text:
Talk:United States Electoral College/Archive 4

The 23rd Amendment and Congress
The Republican Congress controls three electoral votes under the 23rd amendment which is supposed to enfranchise the residents of D.C. but which, on a careful reading, grants Congress the plenary powers of a state legislature to appoint electors. The Republicans control Congress and 2004 is a very close presidential election. Somebody call Tom DeLay and Bill Frist, because Bush might need those three electoral votes. Surely the political downside of using them would be negligible since Congressmen aren't accountable in any way to D.C. residents (unlike state legislators which could face their voters' wrath for reassuming the power to appoint electors), and most come from safe Republican districts. Putting those three electoral votes to use would be a slam dunk for the Republicans. Pgva 19:32, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * You use the phrase careful reading, but then you misrepresent what it says. As with everywhere else in the United States, the electors are required by law to vote based on the populous vote of the state (or district for DC).  South Carolina was the very last state to allow electors to vote in opposition to the populous vote.  That was reversed back in the 1800's.  So, while it is true that Congress chooses who the electors are, those electors are required to cast their vote for whomever wins the majority of the vote in DC.  If the majority of DC voters choose Kerry, it doesn't matter if a Republican Congress chooses three Republican electors.  Those Republican chosen Republican electors are required by law to vote for Kerry.  Identically, if the majority of DC voters choose Bush and the Republican chosen Republican electors vote for Bush, it is not a conspiracy.  It is simply law.  I just get so irritated when people try to misrepresent the electoral system.  It isn't complicated.  It isn't a conspiracy.  It is very simple.  In all but two states, anonymous electors are chosen and required by law to vote for whomever the majority of the state voted for.  In all reality, we have an electoral vote nationwide based on a populous vote withing each state (except the two weird ones). Kainaw 18:40, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * "Those Republican chosen Republican electors are required by law to vote for Kerry."

 * Your argument's assurance that election laws will ensure electors' fidelity to the popular vote is gravely mistaken. Whether presidential electors are, under the constitution, "free agents" -- in other words, whether those laws that seek to bind their votes are enforceable -- is a matter of genuine debate. Your position is implausible given the history of faithless electors including D.C. elector Barbara Lett-Simmons, who in 2000 actually did fail to cast a vote for her party's candidate. But how could that have happened? After all, wasn't there a law? In the example given, the electors are specifically chosen by Congress because they are expected to vote for the Republican candidate notwithstanding other considerations. In that case, I have every confidence that they would choose their party's candidate over any law. Pgva 02:43, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * There has never ever been a case where a faithless electoral voter had any impact of any kind on the election. Therefore, there has never been a need to enforce state laws governing electors.  However, there has been a need to question the Constitutionality of state electoral laws.  South Carolina's came up for debate over 100 years ago.  It ended up adopting the same laws as all other states, not because all other states were unconstitutional, but because all other states were deemed constutitional.  The real question that needs to be asked is what would happen if enough electors put in illegal votes to change the election results?  Would the Supreme Court step in to counter it?  Would that be Constitutional? Kainaw 14:42, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * "Would the Supreme Court step in to counter it? Would that be Constitutional?"

 * The Supreme Court would have no power to counter it. The 23rd Amendment enables Congress to choose the D.C. electors, and "they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by" the 12th Amendment, which directs them to "vote by ballot for President and Vice President ... which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate ...". After Congress counts the votes, "the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President..." So Congress chooses the electors, the electors vote as Congress wants, Congress counts their votes and their chosen candidate is elected President according to the constitution. The process is airtight and insulated from executive and judicial review. Manifestly, any law that seeks to bind the electors' votes cannot be enforced except by the sense of moral duty of the electors themselves and of the Congress in counting their votes. Should they follow the course suggested, the law would be a nullity and your argument, futile. Pgva 01:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * It took a lot of searching, but I haven't found the specific law stating that Washington DC follows the same law as all other winner-take-all states. In all other states, the Democrats and Republicans gather up their elector list before the election.  Then, when one party wins the state, that party's list becomes the list of electors for that state.  I've found many references that state Washington DC uses the same practice.  That means that the Democrats in DC choose 3 electors.  The Republicans choose 3.  Then, when the voters choose the Democrat for President, they use the 3 electors chosen by the Democrats.
 * It seems that you are stuck on the last line of the amendment that enables Congress to enforce the law. That line (or something similar) is at the end of every amendment.  It means: The preceding is a law enforceable by Congress.  In other words, it gives Congress the right to enforce the law allowing DC to have 3 electors.  It does not give Congress the right to choose those electors for DC. Kainaw 17:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * "It seems that you are stuck on the last line of the amendment..."

 * My argument rests on the text of Section 1, not Section 2, specifically the phrase "in such manner as the Congress may direct" (emphasis added). Pgva 18:24, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kainaw's argument doesn't work. The constitution allows electors to vote for anyone they want to. Some states do have laws that recall "faithless electors", but these might well be declared unconstitutional if challenged. In any case, for DC it would presumably be Congress that had the power to make such a law, so the point is moot.

However, I question this interpretation of the 23rd Amendment on other grounds. The amendment says that The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct.... I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that Congress choosing the electors would not qualify as a manner for DC to appoint them. "We direct that the way that DC shall appoint its electors is that we shall appoint them" or "that they shall be Smith, Jones, and Wu" might well not cut it. I any Constitutional scholar on record as interpreting the amendment this way? Josh Cherry 14:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * "Congress choosing the electors would not qualify as a manner for DC to appoint them."

 * Two points. First, the 23rd Amendment makes no reference to D.C. residents and D.C. is not a state (a sovereign, organized body of persons) but merely a seat of government (a place) under the exclusive legislative control of Congress (Const. Article I, Sec. 8). Literally, D.C. has no legal identity of its own except by reference to Congress, which functions as its legislature. Indeed, this fact readily explains why the 23rd Amendment granted Congress the power analogous to state legislatures in determining the manner of appointing electors. I am left wondering what other identity you imagine for D.C. that would contradict this plain reading of the constitution (accepting the Amendment's obvious absurdity in empowering a place rather than persons to appoint electors). Second, even if that were not correct, to whom would the power of deciding fall? Not the Supreme Court, whose intercession in the process is rendered moot by the 12th Amendment as I illustrated; not by the President, who likewise has no role in the process; no, it is Congress and Congress alone that decides. My argument is not so much about which interpretation is correct as about who gets to decide. That Congress is so empowered while also having the ability to cast three electoral votes should concern anyone favoring executive independence; it also illustrates the dangers of unintended consequences in altering the constitution's original design for the sake of good intentions. Pgva 17:55, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * You are correct in that it does not say D.C.. Instead, it says The District constituting the seat of government of the United States, which is currently Washington DC.  That may change.  Congress might decide to move the district to Omaha.  In that case, who wants to rewrite the 23rd amendment.
 * Now, I can see where you are coming from. In plain English, the amendment states: Washington DC gets 3 electors (that number may vary as the amendment specifies) as directed by Congress.  You appear to be reading: Washington DC gets 3 electors appointed by Congress.  Am I understanding it correct (finally)?
 * If you and Josh agree, can this conversation be reorganized in a more chronological fashion to it is easier to see who replied last? Kainaw 21:08, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I continually hear the argument that states cannot legally bind an elector to a specific vote and that if it were attempted, the Supreme Court would step in. I find it frustrating because it already happened: Ray v. Blair, 343 US 214.  The Supreme Court empowered states to allow them to legally bind an elector to a pledged vote and punish them if they do not vote as pledged.  The reason the state laws are all nearly identical in this case is because they came out of that Supreme Court ruling.  That is why I cannot see it reasonable to assume that the Supreme Court would question the constitutionality of a law that the Supreme Court assisted in creating. Kainaw 16:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * First, as illustrated above, the Supreme Court can interpret the law however it wants and still be left entirely out of the electoral process under the 12th Amendment. Second, even if electors can be required to sign pledges and punished for violating those pledges, their votes can still be counted by Congress. Again, election laws may try to bind electors' actual votes, but to that extent the laws are a nullity. Pgva 18:15, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Instead of simply bringing up items here, I thought it better to fill out the section on faithless electors. I added the exact number of faithless electors before now.  I also added the description of the Ray v. Blair ruling. Cool? Kainaw 16:31, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Resuming our discussion in a chronological fashion: There is no question that a state legislature's power to direct the manner of appointing electors is plenary and encompasses the power to select the electors itself. I cannot discern any difference between the example of a state legislature with respect to its state (empowered by Article II, Sec. 1) and Congress with respect to the District (empowered with identical language by the 23rd Amendment). Contrary to the assertion that the phrase "the District ... shall appoint" limits Congress' range of choices (""We direct that the way that DC shall appoint its electors is that we shall appoint them" or "that they shall be Smith, Jones, and Wu" might well not cut it."), I read that phrase as requiring the District to appoint electors in whatever manner Congress directs, i.e. it is a mandate upon the District rather than Congress. This is true whether the District happens to encompass the city of Washington, the city of Omaha, the U.S. Capitol grounds only, or one unoccupied acre of farmland somewhere in Kansas, which illustrates the problem with the Amendment as well as the "D.C. voting rights" persuasion generally: the District is not principally intended as a residence for citizens but rather a place, limited to ten miles square, where the government does business. The proper answers for those in D.C. demanding the right to vote in federal elections has always been to vote in Maryland's elections (their portions of the District being retroceded to Maryland if necessary) or for disaffected individuals to exercise their right of travel and move elsewhere. The failure to grasp these simple concepts and accept their implications has now resulted in a constitutional incongruity known as the 23rd Amendment. Nothing would be more fitting than for a partisan Congress to exercise precisely the power granted by the Amendment and arrogate to itself three electoral votes and reverse the outcome of a Presidential election to demonstrate that the Amendment corrupted core constitutional principles. Pgva 22:19, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * The difference that I see (states vs. DC) is that the New Jersey legislature's choosing electors can reasonably be seen as a means of New Jersey appointing electors, whereas the Congress's choosing electors cannot be reasonably seen as a means of DC appointing electors. I am not a lawyer and I am not insisting that this interpretation is correct.  However, I don't think that your interpretation is as obviously correct as you say.  Has any constitutional scholar interpreted the Amendment this way?  If you can produce evidence of this, I will take this interpretation seriously.  Otherwise, as far as I know it's just the idiosyncratic view of a non-expert. Josh Cherry 23:01, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"The New Jersey legislature's choosing electors can reasonably be seen as a means of New Jersey appointing electors, whereas the Congress's choosing electors cannot be reasonably seen as a means of DC appointing electors."

