text:
Talk:List of Asian Americans and Pacific Islands Americans in the United States Congress

Move of page
Why was this page moved? It was once only a list of Asian Americans in Congress. It was boldly moved in February 2017 without consensus. I may revert the move, per WP:BRD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Arab Americans
While Asia is a huge continent that includes the mostly Arab, Turkish and Persian region known as the Middle East, the term "Asian American," as used in the United States, does not include people of Arab, Turkish or Persian ancestry. In particular, Arab Americans are not included within the category of "Asian Americans" for purposes of the U.S. Census, much less in common parlance in the United States. Why were members of Congress of Lebanese descent and of Palestinian descent added to this page? Certainly a case can be made that there should be a page entitled List of Arab Americans and Middle-Eastern Americans in the United States Congress, but Lebanese Americans and Palestinian Americans are not "Asian Americans" as the term is used by the U.S. government, by Asian-American groups or by Americans in general.

I strongly recommend creating a page entitled "List of Arab Americans and Middle-Eastern Americans in the United States Congress" and moving Lebanese-American and Palestinian-American members of Congress to such article, but such members do not belong in an article reserved for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. If there is a consensus to create such new article, I will wait for its creation and the migration of the aforementioned entries on Lebanese and Palestinian Americans to it before deleting such non-Asian-American entries. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

 * I see that the addition of Lebanese and Palestinian Americans to this page was made, en masse, by the same editor who, in his ignorance, and without discussing the issue in the talk page, edited the page on "Asian Americans" to falsely claim that the term includes persons of "West Asian" ancestry. I already have corrected the Asian Americans page, but will give the editor until Tuesday to create a page entitled "List of Arab Americans and Middle-Eastern Americans in the United States Congress" for him to migrate the information that he added improperly to this article.  While his edit was misguided, I know that it was time-consuming, so I'll give him the courtesy of a three-day period to create an article to present information that is notable but is erroneous in its current location. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Some good points. "Western Asia" is not a common term for that region ("limited use"), which is more commonly referred to as the Middle East, so the suggestion is a good one. A separate list article would be an improvement here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Asian Americans and Pacific Islands Americans in the United States Congress. 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/20130104003407/http://www.nationalatlas.gov/mld/usacqup.html to http://nationalatlas.gov/mld/usacqup.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) 10:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Joaquín Miguel Elizalde
It appears that Resident Commissioner Joaquín Miguel Elizalde does not have any Asian or Pacific Islands ancestry. He was a "Spanish Filipino," which was the term used to describe persons of Spanish ancestry who were born in the Philippines. I knew that his mother was from Spain, as was his paternal grandfather, but thought that maybe his paternal grandmother may have had Native Filipino (or other Asian or Pacific Islander) ancestry. However, this article (in Spanish) about Joaquín Miguel Elizalde's brother, musician Federico "Fred" Elizalde, provides that both of their paternal grandparents came from Spain: https://www.tomajazz.com/web/?p=22701&print=print ("Era nieto de españoles por parte paterna e hijo de española.").

Given that members of Congress from Hawaii whose ancestry is solely European (such as Henry Alexander Baldwin, grandson of Christian missionaries in Hawaii) are (correctly) excluded from the article on Asian Americans and Pacific Islands Americans in Congress even if their parents were born and raised in Hawaii, I believe that the 100% Spanish Joaquín Miguel Elizalde should be excluded from the list as well. He was a proud Filipino, but he was not of Asian or Pacific Islands descent.

For the reasons stated above, I am removing Elizalde's entry from the article. If anyone disagrees, please comment on this talk page so that the editing community can develop a consensus on this topic. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

First Native Hawaiian elected to Congress
Daniel Akaka is noted as the "First Native Hawaiian elected to Congress". Robert William Wilcox was also elected to serve in Congress as a non-voting Delegate of the territory, so should that footnote be rephrased? KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely correct, that footnote is wrong, given that several Native Hawaaians served as Delegates (which are members of Congress) prior to Hawaii statehood. I'll clarify that Akaka was the first Native Hawaaian to serve as a *voting* member of Congress.  Thanks for pointing this out. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2020 (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) 05:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Tulsi Gabbard, official portrait, 113th Congress.jpg

