text:
Marvin Liebman

Marvin Liebman (July 21, 1923 – March 31, 1997) was an American conservative activist and fundraiser, and later in his life, a gay rights advocate.

Early life
Liebman was raised in Brooklyn, New York, by his parents, Benjamin "Benny" Liebman and Rose Schorr. His parents were Ashkenazim (Yiddish-speaking Jews) from Galicia, a region that at the time was part of Poland and is today part of Ukraine. Liebman recalled his youth as growing amid "a polyglot collection of middle class families". He was bar mitzvahed in September 1936. Like many other young people who came of age in the Great Depression, Liebman believed the Depression proved the failure of capitalism, causing him to be interested in communism as an alternative. While in high school, he became interested in left wing politics and joined both the American Student Union and Young Communist League. At the same time, Liebman discovered his homosexuality, which he felt deeply ashamed of, causing him to remain in "the closet".

At age 19, Liebman was drafted and served in Naples and Cairo during the final years of World War II, serving in the Army Air Corps. By his own admission, an incompetent soldier who failed in his duties as a cook, Liebman never saw action. However, like many other gay Americans in World War II, his military service was a "national coming out" as he discovered other gay men for the first time, easing his feelings of shame and self-disgust. In Italy, homosexuality was not illegal, through it was considered to be shameful, and Liebman enjoyed being part of the gay subculture in Naples, where he first had sex. While in Cairo at an Air Corps base, his commanding officer discovered a series of love letters written by Liebman that revealed his homosexuality. The officer subjected Liebman to repeated private and public humiliations, forcing him to appear before the other soldiers in his unit while his officer called him a "faggot" and a "cocksucker". Liebman was finally given a blue discharge for homosexuality in 1944. Due to his blue discharge, he was disqualified from collecting veterans' benefits.

After being sent home to New York City, Liebman met and quickly married a woman named "Patsy". Their relationship, though, was never consummated and the marriage was annulled after less than six months in June 1945. Overtime, Liebman worked a variety of odd jobs while being a member of New York's gay subculture, where unlike in Naples, he was in constant danger of being arrested in police raids.

Over the next several years, Liebman became increasingly involved in Zionism, working in various volunteer and paid positions for the American League for a Free Palestine, United Jewish Appeal, Aguduth Israel and the American Fund for Israel Institutions. In 1947, he also worked with Irgun, a right-wing terrorist organization which was attempting to secure Israeli independence from Britain through a campaign of bombings aimed at the Arabs and British. During this time, Liebman began developing more conservative political views, including a passionate hatred for the Soviet Union stemming from the communist country's reportedly harsh treatment of Jewish citizens.

In 1951, Liebman met Elinor Lipper, a Russian woman who had just published her memoir, 11 Years in Soviet Prison Camps, recounting her experiences in the Gulag camps of the Kolyma. Lipper's revelation that much of the Soviet economy was based upon slave labor caused him to lose his faith in socialism as he recalled: "Her story overwhelmed me. I felt totally betrayed. What was worse, because I had believed in the Soviet Union, I felt personally responsible for what had happened to her. The change seemed quick, but it was really the culmination of five years of internal intellectual conflict that I had hidden from myself. This catharsis...was the turning point in my life".

The China Lobby
In January 1952, Liebman founded a group, Aide Refugee Chinese Intellectuals (ARCI), which sought to allow the admission of 25,000 Chinese intellectual refugees languishing in refugee camps in British Hong Kong to the United States (at the time, American immigration law imposed strict quotes on the number of Asians allowed to in). Despite his conservative views, Liebman's plan to bring 25,000 Chinese intellectuals to America brought him into conflict with the right-wing nativist politicians.

After founding ARCI, Liebman discovered a talent for political organizing, applying to the right principles that were based on his experience of his "knowledge of how the left organized". The tactics that he deployed for the ARCI were subsequently used for all his political campaigns, under which he would enlist a number of prominent individuals to endorse his organization by serving as '"advisory" board members; issue letterheads with the names of these individuals attached; have a wealthy businessman serve as a treasurer and corporate fundraiser; appoint someone famous as president; and finally form a committee to "really do the work or rubber-stamp what you are doing". In this way, Liebman created organizations that were well funded with prestigious supporters that attracted attention while having a few dedicated activists being in charge. To assist ARCI, Liebman enlisted Walter Judd, a Republican congressman who once served as a Protestant missionary in China as its president. Because Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek had converted to Methodism in 1927 to marry his third wife, Soong Mei-ling, evangelical Protestants were the firmest supporters of the "China Lobby". As a Protestant missionary in the 1930s, Judd had witnessed the Chinese Civil War firsthand, which made him a staunch supporter of the "China Lobby".

With Judd, well known as an advocate of racial equality due to his sinophilia as well as being an anti-communist, the ARCI soon attracted generous donations from the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. Soon, the Department of State and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) were covertly funding the ACRI as Liebman found that they both wanted to "expand their intelligence network in Hong Kong", a city where many spies for Great Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union and both Chinese regimes operated. In February 1952, Liebman traveled to Hong Kong to open an office for the ACRI, which was soon besieged by thousands of refugee applications from Chinese scholars, doctors, lawyers, scientists and other intellectuals living in the refugee camps. Due to congressional opposition, Liebman switched the focus of ACRI to supporting the Kuomintang regime in Taiwan. At the same time, Liebman began to associate with the Committee for a Free Asia, a CIA-sponsored front organization that was active in a long stretch of Asia from Japan to Pakistan. Eager to work for the CIA, in 1952 he took a briefcase of cash worth $25,000 to Hong Kong to pay for anti-Communist pamphlets that were to be smuggled over the border to the People's Republic of China. In the early 1950s, he was a leader of the so-called "China Lobby", serving as secretary of the Committee of One Million Against the Admission of Red China to the United Nations. After 1949, Taiwan's government continued to hold China's seat at the United Nations (UN), and many world governments felt that China's seat should be given to communist China. The ideological basis of this organization was that the Kuomintang's defeat in the Chinese Civil War was only temporary, and that from his base in Taiwan, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek would one day return in triumph to reclaim the mainland of China and end the rule of the "Red rebels" who had defeated him in 1949. As such, it argued that it was proper for the Republic of China continued to hold China's UN seat since the People's Republic was merely an illegitimate regime which was just "temporarily" controlling the mainland of China. Founded in 1953, the Committee of One Million survived until the accession of the People's Republic of China to the United Nations in 1971, with Lee Edwards taking over as secretary from Liebman in 1969. The Committee of One Million, which took its name from a petition Liebman organized and was supposedly signed by one million Americans, became the premier organization of the "China Lobby". Much of the literature produced by the Committee of One Million was more anti-Communist than pro-Kuomintang, as Liebman found it easier to denounce the People's Republic rather than glorify the Republic of China.

In 1957, he founded Marvin Liebman Associates, Inc. For the next 11 years, Liebman's firm developed direct mail fundraising programs and provided public relations expertise to the anti-communist and conservative movements in the U.S. and abroad. Its extensive list of clients included the Committee of One Million, Aid Refugee Chinese Intellectuals, the American Emergency Committee for Tibetan Refugees, the American-Asian Educational Exchange, the American African Affairs Association, and the American Committee for Aid to Katanga Freedom Fighters. In addition, Liebman was an early supporter and co-founder of Young Americans for Freedom and the American Conservative Union.

International Cold Warrior
In May 1957, Liebman attended the third summit of the Asian People's Anti-Communist League in Saigon. Though ostensibly a grass-roots organization, the Asian People's Anti-Communist League was in reality created and controlled by the intelligence services of South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, and South Vietnam. The purpose of the Asian People's Anti-Communist League was, as its founding charter put, to wage "political and psychological warfare" against communism in Asia. The preferred methods of the League were as its pamphlets described it: "infiltration, instigation, economic manipulation, public demonstrations, terrorism, subversion, guerrilla warfare and assassination". The chairman of the League, Ku Cheng-kang, was a member of the Kuomintang's Supreme National Defense Council and was an adviser to Chiang. As the League was against the non-alignment concept championed by several Asian leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru of India and Sukarno of Indonesia under which the Third World nations were to be neutral in the Cold War, instead advocating that for an alliance of Asian states with the United States, the League was approved by the U.S. government. However, some of the League's activities such as the attempts to provoke guerrilla war in China went beyond what the U.S. government was willing to contemplate. In an attempt to find more allies, the League reached out to the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations, an alliance of anti-Communist emigres from Eastern Europe founded by Nazi Germany in 1943 which continued after the war. The leader of the Bloc was Yaroslav Stetsko, one of the leaders of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), an anti-Semitic Ukrainian nationalist group which had collaborated with Germany during World War II and whose members had killed hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian Jews. The Bloc was committed to starting a guerrilla war in the Soviet Union, an idea that had received support from the CIA and MI6 for a time, but by the middle of the 1950s, both American and British intelligence had written off the Bloc as the attempts to parachute agents into the Soviet Union always ended in failure.

As the Asian People's Anti-Communist League was funded by the governments of Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines, and South Vietnam, Stesko hoped that the Asian governments would also finance the Bloc. At the same, there was a third group, the Inter-American Confederation for the Defense of the Continent founded by Mexican politician Jorge Prieto Laurens to combat communism in Latin America. The Confederation's most notable member was Admiral Carlos Penna Botto of Brazil, who had been forced to retire in World War II for his pro-Axis views, and who believed the Soviet Union had taken control of Brazil. Liebman became active as an emissary hoping to bring the Committee of One Million, the League, the Bloc and the Confederation together to form a world-wide anti-Communist group.