Fair enough. Because it is absurd that the 23rd Amendment empowers a place (the seat of government) rather than persons to appoint electors, I am willing to concede that point (although letting Congress speak for its own seat of government seems eminently reasonable, rather like letting a state legislature speak for the capitol building in which it resides). It is the District, however defined, and not Congress, that must appoint the electors. However, I must stand behind the remainder of my argument and reach the same result for the following reason.

The "manner" by which the District appoints electors specifies the particular process for the District to follow. But the process might simply be: "Step one: Appoint Smith, Jones, and Wu." There, that's the process. Easy. The meat of the argument remains, regardless of the specific form required for Congress to exercise its power, that the substance of that power is plenary and most certainly includes choosing specific persons as electors.

As to the matter of consulting experts, it is useful to recall that members of Congress are the final arbiters of the presidential election process. In that sense, they are the experts, and a resort to the opinions of legal scholars amounts to a fallacious argument ad verecundiam. Pgva 00:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * The members of Congress are not the final arbiters of the constitutionality of the way they direct the appointment of electors for DC any more than they are the final arbiters of the constitutionality of any other legistlation that they pass. Suppose that Congress directed that the DC electors be chosen by a vote among white male residents of the District who are at least 21 years old.  This would be struck down by the judiciary as a violation of several constitutional provisions.  If Congress's choosing the DC electors itself is a violation of the 23rd Amendment, surely the judiciary has the power to intervene.  Asking how legal scholars view the constitutional issue, and how they think the courts would rule, is entirely appropriate. Josh Cherry 01:29, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Surely the judiciary has the power to intervene."

Yet the character of that power must be very carefully examined in light of the 12th Amendment to determine its effects. Suppose that the Court, acting under the judicial power pursuant to the constitution and laws of the United States, did hear the case and render an opinion declaring the actions of Congress unconstitutional. How, under the 12th Amendment, would that opinion be enforced? As I already demonstrated, the process given in the 12th Amendment is purposefully not susceptible to judicial intervention (unless one entertains the idea of robed Supreme Court justices running the halls of Congress wielding pistols, a dangerous prospect given their age). Political consequences might very well result from ignoring the court's opinion, a factor that each member of Congress would be sure to consider in making their decision. But it would still be their decision.

I am led to recall the famous phrase from Marbury vs. Madison, "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is in deciding justiciable cases and controversies." Okay, I added that last part, to illustrate the limitations of the principle. Congress might equally insist that it is the province and duty of the legislative department to say what the law is in performing the functions assigned to Congress by the constitution. Which department has the final say on constitutionality depends upon the nature of the situation, and it is not always the judicial department. It was entirely appropriate for the Marshall Court to exercise judicial review (against the determination of constitutionality made by Congress) to deny Marbury's writ of mandamus, for to do so was entirely within the Court's power in that case. By contrast, the Court has no power whatever in the 12th Amendment process that elects a President. The power belongs to Congress, which is free to use its own determination of constitutionality (against the one given by the Court) in choosing how best to act. If it is right for the Court to second guess Congress in performing its functions, then it is no less right for Congress to second guess the Court in performing its. Because of the 12th Amendment, the matter is genuinely nonjusticiable in that the Court's actions would be moot. Pgva 03:27, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I would like to take leave of this with the statement that I disagree with your interprettion of the 23rd Amendment. I do not read it as giving Congress the power to choose electors for DC.  I see it as Congress giving the power for DC to choose electors.  You can read one amendment after another and you see the same phrases over and over: "will be enforceable by Congress", "as Congress may direct", "within the limits of the power of Congress"...  The whole point is that Congress is not the ruling monarch of the US.  When it passes a bill, it has to go to the President.  Because of that, Congress cannot pass a law.  They can only pass a law limited to the power that Congress has.  If the President accepts it, it becomes a temporary law.  It is temporary because the Supreme Court can still toss it out - meaning that it is still limited to the power that Congress has.  Therefore, the 23rd Amendment is Congress giving DC the right to have electors as long as everyone agrees that Congress has the right to do so.
 * I would also like to say that I agree with Pgva about the needlessness of this amendment. DC is a district, not a state.  People claiming to live in DC either live in Maryland or Virginia.  That is where they should vote.  I worry about two things.  First, those people are counted in the population of Maryland, giving it extra electoral votes.  So, if DC gets a free elector, that one should be taken away from Maryland.  Second, what stops these people from voting both in the DC elections and the Maryland elections? Kainaw 13:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * This is factually incorrect. DC is not in any sense a part of Maryland.  Residents of DC are not counted toward the population of Maryland for the purpose of determining the number of Maryland representatives or electors.  Residents of DC cannot vote in Maryland elections any more than residents of Virginia or California can vote in Maryland elections.  Josh Cherry 16:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would like say "thanks" to Josh for offering a point of view that I hadn't considered. Although my personal view is that to "appoint" amounts to nothing more than to formally name, leaving the actual choice to be determined by the process directed by Congress, I am willing to see his opinion as a reasonable interpretation. I am less sanguine about the assurance that the judiciary can interpose itself in the Presidential election process under the 12th Amendment. That the court cannot, even if it wanted to, interfere in that process seems crystal clear. To suggest otherwise admits of a grade-school understanding of judicial review in which the Supreme Court simply trumps all. This view would have surely astonished our Founding Fathers, for whom the judiciary "may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment ... is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power ... [it] can never attack with success either of the other two ..." (Federalist 78). A faithful understanding of separation of powers must admit the possibility that the Supreme Court does not always get its way and is not the final arbiter of all things, that its edicts really can be disobeyed by the other branches, that in fact such disobedience is the only way that separation of powers can be ultimately realized in cases of judicial overreach. But I digress. The 23rd Amendment, in treating the seat of government as a body of persons, remains a constitutional incongruity. It could arguably be exploited by a determined Congress in a close presidential election. It should serve as a warning of the dangers of unintended consequences in attempting to improve upon the constitutional design, even with the best of intentions. Pgva 18:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you for being so gracious. I'm still not clear on why you think the 12th Amendment immunizes Congress from judicial review in these matters.  The powers given to Congress there involve counting electoral votes, not choosing electors.  But there's a more important point.  How is it different from any other part of the Constitution that gives Congress or anyone else certain powers?  Section I clearly gives legislative powers to Congress.  It does not follow that the courts cannot rule their legislative actions unconstitutional. Josh Cherry 16:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"The powers given to Congress there involve counting electoral votes, not choosing electors."

The power to count must imply the power to decide which contested electoral ballots to include when counting (for support of this view, see 3 U.S.C. 15). I simply assume that were Congress to interpret its 23rd Amendment power as inclusive of choosing its own slate of electors, then it would also choose to resolve any contest in favor of its own electors' ballots.

"How is it different from any other part of the Constitution that gives Congress or anyone else certain powers?"

The difference I see is that when Congress counts electoral votes under the 12th Amendment, it is performing a function different in kind from the ordinary act of legislating that requires no judicial assent to achieve its purpose. Even were the Supreme Court to issue a declaratory judgment in the matter, it would still be Congress counting the votes and the winner of that count would go on to be President according to the Amendment. To be clear, the courts could rule it unconstitutional, but that ruling would have only the force or effect that Congress would choose to give it - in my scenario, they would ignore the ruling. Pgva 18:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Squeezing a direct popular election out of the current system
Should this be on its own page? This article is about the Electoral College, not ways to circumvent it. Dubc0724 18:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Squeezing a national popular vote out of the current system by changing state election law no more "circumvents" the Electoral College than any other proposal for a national popular vote. I am more sympathetic to the view that all reform proposals be split into another article, since there are so many and since there continues to be a fair amount of controversy surrounding which ones to include here. I am, however, steadfastly opposed to any statement that a constititional amendment is required to change the current system (which could reappear as soon as the 'squeezing' section is removed) . As the 'squeezing' alternative proves, that is simply a falsehood. --Pgva 04:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Per state resource allocations for campaigns
In the article is states "They do of course pour the bulk of their resources into "battleground states" which are equally divided between the two major parties--- but the large battleground states get more resources than the smaller ones, not fewer."

