text:
Talk:William Greer

Untitled
Please Change Greer was born on a farm in Stewardstown, County Tyrone, Ireland to Greer was born on a farm in Stewartstown, County Tyrone, Ireland

The Spelling of Stewardstown is incorrect —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcaliskey (talk • contribs) 12:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection request
An IP sock of the long-banned editor here has returned to the page to push the fringe theory. I've reverted his additions, and filed at RFPP for further protection. Just letting everyone know. Dayewalker (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

comment
This article was listed on votes for deletion; see Votes for deletion/William Greer. —No-One Jones (m) 09:58, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

William Greer is mentioned as possible Kennedy assassin on the "Kennedy Assassination Theories" discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kennedy_assassination_theories 70.174.38.160 13:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Greer is an important figure who deserves to have an entry on Wikipedia. I fail to see, however, why the Freemasons deserve to have an opinon on him, or William Cooper, a well-known conspiracist with zero credibility in the eyes of any reasonable person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnej (talk • contribs) 04:19, 26 November 2006

Wikipedia is not a clearinghouse only for those who "deserve to have an opinion", as you say. Everyone deserves to have an opinion. Greer is either partially or completely to blame for the death of The President of The United States. His role in this event warrants his own page. Furthermore, his actions in the motorcade are recorded on the Zapruder film for all to see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehpitche (talk • contribs) 01:59, 30 July 2007

Wikipedia aims to be an authoritative source. Conspiracy-mongerng should have no place there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnej (talk • contribs) 02:39, 9 August 2007

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! Hqb 08:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

New additions
There is a group of watchdogs reverting this post instantly whenever any responsibility is placed on Greer. In light of the enhanced MPI film (produced from the original Zapruder film) I'm requesting that you leave the current post intact and allow contributors to add the specific citations.

These revert warriors' have clear double standards, including a lack of citations for the first two paragraphs of the History section, as well as this paragraph: "Some commentators have criticized Greer's actions during the assassination, noting that he did not accelerate the vehicle to get the president out of danger as soon as he could have. In the confusion after the first shot was fired, the limousine's brake lights can be seen coming on briefly, slowing the car to almost a walking pace. The vehicle accelerated several seconds later, but by then the fatal shot had been fired. (Since that time, Secret Service agents have been trained to accelerate rapidly out of the area if they even think they hear gunfire.)" [citation needed]

Fact: William Greer was not just a driver, he was a trained SS agent authorized to carry a weapon in the presence of the president of the United States.

Fact: William Greer was with Kennedy the entire time from Love Field to Bethesda (alive and dead) and controlled his clothing (murder evidence). The so called "Warren Report" is the documentation supporting this last point. I have a copy on my shelf and plan to post many citations referencing it soon.

Fact: The stabilized Zapruder film as copied from the National Archives shows new detail of Greer's already contradicting actions (especially when compared to his testimony).

Fact: There is no credential for assassination researchers to determine what is credible (such as a PHD etc.) nor for theories that should or should not be considered. (And the age or widespread acceptance does NOT make a theory more credible. A lie can be old and widely believed, but it can still be a lie.) And please outline where a self-published is outlined as an invalid reference in Wikipedia's standards. All publishers turned down the work of Howard Weisburg even though he was the first and the best of the assassination researchers!

STOP REVERTING THIS ARTICLE TO EXCLUDE THE FACTS OUTLINED ABOVE. THEY ARE A CLEAR PART OF THE HISTORICAL RECORD AND THE MURDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DESERVES SUCH SCRUTINY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.244.196 (talk) 03:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Please read WP:FRINGE before you add this material again. Gamaliel (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Disgusting article
I have reverted this back to an earlier version, with a couple of amendments to text unsupported by the source. This article has been taken over by a fringe POV pusher intent on publicising his tin foil hat theories that are in his vanity published book, and was a gross violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. There are many theories detailed in Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, and Greer is not mentioned there a single time. Therefore to have most of article that tries to make him look guilty is totally unacceptable. At best, all that should be in this article is something like "Although no court or official report has ever alleged wrongdoing on his part, [insert name(s) of credible non-tin foil hat non-vanity published author(s)] continue to explore Greer's possible complicity in the assassination", and that is assuming there is consensus on that article for a theory regarding Greer to be added. 2 lines of K 303  13:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I noticed on Youtube that there is a nutty theory holding that Greer actually turned around and...delivered the fatal head shot to Kennedy. :) 192.121.232.253 (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Why Keep Reverting When So Much Documented Fact?
I spent a solid week referencing the additions and removed speculation about greer firing a pistol, although to me, that can be the only explantation for his behavior in Z312. Please leave the well supported commentary in place. Greer's own admissions and archival footage backs up the section on the aftermath of the assassination, which is an important part of this unsolved murder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.220.204 (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia guidelines and policies do not act in isolation from each other, they act in conjunction with each other. That something can be sourced does not mean it should be included, especially as in this case the addition fails WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. It is unacceptable to have the bulk of this article presenting a tiny fringe minority view, and worse still, presenting it as the majority view. There is no evidence of this even being a significant minority view, it is a tiny fringe minority view. If, and only if, credible sources can be found alleging Greer's involvement, then an appropriately weighted addition can be added. By appropriately weighted, I mean the one sentence addition I have already suggested. For 18 months you have been a single purpose fringe POV pusher edit warring against multiple editors in good standing, if you continue I will move to have you blocked or banned from this page. 2 lines of K  303  13:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no "view" represented here other than the historcal records of Greer's role on November 22-23, 1963. The FBI consdered him a suspect at the time as they recorded his height and weight. It would be "FRINGE" to say "William Greer was the assassin of John F. Kennedy", which my edits do not. However, the foremost expert on the topic, Vince Palamara, is the source for much of ths commentary and considered Greer "The most important agent." It is a FACT that Greer's role was more than that of a driver, which the historical record demonstrates and these edits reinforce. To simply record him as a mere "driver" is worse than innacurate, it is false. Therefore, I sumbit that the entire article remain intact vs. a complete revert so that the text may be TWEAKED to comply with Wikipeda guidelines. For a time in human history, the idea that the world was round was actually a "fringe" point of view, only to be proven as fact over time.

 * To prove that these are not fringe views, you must provide sources which are acceptable according to WP:RS. Sources like Lifton are unacceptable according to policy.  Gamaliel (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added more sources than just Lifton, including the "Warren Report" itself. Lifton is a researcher who has published a book. Don't do a complete revert simply because of Lifton as a source, please. If referencing Lifton is unacceptable WP policy, you have a great deal of work to do removing millions of references to published authors! Why are Manchester and Powers acceptable to you? Answer this question before you revert. Thank you.

 * Manchester is a respected, award winning historian. Lifton is some crank with a theory about body switching. WP:RS requires we treat them differently.  Please familiarize yourself with policy before you revert war.  Also note the policy WP:3RR.  Gamaliel (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Lifton is a published author and respected researcher, despite his own controversial theories. If a researcher finds documents that show the moon is round but insists the earth is flat, one can still extract a component of the researchers work without endorsing their entire world view, can they not? How about Vince Palamara? And why don't you just edit out Lifton's references instead of reverting? YOU are causing the revert war by not editing. Obscuring much of my edits seems to be your objectve, I guess. There are many "respected" authors who have misrepresented the truth. Study and learn from your history in grade school. A round earth was a "fringe" view held by less respected researchers for a time, while the "respected" authors and other "professionals" held that the earth was flat. See Flat Earth. I have added references to the John F. Kennedy Assassination section on Secret Service Criticism that you just reverted. You can threaten me with WP topics all you want. The objective here is to edit and improve. Please contribute.

 * If you add this information back once more, I will move to have you banned from this page, which may well be enforced by block. The information is a fringe theory being given undue weight. Your "sources" are just a mish-mash of synthesis designed to make Greer look as guilty as possible based on your own observations on the sources. Take your use of the Warren Commission, it is being used to source the sentence "Greer did not discuss slowing the car in his statement to the FBI on the night of the assassination, nor did he mention this aspect to the Warren Commission during the official investigation", amongst other dubious sentences. That is your observation on his testimony, and is solely designed to make Greer look guilty and is a policy violation. Similarly the sentence of "The FBI interviewed Greer after the assassination and, although agents Kellerman and Behn were also interviewed, Greer's interview is unique in that his physical description is also recorded in the 11/27/63 FBI report" is exactly the same, and there are countless similar problems. This article is not going to be turned into an attack article on Greer, and if one more attempt is made to do so I will move for a ban. 2 lines of K  303  11:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

 * You can't pass off the burden of the flaws in your contributions to others. If you want your contributions to stay, they must conform to WP policy.  That means no dubious sources like Lifton as per WP:RS and WP:FRINGE, no analysis of primary evidence which is prohibited original research, etc.  Your references to former mistaken beliefs like the flat earth are irrelevant.  We aren't here to blaze new trails or overturn established thought.  We reflect mainstream, established sources, and if we are wrong, we change it after those sources have been corrected.  If that is unacceptable to you, then this is not the website for you, because that is a core Wikipedia policy. Gamaliel (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Greer's involvement in the aftermath of the assassination is a valid component of the historical record. STOP REVERTING MY WORK TO THE BS "GREER WAS JUST AN OLD DRIVER" BALONEY AND MAKE SPECIFIC EDITS TO WHAT YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH!