In 1958, Liebman also became general secretary of a steering committee announced in Mexico City to explore the possibility of combining the Asian People's Anti-Communist League with its own Latin American offshoot to form what eventually became the World Anti-Communist League. In March 1958 at a conference in Mexico City, the League, the Bloc, the Confederation and the Committee of One Million united to form the World Anti-Communist Congress for Liberation and Freedom. The Congress promised to unite people of "all races, nationalities, countries, and creeds" to "unify our programs, coordinate our work, and take progressive actions against our Communist enemy". The Congress was notable for its anti-imperialist tone, claiming that the European nations had embarked on wars of conquest starting in 16th century and described the Soviet Union as merely the most brutal and imperialistic of all the European nations. At the same time, the Congress was also hostile towards left-wing nationalists in the Third World, claiming that were merely dupes being used by the Soviet Union to further its own imperialism. The goal of the Congress was to render "moral and material support to forces behind the Iron Curtain in Europe and Asia" and to "achieve the ultimate objective of liberating and restoring national independence, freedom and liberty to all the enslaved peoples on their ethnic territories". At the time, Liebman stated that was the first time that "independent anticommunist organizations jointly approved and, indeed, sponsored a workable plan leading towards coordinated international action".

By July 1958, the Congress had fallen apart and Liebman pulled out the Committee of One Million, saying he did not wish to associate with Stetsko or Prieto Laurens again. Liebman was shocked to learn that Stetsko as one of the OUN commanders had been involved in the Holocaust, organizing pogroms against Jews in Galicia in 1941. Besides Stetsko, Liebman had serious difficulties with Laurens as he recalled: "The moment Laurens got the money, he started to take over. I discovered too that his internationalist anticommunist connections were with the most extreme right-wing organizations, many anti-Semitic". Liebman learned that the other groups were only interested in using the Committee of One Million's connections to lobby American politicians and he lamented he "had lost control to a bunch of jerks". After he pulled the Committee of One Million out of the Congress, he began to receive death threats from the OUN members calling him a "Jew Bolshevik".

In the 1960s, Liebman's interests started to shift from Asia to Africa. He was the founder of the American Committee for Aid to Katanga Freedom Fighters (ACAKFF), which announced its existence on 14 December 1961 with a full page ad in The New York Times declaring "Katanga is the Hungary of 1961". The ad declared: "In resisting the UN aggression, the people of Katanga are the true Freedom Fighters not only for their own liberties, but for the cause of world freedom". Before 1960, American conservatives had little interest in the Congo and the cause of Katanga attracted passionate support from the American right more because of whom the enemies of Katanga were than because of Katanga itself. In a column, James Burnham wrote that what African nationalists really wanted was "to destroy the power and privileges of the white men; to take over their property, or most of it; and to permit white men to remain only as servants and handmaids", causing him to side with Katanga, where whites remained the dominant element. To off-set the charge of racism as many felt the break-away state of Katanga was a front for Belgian mining companies, Liebman had a black man, Max Yergan, appointed president of the ACAKFF.

In 1965, under the leadership of Ian Smith, the self-governing British colony of Southern Rhodesia declared independence. To support Rhodesia, Liebman founded in 1966 the American African Affairs Association (AAAA). The AAAA was virtually the same organization as the ACAKFF with both groups having Yergan as president, virtually identical letter-heads, the same mailing lists, and the same address in New York. At the same time, it was revealed that the Rhodesian government had hired the firm of Marvin Liebman Associates to improve its image in the United States. Starting in 1966, Liebman organized tours of Rhodesia for conservative journalists who wrote articles declaring the black majority were a contended and happy people living under the white supremacist government which had imposed a firm, but paternalist regime. In November 1966, the AAAA published a map in The New York Herald Tribune entitled "Sovereignty ... and Strife" listing all of the newly African nations which had experienced coups and civil wars in the last year, with the implication that to allow color-blind voting in Rhodesia would be to invite chaos. The AAAA and other groups of the Rhodesia Lobby were worked closely with Senator James Eastland, a conservative Southern Democrat well known for his white supremacist views to pressure the U.S. government to not expel Rhodesian diplomats operating in the United States despite United Nations Resolution 253, which asked all UN members to deny entry to supporters of Rhodesia. The Rhodesia lobby failed to pressure the United States to recognize Rhodesia, but in 1971 they were successful in pressuring Congress to pass the Byrd Amendment under which the United States would violate UN sanctions and continue to trade with Rhodesia.

Towards the end of the 1960s, Liebman became exhausted with his New York-based political activities, moved to London, and began a short career in theater production. From 1969 to 1975, he was managing director of Sedgemoor Productions. During this period, he produced or co-produced nine West End productions, an equal number of touring or out-of-town productions, two television films, and three feature films. After the dissolution of the Committee of One Million, a number of its former members joined Liebman in the American-Chilean Council.

In 1975, Liebman returned to New York City to organize Marvin Liebman Inc, a firm with the same mission as his earlier Marvin Liebman Associates. Among the notable clients were the Friends of Free China, the Friends of Jim Buckley, the Committee of Single Taxpayers, the American-Chilean Council, the Ad Hoc Citizens Legal Defense Fund for the FBI, Firing Line and Covenant House.

Like many other American conservatives in the 1960s and 1970s, Liebman strongly identified with the white supremacist government of Rhodesia, which was seen by them as heroically upholding "Western values" against the black guerrillas of the Zimbabwe People's Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA), which was supported by the Soviet Union and Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA), which was supported by China. Together with the conservative publisher William Rusher and a former CIA officer, David Atlee Phillips, Liebman founded a pro-Rhodesian lobbying group in 1976 called the American-Rhodesian Association, which lobbied the U.S. government to do more to support Rhodesia. Despite its public claim to be working independently of Rhodesia, the American-Rhodesian Association worked closely with the Information Office of the Rhodesian government, engaging in propaganda that downplayed the racism that black Rhodesians had to endure while playing up the image of the guerrillas of ZIPRA and ZANLA as fanatical communists. In its propaganda, the American-Rhodesian Association argued there was a special bond between white Americans and white Rhodesians, portraying both as rugged and tough pioneers who conquered harsh landscapes while defeating the indigenous "savages" such as the Indians and the Africans to carve out "civilization". The Information Office also recruited white American veterans of the Vietnam War to enlist in the Rhodesian military, portraying the war for Rhodesia as part of the same fight against communism that the United States had fought in Vietnam. He enjoyed a long-time friendship with William F. Buckley, Jr. and his family. Liebman viewed Buckley as an inspiring mentor. Despite being born into the Jewish faith, under Buckley's guidance Liebman had converted to Catholicism. At his baptism, Buckley served as Liebman's godfather and Buckley's sister Priscilla served as his godmother.

With Ronald Reagan's presidential victory in 1980, Liebman was appointed to various governmental positions. He was Consultant to the Office of Policy and Planning for Action from June through October 1981, consultant to the Office of Public Affairs for the U.S. Department of Education from October 1981 to February 1982 and director of the Office of Public Affairs and director of special projects for the National Endowment of the Arts from February 1982 to July 1987. He later served as director of special projects and acting director for the Office of Public Affairs at the National Endowment for the Arts.

Later life
In July 1990, Liebman shed a lifetime of closeted living after writing a coming-out letter to William F. Buckley, Jr., who was then editor-in-chief of the National Review. "I am almost 67 years old," he told Buckley. "For more than half my lifetime I have been engaged in, and indeed helped to organize and maintain, the conservative and anti-communist cause...the Conservative Party of New York...the Goldwater and Reagan campaigns...All the time I labored in the conservative vineyard, I was gay." Liebman contended to Buckley that his efforts to detoxify American conservatism had not been entirely successful as he wrote "political gay bashing, racism and anti-Semitism" were continuing "even in this golden period of conservatism's great triumphs".

Liebman's personal letter to Buckley was followed up by an interview printed in The Advocate, where he expressed his disgust at the increasing influence of the Christian right within the Republican Party as the Cold War came to an end. He believed that homophobia was becoming the new basis for organizing conservative groups in the U.S., now that anti-communist sentiments were becoming less relevant. His autobiography, Coming Out Conservative, was published in 1992. In the book, he said that within the Republican Party he had begun to "feel like a Jew in Germany in 1934 who had chosen to remain silent, hoping to be able to stay invisible as he watched the beginning of the Holocaust." Over the next five years he became an outspoken advocate of gay and lesbian rights in the U.S., writing numerous articles and traveling the country to speak at various meetings and rallies.

Although he initially labeled himself a moderate Republican and worked to support gay-friendly conservative groups, including Log Cabin Republicans, he eventually concluded that he could no longer self-identify as a fund raiser for or supporter of any conservative group because of the increasingly anti-LGBT rhetoric of the political right. Liebman stated in 1992 that: "To be gay, conservative and Republican is not a contradiction. I'm proud to be all three. One of the more important slogans of the gay and lesbian community is, 'We are everywhere.' We are everywhere – except as an open and accepted presence in the Republican Party. As far as some Republicans are concerned, we exist not as human beings but rather as symbols of unspeakable evil and objects of hatred, bigotry and fear." Liebman also later renounced his ties to Catholicism, arguing that the homophobia of the Catholic Church meant he could not in good conscience continue to subscribe to Catholic dogma. In the final years of his life, he chose to describe himself as an "independent".

In a 1995 column, Liebman wrote: "I cannot associate myself with Rush Limbaugh and other new "conservative" leaders, nor with Pat Robertson and his "Christian" brigades, nor with Jesse Helms and his new "Republican" majority. The only identity of which I am absolutely certain is that I am a homosexual in a country which has little patience with us gay folk...In the past-and sometimes to the consternation of my African-American friends-I have compared the gay rights movement to the black civil rights movement of the 60s. I still believe that they are comparable, and we have much to learn from the history of this great quest, both from its setbacks and its victories. Now, however, I believe it even more urgent to draw a comparison between our community and the Jews and homosexuals of Europe in the 30s and 40s. Then, as now, the majority cried out that those who predicted death and misery were crazy, that such things as mass extermination could not happen, that hysteria was dangerous. Until the very last, until they choked on the lethal gas in the extermination "showers", they did not accept the fact that the Nazi state despised them to the point of eradicating them from the face of the earth".

He died of heart failure on March 31, 1997.

