text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical reconstruction of the sort of person Jesus would be

Historical reconstruction of the sort of person Jesus would be
An almost direct copy of Cultural and historical background of Jesus, now is permanently redirected to that article. The title is totally POV and invites speculation, which we don't allow on Wikipedia. (see No original research). I'm not placing this on WP:TFD because there is content and so it would be inappropriate. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, needless duplicate created by someone trying to prove a point. Shane King 07:06, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Can I vote to vandalize? No? OK, Delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:40, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Not encyclopedic. Flafaire 09:16, 15 Dec 2004
 * Del --Catullus 09:22, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not encyclopedic. utcursch 10:48, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. What Would Jesus Be? Katefan0 14:14, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Useless as a redirect, and can never lead to an NPOV encyclopedic article. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 15:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't belong here --Spangineer 16:02, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Just Delete it. Wyss 19:11, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete --fvw *  19:50, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
 * Thank you for using VfD, TBSDY. Delete. It's edit war incarnated in the body of an article, and I'm washing my hands of its death. If it rises on the third day, delete that too. Cool Hand Luke  05:47, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Death to POV forks, and articles created for edit-war purposes. Jayjg 00:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, but why is there a picture of Jimbo Wales on the page? Rhobite 04:48, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * That was a well-intentioned joke from the Sollog talk page (not by me). Wyss 11:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm... actually it wasn't. Though it could be. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
List of peers 1150–1159

Peerage of England

 * rowspan=2|Earl of Northampton (1080)||Simon Saint-Lis, 2nd Earl of Northampton||1109||1153||Died
 * Simon Saint-Lis, 3rd Earl of Northampton||1153||1184||
 * Earl of Surrey (1088)||Isabel de Warenne, 4th Countess of Surrey||1148||1199||
 * rowspan=2|Earl of Warwick (1088)||Roger de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Warwick||1119||1153||Died
 * William de Beaumont, 3rd Earl of Warwick||1153||1184||
 * Earl of Buckingham (1097)||Walter Giffard, 2nd Earl of Buckingham||1102||1164||
 * rowspan=2|Earl of Devon (1141)||Baldwin de Redvers, 1st Earl of Devon||1107||1155||Died
 * Richard de Redvers, 2nd Earl of Devon||1155||1162||
 * Earl of Leicester (1107)||Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester||1118||1168||
 * rowspan=2|Earl of Chester (1121)||Ranulph de Gernon, 2nd Earl of Chester||1129||1153||Died
 * Hugh de Kevelioc, 3rd Earl of Chester||1153||1181||
 * Earl of Gloucester (1121)||William Fitzrobert, 2nd Earl of Gloucester||1147||1183||
 * rowspan=2|Earl of Hertford (1135)||Gilbert de Clare, 2nd Earl of Hertford||1136||1151||Died
 * Roger de Clare, 3rd Earl of Hertford||1151||1173||
 * Earl of Richmond (1136)||Conan IV, Duke of Brittany||1146||1171||
 * Earl of Arundel (1138)||William d'Aubigny, 1st Earl of Arundel||1138||1176||
 * Earl of Derby (1138)||Robert de Ferrers, 2nd Earl of Derby||1139||1162||
 * Earl of Pembroke (1138)||Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke||1147||1176||
 * Earl of Essex (1139)||Geoffrey de Mandeville, 2nd Earl of Essex||1144||1160||
 * Earl of Norfolk (1140)||Hugh Bigod, 1st Earl of Norfolk||1140||1177||
 * Earl of Cornwall (1141)||Reginald de Dunstanville, 1st Earl of Cornwall||1141||1175||
 * Earl of Hereford (1141)||Roger Fitzmiles, 2nd Earl of Hereford||1143||1155||Died
 * Earl of Kent (1141)||William de Ipres, 1st Earl of Kent||1141||1155||Deprived
 * Earl of Lincoln (1141)||William de Roumare, 1st Earl of Lincoln||1141||1155||Died
 * Earl of Oxford (1142)||Aubrey de Vere, 1st Earl of Oxford||1142||1194||
 * Earl of Salisbury (1145)||Patrick of Salisbury, 1st Earl of Salisbury||1145||1168||
 * Earl of Lincoln (1147)||Gilbert de Gant, Earl of Lincoln||1147||1156||Died
 * Earl of Richmond (1136)||Conan IV, Duke of Brittany||1146||1171||
 * Earl of Arundel (1138)||William d'Aubigny, 1st Earl of Arundel||1138||1176||
 * Earl of Derby (1138)||Robert de Ferrers, 2nd Earl of Derby||1139||1162||
 * Earl of Pembroke (1138)||Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke||1147||1176||
 * Earl of Essex (1139)||Geoffrey de Mandeville, 2nd Earl of Essex||1144||1160||
 * Earl of Norfolk (1140)||Hugh Bigod, 1st Earl of Norfolk||1140||1177||
 * Earl of Cornwall (1141)||Reginald de Dunstanville, 1st Earl of Cornwall||1141||1175||
 * Earl of Hereford (1141)||Roger Fitzmiles, 2nd Earl of Hereford||1143||1155||Died
 * Earl of Kent (1141)||William de Ipres, 1st Earl of Kent||1141||1155||Deprived
 * Earl of Lincoln (1141)||William de Roumare, 1st Earl of Lincoln||1141||1155||Died
 * Earl of Oxford (1142)||Aubrey de Vere, 1st Earl of Oxford||1142||1194||
 * Earl of Salisbury (1145)||Patrick of Salisbury, 1st Earl of Salisbury||1145||1168||
 * Earl of Lincoln (1147)||Gilbert de Gant, Earl of Lincoln||1147||1156||Died
 * Earl of Cornwall (1141)||Reginald de Dunstanville, 1st Earl of Cornwall||1141||1175||
 * Earl of Hereford (1141)||Roger Fitzmiles, 2nd Earl of Hereford||1143||1155||Died
 * Earl of Kent (1141)||William de Ipres, 1st Earl of Kent||1141||1155||Deprived
 * Earl of Lincoln (1141)||William de Roumare, 1st Earl of Lincoln||1141||1155||Died
 * Earl of Oxford (1142)||Aubrey de Vere, 1st Earl of Oxford||1142||1194||
 * Earl of Salisbury (1145)||Patrick of Salisbury, 1st Earl of Salisbury||1145||1168||
 * Earl of Lincoln (1147)||Gilbert de Gant, Earl of Lincoln||1147||1156||Died
 * Earl of Oxford (1142)||Aubrey de Vere, 1st Earl of Oxford||1142||1194||
 * Earl of Salisbury (1145)||Patrick of Salisbury, 1st Earl of Salisbury||1145||1168||
 * Earl of Lincoln (1147)||Gilbert de Gant, Earl of Lincoln||1147||1156||Died
 * Earl of Salisbury (1145)||Patrick of Salisbury, 1st Earl of Salisbury||1145||1168||
 * Earl of Lincoln (1147)||Gilbert de Gant, Earl of Lincoln||1147||1156||Died
 * Earl of Lincoln (1147)||Gilbert de Gant, Earl of Lincoln||1147||1156||Died

Peerage of Scotland

 * Earl of Mar (1114)||Morggán, Earl of Mar||Abt. 1140||Abt. 1178||
 * Earl of Dunbar (1115)||Gospatric III, Earl of Dunbar||1138||1166||
 * Earl of Angus (1115)||Gille Brigte, Earl of Angus||1135||1187||
 * rowspan=2|Earl of Atholl (1115)||Máel Muire, Earl of Atholl||1115||Abt 1150||Died
 * Máel Coluim, Earl of Atholl||Abt 1150||Abt 1190||
 * Earl of Buchan (1115)||Colbán, Earl of Buchan||Abt. 1135||Abt. 1180||
 * Earl of Strathearn (1115)||Ferchar, Earl of Strathearn||Abt. 1140||1171||
 * rowspan=2|Earl of Fife (1129)||Donnchad I, Earl of Fife||1139||1154||Died
 * Donnchad II, Earl of Fife||1154||1203||
 * Earl of Ross (1157)||Malcolm MacHeth, Earl of Ross||1157||1168||
 * }
 * Earl of Strathearn (1115)||Ferchar, Earl of Strathearn||Abt. 1140||1171||
 * rowspan=2|Earl of Fife (1129)||Donnchad I, Earl of Fife||1139||1154||Died
 * Donnchad II, Earl of Fife||1154||1203||
 * Earl of Ross (1157)||Malcolm MacHeth, Earl of Ross||1157||1168||
 * }
 * Donnchad II, Earl of Fife||1154||1203||
 * Earl of Ross (1157)||Malcolm MacHeth, Earl of Ross||1157||1168||
 * }
 * }
 * }

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

title: List of peers 1150–1159


text:
Captain Action

Captain Action was an action figure created in 1966, equipped with a wardrobe of costumes and facial masks allowing him to become Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, Captain America, Aquaman, the Phantom, The Lone Ranger (and Tonto), Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, Sgt. Fury, Steve Canyon, and the Green Hornet. Captain Action was the Ideal Toy Company's answer to Hasbro's G.I. Joe, although the protagonist dolls of both toy lines were created and designed by the same toy-and-idea man, Stan Weston. Captain Action also had a working 4 foot (1.2192 meter) parachute.

Historical overview
Toy developer Stan Weston went to Hasbro's Don Levine with the idea of an articulated doll in the form of a soldier — a basic figure, and with limitless accessories. Levine and his Hasbro team took the concept, making it into G.I. Joe, the first modern action figure for boys — and the first to carry the action figure generic name, an attempt to remove the term "doll" from a toy for boys. Weston took his money from the G.I. Joe venture and founded his own licensing company, representing DC Comics, Marvel Comics, and King Features Syndicate.