Is this per person, or total, because that makes a huge difference in the argument made here. Of course more resources would be poured into states with large populations, but is this per capita or what? Ed Sanville 13:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

 * He's arguing that more resources are poored into states that often vote different ways than states who usually vote one way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.130.60.100 (talk • contribs).

Who's in it?
I would like to know how much the electoral delgates get renumerated? Suburban Boy 14:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I imagine by renumerated you are asking how the states get the number of electors they possess? States are allowed a number of presidential electors equal to their representation in Congress. For instance, Texas currently has 32 representatives in the House and 2 Senators, equaling a total of 34 representatives. Thus, they receive a total 34 electoral votes. Seats in the House are reapportioned to the States every 10 years in consequence of the census to reflect changes in population amongst the States. This reapportionment of House seats affects the number of electors, changing in tandem with the State's gain or loss. (e.g. after the reapportionment, if North Carolina gained 2 seats in the House, NC then gets 2 extra electoral votes).  The smallest number of electors a State can have is 3, as the Constitution guarantees each State 2 senators and 1 House seat. Foofighter20x 00:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He was asking how much they get paid. Alsee 03:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This has probably been brought up before, but is there any way to know who's actually on the Electoral College? Therequiembellishere 00:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is ever truly "on" the Electoral College as it is a completely transitory body. What I mean is: the electoral college is elected solely for the purpose of voting for President and Vice-President. Once the college has completed it's constitutional task, it then disbands until the next presidential election, when new electors are chosen. If you are interested as to who will be selected as electors for the next Presidential election, wait until late in the summer before the next presidential election and then contact the office of your State's Secretary of State, as they will have a list (known as a slate) of names the political parties have nominated to be electors for their presidential candidate. Foofighter20x 00:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Systems
"...Some have argued that the French system creates problems of its own; it is possible that the initial vote becomes divided up between so many candidates that someone who is highly undesirable to most voters can make it to the second round of voting, as occurred in 2002 with the rise of candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen to the runoff election..."

"Highly undesirable" is a wrong term: if a candidate got enough votes to go to the second round, it means that a large number of voters "desires" the candidate to be president!

 * The article on Jean-Marie Le Pen explains why the French considered him highly undesirable. He is used as an example of the flaws in the French system because he received 16.8% of the vote.  He got the second round of elections due the fact that there were so many people running.  The issue is that with more people running, the cutoff percent potentially gets lower and lower until you could possible have a guy make it to the second round with less than 1% of the vote (I admit that it would take half of France to run for election to get that low - but this is an extreme examples). Kainaw 19:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Surely this is a specious argument? As the first comment points out 16% of voters supported Le Pen in the first round - a large number of people. In the second round he increased his support to only 17.8% and was soundly defeated by Chirac. So, while the majority of the French do see him as unsuitable, 17.8% see him as suitable - but that isn't enough to elect him (or anywhere near it). It in no way invalidates the process. The popular choice was elected (unlike the US system where a president doesn't need to get a majority popular vote to win). --Nickj69 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Detractor argument: Use of the term "disenfranchise"
I do not think the use of the term 'disenfranchise' is appropriately used in the section of the article presenting the arguments against the Electoral College system.

Disenfranchise is to 'deprive of the right to vote.' Voters who vote in the minority in a given state, while deprived of seeing their candidate supported in the electoral college, are not by any means deprived of their right to cast a vote.

In our system, the electoral college sets up mini-elections that are rolled up into a larger election. Minority-candidate voters in a particular state are not disenfranchised just as minority-candidate voters would not be disenfranchised in a popular-vote election.

The idea that an large-state resident's vote "counts less" than a small-state resident's is a fair statement to make; however, I believe that the benefits of balancing the numeric and geographic components of public opinion outweigh the perceived inequity of not having a one citizen/one vote for president election.

--

The article states that Gore/Liebermann had "6 unpopular votes". Is this someone's idea of a joke or does this term mean something? Cigarette 13:42, 3 Nov 2004

--- the See Also section contains the following:

''The statement Bush/Cheney won the electoral vote with 271 votes by cheating. is false. It is an emotional response not based on fact.''

I assume this is more vandalism. It appears this article has restricted editing or else I would elminate the passage myself. Funkyj 01:23, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)

Two persons
Following is an email sent to webmaster@wikipedia.org. I will reply to the email by giving him the standard WP:BB line and directing him to this talk page. -- Tim Starling 00:12, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Subject:  article on the Electoral College (U.S.) From:  Carl Moore Date:  Thu, 4 Nov 2004 14:07:50 EST To:  webmaster@wikipedia.org

I see "Originally, each elector voted for two persons." That is STILL true!!! What changed was that the 12th Amendment calls for each elector to vote for 1 person as president and 1 person as vice president. Perhaps say "Originally, each elector voted for two persons without specifying president or vice president."

Introduced some more subheadings and some more points to the different arguments
Hello all, I just introduced a number of subheadings into the text to divide it up more clearly. I also introduced a number of diverse additional points to different aspects of the Pro-and-Con arguments and slightly reordered some paragraphs. I believe the additional material to be factual and NPOV, and I believe the subheadings increase clarity. I hope this is OK with the other contributors. All the best, -- 84.57.79.215 17:27, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Introduction paragragh has been repeated
Look at the top of the article, its there, twice. My inexperince at editing means im mising ot on how to change it so there it is there only once. Chrismullan

 * That's not all - almost the entire article is repeated twice. I don't want to pick through all the edits to see which is the most up-to-date, so I'm simply removing the second half of the repetition.  This has been caused by people now knowing how to revert.  If you want to revert, go to the history, click on the date of the version that you want to revert to, click Edit This Page (you will see a warning that it is an old version), and save it.  Don't try to cut and paste old versions on top of new ones. Kainaw 15:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The E College and Third Parties
I don't understand how the electoral college stifles third parties. Even if there were a direct election, a third party candidate's 19 percent of the vote would still translate into 0 percent of political power. The simple fact is that presidential power cannot be divided. Imagine if Ross Perot had won 19 percet of the electoral college, 102 votes, he still would have lost.

As long as there is a unipersonal executive, a presidential election is always going to be winner take all.

Where winner take all is relevant in explaing our lack of third parties is in legislatures.

No other post is elected by an e college in the US, yet third party victories are still exceedingly rare. (IIRC, there are eight third party state legislators right now, out of 8,000. Four of those eight are in Burlington, VT)

dinopup

 * In the way that all but 2 of the states handle the electoral college, third parties cannot get any electoral votes. The states use a plurality to give all of the electoral votes to one candidate.  For a third party candidate to win, that candidate must get more votes in the entire state than any other candidate.  While it is possible (and it has happened in the past), it is not probable.
 * Now, consider the two states that use allot the electoral votes to regions within the state - mini electoral colleges. It is much more probable for a third party candidate to gain a plurality in a smaller region and therefore gain an electoral vote in one region of one of those states.
 * When it comes down to it, an electoral college makes it easier for a third party candidate to get a larger vote margin because the candidate has the ability to target low-populated areas that count just as much as higher populated ones. However, the United States isn't using an electoral college inside the states themselves (except 2).  So, that popular vote is basically barring them from the electoral vote. Kainaw 15:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Even if winner take all by state were changed to proportional allocation, or district allocation, a third party candidate would still be a long way from 269 votes. What difference would it make if a Perot or Nader could win electoral votes?  They still would lose the elections.  Wallace, Thurmond, and TR won e votes, and their third parties still disintegrated.

 * If we had district allocation, and a Green won districts like Berkeley, CA or Dane County, Wisconsin, then the Green party would be an asterisk to the electoral vote, just like it is an asterisk to the popular vote. It would do little to make the Green party an enduring, significant party.  What the US needs to have non-trivial third parties is proportional representation for legislative races.  In legislative races, getting 5 % of the seats means getting 5 % of the power.  In the electoral college, since the presidency cannot be divided, getting 5% of the e votes means getting 0 % of the power.

