text:
Rhode Island Route 403

Route 403, also known as the Quonset Freeway, is a numbered state highway located in Washington County and Kent County, Rhode Island, United States. The route is a nominally east–west limited-access freeway for its entire length. A spur of Rhode Island Route 4, Route 403 serves Davisville and the Quonset Business Park, providing freeway access to Interstate 95 and the northern Providence metropolitan area from the industrial zone. The western terminus of the freeway is at a trumpet interchange with Route 4 in East Greenwich. The route has three unnumbered interchanges along its 4.5 mi length, including a junction with U.S. Route 1 in North Kingstown, before terminating at an at-grade intersection with Roger Williams Way and Commerce Park Road in Quonset. Route 403 is the highest numbered route in Rhode Island.

Prior to 2006, Route 403 was a narrow, two-lane road through Davisville. The western terminus of the route was at an interchange with Route 4 and Rhode Island Route 402 in East Greenwich, and the eastern terminus was at U.S. Route 1 in North Kingstown. In order to accommodate increasingly heavy commercial and commuter traffic to and from the Quonset Business Park, the Rhode Island Department of Transportation constructed the Quonset Freeway as an upgraded Route 403. The relocation of the route began in 2000 and was constructed in two phases; Phase 1, a freeway from Quonset to Davisville, opened in June 2006. Phase 2 of the relocation project, which connected the freeway with Route 4, was completed one year ahead of schedule in December 2008.

Original Route 403
Prior to 2006, Route 403 was a narrow, two-lane road running for 2.4 mi through Davisville, Rhode Island. The road, a spur route of Route 4, connected to Rhode Island Route 402 and Route 4 at its western terminus, and was accessible only from Route 4 southbound. Its eastern terminus was at a grade-separated interchange with U.S. 1. The nominally east–west route followed a northwestern–southeastern route for most of its length. Route 403 was signed on two local roads, Davisville Road and Devil's Foot Road, in the towns of East Greenwich and North Kingstown.

Route 403's original western terminus was at a complex interchange with Routes 4 and 402 in East Greenwich. Both Routes 402 and 403 were accessible from Exit 7 on Route 4 southbound; there was no access to either route from the northbound lanes of Route 4. After the Exit 7 ramp, Route 403 eastbound crossed over Route 4 and began to head in southeastern direction along Davisville Road. Shortly after its western terminus, Route 403 crossed the Hunt River into Washington County and Davisville, a village in the town of North Kingstown. After intersecting Old Baptist Road, a local route that connects to Route 102, Route 403 began to follow Devil's Foot Road, continuing on its southeastern trajectory. The route crossed Amtrak's Northeast Corridor rail line before turning to head in an almost due east direction, entering the Quonset Business Park. Shortly after passing Devil's Foot Rock, a petrosomatoglyph attributed to the Devil in colonial times, Route 403 passed under U.S. Route 1 (Post Road) and intersected two US 1 access ramps, Davisville Road, and Quonset Road; the latter two roads headed into the business park toward Quonset State Airport and the Quonset container port. Although the mainline of the road continued eastbound as Quonset Road (now Roger Williams Way), Route 403 officially terminated at the intersection with the US 1 access ramps.

Since the completion of the Quonset Freeway in 2008 and the full relocation of Route 403, the old route on Davisville Road and Devil's Foot Road has been unnumbered. Some portions of the road are signed "To RI 403," but there is no indication that RIDOT plans to designate the old route as Rhode Island Route 403A. Route 403's previous alignment was largely unchanged during the construction of the Quonset Freeway; only the interchanges with Routes 4 and 402 in East Greenwich and with US 1 in North Kingstown were altered significantly.

Quonset Freeway
The Quonset Freeway begins in East Greenwich at Exit 7 of Route 4; southbound, the exit is numbered 7B, as Exit 7A serves Route 402. Unlike Route 402, which is accessible only via Route 4 southbound, Route 403 is accessible from the northbound lanes of Route 4 via the newly constructed Exit 7. Like the original Route 403, the nominally east–west freeway follows a northwestern–southeastern route for much of its length. Shortly after beginning at Route 4, Route 403 crosses over Route 402 and the Hunt River on a single-span bridge, entering the town of North Kingstown. The relocation of Route 403 removed access to Route 402; the freeway now travels over Frenchtown Road without an interchange. While there is no direct link between the two routes, motorists traveling westbound on Route 403 can take the exit for Route 4 south and then access Route 402 from Exit 7A off Route 4.

Route 403 continues in a southeastern direction before crossing over Amtrak's Northeast Corridor rail line. The freeway begins to closely parallel the railroad before crossing under Devil's Foot Road, the original Route 403, and entering the village of Davisville. Shortly after the overpass, Route 403 turns to head almost due east. The freeway has its first interchange with West Davisville Road; the exit is accessible only from eastbound Route 403, and serves the villages of Davisville and Quidnessett. Closely paralleling Devil's Foot Road, Route 403 continues eastward before interchanging with U.S. Route 1 (Post Road) and Davisville Road; the two roads are served via a single exit. Westbound Route 403 has no direct interchange with either US 1 or Davisville Road; the route's first westbound exit in Quonset is signed as "To US 1," and connects to Post Road via Gate Road, a commercial outlet in Quonset.

Shortly after the interchange with US 1, Route 403 begins to head in a southwestern direction. After 4.5 mi, Route 403 terminates at a traffic signal with Commerce Park Road, a commercial route that heads north into the business park. The mainline of Route 403 continues eastward as Roger Williams Way (formerly Quonset Road), a four-lane, undivided road that leads to Quonset State Airport.

History
The original Route 403 that existed prior to 2006 was numbered in 1973 as a spur route of the newly constructed Route 4. The two-lane, undivided state highway was the main access road to Davisville and Quonset Point from Route 4. Quonset was home to Naval Air Station Quonset Point, a major U.S. naval base, until 1974. After the closure of the base, the Quonset Point region of North Kingstown was converted into an industrial zone and commercial district by the state of Rhode Island; a container port and the Quonset State Airport were also opened for commercial use.

By the 1980s, more than 12,000 cars were using Route 403 daily to access the business park; the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) estimated that this vehicle volume would exceed 25,000 by 2005. This high vehicle capacity would be dangerous because of Route 403's sharp curves and low speed limit in Davisville. The narrow route through a densely populated region was particularly unsuitable for the high volume of commercial trucks that used it to access Route 4 from the Quonset Business Park and container port. RIDOT began studies on improving the route in 1987, exploring both the widening of the existing route to a four-lane, undivided highway and the construction of a freeway as options. The proposal to widen the existing road was ultimately dropped, as it would less effective at relieving congestion in the region and would require significant demolition of existing structures in Davisville. A freeway alternative to be constructed north of the existing route with more direct access to Route 4 and an eastward expansion beyond US 1 into the Quonset Business Park was selected instead.

Construction of the Quonset Freeway
Construction of "Phase 1" of the four-lane, limited-access Quonset Freeway began in 2000 with excavation of the route and right-of-way acquisition; the project required the demolition of 13 structures, five commercial and eight residential. Phase 1 included an extension of the highway into the Quonset Business Park and the construction of several overpasses in Quonset, an exit ramp to Gate Road, a full interchange with U.S. Route 1 in North Kingstown, and a partial diamond interchange with West Davisville Road in Davisville. During Phase 1's construction, traffic was maintained on the existing Route 403 (Devil's Foot Road); the only major alteration to the route was the setting of a new eastern terminus of the road at US 1, as the previous terminus was demolished to allow for the construction of the freeway. Phase 1 cost $70 million to complete and was opened to traffic on June 22, 2006. The new freeway was posted with a speed limit of 45 mph.

