text:
District of Columbia federal voting rights

Voting rights of citizens in the District of Columbia differ from the rights of citizens in the 50 U.S. states. The United States Constitution grants each state voting representation in both houses of the United States Congress. It defines the federal district as being outside of any state, and does not grant it any voting representation in Congress. The Constitution grants Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the District in "all cases whatsoever".

In the House of Representatives, the District is represented by a delegate, who because of the constitutional provisions is not allowed to vote on the House floor but under House rules can vote on procedural matters and in congressional committees. D.C. residents have no representation in the Senate. The Twenty-third Amendment, adopted in 1961, effectively entitles the District to three electoral votes in the election of the president and vice president.

The District's lack of voting representation in Congress has been an issue since the capital's founding. Numerous proposals have been introduced to change this situation, including legislation and constitutional amendments, returning the district to Maryland, and making it into a new state. All proposals have been met with political or constitutional challenges, and there has been no change in the district's representation in Congress.

History
In 1783, a crowd of disbanded Revolutionary War soldiers angry about not having been paid gathered to protest outside the building where the Continental Congress was meeting. The soldiers blocked the door and initially refused to allow the delegates to leave. Despite requests from Congress, the Pennsylvania state government declined to call out its militia to deal with the unruly mob, and so Congress was forced to adjourn to New Jersey abruptly. This led to the widespread belief that Congress needed control over the national capital. As James Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 43, "Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy." This belief resulted in the creation of a national capital, separate from any state, by the Constitution's District Clause. The "District Clause" in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution states:"[The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States."

There were some reasons why voting rights for the District were not addressed. It was effectively agreed at an early stage that the capital was to be in the South, and Northerners would have bitterly opposed any clause that would give the South even more voting power. Moreover, given the capital's planned location, many delegates assumed its permanent residents would primarily consist of slaves unable to vote in any case. They also expected the federal government would only operate on a part-time basis and assumed that those who were chosen to serve in federal office and those whose occupations would require them to spend time in the district would come mainly from the upper echelons of society and would therefore have the means to maintain residency (and voting rights) in their home states.

In 1788, the land on which the District is formed was ceded by Maryland. In 1790, Congress passed the Residence Act placing the District on the Potomac River between the Anacostia and Conococheague Creek with the exact location chosen by President George Washington. His selection was announced on January 24, 1791, and the Residence Act was amended to include land that Virginia had ceded in 1790. That land was returned to Virginia in 1847. The Congress did not officially move to the new federal capital until the first Monday in December 1800. During that time, the District was governed by a combination of a federally appointed Board of Commissioners, the state legislatures, and locally elected governments.

On February 27, 1801, only a few months after moving to the District, Congress passed the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801 and incorporated the new federal District under its sole authority as permitted by the District Clause, making Congress the supreme source of all local laws. Since the District of Columbia ceased being part of any state and was not a state itself, the District's residents lost voting representation in Congress, the Electoral College, and in the Constitutional amendment process – consequences that did not go without protest. In January 1801, a meeting of District citizens was held which resulted in a statement to Congress noting that as a result of the impending Organic Act "we shall be completely disfranchised in respect to the national government, while we retain no security for participating in the formation of even the most minute local regulations by which we are to be affected. We shall be reduced to that deprecated condition of which we pathetically complained in our charges against Great Britain, of being taxed without representation." The following year, the Board of Commissioners was abolished, the City of Washington was incorporated, and a local government consisting of a locally elected 12-member council and a mayor appointed by the president was put in place.

In 1812, the District was given more significant home rule when the mayor became an elected official, chosen from among the group of 12 elected council members and 8 aldermen, and in 1820 the mayor became directly elected. Minor modifications were made over the years, but in 1871 the District government was again dramatically modified, getting a government more similar to that of the territories. Under this new government, the governor of the District was again appointed by the president, as were all members of one house of the District legislature.

The Congress abolished the territorial government in 1874 and replaced it with a presidentially appointed council, which by 1878 was considered the District's permanent government. It was later decided that this congressional act constituted the District's constitution, making the District the only territory that had not been allowed to write its own constitution.

By the 1930s, the District of Columbia was administered by House committees that had little regard for the concerns of the local population; the representative Ross A. Collins from Mississippi cut spending on local funds for welfare and education, stating that "my constituents wouldn't stand for spending money on niggers".

In the 1950s, as part of the more prominent Civil Rights Movement, interest emerged in giving the District full representation. As a compromise, the Twenty-third Amendment was adopted in 1961, granting the District some votes in the Electoral College in measure to their population, but no more than the smallest state. The Districts' residents have exercised this right since the presidential election of 1964.

The District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973 devolved certain Congressional powers over the District to a local government administered by an elected mayor, currently Muriel Bowser, and the thirteen-member Council of the District of Columbia. However, Congress retains the right to review and overturn any of the District's laws. Each of the District's eight wards elects a single member of the council, and five members, including the chairman, are elected at large.

In 1978, Congress submitted the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment to the states for ratification. It would have given the District full congressional representation, full participation in presidential elections, and the authority of a state regarding amending the Constitution.

In 1980, District voters approved the call of a constitutional convention to draft a proposed state constitution, just as U.S. territories had done before their admission as states. The proposed state constitution was ratified by District voters in 1982 for a new state to be called "New Columbia", but Congress has not granted statehood to the District. Pursuant to that proposed state constitution, the District still selects members of a shadow congressional delegation, consisting of two shadow senators and a shadow representative, to lobby the Congress to grant statehood. The Congress does not officially recognize these positions. Additionally, until May 2008, the Congress prohibited the District from spending any funds on lobbying for voting representation or statehood.

On December 29, 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States concluded that the United States is violating the District of Columbia's rights under Articles II and XX of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man by denying District of Columbia citizens an adequate opportunity to participate in the Congress. The Commission reiterated the following recommendation to the United States: "Provide the Petitioners with an effective remedy, which includes adopting the legislative or other measures necessary to guarantee to the Petitioners the effective right to participate, directly or through freely chosen representatives and in general conditions of equality, in their national legislature".

A 2005 poll paid for by the advocacy group D.C. Vote, but conducted by the non-partisan polling firm KRC Research, found that 82% of 1,007 adults believed that D.C. should have full congressional voting representation. A 2007 Washington Post poll of 788 adults found that 61% of those adults supported granting the District "a full voting" representative.

Arguments for and against
There are arguments both for and against giving the District of Columbia voting representation in Congress.

Consent of the governed
Advocates of voting representation for the District of Columbia argue that as citizens living in the United States, the District's estimated 672,228 residents should have the same right to determine how they are governed as citizens of a state. At least as early as 1776, George Mason wrote in the Virginia Declaration of Rights:

"VI. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good."

"VII. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised."

Justice Hugo Black described the right to vote as fundamental in Wesberry v. Sanders,. He wrote, "No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined."

The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act allows U.S. citizens to vote absentee for their home state's Congressional representatives from anywhere else in the world. If a U.S. citizen were to move to the District, that person would lose the ability to vote for a member of Congress. U.S. citizens who have permanently left the United States are still permitted to vote absentee for the Congress in the state where they last held residency. Scholars have argued that if U.S. citizens who are residents of other countries are allowed to vote in federal elections, then Congress can extend the same rights to residents of the nation's capital.

Constitutional provisions
The primary objection to legislative proposals to grant the District voting rights is that some Constitution provisions suggest that such an action would be unconstitutional. How the House of Representatives is to be composed is described in Article I, Section 2:"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. No Person shall be a Representative ... who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. Representatives ... shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers[.]" Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment reaffirms Article I, Section 2 in that regard when it says:"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." In addition, the Seventeenth Amendment correspondingly describes the election of "two Senators from each State". Those who believe D.C. voting rights legislation would be unconstitutional point out that the District of Columbia is not a U.S. state. Advocates of voting rights legislation claim that Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (the District Clause), which grants Congress "exclusive" legislative authority over the District, allows the Congress to pass legislation that would grant D.C. voting representation in the Congress.

The Twenty-third Amendment says the District is entitled to:"A number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State[.]" Since this amendment's adoption in 1961, the District has had three electoral votes in each presidential election.

Tax arguments
Unlike residents of U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico or Guam, which also have non-voting delegates, citizens of the District of Columbia are subject to all U.S. federal taxes. In fiscal year 2007, D.C. residents and businesses paid $20.4 billion in federal taxes; more than the taxes collected from 19 states and the highest federal taxes per capita. This situation has given rise to the use of the phrase "End Taxation Without Representation" by those in favor of granting D.C. voting representation in the Congress. The slogan currently appears on the city's vehicle license plates. The issue of taxation without representation in the District of Columbia is not new. For example, in Loughborough v. Blake, the Supreme Court said:"The difference between requiring a continent, with an immense population, to submit to be taxed by a government having no common interest with it, separated from it by a vast ocean, restrained by no principle of apportionment, and associated with it by no common feelings; and permitting the representatives of the American people, under the restrictions of our constitution, to tax a part of the society...which has voluntarily relinquished the right of representation, and has adopted the whole body of Congress for its legitimate government, as is the case with the district, is too obvious not to present itself to the minds of all. Although in theory it might be more congenial to the spirit of our institutions to admit a representative from the district, it may be doubted whether, in fact, its interests would be rendered thereby the more secure; and certainly the constitution does not consider their want of a representative in Congress as exempting it from equal taxation."