After the success of G.I. Joe, Stan Weston's company, Leisure Concepts, then brought the idea of a new, articulated, twelve-inch (305 mm) action figure to Ideal Toys Corporation, who were seeking an action figure of their own, to remain competitive in the toy market. Weston proposed Captain Magic, a many-in-one hero, who could adopt the guise of several heroes, all of whom Leisure Concepts represented. The name was changed to Captain Action, and first marketed by Ideal in 1966.

The figure itself had a rather sad and worried expression, a strange shaped head (so the masks of the various heroes would better stay in place over it) and a more detailed musculature than G.I. Joe's. The original Ideal base for the line was Captain Action in his blue and black uniform, with lightning sword and ray gun included in the box. Separate Superman, Batman, Lone Ranger, The Phantom, Flash Gordon, Captain America, Sgt Fury, Steve Canyon and Aquaman costumes (with accessories) were available; the next wave (1967) added Spider-Man, Buck Rogers, the Green Hornet, and Tonto, with a Blue Lone Ranger variation (matching the still popular Clayton Moore series) and collectible flicker rings in each box.

In 1967, Captain Action proved popular enough to expand the line, adding a partner, Action Boy, and an enemy, Dr. Evil, a blue skinned alien with large bug eyes and an exposed brain, wearing a modified Nehru suit and sandals. A line of female figures was also released called the "Super Queens Posin' Dolls", which featured Batgirl, Mera, Supergirl, and Wonder Woman figures. Unlike Captain Action and Action Boy, the Super Queens dolls were each individually based on a singular superheroine (instead of a base "Super Queen" doll with interchangeable outfits). Also, a vehicle called the "Silver Streak", a 2 ft amphibian car with missile launchers, was added, large enough for both the Captain and sidekick. Several sets meant to be used by Captain Action in his Captain Action identity were designed for the character as well: a four foot working parachute, a jet mortar, a jet pack, a weapons arsenal, and several other secret weapons to add to the Action Cave, which the special box for the Streak could convert into. Both the Captain and Dr. Evil received "secret lairs", which doubled as carrying cases for the figures, but which are now quite rare. All of this was an attempt by Ideal to build the "Action" line and focus on Captain Action as a hero in his own right, rather than just a base figure for other heroes.

After just a couple of years, the Captain Action line declined in sales. As a result, Ideal Toys discontinued it in 1968. Though Captain Action was produced for only two and a half years, the characters and accessories have become amongst the most fondly remembered, and expensive to obtain on the collector's market, action figures of the era.

Throughout the 1970s, Captain Action leftover uniforms and boots were used on knock-off, blow-molded figures from China (where the original was cast and assembled) and Ideal itself reused the original body molds to rush a Star Wars-like toy to the market, the Knight of Darkness, in 1977. Captain Action collectors would buy the figure (cast in black plastic) often using the hands to replace the sometimes missing hands of the vintage figures.

Captain Action returns
After 30 years off the market, Captain Action was revived in 1998, by retro toy company Playing Mantis. In addition to Captain Action and Dr. Evil, costumes released boxed with Captain Action figure were The Lone Ranger (in red and black outfit), Tonto, Flash Gordon, his never-before-made nemesis Ming the Merciless (with a new flesh-tone Dr. Evil figure), The Green Hornet, and his never-before-made sidekick Kato. The line met with lackluster sales, and carded costumes-only were issued separately: Green Hornet, Kato, Lone Ranger (in blue outfit), Tonto, The Phantom, and his never-before-made enemy Kabai Singh. Also revived was Action Boy (now called Kid Action, due to Hasbro owning the rights to the name Action Man) and retro long box packaging for Captain Action and Dr. Evil. The changes made little difference in the general sales and the second coming of Captain Action ended in 2000.

2000s–2010s
Since 2005 Captain Action Enterprises holds the licensing rights and has been producing an array of new merchandise, including statues, toys, comics, trading cards, collectibles and apparel.

In March 2011, Round 2 Corp. and Captain Action Enterprises announced plans for a redesigned 1/6 scale Captain Action figure.

DC Comics
National Periodical (DC Comics) licensed the character from Ideal and published five issues of Captain Action in 1968, illustrated at first by Wally Wood, then by Gil Kane. The scripts were by a teenage Jim Shooter and Gil Kane. A 2006 interview with Shooter reveals the unpromising setup of the comic:

[Editor Mort Weisinger] called and asked if I'd like to create a new character. I said yes — then he said, "Okay, his name is Captain Action(?!). He has an Actionmobile, a kid sidekick named Action Boy(??!!), a pet Action Panther and a secret Action Headquarters(???!!!) and, by the way, he's also a G.I. Joe-sized action figure". He went on: "Superman must make an appearance in the first issue, because the cover was going to feature Captain Action pushing Superman aside to take on whatever menace I concocted". Sigh. Okay.

The comic book storyline had little to do with the toy concept, as some of the heroes licensed for use as costumes for the Captain Action doll were not owned and published by DC (Spider-Man and Captain America for example, were Marvel Comics characters), therefore the ability to change into different characters was entirely dropped. Instead, Captain Action came to possess magical coins, each of which provided him with a spectacular power from a Greek, Roman, or Norse mythological god (in a similar way to the original Captain Marvel). Captain Action was given a real name of his own, Clive Arno, and was identified as a widowed archaeologist and museum curator, and was described as having located "the coins of power" in a buried city. Action Boy's comic-book alter-ego was Carl Arno, son of Clive. Dr. Evil was given a back-story too, having been Captain Action's father-in-law, then going mad in a mishap. The series lasted five issues, until July 1969.

In the early 1980s, writer Mike Tiefenbacher wrote a story proposal that would have revived Captain Action and Action Boy as "Captain Triumph" and "Javelin" in the "Whatever Happened To...?" backup feature in DC Comics Presents. DC Comics rejected the idea due to copyright concerns regarding the characters. Issue #5 of the Captain Action comic book series, retitled 'Thrills and Adventure', was used as a prop in the 'It's the Arts' episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus.

Moonstone Books
In 2008 Moonstone Books began a new series and created a new back-story for the character. Captain Action was now Miles Drake, a former Marine who discovers a cache of alien weaponry during the Vietnam War. The weapons are connected to a race of alien parasites called the Red Crawl, who have been taking over world leaders in a bid to dominate the earth. The Red Crawl's main representative on earth is Dr. Eville (based on Dr. Evil from the Ideal toy line). Drake becomes an agent of the A.C.T.I.O.N. Directorate, a secret agency operating outside the government and dedicated to defending earth from the alien menace. The name of the organization is an acronym for "Advanced Command for Telluric Interdiction Observation and Nullification". Eventually, the A.C.T.I.O.N. directorate is able to use the alien technology to create superheroes and the Red Crawl is apparently defeated. The series also tell the story of a second Captain Action, Miles's rebellious son, Cole Drake, who inherits the heroic identity in the 21st century. It is revealed that the Red Crawl was never actually defeated and that the superheroic Protectors are actually under their control. Cole must struggle against the renewed alien menace and the rogue superheroes. The stories of the original Captain Action are told in the 1960s where the character is a costumed super spy. The identity-changing aspect of the toy line shows up in Captain Action's ability to use a material called "plastiderm" to disguise himself as almost anyone. In the modern stories the younger Captain Action uses the more advanced "plasmaderm" which allows him not only to assume someone's likeness, but any powers they possess. Thus Captain Action is finally able to change into other superheroes, though this only works for original characters like Savior rather than for licensed characters like Superman. The exception to this has been a crossover adventure with the Phantom whose adventures Moonstone was also publishing.

Moonstone has featured a similarly revised Action Boy. In this version he is Sean Barrett, the son of a famous naturalist whose identity is assumed by Dr. Eville. His stories also take place in the 1960s. Moonstone has also created an original character, Lady Action, who works for the British branch of the A.C.T.I.O.N. Directorate. Both Action Boy and the newly introduced Lady Action (AKA Nicola Sinclair), have been featured as back up stories in the Captain Action comic. Lady Action also debuted in a one shot comic of her own in 2010, and continues to play a pivotal role in the Captain Action ongoing Series.

Moonstone Books published a new Captain Action comic book from 2008 to 2010, with the initial six-issue arc written by Fabian Nicieza. A Captain Action Special was also released in 2010 as well as a two-issue miniseries teaming up Captain Action with the Phantom, written by Mike Bullock. In July 2010, Captain Action Season 2, an ongoing series written by Steven Grant, debuted that lasted 3 issues. Moonstone planned on releasing Captain Action: Classified, which would tell stories of Captain Action's earliest adventures in the 1960s, but this did not happen.

Instead, in 2013 Dynamite Entertainment put out a mini-series with Captain Action called Codename: Action that included several pulp and comic book characters in an origin story for Captain Action.

Games
In 2016 Small Monsters Games developed and released the Captain Action card game. This is an all-ages casual game including art from classic comics artists Jerry Ordway, Kerry Callen, and Paul Gulacy. The game was designed by Meg Stivison.

Books and novels
In 2010, the coffee table book Captain Action: the Original Super Hero Action Figure, by Michael Eury, was published by TwoMorrows Publishing.

In July 2012, an original Captain Action pulp novel was released by Airship 27, called Captain Action: Riddle of the Glowing Men, written by Jim Beard.

A second novel by Jim Beard titled Hearts of the Rising Sun was released in 2014 by Airship 27.

A novel featuring Lady Action — The Sands of Forever — by Ron Fortier was released by Airship 27 in 2015.

A third Captain Action novel titled Cry of the Jungle Lord, written by Jim Beard and Barry Reese, was released by Airship 27 in 2017.

title: Captain Action


text:
Wikipedia talk:Multi-licensing

Is Copyright a License?
I know the FSF (of which Lawrence Lessig is a board member) considers Copyright and the (GPL) License as two different legal entities; for example, any "official" GNU tools must transfer their copyright to the FSF as well, "as a precaution" or somesuch.