From 2006 until 2008, while Phase 2 of the relocated Route 403 was constructed, traffic on the newly completed freeway from Quonset to Davisville was redirected onto Davisville Road (the original route alignment), which continued on to the existing terminus at Routes 4 and 402. Traffic was diverted onto the original route alignment after the West Davisville Road interchange, passing over the Amtrak rail tracks via the existing Devil's Foot Road overpass bridge. Construction of the $100 million-Phase 2 of the Quonset Freeway began in 2004 and continued until 2008. The project included the construction of new bridges over the Northeast Corridor rail line, Route 402, and Route 4. The existing Route 403 bridge over Route 4 was also demolished as a part of Phase 2. The freeway and ramps from Route 403 west to Route 4 north and from Route 4 south to Route 403 east opened on October 23, 2008. The route was posted with a speed limit of 50 mph. The final portion of Phase 2, ramps from Route 403 west to Route 4 south and from Route 4 north to Route 403 east, opened in December 2008. As part of the construction of a trumpet interchange with Route 4 in East Greenwich, a new northbound Exit 7 on Route 4 was completed; the original Route 403 was accessible only from Route 4 southbound. All major construction on the freeway was completed in December 2008, one year ahead of schedule; minor projects continued on the relocated route until early 2009.

Exit list
Exits were renumbered in fall 2018 as part of a statewide conversion to mileage-based exit numbers.

title: Rhode Island Route 403


text:
Talk:Andrea Mitchell

Header
Not much info on her career, just incidents. The background info isn'r enough. Please improve this article. thanks. -Alan

can anyone document when she had her face lifts? Kingturtle 19:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Sean7phil 18:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Is she a republican - her husband certainly is?

Who was her first husband?

Religion
What relevance is it to put it in the infobox? It's not there for other TV journalists. Dogru144 04:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrea Mitchell, a 1963 graduate of New Rochelle (NY) High School was an accomplished second alto who performed as a soloist with the NRHS 'A' Choir, and was a member of Double Octet and All State Choir.

Washington Bureau
Did she succeed the late Tim Russert as NBC News Washington Bureau chief? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversy during Obama Campaign
This seems to violate No original research. I am removing it and it can be restored when or if it gets sourced. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did find sources but I didn't see the quote of what she originally said so it was left out. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

wawa scandal
I have added some sources for the criticism and ridicule Mitchell has come under for the incident. There is no question it exists. That some sources may not be reliable for some material hardly impeaches words verifiable in print and video. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No question the scandal exists? Sure, the newsbusters blog calls it a scandal. As repeatedly discussed with various user names trying to foist "scandals" reported at newsbusters, that is not a reliable source and one blog calling something a scandal is meaningless. Now let's look at the rest of those sources:

 * First up, we have the Politico blog (now broken, here's a replacement link) which, quite pointedly, did NOT in ANY way connect this to Mitchell, the subject of this article. "The MSNBC clip feeds into the narrative, beloved by some on the left, that Romney is a 1950′s throwback. After the clip cut, Mitchell and MSNBC contributor Chris Cillizza broke out into laughter — which is understandable, given that they both had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine. In fact, what Romney found so “amazing” was the discord between private sector innovation and public sector bureaucracy." That's about all it had to say about Michell: She laughed at a clip which, as presented, made Romney look out of touch (seemingly amazed at the "touchtone keypad" touchscreens at Wawa. In fact, the source explained that her laughter was "understandable".
 * Next, we have a copyright violation at youtube. As repeatedly discussed with various user names trying to foist "scandals" reported at newsbusters, Wikipedia does not knowingly link to copyright violations and the content of a news report does not demonstrate that there was a controversy about the content of that report.
 * Finally, we have Fox News. Let's see how close they get to "Mitchell came under criticism and ridicule for presenting a flagrantly dishonest edit of comments made by Mitt Romney at a campaign stop in Pennsylvania and then mocking him." We have several charges here: "criticism and ridicule" of Mitchell, "a flagrantly dishonest edit" (somehow involving Mitchell, the topic of this article) and "mocking him" (Romney). Here is everything in that source that mentions or alludes to Mitchell: "...one of its highest-profile news anchors played manipulated video that made Mitt Romney appear out of touch with everyday voters..." Now, do we have "criticism and ridicule" of Mitchell? No, we have criticism of NBC. Do we have "a flagrantly dishonest edit" (somehow involving Mitchell)? No, we have "manipulated video" that she OHMYGOD! "played". Do we have her "mocking" Romney? No, the closest we have is in the Politico source where she "broke out into laughter -- which is understandable". I'd give this a little bit of time for the current user name using newsbusters to respond before yanking this, but it is currently a contentious claim regarding a living person. I am removing it, per WP:BLP. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that the use of a newsbusters blogging "Controversy!" aimed at NBC with claims that the existence of video of a news report supports that the report was "controversial" has been repeatedly discussed elsewhere. See, for example Talk:Kelly O'Donnell. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether or not this should be included is open for debate, however there are some aspects that are factual and have been reported. Mitchell dishonestly played an edited video in order to make Romney's "suprise" regarding Wawa similar to that against GHWB's "shopping scanner" incident.  Her presentation of the material was done to make Romney look out of touch with the average person and her comments leading into the presentation make this clear.  Mitchell has not appologized for the deliberately misleading lead-in into the presentation.  I doubt that this is going to completley go away.  Arzel (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * She "dishonestly" played it? What planet did that take place on? Yes, she was on the show the video was played on. And she did it for what reason? It's amazing how you've gotten into her mind and read her motives. Her lead it was deliberately misleading? My, but you do have a creative streak. I know you doubt it will completely go away, but that's a moot point. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that she is completely innocent of anything on her show, that she is little more than a paid prop to read a teleprompter? I didn't get into her mind, there are many sources that point out her dishonest reporting.  I am a little suprised that you would defend this kind of misreprensentation of events.  Arzel (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are reading into what I said. I did not say what you think I said. I said that you are reading into what the sources said. They do not say what you think they say. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Some of the he above comments are quite emotional. You cannot remove an entire section by complaining that youtube is not a reliable source for a video which is open for all to see.  (We also cannot assume that the material was posted without permission, but in any case the fact that Beck mocked Mitchell is indisputable.)  If editors have problems with the wording, they should feel free to work on it.  But wholesale repeated deletions for different excuses each time is edit warring and I intend to report the behavior if it repeats. μηδείς (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot remove an entire section of poorly sourced material making a contentious claim about a living person? Quite the contrary. We're supposed to do exactly that. (BLP violations are, in fact, the only specific exception to WP:3RR.) The video does not make a reasonable claim of copyright permission. In fact, it makes no claim at all. So, we're supposed to assume it is a copyright violation. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That she has been criticized is not a contentious claim about her. No one denies she has been, not evene her when she issued her correction the following night.  Calling her a liar directly might be, but saying that others have criticized her when they have criticized her is simple fact.  If you think liberal papers like the WaPo, Atlantic, HuffPo and NYMagazine don't reflect a balanced set of sources you can attribute the claims as per WP:ATTRIBUTE.  But you certainly cannot delete the material. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:BLP. The section contained numerous contentious claims about a living person which were not cited to reliable sources. Discussion of the actual material continues below. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added the Washington Post, The Atlantic, The Huffington Post and New York magazine as sources to the article. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! Let's take a look at those sources:
 * Washington Post: "MSNBC and Andrea Mitchell are under fire"
 * The Atlantic Wire opens with the follow up you've failed to note. In fact, that's the only thing the article says about Mitchell (remember her? she's the topic of this article).
 * huffingtonpost.com: The headline? "MSNBC Romney Edit Draws Fire; Andrea Mitchell Briefly Addresses Controversy". This, remember, is in support of the claim that the controversy was about Mitchell... somehow. "MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell briefly addressed a controversy on Tuesday about the way her show had edited a clip of Mitt Romney." Yes, it's all so clear now... "The network came under fire for the way it edited comments..." Hmm, they forgot all about Mitchell's treachery... "The clip Mitchell showed..." OHMYGOD! THERE IT IS! THE SMOKING GUN! SHE @#$%ING "SHOWED" THE CLIP! Really? How, um, presenter-ish of her. "The pushback was swift, as conservatives and media writers accused MSNBC..." but they, um, forgot to accuse Mitchell? Then on to the second bit, that you haven't seen fit to mention.
 * Fox News: "...one of its highest-profile news anchors played manipulated video that made Mitt Romney appear out of touch with everyday voters..." Wow! Such naked aggression! The venom! She "played" it!
 * New York: "On her show today Andrea Mitchell dubbed the incident Romney's 'super market scanner moment.'" You have to read between the lines here... actually, you have to get loaded up on scotch, get in a creative mood and read something else entirely. That's the only time Mitchell is mentioned. Still, it cited for her "misrepresenting", which it does not say she did.
 * Yeah, um that New York article? It's also used for the rest of the sentence right after "misrepresenting", supposedly in support of what she supposedly misrepresented: "comments made by Mitt Romney at a campaign stop in Pennsylvania and then mocking him for the invented gaffe." All of that from "On her show today Andrea Mitchell dubbed the incident Romney's 'super market scanner moment.'" Amazing. Before gulping down the scotch, fire up a few bowls, i guess.
 * The same Fox News cite is now used to source, "The clip". Again, all it says about Mitchell (the topic of this article) is "...one of its highest-profile news anchors played manipulated video that made Mitt Romney appear out of touch with everyday voters...".
 * The same huffingtonpost.com article again, still discussing what the show did, rather than Mitchell (the topic of this article).
 * The same Washington Post blog, again, saying which blog first reported this. Still nothing about Mitchell, though. Credit where credit is due: this source actually says what it is cited as saying.
 * Politico is also cited as a source for the name of the blog. Politico, BTW, says only one thing about Mitchell (the topic of this article), "After the clip cut, Mitchell and MSNBC contributor Chris Cillizza broke out into laughter — which is understandable, given that they both had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine." Curiously, you neglected to mention that.
 * newsbuster.org, as repeatedly discussed, is a blog. It is not a source.
 * In summary, from the sources above, after limiting the discussion to Mitchell (the topic of this article), we have, "MSNBC and Andrea Mitchell came under fire for a video the network had edited in such a way that it appeared that Mitt Romney is not in touch with everyday voters. Mitchell, who had been led to believe Romney was wowed a machine at a convenience store, briefly address the controversy the following day." - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Your sarcastic emotional tone and suggestion I abuse drugs is not well taken and it won't look good if this goes to administration. "Misrepresent" and "invent" are verbatim from the sources. The current wording is perfectly neutral and verifiable--we agree no verifiable source says she "had been led to believe" anything. Mitchell took responsibility for her own broadcast the following day and stood behind it, she didn't say the show aired in her name mislead her. Bozell's comments were broadcast on Fox news and his verbatim words are sourced in the ref from Fox, not Newsmax. Newsmax was given only as a source for the video, a primary source which Fox and Huffpost also provide. Likewise for politico. It is a redundant source supporting soopermexican's credit for revealing the scandal. The Washington Post says the same thing. Given your distaste for these unnecessary sources I will remove them. The are unnecessary as supoprts for the text as it stands. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the politico and newsmax sources as redundant, added the date of the incident and clarified the allusion to the GHWB super market scanner. μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to take this to whatever board you would like. I'd suggest either the BLP board or the reliable sources board. Hell, knock yourself out and go for an admin board.
 * Yes, a source does say that MSNBC "Misrepresents Romney Speech". This article is not about MSNBC. Saying Mitchell "misrepresented" anything in an unsourced contentious claim about a living person.
 * The same goes for "invents". The source says MSNBC not Mitchell.
 * No, we do NOT "agree that no verifiable source says she 'had been led to believe' anything". The Politico source, which you have now strangely decided to remove, directly says, "Mitchell and MSNBC contributor Chris Cillizza ... had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine."
 * Newsbusters, as repeatedly discussed on numerous talk pages and the reliable sources noticeboard, is not usable here.
 * Again, with sourcing for everything, and limiting ourselves to material about Mitchell (the subject of this article), we have, "MSNBC and Andrea Mitchell came under fire for a video the network had edited in such a way that it appeared that Mitt Romney is not in touch with everyday voters. Mitchell, who had been led to believe Romney was wowed a machine at a convenience store, briefly address the controversy the following day."
 * Should you choose to ignore this suggestion, I will replace your section with it. If you would like to specifically cite reliable sources speaking about Mitchell to add to this or claim that the sources I've cited do not say what I am claiming, I am more than willing to listen. If you post further claims without specifically citing the sources for each portion of your claim, I will simply reply that your addition is uncited. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The consensus opposes the view that this section should be deleted, or, barring that, references to the reason for the controversy be deleted in favor of just mentioning that Mitchell aired a show. I have restored the verbatim "misreprent" and "invent" so that readers will know why there is a scandal. I changed "for misrepresenting" (fact) to "as having misrepresented" (criticism). I have fixed the Wawa piping. The last two sentences are abrupt and need work. μηδείς (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious - misrepresented
The claim: "After a June 18, 2012 segment on her show Andrea Mitchell Reports, Mitchell came under criticism as having misrepresented..." Fact: The source does NOT say Mitchell misrepresented anything, nor does it say that anyone made that claim. The source says, "MSNBC Misrepresents Romney Speech, Invents Wawa ‘Gaffe’". Discuss.- Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As there has been no response, I've fixed this to match what the sources actually say. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious - under criticism
The claim: "Mitchell came under criticism Fact: Four sources are given, clearly implying that Mitchell was widely criticized. The first three sources clearly single out MSNBC, NOT Mitchell. Of the numerous sources presented in the contentious history of this claimed controversy, that last source, Fox News, is the only source that clearly states Mitchell was criticized. All of the rest clearly hang this on MSNBC. The Politico source, one of the first ones ever cited in this section, specifically and directly exonerated Mitchell. After I pointed this out, that source was removed. In a fair and balanced kinda way. Discuss. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As there had been no response, I fixed this. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggested section content, still not discussed
I have suggested: ""MSNBC and Andrea Mitchell came under fire for a video the network had edited in such a way that it appeared that Mitt Romney is not in touch with everyday voters. Mitchell, who had been led to believe Romney was wowed a machine at a convenience store, briefly address the controversy the following day." There still have not been any comments on this suggestion. Does it misrepresent any of the sources? Which ones and how? Is there any reliably sourced material about Mitchell missing? What and which sources present the material? Comments? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