His papers are held by the New York Public Library.

title: Marvin Liebman


text:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, commonly referred to as the NDPS Act, is an Act of the Parliament of India that prohibits a person the production/manufacturing/cultivation, possession, sale, purchasing, transport, storage, and/or consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. The bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 23 August 1985. It was passed by both the Houses of Parliament, received assent from then President Giani Zail Singh on 16 September 1985, and came into force on 14 November 1985. The NDPS Act has since been amended four times — in 1988, 2001, 2014 and 2021. The Act extends to the whole of India and it applies also to all Indian citizens outside India and to all persons on ships and aircraft registered in India.

The Narcotics Control Bureau was set up under the act with effect from March 1986. The Act is designed to fulfill India's treaty obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.There are 6 Chapters and 83 Sections in NDPS act 1985.

Background
India had no legislation regarding narcotics until 1985. Cannabis smoking in India has been known since at least 2000 BC and is first mentioned in the Atharvaveda, which dates back a few thousands years BC. The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, an Indo-British study of cannabis usage in India appointed in 1893, found that the "moderate" use of hemp drugs was "practically attended by no evil results at all", "produces no injurious effects on the mind" and "no moral injury whatever". Regarding "excessive" use of the drug, the Commission concluded that it "may certainly be accepted as very injurious, though it must be admitted that in many excessive consumers the injury is not clearly marked". The report the Commission produced was at least 3,281 pages long, with testimony from almost 1,200 "doctors, coolies, yogis, fakirs, heads of lunatic asylums, bhang peasants, tax gatherers, smugglers, army officers, hemp dealers, ganja palace operators and the clergy."

Cannabis and its derivatives (marijuana, hashish/charas and bhang) were legally sold in India until 1985, and their recreational use was commonplace. Consumption of cannabis was not seen as socially deviant behaviour, and was viewed as being similar to the consumption of alcohol. Ganja and charas were considered by upper class Indians as the poor man's intoxicant, although the rich consumed bhang during Holi. The United States began to campaign for a worldwide law against all drugs, following the adoption of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs in 1961. However, India opposed the move, and withstood American pressure to make cannabis illegal for nearly 25 years. American pressure increased in the 1980s, and in 1985, the Rajiv Gandhi government succumbed and enacted the NDPS Act, banning all narcotic drugs in India.

Punishment
Anyone who contravenes the NDPS Act will face punishment based on the quantity of the banned substance.
 * where the contravention involves a small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 1 year, or with a fine which may extend to inr 10000 or both;
 * where the contravention involves a quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than a small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and with fine which may extend to inr 100000;
 * where the contravention involves a commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years but which may extend to 20 years and also a fine which shall not be less than inr 100000 but which may extend to inr 200000.

The table below lists the current definition of a small quantity and a commercial quantity for some popular drugs.

Criticism
Critics of the NDPS Act say that the restriction that the act is "draconian" and that it imposes on the grant of bail amount to "amount to virtual denial and ensure years of incarceration". Critics say that the conditions of bail under this act are needlessly harsh and are similar to provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 which result in long periods of imprisonment and that the NDPS act places the burden-of-proof entirely on the accused to establish innocence. Furthermore, some critics point out that under this act, there is a presumption of "culpable mental state", that is, the court will presume that there was an intention to commit a crime. They claim that this goes against the general principle of the law where people accused of a crime are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

There is a higher threshold for bail in serious cases under the Act. Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, if a person is accused of an offence involving "commercial quantities", that is, more than 1 kg in case of hashish, and serious offences such as financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders, then bail can only be granted if "the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail".

During the discussion of the Bill in Parliament, several members opposed it for treating hard and soft drugs as the same. However, the Rajiv Gandhi administration claimed that soft drugs were gateway drugs.

The NDPS Act was criticized in The Times of India. The paper described the law as "ill-conceived" and "poorly thought-out" due to the law providing the same punishment for all drugs, which meant that dealers shifted their focus to harder drugs, where profits are far higher. The paper also argued that the Act had "actually created a drugs problem where there was none." The Times of India recommended that some of the softer drugs should be legalized, as this might reduce the level of heroin addiction.

In 2015, Lok Sabha MP Tathagata Satpathy criticized the ban on cannabis as "elitist", and labeling cannabis the "intoxicant" of the poor. He also felt that the ban was "an overreaction to a scare created by the United States". Sathpathy has also advocated the legalisation of cannabis. On 2 November 2015, Lok Sabha MP Dharamvir Gandhi announced that he had received clearance from Parliament to table a Private Member's Bill seeking to amend the NDPS Act to allow for the legalised, regulated, and medically supervised supply of "non-synthetic" intoxicants including cannabis and opium.

In November 2016, former commissioner of the Central Bureau of Narcotics Romesh Bhattacharji said of the law, "This needs to be debated in the face of such stiff ignorance which often takes root in the moral high grounds people take after being influenced by the UN conventions. This law [NDPS Act] has been victimising people since 1985".

1988 amendment
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 1988 (Act No. 2 of 1989) received assent from then President Ramaswamy Venkataraman on 8 January 1989.

2001 amendment
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Act No. 9 of 2001) received assent from then President K. R. Narayanan on 9 May 2001.

2014 amendment
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2014 (Act No. 16 of 2014) amended the NDPS Act to relax restrictions placed by the Act on Essential Narcotic Drugs (Morphine, Fentanyl and Methadone), making them more accessible for use in pain relief and palliative care. The Amendment also contained measures to improve treatment and care for people dependent on drugs, opened up the processing of opium and concentrated poppy straw to the private sector, and strengthened provisions related to the forfeiture of property of persons arraigned on charges of drug trafficking. The Amendment also removed the NDPS Act's imposition of a mandatory death sentence in case of a repeat conviction for trafficking large quantities of drugs, giving courts the discretion to use the alternative sentence of 30 years imprisonment for repeat offences. However, the Amendment increased the punishment for "small quantity" offences from a maximum of 6 months to 1 year imprisonment.

Proposal and enactment
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Bill, 2011 (Bill No. 78 of 2011) was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 8 September 2011 by then Minister of Finance Pranab Mukherjee. The Bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, chaired by Yashwant Sinha, on 13 September. The committee was scheduled to submit its report within three months, but actually submitted it on 21 March 2012. The Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on 20 February 2014, and by the Rajya Sabha the next day. It received the assent of then President Pranab Mukherjee on 7 March 2014, and was published in The Gazette of India on 10 March.

Proposed changes
Currently, under Section 27 of the NDPS Act, possession of small quantities for personal consumption of drugs is a punishable offence, and can attract a fine of ₹10,000 and imprisonment of six months or both. The Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment has recommended decriminalizing of possession of small quantities of drugs for personal use. The ministry suggested that the NDPS Act be amended to treat the consumer of drugs as victims who ought to be referred for rehabilitation and de-addiction, and not as criminals to be sentenced to jail.

On 10 November 2021, a high-level meeting of all key stakeholders was held where a consensus was reached to do away with imprisonment and fines for personal consumption of drugs and amend Section 27 of the NDPS Act, and the possibility of rehabilitation and deaddiction programs of 30 days for drug users was discussed. The proposal under discussion sought to replace the word "consumption" with "other than personal consumption (in small quantity)" and also sought to replace the word "addict" with "person with substance use disorder". The reason for this change was to help the courts take a more lenient view on people caught with small quantities, and to more strongly emphasize the difference between possession of drugs for personal consumption and possession of drugs for commercial use. Advocates of the proposal state that drug decriminalization is an important step towards achieving a rational drug policy that puts science and public health before punishment and incarceration. The proposal also suggests that mandatory treatment for de-addiction for 30 days for any person who has been found to have consumed or be in possession to consume drugs.

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


text:
Theodore Annemann

Theodore "Theo" Annemann (born Theodore John Squires; February 22, 1907 – January 12, 1942), stage name Ted Anneman,  was an American professional magician who specialized in the field of mentalism. He is most famous for inventing and refining many of the standard mentalism routines that continue to be used by mentalists today.

Biography
Early in his life, Annemann began working as a railroad clerk and then got into showbusiness as a tenor singer and a magician's assistant. He eventually became interested in mentalism and used his invention and performance skills to become one of the most talented and respected mentalists of the 1930s. Annemann perfected his own version of the famous bullet catch illusion, performing the effect outdoors. Accounts of his performance describe the feat as a dramatic effect wherein Annemann would collapse from the apparent force of the gun and then produce the bullet from his blood-drenched mouth.

In 1934, Annemann began publishing the famous magazine The Jinx, for magicians. The magazine was focused on mentalism, but also featured ground-breaking effects from other fields of magic. The publication of the magazine ceased after Annemann's death and copies of it have become collector's items. Effects from the magazine have been published in several books and manuscripts, among them Ted Annemann's Practical Mental Magic. This book is considered a classic in mentalism. It is notable for exposing the billet reading tricks of the medium Bert Reese. His book Practical Mental Effects, while often criticised for being old fashioned, contained the 'secrets' behind the effects many mentalists still use today.

Annemann was married twice and had a daughter by his first wife. His personality is the subject of much speculation. Two weeks before Annemann was scheduled to perform his bullet catch indoors for the first time, he committed suicide.

Manuscripts by Annemann

 * Card Miracles (1929)
 * Mental Mysteries (1929)
 * The Book With a Name (1931)
 * The Book Without a Name (1931)
 * The Trick of the Month Club Presents: A Dead Name Duplication (1931)
 * 202 Methods of Forcing (1933)
 * Annemann Manuscripts (1933)
 * Sh-h-h--!: It's a Secret (1934)
 * Annemann's Complete One Man Mental And Psychic Routine (1935)
 * Annemann's Mental Bargain Effects (1935)
 * En Rapport (1937)
 * The Incorporated Strange Secrets (1939)

Edited posthumously

 * Ted Annemann's Full Deck of Impromptu Card Tricks (1943)
 * Ted Annemann's Practical Mental Effects (1944)
 * Annemann's Miracles of Card Magic (1948)
 * Annemann's Buried Treasures (1952)
 * Miracles of Card Magic (1964)
 * Annemann's Card Magic (1977) ISBN 0-486-23522-X
 * Practical Mental Magic (1983) ISBN 0-486-24426-1

Biography

 * Annemann, Life and Times of a Legend by Max Abrams, L & L Publishing (1992)

title: Theodore Annemann


text:
Lias

Lias may refer to:

Geology

 * Lias Group, a lithostratigraphic unit in western Europe
 * Lias Formation, a geologic formation in France
 * Lias (period), the 19th-century name for the Early Jurassic epoch, named after certain rocks of the era

People

 * Godfrey Lias, British author
 * Mohd Shamsudin Lias (born 1953), Malaysian politician
 * Lias Andersson (born 1998), Swedish hockey player

Other uses

 * Lias (journal), title of the Journal of Early Modern Intellectual Culture and its Sources
 * Lias, Gers, a commune of the Gers département in France
 * LIAS (gene), a gene that in humans encodes the protein lipoic acid synthetase

title: Lias


text:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux derivatives

Red Hat Enterprise Linux derivatives are Linux distributions that are based on the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Linux distribution.