Now, Creative Commons intends to supplant copyright... yet, the "leity summary" describes CC as a license...

My concern is, can someone other than the author submit a ShareAlike media into a GFDL media?

(Specifically, I have photos on Flickr under an Attribution-only license because my interpretation of both the CC and GFDL are as licenses; therefore, the ShareAlike -- though spiritually aligned with the GFDL -- is incompatible with the GFDL. In fact, it seems the Attribution CC license is the only one which is compatible with the GFDL; together they are slightly more restrictive than the GFDL alone -- a complete history of attribution must be maintained.  To bring this back to the Wikipedia community, my primary concern is for others to be able to contribute my photos to the Wikimedia Commons.)
 * According to the Wikipedia entry on the Wikimedia Commons, "Licenses that are acceptable include the GNU Free Documentation License, Creative Commons licenses with no restrictions on use, and the public domain." I take "no restrictions on use" to mean including the ShareAlike provision.  Is this correct?

Derivative Works
However, individual contributions are not by themselves derivative works because they do not contain any of the original work, as the copyright still remains with the author. This is not true, actually. A derivative work doesn't have to contain the original work in whole or in part. Some examples of derivative works that don't contain the original are translations to another language or sequels of novels or plays. Some adaptations to other media don't contain the original work, some do.

In any case, modifications to an encyclopedia article very clearly derive from the work that exists before. --ESP 01:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I think this needs to be explained more finely. What you are saying is absolutely true.  Whether something is a derivative work largely depends on the source of the information.  Rewording a GFDL passage in an article would be a derivative work.  Adding a paragraph that is unrelated would be separate.  When a person makes a contribution, they have the text of what they want to add to an article.  That text is their own and is copyrighted by them by default and they can release said text under any license they choose, which they will then proceed to license under the GFDL.  Of course if that text was based on the article itself, then it will be solely licensed under the GFDL.  It is quite hard to figure out what is what once an article has been edited by someone who does not multi-license.  That is not to say that the problem cannot be remedied, but It won't be easy.  The article says "one must use common sense" which is not a very precise way of stating this problem.  The thing is that there is not a single precise way to figure out if the component parts of an article can be used in a multi-licensed fashion after a non-multi-licensor edits it.  For example:

 * 1) (THIS IS A PARAGRAPH) -- Multi-licence user
 * 2) (THIS IS A PARAGRAPH / THIS IS A NEW PARAGRAPH ) -- Multi-license user
 * 3) (THIS IS A PARAGRAPH / THIS IS A NEW PARAGRAPH / THIS IS A THIRD PARAGRAPH) -- Single License user
 * 4) (ThIs Is A MoDiFiCaTiOn / THIS IS A NEW PARAGRAPH / THIS IS A THIRD PARAGRAPH) -- Multi-License User
 * 5) (ThIs Is A MoDiFiCaTiOn / THIS IS A NEW PARAGRAPH / ThIs Is A ThIrD PaRaGrApH) -- Multi-License User
 * 6) (ThIs Is A MoDiFiCaTiOn / ThIs Is A nEw PaRaGrApH / ThIs Is A ThIrD PaRaGrApH) -- Multi-License User

In the case above the article the following could be multilicensed:
 * 1) (ThIs Is A MoDiFiCaTiOn / ThIs Is A nEw PaRaGrApH)

Since the third paragraph was started by a single license user, the multi-licensed user's changes to it would create a derivative work on the component parts. This would be the logical equivelent of removing a vandals edits or removing a copyright violation from an article. The history still holds the copyright violation, but it has since been removed from the article along with any derivations. – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)  04:15, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * Maybe the article should be modified to read: "When wanting to use an article under a second license, the user must remove all copyright violations and the derivative works based on them", because that is essentially what we are doing. In this context a copyright violation would be the GFDL-only when trying to use it as a CC-by-sa document.  Wikipedians already have a pretty good idea of what it means to remove a copyright violation, so it should help with the so-called "common sense".    – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)   13:18, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

A derivative work doesn't have to contain the original work in whole or in part. The 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals has specifically ruled otherwise. To quote Galoob v. Nintendo, "the infringing work must incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work in some form." Some examples of derivative works that don't contain the original are translations to another language or sequels of novels or plays. All these things contain the original story. If you're saying there doesn't have to be any verbatim text, then you are correct, but derivative works necessary contain the original in some form. anthony 警告 13:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * If you were not correct on this, then if someone added a copyright violation and this was not caught after many edits were made to the page, then the whole page would have to be thrown away back to before the copyright violation. This of course makes no sense if the edits were not to the portion that was a copyright violation.    – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)   13:36, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Text contributions only?
Why do all the default CC-SA templates specify text contributions only? I think this is a major shot in the foot, as images are the easiest and most practical things to share between (eg) Wikipedia and Wikitravel, and most all people who dual-license their text would also be happy to dual-license their pictures.

I can see there being a need for a text-only template, but this should be the exception, not the default! Jpatokal 10:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * A photo I dual-licensed under the GFDL and an nc CC was deleted at commons, but I haven't been able to find out if it's because commons demands only GFDL only, or some other reason. — Jeandré, 2005-04-08t20:50z

 * I'm still waiting for an answer to this. Anybody?  Jpatokal 11:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Metalicensing
Ram-Man has said "Wikipedia can never fully or officially dual-license all of its stuff. See Wikipedia:Multi-licensing for more information. Part of the problem is that this can't be done automatically." and I tended to agree since I was not really aware of any easy way to have a piece of work released under multiple licenses having multiple authors. However, I believe that this interesting article on metalicensing may offer insight and solutions to people who would like Wikipedia expanded beyond the GNU FDL and some of the problems this particular license has.

As I mentioned, Newsforge has an interesting article on how to 'metalicense' a work so it is covered by multiple licenses. If we could have Wikipedia licensed under both the GNU FDL and a CC license I believe it would encourage people who have reservations about the GNU FDL's flaws to come aboard.

The author of this article also has a webpage up, released under a CC license in case you'd like to share it, here about metalicensing which goes into greater detail than the Newsforge article. --ShaunMacPherson 04:59, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

GFDL/CC compatibility?

 * Future amendments to the GFDL reducing the burden on the reproducer may make dual-licencing with a Creative Commons licence unnecessary. (from main page)

Does anyone know anything about this? Who's involved? Timeframe? I want to start a wiki, and this would have a big effect on what license I would choose. Zach 14:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The extremely flawed GFDL (such as if you print out a copy of the article under the license you are suppose to include the entire GNUFDL(icense) ) with it. You could do a metalicense in which you state that the article can be distributed under the CC under version x or if you choose a updated version of the CC license, or under the GNU FDL version y, or if you choose an updated version of the license.  You'd also have to add that any deritive works must be licensed under both licenses though, thats how the metalicense works :).

 * A metalicense is the best way to ensure compatibility between the GNU FDL and the CC, with some articles on the subject here:

 * Meatlicensing
 * Full article on it

 * --ShaunMacPherson 06:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

v2.5?
Having just added the message to my own user page, I note that the template's header says: "Multi-licensed with any Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License" - but that the body of the template text specifically mentions four licences (the GFDL and three CC licences). The newish Share-Alike v2.5 isn't mentioned at all, so what's the status of that licence as far as multilicensing goes? Loganberry | Talk 14:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Note that all CC licenses are forwards-compatible; if your stuff is available under version 2.0 it's available under 2.5 as well (though not vice versa). (This hidden detail is one of many reasons you should read the full legal code and not trust the "human-readable summary.") --Graue 02:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * So whats the difference between v2.0 and v2.5? - NickC 17:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure exactly... some general clarifications and improvements, I guess. Their licenses are so insanely long bugs must be inevitable. --Graue 03:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Multilicensing into Public Domain
Am I the only one that feels it is impossible to license your work under the GFDL and release it into the public domain? To release something under the GFDL, it must be copyrighted, and if it's copyrighted it can't be in the public domain. Thoughts? --Superm401 | Talk 04:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * License != copyright. A PD work was copyrighted by its author, the author just says he abrogates all his rights to it.  So the author can take one copy and place it in PD, and take another copy and license it as GFDL.

 * That said, this is essentially nonsensical, because anybody can take the PD version and do anything they like to it — this means GFDL can't be enforced and there's no point in licensing it as such. Jpatokal 02:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Copyright status exists by work, not by copy. The idea of placing one copy in the public domain and retaining copyright (and therefore the ability to license) for a different copy is nonsense.  Robert A.West (Talk) 21:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Why only SA?
I don't know why the only dual-licensing options that have been considered are with (or include) the ShareAlike versions of the CC licenses. I am not comfortable with forward-forcing licenses; and I am content dual licensing with simple good old CC-By. To that end, I've added Template:DualLicenseWithCC-By into the mix. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Images
How does this pan out in relation to images, specifically? pfctdayelise 14:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

 * They're excluded. I've been asking why for a year, and have yet to receive an answer. Jpatokal 10:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

We need to move to CC 3.0
This page needs some updating in order to reflect the new 3.0 versions of Creative Commons' licenses. Then again, how much compatible will it be for multi-licensing? --Sl g randson (page - messages - contribs) 16:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Multi-Licensing with unfree licenses
Do you think anyone would find it objectionable? In principle, I don't see why I couldn't also put this image under some license that said "Send $1 to Charity X" or "Free for plastering onto the sides of buses for non-Commercial purposes", but I just have this gut feeling someone'd raise a stink. Wily D 18:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

 * You can license your own images however you want. What you're describing is in between free licenses and public domain licensing, and editors use both of those with no complaints. — Omegatron 01:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User_categories_for_discussion
Category:Public domain license is up for deletion/renaming/discussion. A couple of concerns have been brought up about the messy implementation of multi-licensing templates in userspace. Any input would be appreciated. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Multi-licensing


text:
User talk:CrimsonBlack

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~ ~ ~. Four tildes (~ ~ ) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:CrimsonBlack


text:
User talk:DCop

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~ ~ ~. Four tildes (~ ~ ) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 02:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

WikiMagic
Hi there, I saw you added an article on P.C. Sorcar. Maybe you have interest in participating in the WikiProject Magic? No obligations, I'm just trying to get editors on magic together so we can format all this stuff consistently. Happy editing, hopefully I'll see you around. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:04, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:DCop


text:
St. James (federal electoral district)

St. James was a federal electoral district in Quebec, Canada, that was represented in the House of Commons of Canada from 1892 to 1952.