In 1971, Susan Breakefield sued to recover three years of income taxes she paid to the District of Columbia because she said she was a victim of taxation without representation. Breakefield lost her case before both the District of Columbia Tax Court and the United States Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

Opponents of D.C. voting rights point out that Congress appropriates money directly to the D.C. government to help offset some of the city's costs. However, proponents of a tax-centric view against D.C. representation do not apply the same logic to the 32 states that received more money from the federal government in 2005 than they paid in taxes. Additionally, the federal government is exempt from paying city property taxes and the Congress prohibits the District from imposing a commuter tax on non-residents who work in the city. Limiting these revenue sources strains the local government's finances. Like the 50 states, D.C. receives federal grants for assistance programs such as Medicare, accounting for approximately 26% of the city's total revenue. Congress also appropriates money to the District's government to help offset some of the city's security costs; these funds totaled $38 million in 2007, approximately 0.5% of the District's budget. In addition to those funds, the U.S. government provides other services. For example, the federal government operates the District's court system, which had a budget of $272 million in 2008. Additionally, all federal law enforcement agencies, such as the U.S. Park Police, have jurisdiction in the city and help provide security. In total, the federal government provided about 33% of the District's general revenue. On average, federal funds formed about 30% of the states' general revenues in 2007.

Political considerations
Opponents of D.C. voting rights have also contended that the District is too small to warrant representation in the House and Senate. However, sponsors of voting rights legislation point out that both Wyoming and Vermont have a smaller population than the District of Columbia.

In modern times, all elections held in the district have been overwhelmingly won by the Democratic Party. The Democrats' support of increased D.C. representation in Congress and the Republicans' opposition to it have been alleged to be purely for self-serving reasons.

Human rights
Since 2006, the United Nations Human Rights Committee report has cited the United States for denying D.C. residents voting rights in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty the United States ratified in 1992.

In 2015, D.C. became a member of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization.

Proposed reforms
Advocates for D.C. voting rights have proposed several competing reforms to increase the District's representation in Congress. These proposals generally involve either treating D.C. more like a state or allowing Maryland to take back the land it ceded to form the District.

Legislation
Several bills have been introduced in Congress to grant the District of Columbia voting representation in one or both houses of Congress.

The constitutional argument about whether Congress can provide the District of Columbia with a voting member in the House of Representatives, but not in the Senate, is heavily debated by each side. In Hepburn v. Ellzey (1805), the Supreme Court held that the right of residents of the District to sue residents of other states is not explicitly stated in Article III, Section 2. In National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., Inc,, the Supreme Court held that Congress could grant residents of the District of Columbia a right to sue residents of other states. However, opponents of the constitutionality of the legislation to grant D.C. voting rights point out that seven of the nine Justices in Tidewater rejected the view that the District is a “state” for other constitutional purposes. Opponents have also pointed out that if the power of Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation" over the District is used to supersede other sections of the Constitution, then the powers granted to Congress could potentially be unlimited.

On January 24, 2007, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a report on this subject. According to the CRS, "it would appear likely that the Congress does not have authority to grant voting representation in the House of Representatives to the District."

A secondary criticism of a legislative remedy is that any law granting representation to the District could be undone in the future. Additionally, recent legislative proposals deal with granting representation in the House of Representatives only, which would still leave the issue of Senate representation for District residents unresolved. Thus far, no bill granting the District voting representation has passed both houses of Congress. A summary of legislation proposed since 2003 is provided below.

Proposals during administration of George W. Bush
The Justice Department during the administration of President George W. Bush took the position that “explicit provisions of the Constitution do not permit Congress to grant congressional representation to the District through legislation.” Various such proposals were considered by the Congress during Bush's tenure:
 * The No Taxation Without Representation Act of 2003 ( and ) would have treated D.C. as if it were a state for the purposes of voting representation in the Congress, including the addition of two new senators; however, the bill never made it out of committee.
 * The District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2006 would have granted the District of Columbia voting representation in the House of Representatives only. This bill never made it out of committee.
 * The District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2007 was the first to propose granting the District of Columbia voting representation in the House of Representatives while also temporarily adding an extra seat to Republican-leaning Utah to increase the membership of the House by two. The addition of an extra seat for Utah was meant to entice conservative lawmakers into voting for the bill by balancing the addition of a likely-Democratic representative from the District. The bill still did not make it out of committee.
 * The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007 was essentially the same bill as H.R. 328 introduced previously in the same Congress. This bill would still have added two additional seats to the House of Representatives, one for the District of Columbia and a second for Utah. The bill passed two committee hearings before finally being incorporated into a second bill of the same name. The new bill  passed the full House of Representatives in a vote of 214 to 177. The bill was then referred to the Senate  where it passed in committee. However, the bill could only get 57 of the 60 votes needed to break a Republican filibuster and consequently failed on the floor of the Senate. Following the defeated 2007 bill, voting rights advocates were hopeful that Democratic Party gains in both the House of Representatives and the Senate during the November 2008 elections would help pass the bill during the 111th Congress. Barack Obama, a Senate co-sponsor of the 2007 bill, said during his 2008 presidential campaign that as President he would continue to support the rights of DC residents.

Proposal during administration of Barack Obama
On January 6, 2009, senators Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Orrin Hatch of Utah and D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 ( and ). On February 26, 2009, the Senate passed S. 160 by a vote of 61–37. However, before passing the bill, the Senate adopted an amendment by Senator John Ensign that would have removed the authority of the District of Columbia to prohibit or unduly burden the ability of its residents to possess guns in their homes, on their property, or at their places of business. The Ensign amendment would have also repealed District legislation requiring gun registration, the District's ban on semiautomatic weapons, and the District's criminal penalties for possession of an unregistered handgun. Following the Senate's passage of the bill, as amended, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said on March 4 that he had postponed a House vote on the bill for at least a week, but it quickly became clear there were not enough votes to bring the bill to the floor without any amendments. Despite Hoyer's efforts to have the amendment's supporters withdraw it and propose it as separate legislation, and Norton's efforts to achieve consensus within the District's political community, where there is strong opposition to Ensign's amendment, Hoyer had to announce on June 9 that the bill was on hold indefinitely. In April 2010, the bill rather abruptly returned to the agenda, but the week a vote was expected, Hoyer declared the bill was unlikely to be passed during the 111th Congress. District politicians reiterated their opposition to the House passing the bill with Ensign's amendment. The House bill was reintroduced in the 112th Congress as.

The Justice Department has split over the constitutionality of legislation to give the District of Columbia voting representation in the House of Representatives. The Office of Legal Counsel reported to Attorney General Eric Holder that the proposed legislation would be unconstitutional, but Holder overrode that determination and instead obtained an opinion from officials of the United States Solicitor General's office that the legislation could be defended if it were challenged after its enactment.

Retrocession
The process of reuniting the District of Columbia with the state of Maryland is referred to as retrocession. The District was originally formed out of parts of both Maryland and Virginia which they had ceded to the Congress. However, Virginia's portion was returned to that state in 1846; all the land in present-day D.C. was once part of Maryland. If both the Congress and the Maryland state legislature agreed, jurisdiction over the District of Columbia could be returned to Maryland, possibly excluding a small tract of land immediately surrounding the United States Capitol, the White House, and the Supreme Court building. If the District were returned to Maryland, citizens in D.C. would gain voting representation in the Congress as residents of Maryland. One problem with any of these proposals, according to one Virginia Republican in a 1999 interview, is that the state of Maryland does not currently want to take the District back. Further, although the U.S. Constitution does not specify a minimum size for the District, retrocession may require a constitutional amendment, as the District's role as the seat of government is mandated by the Constitution's District Clause. Retrocession could also alter the idea of a separate national capital as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. It may also violate the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution's granting of votes in the electoral college, as they would still be constitutionally granted to the district.

A proposal related to retrocession was the District of Columbia Voting Rights Restoration Act of 2004, which would have treated the residents of the District as residents of Maryland for the purposes of congressional representation. Maryland's congressional delegation would then be apportioned accordingly to include the population of the District. Those in favor of such a plan argue that the Congress already has the necessary authority to pass such legislation without the constitutional concerns of other proposed remedies. From the foundation of the District in 1790 until the passage of the Organic Act of 1801, citizens living in D.C. continued to vote for members of Congress in Maryland or Virginia; legal scholars therefore propose that the Congress has the power to restore those voting rights while maintaining the integrity of the federal district. However, the proposed legislation never made it out of committee.

Amendment process
Given the potential constitutional problems with legislation granting the District voting representation in Congress, scholars have proposed that amending the U.S. Constitution would be the appropriate manner to grant D.C. full representation.

District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment
In 1978, Congress proposed the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment. Under this amendment, the District of Columbia would have been "treated as though it were a State" regarding congressional representation, presidential elections (replacing the limited treatment under the Twenty-third Amendment), and the constitutional amendment process. The amendment had to be ratified within seven years to be adopted. The amendment was ratified by only 16 states, short of the requisite three-fourths (38) of the states, and so it expired in 1985. The amendment has never been resubmitted for ratification.