 * Discussion of whatever Greer's involvement was isn't the issue. The issue is inappropriate fringe sources like Lifton and original research analysis of primary sources as in the section "A new look at the Zapruder film". Gamaliel (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I believe discussing Greer's involvement in this article is very much the issue. As this is a short article, the whole problem is undue weight, especialy as his involvement is a significant way from the majority view. Per WP:FRINGE fringe views should be dealt with in the article about the view, which in this case already exists as there's a whole article about the conspiracy theories. A one or two sentence summary in this article would be acceptable if a reliably sourced theory can be added no that article, but covering the theory in depth in this article causes undue weight problems. Which is essentially what I said back in March! 2 lines of K  303  13:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Oh, I agree. A summary would have been as far as it should go.  I was trying to get through to the anon that this wasn't an ideological problem but one of sources and I figured the weight issue could be dealt with once we got through to the anon, which unfortunately turned out to be fruitless. Gamaliel (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)```````````````````````````````````````````

Greer's own testimony in the Warren Report contradicts his actions in the Zapruder film. In short, he lied to cover up the fact that he (along with Kellerman) saw that JFK was mortally wounded and DID NOT RESPOND ACCORDING TO SS POLICY! The Warren Report, the HSCA Report, the Zapruder film, and ABC news footage are sufficient sources. You are covering up the truth! -Anon

 * If these are sufficient sources, why keep inserting the fringe ones like Lifton? Gamaliel (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

These are sufficient sources. Leave these comments and references. Lifton is the most respected and published among critics. If you have a problem with him, then remove (EDIT) the text attributed to him, but don't "throw the baby out with the bath water" by childish revision. Much of my edits revolve around FBI reports, Warren Commission Testimony, the Zapruder Film, etc. Greer and the US Secret Service set the stage for the assassination of JFK. You're doing a disservice to the United States of America and the world by framing him as a "driver" who was slow to react. The stabilized Zapruder Film clearly shows that he turned a second time to shoot JFK, his Warren Commission testimony is false, and the FBI report records his physical description, as standard with suspects. Clearly, Greer's role was beyond a driver. ("Constant vigilance" is attributed to him.) See Vince Palamara's work. Don't expect any "mainstream" source to claim what the Zapruder film clearly shows-Greer murdered JFK because the other shots were not fatal and time was running out. Extract what ut you don't see as substantiated, but don't revert to the "driver" BS.

 * Lifton is just the beginning of the problems with the material. We can work with this section if you are serious about getting this alternative viewpoint in the article, but repeatedly inserting Lifton in the article shows that you are not serious about adhering to WP policies.  Gamaliel (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Then stop reverting and give me the opportunity to revise. OR, spend time researching and revising yourself, as you did with the LHO page. I'm not hanging my hat on Lifton, although he IS respected and has done much research. You can't expect a detractor from the "official" story to have the same credentials. (The US Government is credible, along with anyone else selling the lie. but critics are not simply because they are critics of the "official"? A lack of "officialdom" should not diminish their contribution to the research process. By the way, why in the Hell are you revising this so quickly and so frequently? Do you have this flagged with an alert. Five or ten minutes response time around the clock is pretty extreme. It looks like your desperately trying to hide the truth. I wrote over 2/3 of this article (most with my real user name) so don't demonize me because of Lifton. I am deadly serious about the truth.

 * You can revise using a word or google document, or you can create a WP:SANDBOX as a subpage of your userpage, something like this. We can't material that violates policy sit in the article until you get around to revising it into a satisfactory form. You've been inserting this material for quite some time without making the slightest revision, so I think at this point it's incumbent upon you to show that you are willing to revise at all, not for us to violate policy in hopes you will eventually decide to adhere to it.

 * Users with accounts have a feature called a "watchlist" and you can flag any article you wish in such a manner if you get an account.

 * Accusing me of "desperately trying to hide the truth" is not appropriate behavior under Wikipedia policy. Policy requires that you treat other editors in a civil manner.  Gamaliel (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

What SPECIFCALLY violates WP policy? Please quote the text and I will edit accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.12.102 (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Start by removing fringe sources like Lifton and read the rest of this talk page. There are plenty of editors here trying to explain what's wrong with the section.  If you have any questions about the concerns we've raised, please let me know here. Gamaliel (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Lifton is clear but "read the rest of this talk page" is not specific enough. Since you are so hell-bent on reverting ASAP, why don't you give more specifics please?

 * For starters, please have a look at our prohibition against original research, particularly the section entitled "Synthesis of published material that advances a position". Gamaliel (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to remove a discussion. Vexorg (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Your comment is indented as if it is a response to mine, but I am not the one who removed the discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Fixed :) Vexorg (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

AARB Researcher Doug Horne Points To Greer
I'm back! I'm very happy to report that this idea is no longer "fringe". In his new five volume book, Inside the Assassination Records and Review Board, highly credible researcher Doug Horne points to William Robert Greer as a possible shooter, which is corroborated by both the Zapruder film and witness testimony, including that of Secret Service Agent Clint Hill. Now, I respectfully ask that you not revert the edits. This view is no longer "fringe". Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.137.27 (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: Still amazed at how rapidly this page is reverted. Someone must be standing by 24/7 with an alert coming to their mobile device, huh? Pretty fishy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.137.27 (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I ask that you revert your 4RR on the article until you get consensus to add it to the BLP article. As this article has been locked down for six months because of your previous edits, it seems best to make sure there's consensus to add the material. Dayewalker (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On what basis are you claiming that this person is mainstream? --B (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the above discussions, I have blocked this IP as a clear reincarnation. His topic ban at Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive202 seems to be in order and this is obviously the same person.  (Note the use of the word "gatekeeper" to refer to those who remove his fringe claims.) --B (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I shouldn't even bother to entertain this banned editor, but here goes anyway. The book does not mention the Zapruder Film, and only details the theory as "tentative possibility exists", and it is only included with the caveat "it would be cowardly of me not to mention it here". Horne does not seem to promote, advocate or endorse the theory, only acknowledging its existence. Read WP:FRINGE, being mentioned in a reliable source does not make it any less fringe.

On a side note thanks to the admins for prompt action regarding this, hopefully he'll get the message some time soon..... 2 lines of K 303  12:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

 * So the banned editor quotes an entirely different volume of the book from the one cited and still claims to right? Absolutely hilarious, as only on Wikipedia could a source which says the film does "not depict Greer holding a handgun and pointing it at President Kennedy" (yes, read that quote and weep people since the entire three year edit war has been based on the fact that certain people believe the film shows Greer firing the fatal shot!!!) possibly be used to corroborate "illustrates more detail of Greer's actions during the fatal shooting sequence, causing some commentators to speculate that perhaps Greer stopped the limo to fire the fatal head shot". Cherry picking quotes doesn't even help, as anyone performing a cursory read of the sections of the book in question will see he's into conspiracy theory territory, thus remaining deeply in WP:FRINGE territory. I really don't even know why I'm wasting my time typing this since the IP editor never listens to anything anyone says. To sum up, it's fringe, it's always been fringe, it will take years before there's even a possibility of it not becoming fringe, you're banned from editing any articles relating to the assassination of JFK, we're not interested in anything you have to say, please go away, thanks.  2 lines of K  303  13:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what is going on with this "de facto banned editor," I find it strange that a talk page would get reverted like this.  It seems not to be in keeping with the policies of Wikipedia.  Likewise I find the pointing to WP:FRINGE being violated strange, too.  I would have to say that most if not all conspiracy theories would be fringe theories.  But that policy clearly does not state that fringe theories cannot be mentioned, just that they cannot be given undue weight.  It also seems to me that the fact many conspiracy theorists do believe that Greer was the assassin is worth mentioning somewhere.  The Kellerman article does mention that Kellerman thought there was a conspiracy.  This article mentions that Greer slowed down and looked back, which the Zapruder film appears to show.  I hate to stir the pot, but the theory that Greer killed Kennedy is also discussed in Behold a Pale Horse.  As for credibility, I wonder how we could deal with conspiracy theorists' credibility.  I would have to say that as far as this goes, conspiracy theorists would be credible as sources showing that there was a conspiracy theory.  Whether they are credible when it comes to the actual assassination is another story, but that is not what we are talking about.  We are talking about the fact there are conspiracy theorists who believe that Greer shot Kennedy, who also produce frames of the Zapruder film they interpret as showing Greer with his weapon drawn when he turned around to face Kennedy.  I don't think we can reasonably exclude the fact that such a theory exists, regardless of what we might think about it.  I think Oswald shot Kennedy and acted alone, but the frames in question do look interesting.  Rifter0x0000 (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:William Greer, and various other sections where this has been discussed. As for the banned editor, he's edit warred for three years to include this fringe viewpoint in this article and refused to listen to anything anyone else has to say. We really aren't interested in discussing it with *him* any further, he's had many chances to work within policy, he failed to take those chances, and now he's banned from all articles relating to the assassination of JKF. There's really no reason why the time of editors should be wasted dealing with this crankery any more. 2 lines of K  303  13:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In case the banned editor returns again
,, . You have all previously taken administrative action regarding this editor, so perhaps you could keep an eye on this rather obvious reincarnation. The evidence, other than them pushing the same tired unsourced conspiracy theories about Greer;

From the latest IP "Constant Reversion of Cited, Critical Content". The Only Other People That Type Headings Like This On This Page are the previous incarnation, see for example, , and.