The riding was created in 1892 from parts of Montreal Centre and Montreal East ridings. It consisted initially of St. James's Ward and the East Ward in the city of Montreal. In 1914, it was expanded to include Lafontaine Ward of the city of Montreal. After 1924, it was defined with reference to streets in Montreal.

In 1947, the riding was abolished when it was redistributed into a new St. James riding, and the ridings of Lafontaine, Laurier, Papineau and St. Mary.

The new St. James electoral district was abolished in 1952 when it was redistributed into Laurier and Saint-Jacques ridings.

Members of Parliament
This riding elected the following members of Parliament:

Election results
By-election: On Mr. Desmarais being appointed Puisne Judge of the Superior Court of Quebec, 25 June 1901

By-election: On election being declared void, 22 December 1902

 * Nationalist Conservative
 * Olivar Asselin||align=right|3,179

By-election: On Mr. Lapointe's death, 7 February 1920

 * Liberal Protectionist
 * Ruben Charles Laurier ||align=right|4,076

By-election: On Mr. Rinfret's acceptance of an office of emolument under the Crown, 5 October 1926

By-election: On Mr. Rinfret's death, 12 July 1939

title: St. James (federal electoral district)


text:
Talk:Equal Protection Clause

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2018 and 18 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hwalker21. Peer reviewers: Ecoutu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

What Wikipedia Ignores
This person is correct, Bingham made it more than clear from beginning to end the equal protection of the laws were the words of the Magna Carta, Article 40. He also said the equal protection of the laws were always a part of the US Constitution under the Fifths "any person" and not the Carta's "freemen."

It is also historically incorrect to say the Equal Protection Clause was a response to black codes, as Bingham himself approved of many of them under state authority. Instead, Bingham wanted to address the denial of vindication for civil wrongs in state courts. Blacks could not sue, be witnesses, or have a jury of their peers, etc. They were subjected to unequal proceedings, fines and punishments, and denied the protection of the laws before courts of justice.

I'll kick it around for a few days over how it should be edited to conform with the Congressional Globe record.

LawPro (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have one major issue with the Equal Protection article: Wikipedia ignores the historical meaning of the phrase "equal protection of the laws" as well as ignores the application for which was intended in the 14th. Wikipedia pretends that the prhase "equal protection" has a unknown meaning which is false. The framer and the chairman of the committe of reconstruction told us exactly what it means. Why does Wikipedia refuse to reveal this?

Can you tell me what you mean? I.e., can you indicate what you believe (1) "the historical meaning" is, and (2) the "intended application" was? I'm also unsure why you believe we can take the understandings of the "framer" (do you mean Bingham?) and the chairman of the Committee of Reconstruction as determinative of the meaning of the Clause. After all, the Clause was drafted by Bingham, but it was sent to the states by the Congress as a whole, and was ratified by many state legislators whose individual understandings are necessarily irrecoverable. (And this is to grant the assumption—a crucial and controversial one—that originalism is the only legitimate way in which to interpret the Clause.) Nevertheless, I readily and enthusiastically grant that Bingham's (and Stevens's) understanding of the Clause's meaning is important. But his understanding must be documented by sources. Also, can you indicate where the article "pretends that the phrase 'equal protection' has an unknown meaning"? Thank you. Hydriotaphia 09:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

REPLY:

The historical meaning comes from the Magna Charta 46th clause, just as Bingham said. The intended application was to prevent unequal application of the laws which are secured to all persons. Right to due process of law before one can be deprived of their life, liberty or property is a right secured to all persons. A right to a public education is not a right secured to all persons, only lawful state residents, and therefore, is not a equal protection issue. Bingham said:

"[T]he gentleman inquires, what does this mean [equal protection of the laws]? It ought to have occurred to the gentleman that it means that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the Constitution of the United States, as that Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and, of course, that no State should deny to any such person any of the rights which it guaranties to all men, nor should any State deny to any such person any right secured to him either by the laws and treaties of the United States or of such State."

Yes, the proposed amendment was sent to the State legislature's for them to ratify and they were consulted to what the 14th amendment was intended to accomplish. Stevens said as much when he introduced it:

"I believe it is all that can be obtained in the present state of public opinion. Not only Congress but the several States are to be consulted. Upon a careful survey of the whole ground, we did not believe that nineteen of the loyal States could be induced to ratify any proposition more stringent than this."

My comment in regards to "unknown meaning" was a direct reference to this line: "What exactly that means, of course, has been the subject of great debate..."

It makes it seem as though the framers left no record as to what it means! THEY DID!

For a complete history on the equal protection clause there is no better source then P.A. Madison's A Dummies Guide to Understanding the 14th Amendment which relies on the actual words and understanding of those responsible for the amendment!

http://federalistblog.us/mt/articles/14th_dummy_guide.htm

OK, that's all fine and good. I encourage you to contribute some of what you've written above (adding it, of course, only to the appropriate sections of the article). As to the education issue, I take it that you are arguing that Brown was wrongly decided? If you want to contribute a paragraph on that, that's fine; however, you should be aware—and add to the text—that yours is an extremely controversial position to take, and one that most (if not almost all) originalists reject. See Michael W. McConnell, Originalism and the Desegregation Decisions, 81 Virginia Law Review 947 (1995) (arguing that under the original understanding of the Equal Protection Clause, Brown was rightly decided). Finally, the article says merely that the meaning of the Clause "has been the subject of great debate." That is a descriptive statement: it has, in fact, been the subject of great debate. Evidently you believe that the meaning of the Clause should not be the subject of great debate (since, to you, its meaning is obvious). However, that view does not mean that other people have not—as a matter of fact—vigorously argued about its meaning. Hydriotaphia 10:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions
First, good job on picking this topic for an expanded article, and potential feature article. I believe it to be an important enough topic to deserve one, although I don't usually review legal topics on Wikipedia (and probably wouldn't have this one, but for your notice).

You seem to have made quite a flying start. The only general suggestions I have are These first two are also good rules for any legal writing, as I am sure you already know.
 * Have no qualms about editing extensively and ruthlessly;
 * Be brief as possible, but not at the expense of clarity or the import of the topic; and
 * Keep in mind that most readers will have never set foot in a law school.

Specifically, you might want consider the following:
 * In the section "The background to the Equal Protection Clause", fourth para., perhaps you should use somewhat more neutral language to describe the opposition of Southern whites to the EPC and related statutes. I haven't been on Wikipedia as a contributor for that long, so I'm not sure if we have had significant problems with neo-Confederate vandals/trolls or not.  Still, no need to feed them any more than can be reasonably avoided.
 * In the section "The beginnings of modern interpretation . . .", consider adding a para. concerning the role of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and Thurgood Marshall in this development. Marshall and his mentor, Charles Houston, cherry-picked through hundreds (if not thousands) of cases over decades to find the best test cases to wear away at Plessy.
 * In the section "Who is a 'suspect class'?", consider making a brief reference to Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Although primarily a substantive due process case, equal protection is also discussed (in O'Connor's concurring op.).  The public, and the GLBT community in particular, has awareness of this case, and it may be better to give it some mention.