 * There is no consensus for your changes or interpretation. Your calls for discussion after having deleted the section wholesale seem inconsistent.  In any case, you have read mine and Arzel's comments above.  I remind you the show is called Andrea Mitchell Reports and unless you find a reliable source saying she said she was misled her second-day clarification implies she takes full responsibility for her actions. Please update us when you find such a source. μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your new claim seems to say that what sources say the network did somehow applies to her because of the name of the show. Please discuss this in the two "Dubious" sections above. Additionally, please explain what you feel this section gets wrong or omits, citing sources for each issue. Thanks! - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * AM did not address the controversy, or even acknowledge that she did anything wrong. She said that the RNC noted that Romney had more to say about the visit so she aired a few more seconds of the visit without any comment.  I am actually quite suprised that AM has not yet done a Mea Culpa on this since the deception is clear and she has yet to even note that what she did was wrong.  But then I suppose since Romney is a Republican there is little outcry from most of the media to even note just how blatently biased her report was.  Arzel (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That you believe "what she did was wrong", the "deception is clear", liberal bias in the media, etc. are all moot points with no relation whatsoever to what we should or should not include in this article. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You did not address my first two sentences regarding you previous comment, they are factual statements backed up by the sources and not my opinion. Only the last sentence is my opinion, but c'mon, are you really defending her actions here?  I've not seen anyone in the media defend what she did, at most it has been ignored, but all that have commented on it have come to the same conclusion.  AM aired a deceptively edited video designed to make Romney look out of touch or like an imbecile, and she did not appologize or even acknowledge that she did anything wrong in the least.  Arzel (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They are not "factual". Claim: "AM did not address the controversy". Fact: Yes, she did. Claim: "or even acknowledge that she did anything wrong." Fact: Reliable sources do not say that she did anything wrong. Claim: I did not address "She said that the RNC noted that Romney had more to say about the visit so she aired a few more seconds of the visit without any comment." Fact: What's to address? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious - laughing at him for the invented gaffe
The claim: "(Mitchell) laugh(ed) at him for the invented gaffe.http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/06/msnbc-misquotes-romney-invents-wawa-gaffe.html" Fact: The source cited does not say Mitchell "laughed at him". In fact, the source cited doesn't even mention laughter. The only thing this particular source says about Mitchell is, "On her show today Andrea Mitchell dubbed the incident Romney's 'super market scanner moment.'" There is nothing remotely related to what the source is cited for. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I don't know what you are on about. The reference is added to support the fact that the supposed gaffe was invented by the editing--not the fact that she laughed at the gaffe, which is evident from the primary source of the video and requires no separate source. Given the rewording by Canoe1967 I have removed the dubiouses.μηδείς (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The source does not say or show that she laughed at Romney. While having her laugh "at Romney" supports your idea of her attacking him, it is not in the source. As you have not responded to the other two "dubious" tags (detailed above), should we assume you agree with the analysis presented there? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed Canoe1967's edit inserting MSNBC since it implied MSNBC had laughed at Romeny, not Mitchell and her guest. μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've fixed your "fix" as the source does not say that anyone laughed at anyone. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * you remove Mitchell's alleged laughter -by the dubious claim that it doesn't even exist in her report or isn't worth noting- then you are removing her laughter from the context of Romney's being ridiculed (which was quite apparently the solely desired effect of the clip). she even made reference to another oft smeared republican, GHWB. was this analogy necessary. why isn't this a howard dean "ahhhh" moment? don't many a failing politician have a memorable falling out? but denying our right to report laughter even happened.  just because it was retracted the next day unapologetically, or because one of the "neutral" sources did not make light of it in their recounting of events... you're saying it didn't happen? or though you know it did occur from the videos, you either won't acknowledge, or you decide it's non notable because one site failed to include it in their blurb summary of what took place? so... Romney's speech was worth Andrea pointing out as a classic gaffe at the time, but now that the facts are in, you become wary of us trying to interpret Andrea Mitchell's actual words and laughter for their desired effect? if so, you are inconsistent in your logic. this is what she did... mistake or deliberate, it did occur on (unedited) tape so own it. yes, I called it ironic because she wants to hold Rommey accountable for  supposedly recorded words that were quoted severely out of context, yet her recorded words are suddenly excused now, even though they achieved their desired effect.hykos (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You repeated refer to the "desired effect". None of the sources discuss Mitchell's intentions or desires. That you feel her motives are obvious is moot. Stick to the sources. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious - mocked
The source given for "she mocked presidential candidate Mitt Romney" does not say she mocked anyone. The only thing Mitchell does in the source is "(suppose) that the comments could be Romney’s 'supermarket scanner moment.'" Discuss. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Entire section is dubious
It now turns out that Mitchell had virtually nothing to do with the clip. She played it, apparently unaware that it was out of context ( "Mitchell...broke out into laughter -- which is understandable, given that they both had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine." ), laughed and, in response to accusations by "conservatives and media writers" later played the full clip. Much of the discussion here defending strongly worded edits (ironically taking words from sources out of context) has hinged on claims that Mistchell was or did this, that or the other thing. It now turns out the video did not originate on Andrea Mitchell Reports. It came from MSNBC's Way Too Early with Willie Geist. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I don't believe that for a second. If she really had nothing to do with it then why has she yet to appologize or even acknowledge that it was misleading and done with the intent to make Romney look like an inbecile?  Her non-action speaks quite loudly.  Arzel (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your refusal to believe what a reliable source reports (that it did not originate with Andrea Mitchell Reports) and your unsourced claims regarding intent and what you feel the absence of evidence is evidence of are all moot points. We do not have reliable sources saying "She must appologize!" We do not have reliable sources saying that it was deliberately misleading. We do not have reliable sources saying that absence of evidence is evidence that she is the evil spawn of Satan intent on destroying all that is right and good with the world (a.k.a. Romney). What we have is a section that started out as a very poorly sourced attack on Mitchell for is now seems to be barely related to her in any way. She aired a clip from another show and "broke out into laughter -- which is understandable, given (she) had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine."- Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is quite Orwellian logic you are spinning here. I suppose by next week it would have not even happened on her show and by the week after that not even on MSNBC.  Arzel (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea! I'll have to get the rest of the anti-Romney cabal together for a good old fashioned history editing party. After all, we can't let the record reflect that Michell aired a clip and understandably laughed at it. I'll head on down to the WaWas and use the touchtone keypads to order up some meatball subs with pickles. It'll be great! - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On an unrelated question, why do you repeatedly say which is understandable with regards to AM comments? Are supposedly neutral reporters supposed to bust into laughter when presented with something that they think makes the subject look like a moron?  I'll remember to look for those reports of Obama's gaffes by AM in the future.  Arzel (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not say it. The reliable source says it. Interesting fact: That source was originally tortured into supporting the outrageous BLP violation that was originally here. When I pointed out that the source said her reaction was "understandable" given what she had "been led to believe" that source was removed as "redundant" by your associate, Medeis/"μηδείς". - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * SummerPhd, Believe what you want to about your sacred Mitchell. No apology was made by her that I know of, so it is impossible for you to assume whether she deliberately manipulated the clip or if she was just that negligent in reporting the news. Either way, if she's not sorry she did it, she's probably sorry that she got caught. Let's stop protecting her with assumptions that she "allegedly" didn't know what she was doing.  It's only her job to know!  hykos (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You believe she deliberately manipulated a clip, gave it to the earlier show, then used it on her show? Wow, that's one busy woman! - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