From the latest IP "Time and time again - almost 24/7/365 - cited analysis and criticism of Secret Service Agent William Robert Greer is falsely defined as "vandalism" and reverted to apologist, government-explanation-only content, which lacks citations". As the recent history of the article shows, the only recent mention of vandalism in the edit history is this revert of an edit repeatedly describing Greer as inept and adding other unsourced criticism. Other reverts such as this have repeatedly mentioned WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE & WP:V, never vandalism. The previous incarnation's attempts to add conspiracy theory garbage to this article and Greer related material to John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories were warned for vandalism, as the editor complains about here. Regarding the "Time and time again - almost 24/7/365" remark, this is similar to claims made by the previous incarnation such as "There is a group of watchdogs reverting this post instantly whenever any responsibility is placed on Greer" and "By the way, why in the Hell are you revising this so quickly and so frequently?".

From the latest IP additions to the article such as "The FBI recorded Greer’s physical description during an interview with him after the assassination" (additional diffs). The previous incarnation repeatedly tried to add a similar sentence to the article in an attempt to insinuate Greer's supposed guilt, see for example "The FBI interviewed Greer after the assassination and, although agents Kellerman and Behn were also interviewed, Greer's interview is unique in that his physical description is also recorded in the 11/27/63 FBI report", this was repeatedly edit warred into the article by and  (every major edit to the article from either IP is a diff including that phrase).

Last, but by no means least. Even if this IP isn't the same editor that's topic banned, do we really need another single purpose account edit warring to include an unsourced conspiracy theory in total violation of WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:V? There is the last major edit by the current incarnation. The only source cited is this which is a copy of the FBI report (obviously a primary source), being used to source a sentence whose only purpose is to try and make Greer look suspicious. I am not interested in what the IP says the Zapruder film does or does not show, or what Greer said in his FBI interview, or what Secret Service procedures were. Creating a critique of Greer from those is explicitly forbidden per no original research. Neither am I interested in the contents of "Murder from Within: Lyndon Johnson's Plot Against President Kennedy" by Fred T. Newcomb (with editing by Perry Adams). This book was a manuscript that gathered dust for well over 30 years before being self-published on AuthorHouse by the author's son in 2011 shortly before the author's death. Who was Fred T. Newcomb? Nobody. Self-published conspiracy theory garbage has no place in this article, and in my opinion we shouldn't even waste time discussing it. Grewsome47 (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Semi extended indefinitely. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

You don’t like the edits. Fair enough. Why was the editor’s Talk Page entry deleted? Secret Service Fan (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

 * I removed the IP edits because they aren't entitled to abuse this talkpage as a forum for general discussion and theorizing, and blocked is blocked - they may not edit.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And I've hard-blocked the IP.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that cited content pertaining to “Analysis and Criticism” of William Greer is relevant content. Other content that seemingly exonerates Greer stands for years, unsourced. “Vandalism” seems to be subjective, especially depending upon your view of the assassination. @SarekOfVulcan seems to imply his personal views are a primary reason for not exploring Greer’s role in the death of JFK. This does not seem to be in keeping with the policies of Wikipedia, or good journalism or authorship. Secret Service Fan (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

 * I've blocked the account, since it's obviously the same person, and because the blocked IP was using images uploaded by the account to Commons.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Presumably the comments were removed due to violations of the topic ban per WP:BANREVERT, since as pointed out further up "There is no reason why the time of productive editors should continue to be wasted here, by someone who has no intention of following Wikipedia policy or respecting the consensus of the talk page".

You are welcome to appeal the topic ban, see WP:UNBAN for details. However, I would recommend you don't since it will be a pointless exercise. Why? Well, TEN YEARS later, you still have a fixation on Greer and are editing in violation of your topic ban to edit war against consensus to add a conspiracy theory and/or criticism in violation of WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE. Any appeal under those circumstances will be doomed to failure, so I recommend you make more productive use of your time elsewhere. Grewsome47 (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Citation Needed
What is the source for the statement “Secret Service procedures in place at the time did not allow Greer to take action without orders from senior agent Roy Kellerman, who sat to Greer's right.“ Secret Service Fan (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * More from blocked kook. EEng 08:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Broken Link
The link to the stabilized Zapruder film is broken. I don't want to break the page so could someone take a look? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.160.249 (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2024
Change the location of birth from Ireland to Northern Ireland as they are seperate countries, it seems like a trivial edit but in the pursuit of accuracy the orginal is incorrect. Pheakay (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: As the subject was born in Ireland 10 years before the Irish War of Independence and therefore before the existence of Northern Ireland, as an entity separate from the Republic of Ireland, it would be inappropriate to list his birthplace as such. On Wikipedia when listing the birthplace of subjects it is generally SOP to list the political entity that the subject was born into whether or not that entity still exists. See Vladimir Putin where his birthplace is listed as "Leningrad, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union" despite the fact that Leningrad has since reverted to its pre-soviet name of "St. Petersburg", and that the Russian SFSR and the Soviet Union no longer exist. —  FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they)   ( talk ) 02:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * His birthplace can be kept as Ireland however in the histroy section Stewartstown, County Tyrone should be changed to Northern Ireland. If you look up the wiki on said place it also states Northern Ireland. His birth is fine as is but for accuracy the town should be updated to its current location. Pheakay (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:William Greer


text:
Styal

Styal (, like style) is a village and civil parish in Cheshire, England; it is sited on the River Bollin. The village is located 2 mi north-north-west of Wilmslow and 2.5 mi south-east of Manchester Airport.

History
Styal village grew during the early years of the Industrial Revolution when industrialist Samuel Greg built Quarry Bank Mill, a cotton mill and textile factory. The mill was situated on the bank of the River Bollin in order to use the water current to power the waterwheels. By the 1820s, the mill was expanding and, because of its rural location, Greg found the need to construct a new model village nearby to provide housing for his workers.

Samuel Greg died in 1834 and Quarry Bank Mill was taken over by his son, Robert Hyde Greg, who remained in charge for nearly 40 years; he introduced a number of technological innovations. Ownership of the mill subsequently passed through several generations of the Greg Family. The mill ceased operation as a working factory in 1959.

In 1898, the Styal Cottage Homes were opened to house destitute children from the Manchester area; it closed in 1956. Today, the former buildings are occupied by the HMP Styal women's prison, which opened in 1962.

Landmarks

Quarry Bank Mill and its village still stand today; it is now owned by National Trust, who operate it as an industrial heritage museum.

The mill and its surrounding buildings are recorded in the National Heritage List for England as a designated Grade II* listed building.

Quarry Bank Mill has been recognised internationally as a significant industrial heritage site; it has been included on the European Route of Industrial Heritage by the European Union's Creative Europe programme, which records the mill, with Styal village, as "The most complete and least altered factory colony of the Industrial Revolution. It is of outstanding national and international importance."

Norcliffe Chapel, a small Grade II-listed Unitarian chapel, stands close to the mill village. It was built in 1822–23 to provide a place of worship for the mill workers and is now in the ownership of the National Trust. It was originally established as a Baptist chapel, but was changed to a Unitarian church by Samuel Greg, himself a Unitarian, in 1833.

The Greg family were influential landowners in the area and, in 1831, Robert Hyde Greg commissioned the construction of a large new home, Norcliffe Hall, to the west of the village. Today, the Grade II-listed building is occupied by private flats.

Near to Norcliffe chapel stands the Grade II-listed Styal Cross, a wayside cross of medieval origin. The cross had originally stood at Cross Farm. In 1860, it was relocated by the son of Samuel Greg, Robert Hyde Greg, to Holly Lane. In 1980, it was demolished by a car crash. The remains of the lower part were rebuilt on the lane close to Styal in 1983 and, after a fundraising campaign, a replacement stone column and cross were added to the medieval base in 2010.

Amenities
Styal Primary School serves the village and is located on Altrincham Road, to the west.

The village is home to several sports clubs; they include Styal Cricket Club, Styal Golf Club, Wilmslow Albion Football Club, Wilmslow Hockey Club and Wilmslow Lacrosse Club.

Population
The population in the 2001 Census was 5,014, including the nearby smaller village of Morley and part of the fringe of Wilmslow. The population for the civil parish according to the 2011 Census was 1,051.

According to 2001 Census data, the Morley and Styal Ward has a population of 5,014, of which 2,722 (54.3%) were females and 2,292 (45.7%) were males. 949 people (18.93%) were aged 16 and under, and 969 people (19.33%) were aged 65 and over.

Ethnicity
Ethnic white groups (British, Irish and other) account for 96.19% (4,823 people) of the population, with 3.81% (190 people) being in ethnic groups other than white.