Murkowski proposal
Senator Lisa Murkowski- (R-AK) believed the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 would be unconstitutional if adopted, and so she proposed a constitutional amendment to provide the District with one representative. Unlike the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, Murkowski's proposal would not have provided the District any Senators or a role in the constitutional amendment process. Her proposal was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which never acted on the proposal.

Statehood
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution gives Congress power to grant statehood. If the District were to become a state, congressional authority over the District would be terminated, and residents would have full voting representation in both houses of Congress. However, there are some constitutional considerations with any such statehood proposal.

In 1980, local citizens passed an initiative calling for a constitutional convention for a new state. In 1982, voters ratified the constitution of a new state to be called "New Columbia". This campaign for statehood stalled. After the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment expired in 1985, another constitution for the state of New Columbia was drafted in 1987. The House of Representatives voted on D.C. statehood in November 1993, and the proposal was defeated by a vote of 277 to 153. Like retrocession, it has been argued that D.C. statehood would erode the principle of a separate federal territory as the seat of the federal government and that a constitutional amendment would be needed to avoid a violation of the Constitution's District Clause.

On April 15, 2016, District Mayor Muriel Bowser called for a citywide vote on whether the District should become the 51st state. This was followed by the release of a proposed state constitution. This constitution would make the mayor of the District of Columbia the governor of the proposed state, while the members of the City Council would make up the proposed House of Delegates. Despite requests for a different name, the proposed state constitution refers to the District as "New Columbia." However, the Council of the District of Columbia passed legislation making the proposed name "State of Washington, D.C." Under this proposed name "D.C." stands for "Douglass Commonwealth," a reference to the historic abolitionist Frederick Douglass. District residents voted overwhelmingly in favor of statehood, in an advisory referendum, but statehood legislation is unlikely to be enacted. On June 26, 2020, during the 116th Congress, the House of Representatives passed a bill to grant statehood to the District by a vote of 232–180. H.R. 51 never received a vote in the Senate during the 116th Congress. The Office of Management and Budget said President Donald Trump's advisors would have recommended he veto H.R. 51 if it was passed by Congress. H.R. 51 was introduced in the 117th Congress. On January 26, 2021, Tom Carper of Delaware also introduced a similar bill, S. 51, "A bill to provide for the admission of the State of Washington, D.C. into the Union" into the United States Senate with a record 38 co-sponsors.

On April 14, the United States House Committee on Oversight and Reform voted to pass H.R. 51, paving the way for the whole House to vote on it. The House passed that bill on April 22 with a vote of 216–208. On April 30, Democratic senator Joe Manchin came out against both H.R. 51 and S. 51, effectively dooming their passage.

Comparison with other national capitals
Other countries with federal systems similar to the U.S. either extend full voting rights to residents of the federal capital, comparable to those of a constituent state, or have established their capital within a larger sub-national jurisdiction.

Federal districts and territories
In the National Congress of Argentina, the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires has 25 seats in the Chamber of Deputies as well as three in the Senate, the same as a province.

In the Parliament of Australia, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) has seats in both the House of Representatives and Senate. However, it was not until 1974 that residents of the ACT were able to vote for the latter. Unlike a state, which elects twelve senators, the ACT only elects two which is equal to the representation by the Northern Territory.

In the National Congress of Brazil, the Federal District has eight seats in the Chamber of Deputies, and three in the Federal Senate, the same number as a state.

In the Parliament of India, the National Capital Territory of Delhi is represented by seven members in the Lok Sabha (lower house) and three members in the Rajya Sabha (upper house), the latter being indirectly elected by the union territory's Legislative Assembly. Hence, it is represented on the same basis as the other states of the Union.

In the Parliament of Malaysia, the federal territory of Kuala Lumpur (the original federal capital and still the seat of parliament) has eleven MPs in the Dewan Rakyat (lower house) by members, while Putrajaya (the administrative center since 1999) has one. In the Dewan Negara (upper house), each of the federal territories is represented by two senators, but these are appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister. In contrast, those representing the states are indirectly elected by each state legislative assembly.

In the Congress of Mexico, Mexico City is represented in the Chamber of Deputies, as well as the Senate.

In the National Assembly of Nigeria, the Federal Capital Territory has two seats in the House of Representatives and one seat in the Senate, unlike the states, each of which has three. In the Parliament of Pakistan, the Islamabad Capital Territory has two seats in the National Assembly and four in the Senate.

City-states
Berlin, the capital of Germany, is also both a city and one of the sixteen states and is represented on the same basis as the other states in the directly elected Bundestag, in which it has about twenty-four directly elected seats, and the indirectly elected Bundesrat, to which its Senate (or executive) sends four members.

Vienna, the capital of Austria, is also one of the nine states and is represented on the same basis as the other states in the Parliament, in the directly elected National Council and the indirectly elected Federal Council, to which its Gemeinderat and Landtag sends members.

Brussels, the capital of Belgium, is also one of the three regions of Belgium, forming the Brussels-Capital Region, and is represented in the Federal Parliament by fifteen directly elected members of the Chamber of Representatives and indirectly elected members of the Senate, chosen by the Parliament of the Brussels-Capital Region. In addition, as the capital of the Flemish Region and the Flemish Community, Brussels is also represented in the Flemish Parliament. However, its members have no voting rights on matters devolved to the Brussels-Capital Region. The city is also capital of the French Community and has members in the Parliament of the French Community, elected by the French linguistic group of the Parliament of the Brussels-Capital Region.

Other federal capitals
Ottawa, the capital of Canada, has remained a part of Ontario, one of the country's four founding provinces, since the country's establishment in 1867. The National Capital Commission (NCC) administers and manages federal property in the city, but in almost all respects the city is subject to federal and provincial laws on the same basis as the rest of Ontario. The current elected municipal government and city boundaries of the Canadian capital were established in 2001 by provincial legislation. Residents of Ottawa elect representatives to both the Parliament of Canada and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Since Ontarian election law currently stipulates that the electoral boundaries for most provincial constituencies, including those in Ottawa, match those of federal constituencies, Ottawa elects the same number of legislators (currently eight) to each of the federal and provincial parliaments. In addition, several current and former members of the appointed Senate have self-identified as representing the city of Ottawa.

The legislature and executive of the Switzerland are located in Bern, but Swiss law does not designate a capital district of any kind. Bern voters are represented in the Federal Assembly as part of the Canton of Bern.

The city of Abu Dhabi is the capital of the United Arab Emirates, and is represented in the partially elected, quasi-parliamentary Federal National Council as part of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi.

Unitary states
Paris, the capital of France, is also one of the special status collectivities, but is nevertheless represented on the same basis as the other departments in the National Assembly and the Senate.

London, the capital of England and of the United Kingdom, is both a ceremonial county and one of the nine officially-recognized regions of England. Although the formal creation of these regions is not regarded to have federalized England, London nevertheless now has an elected regional government, led by the Mayor of London. This is currently the only such elected regional government in England. Greater London elects 73 out of 650 MPs to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Until the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, it formed its own constituency that elected members to the European Parliament.

Rome, the capital of Italy, is part of the Lazio 1 Constituency for what concerns elections to the Chamber of Deputies and part of the Lazio Constituency for what concerns elections to the Senate. Lazio, the region Rome belongs to, is constitutionally entitled to no less than 3 senators, just as every other region aside from Molise (which is constitutionally entitled to no less than 2 senators) and Valle d'Aosta (which is constitutionally entitled to no less than 1 senator).

Tokyo, one of the 47 prefectures of Japan, is in many respects regarded as a prefecture like any other, although in English it is officially known as the Tokyo Metropolis and its elected government the Tokyo Metropolitan Government. Voters in the Japanese capital elect lawmakers to the National Diet on the same basis as in the rest of Japan.


text:
Talk:District of Columbia federal voting rights

Requested move 31 March 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) { {ping|ClydeFranklin }} (t/c) 02:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

District of Columbia voting rights → District of Columbia federal voting rights – This article is only about voting for federal offices - Congress, President, and Vice President. It does not cover local government, so needs a better title to distinguish it from District of Columbia home rule. I nominate "District of Columbia federal voting rights" as the most minimal change I could think of to do this. But I'm not sure it's the clearest title, and others may have better ideas? "District of Columbia federal representation" is also a possibility, which also seems to focus on the inability to vote for Congress rather than voting rights issues generally (which include controversies over access, eligibility, etc.). -- Beland (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per nom. There is a separate article that addresses local voting, which is too large for the two to be merged. BD2412  T 01:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Don't like the wording, "federal voting rights" is a clumsy, ambiguous phrase. I am not sure what a "federal voting right" is. Your votes are federated?  Or you vote by federation?  Or are you implying rights voting granted by federal government, which would include all voting rights in DC (as it is under the federal government)?  What you mean to say is "DC voting rights in federal elections".  I think in this instance, longer is clearer.  Otherwise I'd leave it be - the lede & DAB at the top clarifies it quickly enough. Walrasiad (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. It's more clear of the scope than the current title. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support -- I understood immediately what was meant by the proposed title.  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 00:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

DC has no-excuse mail-in voting. Ballots are mailed out automatically
See: --Timeshifter (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.dcboe.org/Voters/Casting-Your-Vote/Request-an-Absentee-Ballot
 * https://lims.dccouncil.gov/Legislation/B24-0507

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


text:
Nama people

Nama (in older sources also called Namaqua) are an African ethnic group of South Africa, Namibia and Botswana. They traditionally speak the Nama language of the Khoe-Kwadi language family, although many Nama also speak Afrikaans. The Nama People (or Nama-Khoe people) are the largest group of the Khoikhoi people, most of whom have disappeared as a group, except for the Namas. Many of the Nama clans live in Central Namibia and the other smaller groups live in Namaqualand, which today straddles the Namibian border with South Africa.