History
Red Hat Linux was a popular Linux distribution largely because, while a paid-for supported version was available, a freely downloadable version was also available. Since the only difference between the paid-for option and the free option was support, a great number of people chose to use the free version.

In 2003, Red Hat made the decision to change its Red Hat Linux product into Red Hat Enterprise Linux for customers who were willing to pay for it.

A community-driven Red Hat based Linux distribution called Fedora was available free of charge.

Fedora has its own beta cycle and has some issues fixed by contributors, who occasionally included Red Hat staff. However, its quick and nonconservative release cycle means it might not be suitable for some users.

Nowadays, Fedora is a test-bed for Red Hat, allowing them to beta test their new features before they get included in CentOS Stream, and eventually Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat no longer makes binary versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux available free-of-charge.

Motivations
Red Hat does not make a compiled version of its Enterprise Linux product available for free download. However, as the license terms on which it is based explicitly stipulate, Red Hat had previously made the entire source code available via their network of servers.

Features
The Red Hat Enterprise Linux derivatives generally include the union set, which is included in the different versions of RHEL. The version numbers are typically identical to the ones featured in RHEL; as such, the free versions maintain binary compatibility with the paid-for version, which means software intended for RHEL typically runs just as well on a free version. Relatively few changes need to be made to the distributions. However, RHEL used to use Red Hat's own Up2date technology for providing updates. For convenience, several of the free alternatives ship with yum replacing up2date, something that makes providing mirrors for upgrades significantly easier. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 and above releases use yum as their native system for providing updates, with up2date being just its front end.

Legal aspects
Free redistributions are expressly encouraged by the GNU General Public License upon which Red Hat's distributions are derived. However, to avoid misrepresentation of Red Hat's trademark, material in the original distribution covered by the trademark must be stripped off or removed from the redistribution.

Where distributions (e.g., CentOS) have not been deemed sufficiently thorough in removing references to Red Hat, they have received warnings from Red Hat's legal counsel. CentOS received such a notice seeking to have it remove all mention of Red Hat's asserted trademarks from their website and their distribution.

Notable Red Hat Enterprise Linux derivatives
Appliance-oriented derivatives based on RHEL:
 * AlmaLinux – A 100% Community-owned and governed replacement for CentOS developed under the 501(c)(6) non-profit, AlmaLinux OS Foundation.
 * Bull's XBAS or bullx – (for high-performance computing)
 * CentOS Stream - (first version 8 released 2019-09-24, basically replacing the CentOS releases)
 * Circle Linux – an open source and community-driven distribution aiming for full compatibility.
 * ClearOS
 * EulerOS – certified to The Open Group's UNIX 03 standard.
 * EuroLinux – created by EuroLinux company freely distributed in the open core model. Besides standard paid support company offers forking and rebuilding from sources for special purposes. Previous versions were built on top of Scientific Linux.
 * Inspur K-UX – certified to The Open Group's UNIX 03 standard.
 * MIRACLE LINUX – an enterprise Linux distribution developed by Cybertrust Japan.
 * NethServer – a Linux server distribution offering services configurable via WebGUI.
 * Oracle Linux – free to download, distribute and use with public access to the latest errata and patches from the Oracle Linux yum server. Optional paid support subscriptions are available from Oracle.
 * RedSleeve Linux – an ARMv5 and ARMv6 build of EL6, EL7, EL8 an EL9 for older devices that don't meet the requirements for other ARM EL distributions
 * Rocky Linux – a community-supported replacement for CentOS initiated by CentOS founder Gregory Kurtzer.
 * Redpesk - a secure embedded Linux targeting industrial connected devices with very long term support made by IoT.bzh
 * Springdale Linux – formerly PUIAS Linux is a complete operating system for desktops and servers, built by compiling the source packages for Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
 * VzLinux – made by Virtuozzo and optimized to run in containers, virtual machines or on bare-metal servers.
 * Amazon.com Amazon Linux AMI – RHEL7 userland with a linux-xen-kernel
 * Google Search Appliance – derived from CentOS
 * VMware ESX's Service Console software

Distributions which have ceased production or outdated:
 * CAOS Linux – (multiple lineage)
 * CentOS – (last version release 8, 2019-09-24, version 7 gets maintenance updates until 2024-06-30)
 * ClefOS – a port of CentOS for IBM Z by Sine Nomine Associates.
 * Fermi Linux – a.k.a. Fermi Scientific Linux, derived from Scientific Linux with additional software specific for the Fermilab research facilities
 * Rocks Cluster Distribution – derived from RHEL (earlier versions) and CentOS (recent releases)
 * ROSA Enterprise Linux Server
 * Scientific Linux – (version 7 gets maintenance updates until 2024-06-30)
 * SME Server – made by the Koozali Foundation (version 10 based on CentOS 7 gets maintenance updates until 2024-06-30)
 * StartCom Enterprise Linux
 * White Box Enterprise Linux – No formal announcement but no longer actively developed
 * Yellow Dog Linux

title: Red Hat Enterprise Linux derivatives


text:
Talk:Geldrop-Mierlo

hey, Could someone please check the page on spelling? Might be a few mistakes cause my English is not what it should be..

greetz

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geldrop-Mierlo. 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/20130921053543/http://www.ahn.nl/postcodetool to http://www.ahn.nl/postcodetool

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) 21:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Geldrop-Mierlo


text:
Lianna

Lianna is a 1983 drama film written and directed by John Sayles and starring Linda Griffiths, Jane Hallaren, and Jon DeVries. Additionally, It marked Chris Elliott's film debut.

Plot
Lianna is married to a college professor in film and media at a university in a midsized New Jersey town and has two children. In order to give her husband the greater freedom he wants and address her boredom, she takes a child psychology class with her friend, Sandy.

Becoming more involved in the class, she realizes she has a crush on the instructor, Ruth. Ruth invites Lianna home for dinner and they talk into the night, Lianna explaining that she was a graduate student and married her professor. They eventually begin an affair, complicated by Lianna's husband's affair with a student. Lianna expresses interest in leaving her husband for Ruth, but Ruth backs away, warning Lianna that living with another woman would jeopardize her career and that she has a partner in another city.

Lianna leaves her husband after a fight to live alone for the first time in years. She visits a lesbian bar and attempts to connect with other lesbians through affairs to explore her new identity. The film explores her loneliness, her changing relationships with her children, and her new relationship with Sandy, who is shocked at Lianna's revelations at first, but slowly begins to accept it and support Lianna. Lianna also gets a job as a supermarket cashier.

Ruth leaves town and Lianna's life to California for another teaching job. Despite now being alone, Lianna and Sandy reconcile in the final scene which mirrors the opening scene of Lianna and Sandy talking at a park playground.

Critical response
The staff at Variety gave the film a positive review and wrote "John Sayles again uses a keen intelligence and finely tuned ear to tackle the nature of friendship and loving in Lianna." They especially praised the acting and the supporting characters' reactions to Lianna's lesbian affair.

In his New York Times review, Vincent Canby wrote: "Though Mr. Sayles's methods are antidramatic, the film is full of the kind of middle-class desperation that seldom finds its way into movies, where emotions are usually bigger than life. Lianna is never dull but it is so finely tuned that one has to pay attention to receive it properly. It doesn't knock you off your feet, slam you against the wall or leave you gasping for breath. It's civilized."

In a joint review of Lianna and another John Sayles film, Baby It's You, Michael Sragow commented that Sayles has his strengths but is considerably overrated, and compared both films unfavorably to his earlier Return of the Secaucus 7. He elaborated that Lianna is too ideologically single-minded while failing to offer any new insight or perspective on the subject of lesbianism. He also criticized the "truly embarrassing audiovisual montages", citing as an example the lesbian love scene being accompanied by the sounds of the women whispering in French.

Reviewing Lianna's release on DVD, film critic Glenn Erickson called it "daring" and "sophisticated". He found the film's strongest point to be that rather than becoming a "melodrama" of scandal, it focuses on the protagonist's isolation and self-discovery. By his analysis, the film "sidesteps position statements and stresses intimate character touches. Lianna doesn't ask us to condemn or condone anything, but simply to be understanding and sympathetic with each other."

Critics Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat wrote: "The screenplay by John Sayles is both congenial and wise... Viewers are sure to find much to savor in the moral and emotional confrontations. Lianna muses upon love, friendship, and camaraderie in a fresh but unspectacular way. It is an appealing movie worth experiencing."

title: Lianna


text:
Talk:Renaud Denoix de Saint Marc

Untitled
Is he related to Hélie Denoix de Saint Marc? David.Monniaux 10:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Renaud Denoix de Saint Marc. 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/20070225065818/http://www.lexpress.fr/info/quotidien/actu.asp?id=9352 to http://www.lexpress.fr/info/quotidien/actu.asp?id=9352

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) 17:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Renaud Denoix de Saint Marc


text: User talk:80.46.78.232

title: User talk:80.46.78.232


text:
List of Nabataean kings

The Rulers of Nabataea, reigned over the Nabataean Kingdom (also rendered as Nabataea, Nabatea, or Nabathea), inhabited by the Nabateans, located in present-day Jordan, south-eastern Syria, southern Israel and north-western Saudi Arabia.