Of the 3.81% (190 people) in non-white ethnic groups:
 * 53 (27.89%) belonged to mixed ethnic groups
 * 67 (35.26%) were Asian or Asian British
 * 25 (13.16%) were Black or Black British
 * 45 (23.64%) were Chinese or Other Ethnic Groups

Religion
A breakdown of religious groups and denominations:
 * Christian – 76.31% (3,826 people)
 * Buddhist – 0.24% (12 people)
 * Hindu – 0.50% (25 people)
 * Jewish – 0.76% (38 people)
 * Muslim – 1.18% (59 people)
 * Sikh – 0.18% (9 people)
 * Sivesh – 0.02% (1 person)
 * Other religions – 0.26% (13 people)
 * No religion – 13.82% (693 people)
 * Religion not stated – 6.76% (339 people)

Transport

Styal railway station is a stop on the Styal Line, which connects Manchester Piccadilly, Manchester Airport and Wilmslow. Northern Trains operate the following service pattern:
 * The Monday-Saturday service pattern consists of one train per hour in each direction between Crewe and Manchester Piccadilly, via Manchester Airport.
 * On evenings and Sundays, there is an hourly service each way between Liverpool Lime Street and Wilmslow, via Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport.

No bus services currently serve the village. The nearest services can be at sourced at nearby Heald Green and Wilmslow.

The village is bisected north-south by the B5166 Styal Road, which connects Northenden, Heald Green and Wilmslow. The A555 Manchester Airport Eastern Link passes west-east a mile to the north of the village, linking Manchester Airport with Hazel Grove.

Notable people

 * Tyson Fury (born 1988), professional boxer. Grew up in Styal.
 * Terry Waite (born 1939), humanitarian, author, and hostage negotiator. Grew up in Styal.

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

title: Styal


text:
Hiss

Hiss or Hissing may refer to:

 * Hiss (electromagnetic), a wave generated in the plasma of the Earth's ionosphere or magnetosphere
 * Hiss (surname)
 * Hissing (manhwa), a Korean manhwa series by Kang EunYoung
 * Noise (electronics) or electronic circuit hiss, white noise present at low level in all electronic circuits
 * Sibilant, a group of consonants that have a hissing or hushing sound
 * Tape hiss, high-frequency noise on analogue magnetic tape recordings
 * The Hiss, a five piece rock band from Atlanta, Georgia
 * Honda Ignition Security System, a vehicle immobiliser
 * A sound made by snakes, cats and various other animals as a warning; see list of animal sounds
 * "Hiss" (song), a 2024 song by Megan Thee Stallion

In fiction

 * King Hiss, the villainous king of the Snake Men in Mattel toy line Masters of the Universe
 * Sir Hiss, Prince John's fictional sidekick in the 1973 animated Disney movie Robin Hood
 * H.I.S.S., High Speed Sentry, a fictional vehicle in the G.I. Joe universe

title: Hiss


text:
User talk:Titan~enwiki

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

 * Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try How to edit a page.
 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, Articles for deletion page etc.) use 	 ~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type (3 tildes).
 * You can experiment in the test area.
 * You can get help at the Help Desk
 * Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines, Neutral point of view, Civility, Wikiquette, What Wikipedia is not
 * If you made IP edits before creating a user account, you can attribute your IP edits to your account at Changing attribution for an edit.

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop a note at New user log.

-- Utcursch | Talk to me

Wikipedia:Indian wikipedians' notice board
Hi. I would like you to be an active member of Indian wikipedians' notice board. utcursch 07:39, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Some links
--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  15:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

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 Titan. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Titan~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 03:08, 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) 19:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Titan~enwiki


text:
Category:Steam locomotives

This category should primarily be used for sub-categories. For:
 * Components of a locomotive, e.g. 'cylinder' or 'piston rod', use 'Locomotive parts'
 * Individual locomotive classes use the relevant country, railway company or wheel arrangement category.
 * Generic types of steam locomotive e.g. 'Mallet' or 'Crampton', use 'Steam locomotive types'
 * Locomotive systems or technologies e.g. 'Boiler feedwater' or 'steam circuit', use 'Steam locomotive technologies'

title: Category:Steam locomotives


text:
Excision theorem

In algebraic topology, a branch of mathematics, the excision theorem is a theorem about relative homology and one of the Eilenberg–Steenrod axioms. Given a topological space $$X$$ and subspaces $$A$$ and $$U$$ such that $$U$$ is also a subspace of $$A$$, the theorem says that under certain circumstances, we can cut out (excise) $$U$$ from both spaces such that the relative homologies of the pairs $$(X \setminus U,A \setminus U )$$ into $$(X, A)$$ are isomorphic.

This assists in computation of singular homology groups, as sometimes after excising an appropriately chosen subspace we obtain something easier to compute.

Statement
If $$U\subseteq A \subseteq X$$ are as above, we say that $$U$$ can be excised if the inclusion map of the pair $$(X \setminus U,A \setminus U )$$ into $$(X, A)$$ induces an isomorphism on the relative homologies:

$H_n(X \setminus U,A \setminus U) \cong H_n(X,A)$

The theorem states that if the closure of $$U$$ is contained in the interior of $$A$$, then $$U$$ can be excised.

Often, subspaces that do not satisfy this containment criterion still can be excised—it suffices to be able to find a deformation retract of the subspaces onto subspaces that do satisfy it.

Proof Sketch
The proof of the excision theorem is quite intuitive, though the details are rather involved. The idea is to subdivide the simplices in a relative cycle in $$(X, A)$$ to get another chain consisting of "smaller" simplices, and continuing the process until each simplex in the chain lies entirely in the interior of $$A$$ or the interior of $$X \setminus U$$. Since these form an open cover for $$X$$ and simplices are compact, we can eventually do this in a finite number of steps. This process leaves the original homology class of the chain unchanged (this says the subdivision operator is chain homotopic to the identity map on homology). In the relative homology $$H_n(X, A)$$, then, this says all the terms contained entirely in the interior of $$U$$ can be dropped without affecting the homology class of the cycle. This allows us to show that the inclusion map is an isomorphism, as each relative cycle is equivalent to one that avoids $$U$$ entirely.

Eilenberg–Steenrod Axioms
The excision theorem is taken to be one of the Eilenberg-Steenrod axioms.

Mayer-Vietoris Sequences
The Mayer–Vietoris sequence may be derived with a combination of excision theorem and the long-exact sequence.

Suspension Theorem for Homology
The excision theorem may be used to derive the suspension theorem for homology, which says $$\tilde{H}_n(X) \cong \tilde{H}_{n+1}(SX)$$ for all $$n$$, where $$SX$$ is the suspension of $$X$$.

Invariance of Dimension
If nonempty open sets $$ U\subset \mathbb{R}^n$$ and $$ V\subset \mathbb{R}^m$$ are homeomorphic, then m = n. This follows from the excision theorem, the long exact sequence for the pair $$(\mathbb{R}^n,\mathbb{R}^n-x)$$, and the fact that $$ \mathbb{R}^n-x$$ deformation retracts onto a sphere. In particular, $$\mathbb{R}^n$$ is not homeomorphic to $$\mathbb{R}^m$$ if $$m\neq n$$.

title: Excision theorem


text:
User:Wikimedia Foundation~enwiki

This account is a sockpuppet of the hard-banned user JoeM (lifted in July 2005). It has no official connection to the Wikimedia Foundation. —No-One Jones (m) 10:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: User:Wikimedia Foundation~enwiki


text:
User talk:Gurmeet

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

 * Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try How to edit a page.
 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, Articles for deletion page etc.) use 	 ~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type (3 tildes).
 * You can experiment in the test area.
 * You can get help at the Help Desk
 * Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines, Neutral point of view, Civility, Wikiquette, What Wikipedia is not
 * If you made IP edits before creating a user account, you can attribute your IP edits to your account at Changing attribution for an edit.

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop a note at New user log.

-- Utcursch | Talk to me

Wikipedia:Indian wikipedians' notice board
Hi. I would like you to be an active member of Indian wikipedians' notice board. utcursch 07:24, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

World Citizen userbox,
Hi, I noticed the message saying you're a World Citizen, I would like to invite you to add to your user page if you wish to proclaim it in a more effective way, and this template will also add you automatically to the Wikipedians with World Citizenship category. :) --Mistress Selina Kyle 23:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gurmeet


text:
User talk:~shuri

/Archiveone

Feel free
Click the + up top to add a new comment! - shuri

Gaming Collaboration of the week
Grumpy Troll (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC).

Please contribute to the collaboration!
Girl is the collaboration of the week! Please come grow this article... Mamawrites 03:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

UK COTW: Ethnic groups of the United Kingdom
Just to let you know, an article you've voted for, has became this fortnight's UKCOTW - Ethnic groups of the United Kingdom. Come and help out! Thanks, Joolz 22:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

India related links
--Pamri • Talk • [ Reply] 15:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

World Citizen userbox,
Hi, I noticed the message saying you're a World Citizen, I would like to invite you to add to your user page if you wish to proclaim it in a more effective way, and this template will also add you automatically to the Wikipedians with World Citizenship category. :) --Mistress Selina Kyle 23:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Greek literature a candidate at the European Union collaboration
You have supported Greek literature at the WP:IDRIVE some time ago. I have now renominated it at the new European Union collaboration. Please consider supporting it there if you are still interested! --Fenice 13:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Greetings
Greetings on India’s 57th Republic Day. --Bhadani 08:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:~shuri


text:
William M. Hoge

General William Morris Hoge (January 13, 1894 – October 29, 1979) was a highly decorated senior United States Army officer who fought with distinction in World War I, World War II, and the Korean War, with a military career spanning nearly forty years.