History
For thousands of years, the Khoisan peoples of South Africa and southern Namibia maintained a nomadic life, the Khoikhoi as pastoralists and the San people as hunter-gatherers. The Nama are a Khoikhoi group. The Nama originally lived around the Orange River in southern Namibia and northern South Africa. The early colonialists referred to them as Hottentots. Their alternative historical name, "Namaqua", stems from the addition of the Khoekhoe language suffix "-qua/kwa", meaning "place of" (found in the names of other Southern African nations like the Griqua), to the language name.

Nama People partial ancestry from Khoikhoi People at the Cape Colony (South Africa)
In April 1652, Jan van Riebeeck, an official of the Dutch East India Company, arrived at the Cape of Good Hope with 90 people to start initial Dutch settlement at the request of the company. They found the indigenous settlers called the Khoikhoi there, who had settled in the Cape region at least a thousand years before the Dutch arrived.

The Khoikhoi at the Cape practiced pastoral farming; they were the first pastoralists in Southern Africa. They lived beside the San people, who were hunter-gathers. The Khoikhoi had a lot of Nguni cattle and small livestock which they grazed around the Cape. The region was well suited to their lives as pastoralists because it provided enough water for them and their livestock.

Initially, when the Dutch made a stop at the Cape on the way to the Indonesian archipelago, they were concerned with getting fresh produce and water for their people. Indonesia was rich in crops and spices which could not be produced in Europe, which is why the Dutch had major interest there. The Dutch had enslaved a large number of Indonesians to work on their plantations. In the Cape, Van Riebeek initially attempted to get cattle, land, and labour from the Khoikhoi people through negotiation, but when these negotiations failed, conflicts began to occur. The Dutch settlers waged wars against the Khoikoi, and seized their lands to construct farms for wheat and other produce, and forced many Khoikoi people to work as labourers. Their livestock was also taken and they were denied access to grazing and water resources unless they worked for the Dutch settlers.

During the 18th and 19th centuries, as conflicts intensified and Dutch settlement was expanding and taking up much space in the colony, the expansion of the colony frontier pushed the Khoikhoi Eastwards into the easternmost Cape & the eventual "closed frontier" native reserves (Transkei &Ciskei) and Northwards across the so-called "open frontier" (Northern Cape & South West Africa/Namibia). Some descendants of Khoikhoi communities, including the Nama, fled north of the colony and crossed the Orange River into German South West Africa (present day Namibia).

In 1991, a part of Namaqualand (home of the Nama and one of the last true wilderness areas of South Africa) was named the Richtersveld National Park. In December 2002, ancestral lands, including the park, were returned to community ownership and the governments of South Africa and Namibia began creating a trans-frontier park from the west coast of southern Africa to the desert interior, absorbing the Richtersveld National Park. Today, the Richtersveld National Park is one of the few places where the original Nama traditions survive. There, the Nama move with the seasons and speak their language. The traditional Nama dwelling – the |haru oms, or portable rush-mat covered domed hut – protects against the blistering sun, and is easy to move when grazing becomes scarce.

Nama People at German South West Africa Colony (Namibia)
Some Khoikhoi groups including the Nama under the leadership of David Witbooi (Hendrik Witbooi's grandfather) had crossed the Orange River into South West Africa. David Witbooi was the first Khoikhoi leader to establish a permanent Namaqua settlement north Orange River beginning in the mid-1840s. In 1863, he eventually led his people to Gibeon (south-central Namibia) where he developed a communialist society centered on cattle, trade and Christianity. After his death in 1875 Moses Witbooi (Hendrik Witbooi's father) assumed chieftaincy and remained in that position until 1883. Like his father Moses followed Christian practices and worked closely with Johannes Olpp, a Protestant missionary affiliated with Rheinische Missionsgesellschaft (Rhenish Mission Society, RMG) who arrived in Gibeon in 1868. Moses supported Olpp's efforts to build a church and mission station, and also helped found an RMG school in the settlement.

Conflicts between Nama people and Herero people
In June 1884 Hendrik Witbooi had taken over leadership from his father, and in that year he began the first of his several treks with his people north into central Damaraland in search of new settlement. He had just resigned from his position in church as an elder a year before (1883), he styled himself as a biblical prophet and gained support of the most prominent families in Gibeon. Witbooi established a settlement in Hoornkrans the very same year he moved from Gibeon. Hoornkrans was an important stronghold territory controlled by the Herero, powerful Bantu pastoralists community led by Chief Maharero. Witbooi's decision to expand his influence into Hoornkrans sparked a protracted military conflict between the two tribes. However, a few months before the conflict began, Maharero had finalized a protection agreement with officials from the newly arrived German colonial administration. Although he knew about Maharero's treaty with Germany, Witbooi never waivered in his decision to confront the Herero people. Witbooi was campaigning for his tribe's supremacy in the colony and he continued to clash with other tribal communities that were under the auspices of the German protection. These rivalries between the Nama people and other tribes posed a significant problem for the imperial government because the Germans' mandate for the colony was gradually being weakened. German leaders therefore sought to bring immediate end to the conflicts between Herero people and Witbooi Namaqua.

Nama-German Conflicts
In June 1886, Reichskomissar Göring wrote Witbooi, encouraging him to end his hostile actions in the colony. He pleaded with the Nama Chief to return home to Gibeon to be with his father and tribe and live in peace there; he warned that the German government could not allow chieftains who have placed themselves under German protection to support his ambition of driving a protected chiefdom into war. Witbooi and his people ignored this warning and continued his campaign for dominance against the Herero. Later that same year Louis Nels, a deputy officer to Göering wrote to Witbooi inviting him to participate in a conciliatory meeting between the various warring communities in Walvis Bay. With this meeting German authorities had hoped to facilitate a peace treaty, however the Namaqua chief did not comply with the request but instead he wrote a letter in response telling Nels that he will not listen to him. He made it known to Nels that he (Witbooi) is a chief of his tribe who is free and an autonomous man who answers only to God. The German officials did not respond to Witbooi's diplomatic reproach. With the limits of German on full display, imperial officials were at a loss about how to end the violence in GSWA.

In June 1888, Göring wrote Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck and described the overall situation as "not very encouraging". April 1889 Göring went so far as to threaten open war against Witbooi and his tribe if he did not halt his attacks against groups allied with Germany. Witbooi's resistance prompted policy makers to seek immediate solutions to the instability in GSWA. The Namaqua resistance provoked the German authorities to act decisively, after 1889 Germany's military presence in the colony began to grow exponentially. In March 1893 Chancellor Von Caprivi proclaimed GSWA a German settlement colony. November same year Kaiser Wilhelm II appointed Curt von François as Landeshauptmann. A fanatic, François looked at Witbooi with disdain and called him a mere "tribesman" whom he could defeat easily. He had a notion that his predecessors acted weakly in dealing with the Nama chief and they made too many concessions. François strongly believed that nothing but relentless severity would end Witbooi's resistance decisively. Initially the German official tried to entice with an annual payment of five thousand marks if he would submit, however the Nama chief maintained his stand.

François was pressured by the Colonial Society to take action against Witbooi, subsequently on April 12, 1893, he launched a surprise attack on Witbooi and his tribe at Hoornkrans. 214 soldiers had been sent with an ultimate objective to "destroy the Witbooi Nama tribe". Though Witbooi and majority of his male soldiers escaped the encirclement, German troops killed nearly one hundred Namaqua women and children in their sleep. The Namaqua were unprepared for the raid believing François was still committed to neutrality. Previously Hendrik had scrupulously avoided harming Germans, but now was compelled to join the colonizers in war. In a series of running skirmishes that lasted for more than a year the Namaqua had great success, stealing horses and livestock from the German headquarters in Windhoek. At the end of 1893 Theodor Leutwein replaced Von François, he was appointed to the colony to investigate the reasons for continuing failure to subdue the Nama people. In July 1894 Leutwein asked for 250 troops, with the enlarged army he was able to defeat the Nama people who at the time had run out of ammunition; the English at the Cape and Walvis Bay had refused them assistance. Leiutwein successfully subdued the Nama and forced Hendrik to sign a protection treaty.