Table format
While I'm not sure 's changes were necessary (the several congressional demographics lists were mostly reasonably consistent) they did look decent! I also disagree with 's calling them a mess, but thanks for your clearing of the overly specific state-wise firsts. But if Agpuh2's changes were reinstated here, they should be on the other articles as well, again removing the excessive firsts and restoring some of the removed notes. Thoughts? Also ping. Reywas92Talk 07:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Since you asked for my opinion, here it is. I don't believe that providing specificity as to House district number or Senate class adds much to the article.  No one cares about the Senate class except when the person is up for reelection, and even then they say "he's up in 2022," not "he's in Senate Class 3."  The term becomes even more meaningless when talking about senators from the past--whether Senator Fong was from Class 1, 2 or 3 is absolutely irrelevant to a modern reader.  I also note that the editor who made this change said that he was conforming the format to that of similar articles, but I can't recall any of the "list of members of congress" articles detailing Senate classes.

 * And while House district numbers do have more relevance to political conversation, their meaning largely disappears every ten years with each redistricting. A congressman may represent many different "districts" through the years, and it's not because he used to represent Sacramento and then moved to San Diego and later Bakersfield.  In many states, district numbers change even when the general shape of the district doesn't, and I question how much value is added in providing details about the district numbers represented through the years.  I do know that such additional infornation makes the article much longer and harder to update as things change.  I also note that the editor who made this change said that he was conforming the format to that of similar articles, but the other "list of members of congress" articles that include both House and Senate members did not detail district numbers.  (The specialized article on black Representatives does--which makes it a pain to update every redistricting, whether decenial or intradecade--and the specialized article on female representatives does for more recent representatives but not for all of them.)

 * Another change made was adding the number of days served by each member of Congress. I think that this is useful information, and that it is particularly valuable for persons who had interruptions in their congressional service.  I do have one complaint and one concern about adding such column.  First, for members of the House and Senate serving prior to the 20th Amendment, the automatic computation of days served usually is short by one day because terms began at the stroke of midnight on March 4 and ended at 11:59 p.m. and 59 seconds on March 3.  For example, if the beginning of service is March 4, 1901 and the last day of service is March 3, 1907, this is reported as 5 years and 364 days instead of 6 years.  This should be corrected.  As for the concern, having an additional column makes each column thinner and, often, less easy to read.  In my personal opinion, I think that the tradeoff is worth it, and that the days of service should be kept, albeit with a correction for members whose service ended on a March 3 at 11:59 p.m. and 59 seconds.  (But I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the editor who made this change said that he was conforming the format to that of similar articles, while in fact the only articles in which service time is given in years and days are those with specific sections for longest-serving members of Congress.)

 * Finally, with respect to the Notes section, I think that the are including far too many "historical firsts" (even after paring it of "first from X state" information) and other biographical information. In similar articles, this column typically provides the reason why the member left the House or Senate (e.g., lost renomination, died, retired to run for another office) and ancillary matters related to what he did after leaving office (e.g., "later served as Secretary of Education," or "later convicted of bribery").  Despite the claims of the editor that he merely was conforming the format to that of similar articles, that is not correct, since the article listing Hispanic or Latino members of Congres does not include "first Puerto Rican," "first Cuban-American," etc. in the Notes, the article on Native Americans in Congress does not include "first Powhatan," "first enrolled Cherokee," etc., and the article on Arab and Middle Eastern Americans in Congress does not note "first Assyrian American," "first Palestinian American," etc.  Clicking on the "Asian of Pacific Islander ancestry" column allows the reader to group members by ancestry, and it would be easy to find the "first Vietnamese American," etc.  But this article has differed from similar articles in that such historical first have long been included, and I would not recommend removing such information out of some duty to conformity.  Maybe the text in the Notes section can be shortened by moving other biographical information (such as offices held prior to Congress) in a footnote after the name of the person rather than within the text of the Notes section; that's how the articles on Hispanic or Latino members and the articles on female senators and representatives do it.  Another option is to limit the text within Notes to how they left office and ancillary information (when Harris resigns, it certainly should say that she resigned to become VP) but include a footnote in the Notes section with the historical first (in Harris's case, to read "first Indian-American senator"), which is how the article that lists black representatives handles historical firsts per state.