The queens of the later Nabataean Kingdom figure side by side with their husbands as co-rulers on their coins.

title: List of Nabataean kings


text:
Aucoumea klaineana

Aucoumea klaineana (angouma, gaboon, or okoumé) is a tree in the family Burseraceae, native to equatorial west Africa in Gabon, the Republic of the Congo, and Río Muni. It is a large hardwood tree growing to 30 - 40 m tall, rarely larger, with a trunk 1.0 - 2.5 m diameter above the often large basal buttresses. The tree generally grows in small stands, with the roots of the trees intertwined with neighboring trees. In Gabon, it is the primary timber species.

Uses
It is a weak wood, with low decay resistance and moderate dimensional stability. The major use of gaboon is in the manufacture of plywood. It is about 8–12% lighter than the other main marine plywood, meranti, that is commonly used in boatbuilding, but is not as stiff. This is useful when a boat design calls for tight-radius bends, such as near the bow in a single chine design, because of its flexibility. However, it does not resist impact damage as well as meranti. It is often sheathed in epoxy resin to increase strength and give more impact and abrasion resistance, and to increase water resistance over conventional marine enamel paints. It is often used in sandwich construction using the West (and other similar) epoxy system.

Its attractive appearance means that it is often used decoratively as the top surface veneer in panelling and furniture, or in solid form, in luxury items such as boxes for cigars or other high-value items (e.g. audio equipment).

Gaboon plywood is also used in the French aircraft industry to make light airplanes, such as those built by Avions Robin. It was used extensively to manufacture the Jodel range of aircraft, which are popular throughout Europe, but no longer factory-built. However, the wood's open grain, flexibility, and light weight make it a popular choice for amateur builders of Jodel aircraft to this day.

In the form known as okoumé marine-grade plywood, it is considered perhaps the finest construction plywood now available for boats, especially where lighter weight is needed. It is widely available manufactured and certified to British Standard 1088. Its users range from individual hobbyist kayak builders to some of the world's largest boat builders. Most often it is used in combination with epoxy and fiberglass, the combination giving a structure that can be stronger and lighter than plastic or fiberglass, rivaling the performance characteristics of more advanced composites such as carbon fiber. The grain appearance is prized, likened to that of mahogany, and is often varnished for a decorative appearance.

When used for the backs and sides of high-end acoustic guitars, okoumé (or as it is known in the trade, akoumé) exhibits many of the tonal properties of maple. Guitars made with okoumé are noticeably lighter in weight than those made with mahogany or rosewood.

title: Aucoumea klaineana


text:
Durban (disambiguation)

Durban is a city in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

Durban may also refer to:

Places

 * Durban, Gers, France, a commune
 * Durban, Manitoba, Canada, an unincorporated community
 * Aggijjat, Nunavut, Canada, formerly named Durban Island
 * Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Durban
 * Durban railway station, Durban, South Africa

People

 * Alan Durban (born 1941), Welsh footballer and manager
 * Arne Durban (1912–1993), Norwegian sculptor and art critic
 * Pam Durban (born 1947), American novelist and short story writer

Other uses

 * HMS Durban, a Royal Navy light cruiser
 * Naval Base Durban, a South African Navy base
 * World Conference against Racism 2001, also known as Durban I
 * Durban Review Conference, a successor conference also known as Durban II
 * Durban III, a 2011 United Nations General Assembly meeting marking the 10th anniversary of the adoption of The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action

title: Durban (disambiguation)


text:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (punctuation)

Making possessives
I've always followed the prescription of The Elements of Style for making a possessive from a proper name ending in s: One adds an apostrophe and another s. I don't have my copy ready to hand, but I believe the example concerned a royal tonsillectomy, in which the surgeon removed the tonsils and the copyeditor removed the s. (The authors condemned a newspaper reference to Charles' tonsils -- the correct form being Charles's tonsils.) I think the same rule would apply in the rare case of a singular noun that ends in s, e.g., the brass's polish would be correct. Of course, a plural possessive takes a simple apostrophe (the books' covers).

In the article on Bobby Fischer, I happened to notice a reference to his visits to his teacher, which read: "Fischer spent much time at Collins' house ...." Following Strunk and White, I changed it to Collins's. Another user promptly changed it back. Does Wikipedia have a policy on this burning issue? JamesMLane 16:20, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Fowler says it is down to the pronunciation. "Charles's", but "Bridges'", because of the "-iz" sound.

 * Ruymoultor says I've always been taught that you don't add the "s" after the apostrophe because it is superfluous and for someone reading it they would pronounce it the same (so using Occam's Razor the shorter simpler version is used) but that's just me.

 * The Chicago Manual of Style sides with James on this one - even if the word ends in "s", the posessive adds "'s." Though, in classic Chicago style, it does note that "feelings on these matters sometimes run high," and offers an alternative practice, which is what Ruy is noting. This alternative practice, however, is noted as being less common. There are some assorted interesting exceptions (Words where the singular looks like a plural, and the plural is the same, are always formed simly by adding an apostrophe), and one policy I object to (Company names that include a punctuation mark, which I think should be reduced to their non-logo names), but for the most part, James is correct. Snowspinner 19:50, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

 * See also Possessive Forms for some discussion of various rules and The Apostrophe. See Possessive forms for the opposite of what Strunk wants. People just don't agree, in part because dialects and idiolects differ on when or whether an s is pronounced in such cases (and may not follow any easily derived rules with obvious consistancy). This should probably be considered part of allowable spelling differences in Wikipedia unless consensus on one style can be reached. The Wikipedia entry Apostrophe notes both styles and makes no recommendation. jallan 20:43, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The Elements of Style: Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's. Follow this rule whatever the final consonant, except for ancient names ("Jesus'") and forms such as "for righteousness' sake". Pronomimal possesives ("hers") have no apostrophe.
 * Even in Jesus's case I would form the possessive, to avoid confusion with the hypothetical singular "Jesu". "For goodness's sake!" [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 00:16, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * A Pocket Style Manuel: Add -'s if the noun does not end in -s or if the noun is singular and ends in -s. Exception: ackward pronunciation ("Sophocles'"). Add -' if the noun is plural and ends in -s.
 * Awkward prononciation? But you'd still have to say that "Soff-o-clease-ez", no? I'd imagine the reason you don't add the 's to Sophocles is the ancient names clause listed above. Though Chicago cites Elements of Style, but does not carry over that exception, so who knows. /sigh. We should really have a style committee for this. Snowspinner 21:15, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Singular "sophocle"? [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 00:16, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * In may own dialect I would say Sophocleez works not Sophocleezez works. The second sounds wrong to me. I would also, I think, generally say Charlz house rather than Charlzez house. I say "I think" because it is hard to be sure what one actually says as opposed to what one thinks one should actually say. Charles' house was also the way I was originally taught. That doesn't mean I'm right. Others speak differently and were taught differently. But obviously usage varies in pronunciation as well as spelling. Under current rules one should probably leave possessives alone if they follow either Strunk's rules or the Fowler rules (and perhaps sometimes even when they don't?) jallan 15:08, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd say that some people were taught wrong. The question is just which people they are. :) Snowspinner 16:20, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

Punctuation as punctuation
When words are written about as words, they are italicised. But what is the convention when punctuation is written about as punctuation? Should the punctuation marks be italicised in the same way? I notice that there are inconsistancies within the articles about punctuation.

For example, should one write, "The & sign," or write, "The & sign"? Danikolt (Talk) 22:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * How about something like: "The ampersand (&) is..." —Mike 23:28, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