Nama-Herero Genocide 1904-1908
June 1904 Kaiser Wilhelm replaced Leutwein with Lieutenant General Lothar von Trotha; like his predecessor, von Trotha believed that violence would ultimately put an end to the wars in the colony. He employed a policy of extermination of the whole African tribes in the colony.

The Nama people were fighters in pre-colonial times, the Namas and the Herero people fought for control of pastures in central Namibia. The battle continued for a long part of the 19th century.

From 1904 to 1908, the German Empire, which had colonized present-day Namibia, waged a war against the Nama and the Herero (a group of Bantu pastoralists), leading to the Herero and Namaqua genocide and a large loss of life for both the Nama and Herero populations. This was motivated by the German desire to establish a prosperous colony which required displacing the indigenous people from their agricultural land. Large herds of cattle were confiscated and Nama and Herero people were driven into the desert and in some cases interned in concentration camps on the coast, for example at Shark Island. Additionally, the Nama and Herero were forced into slave labor to build railways and to dig for diamonds during the diamond rush.

In the 1920s diamonds were discovered at the mouth of the Orange River, and prospectors began moving there, establishing towns at Alexander Bay and Port Nolloth. This accelerated the appropriation of traditional lands that had begun early in the colonial period. Under apartheid, remaining pastoralists were encouraged to abandon their traditional lifestyle in favour of village life.

At the dawn of the 19th century, Oorlam people encroached into Namaqualand and Damaraland. They likewise descended from indigenous Khoikhoi but were a group with mixed ancestry including Europeans and slaves from Madagascar, India, and Indonesia. After two centuries of assimilation into the Nama culture, many Oorlams today regard Khoikhoigowab (Damara/Nama) as their mother tongue, though others speak Afrikaans. The distinction between Namas and Oorlams has gradually disappeared over time to an extent where they are today regarded as one ethnic group, despite their different ancestries.

Clans

 * ǀKhowesen (Direct descendants of Captain Hendrik Witbooi) who was killed in the battle with Germans on 29 October 1905. The |Khowesin, reside in modern-day Gibeon under the leadership of Ismael Hendrik Witbooi the 9th Gaob (meaning captain) of the |Khowesen Gibeon, situated 72 km south of Mariental and 176 km north of Keetmanshoop just off the B1, was originally known by the name Khaxa-tsûs. It received its name from Kido Witbooi first Kaptein of the ǀKhowesin.
 * Khaiǁkhaun (Red Nation) at Hoachanas, the main group and the oldest Nama clan in Namibia
 * ǃGamiǂnun (Bondelswarts) at Warmbad
 * ǂAonin (Topnaars) at Utuseb and Rooibank
 * ǃKharakhoen (Fransman Nama) at Gochas. After being defeated by Imperial Germany Schutztruppe in the Battle of Swartfontein on 15 January 1905, this Nama group split into two. Part of the ǃKharakhoen fled to Lokgwabe, Botswana, and stayed there permanently, the part that remained on South West African soil relocated their tribal centre to Amper-Bo. In 2016 David Hanse was inaugurated as chief of the clan.
 * ǁHawoben (Veldschoendragers) at Koës
 * !Aman at Bethanie which was led by Cornelius Frederick
 * ǁOgain (Groot Doden) at Schlip
 * ǁKhauǀgoan (Swartbooi Nama) at Rehoboth, later at Salem, Ameib, and Franzfontein
 * The Kharoǃoan (Keetmanshoop Nama) under the leadership of Hendrik Tseib split from the Red Nation in February 1850 and settled at Keetmanshoop.

Culture
In general, the Nama practice a policy of communal land ownership. Music, poetry and story telling are very important in Nama culture and many stories have been passed down orally through the generations.

The Nama have a culture that is rich in the musical and literary abilities of its people. Traditional music, folk tales, proverbs, and praise poetry have been handed down for generations and form the base for much of their culture. They are known for crafts which include leatherwork, skin karosses and mats, musical instruments (such as reed flutes), jewellery, clay pots, and tortoiseshell powder containers.

Many of the Nama people in South Namibia have lost their lands during German colonialism. New Namibian minister of land reform, Uutoni Nujoma has been accused of preferring other Namibians from other regions over native Namas.

Dress
The traditional dress of Nama women consists of long, formal dresses that resemble Victorian traditional fashion. The long, flowing dresses were developed from the style of the missionaries in the 1800s, and this traditional clothing is today an integral part of the Nama nation's culture.

Habitation
The Nama people's hut, also called matjieshuis, is a round hut traditionally made of beautifully designed reed mats on a skeleton of sticks. It corresponds to their nomadic life of the past; matjieshuis is still part of the life of the inhabitants of Richtersveld– a region made up of mountainous deserts in the northwest of South Africa. In fact, this is the last place where we can still find them in significant numbers. In the villages currently in the Richtersveld, the matjieshuis are used as a depot to store, as a kitchen, as an additional place to sleep, or even to provide to tourists, like accommodation. These huts, called haru oms in the Nama language, are made of reed mats woven neatly into a beehive shape. It is a dwelling house for all seasons– it is cool and well ventilated in summer, it is naturally insulated by reed carpets in winter, and protected from the rain by the porous stems which swell with water. All materials are organic and not over-harvested; this is a home that truly respects the environment. Women and men take part in the making of it, in the collection of materials, in the preparation of the rugs, and in the assembly of the hut, in a very meticulous process which has remained a true Nama art.

Settlements
Traditionally, Nama camps had 5-30 huts. These huts were circular domes and their doors faced the center of camp. They were also arranged hierarchically; the chief's was placed west and faced east. Other families were placed based on their seniority. Elder brothers and their families were on the far right, while younger brothers and their families on the left. There are no enclosures for adult livestock. They are expected to sleep in front of their owners huts. Calves and lambs are placed in an enclosed area in the middle of camp. The huts were lined with reed mats made by women, and the mats are placed on wooden frames. The reeds are able to soak and absorb water well, thus being able to protect the Nama people from summer rain. These Huts are very mobile, but also stable, being able to break them down in less than an hour. The huts are also reusable.

Religion
They have largely abandoned their traditional religion through the sustained efforts of Christian (and now Muslim) missionaries. The majority of the Nama people in Namibia today are therefore Christian while Nama Muslims make up a large percentage of Namibia's Muslims.

Burials
In the past funerals were not a big social gathering. The Nama people simply buried the body and never spoke about the person again due to fear of spirits. Today funerals are social solidarity. The position of the person in the community being buried matters– that determines the burial site. Members of close relatives of the deceased person spend a week preparing the grave site, digging, and using flattened oil drums as sheets. The mourning takes place three days before the actual burial. During the first two nights of the mourning, there is singing of hymns, preaching, and praying. On the last day of the mourning and the day of the burial, there are speeches presented and messages of condolences. The grave site itself is lined with brick, and once the body is inside, a wooden board is laid upon the top before it is covered with dirt. This style of the burial site makes it easy for preservation of the body.

Wedding ritual

Namas have a complicated wedding ritual. First, the man has to discuss his intentions with his family. If they agree they will advise him of the customs to ask the bride's family and then accompany him to the place she lives. The yard at the bride's living place is prepared prior to the future husband's family's arrival; animal hides are laid out in the corners for the different groups to sit down and discuss.

The groom's family will ask for the gate to be opened. If this is granted, the groom is interrogated about details of the bride, including the circumstances of their first meeting and how to identify her body marks to make sure both know each other well. If the bride is pregnant or already has children from her future husband or someone else, the bride is subjected to the "door cleansing" ceremony (slaughtering and consuming a snow-white goat). After several days the wedding ritual continues in reverse; the bride's family visits the clan of the groom. If all is to the satisfaction of the two clans, an engagement day is announced.

At the engagement, the groom's family brings live animals to the woman's family home. The animals are slaughtered, hung on three sticks, and each part is offered to the bride's family. Other items like bags of sugar or flour are only offered in quantities of two or four to indicate that there will always be abundance of food. This process is also celebrated in reverse at the man's family home. White flags are mounted on both families' houses which may not be taken off but wither or are blown off by the wind one day.

The wedding preparations can take up to a year. The family of the groom makes a gift to the bride's mother, traditionally a cow and a calf, for she has raised the bride at her breast. A bargaining process accompanies the gift that can take weeks in itself. On wedding day, both families provide animals and other food and bring it to the bride's home. The wedding itself takes place in a church. Festivities afterward go on for several days. The first night after the wedding the couple spends separately. On the next morning, they set off for their own home.

Literature

 * Schultze, Leonhard (1907) Aus Namaland und Kalahari, Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena
 * Leonhard Schultze et al. (1970) In Namaland and the Kalahari, Human Relations Area Files, New Haven, Conn.
 * Schultze, Leonhard (1907) Aus Namaland und Kalahari, Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena
 * Leonhard Schultze et al. (1970) In Namaland and the Kalahari, Human Relations Area Files, New Haven, Conn.

title: Nama people


text: Category:The Kids in the Hall

title: Category:The Kids in the Hall


text:
Democratic Liberal Party

Democratic Liberal Party may refer to:

Current parties with that name include:
 * Armenian Democratic Liberal Party
 * Democratic Liberal Party (Armenia)

Defunct parties of the name include:
 * Armenakan-Democratic Liberal Party
 * Democratic Liberal Party of Armenia
 * Democratic Liberal Party (Italy)
 * Democratic Liberal Party (Japan)
 * Democratic Liberal Party (Romania)
 * Democratic Liberal Party, former name of New Korea Party, South Korea

title: Democratic Liberal Party


text:
User:David.Gaya~enwiki

My name is David Gaya, I focus on the Catalan Wikipedia. But as I'm often using English wiki as reference I'm enrolling here anyway.