 * Regarding whether every article listing members of Congress by race, ethnicity, religion or sex should have exactly the same format, I disagree. Each article has a different origin and development, and there is no need to conform them for the sake of conformity.  For example, the article listing black representatives has quirks and information that make it unique, and what works for it would not necessarily work for others.  I would let each of those wonderfully different articles continue to develop on their own.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Most of the changes that 's added were unnecessary, didn't add anything to the article itself and were made for no apparent reason or consensus. The previous layout and information seems to have worked well for years and so didn't need changing. I agree with AuH2ORepublican about adding number of days served by each person though. Nnnou2 (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I agree that Senate classes are unimportant to the page. Maybe congressional districts could be streamlined as well from their current state, but I believe they should be there. I do think historical firsts is an important thing to have however, and it's only on this page (and potentially Native Americans, as you noted) that it can seem overly cumbersome since AAPI covers many ethnicities. But honestly? That seems like a sacrifice worth making. Just my two cents.  Nevermore27  (talk) 05:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Screw you for making me fix your attempt to do an end-run around consensus on fucking Christmas. You should be ashamed.  Nevermore27  (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ^^^Wow look at this response from . Appalling and disgraceful. I must point out that all historic firsts and information about each Senator and Member of Congress were already covered on the page as they were in a note by each person's name. I'm guessing Nevermore27 you didn't see that? Furthermore I kept many of the additions Agpuh2 from countries flags to tenure length. The only thing I reverted, since these bold edits were made on multiple pages without gaining any consensus or asking anyone if they wanted it, was to put the historic first information back into note form and go back to states rather than congressional districts. Nnnou2 (talk) 07:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You do not get to decide on your own how the page looks. Do not make your preferred changes again while we are in the middle of a discussion.   Nevermore27  (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * After your message earlier today, i'm wondering if I should get an administrator involved to be honest. I must point out that my original edit was putting the page back to how it originally looked, and had looked for years, before made major changes to the article without first gaining consensus to do so or even discussing doing it on the talk page. I then incorporated nearly all of 's changes to the article itself as they were useful including flags and length of service, the only part I didn't was the swapping of states represented to districts represented, for reasons outlined by AuH2ORepublican above and also because it wasn't needed. All of the information that Agpuh2 moved was already present in the page: .  you must gain consensus before you start making bold edits yourself especially as, until you reverted my edits, you had never edited this page before:, as what I did notice though is that you first reverted two of my edits at 05:35am & 05:37am, Agpuh2 then re-added his info to a sandbox at 05:42am:  before you then continued reverting my edits at 05:42am, so I'm wondering if you were Agpuh2?? Nnnou2 (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay this was petulent on both of your parts, neither of you should have being making edits after I started a discussion (not to mention you can undo multiple edits at once in no time...). I would say Senate classes are unimportant but House districts are reasonable if condensed and not split across multiple rows when renumbered. Length of service is fair to include, but would be better if the template can return years instead of days, which are abstract when in the thousands. For notes, the states firsts are absolutely unnecessary, but it's fair to include first of X nationality (even if it's sorted chronologially anyway). Why they left office and other offices – if relevant – should be in the notes column; it's not so crowded to require them buried into a footnote. I'd prefer interarticle consistency but some variations are fine! Reywas92Talk 02:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I agree that all information related to why they left office should be kept in the notes section. I don't think house districts are needed as if we look at neighbouring articles: Arab and Middle Eatern, Latino and Hispanic , Native Americans & LGBT  all they say is what state they represented and until Agpuh2 decided to change it all there had never been any complaints etc as i've looked through the history and talk page of each. Also as if we look at all pages, including Women in Senate  & Women in Congress  you will see in the footnote section it has all the information not related to why they left office e.g Succeeded husband. Daughter of X. First Cuban elected to Congress etc. Currently this article includes the first of X nationality, but Agpuh2 once again decided to make changes and put them in the note section which is for why the politician left office. Nnnou2 (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Comment: Just coming in here to ask if all of these flags are really necessary? They're so busy and messy and I find them to be unnecessary per WP:FLAG. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Especially under ethnicity, where equating someone's ethnic background to a specific nationality is... not accurate at best. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a really interesting point  Nevermore27  (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the problem isn't the use of flags (which communicate the information more quickly and make the article more attractive) but the use of the word "ethnicity" instead of "ancestry." For example, a person whose grandparents were from the Philippines could have any number of different ethnicities, and "Filipino" wouldn't be one of them, but he also could be described uncontroversially as having *Filipino ancestry*.  The same would be true for Chinese Americans, Thai Americans, Taiwanese Americans, etc. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That may be a separate issue but the issue is the flag itself to me. Linking someone who's Hawaiian to the flag of a state is wrong. Linking some Chamorros to the Guam flag and some the the CNMI flag is inconsistent and wrong. Linking Carolinians to the FSM flag is wrong. If this page included Kurds, would we divine some WP:SPECULATION or WP:SYNTH out of thin air as to which Kurdish regional flag to use? It's WP:OR, as stated, I'm pretty sure it fails under WP:FLAG regardless. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Given the discourse generated by the apparent randomness of my changes, I figured I would provide my justifications for the different edits. Underlying the entire endeavor was the Wiki-policy Be Bold. Prior to the 2020 elections, I had noticed inconsistencies across the various pages that have been discussed in layout of the tables as well as the type of content included. This struck me as an issue worth correcting, and as the Be Bold policy states "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it". Clearly, there has been debate now on this page on whether that was in fact an issue. Clearly, I would argue that it was. A table is a tool of visual storytelling, meant to be read left to right when using English text. So a page like Women in the United States Senate identifying part last, as well as the eyes naturally being drawn to color, struck me as a confusing ordering for a table. Similarly, the List of Mormon members of the United States Congress presenting the metacolor background of the party and the name of the party of the member in different columns is redundant information. Examining the different pages, I saw several such examples (which will be listed below) that made me want to create a standard for these types of pages. I drew from existing quirks on these pages and other related pages related to US Congressmembers to build a standard (not to "conform" to any particular page, which I did not claim to do).