Hope this helps. Good work; and good luck toward your future efforts. Edeans 20:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I've tried to respond to some of your suggestions, especially those concerning the role of the NAACP in civil rights litigation. Indeed, I've found a wonderful image of Thurgood Marshall and Charles Hamilton Houston from the Maryland state archives. This message can be found on Peer review as well. Thanks so much for your suggestions. If it's not too much to ask, please continue to critique the article. What you've said is very helpful. Hydriotaphia 03:23, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * I like the para. you added; it has the right amount of detail for this article, IMHO. I agree with you on the pic, too--it's great.  I know I've seen it before, but I cannot remember where.  When you have time, take a look at the Thurgood Marshall article.  You may have something useful to contribute here as well.  Edeans 04:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I hope someone will critique the affirmative action section that I've added. I must admit that I strongly favor affirmative action, and hence I fear that the section may not be NPOV. Hydriotaphia 00:37, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty balanced to me. Just a couple minor issues:
 * "In every affirmative action case, the Supreme Court has employed, or has said it employed, strict scrutiny, since affirmative action policies categorize by race." seems incorrect, or mis-worded. I can easily believe all the cases that have made it to the Supreme Court were about race, but not all affirmative action policies in general. Maybe "...since affirmative action policies in these cases categorized by race.", if indeed that is the case?
 * I had to look up "uninvidious" on m-w.com, and the meaning it gave (for "invidious") was different enuf from what I expected from its apparent root words, I wonder if that's really what you meant.
 * In the US section of affirmative action, it agrees that the modern era began with LBJ, but the intro at the top of the article mentions "... this process was established by Presidential Decree in March of 1961 by President Kennedy..."--this is way out of my area of expertise, so I don't know what it's referring to, but it would probably be good to have the articles more in agreement.
 * Finally, in the first paragraph (and this may have just been because I automatically read "individuals of minority background are preferred" as "individuals of racial minority background are preferred"), but it might be better if there is some way to connect the fact that the oppressed groups listed in the first sentence typically are in the minority, somewhere before the passage I mis-read. I think I made the transition a bit smoother. Niteowlneils 04:30, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * you should link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fourteenth_Amendment_case_law. I think more discussion of modern interpretations and implications is necessary, even at the expense of some history.  (e.g. wasn't that school drug zone case an EPC case and a departure from ?  if not, I would also use the phrase "judicial action is state action" near Shelley v. Kramer as this is the "take away phrase" of that case. Scarykitty 07:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Scarykitty, thank you for your comments. I appreciate very much that you took the time to read the article. Here is why I disagree with your suggestions, however; please tell me if I misunderstand or misconstrue any of them.
 * I was under the impression that the Fourteenth Amendment case law category included only that—case law. Indeed, the listing of articles on its category page seems to bear out this impression. Now certainly, all of the cases listed in the Equal Protection Clause article ought to be listed under the category of Fourteenth Amendment case law (as well as under the category called "Equal Protection cases"). But I figure listing the Equal Protection Clause itself as case law is both inaccurate and potentially confusing.
 * What sort of modern interpretations and implications are you referring to? If I've missed something, please add in, or perhaps you should just clarify what you mean.
 * I'm not sure what "school drug zone case" you're talking about. The closest thing I can think of is United States v. Lopez, which was a case about federal regulation of guns in school zones. Lopez was a Commerce Clause case, not an Equal Protection Clause case—though you're absolutely right that Lopez was something of a departure from post-1937 Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
 * I think using the phrase "judicial action is state action" in summing up Shelley v. Kraemer isn't a bad idea at all. Here's what's stopping me from doing that, however: Shelley is something of a outlier in Equal Protection jurisprudence; I can't think of one significant case since Shelley that has used the maxim "judicial action is state action" to expand the reach of the Equal Protection Clause. (For example, private contracts or covenants that exclude women from country clubs—see Augusta National Golf Club—are still perfectly enforceable in the courts, despite Shelley.)
 * At any rate, thanks for your helpful comments. I encourage you to participate in the never-ending editing process of this article! Hydriotaphia 08:18, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * Forgive me, Scarykitty, I just realized that I misread you; please disregard number (1) above, and I shall follow your suggestion and link to the category of equal protection cases. Best, Hydriotaphia 08:35, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

User:Zantastik's addition about Bingham's statements is right on, factually. (Indeed, it was precisely those statements that Hugo Black relied on when making the case for total incorporation in Adamson v. California.) However, since the Bill of Rights has been incorporated not through the Equal Protection Clause, but rather through the Due Process Clause, the statement doesn't belong in this article. What I shall do, therefore, is transfer Zantastik's addition verbatim to an appropriate position in the incorporation article. Hydriotaphia 08:18, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

With due respect, I think moving the summary of the Court's holding in Plessy to the beginning of the section on the postwar interpretation of the Clause is pretty confusing. It makes the reader unsure what is being talked about. I shall therefore put it back where it was. I should say, though, that all of User:Neutrality's other edits were, in my opinion, great. (That isn't intended to sound condescending or, alternatively, sycophantic: it's just true.) Hydriotaphia 08:40, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

I have enlarged and—how to say this?—deflowered the lead. What do people think? Hydriotaphia 21:11, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

I have added a few paragraphs on voting rights under the Clause. I haven't yet had time to write something about Bush v. Gore, but I shall do so when I can. Hydriotaphia 07:04, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

The lead
The recent edit to the last sentence of the first paragraph has caused a redundancy. The last sentence now reads, "In the broadest view, the Equal Protection Clause is part of United States's continuing attempt to determine what egalitarianism should mean in practice and what 'equal protection of the laws' means." The last subordinate clause of this sentence is what is redundant, since the last two sentences of the second paragraph read: "After [the Clause's] enactment, the Constitution also guaranteed rights from abridgement by state governments—henceforth they could only make laws that protected people equally. What exactly that means, of course, has been the subject of great debate; and the story of the Equal Protection Clause is the gradual explication of its meaning." To get rid of this redundancy, I shall erase the last clause of the last sentence of the first paragraph.

Also, I'm not sure I understand what was objectionable about the reference to "all men are created equal"—i.e., why that had to be erased. After all, equality was one of the things the Civil War was fought over—certainly Lincoln and the people who framed the Fourteenth Amendment thought so—and so I think it would be appropriate to include something about America's commitment, or at least purported commitment to equality. Indeed, I shall do so now. I hope I won't anger anyone by so acting. Hydriotaphia 08:53, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

From WP:PR
Most of what constitutes this article was added by me. I plan to add more information on the history of the courts' interpretation of the Clause—esp. from the Reconstruction to the Civil Rights Movement, incl. cases such as Plessy and Strauder and The Civil Rights Cases. Is there anything else I should add? I aspire to featuredarticledom. Criticism is greatly desired; lay it on me! Thanks, Hydriotaphia 02:00, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, so I've added some more history, and an image. I've got more work to do—I plan a section on Brown and school integration—and I would love suggestions. Thanks again, Hydriotaphia 04:14, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

I made some suggestions on the talk page for the article. Looks like you have done some substantial work on this. Edeans 23:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I've tried to respond to some of your suggestions, especially those concerning the role of the NAACP in civil rights litigation. Indeed, I've found a wonderful image of Thurgood Marshall and Charles Hamilton Houston from the Maryland state archives. This message can be found on the talk page of Equal Protection Clause as well. Thanks so much for your suggestions. If it's not too much to ask, please continue to critique the article. What you've said is very helpful. Hydriotaphia 03:22, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * I like the para. you added; it has the right amount of detail for this article, IMHO. I agree with you on the pic, too--it's great. I know I've seen it before, but I cannot remember where. When you have time, take a look at the Thurgood Marshall article. You may have something useful to contribute here as well. Edeans 04:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the peer review notice and am going to propose the article for featured article status. Hydriotaphia 04:45, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

McCabe v. Atchison
I've done a little research on McCabe v. Atchison, which I hadn't heard of before its addition here, and it seems that a good deal of the information included in the article about McCabe is erroneous. There were not four dissents, but four justices who concurred in the judgment (i.e., in the judgment only, not the opinion). It was not an influential decision; indeed, there have been only 18 citations of it by the Supreme Court since 1914, which is, for a purportedly important case, very, very small. (I think it's also significant that the last citation occurred 25 years ago.) I'm therefore going to erase the paragraph on McCabe. Hydriotaphia 23:37, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Construction of the Equal Protection Clause
The first line of the article states, "The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, providing that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The actual clause comes from the following sentence in the 14th Amendment: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

It seems to me that the correct paraphrase of the sentence which focuses specifically on the clause would be the following: "No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Though the three clauses of the sentence are separated by semicolons, and leaves room for ambiguity, I believe that this construction makes sense, whereas the other one does not. The end of the clause is "of the laws", which I am assuming refers to existing laws, both federal and state. If it was merely federal law, the construction as it exists would make sense; since "of the laws" does not differentiate, however, it is confusing to me to think of a state making a law in order to deny equal enforcement of another law of the state to a particular person or persoItalic textns within that jurisdiction. Of course, it has always been confusing to me how the Supreme Court can strike down laws under the Equal Protection Clause when, under either construction, the Clause seems to only prevent the denial, or unequal enforecement, of the protection which already existing laws provide to certain persons in the jurisdiction. Even under this article's construction, the only law that would be struck down would be the law which, in my mind, confusingly is passed in order to prevent the protection another law provides to certain groups of people. But, Con Law has never really been my thing anyways.

In conclusion, I believe that the "blank space" that occurs before "deny" is the "shall any state" from the Due Process Clause, and not "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall..." That simply reads better to me; if the semi-colon was a comma, as I believe we would write it nowadays, there wouldn't be any confusion, but, as it stands, the sentence appears to be ambiguous (at least to modern eyes). I'm also not alone on this; in my brief little research to see how other publications parapharse it, I haven't found any yet which do it the way this article does it. But, as I said, the research was brief, and any help in this regard would be appreciated. - T.J. Swartz

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "In the United States, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution...prohibits states from denying any person 'the equal protection of the laws'". Since I cannot find a single article which construes the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause in the way which this article presently does, I am going to go ahead and make the change detailed above. - T.J. Swartz

John Bingham was NOT THE AUTHOR of the Equal Protection clause. John Bingham was effectively the author of the Due Process clause, but Thaddeaus Stevens was the source for Equal Protection. See Benjamin B. Kendrick "The Journal of the Joint Committee of Fifteen on Reconstruction" and you will notice that Bingham proposed an amendment which would guarantee life liberty and property; then Stevens introduced an equality amendment. The two went into a subcommittee, and emerged as one.

Spoken Wikipedia
I have completed recording and editing the article as of today. However, I'm having problems trying to upload it to the servers. (My browser keeps timing out.) If someone can help me, please reply here or on my talk page. --Speaker Eric 09:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Nevermind, I just had to split it in two.