 * It is true that a third party doesn't stand a chance of becoming President of the U.S. - regardless of the voting system. The U.S. is a two-party nation.  That is not abnormal.  Humans eventually boil everything down to two options: us and them, black and white, liberal and conservative...
 * You are correct in pointing out that there is easily more third party representation in Congress. I feel that the third party representation in Congress justifies the electoral system.  While the country as a whole hasn't backed a third party candidate, small parts of the population may be represented in Congress.  I feel that is how the founding fathers designed the system.
 * Disclaimer: The following paragraph is my opinion and I have yet to find someone who isn't offended by my opinion that the President is the least powerful person in government.
 * If you research the founding fathers, you will find that they were against political parties. That is why it was initially designed so that one party could get President and another could get Vice-President.  But, it doesn't end there.  The President, over time, has become a figurehead.  What power does the President really have that isn't controlled by Congress?  Appoint a judge to the Supreme Court?  Not without Congress' approval.  Declare war?  Not without Congress' approval.  Cut taxes?  Not without Congress' approval.  Veto Congress?  Not without Congress' approval in the form of not overriding his veto.  When it comes down to it, the President has the power to decide how to decorate the White House - as long as it is within the budget set by Congress. Kainaw 21:39, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what was intended, the very structure of the original Electoral College made it almost certain that the President and Vice-President would be of the same party. The mistake was giving electors two votes.  If they had only one vote, no political party would ever run two candidates, because they'd split their vote; therefore, the President and VP would always be from different parties.  But when electors have two votes, it's in a party's best interest to run two candidates, and encourage electors to vote for both of them.
 * Actually the ORIGINAL E party system guaranteed opposing candidates in the president and vice presidential positions because everyone was running for president. Under the new system (12th amendment) you absolutely guarantee that there will be one party in the white house.
 * The EC stifles third parties and independents in this way: take for example, an independent that wins a couple states outright, and then gets a substantial, but losing, percentage in most other states. They may receive a majority popular vote, but will receive much fewer EC votes, as the votes they receive in states they didn't carry are effectively thrown out. In a Maine/Nebraska system, they would receive some EC votes in the states they didn't carry, and across the board, could still receive a majority. JeremyMcCracken 14:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you use an example that happened to a main party candidate in 2000: Gore. In the Nebraska/Maine System, 2 votes go to the winner of the state (representing the "Senate" electoral votes). The remaining votes are split based on the percentage of votes. If a state has only 3 or 4 electoral votes, then all the votes will still go for one candidate. If it is a state of 5 electoral votes, then the most the loser cna expect to get is 1 electoral vote. On top of that there is the right of the States to choose how the votes are apportioned. If they choose to apportion all their votes to the winner, then that is their right. In addition, those states that have the most votes (California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania) would lose their status as a state in which candidates must campaign. For example: State X and State Y both have 10 electoral votes, States A, B, C, and D, have 4 votes. All are hotly contested and are a dead heat right up until the polls and the main party candidates can visit only 5 of the 6 before the polls open. State X, however is a Neb/Maine system state. Since the projected gain from visiting States A, B, C, D, and Y is 26 votes to 10. — BQZip01 — talk 15:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Pros and cons
On January 2, User:Susurrus spun off the "Pro and Con" section to the article Pros and Cons of the U.S. Electoral College. Then some user (I don't know who anymore as they didn't write anything on the talk page and the comments in the history went to the Great Bit-Bucket in the Sky) wrote that they would delete this article because its content was duplicated in this article. Now I want to make it clear: the content was not duplicated, because Susurrus had removed the content from this article when it was spun off. Nonetheless, even though I noted the fact that the content was non-duplicative on the talk page for "Pros and Cons of the U.S. Electoral College", I found today that the article had been removed. Therefore, I have restored the "Pros and cons" section to this article.

— DLJessup 02:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Does EC favor small or large states?
The article states several times that the EC favores small states. It's certainly obvious, since each state gets 2 senators regardless of population, that small states get more electoral votes per capita. I don't think it's obvious that it follows that voters in small states have more voting power. In fact, I don't even think it's true. Campaign strategists don't seem to think it's true either if you take ad dollars per capita or campaign stops per capita as any indicator. If it is true then it needs some mathematical justification.

 * Don't try to draw a relation between campaign financing and voting power. Money goes to areas that are not clearly Democrat or Republican - not to areas where there is the Electoral Vote/Population ration is higher. Kainaw 01:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * In a winner-take-all voting system, votes per capita is a poor measure of voting power. To illustrate this, imagine that the U.S. consisted only of the 14 smallest states plus California and D.C.  Even though California would have the fewest per-capita electoral votes, it would quite obviously have the greatest voting power: The other 15 states wouldn't matter at all!

 * According to the Banzhaf Power Index, California voters are the most powerful and Montana voters are the least powerful. (But note that this assumes that all 51 "states" are competitive.) DanBishop 02:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Restored "Pros and Cons" again
Hello, I just restored the "Pros and Cons" section, which had been deleted without comment again on March 9 (why delete it?) -- 84.58.45.131 23:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for references
Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 18:28, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)


text:
JSO

JSO may refer to:

 * Cherokee County Airport (Texas)
 * Jackson Symphony Orchestra (Michigan), in Jackson, Michigan
 * Jackson Symphony Orchestra (Tennessee), in Jackson, Tennessee
 * Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, in Jacksonville, Florida
 * Jacksonville Symphony Orchestra, in Jacksonville, Florida
 * Jerusalem Symphony Orchestra, In Israel
 * Johnstown Symphony Orchestra, in Johnstown, Pennsylvania
 * Special Operations Unit (Serbia) (Serbian: Jedinica za specijalne operacije), an elite special forces police unit
 * Joint Staff Office
 * Just Stop Oil, an environmental activist group in United Kingdom

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

title: JSO


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne

Case Opened on 21 February 2005 Case Closed on 6 March 2005

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case; editing this page implicitly authorizes the other participants to enter a complaint against you which may be considered by the Arbitrators as may your behavior. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

The parties
User:William M. Connolley, petitioner

v.

User:JonGwynne, respondent

Statement of complaint
Please limit your statement to 500 words.

JonGwynne has disrupted the normal functioning of the global warming related pages with a string of POV edits. These have been resisted by me, and others; JGs inability to accept any "community editing" has left him with a series of 3RR rule bans (see Requests_for_comment/JonGwynne - also note no signs of contrition), to carbon dioxide being protected, and Greenhouse_gas too. Note that periods of his 3RR bans have seen tranquility descend on the global warming related pages.

Most of his edits have been POV pushing (this may be slightly difficult to demonstrate if you don't want to get too deeply into the content): e.g., but a glance at, e.g., the history of the GW page  will show that his changes have been resisted by a variety of editors. Also history of IPCC. And more.

He has also indulged in numerous personal attacks, mostly against me (note edit comment) but also against others (note edit summary).

He has used deliberately deceptive edit summaries e.g., described as "copyedit"; - that one labelled "not a revert" was part of his most recent 3RR ban. Note also abusive edit comment. He frequently disguises his reverts.

Note that we have been through RFC: Requests for comment/JonGwynne, [] (note the latter started by Cortonin, who is quiet recently, but signed to by JG), with no sign of progress.

comments in support of Jon Gwynne
When I first read the artical I was throughly disappointed. IMHO user William M. Connolley is very biased and is trying to steer the artical in a direction that is factually wrong. I was movtivated enough to post comments in the discussion and this movtivated WMC to attack me as well. In response WMC suggested I read his blog - which I did and I find this is factually incorrect as well.

Most likely, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere has increased as a result of human activity. Distruction of the rain forests will reduce the amount of H2O in the atmosphere while irrigation and burning of fossil fuels will increase it. WMC correctly states that H2O is short lived in the atmosphere. While this is correct, it is constantly being replaced.

That being said - the amount of H2O added by mankind is insignificant compared to what nature put into the atmosphere. The problem with this notion is that while it is insignificant, it is still greater than the CO2. Now the biggest influence of H2O is ocean surface temperature and circulation patterns. Nothing of this is mentioned in the artical. In fact, H2O is hardly mentioned at all even though it is responsible for anywhere from 69% to +95% of the greenhouse warming of the planet. When JG made a simple edit that mentioned H2O, it was promptly removed.

The second problem with CO2 is that in the orovician ice ages for instance we had 19x as much CO2 in the environment as now. You can confirm this at the geocraft website:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

If you look at the CO2 curves from R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III) you may note that it is not correlated with climate change at all!

If the arbitrators would be so kind as to read my comments in the discussion and then follow the links I posted I would really appreciate it.

I would further ask that the arbitrators read the following website:

http://www.carleton.ca/~tpatters/teaching/climatechange/climatehome.html

Please pay special attention to this:

http://www.carleton.ca/~tpatters/teaching/climatechange/change/change1.html

I will quote from Tim Patterson:

"Since the Miocene, mountain ranges and plateaus have risen to the sky in southwestern North America and central Asia. The elevation contours are labeled in kilometers. The appearance of these giant barriers across the planetary circulation of the northern hemisphere may have given the final push to the northern hemispheric glaciation."

When I expressed these ideas in the discussion not only was I attacked, indeed I was accuse of suggesting original research! If one correlates the major ice ages to the periods of exteme mountian building then one gets a 100% correlation dating back into the precambrian.

It appears to me that many who have been arguing about this controversial theory of global warming have a problem accepting these facts.

IMHO Tim Patterson has discussed the issues fairly. I do not think the wiki artical is fair. In fact in some respects I think the wiki artical is pathetic. I am not the only one who has this opinion. Please contact user: Greg Benson.