 * You don't see the irony? Andrea Mitchell wanted to point out someone's gaffe. The bigger gaffe is one which was manufactured by her, and her employer. You've never heard of guilt by association? You're giving her a free pass for some reason, but it is clear to me that she either had malicious intentions, or her employer did. either way, she shouldn't be reporting on the news because she has a responsibility and she doesn't fact check. This isn't her first controversy, either. You want to delete this section, but it is apparently her claim to fame. If she weren't so controversial, I might not know who she is.hykos (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)I see that you think there is irony. What is truly ironic is the way you are creating facts to support your claim that Mitchell is being somehow dishonest. "Mitchell wanted..."? How do you know what she wanted? "...manufactured by her..."? None of the sources say anything of the sort. In fact, we know the clip came from another show entirely. "...she...had malicious intentions..."? This is an unsourced, libelous claim. "...she shouldn't be reporting the news because she doesn't fact check."? This one is hilarious! You expect ONE PERSON to fact check all of the news that fits into that show? Really? "...this section...is apparently her claim to fame."? Yeah, I'm sure. That's why we have so many independent reliable sources about her that predate this "controversy" that barely involves her. "If she weren't so controversial, I wouldn't know who she is." You might need to get out of the house more. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't expect Mitchell to be at every single stump speech or to digest all its material correctly all the time. But since (redacted WP:BLP violation), and since she is getting paid to interpret speeches, and decides (redacted WP:BLP violation), she is liable for her mistake. I like to hold people accountable for their words. this section is staying. it would be no different from fox news making up false claims and their reputation getting called out on it all the time, or a talk show making up statistics. I get so mad when I see these obvious misrepresentation of fact. you do not need to give her a free pass just because she wears her agenda on her sleeve which attracts more negative attention than you would like, or because she even ran a retraction. she got caught! of course she did a retraction. it's called damage control. and the more damage control you singularly do on her wikipedia page, the more you make it look like a cover up. That's why I said I don't know who she is otherwise. it is the only thing marking her relevance right now. Maybe I have to get out of the house more like you said so that I can expose myself to more (redacted WP:BLP violation). i certainly don't want to be that guy that edits a wikipedia page 25 times in one day just to make myself feel like I'm the only one who's right around here. wiki is supposed to be a neutral consensus, and you are running it like it's your own. that is not what it is intended for. let's report the whole truth, and not give her or msnbc the benefit of the doubt. this is a repeat offense for both parties, and if you think it wasn't deliberate, then you are giving her way too much leeway.hykos (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please review our policy on biographies of living persons. Your repeated unsourced contentious claims are a problem. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't redact all my claims. All I said was, in theory, that I might not want to "expose myself to (redacted WP:BLP violation)" I did not have to pretend (redacted WP:BLP violation)'', but nevertheless is true. when you cited the Biographies of Living Persons, are you referring to the neutral point of view? please be specific... i have read the whole policy and do not understand which details you are correctly adhering to that I am not.hykos (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not redact all of your claims. I redacted your unsourced contentious claims regarding a living person. "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." WP:BLP This is policy, applies to articles as well as "talk" pages and is not open to discussion. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious - "was made to appear"
The claim: "The edited clip was made to appear as though Romney was amazed by fairly standard technology at a local Wawa convenience store." Fact: Changing this from "The edited clip made it appear..." inserts the idea that this was the intent of those who edited the clip. None of the sources support this idea. Discuss. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What is your logical interpretation of what the intent was of those who edited the clip? Whether intended deliberately or delivered carelessly or some combination of the two may be dubious to you but it must be one or the other. Mitchell makes clear enough what her own intentions are.  Andrea Mitchell called this Romney's "supermarket scanner moment" and laughs at Romney's projected stumbling over technology and uses the metaphor to compare to GHWB.   Romney was not talking about supermarkets nor scanners, but that does not matter to Mitchell, who herself appears more out of touch with reality than her made-up version of Romney.  The clip was verifiably edited (see multiple sources) and in doing so they projected an entirely different message than the original speech. How could this happen to a viable and resourceful news organization unless by intention?  Many failed politicians can have memorable downfalls. She uses GHWB as her perfect example. (Republicans look dumb on camera. She didn't say it, but inferred.) Now, next time media quotes someone out of context and gets caught doing so, it will be compared to Andrea Mitchell's Report. Perhaps that's not the reputation she wants, but she deserves it and must own it. She is not noticed for much else lately, so it is fitting that her own self inflicted controversies be included as part of her bio. hykos (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your "interpretation of (her) intent" is just great, but has no place in this article. We do not have any way of knowing what she intended and your interpretation is simply not relevant. You've decided that it MUST be either deliberate or careless. That you can think of no other explanation is moot. Your ideas of her "projection", what matters to her, "inferred" (ironically, you inferred that she implied it), what she "deserves", etc. are all your opinions. They do not belong in an excyclopedia. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious - "despite all of the evidence to the opposite"
The claim: "Others said Romney was not taken out of context deliberately, despite all of the evidence to the opposite." Fact: The source cited says, "Others defended the edit, saying it was not taken out of context." That sentence links to "Inconvenient Untruth: Mitt Romney’s ‘Wawas’ Story Was A Big Fat Lie". Mostly, it discusses whether or not Romney's optometrist story holds water. That said, it directly says, "...they leapt to condemn MSNBC’s completely reasonable editing of the clip, even as they ignored the glaring lie Romney told in the longer clip." This is not a discussion of whether or not it was "deliberately" taken out of context (the other editor's "not taken out of context deliberately"). This is clearly arguing that it was not taken out of context at all: "it was not taken out of context" is pretty damned straight forward way of saying, "was not taken out of context" (as in my version that says "was not taken out of context"). The remaining portion, "despite all of the evidence to the opposite", is simple soap-boxing, not supported by any of the sources. We could just as easily say "Conservatives and media writers accused MSNBC of making Romney appear out of touch by deliberately distorting his comments, despite all of the evidence to the contrary." - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are making up some claims that Mitchell's intention was never to mock or laugh at Romney, depsite recorded evidence to the opposite. I missed her point, then. What was it?  Not to make a mockery?   You tell me what her objectives are, I'd love to hear your logical scientific interpretation. hykos (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not claim to know Mitchell's intent. We do not weigh evidence and determine intent. My logical, scientific interpretation is that we should represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Your guesses as to what her objectives are and weighing of the evidence are immaterial. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not watch msnbc, but I recently came across more video research indicating that Mitchell had, as recently as February, defended GHWB's supermarket scanner moment to Chris Matthews, as though he had merely been subjected to misconceptions that followed him unfairly! I find it strange, then, that she would be the one to take Romney to task, give perpetuance to if not invent a new supermarket gaffe outright, then even allude to GHWB for apparent similarities. In that context, her analogy must have to identify Romney's speech as having been taken out of context as well, however, this is markedly inconsistent with her being the one taking Romney out of context (whether deliberately or otherwise, you and I may disagree). If she thinks there are parallels between Romney and GHWB's supermarket moments, and she defends GHWB, but laughs at Romney, then apparently she'll argue whichever side of the same point if it's convenient. It is no wonder that you say I shouldn't try to pin down her motive, she is really mixed up. hykos (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your opinion of Mitchell remains moot. The comparison between the two seems to be based on 1) commonplace technology 2) seemingly being unfamiliar to a presidential candidate. That's it. Nothing more. This is not about Mitchell's opinion of Romney or Bush. It's about two situations that seem to indicate a candidate is out of touch with John and Jane Smith. Your interpretation here is similar to the "controversy" discussed in Andrea_Mitchell. She says, "People think X" and it gets twisted into "Andrea Mitchell thinks X".
 * In any case, you have not defended the claim that "despite all of the evidence to the opposite" is sourced or sourceable. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