In other words, a punctuation symbol should never be used directly, but referred to by name instead. The symbol should only be used the first time that it is referred to, in which case it should be enclosed in parentheses. Danikolt (Talk) 14:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * That's a good idea. Maurreen 16:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hyphens
Aside from the discussion about different kinds of dashes, is there advice, here or on one of the other pages, about when to use a hyphen in spelling a word? For example, I usually use a hyphen if the prefix re is attached to a word beginning with a vowel, so as not to create a false dipthong that might momentarily confuse the reader: re-elect, re-align, etc. I bring this up because I've seen an edit that, among other changes, deleted such hyphens, changing previous forms to reelected and reestablish. (Hyphens are also appropriate when the prefix could otherwise be read as creating a different word, e.g., to sign again is re-sign because resign means something else.) JamesMLane 19:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes. But I forget where it is. I have most definitely read a sensible set of guidelines here on Wikipedia on its usage though. zoney ♣ talk 20:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Since we don't know where it is, how about we add it? Here's the rule from the AP style guide:
 * "Except for 'cooperate' and 'coordinate', use a hypen if the prefix ends in a vowel and the word that follows begins with the same vowel."
 * Of course, if anyone can word this better, or would like to use a different style guide as a source, that is fine with me. Maurreen 07:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, that's not the entire entry. Maurreen 05:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I would also hyphenate re-align and other such words, though not covered by the rule you suggest. A reader seeing realign has seen enough words using "real" as a beginning that there'd be a momentary hitch while the reader sorts out that this isn't the familia ea combination and the familiar "real" beginning, but something else.  The hyphen averts that.  By the way, does the AP guide also address instances like re-sign? JamesMLane 07:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * It's one of the examples the AP Stylebook gives for the handling of the re prefix. "For many other words, the sense is the governing factor: ... resign (quit) re-sign (sign again)".  Our style guide should probably state this position as well, as there's great potential for confusion otherwise; I once heard of an instance in which someone forwarded an email from her boss, and told him "I resent your email." Factitious 08:14, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Good points, and some humor, too, which this page needs. :) Maurreen 08:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I think I may have been only be thinking of what I had read at hyphen. If there are guidelines on hyphen usage already, or we are drafting such, we should probably ensure that article matches our practice. zoney ♣ talk 23:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * It's interesting that the article on hyphen misuses a hyphen, in the phrase "slightly-tilted slash". I'll correct that and add the point that a compound phrase in which an adverb modifies an adjective, with the phrase then modifying a noun, generally doesn't need a hyphen because it's unambiguous.  (In this example, "slightly" can't modify "slash".)  Perhaps we should include this in the MoS.  Even if we do, people will still write "wholly-owned subsidiary", but we can at least try to stop them. JamesMLane 00:39, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * If the word is listed in a standard dictionary, then no hyphen should be used. Lots of dictionaries list "realign" and "reelect" as words, and therefore no hyphen should be used. If a word with "re" in front of it is not a standard form but rather a neologism, then use the hyphen ("re-") until the word is common enough to become a standard form.  —Lowellian (talk)   21:46, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * "Standard dictionary" is a tall order! But in any case, I feel hyphens should be used with the "re" prefixes. Pairs of vowel letters such as ee and ea are single vowel sounds in English, so omitting the hyphen from re-align and re-elect indeed interrupts the flow of the language being read - the reader has to mentally divide the two vowel letters into two separate vowel instances. However, both forms are in common use, so once again I suggest we do not attempt to offer advice on this (i.e. force a rule), save perhaps mentioning the issue. zoney ♣ talk 00:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * For the reason stated by Zoney, I would hyphenate re-align but not reopen. The difference is that "eo" isn't used as a single vowel sound.  Still, if the "rule" that's settled on is that re-align and realign are both OK, then the MoS should at least state that, so people don't waste time changing one to the other. JamesMLane 00:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * But User:Factitious's comments about the differences between "resent" and "re-sent" and similar words have merit, so hyphens should be used in those cases to make clear what is meant.  —Lowellian (talk)   21:52, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * My dictionary says "re-elect or reelect". And it also gives 'realign' but not 're-align'; I think the latter form is unnecessary because there is no ambiguity as there might be with a word like 'resent'.  For separating the prefix and root of words, the dictionary gives these examples:
 * prefix + proper noun or adjective (anti-Nazi, pro-Nazi)
 * some prefixes ending in a vowel + root beginning with a vowel (re-election, co-author)
 * stressed prefix + root word if absence of hyphen could cause misunderstanding of meanings (re-form/reform, re-cover/recover, re-creation/recreation)
 * Perhaps examples like these should be included and otherwise leave well-enough alone. We shouldn't have to construct a list of approved words.  —Mike 01:45, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * This conversation perhaps ought to be mentioned on the talk page for the style guide page on dashes.
 * Also, I don't feel strongly about this, but on further thought, I wonder if there is a real need for this to be added to the style guide at all. Maurreen 05:56, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't have my CMOS handy, but I'm pretty sure it says not to hyphenate prefixes at all unless (a) the second part is capitalized (e.g., anti-Nazi but antidisestablishmentarianism) or (b) omitting the hyphen would change the sense of the word (e.g., re-sent but realign). I believe British usage tends toward more hyphenation, though. I note that, from my perspective, the AP style guide is not a reliable guide to good usage; it advocates many usages that are unacceptable in formal English (and will get a writer in trouble, for example, with an academic editor), in part because of its orientation toward wire services with primitive teletype equipment (e.g., IIRC it advocates never using italics and omitting all accent marks and diacriticals on non-English names). —Tkinias 20:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Possessives of words ending in 's'
There is currently a bit of controversy over whether Wikipedia writers should follow AP conventions or Strunk and White's conventions for dealing with possessives of words that end in 's'. For example, is it "Texas' Law" or "Texas's Law"? It would be nice if the Wikipedia Manual of Style could provide some guidance on this. Some articles have been reverted back and forth many times due to this controversy.
 * AP Style Guidelines: SINGULAR PROPER NAMES ENDING IN S: Use only an apostrophe: Achilles’ heel, Agnes’ book, Ceres’ rites, Descartes’ theories, Dickens’ novels, Euripides’ dramas, Hercules’ labors, Jesus’ life, Jules’ seat, Kansas’ schools, Moses’ law, Socrates’ life, Tennessee Williams’ plays, Xerxes’ armies.
 * Strunk and White's Elements of Style (used by US Government and others): Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's. Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write, Charles's friend, Burns's poems, the witch's malice.

Using either "s's" or "s'" is standard English - there's no reason for us to prefer one form over another. I don't see why there should be a controversy - unless those who prefer one form over another seek to impose their views on those who prefer the other form. Use whatever seems sensible at the time. jguk 23:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure that AP style is always the best. The AP guide also says don't use a comma before the 'and' in a series while the Elements of Style and Oxford's guide do. —Mike 00:25, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Be careful on the Oxford comma. Its use (except where it is necessary to avoid ambiguity) is generally considered optional - with some style guides recommending its usage and others recommending using it only where necessary to avoid ambiguity, jguk 00:49, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Since AP is a style guide for newspapers, where space is at a premium, it often chooses rules which result in fewer characters. It's not necessarily a good guide to use for books, or for Wikipedia, where space is less of an issue. - Nunh-huh 00:58, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I would have thought that for Wikipedia space is also a premium: it has to be read on phones etc, so the shorter words are the better. (True, vertical space is not a constraint, just horizontal.) So I think it is better for authors who are concerned to err on the side of s' rather than s's (unless there is some clear disambiguating reason...but even then, I am not sure it is friendly to readers to rely on their understanding of possessive apostrophes to figure out what a sentence means.) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

 * If both are acceptable, it would be nice if the Wikipedia Manual of Style stated that both are acceptable, as there are definitely those out there seeking to impose their views on those who prefer the other form regardless of what is sensible. Kaldari 00:52, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Style guides don't determine "correctness": they represent sometimes arbitrary choices between correct usages to obtain unifomity of style. This is probably unattainable at Wikipedia, where there's no authority to make such arbitrary choices. - Nunh-huh 00:58, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * If that's true then why does WIkipedia have a style guide at all? You presumption that it is only possible for "authorities" to make decisions about style seems a bit rash to me. Surely we can reach a reasonable decision that will help those seeking clarification, even if the decision is only to declare both styles acceptable. Otherwise this argument will continue to be played out over and over again across many separate articles with no resolution. Let's hash it out here so that people will have something to refer to at least. Kaldari 01:08, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Standards fall into three categories: (1) Things where the clearly is a "right" and "wrong" and where it is important that things be "right" (e.g. spelling of words where there is only one standard spelling). (2) Things where there is legitimate disagreement about a consequential matter, and where we probably need to tolerate diversity (e.g. U.S. vs. UK English). (3) Things that are so trivial that almost any sane standard is better than no standard, because uniformity is more important than any particular resolution of the matter. This is an example of the last. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:29, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree completely - but I fear that here are at least some users who will refuse to recognize class (3). - Nunh-huh 02:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

BTW, it looks like this issue was already discussed here back in July, but nothing came of it: Talk Archive 6. Kaldari 02:20, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * It looks like it was already mentioned in the previous discussion, but let me add what my personal favorite style guide has to say about it:
 * The Chicago Manual of Style (15th edition): "The possessive of most singular nouns is formed by adding an s, and the possessive of plural nouns (except for a few irregular plurals that do not end in s) by adding an apostrophe only...The general rule covers most proper nouns, including names ending in s, x, or z, in both their singular and plural forms, as well as letters and numbers" (emphasis theirs). They give examples such as "Kansas's legislature", "Burns's poems", "Marx's theories", and so on. They also mention the alternative style, for those that do not like this method.
 * Aside from Chicago's support, there are other reasons I think this is appropriate. Why should "Texas's law" be any different from "Nebraska's law"? They are both pronounced equivalently. Texas is not a plural, and there is no need to use plural possessive forms with it. Nor would just adding an apostrophe avoid ambuguity; rather, it can actually further it (is Roberts' work the work of one Roberts [Julia Roberts] or the work of multiple Roberts?). Using just an apostrophe when words end in s, regardless of why they end in s, seems a bit artificial to me. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 18:52, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Most people pronounce "Texas' Law" differently than "Texas's Law". In fact, it is considered orthodox practice to pronounce them differently . I suspect this is why the exception for words that end in s was created in the first place -- to eliminate awkward pronunciations. Take for example, "goodness' sake". That phrase is almost universally pronounced without the extra s sound regardless of whether the extra s is written. Otherwise it would sound quite awkward. "Olbers' paradox" is certainly easier to pronounce than "Olbers's paradox". The former sounds much more natural, thus the tradition of spelling it without the extra s. Whatever standard we decide on, I think we should make consideration for established exceptions, i.e. phrases that have always been spelled a certain way by convention regardless of standards. Kaldari 19:42, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Fowler's Modern English Usage (a standard for British English) suggests dropping the post-apostriphal s if it is unvoiced. This still leaves something of a chicken and egg problem -- is it spelled because of how it's pronounced, or is it pronounced because of how it's spelled? Kaldari 19:57, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is a problem. The writer would spell it the way he pronounces it, and the reader would pronounce it the way the writer spelled it. Simple! —Mike 20:12, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

I started that earlier discussion (the one now in Talk Archive 6). The Strunk and White style still seems better to me. Olbers's paradox is preferable because hearing Olbers' paradox (pronounced "Olbers" instead of "Olberses") will lead some people to think that it's Olber's paradox. Nevertheless, that particular example, like for goodness' sake, might be a candidate for an exception, something like: "Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's. Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Exception: Omit the s after the apostrophe if a particular possessive has become generally known without the final s." One argument advanced at Requested moves is that this particular phrase, which dates back to Olbers's work in 1823, is more often written as Olbers' paradox. I admit that making such an exception would lead to sentences like "Olbers's students were initially confused by his explanation of Olbers' paradox." JamesMLane 22:30, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * It looks like all the main style guides, with the exception of the AP's, recommend using the s. Also I should mention that I did not quote Chicago's entire recommendation; in particular, they mention, "To avoid an awkward appearance, an apostrophe without an s may be used for the possessive of singular words and names ending in an unpronounced s. Opt for this practice only if you are comfortable with it and are certain that the s is indeed unpronounced." Examples: "Descartes' three dreams", "the marquis' mother". Also, "For...sake expressions traditionally omit the s when the noun ends in an s or an s sound." Examples: "for righteousness' sake", "for goodness' sake". James, your proposal sounds quite reasonable to me. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 23:45, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't want to be prescriptive on this point. Besides, any instructions would largely be ignored by those who prefer the opposite approach. Burchfield in Fowler's Modern English Usage recommends just using an apostrophe in classical names, eg Herodotus', Socrates', Themistocles', etc. Note also that the official names of various institutions/places adopt differing approaches - for instance, it's not too difficult to find some institutions starting with "St James's" and others with "St James'", jguk 08:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How does this sound: Possessives ending in s Authoritative sources differ on how to handle possessive nouns that end with the letter s. Some say to add an apostrophe and an s at the end. Other say to just add an apostrophe. Still others say it depends on whether the word is a proper noun, the s is pronounced a certain way, or a variety of other conditions are met. Because there does not seem to be a widespread consensus on how to handle possessives ending in s, both usages are considered acceptable in Wikipedia. In general, whichever usage of a particular word or phrase is most common should be used. For example, Olbers' paradox is more commonly used than Olbers's paradox. Kaldari 17:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Too many "somes" - and I don't like the use of the word authoritative. Maybe we could lift something from The Times and adapt it, for example (the bit not in italics is my addition, and I have redacted a small bit) jguk 19:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC):