Corporate personhood
I'd always heard that some of the furthest-reaching consequences of the equal protection clause come from its application to corporations, under the personhood doctrine per Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Could a knowledgeable editor add to the article about this? Phr 00:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah, its shocking that this article got featured without any mention of the relevance of the equal protection clause to corporate law. The existing text is excellent, but thats a huge omission. This clip explains it pretty well for lack of a better source. savidan(talk) (e@) 07:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

 * It's actually not much of an omission at all. The Clause's application to corporations is what laymen tend to know about the Clause, but there has not been an important case applying the Clause to corporations in decades, and, under the rational basis test, its application is highly limited anyway. Hydriotaphia 09:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If there hasn't been an important test in decades, that means the result of that test is settled law and so the article should describe the situation.  Even if the application is bogus, if a lot of people have heard something about it, the article should have an explanation. Phr 06:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I'd like to see some examples of laws which have been ruled constitutional or unconstitutional under the rational basis test... not necessarily regarding corporations. Mackerm 06:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

 * This is a GLARING absence - just do the history to see who has used the 14th amendment more in court, individuals on civil rights case, or corporations defending their "rights" as they claim apply to them in the Constitution and Bill of Rights (corporations aren't mentioned in either document). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carterobrien (talk • contribs) 21:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

 * I agree something should be said in the article, but, with due respect, this comment is simply incorrect. Individuals sue under the Equal Protection Clause with much, much more frequency than do corporations.  As someone who works in the federal courts — and someone who is familiar with statistics gleaned from the annual reports of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts — I can tell you that almost everyone who sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows an action to be brought in federal court to redress a constitutional violation by a state official, is a natural person and not a corporation.  Indeed, I have never myself seen a corporation file suit under § 1983 (though it does happen — e.g., suits under the Dormant Commerce Clause etc.).  Let me add that on a personal level I'm basically sympathetic to the point that Carterobrien is making.  But we do need to get our facts right.  Hydriotaphia 12:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added a very short (but, I think, well-sourced) paragraph on corporate personhood. I hope that will assuage (the utterly justified) concerns expressed above. Hydriotaphia 05:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Call me crazy...
...but is that Thurgood Marshall picture 'shopped? It seems like the resolution of the picture of the room is Much lower than that of the standing figure....to me it seems like he was cut&pasted in. What does everyone else think?--Zaorish 05:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's a painting... -- Rory 0 96 (block) 19:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC) I'm an idiot, that's not the Thurgood Marshall one.

"While it might seem"
Here is the objectionable content that I removed:"Although the interpretation that some classes enjoy 'greater protection' might seem to be the very antithesis of 'equal protection', the Supreme Court has, on some, though not all, occasions, appeared to endorse just such an interpretation of the 'Equal Protection Clause'." "Might seem to be the very antithesis of equal protection" is a perfect example of weasel words. Indeed, one of the examples of weasel words given by Wikipedia is "It may be that," which is close, and even less objectionable (because of the lack of the extremely weaselly "seem"), than the phrase used in this article. If it "might seem" this way, then it must "seem" so to certain, defined persons, and if those persons have stated this belief, then there must be record of it. And that, friends, is where the official policy of citing sources comes in. Before this "seem" phrase can be admitted to the article, it must be sourced. Right now, it is an unverified point of view posing as an innocuous report. I will therefore go ahead and remove this content again. Please, please, I beg you: cite your sources; don't use weasel words that smuggle bias into the article. Thanks.

Further, I'm not what "greater protection" means here. What strict or intermediate scrutiny does, or indeed, what rational basis scrutiny does at its margins, is to prevent government from categorizing based on unjustifiable criteria. I'm not sure how this is "greater protection." Again, for this "greater protection" point to be anything more than badly concealed bias, it will have to be supported by citation and attributed to an authority. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 05:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The article as it currently stands (as you have reverted to twice) defines "suspect class" as "status deserving of greater judicial protection"... I'm sure you were aware of that.  For a definition like that to stand in an article titled "Equal Protection Clause" is exactly tantamount to writing "Some animals are more equal than others".  In other words, yes, maybe it says everyone has equal protection under the law, but we've decided that what "equal" really means is that certain of our "favorite" people who are "better" have GREATER protection, while other citizens, who are not born so lucky, have "less" protection".  This 20th C. interpretation is a return to pure feudalism (q.v.), it defeats the entire spirit of EQUALITY for ALL authored in the 1868 Law, and you're calling ME biased???

 * This anomaly of "equal" really means "greater for some" deserves to be at least addressed or pointed out in the article, maybe not in my exact words, but addressed, and it should not be repeatedly censored. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that you yourself were biased. And you're right, "status deserving of greater judicial protection" is an odd formulation, which should probably be modified. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 14:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"Carolene Products under siege"
I've erased this section. It presented a highly tendentious view – and one not widely shared – in fact, one I've never heard of from any legal academic – as fact. While it gave citations, it is clear that the author of the section was synthesizing disparate sources in order to present his or her own view. This is original research, of course. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 18:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's now almost seven years after Hydriotaphia posted the comment above, and I agree that the Carolene Products section is still very deficient and should either be removed or drastically improved. I will try the latter approach.24.181.178.235 (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Civil Rights Act of 1964
This needs to be changed since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed under the interstate commerce clause and not the 14th amendment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roadrunner (talk • contribs) 14:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

I change the wording of that section. The Supreme Court's decisions on the two cases are legally consistent, and I changed things to clean up.

This article needs a general rewrite
The fact that the civil rights acts of 1964 and 1968 were *not* passed under the equal protection clause is noted in the footnote, but needs to be made an integral part of the text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roadrunner (talk • contribs) 15:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

The discussion of Title VII has been edited to reflect this fact. That should, I think, be sufficient. Hydriotaphia 05:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what the etiquette is in these matters, but I will be bold and erase the tags recently added to this article. Hydriotaphia 05:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Under the general description of the 14th it states that the equal protection clause provides the same legal rights to a non-citizen. That is clearly not true, no where does it say that any of the fourteenth amendment is meant to apply to foreign person's. This is biased misinterpretation. Lakeraider01 (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Under the general description of the 14th it states that the equal protection clause provides the same legal rights to a non-citizen. That is clearly not true, no where does it say that any of the fourteenth amendment is meant to apply to foreign person's. This is biased misinterpretation. Lakeraider01 (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Article needs references
There are quoted parts that are not referenced. Regards, — mattisse (Talk) 23:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The Equal Protection Clause applies to the federal government
In the first paragraph, the article states that the EPC applies "only to states, not to the federal government." While that is what the text suggests, the Court has held that the EPC does apply to the federal government, through reverse incorporation. See Bolling v. Sharpe (ordering desegregation of DC schools). EPC cases brought against the federal government include Adarand and Korematsu. User3290123 (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

 * You should try re-reading that case again. That is NOT what the court said. Trentc (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Equal protection vs. equal rights
I removed the following argumentative clause from the introduction: "However, it grants equal protection, not equal rights." It is, as I mentioned, argumentative and inappropriate for the introduction. It also probably doesn't belong ANYWHERE in the article unless it's described as a simply one viewpoint. Lawyer2b (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing Sentence in Lead
"The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal" by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states."

The way it is written is an opinion with not even a source of that opnion. Not to mention, the DOI states "all men are created equal" not TREATED equal. Trentc (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relatedly, I think the second paragraph of the lead is tangential. It says: "More concretely, the Equal Protection Clause, along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, marked a great shift in American constitutionalism. Before the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights protected individual rights only from invasion by the federal government. After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the Constitution also protected rights from abridgment by state leaders and governments, even including some rights that arguably were not protected from abridgment by the federal government."  The problem here is that incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states was accomplished by other parts of the Fourteenth Amendment than the Equal Protection Clause; no one (not one single legal scholar on Earth) thinks that the EP Clause contributed one iota to applying the Bill of Rights against the states.198.228.196.189 (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Prop 8
Didn't the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rule that Prop 8 violated the Equal Protection Clause? Why isn't this discussed here?

--2001:480:610:219:AC69:580D:1B41:C6AC (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That ruling has been vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court.69.183.146.99 (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Revisions
I've made some changes over the past few days (under several IP addresses), but have to leave it at that for the foreseeable future. Basically, I proofread and revised up to the end of the section titled "Discriminatory intent and disparate impact". But now I have lots of other stuff to do. Cheers.24.181.178.235 (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's me again. I have now revised all the way up to the beginning of the section on affirmative action.  Other stuff beckons, so revising that last section will have to wait a while.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I made a few revisions to the section on affirmative action, and am now done revising the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Chronological
For the most part, this Wikipedia article is written in a chronological format. Therefore, insertion of stuff about corporate personhood should be done chronologically too. Moreover, there is already stuff in the Wikipedia article on that subject: "It was also in the Gilded Age that a ruling by the Supreme Court included headnotes written by John C.Bancroft, a former railway company president. Bancroft, acting as court reporter, indicated in the headnotes that corporations were 'persons', while the actual court decision itself avoided specific statements regarding the Equal Protection Clause as applied to corporations.[23] However, the legal concept of corporate personhood predates the Fourteenth Amendment.[24] In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Clause was used to strike down numerous statutes applying to corporations. Since the New Deal, however, such invalidations have been rare.[25]" Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Notes section
The Notes section has only one note in it. The note is linked after this sentence: "Bancroft, acting as court reporter, indicated in the headnotes that corporations were 'persons', while the actual court decision itself avoided specific statements regarding the Equal Protection Clause as applied to corporations." The note says this: "Persons within its jurisdiction are entitled to equal protection from a State. Largely because Article IV, Sec. 2, has from the beginning guaranteed the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, the Court has rarely construed the phrase in relation to natural persons.[See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210-16 (1982) (explicating meaning of the phrase in the context of holding that aliens illegally present in a State are within its jurisdiction and may thus raise equal protection claims).] The Supreme Court hold that a foreign corporation which sued in a court of a State in which it was not licensed to do business to recover possession of property wrongfully taken from it in another State was within the jurisdiction and could not be subjected to unequal burdens in the maintenance of the suit.See Kentucky Finance Corp. v. Paramount Auto Exchange Corp., 262 U.S. 144 (1923) When a State has admitted a foreign corporation to do business within its borders, that corporation is entitled to equal protection of the laws but not necessarily to identical treatment with domestic corporations. See Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Glander, 337 U.S. 562 (1949); Hanover Ins. Co. v. Harding, 272 U.S. 494 (1926). See also Philadelphia Fire Ass'n v. New York, 119 U.S. 110 (1886)." My preference would be to just have text and footnotes, without a note section. Many of the existing footnotes have sentences full of comments, so that's the format that the Wikipedia article has followed so far, except for this one Note in the Notes section.  Additionally, it would be nice if this material would be clarified.  It starts out by saying that the P&I Clause covers "citizens" instead of "persons" and therefore the Court has not analyzed it with "persons" in mind.  That's all fine, but this article is not about the P&I Clause.  When the Note says "has rarely construed the phrase", what phrase is that?  The EP phrase?  Well, the EP phrase is not in the P&I Clause, so why should the Court's P&I cases consider the EP phrase?  As far as Kentucky Finance and Wheeling Glander, why are they important?  The Court has had tons of EP decisions, so we would need to clarify why these two are particularly significant. Is it because a foreign corporation was involved in both cases? If so, why not explain it that way, for example "The Court has held that not only U.S. corporations but also foreign corporations are 'persons' within the meaning of the EP Clause"? Thanks for considering this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