New image
It seems the old one was deleted from commons. I went through flickr and this was the best I could find. I did crop it to make it fit the infobox better. The flickr user had cropped it before that from a larger image. Feel free to overwrite the file in commons if anyone finds a better one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

title
Andrea Mitchell is NBC Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent. Richard Engel is NBC Chief Foreign Correspondent. Is there a difference? Does anyone know?74.69.8.195 (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Chief Foreign Correspondent is out in the field - he is their lead overseas correspondent, working from wherever the news is. Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent analyzes foreign affairs, usually from home base. Tvoz / talk 19:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Switch to Beiber controversy
The first version of this cited only the Huffington Post coverage which quite clearly laid the "blame" on the network: "Andrea Mitchell Had To Interrupt An NSA Discussion With Breaking Bieber News: We would LOVE to know what was going on in Andrea Mitchell's head when she was forced to cut off a discussion about the NSA for breaking news about Justin Bieber's arrest."(emphasis mine). The text added to the article, however, was directed at Mitchell: "In January, 2014, Mitchell received criticism for interrupting and breaking away from an interview with former Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA), speaking on the topic of NSA spying, to report the breaking news of a Justin Bieber court hearing on charges related to a possible drunk drag racing incident." (emphasis mine) No, in the source cited she did not have a choice, was not criticized and there was no "controversy". For the new version, the editor is "open to a different characterization" (so long as it lays this at Mitchell's feet, apparently). The new sources include the Huffington Post coverage (above) that detracts from the claim it is cited to support. Next up is a snarky blog post from philly.com (whose owner also controls The Inqy and Daily News): "So, Mitchell did what any sane person in her position would do and interrupted Congresswoman Harman in the middle of her sentence so that she could throw coverage to Miami, where Justin Bieber was in front of a judge to face his charges, including resisting arrest." RT.com (I don't know who this is) is next with "Unbebiebable! MSNBC cuts Congresswoman during NSA LIVE to report... Justin Bieber"(emphasis mine) The closest to a "controversy" involving Mitchell here is "...announced Andrea Mitchell, the MSNBC news anchor, interrupting the congresswoman." Time ' s blog gives us "Watch MSNBC Interrupt a Congresswoman to Break News About Justin Bieber’s Arrest" (emphasis mine). Throughout the piece: "... a news channel interrupts...", "...MSNBC interrupted...", "...so they could...", it's all MSNBC until the snark comes out: "...anchor Andrea Mitchell said without a hint of irony, casually chipping away at the dignity of news reporting with a pick axe moulded from the sharp, shattered discards of our national soul." The Independent gives us "Justin Bieber arrested: MSNBC interrupts congresswoman during NSA interview for important Bieber news" (emphasis mine) Going deep undercover: "...an MSNBC anchor cut off..." (not exactly "sources close to Kissinger" here...), "...host Andrea Mitchell said..." (demoted from "anchor"?). The sources so far put this in MSNBC's lap. Those who see this as a "controversy" about Mitchell apparently think Mitchell controls MSNBC, expecting her to weigh the orders from the network coming through on her earpiece against her assessment of the situation, based on the detailed information given to her on the spot, right? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Correction: I now see earlier unsourced versions. An unsourced IP addition to the lede had her receiving "fierce criticism" and another IP edit warring and making a personal attack adding a brief mention of it to the lede. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "the editor is "open to a different characterization" (so long as it lays this at Mitchell's feet, apparently)" Your parenthetical ending to my suggestion has no basis whatsoever.  I'm genuinely open to an alternate and appropriate characterization, but you've offered none - merely complete blanking of the section.  Her actions have received international attention, and are noteworthy.  "Garnered attention" would probably be a generous characterization.  The first identified source states, "There were cries of dismay on the internet last night, when an MSNBC anchor cut off congresswoman Jane Harman..."  In that sentence, Mitchell is acting party.  "Mitchell did what any sane person in her position would do..."  I don't think they intended any sarcasm there.  Nope, I'm sure of they didn't.  John2510 (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to have forgotten that four of the five sources you offered lay this at the network's feet. Thus, in trying to tie this "controversy" to Mitchell you pulled it away from her. Yeah, I get it. Some editors dislike this, that or the other journalist. To them, everything is a "controversy". I didn't offer a "different characterization" because something using five blog sources, all of them on the same day, do not show a significant aspect of her career for a biography. I didn't offer a "different characterization" because 4 of those 5 sources don't support the content you were adding. This isn't about how to "characterize" it. This is about the material simply not belonging in the article. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "This is about the material simply not belonging in the article." Oh... that's what this is about.  Do you care to offer a reason? John2510 (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, just as I don't intend to lay it at her feet, I don't dislike this journalist. Editing this article will go better if you wouldn't keep ascribing non-existent bad faith motives to me.  Thanks! :)  John2510 (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This issue was briefly mentioned in various blogs on one day, most of which did not attach any supposed controversy to Mitchell. This leaves us with one blog making sarcastic comments tying it to her. That is not a meaningful event in Mitchell's career. If that coverage is sufficient, we have a whole lot of similarly sourcable bits and pieces to add to this article. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This issue was briefly mentioned in various blogs on one day, most of which did not attach any supposed controversy to Mitchell. This leaves us with one blog making sarcastic comments tying it to her. That is not a meaningful event in Mitchell's career. If that coverage is sufficient, we have a whole lot of similarly sourcable bits and pieces to add to this article. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Phony claim of "controversy" VS Actual Claim of Documented "BIAS" - somehow not a 'controversy'
User:Redtobelieve, who's already been blocked once for BLP violations, has repeatedly added a subsection to the "Controversies" section dealing with leaked private emails between Mitchell and Colin Powell. None of the cited sources report any actual controversy regarding the matter, and none substantively criticize Mitchell's comments or link them to any improper behaviour. This is just a crude attempt to smear a journalist Redtobelieve apparently has a low opinion of, and clearly violates WP:BLP. In addition, all but the closing sentence is essentially cut-and-pasted from a Fox News page, making this text a copyvio as well. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Well Hullaballoo who has been treated like dirt by administrators sing 2006 for some unknown reason object to the Mitchell update for several reasons:

 * 1st not RS - well it has been on DCLeaks for several months, but I did not add till Fox News Reports - RS Check
 * 2nd only Fox New which has Snarky Bias reports, only one news source not controversy - well I added a 3rd RS Daily Mail - additional RS check
 * 3rd not a controversy and partial Copyip - well this may be valid point but it would call for an edit not a removal - he removed a 3rd but claimed an exemption for the 3 time edit rule

 * here is a Fox New breakdown by Tucker and Sanchez
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF2h95cIH_8

 * So here we can start to document a 4th source that document Mitchell is straying from a journalist towards a pundit or worse...calling a prepared speach that was used on a previous day to Jewish supporters a 'gaffe;

 * http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kyle-drennen/2016/09/14/trump-campaign-chief-calls-out-andrea-mitchell-excusing-hillarys

 * Hullaballoo states on one of his reversals that she thinks Trump is awful just like many people - but the email and the other comments were about overtly leading viewers to her desired outlook - PUNDIT - 1st with an email to Powell about endorsing Clinton, or ways the RNC can use the rules to overturn the Republican Primary voters, we can guess that she only wrote to Powell and was not making these same comments to everyone she knew - then with the 'gaffe' issue I just found - all leads to Clinton declaring that Mitchell is her kind of woman

 * http://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/clinton-to-andrea-mitchell-you-re-my-kind-of-woman-760418371559

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Andrea Mitchell. 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/20131203001021/http://www.jwi.org/page.aspx?pid=680 to http://www.jwi.org/page.aspx?pid=680
 * Added tag to http://nrhs.nred.org/site_res_view_folder.aspx?id=f48013ee-45f7-4e7b-a618-7cdecf8ecaac

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Postal service
What’s happening to restore our postal service. We have counted on prompt service all our lives and have been disappointed that the Trump slow do has not been restored.

Belarus: question
Why doesn’t nato put sanctions on Belarus 174.252.130.104 (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Andrea Mitchell


text:
Talk:Erik Everhard

Re: Sick duck
Can someone please explain to me how the following is encyclopedic?

 * "One day, he found a sick duck and nursed it back to health."

I've removed the statement above, although I hope someone can show us how this may be encyclopedic. Thanks. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 02:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

conversion rate
$50 canadian is more than $25 US.

--Commo1 05:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it true that he started as a gay performer?
Is it true that he started as a gay performer?

Has he done any gay stuff Erik Everhard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.133.94.165 (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Erik Everhard


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Given name etymology

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Should not have been listed on VFD, is just an exlink Manning 04:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Given name etymology

 * Delete no content, just a link to Wiktionary. Revolución 02:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per "Any article whose contents consist only of an external link". --A D Monroe III 03:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:Timeline of same-sex marriage

Cicero Reference
Now I don't pretend to be a scholar of this material, but it sounds to me like the writer is mocking Antonius for being treated like a woman by his boy prostitute (Curio the younger). This is a series of statements attacking Antonius for his "debauchery," connected with his bankruptcy. Given the attitudes toward pederasty in those days [as I understand it, it was socially acceptable for a civil superior male to take another male as his sexual "partner" so long as that other male was a social inferior, and this relationship would be seen as temporary and the superior would still be eventually expected to marry a woman and produce a child for the good of the state] it would seem to both confirm the existence of ancient "same sex relationships" but also show that they were given a very different form and focus [concubinage], including societal attitudes, compare to modern civil unions [a permanent partnership between equals].

Or is there a different translation that gives a different impression?

   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.243.213 (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. The Cicero reference totally misses the point. It's a metaphor. I will delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.230.117.239 (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Chronological?
Can someone change the order of dates to be chronological rather than reverse chronological? --Unsigned by User:128.86.161.137 on 1 September 2006 at 05:58.

2013 should be above everything, I hate rolling all the time when I want to read about the newest event, why it can't be like it was in the past? More important is what was few days ago not in Ancient times.

 * Because timelines begin with the past and build towards the present. It would be easy if you just click 2013 in the Table of Contents. Teammm  $talk email$ 19:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Still have to scroll which is annoying, it was like it was many months and of course someone were bored and created that AMAZING idea :/

Pre-Modern History
I tweaked two of the lines, to state "in modern history". John Boswell's book Same-sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe discusses marriage contracts et al. throughout Christian history. samwaltz 20:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Love to see some info on pre-modern same sex marriage. There's a lot more history there. --76.192.185.140 (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Significant steps towards legal recognition?
Can things like "Uganda and Latvia amend their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage." really be said to be significant steps towards legal recognition of same-sex couples? I think a different title would be more appropriate for this list of events. René van Buuren 08:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Political Support?
35 years ago, in 1972, the State Convention of the Minnesota DFL Party added a plank to their platform supporting equal marriage rights for all adults. As far as I can tell, that is the first time a major political party in the US has taken such a stand, and made it part of their party platform.

Question: is that considered 'progress toward same-sex marriage', and something worthy of being added to this page? T-bonham 09:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

License vs. ceremony
So I added Takei, he's got pictures on his website of him and Brad getting their license. But it occurred to me they aren't holding a full-fledged ceremony until September. So I won't be too upset if someone reverts it, but I'm still wondering what we're talking about - the license or the ceremony.