 * Table Headers": From left to right, I thought it made most sense to begin the information most relevant to the person's inclusion on the pages. So that translates to the portrait, name, and year of birth/death of the given MoC, followed by their nationality or ethnicity, then matters of the political career (their party, where they represented, then tenure), and ending with notes. This presents a clear order of information that is easy to read. Columns that exist on similar pages, such as "Congress", "Entered", "former slave", and so on, were either removed or placed in to simplify the table format. It is largely consistent with the layout given in pages like the ones for members who are Buddhist or Jewish. The concept of length of tenure was taken from the Women in the United States Senate page, but the specific formating used in List of appointed United States senators page. How to correct the end date of service for when members left on March 3 right before midnight with dates might be a simple as using Template:dts|format=mdy|3|3|18xx for end date and Template:ayd|3|4|18yy|3|4|18xx.

 * Districts: For members of the house, I find the actual seat they represent to be highly relevant to these pages. As an example, the interests that a member of congress with a district in southern Florida solely that is largely Miami-Dade or Broward (a district like FL-26) represents is different than someone representing a district that's much more focused on agricultural produce (such as FL-15). This is also information already given on pages like Women in the United States House of Representatives or List of African-American United States Representatives. Per the concern that geography that a numeric numbering of district contains changes, that is the point of linking to the specific page on that district which presents the historic geographic boundaries. As per the decennial redistricting requiring some edits once a decade, just perusing the tables I had made (all compiled in my sandbox) it seems that California is the main offender for changing up district numbers or reapportionment creating or eliminating districts. Largely, the numerical district a member represents is consistent even if the geographic boundaries change. And the update required is less frequent than something like mentioning the Congress a member served in (such as what is done in List of African-American United States Representatives).