Early life and military career

William M. Hoge was born on the campus of Kemper Military School in Boonville, Missouri, where his father William McGuffey Hoge served as principal. In 1905, the family moved to Lexington, Missouri, where his father bought an ownership interest and served as principal and superintendent at Wentworth Military Academy. After graduating from Wentworth in 1911 and taking a postgrad year in New York, he received an appointment to the United States Military Academy (USMA) at West Point, New York. He graduated in June 1916, then was commissioned into the Engineer Branch of the United States Army. His fellow graduates were men such as Horace L. McBride, Stanley Eric Reinhart, Fay B. Prickett, Calvin DeWitt Jr., Dwight Johns, Wilhelm D. Styer and Robert Neyland. Hoge commanded a company of the 7th Engineer Regiment, 5th Division, at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, from 1917 to 1918, during World War I.

During the war, Hoge served overseas in France, where he received the Distinguished Service Cross personally from General John J. Pershing, Commander-in-chief of the American Expeditionary Forces on the Western Front, for heroic action under fire as a battalion commander during the Meuse–Argonne offensive. The citation for his DSC reads:

"The President of the United States of America, authorized by Act of Congress, July 9, 1918, takes pleasure in presenting the Distinguished Service Cross to Major (Corps of Engineers) William Morris Hoge, United States Army, for extraordinary heroism in action while serving with 7th Engineers, 5th Division, A.E.F., near Brieulles, France, 4 November 1918. After personally and voluntarily reconnoitering the site of a pontoon bridge over the Meuse, in daylight and under direct shell fire, Major Hoge commanded the movement of a train of heavy wagons, under enemy observation, to this location. Major Hoge then supervised the construction of the bridge and the successful crossing of the train."

He was also awarded the Silver Star, "for gallantry in action", during the war.

During the interwar years, Hoge graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and from the United States Army Command and General Staff College.

World War II
Hoge directed one of the great engineering feats of World War II, the construction of the 1,519-mile (2,450 km) ALCAN Highway in nine months. Later, in Europe, he commanded the Provisional Engineer Special Brigade Group attached directly to V Corps (United States) in the assault on Omaha Beach. One of his key men who worked under him from Alaska to England, Colonel Benjamin B. Talley, directed the planning-specifics of the invasion, using maps, air studies, even tourist photos and postcards culled from the British people to learn the topography, and designate which units would assault which sectors of the two United States beaches. Talley went ashore at Omaha in the third wave to direct Engineer operations and immediately begin to receive men by the thousands and supplies by the ton over the beach from the Communications Zone, the supply and service-forces arm of the European Theater of Operations. Hoge later directed Combat Command B of the 9th Armored Division, in its heroic actions in the Ardennes during the Battle of the Bulge, and in its celebrated capture of the Ludendorff Bridge over the Rhine River at Remagen. By war's end, Hoge was the Commanding General of the 4th Armored Division.

Post-World War II

During the Korean War, at the request of General Matthew Ridgway, the Eighth United States Army commander, Hoge commanded the IX Corps in 1951. Hoge achieved his senior command in the army as commander-in-chief of United States Army Europe. Hoge was promoted to major general in May 1945, lieutenant general in June 1951, and full general on October 23, 1953.

Hoge retired from active duty in January 1955 to his hometown of Lexington, Missouri, then turned to the private sector as chairman of the board of Interlake Steel. Hoge moved to his son's farm in Kansas in October 1975 and he died suddenly on October 29, 1979, at Munson Army Hospital, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He was buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

In popular culture
In the 1969 film The Bridge at Remagen, the character of Brigadier General Shinner (played by E. G. Marshall) was based on Hoge.

Awards and decorations
Hoge Barracks, the transient housing operation at Fort Leavenworth, is named in his honor.

title: William M. Hoge


text:
Richmond and Danville Railroad

The Richmond and Danville Railroad (R&D) Company was a railroad that operated independently from 1847 until 1894, first in the U.S. state of Virginia, and later on 3,300 mi of track in nine states.

Chartered on March 9, 1847, the railroad completed its 140 mi line between Richmond and Danville in 1856. During the American Civil War, the railroad was a vital link between the Confederate capital of Richmond and the rest of the Confederacy. After the Civil War, the railroad grew to become the 3,300 mi Richmond and Danville Railroad Company System.

Placed in receivership in 1892, the Richmond and Danville Railroad Company was sold in 1894 and conveyed into the new Southern Railway Company (later the Norfolk Southern Railway) in 1896 and 1897.

Beginnings (1847-61)
The new Richmond and Danville Railroad was championed by Whitmell P. Tunstall, a lawyer in Chatham, Virginia, who was also a member of the Virginia General Assembly. After many years, Tunstall secured a charter for the new railroad on March 9, 1847. In the same year, the state of Virginia took a 60% interest in the capital stock of the company, which it would hold until 1871.

Construction on the 144.7 mi line began on January 31, 1848, under the supervision of Col. Andrew Talcott, who was later to become the Richmond and Danville's general manager. By 1850, the new railroad had reached Coalfield Station, near the coal mines in an area known today as Midlothian in western Chesterfield County. There, it competed with the mule-powered Chesterfield Railroad, the first railroad established in Virginia. Lawsuits followed, but the older railroad was quickly supplanted by the competition. The Virginia General Assembly allowed the Richmond and Danville Railroad to buy the Chesterfield Railroad for as much as $200,000 in 1848.

By the end of 1851, the line had reached Jetersville in Amelia County. Two years later, it was completed to a point near Drakes Branch, and had been graded to South Boston in Halifax County. On May 16, 1856, the railroad had finished construction of the main line.

In 1856, the Richmond and Danville Railroad was 140.5 mi long, with bridges over the James River, the Staunton River and the Dan River. Its stations included:

 * Richmond
 * Midlothian Coal Pits
 * Amelia Court House
 * Jetersville
 * Jennings Ordinary
 * Burkeville
 * Meherrin
 * Keysville
 * Mossingford, now Mossingford Road Virginia State Route 642, in Charlotte County.
 * Clover
 * South Boston
 * New's Ferry in Halifax County
 * Barksdale in Halifax County
 * Ringgold
 * Dan River
 * Danville

Civil War (1861–1865)
Known as the "first railroad war", the American Civil War devastated the South's railroads and economy. In 1862, the Richmond and York River Railroad — acquired after the war by the R&D — played a crucial role in George McClellan's Peninsula Campaign.

In 1862, the R&D employed 400 laborers, 50 train hands, 30 carpenters, and 20 blacksmiths. The railroad also employed 300 slaves, some of whom it owned and some whose labor it rented from local planters. If a rented slave was injured or killed, the railroad reimbursed his or her owner; in one instance, the R&D paid $1,379.44 for a slave killed in an accident. Some enslaved women were put to work as maids in ladies' dining cars. The Richmond and Danville Railroad was an essential transportation link for the Confederacy throughout the war. It provided the production of south-central Virginia to Richmond. When the Richmond and Petersburg Railroad was cut in 1864, the R&D's connection with the Piedmont Railroad was the only remaining connection from Richmond to the rest of the South.

The Confederate Army was often handicapped by its inability to transport supplies efficiently from depots to forces in the field. In one case, the war forced the Confederate government to overrule objections by North Carolina. That state had blocked construction of a rail connection from Greensboro to Danville, fearing that post-war trade from North Carolina's Piedmont would continue to flow to Richmond via the R&D.

April 1865
Following successful Union attacks on April 1, 1865, Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee abandoned Petersburg and headed west and south in an attempt to join Gen. Joseph Johnston's army in North Carolina.

After evacuating Richmond the next day, on April 2, 1865, Confederate President Jefferson Davis and his cabinet left Richmond on the R&D. The departing Confederates set fire to the bridge across the James River between Richmond and Manchester. They traveled to Danville, where they attempted to set up a temporary government.

On reaching Amelia Court House during the morning of April 4, 1865, Lee searched the commissary stores, finding abundant ordnance but no food. Lee waited 24 hours in vain there for R&D trains to arrive with badly needed supplies. Union cavalry, meanwhile, sped forward and cut the Richmond & Danville at Jetersville. Lee had to abandon the railroad, and his army stumbled across rolling country towards Lynchburg. On the morning of April 9, 1865, Palm Sunday, Lee met Grant in the front parlor of Wilmer McLean's home near Appomattox Court House to surrender.

Reconstruction (1865–94)

With the support of Virginia Governor Francis H. Pierpont, Algernon S. Buford became president of the 140 mi R&D on September 13, 1865. Repair work began on war-damaged tracks, including the bridge across the James River between Manchester and Richmond.

Over the next 20 years, Buford, Richmonder James H. Dooley, and other leaders extended the railroad's trackage to 3,000 miles through construction and acquisition. Early acquisitions included the Piedmont Railroad in 1866 and a 25-year lease of the North Carolina Railroad in 1871.

In 1871, the Southern Railway Security Company acquired the 60 percent stake in the railroad held by the state of Virginia. Another large shareholder was the Pennsylvania Railroad.