 * commons
 * Meta
 * Català
 * Chinese/中文

title: User:David.Gaya~enwiki


text:
Talk:Julio Franco

Trivia
Only active player to face a pitcher* who also faced Ted Williams: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=caple/offbase/060920
 * Jim Kaat

If someone knows where to put this, please do and delete this comment

 * Done. Thanks. --ChaChaFut 02:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Games by position & Statistics
I removed the list of positions & games he played at each one. Considering he is an active player, this list will be out of date unless someone comes in after every game he plays and updates it. This information is easily accessible at any site like baseball reference.com or ESPN.com. 128.61.70.49 18:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Update - I removed the Statistics too. Same reasoning. 128.61.70.49 18:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Languages Spoke and Contracts?
I could be totally wrong but I thought that he negotiates his own contracts, and he can speak 3+ languages? (English, Spanish, Japanese, ??Korean??). Would be nice info there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.117.201.120 (talk • contribs).
 * If you can find a reference for that, go ahead and add it. :)  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Beams of light that were amplified by stimulated emission of radiation and subsequently dispersed around the field by Julio
The article says: "He still amazes pitchers, fooled by Franco's unorthodox batting stance, who try to blast him with fastballs only to see Franco spray laser beams all over the field."

--Ok, wait a second. Is this whole "laser beam" thing literal or figurative? I mean, it says that the pitchers are blasting him with "fastballs", implying baseballs, and yet he's hitting laser beams? How is that possible? I'll grant you that I've never seen Mr. Franco play in person, but on TV it appears that he actually is hitting the baseballs that the pitchers are throwing, not laser beams. I was just kinda confused by this. Can someone explain? Thanks, mates.

 * Yeah, I just saw that too. I removed much of those sentences, as that last paragraph was incredibly POV and also poorly written. I'm a big Julio Franco fan (I'm a die-hard Braves fan, and I was quite upset that he left to play for the Mets), but as a Wikipedian in addition to a baseball follower, I couldn't let that paragraph slide. -- Kicking222 16:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Question about his age
I have heard that due to bad birth records in the dominican his birthdate is not for certain, and he may be older (or younger) from ESPN. I am not sure of the validity of this statement.

 * If history has taught us anything, he's probably OLDER (as most Dominican birth certificate problems are the result of highly talented, but VERY young, ball players who want to play pro-ball before they turn 18 getting falsified birth certificates to play), which is almost frightening! -- Ubergenius 18:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * His old baseball cards listed his birth as August 23, 1961 which would make him 45, however that also would have made him 16 or 17 when the Phillies initially signed him in 1978... 71.36.194.46 22:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember around the beginning of the 2002 or 2003 seasons hearing a lot of stuff about a lot of foreign baseball players having troubles because there were questions about their birth certificates, other entry documents etc. due to more intense scrutiny after 9/11. One of these pieces of vague memories was that Julio increased in age the most. Autkm (talk) 08:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Some Examples (age)
Birthdates reported Sporting News Baseball Register: 1982: 1958 1985: 1961 1993: 1961

The Baseball Encyclopedia: 1993: 1958

I know this raises more questions, such as who else besides the Sporting News gave various birthdates, but I don't want anyone to think that the statement about his age being ambiguous came from nowhere.

Point of View
I removed significant amounts of point of view in the article, such as "he had a good season". I also tried to show rather than say, so instead of saying "He had a good season, he hit 25 home runs", I changed it to "He hit 25 home runs in the season".--Thomas.macmillan 21:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
from the article on Grandfather Clause:

Major League Baseball rule 1.16 requires players who were not in the major leagues prior to 1983 to wear a batting helmet with at least one earflap. As of 2007, the only Major League Baseball player allowed to wear a batting helmet without earflaps is Julio Franco.

this is definately worth mentioning in the article. - - [ The Spooky One ] | [ t c r ] 03:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ty Cobb
Ty Cobb's wiki page says he has 4191 hits. On this page it says he has 4200+ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.87.16 (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Julio Franco. 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/20140516213702/http://fwcats.com/news/?article_id=292 to http://fwcats.com/news/?article_id=292
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040621205941/http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/F/Franco_Julio.stm to http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/F/Franco_Julio.stm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120716181953/http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/submit/Cleveland_Indians1.stm to http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/submit/Cleveland_Indians1.stm

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) 09:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Julio Franco


text:
Callan, County Kilkenny

Callan is a town and civil parish in County Kilkenny in Ireland. Situated 16 km (10 mi) south of Kilkenny on the N76 road to Clonmel, it is near the border with County Tipperary. It is the second largest town in the county, and had a population of 2,475 at the 2016 census. Callan is the chief town of the barony of the same name.

History and name

Callan was founded by William the Marshal in 1207 and reputedly gets its name from the High King of Ireland, Niall Caille. It is reported that while at war with the Norsemen the High King arrived in Callan to find that its river was in flood. The King witnessed his servant trying to cross the river and being swept away by the fast-flowing current. The King, recorded in history as a man of action, seeing the impending disaster, impetuously urged his horse into the fast flowing river in a vain bid to save his servant, only to be also overcome and drowned by the torrent. The river in question is now named the "Kings River". The town received its first charter in 1217 and was entitled to choose two elected members of Parliament.

In 1650, Oliver Cromwell and his New Model Army laid siege to Callan. Although Sir Richard Talbot, the commander of the main defence had secretly organised to surrender, some of the other defenders refused to do so, leading to a battle for the town. All of the defenders and many of the townspeople who sought safety in the stone castle and parish church were killed. In the late 19th century, a large number of human bones and cannon balls were discovered during excavations  of the ruins of the old parish church.

In order to commemorate those who died in the Callan area during World War One, a statue was erected outside the Church of the Assumption on Green Street.

In 2007, Callan celebrated its 800th year. President Mary McAleese launched the 800th celebrations of the town being granted a charter.

Places of interest
Callan Motte (also known locally as simply "The Moat") is located at the top of Moat Lane just off Bridge Street. It is one of Ireland's best-preserved Motte-and-bailey's.

Callan Augustinian Friary, known locally as the "Abbey Meadow", is at the North-East end of Callan and can also be accessed via Bridge Street or a lane and foot bridge going off Mill Street. The area also features St. Augustine's Well.

St. Mary's Church is a medieval church located on Green Street. A historic workhouse is located in Prologue.

Education
Callan had two primary schools, Scoil Mhuire and Scoil Iognáid Rís. The two schools amalgamated in 2007 to form Bunscoil McAuley Rice. Callan also has two secondary schools; the boys' school, Coláiste Éamann Rís, and the girls', St. Brigid's College.

Callan local electoral area
The Callan–Thomastown local electoral area of County Kilkenny includes the electoral divisions of Aghaviller, Ballyhale, Ballyvool, Bennettsbridge, Boolyglass, Bramblestown, Brownsford, Burnchurch, Callan Rural, Callan Urban, Castlebanny, Coolaghmore, Coolhill, Danesfort, Dunbell, Dunnamaggan, Dysartmoon, Earlstown, Ennisnag, Famma, Freaghana, Graiguenamanagh, Grange, Inistioge, Jerpoint Church, Kells, Kilfane, Killamery, Kilmaganny, Kiltorcan, Knocktopher, Mallardstown, Outrath, Pleberstown, Powerstown, Rosbercon Rural, Scotsborough, Stonyford, The Rower, Thomastown, Tullaghanbrogue, Tullaherin, Tullahought, Ullard and Woolengrange.

In popular culture
Neil Jordan's film Breakfast on Pluto with Cillian Murphy and Liam Neeson was filmed in Callan during August–September 2005. During the two weeks of filming in Callan, the main streets of the town were transformed for use in the film.

Callan was the set and stage for The Big Chapel X, a large-scale theatre production and community engagement project that drew on the history of the Callan schism, in August 2019, created by Asylum Productions in partnership with the Kilkenny Arts Festival supported by the Abbey Theatre and the Arts Council. Callan boasts many arts organisations including KCAT Arts Centre, Workhouse Union, Monkeyshine, Trasna Productions and Fennelly's Cafe.

Callan was the birthplace of Walter O’Brien in the CBS TV show, Scorpion.