 * The note above is the product of an editing process to include the meaning of "person" and "within its protection" from the Equal Protection Clause (EPC) as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. (Compare the EPC editing process on November 23, 2013 starting with this edit). The original material included by me stems from this source. After completing the task of including the meaning of "person" and "within its protection" from the EPC as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court by starting a new subsection at the 14th Amendment page, there is no further need for the notes section. Accordingly I deleted the note and the notes section. I hope this resolves the issue. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Equal Protection Clause. 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/20070628215819/http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/deseg/Schools_More_Separate.pdf to http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/deseg/Schools_More_Separate.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050909065433/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/symposium-aa/schuck.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/symposium-aa/schuck.php

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) 05:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Some Proposed Changes
Hello, I am employed by Boston University's Fineman & Pappas Law Libraries. After reviewing this Wikipedia page, I believe that information from one of our faculty's scholarship might provide a valuable addition to this page. I would appreciate it if this requested edit could be reviewed.

Add citation to first sentence of last paragraph in 'Discriminatory intent and disparate impact' section:

Add citation to last sentence of last paragraph in 'Discriminatory intent and disparate impact' section:

Add paragraph to end of 'Discriminatory intent and disparate impact' section: In addition to concerns that a discriminating statute can hide its true intention, there have also been concerns that facially neutral evaluative and statistical devices that are permitted by decision-makers can be subject to racial bias and unfair appraisals of ability.'  As the equal protection doctrine heavily relies on the ability of neutral evaluative tools to engage in neutral selection procedures, racial biases indirectly permitted under the doctrine can have grave ramifications and result in 'uneven conditions.' '    These issues can be especially prominent in areas of public benefits, employment, and college admissions, etc.'

Cf2022 (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Cf2022

 * ✅ Your edit requests,, are short and the most time consuming I have ever dealt with (the references take SOME time to go through). Ferkijel (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Thank you so much for approving the requested edit! Please let me know if there is ever any information that I can provide to facilitate the process. I will start including page numbers in future citations referenced in requested edits, so that it is easier to review. Cf2022 (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Cf2022

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2007 WY Proof Rev.png

emphasis added
At the end the text of the clause, which appears entirely in italics (as well as being inset as a quotation) on my phone, there appears the note "emphasis added". I am not entirely sure what is supposedsupposed to be emphasized since the entire text of the Clause is in italics. Is it the phrase "equal protection under the law"? 2600:4040:207A:AA00:514B:E12D:E286:E234 (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like it came in as a misguided edit about six months ago. Fixed now; thanks for pointing it out. TJRC (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Equal Protection Clause


text:
Cushman Dam No. 1

Cushman Dam No. 1 is a hydroelectric dam on the North Fork of the Skokomish River in Mason County, Washington, which in derogation of the natural and treaty rights of the Native inhabitants impounded and enlarged the formerly natural Lake Cushman, leading to damage claims in excess of $5 billion and an eventual settlement agreement with the Skokomish tribe that terminates the right to operate the dam(s) after 2048. It was built by Tacoma City Light (now Tacoma Power) in 1924–1926. Tacoma's demand for electricity grew rapidly after World War I. Tacoma City Light's Nisqually River Hydroelectric Project, built in 1912, could not meet the demand and the utility decided to build a new hydroelectric project on the North Fork Skokomish River. The dam and powerhouse first began to deliver electricity on February 12, 1926.

It has a concrete arch design and includes 90,000 cubic yards (69,000 m³) of concrete, covering a whole 6,244 ft of water. Two 21,600 kilowatt generators provide 127 million kilowatt-hours annually to the Tacoma Power system.

Construction began on July 7, 1924, under the commissioner Ira S. Davidsson (1918–1940). It has a top width of 8 ft and a base width of 50 ft, at 275 ft high and 1,111 ft long. The transmission of electricity to Tacoma, over lines crossing Tacoma Narrows, was activated, or "formally energized", on March 23, 1926, with the push of a button by President Calvin Coolidge in a ceremony at the White House.

A second, smaller dam, Cushman Dam No. 2, 3.2 km downstream of Dam No. 1, was completed by December 1930.

title: Cushman Dam No. 1


text:
User talk:Nex O-Slash

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 02:03, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nex O-Slash


text:
Cushman Dam No. 2

Cushman Dam No. 2 is a hydroelectric dam on the North Fork of the Skokomish River in Mason County, Washington, United States, forming Lake Kokanee. Built in 1930, its three 27,000 kilowatt generators provide 233 million kilowatt-hours annually to the Tacoma Power system. Along with Cushman Dam No. 1, it is part of Tacoma Power's Cushman Project.

Construction began in 1929 and power production began in December 1930. The dam is 575 ft long, 8 ft wide at the top and 40 ft at the base. It is 235 feet tall. Its reservoir, Lake Kokanee, is 2 mi long.

title: Cushman Dam No. 2


text:
User talk:Ratz~enwiki

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for uploading the following image:

 * Image:E-strich_logo.jpg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status?

You can use   if you release your own work under the GNU Free Documentation License,    if you wish to release your own work to the public domain,    if you claim fair use, and so on. Click here for a list of the various tags.

If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the image from, and I'll tag it for you. Thanks so much. Denni ☯ 04:23, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Ratz. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Ratz~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ratz~enwiki


text:
Prince Planet

Prince Planet is the English-language title given to one of the earliest anime television series, Planet Boy Papi (遊星少年パピイ), when it was transmitted on American television in the United States in the mid-1960s. It did run on "The Works" television network before it ceased operations February 28, 2017. A 52-episode monochrome anime series, it tells the story of a member of the Universal Peace Corps, originally from the planet Radion, coming to Earth on a mission to determine if this world meets standards for membership in the Galactic Union of Worlds and assist its inhabitants during his stay. While on his mission, Prince Planet adopts the identity of an Earth boy named Bobby and gains comrades who work together alongside him fighting forces of evil, both alien and terrestrial.

Production overview and history
Prince Planet was originally produced by TCJ (Television Corporation of Japan, now Eiken) and aired on the Fuji Television network in June 1965. The show was one of the first heavily merchandised shows in Japan, with simple things like shoes getting the "Planet Boy Papi" logo. An English-dubbed version was released by American International Television Productions in September 1966, and produced by James Nicholson and Samuel Z. Arkoff. The dubbing was performed in Miami at Copri Films International and directed by Mark Harris, with dialog scripting by Reuben Guberman, who also reworked The Amazing 3 for Erika Productions in 1967 and developed the live-action tokusatsu-kaiju series Giant Robo for American television, later that same year, under the title Johnny Sokko And His Flying Robot. The American theme was composed by Guy Hemric and Jerry Styner, who had previously written songs for several of American International's "Beach Party" movies. Glico was a major sponsor for the series and made Papi "prizes" that came in certain candy products. Prizes included mini action figures and play jewelry.

Prince Planet, allies, and enemies
The main characters appearing throughout most of the series are all introduced by the fourth episode. In episode 1, Prince Planet arrives on Earth and meets a girl, Riko or Diana Worthy in the English-dubbed version and her father, Pops Worthy, who live on a large ranch. In episode 2, a wrestler known as Dan Dynamo, billed as "The strongest man in the world," joins the Prince Planet team. Episode 3 introduces Warlock, who is said to be the "Master of Martian Magic," although his Martian origins seem to be more of a contrivance added to the English dub; whatever Warlock's origin, he is established as a student of some kind of magical school who runs away to Earth after being punished for getting drunk on prune juice. The last major team member is a magician named AjiBaba of Abbadon, from the desert of the eastern hemisphere who debuts in episode 4 as an arch-enemy of Warlock, who attacked his country. Many of the episodes involve battles with Warlock until episode 30, when Krag from the planet Kragmire banishes (throws) Warlock into the depths of space and becomes Prince Planet's major nemesis until the end of the series. Warlock finally returns in the second-to-last episode of the series.

Human guise and transformation
While on Earth, Prince Planet exists usually as Bobby, a normal boy, but when the need arises he will transform into Prince Planet to fight enemies or protect his friends. He transforms similarly to Shazam by holding his pendant with both hands and saying "Peeeeeee Pazow!!" with the "Pazow" being added to cover the Japanese "Papi." When Bobby is transformed into Prince Planet, an appropriate suit of battle armor comes with the transformation, armor which resembles the apparel worn by the people of his native world. This includes a helmet, which all male members of Radion society seem to wear.

The super-humanoid powers of Prince Planet
Prince Planet's main powers are not altogether unlike those of Superman, and in the original Japanese, his home world is named "the planet Crifton (クリフトン星)." His pendant-endowed powers include super strength, flight, and resistance to harsh environments like outer space, though he can be injured in his transformed state. Prince Planet can also use his superior intellect (in several episodes, he is said to have an IQ of 200) along with the energy of the pendant to transform material objects at will; this power is very useful to create needed weapons, transportation, or other devices.