In 1877, Buford joined with Andrew Talcott, Thomas Mann Talcott, and others to form the Bon Air Land and Improvement Company, a land investment that added a resort train stop in Bon Air six miles east of Richmond.

In 1880, control of the R&D was acquired by William P. Clyde and interests that controlled the Richmond, York River and Chesapeake Rail Road Company.

In 1881, the Richmond and West Point Terminal Railway and Warehouse Company was organized to develop and expand the R&D, whose charter limited its control of connecting railroads.

In 1882, the R&D, along with the North Carolina Railroad, Northwestern North Carolina Railroad, Charlotte, Columbia and Augusta Railroad, Atlanta and Charlotte Air-Line Railway and the Columbia and Greenville Railroad lines were being operated as the Piedmont Air-Line System advertised as the shortest line between New York, New Orleans and Texas. One improvement that year was the installation of two steam powered Nutter car hoists in north Danville, Virginia in order to allow truck exchange to allow cars to be exchanged across the break of gauge with the Virginia Midland Railway.

In or about 1886, the Richmond and West Point Terminal Railway and Warehouse Company acquired a majority of R&D Company stock, and thus control of the railroad.

By 1890, the R&D System covered 3300 mi of track in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas. However, the R&D System had become financially unstable during all the growth. After the Richmond and West Point Terminal Railway and Warehouse Company, declared bankruptcy, the R&D Company was pulled down with it. Receivers were appointed to take possession of its property, including its subsidiaries, on June 15, 1892.

Southern Railway System (1894-1982)
On June 18, 1894, the R&D was sold in foreclosure. Its property was surrendered to Southern Railway Company for operation on July 1, 1894, even though the deeds of conveyance were not completed and filed until later. Reorganized by J.P. Morgan and his New York banking firm of Drexel, Morgan and Company, the R&D was merged with five other railroads to form the new Southern Railway.

The R&D property was formally conveyed to Southern Railway Company by deeds dated January 9, 1896, and August 30, 1897. The Southern Railway Company, incorporated in Virginia on the same date, June 18, 1894, controlled over 4000 mi of line at its inception. Samuel Spencer became Southern's first president.

Norfolk Southern (1982-present)
Norfolk Southern Corporation, a holding corporation, acquired control of Norfolk and Western Railway Company and Southern Railway Company and their affiliates and subsidiaries on June 1, 1982, after approval by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Effective December 31, 1990, Southern Railway Company changed its name to Norfolk Southern Railway Company. Norfolk and Western Railway Company became a wholly owned subsidiary of Norfolk Southern Railway Company rather than a subsidiary of Norfolk Southern Corporation. In 1999, the system grew substantially with the acquisition of over half of Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail).

Presidents

 * Whitmell P. Tunstall (1847 – February 19, 1854)
 * A. F. D. (Adolphus Frederick Danberry) Gifford (February 19, 1854 – April 13, 1854) (acting president)
 * Vincent Witcher (April 13, 1854 – December 10, 1856)
 * Lewis E. Harvie (December 10, 1856 – September 12, 1865)
 * Algernon Sidney Buford (September 13, 1865 – December 16, 1886)
 * George S. Scott (1884, December 21, 1887 – December 18, 1889)
 * Alfred Sully (December 16, 1886 – December 21, 1887)
 * John H. Inman (December 18, 1889 – March 16, 1892)
 * Walter G.(George) Oakman (March 16, 1892 – 1894)

Vice presidents

 * A. F. D. Gifford
 * A. Y. Stokes (1868 or before – 1880/1)
 * Joseph N.(Napoleon) DuBarry (Btw. 1876 and 1878 – 1880/1)
 * Thomas M. Logan (1881/2 – 1883), 1st VP
 * T. M. R.(Thomas Mann Randolph) Talcott (1881/2 – 1883, 1888/9 – 1889), 2nd VP 1881/2–1883, 1st VP 1888/9–1889
 * Joseph Bryan (1881/2 – 1884), 3rd VP
 * Calvin S. Brice (1884), 1st VP
 * Alfred L. Rives (1883 – 1885/6), 2nd VP
 * Frederick W. Huidekoper (1885 – 1885/6), 1st VP
 * Walter G.(George) Oakman (Fall 1883 – 1887, 1887 – May 1, 1891), 3rd VP Fall 1883–1887, 2nd VP 1887–1888, 1st VP 1888–May 1, 1891, Pres. 1892–1894
 * Alexander B.(Boyd) Andrews (1886/7 – 1894), 3rd VP 1886/7–1889, 2nd VP 1890–1894
 * Henry Fink (April 30, 1887 – December 16, 1887)
 * J. W. Johnston (1890), 3rd VP
 * Peyton Randolph (1891), 3rd VP
 * John A. Rutherford (1892 – 1894), 3rd VP

Acquired railroads

 * Piedmont Railroad: A 48.5-mile line from Danville, Virginia, to Greensboro, North Carolina. Chartered in March 1862. Construction began 1862 and ended late 1863. The R&D bought most shares and built and operated the railroad. Leased to R&D for 86 years on February 20, 1874. Bought by the Southern Railway in 1894.
 * North Carolina Railroad – A 223.15-mile line from Goldsboro to Charlotte, North Carolina, leased for 30 years (starting Oct. 1871) on September 11, 1871, for an annual rent of $260,000. The North Carolina Railroad Company was chartered on January 27, 1849, and the line opened January 30, 1856. The R&D made an offer to lease the NC RR in January 1871 but was rejected. In September 1871, a new offer was made and accepted. In 1895, R&D successor Southern Railway negotiated a 99-year lease for the NC RR.
 * North-Western North Carolina Railroad: A 103.22-mile line from Greensboro to Wilkesboro, North Carolina. The NWNC RR was chartered in 1868 and acquired by the R&D in early 1871. The line was finished in 1873. Purchased by the Southern Railway along with the rest of the R&D system in 1894.
 * Richmond, York River and Chesapeake Railroad
 * Milton and Sutherlin Railroad
 * State University Railroad
 * Atlanta and Charlotte Air Line Railway
 * Charlotte, Columbia and Augusta Railroad
 * Atlantic, Tennessee and Ohio Railroad
 * Danville, Mocksville, and Southwestern Railroad
 * Chester and Lenoir Narrow Gauge Railroad
 * Asheville and Spartanburg Railroad
 * Western North Carolina Railroad
 * Statesville and Western Railroad
 * Oxford and Henderson Railroad
 * Oxford and Clarksville Railroad
 * Danville and Western Railroad
 * High Point, Randleman, Asheboro and Southern Railroad
 * North Carolina Midland Railroad
 * Atlantic and Danville Railway
 * Yadkin Valley Railroad

Maps

 * in
 * at D. H.Ramsey Library, Special Collections, University of North Carolina at Asheville 28804

title: Richmond and Danville Railroad


text:
User talk:Ishpreetgill

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

 * Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try How to edit a page.
 * To sign your posts (for eg. on talk pages) use 	 ~  (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type (3 tildes).
 * You can experiment in the Sandbox.
 * For help, see Where to ask a question.
 * Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Five pillars, Neutral point of view, Civility, What Wikipedia is not
 * You can contribute in many ways: write a great article, fight vandalism, upload pictures, perform maintainance tasks, contribute to existing projects...

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at New user log.

-- utcursch | talk

title: User talk:Ishpreetgill


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California in 1977

California in 1977 was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete

California in 1977
No content. - Andre Engels 10:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * A speedy if ever I saw one. JRM 11:25, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
 * Delete. Speedy please...  --Randy 12:13, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Speedily deleted. - TB 12:41, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camrose Kodiaks

Camrose Kodiaks was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete

Camrose Kodiaks

 * Not a notable subject, and a page that said so little about a notable subject would be a vote for deletion by me too. - Andre Engels 10:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete because near empty. Less than 10 words. --Gtabary 12:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Didn't quite make it to a full sentence, either. I think substubs are valid speedy candidates. Geogre 15:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete No assertion of notability, too little content, although they seem quite active locally. Wyss 23:55, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep unless they can be shown to be less notable than the Halifax team we voted on previously. This team seems to me to be at the same level.Dr Zen 02:56, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)]
 * delete if not expanded Pedant 00:21, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Sejmik

A sejmik (, diminutive of sejm, occasionally translated as a dietine; seimelis) was one of various local parliaments in the history of Poland and history of Lithuania. The first sejmiks were regional assemblies in the Kingdom of Poland (before 1572), though they gained significantly more influence in the later era of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (18th century). Sejmiks arose around the late 14th and early 15th centuries and existed until the end of the Commonwealth in 1795, following the partitions of the Commonwealth. In a limited form, some sejmiks existed in partitioned Poland (1795–1918), and later in the Second Polish Republic (1918–1939). In modern Poland, since 1999, the term has revived with the voivodeship sejmiks (sejmiki województwa), referring to the elected councils of each of the 16 voivodeships.

The competencies of sejmiks varied over time, and there were also geographical differences. Often, numerous different types of sejmiks coexisted in the same governance structure. Almost always presided over by the marshal, sejmiks could often elect delegates to the national sejm, and sometimes would give such delegates binding instructions. Sejmiks attained the peak of their importance at the turn of the 18th century, when they effectively supplanted the inefficient national sejm.