I'd actually say the license is more important, otherwise there would already be tons of people on the list because gay couples have been having commitment ceremonies for decades (probably centuries), it's just the matter of legal recognition that is disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.125.219 (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Coquille Indian Tribe
Should the Coquille Indian Tribe recognizing same-sex marriage be on there???Rump1234 (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

D.C. Council Votes to Recognize Other States' Gay Marriages
Is this worth including? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

many events listed twice
This article is already pretty long, and it does not help that many things are listed twice, for instance: Is it really relevant exactly when the legalization took place? The important date should be the one at which people could actually start getting married. If there are no objections, I would remove legalization dates. --KarlFrei (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * May 1: Same-sex marriage becomes legal in Sweden.
 * April 1: Sweden legalizes same-sex marriage.
 * Legalization dates are important, IMO, but they don't need to be bolded. I think that bolding the date that the law comes into affect is good enough. --haha169 (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Before 1970 -- Same-sex marriage in ancient Rome
The statement that Roman same-sex marriage used the same ceremony as other marriages is footnoted (#54 when I write this) with a description of Nero marrying a boy. Since both referenced descriptions of Nero's homosexual marriages (by Cassius Dio and Suetonius) are in the context of how evil and perverted Nero was, these are not descriptions of common Roman practice. The sentence ought to be removed or the footnote should be changed to give proper support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgwicklund (talk • contribs) 18:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

 * It would be an important reference as a historical precedent and also in showing certain ancient attitudes towards the institution (in my view). An Emperor's actions and then the reaction towards those actions by the historian. I'm in favor of the reference, so long as that context is understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.243.213 (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Liechtenstein allows civil unions
On March 16, 2011, Liechtenstein parliamant passed legislation to allow civil unions. 92.252.112.31 (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Schweizer Fernsehen:Liechtenstein:Ja zur Homo-Ehe

Reorganizing events
The list is getting too big and not all of the events are that important, because some of them refer to the same thing. For example there are events that state: "the assembly of x state passes a bill to legalize same-sex marriag"e; then in another event two or three days later "the senate of x state passes a bill to legalize same-sex marrige"; then in another event "The governor of x state signs the same-sex marriage bill into law"; then the last one "Same-sex marriages become legal in X state". So there are four entries regarding the same event. Things like that are getting the list overpopulated. I think we should only include two entries for every event: the day the bill was finally legalized (we can say in the same entry when was the bill approved in the different houses, this one should focus on the day the bill was signed or definitely approved), the other entry should be the day the bill come into effect.

Because this list includes events in the entire world, and making it to big could make it confusing. Also, there's already another one that lists events regarding same-sex marriage in the US only, that one should be the one updated with every vote's date, pou can find it here.

If nobody minds, I volunteer to help reorganize this list (: --DrkFrdric (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the list should be shortened. Removing a lot of the unnecessary and unreferenced info is a very good idea. Thanks for volunteering! Be sure to only bold statements like "Same sex marriage becomes legal in X", where X is a country or state. This will help readers to identify the most important events each year.  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  01:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that all activity by one house of a state legislature should be removed leaving only a law is enacted or comes into effect. I doubt anything at all should be in bold. Linking should be minimal. BUT material that is unreferenced should have citations added. Lack of a citation is no reason for removal without a more considerate review. Many need to be rewritten. And one-house details don't belong in the US timeline either, I'd say. I tried my best at 2012. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

 * For the clean up, I'd start (a) by removing unreferenced items, (b) by removing items about 'stays' and other legal steps in on-going cases, (c) collapsing multiple items into one when they're just steps in passing a law, (d) where items are long and an independent article exists, trim the article and link to the article and (e) trim items which are sub-national. It may also be worth using country flag images. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Invalid marriages
I think we should remove the events that talk about officials who decided to conduct same-sex marriages and that were later invalidated. Because there are a lot of these and almost all of them were invalidated, so they weren't an advance in same-sex marriage. Maybe we could left the first one, or the ones that gathered the most of the attention, but there are a lot and they don't help to make the list better. Because if do accept those events, then we should accept a lot more that aren't cited (two marriages in vietnam, one in china, like 3 in france, and we don't know how many more). These are not relevant events in this list because they were not conducted in a legal framework, but by "rogue" officials. As before, I volunteer to help with this. --DrkFrdric (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Another idea is to only include the events when same-sex marriage is constitutionally banned, not the ones when is banned only by statute. This because the list must give a worldwide view, but if we add 50 different events regarding statutes in U.S. states the list will become confusing for non-american readers. Constitutional amendments are more important and definitive so I think those are the only events that should be listed. --DrkFrdric (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Unregistered cohabitation
Should we include the events ehen unregistered cohabitations were legalized? Because there have been a lot of countries that approved those schemes (although the majority of them have since legalized civil unions or same-sex marriage)? I think we shouldn't, the only exception being the first time a country approved ir (the Netherlands), because as I said, the majority of those bills are now dead, being replaced by others; only the first one can be considered a historic event. --DrkFrdric (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

10 Oct 2012:Caribbean Netherlands
Some time ago three islands became municipalities of netherlands, those municipalities are ultramar territories of the that European State, (different from countries that form part of the Kingdom of Netherlands, but are independent). The way that event is highlighted is confusing, you may think that a new country legalizes Same-sex Marriage, maybe what happened is that authorities in Amsterdam remembered to islander authorities that the have to grant same-sex marriage as the are already part of the Netherlands State. I suggest explaining better this issue, it is true that in 2001 when dutch same-sex marriage were legalised those three islands in the Caribeean had another status and not recognized SSM, and in 2010 they became administrative territories of Netherlands, accepting other legislation and geographically given the chance to gay and lesbians to legally marry in the Caribbean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.244.203.249 (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It is lacking the brazilian states of Alagoas, Bahia and Piaui!! And Saba on the timeline!!!!!
It is lacking the brazilian states of Alagoas, Bahia and Piaui!! And Saba on the timeline!!!!!

Here are the links:

Bahia:

http://g1.globo.com/bahia/noticia/2012/12/forum-realiza-primeiro-casamento-civil-entre-homossexuais-em-salvador.html g1.globo.com/bahia/noticia/2012/11/casais-gays-ja-podem-oficializar-casamento-em-cartorios-da-bahia.html http://www.vermelho.org.br/se/noticia.php?id_secao=58&id_noticia=199862

Piauí: http://g1.globo.com/pi/piaui/noticia/2012/12/tj-regulamentara-pedidos-de-casamento-de-casais-homossexuais.html http://g1.globo.com/pi/piaui/noticia/2012/12/corregedoria-do-tj-regulamenta-casamento-homoafetivo-no-piaui.html

Sao Paulo: http://g1.globo.com/sao-paulo/noticia/2012/12/tribunal-divulga-norma-que-regulamenta-casamento-gay-em-sp.html http://www.jcnet.com.br/Nacional/2012/12/norma-do-tj-obriga-cartorios-de-sp-a-registrar-casamento-gay.html

Saba:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/15/saba-legalizes-gay-marria_n_2306870.html --189.104.29.5 (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Odawa Indians vs Brazilian states and Federal District
I don't understand why are the American Indian tribes (such as the Odawa Indians) included in the chronological list and why does it lack much bigger and populous entities such as the Brazilian states of Sergipe, Piaui, Alagoas, Espirito Santo and the Federal District. This is discrimination, English language sources are deemed as more credible than non English language ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.171.153.130 (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I spliced in the blurbs from the Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil article Dralwik|Have a Chat 16:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Problems in Quintana Roo
According to CNN México, after the initial two weddings in Quintana Roo, on November 2011, any other wedding has been held in this state, despite the statement of Government Secretary in May 2012, telling that has no legal impediment to perform gay weddings. The civil registries argues that has no instructions from state authority to accept this marriages.

"Luis Alberto González Flores, government secretary of the state, said in an interview that Quintana Roo isn't an entity which allow same-sex marriages, and even acknowledged that in law there is no legal impediment to celebrate such weddings are municipal civil registries that will determine whether to accept or not to celebrate marriages."

In these conditions, ¿is really recognized the gay marriage right in Quintana Roo? ¿Does it make sense to keep it on the list? http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2012/12/07/la-resolucion-de-la-corte-motiva-a-parejas-del-mismo-sexo-a-ampararse (in spanish, December 2012) Paucazorla (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Andorra
I'm confused as to why Andorra is not listed as third country worldwide to legalize same-sex marriage. Do principalities not count as countries (even though they have their own legislation, passports, etc.)?