In short:

The vast majority of the causes that influence climate change are not even mentioned.

Terrell

Please note that I have not made any edits to this artical.

- My comments. I am new here and somewhat surprised to see an arbitration process underway over this matter. I see two people in disagreement. I see neither being able to compromise on the issue owing to strong opinions. I see Connolley wanting action taken against Gwynne. I don't know if Gwynne wants any action taken against Connolley. Connolley is aggressive with his opinion which is not good for an encyclopedia. Arbitration committee must consider whether Connolley and Gwynne are able to contribute to a neutral encyclopedia entry and if they are not they should be asked to leave. Connolley can continue to aggressively argue his opinion on sci.env on USENET. I don't think that I can stay here on wiki as this is too much like USENET but will be interested to see how this matter is addressed through arbitration. Thank you. KlausH 00:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

--

Connelly's description of the situation is completely inaccurate. He is a POV warrior that removes notable and cited material as part of his drive to control the page. "Peace" hasn't arrived on the page, what has happened is that he is making POV edits and using arbitration to drive people off. I would support a one year banning of this user for abusing the arbitration system and lying about the state of a page simply because he has driven off anyone else. Have reverted the page to include material which Connelly censored, and will continue to do this. Again - support a one year ban of Connelly. The judicial process should not become a weapon to drive out accurate and encyclopediac writers by a numerically superior group of Poves.

Stirling Newberry 13:36, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * In fact he is already running a revert war on the page. . In fact he is already running a revert war. Stirling Newberry 14:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * In fact he is already running a revert war on the page. . In fact he is already running a revert war. Stirling Newberry 14:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments in support of William M. Connolley
User JonGwynne (JG) has a strong opinion about the matter of climate change and tries to push his POV into the article. Unfortunately he seems to lack scientific education and is by far not on the same scientific level as Dr. Connelly (WMC). Discussions with JG are difficult and rarely lead to a compromise. Furthermore he does not accept a majority decision and keeps reverting to his version instead.

In one case JG tried several times to add the fact that the atmosphere only contains a very small fraction of CO2. The insertion was highly misleading at best and showed that he had problems differing between "increase of x%" and "increase of x percentage points", two very different values. This actually small difference lead to a huge discussion (see Talk:Carbon dioxide) where JG argued ad nauseam and several dozens reverts. Despite being reverted by at least four different persons (Shimmin, VSmith, Gene Nygaard and WMC) JG kept reverting until the article was finally protected.

At times he becomes ad hominem in his comments and if he is reverted often he tends to do changes with misleading comments. Furthermore he tries to circumvent the 3RR by combining partial reverts with other edits. Nevertheless JG has violated the 3RR several times and consequently was banned for multiple periods of 24 hours.

All the above leads to a bad climate for working on the articles and costs the contributers a lot of time for discussion and reverts. I very much believe that JG can be a valuable contributer in less controversial areas, for instance. Unfortunately his strong believes and his lack of scientific understanding hinder him to work on the climate related articles in collaboration with others and in particular with Dr. William Connolley.

General comment: Unfortunately the history of the climate related articles reveals a deeper problem. Experts who write about their subject in Wikipedia have to defend their work all the time against "decay", i.e. new users who lack the expertise, but modify the articles nevertheless (not necessarily in bad faith). In particular highly controversial topics such as climate related articles suffer from a constant stream of "skeptical" users who have at best read a Crichton book and then start editing. This of course is a bad climate for keeping or winning experts for Wikipedia who have to deal and discuss the same things over and over again, e.g., the influence of water vapor. After seeing what is happening here I can partially follow Larry Sanger in his criticism about Wikipedia.

-- mkrohn 02:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Statement by affected party
This is just the latest in a laundry list of complaints against me by WMC. If memory serves, they began in earnest when I co-signed a complaint against him on Requests for comment/William M. Connolley because of his inappropriate behavior regarding other used. It should be noted that the complaints against him have gone unresolved and unaddressed. I suspect the reason no one has escalated the matter further is that the rest of us are more interested in writing and editing articles than in wasting the admins' time with complaints that can be addressed between the users involved.

WMC's complaints here are, as per his usual, entirely without merit.

 * What he describes as "POV edits" are, in reality NPOV edits designed to bring balance to the articles on climate-change. He, and a few others, resist them.  Others do not.  These are issues that can and should be resolved in the ordinary matter of wikipedia.
 * The "series of 3RR bans" are, with one exception (the one on Global Wariming, that was my mistake and I'll take responsibility for that one), entirely illegitimate and only the result of deliberate or negligent misstatements by WMC and one other user.
 * What he describes as "personal attacks" are, in reality, admittedly brusque statements censuring his objectionable behavior as described in his RFC and attempting to discourage repetition of such behavior.
 * His complaints about my edit summaries are subjective at best and ultimately irrelevant in light of the compare tool provided by wikipedia.
 * The RFC he filed against me was not only entirely without merit - I systematically rebutted every single one of his complaints, but it was only endorsed by his group of idealogical supporters.

It should also be noted that he filed the RFC against me after he tried and failed to get an article of mine deleted.

This whole thing is strongly suggestive of nothing more than a peevish, personal vendetta and a waste of the admins' time. My advice to the admins is: don't let yourselves get sucked into it.

In my opinion, William is a petty, vindictive, narrow-minded person who contributes little to wikipedia apart from extremist environmentalist POV.

Once again, I suggest you reject his complaint out of hand and not let yourselves get dragged into this mess.

(William M. Connolley 21:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)) My comments on this are at: Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne/Response_to_JG

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/1/0/0)

 * Reject until there's some actual content on the subpage. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:51, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC) I am now waiting for a response by JonGwynne. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:13, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC) A respone doesn't seem likely yet, so accept. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:06, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
 * (William M. Connolley 00:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I've just done it.
 * Reject - request is not placed in the proper format (it should be here, and not on a subpage). Ambi 01:28, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 02:05, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept to examine the issue of revert warring and POV-pushing. Neutralitytalk 02:13, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept Nohat 07:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 10:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

No personal attacks
1) No personal attacks.

 * Passed 7-0.

Civility
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave civilly and calmly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to utilise dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other.

 * Passed 7-0.

Consensus
3) As put forward in Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Policies and guidelines such as Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.

 * Passed 7-0.

Neutral point of view
4) Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.

 * Passed 6-1.

Personal attacks
1) JonGwynne has engaged in personal attacks.

 * Passed 7-0.

Incivility
2) JonGwynne has at times resorted to comments which, although not necessarily rising to the level of personal attacks, can be considered incivil.

 * Passed 7-0.

Revert warring
3) JonGwynne has refused to accept consensus on articles related to global warming and has continued to revert war in order to promote a particular point of view despite being blocked numerous times for violation of the three revert rule, , ,.

 * Passed 7-0.

Personal attack parole
2) JonGwynne is placed on standard personal attack parole for three months. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week.

 * Passed 7-0.

Revert limitation
3) JonGwynne is limited to one revert per 24 hour period on articles related to global warming; violations shall be interpreted as violations of the three revert rule..

 * Passed 7-0.


text:
Talk:Alys Robi

Small cleanup
I removed the following Comment on the article, I feel it belonged here:

 * "Note that this article is filled with mistakes and poor language from a computer translation: There was no television in Canada in WW II. She never hosted a wartime TV show Tambour battant -- these were War songs that she sang."

I would like to add the while there were no TV at the start of the war, She did indeed have her own show. It would seems that this article is a poor partial translation of: http://www2.ville.montreal.qc.ca/chm/clic/robi.htm - Sepper 23:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, the article used several sources, none of which, incidentally, is the one you point, though cross-references might be to blame for similarities. My sources were easier to collect due to the recent release of "Ma vie en Cinémascope", but I do admit not being a native speaker of English, my translation is likely far from perfect. Please feel free to make corrections. Circeus 23:45, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

References for improvement

 * (note: need to track down which volume of this newsletter [] this comes from)
 * (cites two book references)
 * (Published in the ARSC journal under a different title?)
 * (Canadian encyclopedia)
 * (encyclopedia of music in canada)

Circeus (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alys Robi. 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/20081121070730/http://www.lamiredegisele.com/lecture/alysrobi/indexalys.html to http://lamiredegisele.com/lecture/alysrobi/indexalys.html

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) 04:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alys Robi. 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/20100430180245/http://www.seemagazine.com/Issues/2005/0721/screen2.htm to http://www.seemagazine.com/Issues/2005/0721/screen2.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Alys Robi


text:
Allerton Hall

Allerton Hall is a Grade II* listed former country house in Clarke's Gardens, Allerton, Lancashire. It was built in 1736 for the Hardman family. It presently operates as a Public House.

History
During the medieval period the manor of Allerton was held by the Lathom family.

During her long widowhood, Elizabeth Lathom, the wife of Richard Lathom (1563–1602), occupied Allerton Hall. She gave her son, Edward Lathom, the occupation and profit of "this my hall in Allerton". Her other son, Richard Lathom, a Royalist, fought alongside his uncles in the English Civil War. Richard survived the war but his Estate was "forfeited in the name of treason" by Cromwell's parliament in 1652 and the commissioners of parliament subsequently confiscated the estate. Allerton was then purchased by the Percivals who held the house until 1736 and married into the Hardman family.