 * Notes: Yeah, I agree that got bloated. I had originally intended to have map svgs such as the ones shown below to convey many of the "first by state/district" information, but I could not figure out how to create them so decided to convey that information textually. My interest was less aimed at who the first person by state to achieve information, but rather which state has had that type of representation. Much of the specificity was Additionally, since how each member left the chamber was given it was a small leap to think that any special circumstances for how they entered the office (appointment, special election, succeeding a relative) was relevant. Also, some pages add interconnectivity between pages by having links to the elections that a senator lost reelection included, so to increase interconnectivity I just apply any unsuccessful reelection bid as well as to connection deaths while in office to the relevant pages. Additional columns such as Former Slave made sent to include here as that is limited to a very few representatives and one senator. The decision to have a notes column instead of a footnotes section is derived from seeing the bulk of text given in notes section of the List of African-American United States senators page. There is clearly a bulk of text there for just 10 senators, which would present obvious issues for any pages that are significantly longer, and the distance from the individual's row is a poor way to convey this information.

[[File:Women in U.S. Senate.png|thumb|300px|This map shows which states have had a female senator via party.

{{legend|#00f|Democrat(s)}} {{legend|#ff0000|Republican(s)}} {{legend|#800080|Both a Democrat and a Republican}}]]

 * Senator class: This is a topic that I am surprised was discussed as much, so I am giving it its own section instead of including it in the Miscellaneous. This was based on the List of appointed United States senators page which does include that information. I found it an easy shorthand for when this senator would have been up for election, which readers with some historical knowledge could use to decipher the political environments they had to work against. It is also an enduring piece of information, automatically saying whether the election takes place in year n/n+2/n+4 (opposed to saying when their next reelection specifically is). And for consistency, it was applied backward to all previously serving senators. Ultimately, I could take it or leave it.

 * Miscellaneous: Small edits that were made that did not generate conversation but probably would have been kept if applied individually: Choosing 'Incumbent' instead of 'Present' in columns for current term end dates. Flags for states (I take the point about associating ethnicity with a nation, which I had not carefully considered prior) which are just more visually dynamic than plain text. Making sure that the year of birth and death is br'd and Template:small consistently. Adding ending punctuation to notes and standardizing capitalization and picking between re-election and reelection. Consistent photo size and removing weird cropping. Selecting one photo to represent a member if they appear across different articles (example Judy Chu in Women in the House and this AAPI page) with differences made when possible for Rep and Sen portraits if a member switched chambers. Also making sure each photo has a caption that says "Rep./Sen. so-and-so". Picking one color of shading to represent incumbents (between e0e0e0e and ccc).

Hopefully, this discussion sufficiently explains why edits were made (again, in the spirit of WP "Be Bold"). I appreciate that some of the ideas have been discussed with the length of service in particular being popular. All my edits were done in good faith, so I am sorry to see that some of the discussion became acrimonious at certain points. And to clarify, I am not Nevermore27 and they are not me. We met on a different platform and Nevermore is a friend a lite-Wiki mentor (though he was uninvolved entirely with my work on these pages). Nevermore27 came to this page after I mentioned to him my disappointment on my edits being reverted and intent to improve my sandbox over time to something more streamlined (hence me re-adding it to my sandbox). I look forward to more productive conversations Agpuh2 (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

RFC about where to put historical notes
It seems like the major focus of this WP:EDITWAR is where to put the notes marking historical firsts. Since this article covers multiple ethnicities rather than another more singular characteristic (like African-American or sexual orientation), some have the view that putting in the Notes column is cumbersome and prefer to put them in a reference. I disagree, I think having them readily visible in the table itself is preferable. So the question is this: Table or Reference?  Nevermore27  (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Examples are "First person of [x heritage] elected to the U.S. Congress" or "Won special election." or "Appointed by [y]."

 * It should be in reference as if we look at neighbouring articles for example Latino and Hispanic, Women in Senate & Women in Congress  all the information related to historical first etc are in reference format and until Agpuh2, and then yourself decided to change it all there had never been any complaints etc as i've looked through the history and talk page of each. A glance over the footnote section shows all the information not related to why they left office e.g Succeeded husband. Daughter of X. First Cuban elected to Congress etc and also includes the first of X nationality, but Agpuh2, and then Nevermore27, once again decided to make changes and put them in the note section which is for why the politician left office. Nnnou2 (talk) 09:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's directly relevant content, it should be prominent, not buried in the footnotes. The footnotes in the Hispanics article are aften are random fun facts about the person that shouldn't be mentioned at all, but I don't see why we should have subsequent offices in the table but prior offices in the footnotes. Looking at the Women in the House, it seems odd to have a wide column only for why they left office, but forcing the other relevant notes like firsts and oldest/youngest to the bottom of the page: these should be integrated into the table. Reywas92Talk 17:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I agree that subsequent offices should not be given more prominence than prior offices, and that if such offices are prominent enough to be mentioned that they should be in a footnote, but if the reason for leaving the House or Senate was to run for or commence serving in some other office then that should be mentioned in the Notes column (since there's a difference between "retiring" (not seeking reelection) to go home or to leave politics and "retiring" to run for some other office instead).