JoOleaN (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Julian

 * See Recognition of same-sex unions in Andorra. Andorra has not yet legalized same-sex marriage.-- В и к и  T  20:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

"Liberated" Territories
what about same-sex marriages conducted in territories controlled by armed movements, e.g. http://www.gmax.co.za/look05/02/08-phillipines.html ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.245.69.178 (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ordered by which date ?
Ok, we all agree that as to clarify the posts we have to put all the infos such as intentions of voting, lower house's votes and upper house's votes as they go, yet when gay marriage is legalised we put all of them together in one post. But what's considered the last post ? Is it when the Bill is being voted as law, when it's signed by the executive, or when it's effectively enforced and marriages can happens ? Because there's examples of each of those in this Article. We should settle this. I propose that by now we put them by date of the Bill being voted into law, as it's the turning point and the rest is only proceedings.--Aréat (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

 * That's not always the case. Presidents have vetoed same-sex unions laws before. The point is to include the date where the definitive "yes" has been given. For example, in New Zealand, it received Royal Assent two days later, but the Deputy Prime Minister couldn't refuse to give Royal Assent to the law, so the final "yes" was the one given to Parliament, the same goes for Uruguay. In other countries, like France, the President has the final "yes", in this case by having the possibility to call a new vote by parliament. --Freddy eduardo (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Uruguay's president can veto a law, as did the previous president on an abortion law that was already passed in both the lower and upper house in 2008. As for New Zealand, the Governor-General has the power to withhold the Royal Assent, even if he never do so. It's the same in France, the president can't refuse to sign a law, he only can make it go through parliament for an other round, yet it never happened in the whole fifth republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aréat (talk • contribs) 20:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, in New Zealand a bill cannot be denied Royal Assent except in exceptional circumstances – specifically if democracy were to be abolished; which wasn't the case, so the third reading was actually the final "yes". --Freddy eduardo (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Brazilian jurisdictions
Now that Brazil has legalized same-sex marriage in the entire country, we should merge the entries for each of it states, they take a lot of space, and the main event is the legalization of same-sex marriage in Brazil, which is already included. I think we should just let the first entry, that would be Alagoas, and include in it something like "Other states followed suit: Rondania (May 2013), blablabla"; or we could also include it in the entry of the Supreme Court legalization of civil unions. I think the first option is better. We have an antecedent for this, i.e. Canada, many regions legalized same-sex marriage before the entire country, but we don't include it, because the main event is obviously the legalization in that country. If no one is against the idea, I will merge the entries in the coming days, this timeline is really big already, not too comfortable for readers. --Freddy eduardo (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. Each legalization should be noted in this timeline. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree, as long as we redirect to the "Same-sex marriage in Brazil" page which has its own timeline.--Aréat (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Grosseto (Italy)
Last week an appellate court in Florence has overruled the lowers court decision. However, the court didn't rule on the constitutionality of the marriage, but insisted that the couple sued the wrong agency. The judges sent the case back to the Civil Court of Grosseto. (http://www.gay.it/news/Annullata-la-sentenza-di-Grosseto-in-Appello--Alfano-contro-Merola) I didn't change the article on my own, because I wasn't sure how you handle those kind of things.Olliyeah (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"Finland last of the Nordic countries"
From what I understand the Nordic countries include both the Faroe Islands and Greenland; two countries without SSM. Should we add a footnote denoting how SSM isn't legal there (and maybe that civil unions, however, are)? Bezuidenhout (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Timeline of same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091211190349/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/lt_argentina_gay_marriage to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/lt_argentina_gay_marriage
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100704155648/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hSl5aRhJRk0Y00xcnrpK-4eWlz0gD9GLP4484 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hSl5aRhJRk0Y00xcnrpK-4eWlz0gD9GLP4484

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Timeline of same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121107062239/http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/07/maine-votes-in-favor-of-legalizing-gay-marriage/ to http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/07/maine-votes-in-favor-of-legalizing-gay-marriage/
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.npr.org/2014/02/13/276637801/judge-declares-va-same-sex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Timeline of same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120119105757/http://www.centredaily.com/2011/01/31/2488574/illinois-governor-signs-historic.html to http://www.centredaily.com/2011/01/31/2488574/illinois-governor-signs-historic.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110628195443/http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7443148.html to http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7443148.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Timeline of same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.elcomercio.com/tendencias/azuay-glbti-matrimonio-homosexual-cuenca.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Timeline of same-sex marriage. 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/20140322001844/http://www.gbc.gi/news/3422/civil-partnerships-bill-passed-in-parliament to http://www.gbc.gi/news/3422/civil-partnerships-bill-passed-in-parliament
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141015083610/http://www.conseil-etat.public.lu/fr/ordre-jour/oj140624.html to http://www.conseil-etat.public.lu/fr/ordre-jour/oj140624.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 one external links on Timeline of same-sex marriage. 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/20160303172043/https://same-sex.web.ined.fr/pdf/DocTrav125/05Doc125TheNetherlands.pdf to https://same-sex.web.ined.fr/pdf/DocTrav125/05Doc125TheNetherlands.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150627081218/http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca:80/english/publications/generale/union-civ-a.htm to http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/generale/union-civ-a.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ilga-europe.org/content/download/10988/65125/file/Andorra
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130525104444/http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/3286/Victorian-Relationship-Register-Opens-Today.htm to http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/3286/Victorian-Relationship-Register-Opens-Today.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018225250/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2008_general/sov_complete.pdf to http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2008_general/sov_complete.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gftV6RnfBC8iPPWGM0SGQeNLiC6QD9E71J3G0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121022222722/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/7bd7da67ee5a02c5ca256e67000c8755/57f8af30e6a0d630ca25770d001af7dc?OpenDocument to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/7bd7da67ee5a02c5ca256e67000c8755/57f8af30e6a0d630ca25770d001af7dc?OpenDocument
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927065759/http://www5.tjba.jus.br/corregedoria/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=420:uniaohomoafetiva&catid=31:noticias&Itemid=142 to http://www5.tjba.jus.br/corregedoria/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=420:uniaohomoafetiva&catid=31:noticias&Itemid=142
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141015083610/http://www.conseil-etat.public.lu/fr/ordre-jour/oj140624.html to http://www.conseil-etat.public.lu/fr/ordre-jour/oj140624.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/landmark-as-same-sex-union-bill-signed-off/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Criteria for addition
Per the introduction this page is for significant events, not necessarily "only successful changes", therefore I readded the failure of a constitutional amendment in Baja California. Hekerui (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Missing Elisa & Marcela, the first same-sex marriage in Spain
Is the fact that this is missing Elisa & Marcela, the First same-sex marriage in Spain, just an oversight, or is there some reason they are not included? I cannot find any discussion of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.82 (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weddinginholland.jpg

Jens Anderssen Fraudulent/Actually Hetero Marriage
Since I found the wording of that paragraph a bit weird, I checked out the article linked and after a DeepL translation from Swedish, it seems that the Bride herself came to the priest and noted that she suspected her husband of actually being a woman, which led to the arrest of Jens. Not sure if a same sex marriage should be counted as such when one party wasn't aware of it being such, not to mention that, if one says Jens was indeed a male, it was a Hetero marriage anyhow. 193.124.77.173 (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Nepal
At least two of the litigants seem to believe that SSM is now legal, but it'll be next week before we know for sure. If we don't get news of couples actually marrying (tomorrow' a fed holiday), then something's wrong. — kwami (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Nepal - now legal?
According to the article Same-sex marriage in Nepal Same-sex marriage is now legal in Nepal (and has been since November 29th). Multiple sources are cited there:

Perhaps this information should be added in this article as well. BenG 22:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Nevertheless, so far, there is no consensus within Nepal, and only two couples (one of them, an opposite sex couple) have been married under the rulings, so perhaps Nepal should be removed from the list until things are concrete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:E5F0:9CF0:1A4A:9185:AA27:2A4E (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Timeline of same-sex marriage


text:
Run Wolf Run

Run Wolf Run is the third studio album by the Japanese rock band Guitar Wolf, released in Japan in April 1994.

Track listing

 * 1) "Run Wolf Run"
 * 2) "Captain Guitar"
 * 3) "Jett Rock"
 * 4) "Baby Indian"
 * 5) "Kouya No Guitar" (Guitar in Wasteland)
 * 6) "All Night De Buttobase!!" (Roaring All Night!!)
 * 7) "Kick Out the Jams" (MC5 cover)
 * 8) "Rumble"
 * 9) "UFO Shakin’"
 * 10) "Thunders Guitar"
 * 11) "El Toro"
 * 12) "Wakusei Blues" (Planet Blues)

title: Run Wolf Run