People

Callan is the birthplace of a number of famous people, including:

 * Edmund or Edward Butler (died 1584), a member of the Butler dynasty, Attorney General for Ireland  and a justice of the Court of King's Bench (Ireland), lived in Callan for most of his life.
 * Gerald Comerford (died 1604), the principal landowner in Callan in the late sixteenth century and also an influential politician and judge; his tomb can still be seen at St Mary's Church
 * Patrick Cudahy (1849–1919), American industrialist and philanthropist
 * James Hoban who designed The White House and Leinster House among others was born in Desart, near Callan.
 * Linda Hogan (born 1964), Professor of Ecumenics at Trinity College Dublin, and its former vice-provost
 * Edmund Ignatius Rice, founder of the Irish Christian Brothers and the Presentation Brothers
 * Thomas Kilroy Irish playwright and novelist. Author of the historical novel The Big Chapel.
 * John Locke, Ireland's Poet in Exile, was born here in 1847.
 * Seamus Moore (singer), Irish singer/songwriter
 * Thomas Nash (Newfoundland) Irish fisherman, settled in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Founder of Branch, Newfoundland and Labrador
 * Tony O'Malley, Irish painter
 * Amhlaoibh Ó Súilleabháin (1780–1838), was a schoolmaster and linen-draper in the town, and kept a diary in the Irish language between 1827 and 1835. This recorded in great detail the life of the town. Amhlaoibh's diary is considered one of the most detailed contemporary accounts of life in Ireland at the time.

title: Callan, County Kilkenny


text: User talk:67.77.72.248

title: User talk:67.77.72.248


text:
Niki Taylor

Nicole Renee Taylor (born March 5, 1975) is an American model and has hosted for television.

Early life
Taylor was born in Fort Lauderdale, Florida to Ken and Barbara Taylor, a highway patrol lieutenant and a photographer, respectively. She was raised in Pembroke Pines, Florida; she attended Cooper City High School. She has an older sister, Joelle; she and Joelle had a younger sister, Krissy (1978–1995).

Modeling career
When she was 13, Taylor signed with Irene Marie Models in South Florida. There she met photographer Jean Renard, who later became her manager. She subsequently won a Fresh Faces contest in New York City and a $500,000 modeling contract. Taylor's first magazine cover was an issue of Seventeen (August 1989) at 14. The next year, she was photographed for the cover of Vogue, becoming the second youngest person (at 15) to appear on the cover of the magazine, after Brooke Shields.

In 1991, at age 16, Taylor became the youngest person ever to be featured as one of People magazine's Most Beautiful People. In 1992, Taylor became the first spokesmodel younger than 18 to sign a major contract with CoverGirl, and she became a feature in their national advertising campaign. Other ad campaigns of hers have been for Thierry Mugler, Escada, Liz Claiborne, Jean Paul Gaultier, Versace, Versus, Anne Klein, L'Oréal, Gap, Lee Jeans, and Pantene. Taylor remains the only person to simultaneously have six billboards in NYC's Times Square, three of those displayed her image continuously throughout the entire year.

In May 1996, Taylor appeared on the covers of the six major American women's fashion and fitness magazines in the same month: Allure, Vogue, ELLE, Marie Claire, Self, and Shape. A first in history, it was named the 'Niki Six'. She appeared in the 1997 and 1998 editions of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue; she was the cover model of the 1998 Sports Illustrated swimsuit calendar. Sports Illustrated released three video segments of her photo shoots, for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999. The 1997 segment was with another model, Naomi Campbell, the 1998 segment was with two other models, and the 1999 segment only featured Taylor.

In September 2016, Taylor began a modeling comeback, shooting covers, editorials, and features for major magazines including Paper, Flaunt, British Vogue, Harper's Bazaar, and American Vogue. She has been photographed for Marc Jacobs and Jennifer Fisher. In September 2017, Taylor earned best dressed titles in Vanity Fair, Vogue, Hello! magazine, and WWD.

In April 2021, Taylor again became the face of CoverGirl after her last contract ended in 2000.

Other ventures
Outside of modeling, Taylor was once an interviewer for segments of the syndicated program Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. She covered events for NBC and guest-hosted MTV's Fashionably Loud.

In the fall of 2005, Taylor launched her first fragrance, "Begin by Niki Taylor." She also founded the Begin Foundation for the Advancement of Women in Business. In 2007, Taylor introduced the finalists on friend and co-CoverGirl spokesmodel Tyra Banks's talkshow. Taylor and male model Tyson Beckford co-hosted the new Bravo series Make Me a Supermodel. It premiered on January 10, 2008. Although the show was renewed for a second season, Taylor did not return as co-host since she was pregnant during the filming of the second season.

Taylor became a contestant on the fourth edition of The Celebrity Apprentice on March 6, 2011. In the first task, Taylor was considered the star performer by her team, and was rewarded $35,000 for her charity (American Red Cross) because of her efforts. On March 20, she became the third person to be fired. She returned for the May 1, 2011 episode to help the men's team, Team Backbone, in a Hair Show Task.

Personal life
In October 2006, Taylor became engaged to NASCAR driver Burney Lamar after just three dates. They met at an autograph session in January 2006. Their wedding was on December 27, 2006, at the Grande Colonial Hotel in La Jolla, California. Instead of gifts, the couple asked for donations to be sent to Victory Junction Gang Camp, a camp for chronically ill children in North Carolina.

Taylor and Lamar's first child together, a daughter, was born on March 4, 2009, one day before Taylor's 34th birthday. Taylor lives with her husband, daughter, and sons in a French colonial house on 7 acre in Brentwood, Tennessee. On November 16, 2011, Taylor gave birth to her second child with Lamar, a son. Taylor has returned to a high-profile life and career again, appearing at major fashion events and New York Fashion Week shows, both with friends and also with her family.

Health struggles
On April 29, 2001, Taylor was critically injured in a car accident in Atlanta. The driver, her then-boyfriend Chad Renegar, was attempting to answer his cell phone when he lost control of the car and smashed into a utility pole. Taylor was wearing her automatic shoulder belt at the time and she was not thrown from the vehicle. However, she suffered severe internal injuries, including a collapsed lung and serious liver damage; two steel rods had to be implanted in her back holding her spine together. The accident left her unconscious and in a coma for six weeks and then bedridden for an additional month. She was treated at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta; she had approximately 56 operations and substantial physical therapy.

title: Niki Taylor


text:
Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises

Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which public interest in learning about a historical figure's impressions of a historic event was held not to be sufficient to show fair use of material otherwise protected by copyright. Defendant, The Nation, had summarized and quoted substantially from A Time to Heal, President Gerald Ford's forthcoming memoir of his decision to pardon former president Richard Nixon. When Harper & Row, who held the rights to A Time to Heal, brought suit, The Nation asserted that its use of the book was protected under the doctrine of fair use, because of the great public interest in a historical figure's account of a historic incident. The Court rejected this argument holding that the right of first publication was important enough to find in favor of Harper.

Facts
Former President Gerald Ford had written a memoir, A Time to Heal, including an account of his decision to pardon Richard Nixon. Ford had licensed his publication rights to Harper & Row, which had contracted for excerpts of the memoir to be printed in Time magazine. Instead, The Nation magazine published 300 to 400 words of verbatim quotes from the 500-page book without the permission of Ford, Harper & Row, or Time. Based on this prior publication, Time withdrew from the contract (as it was permitted to by a clause therein), and Harper & Row filed a lawsuit against The Nation for copyright infringement. The Nation asserted as a defense that Ford was a public figure, and his reasons for pardoning Nixon were of vital interest, and that appropriation in such circumstances should qualify as a fair use.

The federal trial judge, Richard Owen, ruled in favor of Harper & Row and awarded damages. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, finding that The Nation's actions in quoting the memoirs were protected by fair use privilege. Harper & Row appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court.

Issue
The issue before the Court was whether a fair use existed where the purported infringer published a public figure's unpublished work on an important public event.

Majority and minority opinions
The Court, in an opinion by Justice O'Connor noted that the right of first publication is a particularly strong right, and held that there was no 'public figure' exception to copyright protection, asserting that "the promise of copyright would be an empty one if it could be avoided merely by dubbing the infringement a fair use 'news report' of the book." The Court applied the statutory four factor test to determine if the use was fair, and made the following findings:
 * 1) The purpose or character of the use weighed against a finding of fair use because, "The Nations use had not merely the incidental effect but the intended purpose of supplanting the copyright holder's commercially valuable right of first publication." The Nations intent to benefit by depriving the copyright holders of their right to first publication suggest that this use was not "fair."
 * 2) Although the nature of A Time to Heal was primarily informative or factual, and thus deserving of less copyright protection, the work had substantial expressive value. If The Nation had limited themselves to only reporting the factual descriptions in the work, the second factor would have weighed in favor of finding fair use. (Justice Brennan, dissenting, suggests that the Court does not take enough account of how much of The Nation's report was factual.) However, The Nation "did not stop at isolated phrases and instead excerpted subjective descriptions and portraits of public figures whose power lies in the author's individualized expression."
 * 3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole weighed against a finding of fair use. Although the "amount" was small, it constituted a "substantial" portion of the work because the excerpt was the "heart of the work". The Court noted that an infringer could not defend infringing copying by pointing to how much else they could have copied, but did not.
 * 4) The effect of the use on the potential market for the value of the copyrighted work also weighed against a finding of fair use. The Nations infringement led to actual, particular harm, Times cancellation of their publishing contract.