Etymology
The words sejm and sejmik are cognates with the old Czech sejmovat, which means "to bring together" or "to summon". Both forms originate from Proto-Slavic *sъjьmъ, from *sъ- (“from, with”) and *jęti (“to take”).

History
The traditions of a sejmik can be traced to the institution of the wiec that actually predates the Polish state. They originated from gatherings of nobility, formed for military and consultative purposes. Historians disagree about the specific date of origin of the sejmiks, with some proposed dates being 1374 (the Privilege of Koszyce) and 1454 (the Nieszawa Statutes). Geographically, sejmiks first arose in central Poland (Greater Poland province). Over the next century or so, they spread to other provinces of Poland, and finally, by the 16th century, to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Sejmiks were legally recognized by the 1454 Nieszawa Statutes, in a privilege granted to the szlachta (Polish nobility) by King Casimir IV Jagiellon, when the king agreed to consult with the nobility concerning certain decisions. Casimir's recognition of the sejmik stemmed from an attempt to limit the growing power of the magnates, and counteract it with the middle nobility.

With the creation of a national Sejm in 1493, which took over the powers of taxation and the pospolite ruszenie previously granted to sejmiks at Nieszawa, the importance of regional governance somewhat diminished. Still, the sejmikis continued to play an important role in the governance of Poland as the most direct form of political enfranchisement of the nobility.

In the 1560s, the state organization of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was reformed in accordance with the Polish model. An act of July 1564 established sejmiks in the Grand Duchy.

After the Union of Lublin in 1569, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth had about 70 sejmiks (out of those, 24 were in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania). Jacek Jędruch notes a trend of an increasing number of sejmiks over time, from about 16 in the 15th century to 104 by the late 18th century, as nobility sought to meet in places that required less travel time. Stanisław Płaza also estimates about 100 at the turn of the 18th century. Those sejmiks elected 170 deputies (48 from Lithuania). Most sejmiks elected 2 deputies, but there were exceptions. Wojciech Kriegseisen notes that until the late 18th century, there were 44 sejmiks in Poland proper (the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland), 24 in Lithuania, and 1 in Inflanty province.

The sejmik's role grew again in the late 17th century, as central power weakened. Sejmiks attained the peak of their importance at the turn of the 18th century, when they often set their own time limits—that is, they extended their authorized periods of operation. In the face of an inefficient central government, with the national Sejm often disrupted by the liberum veto and the office of starosta losing much of its importance, sejmiks administered a portion of the taxes, and raised their own military (wojsko powiatowe). This period, which was known as the "rule of sejmiks" (rządy sejmikowe), was brought to an end by acts of the one-day Silent Sejm (Polish: sejm niemy) of 1717, which removed most taxation and military competences from the sejmiks. Some sejmiks were also affected by liberum veto until it was abolished for sejmiks in 1766; this was not always the case, as some decided to forgo unanimity and move to majority rule.

Where the middle nobility had been the leading force at the sejmiks in the 16th century, the magnates became increasingly influential in the 18th century. This stemmed from their ability to bribe masses of poorly educated, landless nobility (known as magnate's "clients" or "clientele"), as all nobles were eligible to vote in the sejmiks. Sejmiks in Lithuania were dominated by the magnates to a greater extent than those in Poland proper, as the Lithuanian magnates were more powerful than their Polish counterparts. The magnate-dominated sejmiks, which gathered impoverished nobility, have been described as more concerned with eating and drinking than debate; for the poorest of nobility, they were a rare occasion to participate in feasts sponsored by the magnates. When they met, the drunken nobility was known to fight among themselves, which on occasion led to fatalities.

Sejmiks were significantly reformed by the Prawo o sejmikach, the act on regional sejms, passed on 24 March 1791 and subsequently recognized as part of the Constitution of 3 May. This law introduced major changes to the electoral ordinance, as it reduced the enfranchisement of the noble class. The voting right became tied to a property qualification; to be eligible to vote, a noble had to own or lease land and pay taxes, or be closely related to another who did. Some 300,000 out of 700,000 otherwise eligible nobles were thus disfranchised, much to their displeasure. A document from 1792 lists only 47 sejmiks.

Although the independent existence of the Commonwealth ended with the partitions of Poland in 1795, the institution of the sejmik continued, albeit in a somewhat restricted fashion. In the Duchy of Warsaw, sejmiks elected deputies to the Sejm of the Duchy of Warsaw. Similarly, sejmiks of Congress Poland elected deputies to the Sejm of Congress Poland until its abolishment in 1831. Even in the Lithuanian territories incorporated into the Russian Empire, some judicial sejmiks were allowed to elect lower court judges; it was the only elective representative institution to survive in the Lithuanian territories after the partition. In the Prussian partition there were provincial sejmiks (Provinziallandtag) and powiat sejmiks (Kreistag). Near the turn of the century, some limited local representative institutions existed in the Russian partition and Austrian partition, but they did not bear the name of sejmiks.

After Poland regained independence, provincial sejms were restored in the Second Polish Republic, although they were called sejms rather than sejmiks. They included the short-lived Sejm of Central Lithuania (1921–1922); the three voivodeship sejms (Silesian Parliament, Greater Poland Sejm, and Pomeranian Sejm, 1920–1939), which preserved the tradition of sejmiks in the former Prussian partition; and the county sejmiks, of which there were 264 in 1939. The existence of these institutions was interrupted by the occupation of Poland during the Second World War, and they were not reestablished in the era of communist Poland.

The sejmiks were revived again after the fall of communism in modern Poland. Since 1999, the term sejmik (in full, sejmik województwa) has been used to refer to the elected council of each of the 16 voivodeships or regions (see voivodeship sejmik). The word sejmik was chosen by lawmakers in order to eliminate the term rada wojewódzka (voivodeship council), which conjured memories of voivodeship people's councils during the communist Poland era.

Features
Sejmiks were usually held in a large, open field. The nobility would elect a presiding officer (marszałek sejmiku: sejmik marshal), whose role was analogous to the marshal of the sejm at national Sejms. (This term has been revived since 1999, but it now refers to the chairman of the voivodeship executive board rather than the presiding officer of the sejmik itself.) While the sejmiks were originally convened by the king, soon a loophole was exploited: the sejmiks would limit the number of issues discussed, using that as a pretext to reconvene later at a time chosen by the marshal. Voivodes and starosts also had the ability to convene some sejmiks. Until the reforms of the Constitution of 3 May, all the nobility residing in the territory that was holding a sejmik were eligible to participate in the sejmik.

It is estimated that most sejmiks drew around 4 to 6% of eligible participants.

Types
Historians distinguish several types of sejmiks, depending on their geographical scope:
 * General (Polish: generalny, Latin conventiones generales), held in western Poland (Greater Poland) at Koło, in southern Poland (Little Poland) at Nowe Miasto Korczyn, in Masovia at Warsaw, in Red Ruthenia at Sądowa Wisznia (Sudova Vyshnia), and in Lithuania at Wołkowysk (Vawkavysk). The General Sejmiks were composed of delegates elected at the provincial sejmiks, and of Senators. Their goal was to agree on a position for the General Sejm (Sejm Walny) and issue instructions for the deputies on how they were supposed to vote during the General Sejm. The competences of the general sejmiks were defined by precedent and custom rather than law; on rare instances when external circumstances prevented a national Sejm from being convened (such as 1511, 1513 and 1577), the general sejmiks were seen as competent to legislate on national matters. In the 15th century some general sejmiks reserved the right to accept or reject national legislation. In the 16th century they were tasked with preparing drafts of legislation to be discussed at Sejms. Around the 17th century general sejmiks were mostly abandoned (with the exceptions of those in Royal Prussia, see Prussian estates); instead, provincial deputies would meet in special sessions during the Sejm proper.
 * Provincial, Territorial, Voivodeship or County (Polish: ziemski, Latin conventiones particulares, conventiones terrestrae). The names of these sejmiks varied depending on their administrative level and local traditions; Płaza lists powiat sejmiks (county sejmiks; sejmiki powiatowe), ziemia sejmiks (territorial sejmiks; sejmiki ziemskie), voivodeship sejmiks (sejmiki wojewódzkie) and provincial sejmiks (sejmiki prowincjonalne). A theoretical hierarchy that almost never existed in practice could be drawn starting from the powiat sejmiks, and moving upwards to ziemia, voivodeship, general (of several voivodeships) and provincial sejmiks ending with the final, national sejm. Almost all ziemias had their own sejmiks, but the importance of the sejmik varied based on whether the given ziemia was autonomous (that is, whether it was part of a voivodeship). Powiat sejms were common in Lithuania, but were rare in the Crown of Poland, where instead voivodeship sejms were much more common. Some voivodeships could hold a single voivodeship sejmik, and others might be covered by more than one sejmik.  The importance of the local sejmiks began to diminish with the formation of the national sejm. Thereafter the local sejmiks were relegated to dealing with local matters and electing deputies to the General Sejms. They rose in importance again in the second half of the 17th century, as the central Sejm grew weaker.