When assessments were made for the hearth tax in 1666, Allerton Hall was one of the larger houses in the parish of Childwall with eight hearths; this was exceeded only by Speke Hall with twenty-one hearths and Brettargh Holt with nine.

The estate was bought in 1736 by James Hardman, Esq. and his brother John Hardman, and it is likely that the present house on the site originates from this time. Hardman was a West Indies merchant and slave trader originally from Rochdale. Sold to the Hardmans in 1736 for £7,700 and rebuilt in the Palladian style. The Hardmans were involved in 46 slave voyages between 1729 and 1761 from Africa to the West Indies. When James died the property passed to his brother, John, who himself subsequently died in 1755.

The property then passed to James Hardman's widow, Jane Hardman, in 1756. The Hardman family continued to live at Allerton until 1795 when the house was bought from them by the abolitionist, lawyer and philanthropist, William Roscoe. Roscoe completed the building of the house, but in turn had to sell it himself in 1816 when he became bankrupt. There were a number of Hardman claimants to the ownership of the Hall, however, none succeeded as the family's wealth had deteriorated since selling to Roscoe.

During the American Civil War, the mansion was rented by Charles Kuhn Prioleau, an American landowner and slaver from South Carolina who financially supported the Confederate States, and who married Mary Elizabeth Hardman, known as the "Belle of Liverpool".

In the early part of the 20th century the building was donated it to Liverpool City Council in 1927. The building was damaged by two fires, in 1994 and in 1995.

Architecture
Allerton Hall is designed in Palladian style and built in red sandstone with three storeys. It is a symmetrical building, extending over eleven bays; the central three bays and the lateral two bays on each side project forward. The central three bays form a portico with Ionic columns and a pediment. The ground floor of the building is rusticated.

Surviving the fires, are a room at the west end which has panelled walls and a stucco ceiling in Rococo style, and parts of Roscoe's library. In the grounds to the west of the house is a sundial dated 1750.

Present day
In 2009 Allerton Hall was run as a public house known as the Pub in the Park. As of 2017, it is known as Allerton Hall - Farmhouse Inn.

title: Allerton Hall


text:
USS Hutchins

USS Hutchins (DD-476), was a Fletcher-class destroyer, of the United States Navy named after Naval aviator Lieutenant Carlton B. Hutchins (1904–1938), who though mortally injured, was able to remain at the controls of his aircraft and allow his surviving crew to parachute to safety and was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor.

Built by Boston Navy Yard, Boston, Massachusetts Hutchins entered service in 1942 and was assigned to the Pacific fleet in March 1943. Hutchins took part in campaigns in the Aleutian Islands, amphibious landings at Cape Gloucester, the Wakde-Sarmi operation and Iwo Jima. On 25 April 1945, the destroyer was attacked by a suicide boat and severely damaged. Still under repair at the end of the war, she was decommissioned in 1945 and sold for scrap in 1948.

Construction and commissioning
Hutchins (DD-476) was launched 20 February 1942, sponsored by Mrs C.B. Hutchins, widow of Lt. Hutchins, commissioned 17 November 1942. She was planned to be one of six Fletcher-class destroyers built with a catapult for a floatplane but the plan was abandoned.

1943
After completing shakedown cruise in Casco Bay, Maine, Hutchins got underway from Boston 17 March 1943 and escorted two tankers to Galveston, Texas. From there she proceeded through the Panama Canal to San Diego, arriving 11 April. Following an escort voyage to New Caledonia and Espiritu Santo, Hutchins arrived at Pearl Harbor on 30 May for the addition of two twin 40mm gun mounts amidships.

On 25 June, while testing her guns in Hawaiian waters, an electrical failure caused a gun to fire into Hutchins' stack, killing nine and wounding twenty. While being repaired at Pearl Harbor, the ship was fitted with the latest Combat Information Center (CIC) equipment.

The ship returned to San Diego on 11 July 1943 for training and got underway with a landing ship tank (LST) group seven days later for the voyage to Adak Island in the Aleutians. She took part in the occupation of Kiska 15 August after the Japanese left the island and in the following months, patrolled and engaged in fleet training maneuvers.

Hutchins departed the northern Pacific on 18 November 1943 for Milne Bay, New Guinea and screened LSTs during the landings at Cape Gloucester. Designed to secure the important straits between New Britain and New Guinea, the landings began on 26 December. Hutchins and the other screening vessels came under heavy air attack in the days that followed, with Hutchins claiming one aircraft shot down and assisting with another. After escorting a support convoy to Cape Gloucester from Buna on mainland New Guinea, the destroyer steamed with another LST group to Saidor, farther up the coast of New Guinea. During a rain squall, she collided with another destroyer in the congested assault area and was forced to steam to Cairns, Australia 16 January 1944 for repairs to her bow.

1944
Hutchins departed Cairns 22 February and, after night tactical drills, sailed 28 February with Admiral Daniel E. Barbey's amphibious group for the Admiralties. Arriving the next day, the ship carried out shore bombardment of Manus, a base which was to become vital in the coming campaigns, and with Rear Admiral Victor Crutchley, RN, in the heavy cruiser HMAS Shropshire (1928), established a patrol off Manus. During late March and April, Hutchins and other destroyers shelled Wewak and Hansa Bay, as a diversion for the planned assault at Hollandia.

Steaming from Cape Sudest 18 April, Hutchins arrived Hollandia 22 April and with other fleet units gave gunfire support to the initial assault, then retired to screen escort carriers. She steamed south of Truk on 10 May to pick up survivors of a B-24 raid on the Japanese stronghold, returning for the next step in the New Guinea campaign.

Hutchins next took part in the Wakde-Sarmi operation on 17 May. After shore bombardment and screening operations, she moved on to Biak ten days later. Early in June, she operated with Task Forces 74 off Biak. On the night of 8 June, the ships detected a Japanese force approaching from the northwest. The Japanese destroyers cast off their troop barges with Hutchins and the rest of Crutchley's force in pursuit, exchanging fire at long range. The Allied ships broke off the chase just before 02:30 and returned to the assault area.

In July Hutchins provided gunfire support to the Noemfoor landings and operated with PT boats in the Aitape area 15–25 July harassing Japanese communications. She also took part in the 30 July landings at Sansapor, completing a series of amphibious hops along the northern coast of New Guinea.

August 1944 was spent at Sydney and on fleet exercises off New Guinea. After a drydock period, Hutchins sailed from Humboldt Bay on 12 September to take part in the Morotai landings, a stepping-stone to the Philippines. She bombarded airstrips on 16 September and returned to Seeadler Harbor on 29 September to prepare for the invasion of the Philippines. The invasion fleet arrived at Leyte Gulf on 20 October, Hutchins was part of the pre-invasion bombardment, and screed the fleet, after the initial assault.

As the Japanese fleet moved toward the Philippines in a large three-pronged attempt to stop the invasion, Hutchins joined Admiral Jesse Oldendorf's surface forces waiting in Surigao Strait for Admiral Shoji Nishimura's Southern Force. In this phase of the larger Battle for Leyte Gulf referred to as the Battle of Surigao Strait, Hutchins, flagship of Captain K.M. McManes' Destroyer Squadron 24 (DesRon 24), was stationed on the right flank of the force Oldendorf had assembled. As Nishimura steamed up the strait early 25 October his ships were harassed by PT boats and then attacked by destroyers. Hutchins' group steamed south, launched torpedoes at about 03:30 and turned to close the range. As the large Japanese ships began to slow and scatter, the destroyers fired a second spread of torpedoes. The JAPANESE DESTROYER Michishio was struck by a torpedo fired by USS McDermut (DD-677) and then finished off by gunfire from Hutchins at position 10.41667°N, 125.38333°W. After exchanging gunfire with the Japanese heavy ships, McManes brought the squadron out of range so that the bigger guns of the waiting fleet could engage.

After the actions of Leyte Gulf, Hutchins returned to screening. She ran onto an uncharted hulk on 26 October and after helping to repel air attacks until 29 October, sailed for San Francisco via Pearl Harbor, arriving on 25 November 1944 for repairs.

1945
Training exercises were carried out until 3 February, when she steamed toward Saipan to join a carrier force for the Iwo Jima operation. Her carrier group arrived three days before the landings to shell Japanese positions and support the operation during February and March 1945. After the island was captured, Hutchins returned to Ulithi before sailing on 27 March for the operation to capture Okinawa, the last step on the island-hopping campaign towards Japan. She screened a transport group during the first four days of April, helped repel air attacks before being assigned to gunfire support on 4 April. Hutchins spent the following daytime hours close to the beaches and her nights, screening the fleet. She claimed several aircraft shot down during a large air attack on 6 April and assisted the damaged destroyer USS Newcomb (DD-586).