Justice Brennan dissented, joined by Justices White and Marshall. Citing the text of the law under which Harper's brought their lawsuit ("The enactment of copyright legislation by Congress under the terms of the Constitution is not based upon any natural right that the author has in his writings ... but upon the ground that the welfare of the public will be served and progress of science and useful arts will be promoted by securing to authors for limited periods the exclusive rights to their writings." ), Brennan found that the importance of "the robust debate of public issues" here outweighed the limited power of copyright ownership. He stated that the descriptions of the work were non-copyrightable, and the direct quotations were so few, compared to the size of the work as a whole, that The Nation's article did not constitute an appropriation of Harper's copyright. Brennan criticized the court for finding copyright infringement technically based on the 300 words that were quoted in order to protect Harper's interest in being the first to publish the non-copyrightable historical information in the work.

Later treatment
The opinion was later cited by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit hearing the case of Salinger v. Random House (1987), in which J.D. Salinger had objected to the publication of his unpublished letters. The court noted that the Supreme Court ruling on Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises (1985) had observed "the scope of fair use is narrower with respect to unpublished works," but denied that the unpublished nature of Salinger's letters was decisive. ("[The Supreme Court] stressed the tailoring of fair use analysis to the particular case... It neither stated nor implied a categorical rule barring fair use of unpublished works."

The court went on to note that the meaning of Harper is somewhat ambiguous. Either, they reasoned, there are fewer cases in which fair use may be found when the original work is unpublished or less material may be copied from unpublished works. The court ultimately decided that the first was true, and that unpublished works normally have complete protection against any copying of protected expression.

title: Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises


text:
Henry Kenny

Henry Frances Kenny (7 September 1913 – 25 September 1975) was an Irish Fine Gael politician who served as Minister of State at the Department of Finance from 1973 to 1975. He served as a Teachta Dála (TD) from 1954 to 1975. He was the father of former Taoiseach Enda Kenny.

He was also a Gaelic footballer who won an All-Ireland Senior Football Championship medal with the Mayo county team in 1936.

Early life
Kenny was born on Main Street, Castlebar, County Mayo, in 1913. He was educated at the local St Patrick's national school and St Gerald's College. He subsequently attended St Patrick's College in Drumcondra, Dublin, where he qualified as a national school teacher. After graduation he taught in Connemara and Williamstown, County Galway, before being appointed principal of Leitir national school in Islandeady, County Mayo.

Club
He played his club Gaelic football with Castlebar Mitchels club, and won several county senior championship medals in the 1930s.

Inter-county
Kenny's performances at club level earned him a place on the senior Mayo county team. He was a member of the record-breaking Mayo team that won six consecutive National Football League titles from 1934 until 1939. Kenny also won an All-Ireland winners' medal in 1936.

Political career
His entry into politics was unusual in the sense that neither he nor his family were steeped in politics at the time. In spite of this he was elected to Dáil Éireann at his first attempt, at the 1954 general election, as a Fine Gael Teachta Dála (TD) for the Mayo South constituency. The election saw Fine Gael enter government as the lead party in the country's second inter-party government. Kenny, as a new TD, remained on the backbenches; however, he was subsequently elected to Mayo County Council.

Kenny retained his seat at the 1957 general election; however, Fine Gael lost power as Fianna Fáil began sixteen years of uninterrupted government. During that time he retained his Dáil seat at every general election, moving to the Mayo West constituency in 1969. That same year he was appointed Fine Gael spokesperson on the Board of Works, a position he held until 1972. The results of the 1973 general election saw Fine Gael and the Labour Party form a coalition government. Kenny was appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance where he had responsibility for the Board of Works.

Death and private life
Two years after being appointed to the government, Kenny was diagnosed with cancer. He died on 25 September 1975. He married Eithne McGinley in 1944 and they had five children. His son, Enda Kenny, was elected to the Dáil at the by-election in 1975. Another son, also Henry Kenny, was a member of Mayo County Council from 1999 to 2019. His widow Eithne Kenny died at the age of 93 in Castlebar on 26 November 2011.

title: Henry Kenny


text:
Talk:Cockpit

Ships
Missing: Cockpits on ships! Scriberius 12:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, its there in the second para. -- Solipsist 11:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Etymology
Does anyone know the origin of the term? I've heard comment that a "cockpit" is renamed a "box office" when the entire flight crew is female. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.185.113.36 (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

 * From the Online Etymology Dictionary:
 * "1587, 'a pit for fighting cocks.' Used in nautical sense (1706) for midshipmen's compartment below decks; transferred to airplanes (1914) and to cars (1930s)."
 * As far as I can tell, the etymology has nothing to do with the fact that most pilots are male. —D'Agosta ( T⁄C ) 18:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure the source but I recall reading that one of the Royal Navy's headquarters (maybe even the current one) was nicknamed the cockpit (or cock pit) because it had been built on the site where cock fights were held - a cock fighting pit. The name was then transferred to the junior officer's (midshipmen's) quarters aboard the Royal Navy's warships, whence it was then transferred to small boats, and from there to aircraft - thus linking it back to birds again.NiD.29 (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Someone needs to find some good citations for this, but after a friend asked me about the term and I looked into it, to me it seems more likely that the nautical sense is related to "coxswain" and "cock-boat". Apparently the cockpit was where the cock-boat was kept, and this was also the station for the coxswain (whose name literally derives from "cock servant"). The cock-boat, in turn, was a small ship's boat whose name derived from "coque", a French word for "shell" which also means "hull". To me this origin seems much more plausible than a vague connection to cockfighting, which I can't imagine sailors frequently performed next to the ship's helm. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

 * I have never found any mention of a connection to coxswains or their small boats, especially since they wouldn't have been stored in the cockpit anyway - Oxford Dictionary: Late 16th century (in sense 2): from cock1 + pit1. sense 1 dates from the early 20th century and derives from an early 18th-cent. nautical term denoting an area in the aft lower deck of a man-of-war where the wounded were taken, later coming to mean 'the ‘pit’ or well from which a yacht is steered'; hence the place housing the controls of other vehicles.
 * Such an area supposedly resembled a fighting cockpit in being dark, cramped and foul smelling - nothing to do with fighting birds. - NiD.29 (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Rework
I think this article could do with a little rework. Most particularly to put the description of a cockpit as the control section of an airplane back at the top as the primary meaning. Then the discussion on cockfighting and naval meanings can be moved down to separate section with a more historical context. It was this edit back in July 2004 that gave primacy to the origin of the word as a pit for cockfighting.

As it is, the article is probably not what most readers are expecting. -- Solipsist 11:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the chronological, historical description makes sense it's educational, it shows how the modern usage has come about. You say the article is probably not what most readers are expecting. I say Good!, they might learn something. I might even add Hogarth's famous print - http://www.fromoldbooks.org/OldEngland/pages/2440-the-cockpit/. (better version here http://www.artoftheprint.com/artistpages/hogarth_william_pitticketthecockpit.htm) I agree though that there is certainly plenty of room for expansion regarding the modern usage. Jooler 11:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh I don't disagree that it is interesting (I helped to expand it myself), the trouble is that the three uses are really very different things that just happen to be linked by a common etymology. The original article was really a disambiguation page and the three subjects could easily be separated into three pages. If that were to happen the aviation usage would be the primary topic disambiguation. As such, it is wrong to keep the page as it is. -- Solipsist 19:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's it little odd. It might be my memory playing tricks on me, but I rather thought I did the expansion to include the Royal Navy usage of cockpit. However the current page history attributes that to Mintguy. Does anyone know of any pagediff problems around that era? -- Solipsist 19:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the first recorded use of cockpit for Airplanes was 1914, could there have been a fighting connotation in the origin during WWI? --192.28.2.17 15:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Move or spin off
I was going to ask for thoughts on moving the content of this page to Cockpit (aviation) and use this title space for the disambiguatuion, however in view of the above discussion, what would the reaction be to keep the history here and to move aircraft specific details to a new Cockpit (aviation) page. KTo288 (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

-I am interested where the word actually derrived from? I read about the RAF but why "cock pit"? The pit is obvious but why cock? Is that short for somthing? Does an;yone have a idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.254.14.38 (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hope that would answer your question: The original term 'cockpit' is actually derived from the literal cock-fighting pits (a sunken ring-like fighting area for two ill-tempered animals, usually chickens / roosters) prevalent throughout history (for sport until banned as illegal in most countries). The sunken-tub like shape that were found in the original aircraft were said to be reminiscent of these fighting arenas, thus the name stuck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.159.125 (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dual and tandem cockpits
The article should discribe the seating in a dual or tandem cockpit. Does the copilot sit on the left or right? In a military tandem cockpit, does the navigator sit in the front or the back? How about trainees and instructors? Are all controls duplicated? if not, where are the single controls located? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

pilot sits on the left
Say if the pilot sits on the left, and the co-pilot on the right. Jidanni (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/pilot5.htm
 * http://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/Need-to-Know-Why-Do-Helicopter-Pilots-Sit-in-the-Right-Seat.html

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cockpit. 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/20141006083905/http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=5470 to http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=5470
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080322001541/http://www.biblio.com/books/36089559.html to http://www.biblio.com/books/36089559.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cockpit