 * As for historical firsts (first Vietnamese, first Chinese, etc.), I personally do not believe that it is necessary to list that separately because one can always click on "Ethnicity" and it will list members chronologically by ethnicity, but the article has long listed such firsts, and I assume that some readers like them, so I will not advocate for their removal. But I think that they should be kept in footnotes so as not to clutter the notes column.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If the "Notes" column is just going to be reserved for the manner in which a politician leaves office "Died, resigned, lost reelection", etc. like some would have it, then it should just be changed to "manner of departure" instead of "notes". For a page titled "List of AAPI in Congress", I think historic firsts are very relevant!  Nevermore27  (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Can't believe i'm saying this but Nevermore27 does raise an interesting point. Maybe Notes should be swapped to Manner or Reason for departure, i'd support that. Nnnou2 (talk) 10:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That was not the direction I was trying for lol. I think Notes should be for....notes. And historical firsts are clearly a note. And I think they should be in the body of the article and not footnotes.  Nevermore27  (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I think that the articles listing women in the House and Senate labels such column as "Leaves for"; "Manner of Departure" sounds much better. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Table, if I'm understanding this correctly. There's some terminology confusion here between references and footnotes: references are solely for citing facts to ensure verifiability, whereas footnotes are for minor pieces of information not important enough for the body. This article currently mixes them, which is not good practice; I'd suggest converting the footnotes to efn and giving them their own section. I think firsts such as e.g. first Vietnamese American in Congress are clearly WP:DUE weight in an article about Asian Americans in Congress and should be included in the notes section rather than relegated to the footnotes. {{u| Sdkb  }}  talk 10:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The RfC is closed, and if we're counting votes, it seems like the majority of those involved believe that historic firsts are directly relevant content and should be included in the table. In other words, notes are notes. I will implement this change and hopefully it will be respected this time.  Nevermore27  (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

 * No, a consensus is not merely "counting votes" and saying "3 is more than 2," (see WP:Consensus), but given the lack of interest that the editing community has shown for the article, I'm not going to continue to waste time on this issue. For the record, though, I think that having ridiculously long columns on the right just to say that someone was the first Thai American elected to the Senate (which could be ascertained simply by clicking on the "ancestry" column) makes the article less readable, and that the same prominence could be given to such fact in a footnote without making each row so long (with the portrait looking like a tiny insert in the middle of a long, white or gray rectangle).  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you and I have different definitions of "ridiculously long". Also, you're ignoring editors involved in the initial discussion, which puts the "vote" as it were something closer to 5-2.  Nevermore27  (talk)
 * Also more of an aside but why is the picture more important than historical information about a MoC's service? Just wondering.  Nevermore27  (talk) 03:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In this RtC, three editors, including you, voted for the tiny photo and long, skinny notes column (tripling the number of rows in each entry, and two (including me) voted for keeping the photos easily visible and placing the "firsts" info in footnotes. 3-2 is not 5-2, and, more to the ooint, it's not a consensus.  But, as I said, I'm not going to keep fighting with you about this anymore, since obviously you're just going to keep edit-warring until you get your way.  That's not how controversies are resolved on Wikipedia, as I'm sure that you'll find out if you do that to more litigious editors.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with AuH2ORepublican that no consensus was gained and it certainly wasn't 5-2. Furthermore, the editor who made the original edits, Agpuh2, who changed the article in the first place, has not edited since December 2020 and as I previously stated I believe that Nevermore27 and Agpuh2 are the same person, especially as Agpuh2 stated on the talk page that you "knew" each other.
 * If you want to make a formal accusation about me and Agpuh being sock puppets for each other I'm sure there's a place for you to do that. I welcome it.  Nevermore27  (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Also until Agpuh2's additions were reverted in December 2020, Nevermore27 had only edited this article once: (January 2019) since the article was first created in August 2005, and seemed to have no problem with the layout then, but as soon as his "friends" edits were reverted he suddenly started editing after nearly two years since his last edit to the page.