Fate
While on close support operations on 27 April, Hutchins was attacked by a Japanese Shin'yō-class suicide motorboat that had slipped through the formation and dropped an explosive charge close to her hull. Hutchins was shaken violently by the explosion and was severely damaged but no casualties were suffered and flooding was brought under control. The ship retired to Kerama Retto for temporary repairs, then steamed to Portland, Oregon, 15 July 1945.

Still undergoing repairs at the end of the war Hutchins was towed to Puget Sound 20 September 1945, decommissioned at Bremerton, Washington 30 November 1945, and sold for scrap in January 1948 to Learner & Co., Oakland, California.

Honors
Hutchins received six battle stars for World War II service.

title: USS Hutchins


text:
User talk:Wipe

Some obsolete topics have been archived.

New Ryūkyū vs. Ryukyu poll
Hello. You have made some very useful comments in the past at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) so I would like make sure that you are aware of the current issue. There is an ongoing poll regarding Ryūkyū vs. Ryukyu. The poll will conclude shortly. If you have an opinion (either way), your comments would be most welcome. If you are not interested, then please ignore this message. Thank you. Bendono 03:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the invitation! Wipe 08:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

PGH
I moved that award. --evrik (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

 * OK, thanks for letting me know. Wipe 08:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Navigation
Hi Wipe,
 * ''Hey, did you do something special to Template:Navigation? ...

Yes, "mea culpa"; a cosmetic change I'm trying to make proved less than cosmetic! Have reverted the template and moved to a sandbox. Thanks for the alert, though, as I may not've noticed. Best wishes, David (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

...Okay, I've just put the amended version – now corrected, I hope! – back in place. KDE looks okay from here, but if not from where you are or you see anything else using Navigation that seems to've gone awry, I'd appreciate a(nother) note. Thanks, David (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

 * ''Yep, looks fine now, cheers! Wipe 01:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Kulture News
Can you please help out with a Hiphop related article? I'm new at this and have been trying to build but people are hating on Hiphop. We need you please! If one person detest the deletion it will stop the non sense caused by these Hiphop Haters. Please go to Kulture News section to help in this matter.CoreyArthurs 22:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm sad to see the article on that blog got removed from Wikipedia and you got blocked from editing. I suggest anyone interested in kulture to contribute in such places as Kulture News and promote their stuff elsewhere. Wikipedia is not the place for that sort of thing. I'm sure the site is worth an article here when there's enough readers and high quality news, reports and articles on it. Good luck! Wipe 22:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Johann Pachelbel
Hello, I noticed you've modified the talk page of Johann Pachelbel, saying that "There is at least one picture of Johann Pachelbel in existence". Do you have a solid reference for that? I've read massive amounts of information on Pachelbel and there was no mention of a portrait, and the image frequently seen on the net (this one) is very probably not of Johann - the inscription says "Johann Christoph", which isn't his name, and the year is given as 1748, 42 years after Pachelbel died. This was all actually discussed on the talk page, and we had some trouble with people adding that image (I had to insert a warning in all capital letters in the beginning of the article). Jashiin 19:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Oh, I'm sorry, didn't know that. I clicked a link at the bottom of the page and saw this (different image). I assumed it was him. If there actually are no known portraits of Johann Pachelbel, it would be a good thing to mention in the article. I can't imagine why biographers would leave this without a mention. :-o Wipe 20:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, I'll have to see about that portrait you found, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it before, and it wasn't one of Pachelbel. As for mentioning this portrait thing in the article, well, its not like existing biographies state specifically that there is no surviving portrait; its just that they simply make no mention of any portraits whatsoever (usually for composers of Pachelbel's importance there's a brief discussion of surviving portraits, if there are any). So we can't write "no surviving portraits" in the article, we wouldn't be able to find references for that. We can just wait until someone more knowledgeable comes and either provides proof that one of those images on the net is an authentic portrait, or provides references for the fact that there are no surviving portraits. This kind of thing is sadly very common when dealing with pre-1700 composers, be it portraits, biographical facts or surviving works; the field is very active right now so maybe things will get better in some 50 years or so ;) Jashiin 20:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardling Tetris list fix
Thanks for catching that screwup and fixing it. I'm multitasking here and missed that bit >_<--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

 * No problem. :) Wipe (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please leave category tags on OpenShot pgae
Hello Wipe,

Please don't wipe the category tags on the OpenShot page.

OpenShot is definitely Video editing software and so has the correct category tags.

Thank you, --Helen McCall (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

 * ''Hello,

 * ''If you look closely, my edit to the OpenShot page was to remove Category:Video Editing Software which doesn't exist and was in the wrong place and wrongly named (every word should not start with a capital letter). The page was and is in the correct category, Category:Video editing software. You added Category:Film and video technology and Category:Multimedia software. The former looks like a category that shouldn't contain OpenShot directly, but have Video editing software as a subcategory. The latter already does that, so, in my opinion, it is unnecessary. Wipe (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wipe


text:
Sandsend Ness

Sandsend Ness is an old alum quarrying site close to Whitby in North Yorkshire, England.

Beneath extensive deposits of grey pyritic shale a thin band of sideritic mudstone is present at this site and there is a further 6 m of almost non-bituminous shale beneath it. This geological configuration, along with its proximity to the port of Whitby, offered Sandsend near-ideal conditions for the rapidly expanding alum industry from the early 17th century onwards.

So wide-scale and prolonged were these activities, that significant areas of the Yorkshire coast were permanently altered.

The double sulphate of aluminium and either potassium or ammonia is commonly known as alum. This material was of great importance through to the late 19th century in leather tanning and in the wool dying industry. Even today it is still used in some places as a mordant (dye fixative).

Fossils are present in large numbers in the deposits, including ammonites such as Hildoceras bifrons and Dactylioceras bifrons and also Ichthyosaur and Plesiosaur remains, though the latter are nowadays much less commonly found. In fact, the ammonite Hildoceras is named after an early Christian saint, the Abbess of Whitby St. Hild or Hilda (614–680). It was believed that such ammonite fossils were the snakes which had been miraculously turned into stone by St. Hilda. It was not unknown for local "artisans" to carve snakes' heads onto ammonites, and sell these "relics" as proof of the miracle. The coat of arms of nearby Whitby actually include three such 'snakestones'.

title: Sandsend Ness


text:
City of Liverpool

City of Liverpool or Liverpool City may refer to:

Places

 * Liverpool, a city in Merseyside, United Kingdom formerly in Lancashire
 * Liverpool, New South Wales, a suburb of Sydney, Australia

Politics

 * City of Liverpool (New South Wales), a local government area in Sydney, Australia, including the suburb
 * Liverpool City Council, the governing body for the city of Liverpool, England

Sports

 * Liverpool City (1906), a defunct rugby league team based in Liverpool that played from 1906 to 1907
 * Liverpool City RLFC, defunct rugby team playing from 1951 to 1968, previously known as Liverpool Stanley and renamed Huyton RLFC
 * City of Liverpool (water polo), British water polo club, see Team GB women's water polo team
 * City of Liverpool F.C., an association football club founded in 2015

Other

 * City of Liverpool (aircraft), the aircraft downed in the 1933 Imperial Airways Diksmuide crash

title: City of Liverpool


text:
O' God, the Aftermath

O' God, the Aftermath is the second studio album by American metalcore band Norma Jean and was released on March 1, 2005. Like their previous album Bless the Martyr and Kiss the Child, O God, the Aftermath was released on Solid State Records. This is the first album with vocalist Cory Brandan.

Background
The album was re-released on March 21, 2006, as a CD/DVD with expanded Grammy-nominated artwork, two hours of extra footage, and "ShaunLuu" as bonus track which was also featured on the Masters of Horror soundtrack. This track was originally set to be 7 minutes long, but had to be cut short for the soundtrack. On the re-release, on a CD player, if rewind is held down until the display reads -2:20, there is a hidden instrumental song.

Music videos were filmed for the songs "Bayonetwork: Vultures in Vivid Color", "Liarsenic: Creating a Universe of Discourse" and "Absentimental: Street Clam".

The track "Pretendeavor: In Reference to a Sinking Ship" was previously released on a Solid State Records sampler called This Is Solid State: Vol. 5 under the name "In Reference to a Sinking Ship",  and was the first recorded output with new vocalist Cory Brandan. It was re-recorded with new parts and riffs for the album.

The song "Absentimental: Street Clam" was previously known as "Manipulateral: Street Clam".

In the liner notes of the original release of the album the full title of the album is listed as "O'God, The Aftermath: The Marvelous End of the Exhausted Contender".

All song titles are portmanteaux.

The words featured on the cover of the CD are the lyrics to the song Coffinspire: Multitude, Multitudes In the Valley of Decision, which is a verse from the Bible.

Awards
In 2006, the album was nominated for a Dove Award for Recorded Music Packaging of the Year at the 37th GMA Dove Awards. In the same year, the album was nominated for a Grammy Award for Best Recording Package at the 48th Annual Grammy Awards.