Kriegseisen, quoting Adam Lityński, argues that there was only one type of sejmik and that the only difference between various sejmiks was the purpose for which they were convened. Nonetheless other scholars often distinguish between different types of sejmiks. Juliusz Bardach and Jędruch, for example, divide sejmiks based on their purpose as follows:
 * Pre-sejm (Polish: przedsejmowe) sejmiks were convened by the king who sent a writ (legacja królewska) to each sejmik, outlining the reasons the next Sejm would be held. Such sejmiks elected one to six deputies (poslowie), depending on the size and importance of the sejmik's territory, to the ordinary General Sejm (Polish: Sejm Walny) that was held every two years, and to any extraordinary General Sejm that might be called at any time in an emergency. Sometimes pre-sejm sejmiks were referred to as electoral. In some cases, a sejmik could be called for two voivodeships – in that case it could elect more than 6 deputies. Deputies were given instructions on how to vote during the sejm proper, although on occasion the instructions could be vague, or even give the deputies full freedom. These sejmiks arose in the late 15th century.
 * Relational or Debriefing (Polish: relacyjne) sejmiks heard the reports of deputies returned from the General Sejm, usually presenting the law (konstytucje sejmowe) decreed by the Sejm. They passed specific instructions with regards to the execution of sejm decrees, and other local resolutions. Such sejmiks could also receive special requests from the king; this happened if the sejmik deputy was bound by instructions not to vote on certain issues that subsequently were voted on and passed in the national sejm. In such cases the king would request the sejmik to reconsider their decision and support the national legislation. These sejmiks arose in the 16th century.
 * Electoral (Polish: elekcyjne) sejmiks elected higher voivodeship officials, judges in particular. They were convened irregularly, as such offices were usually held for life. Several candidates would be nominated, and the king would make the final appointment from among them. These sejmiks arose in the 15th century.
 * Deputational or Judicial (Polish: deputackie) sejmiks met on a yearly basis and elected deputies (deputaci) to tribunals (Crown Tribunal and Lithuanian Tribunal) from the times of King Stefan Batory onwards (starting in 1578 in Poland, and from 1581 in Lithuania).
 * Administrative or Economic (Polish: gospodarcze) sejmiks oversaw voivodeship self-government. Often, they were held on the day following the deputational sejmik. Their decrees were known as laudas. Some of the specific issues that these sejmiks addressed included: dealing with taxation (distribution of national taxes) and tax collectors, managing the local (voivodeship) taxes and treasury, recruiting local military and (from mid-1700s) election of deputies to the Treasury Tribunals. These sejmiks arose in the early 16th century.
 * Hooded (Polish: kapturowe) sejmiks had special powers during an interregnum. These sejmiks were organized as confederations, and would elect confederation officials. The name was derived from hoods worn in the period of royal mourning. These sejmiks began during the interregnum of 1572.

Assessment and historiography
Kriegseisen notes that the institution of the sejmik gained a negative reputation following the partitions of Poland, and it has been described as one of the dysfunctional elements of the Polish political system that contributed to the fall of the Commonwealth. He cautions against such simplistic assessments, and traces them to 18th century publications whose negative views of the sejmiks have been rarely challenged since. The stereotype of a group of drunken, fighting nobility, found in some literature, should not be seen as representative, particularly outside the period of the sejmik's decline in the 18th century. He argues that while many sensationalist descriptions of debauchery, brawling or outright bloody violence at sejmiks have survived, they did so because they were just that—sensationalist—and should be seen as exceptions to the long, uneventful, but usually constructive proceedings that were much more common.

Kriegseisen also remarks that there is a myth about the uniqueness of sejmiks to Poland, and notes that similar institutions of self-governance and regional parliamentary participation by nobility can be found in other places, such as in Hungary and various German provinces (Silesia, Prussia, Brandenburg).

Locations of provincial (or territorial) sejmiks
The following is a list of locations at which the provincial (or territorial) sejmiks were held.

Province of Lesser Poland

 * Bełz (for Bełz Voivodeship), four envoys elected to the Sejm,
 * Chełm (for the Land of Chełm), two envoys elected,
 * Czernihów (for Czernihów Voivodeship), four envoys elected,
 * Halicz (for the Lands of Halicz, Kołomyja, and Trembowla), six envoys elected,
 * Kamieniec Podolski (for Podole Voivodeship), four envoys elected,
 * Łuck (for Wołyń Voivodeship), six envoys elected,
 * Opatów (for Sandomierz Voivodeship), six envoys elected,
 * Proszowice (for Kraków Voivodeship), six envoys elected,
 * Urzędów, also Lublin (for Lublin Voivodeship, three envoys elected,
 * Winnica (for Bracław Voivodeship), three envoys elected,
 * Sądowa Wisznia (for the Lands of Lwów, Sanok, and Przemyśl), six envoys elected,
 * Zator (for the Duchy of Oświęcim, and the Duchy of Zator), one envoy elected,
 * Żytomierz (for Kijów Voivodeship), three envoys elected.

Province of Greater Poland

 * Bielsk (for the County of Bielsk), two envoys elected,
 * Ciechanów (for the Land of Ciechanów), two envoys elected,
 * Czersk (for the Land of Czersk), two envoys elected,
 * Drohiczyn (for the County of Drohiczyn), two envoys elected,
 * Gąbin (for the Land of Gostynin), two envoys elected,
 * Lipno (for the Land of Dobrzyń), two envoys elected,
 * Liw (for the Land of Liw), two envoys elected,
 * Łomża (for the Land of Łomża), two envoys elected,
 * Mielnik (for the County of Mielnik), two envoys elected,
 * Nur (for the Land of Nur), two envoys elected,
 * Parzęczew (for Łęczyca Voivodeship), two envoys elected,
 * Raciąż (for Płock Voivodeship), four envoys elected,
 * Radziejów (for Brześć Kujawski Voivodeship and Inowrocław Voivodeship), four envoys elected,
 * Rawa Mazowiecka (for the Land of Rawa), two envoys elected,
 * Różan (for the Land of Różan), two envoys elected,
 * Sochaczew (for the Land of Sochaczew), two envoys elected,
 * Szadek (for Sieradz Voivodeship), two envoys elected,
 * Środa Wielkopolska (for Kalisz Voivodeship and Poznań Voivodeship), twelve envoys elected,
 * Warszawa (for the Land of Warszawa), two envoys elected,
 * Wieluń (for the Land of Wieluń and the County of Ostrzeszów), two envoys elected,
 * Wizna (for the Land of Wizna), two envoys elected,
 * Wyszogród (for the Land of Wyszogród), two envoys elected,
 * Zakroczym (for the Land of Zakroczym), two envoys elected.

Royal Prussia

 * Człuchów (for the County of Człuchów), two envoys elected,
 * Kowalewo Pomorskie ( for Chełmno Voivodeship), two envoys elected,
 * Malbork (for Malbork Voivodeship), two envoys elected,
 * Mirachowo (for the County of Mirachowo), two envoys elected,
 * Puck (for the County of Puck), two envoys elected,
 * Starogard Gdański (for the Counties of Gdańsk, Tczew, Nowe, and in 1642–1655 for the Lębork – Bytów Land), two envoys elected; in 1642–1655, four envoys elected,
 * Świecie (for the County of Świecie), two envoys elected,
 * Tuchola (for the County of Tuchola), two envoys elected.

Grand Duchy of Lithuania

 * Brasław (for the County of Brasław), two envoys elected,
 * Brześć (for the County of Brześć), two envoys elected,
 * Grodno (for the County of Grodno), two envoys elected,
 * Kowno (for the County of Kowno), two envoys elected,
 * Lida (for the County of Lida), two envoys elected,
 * Mińsk (for the County of Mińsk), two envoys elected,
 * Mozyrz (for the County of Mozyrz), two envoys elected,
 * Mścisław (for Mścisław Voivodeship), two envoys elected,
 * Nowogródek (for the County of Nowogródek), two envoys elected,
 * Orsza (for the County of Orsza), two envoys elected,
 * Oszmiana (for the County of Oszmiana), two envoys elected,
 * Pińsk (for the County of Pińsk), two envoys elected,
 * Połock (for Połock Voivodeship), two envoys elected,
 * Poniewież (for the County of Upita), two envoys elected,
 * Rosienie (for the Duchy of Samogitia), two envoys elected,
 * Rzeczyca (for the County of Rzeczyca), two envoys elected,
 * Słonim (for the County of Nowogródek), two envoys elected,
 * Smoleńsk (for the County of Smoleńsk), two envoys elected,
 * Starodub (for the County of Starodub), two envoys elected,
 * Troki (for the County of Troki), two envoys elected,
 * Wilno (for the County of Wilno), two envoys elected,
 * Wiłkomierz (for the County of Wiłkomierz), two envoys elected,
 * Witebsk (for the County of Witebsk), two envoys elected,
 * Wołkowysk (for the County of Wołkowysk), two envoys elected.

Duchy of Livonia

 * According to the 1598 bill of the Sejm, regional sejmiks for Livonia took place in Kieś, in some cases also in Ryga. After Swedish conquest of most of Livonia in the 1620s, the sejmiks were moved to Dyneburg. The nobility of the County of Piltyń, formally equal to the nobility of the Commonwealth, did not elect any envoys to the Sejm.

title: Sejmik