I must also point out that one of the main reasons to keep it in the format it has been like for years is that is extremely similar to the neighbouring articles related to hispanic/latino, arab, native american etc articles on members of congress. Also, as AuH2ORepublican has pointed out, the columns are sortable, so if you wanted to know who was the first person of Chinese descent or Japanese descent elected to Congress you are able to sort it and find out. In order to rectify this I believe we should take Nevermore27's suggestion, made previously on the talk page, to change the notes section to manner or reason for departure, therefore solving this problem. Maybe we could also swap the references for footnotes: efn, as a previous editor suggested. Nnnou2 (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My day-to-day life became much busier once my winter break ended. Also, based on the reception my edits received back in December, from you in particular, it should be pretty understandable if I choose not to be an active participant in the Wiki community. Agpuh2 (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

 * I don't know why my edit history of the page is relevant. Agpuh was attempting to make improvements to the page and you are imposing a nonsensical worldview.

 * I think when y'all are talking about "ridiculously long" notes, you're referring to Agpuh2's initial edit, which was...zealous. As I was advising him on his project I didn't see the final product and if I had, I wouldn't have liked it either. But I have been attempting to make compromises with y'all since the very first, and instead of meeting in the middle between the initial edit and your preferred version and trying to find a compromise, you're being obstinate. We're all trying to make Wikipedia better (I hope), and it's frustrating that this keeps happening. the pictures aren't more important than the info.  Nevermore27  (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a dispute about how to organize the available information. It may be worth looking at Category:Lists of members of the United States Congress to see how other such lists are set up. For example List of Arab and Middle Eastern Americans in the United States Congress. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I have attempted one more compromise, just in the Senate section for now, based on 's suggestion and 's seeming openness to it. Hopefully this can be settled on.  Nevermore27  (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't like this at all. Put the notes in the notes section! Burying them is absurd. There is no reason to limit notes to actually only be why they left office. Stupid to highlight "Retired", "Retired", "Lost reelection" but then stick more relevant information about the individuals in the footnotes. If the sortability of ethnicity also indicates who the first people are, then don't put it in prose at all. Reywas92Talk 17:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ethnicity is fully sortable within the Senate, House and Delegates tables, respectively. The only "firsts" that could not be gleaned simple by clicking on ethnicity is whether a person who is the first, for example, Chinese to be elected to the House was also the first Chinese to be elected to Congress.
 * Personally, I don't think that separately noting "ancestry firsts" is necessary, but, as I wrote in a prior discussion, I wouldn't advocate for their elimination because such info has been part of this particular article (contra, for example, the articles on Hispanic/Latino members of Congress and on Native American members of Congress) for many years, so readers are used to seeing it (and presumably like it). I don't mind such unnecessary info remaining in the article so long as it doesn't intrude upon the article's readability, and, IMHO, having the Notes column become long and skinny because of all of that verbiage, and the photo of the person becoming a small square in a longer rectangle necessitated by the long "Note," makes it more difficult to obtain vital information about the members listed.
 * And, since their still appears to be incredulity among some editors on this matter in particular, yes, I think that having a prominent and visible photo of each Asian-American and Pacific-American member of Congress is more important than having a prominent sentence noting that, say, she is the first Thai member of the Senate. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I think assuming what format casual readers might prefer is folly, for the record. It's usually just an excuse to substitute your own preferences.  Nevermore27  (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't want to be accused of claiming to be looking out for what I assume that readers want as an excuse to substitute my own preferences, so I'm changing my vote to match my personal preference for the article. I now vote to eliminate the "ethnicity first" altogether, since they are unnecessary given that the ethnicity column is fully sortable.  If you want to learn whether Bobby Scott was the first Filipino-Anerican U.S. Representative, just click on the "ethnicity" heading on the Representatives table.  Thank you for pointing out ths folly of trying to accomodate what other people may like. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Mk. So, I didn't intend that with the vitriol that you appear to have taken from it. By that same token, anyone who wants to see a prominent photo can just click through and see the full image! why do we even need to have pictures at all on this page, they can just click through to the main article!  Nevermore27  (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Changes implemented
Since no one objected to the new format of smaller reference tables at the bottom of each section, I implemented that change. This reduces the amount of text in the table proper, and keeps the information more accessible than keeping it at the bottom. However, non-AAPI ethnicity-related notes (e.g. later positions and/or runs for office) properly belong in the Notes column. This applies to far less people than historical ethnic firsts so it doesn't disrupt the table as much as including all the text, so hopefully this final compromise will be amenable to everyone involved. I cannot accept that the Notes column can only be used for the manner of departure from office, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "Notes". If any of you insists on reverting parts or the whole of these changes I can only assume that y'all are abusing WP:STONEWALLING, WP:ONEHANDGIVES and WP:FILIBUSTER and don't have any interest in cooperating and I will react accordingly.  Nevermore27  (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact you are trying to threaten other editors is appalling and shows that you are abusing your position. Some of your edits I don't mind such as later positions and/or runs for office, but others I don't agree should be there especially related to the Congressional Black Caucus. Nnnou2 (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a threat, just a statement of position. I didn't actually add the CBC membership part, I thought you did that. If you think it should be removed I don't really have a problem with that, since it's not directly related to the members' AAPI status. I just kept it because it was already there, and since it's not AAPI ethnicity-related, I felt it better belonged in the Notes. But like I said, if you think it shouldn't be there at all, I'm not particularly bothered removing it.  Nevermore27  (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