Personnel

 * Norma Jean
 * Cory Brandan – vocals, guitars
 * Scottie H. Henry – guitars
 * Chris John Day – guitars
 * Jake Schultz – bass
 * Daniel Davison – drums

 * Additional personnel
 * Justin Armstrong – Mixing assistant, sampling
 * Matt Bayles – Engineer, mixing, producer
 * John Daley – Management
 * Jeff Gros – Photography
 * Alex Rose – Assistant
 * Tim Smith – Management
 * Howie Weinberg – Mastering

title: O' God, the Aftermath


text:
File:Diameters of terrestrial bodies of the solar system (comparison chart).jpg

Solar System Terrestrial Body Comparison Chart Version 2.0


text:
User talk:Aottley

50 in 50
Great work in finding the missing stats on the 50 in 50 article. Masterhatch 03:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

NHL Entry Drafts
I must say that you are doing some excellent work with the NHL drafts. I had thought about doing the drafts a long time ago, but i decided to do the seasons instead. Masterhatch 05:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for catching a couple of typos I made on the Canada at the Winter Olympics page. Andrwsc 01:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Cree font
Thanks for the clarification on the font in the Saskatoon article. I think what happened is I switched browsers from Internet Explorer to Firefox over the weekend and Firefox displays unknown fonts differently. The question marks looked like vandalism. There should be a tag or something on these articles indicating what font is needed and where to get it, etc. Thanks again! 23skidoo 18:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments on article naming
Talk:World Junior Ice Hockey Championships If you're interested. Thanks. ColtsScore 09:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"Correct" English
If you think it's "correct" English to write Jesse Niinimäki and Joni Pitkänen with the accents removed, why did you not move Jérémy Châtelain to Jeremy Chatelain when you edited it? Does "correct" English only apply to Finns, or does it only apply to ice hockey players? Where can I see a Wikipedia Manual Of Style that says to "Englishise" some foreign names, but not others? J I P | Talk 05:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel there's a distinct difference in having diacritics in the titles and the body. I'm not so concerned with the titles, but I feel the anglicisation of names should apply to all article text for the purposes of utility - If I'm using my browser's search function (i.e. ctrl-f) to find instances of a name in an article (something rather likely to happen on an article such as a draft listing), diacritics get in my way because they're cumbersome to type on an English keyboard.  And I think it's a good idea to not get in the way of English-typing people finding things on an English encyclopedia.  And yes, whether you like it or not, it is correct in English.  Sure, it isn't in Finnish, but that's irrelevant on en.wikipedia.org.

 * Besides, I don't have time to go around anglicising every article I come across - I only made the edit to the Chatelain article because I happened to notice it in an unquestionably wrong place in a category listing.

Summit Series
Nice job! Kevlar67 09:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ice Hockey Project discussion of hockey player notability and project scope
Please come join the WikiProject Ice Hockey Notability standards for hockey players discussion. I'd like to see input from all our project members who have an opinion. Thanks! ColtsScore 00:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DVDFabscrn.png
 Thanks for uploading File:DVDFabscrn.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DVDFabLogo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:DVDFabLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aottley


text:
User talk:80.225.204.203

OK, it's offical; you're a problem. You need to stop making pointless edits.

title: User talk:80.225.204.203


text: File:Groo cover issue1.jpg

title: File:Groo cover issue1.jpg


text:
Olmec religion

The religion of the Olmec people significantly influenced the social development and mythological world view of Mesoamerica. Scholars have seen echoes of Olmec supernatural in the subsequent religions and mythologies of nearly all later pre-Columbian era cultures.

The first Mesoamerican civilization, the Olmecs, developed on present-day Mexico southern Gulf Coast in the centuries before 1200 BCE. The culture lasted until roughly 400 BCE, at which time their center of La Venta lay abandoned. The Olmec culture is often considered a "mother culture" to later Mesoamerican cultures.

There is no surviving direct account of the Olmec's religious beliefs, unlike the Mayan Popol Vuh, or the Aztecs with their many codices and conquistador accounts. Archaeologists, therefore, have had to rely on other techniques to reconstruct Olmec beliefs, most prominently:
 * Typological analysis of Olmec iconography and art.
 * Comparison to later, better documented pre-Columbian cultures.
 * Comparison to modern-day cultures of the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

The latter two techniques assume that there is a continuity extending from Olmec times through later Mesoamerican cultures to the present day. This assumption is called the Continuity Hypothesis. Using these techniques, researchers have discerned several separate deities or supernaturals embodying the characteristics of various animals.

Rulers, priests, and shamans
Olmec religious activities were performed by a combination of rulers, full-time priests, and shamans. The rulers seem to have been the most important religious figures, with their links to the Olmec deities or supernaturals providing legitimacy for their rule. There is also considerable evidence for shamans in the Olmec archaeological record, particularly in the so-called "transformation figures".

Olmec supernaturals
Specifics concerning Olmec religion are a matter of some conjecture. Early researchers found religious beliefs to be centered upon a jaguar god. This view was challenged in the 1970s by Peter David Joralemon, whose Ph. D. paper and subsequent article posited what are now considered to be 8 different supernaturals. Over time Joralemon's viewpoint has become the predominant exposition of the Olmec pantheon. The study of Olmec religion, however, is still in its infancy and any list of Olmec supernaturals or deities can be neither definitive nor comprehensive.

The names and identities of these supernaturals are only provisional and the details concerning many of them remain poorly known. The confusion stems in part because the supernaturals are defined as a cluster of iconographic mafias. Any given motif may appear in multiple supernaturals. For example, "flame eyebrows" are seen at times within representations of both the Olmec Dragon and the Bird Monster, and the cleft head is seen on all five supernaturals that appear on Las Limas Monument 1. To add to the confusion, Joralemon suggested that many of these gods had multiple aspects – for example, Joralemon had identified a God I-A through a God I-F.

Despite the use of the term "god", none of these deities and supernaturals show any sexual characteristics which would indicate gender.

Olmec Dragon (God I)
Also known as the Earth Monster, the Olmec Dragon has flame eyebrows, a bulbous nose, and bifurcated tongue. When viewed from the front, the Olmec Dragon has trough-shaped eyes; when viewed in profile, the eyes are L-shaped. Fangs are prominent, often rendered as an upside-down U-shaped bracket. With the Bird Monster, the Olmec Dragon is one of the most commonly depicted supernaturals.

Miller & Taube differentiate a Personified Earth Cave, equating it with Joralmon's God I-B.

Maize deity (God II)
Another probable supernatural is identified by the plants sprouting from its cleft head. A carved celt from Veracruz shows a representation of God II, or the Maize God, growing corn from his cleft, and also shows this god with the snarling face associated with the jaguar. This deity is rarely shown with a full body.

Rain Spirit and Were-jaguar (God III)
There is considerable disagreement between researchers whether the Rain Spirit and were-jaguar are one distinct or two separate supernaturals. Christopher Pool, Anatole Pohorilenko, and Miller & Taube each equate the were-jaguar with the Rain Deity, while Joralemon finds them to be two separate supernaturals. Joralemon states that the Olmec rain spirit "is based on were-jaguar features", but is not the were-jaguar per se. More recent scholarship by Carolyn Tate questions the existence of "were-jaguar" (a fantastical concept coined soon after the release of the WereWolf in London) imagery and instead argues for the centrality of embryo-corn kernel iconography within Olmec iconography.

In a later paper, Taube proposed that the Rain Spirit was instead the seed phase version of the Maize God.

Banded-eye God (God IV)
This enigmatic deity is named for the narrow band that runs along the side of its face through its almond-shaped eye with its round iris. Like many other supernaturals, the Banded-eye God has a cleft head and a downturned mouth. Unlike others, the Banded-eye God is only known from its profile - these renditions are generally concentrated on bowls from the Valley of Mexico (as shown on left), although the Banded-eye God is one of the five supernaturals shown on Las Limas Monument 1 from the Olmec heartland.

Rather than a distinct supernatural in its own right, however, Taube finds God IV to be yet another aspect of the Maize God.

Feathered Serpent (God V)
The feathered (or plumed) serpent depicted throughout Mesoamerica first appears in Olmec times, although there is some disagreement concerning its importance to the Olmec. The Feathered Serpent appears on La Venta Stele 19 (above) and within a Juxtlahuaca cave painting (see this Commons photo), locations hundreds of miles apart.

Fish or Shark Monster (God VI)
Most often recognized by its shark tooth, the head of the monster also features a crescent-shaped eye, and a small lower jaw. When depicted in its full-body form, such as on San Lorenzo Monument 58 or on the Young Lord figurine, the anthropomorphic Fish Monster also displays crossed bands, a dorsal fin, a split tail. This supernatural's profile is shown on the left leg of Las Limas Monument 1 (see Commons drawing).

Continuity hypothesis
Marshall Howard Saville first suggested in 1929 that the Olmec deities were forerunners of later Mesoamerican gods, linking were-jaguar votive axes with the Aztec god Tezcatlipoca. This proposal was amplified by Miguel Covarrubias in his 1957 work Indian Art of Mexico and Central America where he famously drew a family tree showing 19 later Mesoamerican rain deities as descendants of a "jaguar masked" deity portrayed on a votive axe. The continuity hypothesis has since been generally accepted by scholars, although the extent of Olmec influence on later cultures is still debated.

title: Olmec religion