 * with proper names/nouns ending in s that are singular, follow the rule of writing what is voiced, eg, Keats's poetry, Sobers's batting, The Times's style (or Times style); and with names where the final "s" is soft, use the "s" apostrophe, eg, Rabelais' writings, Delors' presidency. Note that with Greek names of more than one syllable that end in "s", do not use the apostrophe "s", eg, Aristophanes' plays, Achilles' heel, Socrates' life, Archimedes' principle. Beware that some people voice "s" that others don't, and this will change how they write the words. Some write "Jesus'" others "Jesus's".  Also beware of organisations that have variations as their house style, eg, St Thomas' Hospital, where we must respect their whim. Also, take care with apostrophes with plural nouns, eg, women's, not womens'; children's, not childrens'; people's, not peoples'. Use the apostrophe in expressions such as two years' time, several hours' delay etc. An apostrophe should be used to indicate the plural of single letters - p's and q's

How about this: Possessives To form the possessive of a singular noun that ends in s, the general rule is to add an apostrophe and an s, for example, Charles's book. Exceptions to this rule are as follows: For plural nouns that do not end in s, add an apostrophe-s, for example,  children's , not  childrens' . Kaldari 20:33, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * When the final s of the noun is soft or unpronounced: Descartes' theories, Rabelais' writing
 * When there is a long-established tradition of adding only an apostrophe to form the possessive: Achilles' heel, goodness' sake
 * When the possessive is part of an organization's name and they choose to only use an apostrophe: St Thomas' Hospital

 * Nearly there, methinks. Three points:

 * 1. Reword to say "the general rule is that where the s is pronounced separately, add an apostrophe and as s". Then the first bullet point of exceptions to the rule becomes a further example of the general rule.
 * 2. "Proper name" would be better than "organisation" as "organisation" is too specific.
 * 3. Sake tends to be treated differently. In Fowler's Modern English Usage Burchfield writes, "For appearances' sake, for Christ's sake, for God's sake, for Heaven's sake, for Pete's sake, for old times' sake illustrate the obligatory use of the possessive apostrpohe in such phrases, Practice varies widely in for conscience' sake and for goodness' sake, and the use of an apostrophe in them must be regarded as optional." Burchfield goes on to say that in American English sakes is sometimes used in place of sake, jguk 22:12, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * 1. Are you talking about the s of the original noun or the possessive s? If you're talking about the possissive s, I don't like instructing people to rely on whether the extra s is pronounced or not, as whether or not the extra s is pronounced often depends on how the possessive is spelled . Thus we would be sending the writer in a circle: how it's written depends on how it's pronounced and how it's pronounced depends on how it's written. That's too confusing. If you're talking about the s of the original noun, then your wording is just incorporating the initial exception into the rule itself, and I'm not sure why that would be any better than listing it as an explicit exception and keeping the rule itself simplified.
 * 2. Agreed.
 * 3. That seems to fall into my 2nd exception. Ideally, I'd like to refrain from starting a long list of specific exceptions like greek names, something's sake, etc. and just create a general exception for traditional spellings. Kaldari 23:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about a more concise way, such as this:
 * "Possessives of words ending in 's' may be formed with or without an additional 's'." Maurreen 05:07, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I like the conciseness, but I do think there are definite cases where writers should use one or the other and it would be nice if we could provide them some guidance on that. Kaldari 15:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * That's so concise it is useless. You might as well just say, "Possessives: no standard".  Or just don't say anything at all. —Mike 01:00, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually think it's useful in some cases to point out that we have no standard. This provides an authoritative resource to cite if there is a dispute. (I.e. "no, we don't need to standardize all references to plural possessives; Wikipedia permits either usage".) -Aranel (" Sarah ") 01:31, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If we are to explicitly state we have no preference, we need to be more explicit than Maurreen. Perhaps something along the lines of, "Where, a standard form of English permits possessives of words ending in 's' to be formed with or without an additional 's', we have no preference between those styles", jguk 01:44, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, how does this sound: Possessives Opinions differ on how to form the possessive of singular nouns that end with the letter s. Some sources say to add an apostrophe and an s at the end. Others say to just add an apostrophe. Because there does not seem to be a widespread consensus on how to handle possessives of this form, both usages are considered acceptable in Wikipedia. In general, whichever usage of a particular word or phrase is most common should be used. For example, Achilles' heel is more commonly used than Achilles's heel. For plural nouns that do not end in s, add an apostrophe and an s to form the possessive, for example,  children's , not  childrens' . Kaldari 03:19, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * How about getting to the point more quickly, like this:
 * "Possessives of words ending in 's' may be formed with or without an additional 's'." Either is generally acceptable within Wikipedia. But if either form is much more common for a particular word or phrase, follow that form, such as with 'Achilles' heel'." Maurreen 22:47, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I added your suggested guideline to the Usage and Spelling section. Kaldari 07:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I think there is a general law of (English) orthography, that the more commonly used some word is, the more likely it is to be contracted. So we don't have apostrophes in (official) place names or railway stations, because they are used so much it is inefficient to have them. And by a similar action, s's is contracted to s' in names that are commonly used, such as the Greek classical authors and St Thomas' hospital. So, if you accept that, I think it indicates that if there is, say, an article about someone whose name ends in s, then the s' form should be gently favoured practice anyway.) So, say the article on Erasmus had something about his socks, I think Erasmus' socks would be best, because 1.no ambiguity results, 2. it does not draw attention to itself, 3. the initial s in socks makes too many esses, 4. Erasmus is a Latinity therefore should be treated as other classical names, 5. Erasmus is the subject of the article 6. pronunciation is no guide: Erasmusocks or Erasmus socks or Erasmus s socks?)


text:
College GameDay (football TV program)

College GameDay (branded as ESPN College GameDay built by The Home Depot for sponsorship reasons) is a pre-game show broadcast by ESPN as part of the network's coverage of college football, broadcast on Saturday mornings during the college football season. In its current form, the program is typically broadcast from the campus of the team hosting a featured game being played that day and features news and analysis of the day's upcoming games.

It first aired in 1987 with Tim Brando as host and Lee Corso and Beano Cook as commentators, giving an overview of college football games. Karie Ross soon became the first female to join the broadcast. The show underwent a radical transformation beginning in 1993, and began incorporating live broadcasts. Today, the only original cast member remaining is Lee Corso, whose appearances have been pre-scripted since suffering a stroke in 2009. Rece Davis serves as host and Kirk Herbstreit is Corso's counterpart. Desmond Howard was added to the cast of the show in 2008. Craig James served as an analyst from 1990 to 1995. Erin Andrews joined the GameDay crew as a co-host and contributor in 2010, replaced in 2012 by Samantha Ponder (and in 2017 by Maria Taylor after Ponder left to become host of Sunday NFL Countdown that same year). In 2015, Rece Davis (also host of the college basketball version of GameDay) replaced Chris Fowler as host of the show. Nick Saban was then added to the show in 2024. In 2010, the program was expanded from two to three hours, with the opening hour broadcast on ESPNU until 2013.

In 2020 the show received a massive graphic update.

The show is known for its prediction segment that appears at the end of each broadcast. The predictions use the standard scoring system and do not use the spread in determining the pick. Typically there are five predictors: Corso, Herbstreit, Howard, Pat McAfee, and an invited guest, usually a celebrity, prominent athlete, or radio personality associated with the host school for that week. The show always concludes with Corso's prediction for the host school's game, after which he dons the mascot's headgear of the team he predicts to win the game, usually to the ire or excitement of local fans. As of January 8, 2024, Corso is 274–139 in his headgear picks. His first headgear pick occurred on October 5, 1996, when he correctly picked the Ohio State Buckeyes over the Penn State Nittany Lions. In 2018, Corso made his first NFL headgear pick when, as a guest on Sunday NFL Countdown, he correctly picked the New Orleans Saints to win their Week 9 game at home against the Los Angeles Rams. Corso made his 400th headgear pick on September 16, 2023, for the Colorado/Colorado State rivalry game, he put on the headgear for Colorado.

As of January 8, 2024, Ohio State – Penn State and Alabama – LSU is the most featured matchup, appearing 12 times on College Gameday. Alabama – Georgia has been featured 10 times. Florida – Tennessee, Michigan – Ohio State and Army – Navy have been featured 9 times. Alabama – Auburn, Florida – Florida State, Florida State – Miami, and Oklahoma – Texas currently sit at 8.

Crew/Staff

ESPN laid off a large number of on-air staff, including College GameDay hosts Gene Wojciechowski and David Pollack.

