Republican and Democratic states, with research showing that the availability of postal voting increases voter turnout. Five states—Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah and Washington—hold elections almost entirely by mail.

It has been argued that postal voting has a greater risk of fraud than in-person voting, though there are few known instances of such fraud. Mail-in ballots pose other challenges, including signature verification, prompt delivery of ballots, and issues that have led to evidence suggesting younger voters, as well as voters from racial and ethnic minorities, are more likely to have their vote-by-mail ballots rejected.

In the 2016 general election, approximately 33 million postal ballots were cast, about a quarter of all ballots cast. Some jurisdictions used only vote-by-mail and others used absentee voting by mail.

In April 2020, during lockdowns for the COVID-19 pandemic, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 58% of those polled would favor nationwide election reform to allow everyone to vote by mail. In the November 2020 presidential election, postal voting was an encouraged voting method in many locations due to the coronavirus pandemic. A poll by Pew Research Center found that 54% of people voted in person in the 2020 election compared to 46% who voted absentee or mail in. Despite the long history of postal voting and a large number of postal votes in the 2016 election, President Donald Trump has cast doubt on the integrity of unsolicited mail-in voting in the 2020 election. There is little evidence to support Trump's claim that postal voting enables widespread election fraud.

Following false claim of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election, Republican state lawmakers began an effort to roll back access to postal voting.

title: Postal voting


text: User talk:213.134.108.2

title: User talk:213.134.108.2


text:
User:Mecredis

Hi, please visit my blog: http://fredbenenson.com/blog/

Links

 * del.icio.us/mecredis
 * Facebook
 * last.fm
 * MySpace
 * tourb.us
 * Flickr
 * Twitter

Contact
E-mail is by far the best way to contact me: fcb at fredbenenson dot com

title: User:Mecredis


text:
Clark Ervin

Clark Kent Ervin (born April 1, 1959), currently the head of Homeland Security Program at the Aspen Institute, was the first Inspector General of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Political career
He was appointed on December 26, 2003, in a recess appointment by President George W. Bush. Prior to appointment, he had served as the acting inspector general since January 10, 2003. During his tenure, Ervin issued a number of reports critical of mismanagement and security flaws at the newly formed Department. In December 2004, his recess appointment expired, and the White House declined to nominate him for confirmation by the United States Senate.

The end of his term was controversial. Critics viewed the lack of White House support as retribution for Ervin's aggressive efforts to root out waste, fraud, and incompetence. For example, "I think this was a voice that was a little too critical and made the administration a little too uncomfortable," said the executive director of the Project on Government Oversight. The White House disagreed with that perspective, saying "His term expired and that's that." In May 2006, Ervin published a book -- Open Target: Where America is Vulnerable to Attack—that gives details of his tenure at the DHS as well as his views on the current lack of preparedness for new terrorist attacks.

Prior to his service at DHS, Ervin served as the Inspector General of the United States Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors. Before his work for the Bush administration, Ervin served in Texas state government:
 * From 1995 until 1999, he served as the Assistant Secretary of State of Texas;
 * From 1999 until April 2001, he served as Deputy Attorney General, General Counsel, and Director of Administration in the office of then Texas Attorney General John Cornyn.

Ervin served in the first Bush White House from 1989 to 1991 as the Associate Director of Policy in the Office of National Service. He returned to his native Houston in 1991 to run for the 29th Congressional district seat, winning the Republican nomination but losing the general election.

He served as the co-chairman for Barack Obama's transition team for DHS in 2008. He also served as one of the eight members of the bi-partisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Law career
Ervin has practiced law in the private sector in Houston twice, first with Vinson & Elkins from 1985 to 1989, and later with Locke, Liddell & Sapp from 1993-1995. Ervin is currently a partner in the Washington, DC law firm Squire Patton Boggs.

Education
Ervin graduated from The Kinkaid School in 1977, Harvard College in 1980, and Harvard Law School in 1985, all with honors. Between college and law school, Ervin studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, earning a master's degree in 1982.

Personal life
Mr. Ervin is married to Carolyn A. Harris. He is Episcopalian and a parishioner at St. John's Episcopal Church, Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C.

Ervin gets the name "Clark Kent Ervin" from his brother, Art, after the Superman alter-ego. The brother suggested the name on his day of birth after noting the fact that he was born a month premature and his desire to survive amidst all odds.

title: Clark Ervin