The power pendant of Prince Planet
A recurring plot element of many episodes hinges on a limitation resembling that of the Green Lantern of DC Comics, in that his pendant needs to be recharged periodically, 24 hours for the Green Lantern and an entire week for Prince Planet. But unlike the Green Lantern, Prince Planet cannot perform this task himself. Instead, replenishment of the pendant's energy is handled from the planet Radion. As his energy supply diminishes, the "P" in his pendant goes from black to white like a thermometer in dropping temperatures.

On Prince Planet's home planet of Radion, in the "power tower," there is a person whose job is to monitor the pendant's energy level and ensure that it does not run too low. Not surprisingly in view of this plot element, the custodian of the Radion power tower often appears to be "asleep on the job" while Earth and Prince Planet are hanging in the balance, and he sends energy to the pendant at the last possible second before disaster. Even whenever he has been completely deprived of the pendant's power, however, Prince Planet can still, physically, put up a good fight, and his high intellect makes him a cunning and formidable opponent.

Japanese Cast

 * Toshiko Fujita as Papi (Bobby)
 * Eiko Masuyama as Rico
 * Ichirō Murakoshi as Kiribito
 * Jou Fujimoto as Chakoron
 * Kazuo Nagayama as Strong
 * Reizō Nomoto as Zenoroy
 * Yoshihisa Kamo as AjiBaba

English dub voice talent

 * Catherine "Bobbie" Byers (voice of Prince Planet, Bobby, various female voices)
 * Mark Harris (voice of Dan Dynamo, various voices)
 * Kurt Nagel (voice of AjiBaba, various voices)
 * Arnie Warren (voice of Warlock, various voices)
 * Frank Schuller (voice Of Krag, various voices)
 * Sandy Warshaw (voice of Diana Worthy, various female voices)
 * Jeff Gillen (voice of Pop Worthy, various voices)
 * Other voices performed by: Reuben Guberman, Lawrence Tobin, Jerry Berke

Episode list

 * 1. A Boy From Outer Space
 * 2. Giant On The Matters
 * 3. The Formidable Rival
 * 4. The Arabian Magician
 * 5. Flying Jellyfish
 * 6. Dinosaur Men
 * 7. A Big Showdown
 * 8. Robot Island
 * 9. The Overgrown Lizard
 * 10. Shaberia
 * 11. Fancy Machine
 * 12. S.O.S. Global
 * 13. Gold Picker
 * 14. Attack Of Radioactive Ants
 * 15. The Great Space War
 * 16. The Star In Memory
 * 17. The Space Zoo
 * 18. The Stolen Mt. Fuji
 * 19. Pirate Satan
 * 20. The Planet Terror
 * 21. Robot No. 9
 * 22. Goodbye Saturnean
 * 23. The Earth Zero Hour
 * 24. The Ghost Space Ship
 * 25. Battle On A Desert Island
 * 26. Secret Under The Sea
 * 27. The Rocket Pilot
 * 28. Gaist, the Devilish
 * 29. The Gift From Prince Planet
 * 30. Gollen, the Formidable Foe
 * 31. The Pollen Bomb
 * 32. Operation Rico
 * 33. Rico, The Great Detective
 * 34. A Spy From The Necro
 * 35. The Demon Scientist
 * 36. The Young Spies
 * 37. Alan, The Secret Agent
 * 38. The Magic Gloves
 * 39. Robot Prince
 * 40. Rico's Adventure
 * 41. The Lion In Desert
 * 42. Crisis On The Earth
 * 43. The Horror Of A Snowman
 * 44. Revenge In The Valley
 * 45. The Comet Missile
 * 46. The Mystery Of Mummy
 * 47. The Mystery Of Organ
 * 48. Horror At 10:10 P.M.
 * 49. The Birdman Racket
 * 50. Secret Path Into The Earth
 * 51. Ajababa's Children
 * 52. The Star At Home

Other foreign releases and dubs
Prince Planet was televised in Australia and aired in Melbourne in March 1967 on Channel 9 at 5pm weekdays. The series was well known in Australia. It last appeared on Australian television in 1974 on the Super Flying Fun Show, a weekday breakfast television series.

In Brazil, Prince Planet aired between 1970 and 1975. The characters were known by the following names:
 * Diana Worthy - "Estrellita"
 * Dan Dynamo - "Bruno Retti" or "Strong"
 * Warlock - "Capirote"
 * Krag - "Kilitrone"

Reception
Two factors contributed to the hasty demise of Prince Planet as a desirable property for domestic broadcast, one being the fact that monochrome programing was becoming less desirable to television stations with the ever-growing popularity of color television. The other was negative parental reaction to cartoons that contained what was perceived as excessive violence for children's television. Whilst he was fighting for right, Prince Planet's opponents were often killed when they faced off against him, and this was obvious even despite editing of the dubbed prints to remove violent scenes. Prince Planet kills Warlock and Krag in the last two episodes before returning home to Radion, and they were not the only villains he blasted away with his pendant.

In addition to human violence, the Prince was not overly sensitive to Earth fauna either. For instance, in one episode, he transformed a whale into transportation for his friends, effectively killing the whale. Even so, Prince Planet is known to have been televised in the U.S.A until around 1976 in the Chicago area (WSNS-TV Channel 44) on stations hungry for afternoon TV for children to watch after school, and the program claimed many faithful adherents throughout the sixties and those later years. It was also televised on WUTV channel 29 Buffalo, New York, in the summer of 1975.

Home video
TGG Direct released a 5-disc box set containing 47 of the 52 episodes of the series on July 15, 2014 on Region 1 DVD.

title: Prince Planet


text:
Belz Voivodeship

Bełz Voivodeship (Województwo bełskie, Palatinatus Belzensis) was a unit of administrative division and local government in the Poland from 1462 to the Partitions of Poland in 1772–1795. Together with the Ruthenian Voivodeship it was part of Red Ruthenia, Lesser Poland Province. The voivodeship was created by King Kazimierz Jagiellonczyk, and had four senators in the Senate of the Commonwealth (the Voivode and the Castellan of Bełz, as well as Castellans of Lubaczow and Busk).

History
Bełz Voivodeship was formed in 1462 from the territories of the Duchy of Belz, after the Duchy was annexed by the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland. Zygmunt Gloger in his monumental book Historical Geography of the Lands of Old Poland gives a detailed description of the voivodeship:

“Belz, on the Zaloka river, was one of the oldest gords of the Czerwien Land. In 981, the province was seized by Vladimir the Great. Recovered by Bolesław Chrobry in 1018, it again became part of Rus’ after Chrobry’s death (...) In the early 14th century, the Land of Belz was inherited by Boleslaw Jerzy II of Mazovia, who in 1331 married Eufemia, the daughter of Grand Duke of Lithuania Gediminas and sister of Aldona of Lithuania, wife of Casimir III the Great. Boleslaw Jerzy died on April 7, 1340, and after his death, King Casimir seized Red Ruthenia together with Land of Belz (...) In 1387, King Wladyslaw Jagiello allowed his sister Alexandra of Lithuania to marry Siemowit IV, Duke of Masovia, giving her as dowry the Land of Belz. The province remained in the hands of sons and grandsons of Siemowit IV. The grandsons died childless in early 1462, and the Land of Belz became property of the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland, during the reign of King Kazimierz Jagiellonczyk.

The newly created Belz Voivodeship was slightly smaller than Lublin Voivodeship at approximately the same size as the Chełm Land. It was made of three counties: Lubaczów, Horodło and Szewlock, and in 1767, it was divided into the counties of Bełz, Grabowiec, Horodło, Lubaczów, and the Land of Busk. At local sejmiks in Belz, five deputies to the Sejm were elected, and the voivodeship had four starostas: Belz, Busk, Grabowiec and Horodlo (...) In the 17th century, the voivodeship, which was the smaller of all Lesser Poland voivodeships, had 483 villages and 33 towns (...) After the first partition of Poland (1772), almost whole voivodeship was annexed by the Habsburg Empire, as part of Galicia. What remained in Poland were towns of Dubienka and Korytnica, together with some villages (...) In 1793 the voivodeship ceased to exist, as after the second partition of Poland, its remaining parts were annexed by the newly created Chełm Voivodeship and Włodzimierz Voivodeship".

The area received an influx of szlachta from Mazovia, Lesser Poland and Greater Poland. In 1570–1580, 79% of the local noble families (among those of known provenance) was of Polish origin, while the percentage of Ruthenian and Wallachian noble families amounted to 15% and 4% respectively. Peasant strata of the population remained the least affected by migrations from the west.

Municipal government
Voivodeship Governor (Wojewoda) seat:
 * Bełz

Regional council (sejmik generalny) for all Ruthenian lands:
 * Sudova Vyshnia

Regional council (sejmik) seats:
 * Bełz

Administrative division

 * Bełz County, (Powiat Bełzski), Bełz
 * Grabowiec County, (Powiat Grabowiecki), Grabowiec
 * Horodło County, (Powiat Horodelski), Horodło
 * Lubaczów County, (Powiat Lubaczowski), Lubaczów
 * Busk Land, (Ziemia Buska), Busk

Voivodes

 * Rafał Leszczyński (1579-1636) (1619–1636)
 * Jakub Sobieski (from 1638)
 * Adam Mikołaj Sieniawski (from 1692 to 1710)
 * Stanisław Mateusz Rzewuski (from 1726)

Neighbouring Voivodeships and regions

 * Ruthenian Voivodeship
 * Volhynian Voivodeship
 * Lublin Voivodeship

title: Belz Voivodeship


text: User talk:70.178.30.106

title: User talk:70.178.30.106