Current

 * Rece Davis: (Host, 2015–present)
 * Lee Corso: (Analyst, 1987–present)
 * Kirk Herbstreit: (Analyst, 1996–present)
 * Desmond Howard: (Analyst, 2005–present)
 * Pat McAfee: (Contributor, 2019–2020; Analyst, 2022–present)
 * Nick Saban: (Analyst, 2024–present)
 * Jen Lada: (Reporter, 2016–present)
 * Jess Sims: (Reporter, 2022–present)
 * Pete Thamel: (Insider, 2022–present)
 * Steve Coughlin: (Sports Betting Analyst, 2023–present)

Former

 * Trev Alberts: (In-Studio Analyst, 2002–2005)
 * Erin Andrews: (Reporter/Contributor, 2010–2011)
 * Tim Brando: (Host, 1987–1988)
 * Bob Carpenter: (Host, 1989)
 * Beano Cook: (Analyst, 1987–1990)
 * Chris "Bear" Fallica: (Researcher/Contributor, 1996–2022)
 * Chris Fowler: (Host, 1990–2014)
 * Robert Griffin III: (Contributor, 2021–2022)
 * Craig James: (Analyst, 1990–1995)
 * Rocket Ismail: (Contributor, 2003–2004)
 * Nick Lachey: (Contributor, 2005)
 * Norm Hitzges: (Contributor, 1992–1995)
 * David Pollack: (Analyst/Contributor, 2011–2022)
 * Samantha Ponder: (Reporter/Contributor, 2012–2016)
 * Tom Rinaldi: (Contributor, 2011–2020)
 * Maria Taylor: (Reporter/Contributor, 2017–2020)
 * Gene Wojciechowski: (Contributor, 1992–2022)

History
GameDay started on ESPN in 1987 and originally broadcast from a studio in Connecticut.

In 1993, GameDay took the show "on the road" for the first time, going to South Bend, Indiana for the match-up between #2 Notre Dame and #1 FSU on November 13. (Matchups between the top two teams were rare prior to the BCS). It broadcast from the Sports Heritage Hall at the Notre Dame Joyce Center. The broadcast was such a success that they did nearly half their shows in 1994 on the road and in 1995 abandoned the studio altogether.

The format also changed from broadcasting from an indoor studio on site to live from outside a stadium hosting a big game most Saturdays. The selected stadium is usually hosting one of the biggest matchups of the day, regardless of whether the game airs on an ESPN network.

The show takes on a festive tailgate party atmosphere, as thousands of fans gather behind the broadcast set, in view of the show's cameras. Many fans bring flags or hand-painted signs as well, and the school's cheerleaders and mascots often join in the celebration. Crowds at GameDay tapings are known to be quite boisterous and very spirited. Flags seen at the broadcast are not limited to those of the home team; for example, one large Washington State flag can be seen at every broadcast, regardless of the location or the teams involved. The idea began in 2003 on WSU online fan forums and has resulted in the flag, nicknamed "Ol' Crimson," being present at 281 consecutive GameDay broadcasts since 2003.

The show's current intro and theme music is performed by country music duo Big & Rich, who perform their 2005 crossover hit "Comin' to Your City" with revised lyrics which mention several top college teams and a guest appearance by Cowboy Troy. Rap artist Travie McCoy (of Gym Class Heroes) now appears in the intro for this show, starting with 2014 season, as well as Lzzy Hale, lead vocalist and guitarist of the rock group Halestorm. Additional music that has been used for the show include "Boom" by the rock group P.O.D. and God Bless Saturday by Kid Rock.

Typically, the show will end with Lee Corso and Kirk Herbstreit issuing their predictions for that day's key matchups, finishing with the game to be played at the stadium hosting GameDay, for which Corso signifies his prediction by donning the head piece of the mascot of his predicted winner. Starting with the 2009 season, a celebrity guest picker gives picks for the day's key games alongside the GameDay regulars (such as Bob Knight when GameDay aired from Texas Tech in 2008, NASCAR star Dale Earnhardt Jr. when GameDay aired from Bristol Motor Speedway (a NASCAR track) in 2016 and Verne Lundquist in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, since it was his final season calling College Football games on CBS). Prior to 2009, this was not done on a regular basis. Herbstreit, who in 2006 became a game analyst for ABC's Saturday Night Football, is not allowed to make a pick for the game at which he is assigned due to parent company Disney's conflict-of-interest rules; however, he is allowed to give one or two keys to the game.

In past years, when no suitably important game was available, it would originate instead from the ESPN studios. In 2017, with no suitably important game available, one show aired from Times Square instead. In August 2019, College Gameday aired from parent company Disney's Magic Kingdom Park in Disney World ahead of the University of Florida-Miami game played in Orlando.

College GameDay was also a source for many arguments regarding the purported east coast bias: From 1993 until 2004, GameDay had only been to two regular season games on the entire West Coast (1998 at UCLA and 2000 at Oregon). Given the popularity of the show and the media coverage it brought to the highlighted game, teams and fans of the West Coast teams felt that the show was only magnifying the perceived problems with excess media focus on East, South and Midwest games; ESPN attributed its lack of West Coast games to the need for a very early start time (07:00 AM PST) and an alleged lack of high quality matchups.

With the addition of the Saturday Night Football game on ABC in 2006, GameDay has increasingly aired from that game. This could be done for many reasons including the fact Kirk Herbstreit is on both programs, thus making it easier for him. Another reason could be to give the Saturday Night Football game added exposure.

Beginning with the show's 21st season (2007), College GameDay began broadcasting in high-definition on ESPN HD. Also the same season, California became the first (and as of 2022, only) team to decline to host College GameDay, as the school believed Gameday should go to Virginia Tech after the Virginia Tech shooting earlier in the year.

College GameDay expanded to 3 hours, with the first hour being televised on ESPNU beginning September 4, 2010. In addition, ESPN Radio simulcasts the television version from 9am-noon ET. Other changes include the addition of a female contributor—first Erin Andrews in 2010 and 2011, and then Samantha Ponder (then known by her maiden name, Samantha Steele) after Andrews left ESPN for Fox following the 2011 season. Both Andrews and Ponder have anchored several segments during the first hour on ESPNU, contributed during the ESPN portion, and also worked as a sideline reporter on the game from which College GameDay originated, if it aired on one of the ESPN family of networks (i.e. ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ABC).

Beginning with the 2013 season, the third hour moved to ESPN and was hosted by Fowler. Starting in 2014, the show began a now annual visit to the Army-Navy Game in mid-December. As of 2018, the entire show is simulcast on both ESPN and ESPNU.

As previously mentioned, beginning with the 29th season (2015), Rece Davis (who is also the host of the college basketball version) replaced Chris Fowler as the football version's new host. Fowler retained his play-by-play duties on ABC's Saturday Night Football.

In March 2018, ESPN announced that it would broadcast a special edition of College GameDay from Arlington, Texas, as a pre-show for its coverage of day 1 of the 2018 NFL draft. The broadcast accompanied a secondary telecast of the draft on ESPN2, which was hosted by the College GameDay panelists (barring Kirk Herbstreit, as he was involved in ESPN's main broadcast to replace the outgoing Jon Gruden).

In the 2020 season, College GameDay underwent modifications due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The program was broadcast without an audience, and with a modified desk to comply with social distancing rules. Corso did not travel with the remainder of the College GameDay panel due to health concerns, and appeared from his Orlando home, as well as filmed sketches with appearances by team mascots.

By 2023, the crowds of students returned, and exceeded their pre-pandemic numbers. James Madison University holds the record for the largest GameDay crowd in its 30-year history: 26,000 people jammed on The Quad on November 18, 2023.

As of 2018, College GameDay has collected eight Sports Emmy Awards for Outstanding Studio Show, tied with TNT's Inside the NBA for the most wins by an analysis program. An incident happened in 2024 where ESPN admitted that for some of the Emmys it had won from 2010 to 2018, it had submitted some invented names of fictitious associate producers to receive statuettes, then quietly replaced or modified the inscriptions on the statuettes to match the show's real on-air personalities rather than the fake names. The people given the statuettes did not realize that they had not, strictly speaking, qualified for an Emmy themselves. This modification was done because the Emmy rules exclude on-air talent from the honor of the "outstanding weekly studio show" award, and the ESPN staff thought this rule was "stupid." After the scheme was discovered in 2023, the affected staff were asked to return their trophies.

2024 season

 * Notes

Winners are listed in bold.

All rankings displayed for Division I-A/FBS teams are from the AP poll or CFP Rankings (starting in the 2014 season) at the time of the game. Division I-AA/FCS rankings are from the STATS poll at the time of the game.

Appearances by school
Appearances through August 31, 2024.

Power Four schools who have not yet hosted
Appearances through December 9, 2023

Frequent Matchups
College GameDay matchups with at least 5 games played.

Celebrity guest pickers
Auburn and NBA basketball player Charles Barkley was the first celebrity guest picker on the October 2, 2004, show and has made the most show appearances with six, with his most recent appearance on December 14, 2019. Olympian and Arizona swimmer Amanda Beard was the first female celebrity guest picker on November 21, 2009. Georgia golfer Bubba Watson became the first celebrity picker to pick all games correctly on September 28, 2013. Oklahoma State and NBA player Marcus Smart became the first ever student athlete guest picker on November 23, 2013. The Oregon Duck became the first school mascot to be the guest picker on September 6, 2014. Guests have included athletes, coaches, military veterans, Make-A-Wish Foundation kids, athletes, school mascots, professional sports owners, CEOs, singers, actors and celebrity personalities.

Appearances through December 9, 2023:

International Broadcasts
In the UK, College GameDay was shown in full during BT Sport's decade on air (2013–2023), unless live sport was being aired on all of its channels. In July 2023, BT Sport was relaunched as TNT Sports following the sale of BT Sport to Warner Bros. Discovery EMEA. This saw the cessation of ESPN studio programming on TNT as well as the ending of showings of ESPN-produced documentaries and therefore College Gameday stopped being shown in the UK. The programme returned to UK screens on 18 November 2023 following an agreement between Sky Sports and ESPN which sees Sky Sports broadcasting College Gameday and three College Football games each week.

Spin-offs

 * College GameDay (basketball) (2005–present)
 * ESPN Radio College GameDay (2000–present)
 * SEC Nation (2014–present)

title: College GameDay (football TV program)