 * , I agree that the footnotes that you placed for members of the Senate are not obtrusive, and have no problem with you doing the same for members of the House. The table looks much better with those changes.  But where do you get off claiming that including additional information in the "Notes" column regarding future offices (unrelated to their reason for leaving office), religious firsts or membership in other racial caucuses was accepted by the ediing community?  As you are well aware, a consensus has not developed regarding whether such information should be included within the table (which results in the entries getting longer) or in a footnote.

 * By the way, while some of the information that you added could be of interest to readers, and is similar to the information included in footnotes in the article on Hispanic/Latino members of Congress (which has footnotes noting prior or subsequent service in major offices, such as the U.S. Senate of governorship, but not for some of the less prominent offices that you added to the Asian/Pacific Islander article), some of it is not germane to the article. Why mention that Dymally, Scott, Clarke and Strickland were/are members of the Congressional Black Caucus?  That has nothing to do with their reason for being in this particular article, which has to do with their Asian/Pacific Islander ancestry, not their black ancestry.  (And please note that the articles on Native American and on Hispanic/Latino members of Congress do not point out which of the members listed also happen to have black ancestry or membership in the CBC, and that the article on Hispanic/Latino members of Congress does not mention which of the Hispanic Resident Commissioners from the Philippines also were of Asian/Pacific Islander descent.)
 * So, if you want to make changes that are consistent with the Senate footnotes to which you did not receive objection, you should include in a footnote to the "Notes" the "religious firsts" that you identified as well aa subsequent service in major offices--future U.S. Senate service is germane to a House member who did not resign or retire to go to the Senate, and governorships or federal Cabinet-level posts are also prominent enough to be mentioned (as is, it goes without saying, subsequent service as president of a country, such as is the case of Resident Commissioner of the Philippines Manuel Quezón), but not state legislature, state cabinet posts or county or municipal offices. That would include important, but not trivial, information, and would reduce the size of each member's entry for easier reading.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not add any new information, it was already there, just in the footnotes that others crafted. The only thing we're disagreeing on is where to put it. If you think some information is better left out, fine, whatever. But anything that's not directly related to AAPI historical firsts should be in the Notes column.  Nevermore27  (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Saiki
I'm curious where you stand on this; Saiki was Administrator of the Small Business Administration for HW Bush's presidency; SBA was was Cabinet-level for Clinton's presidency and Obama's to the present but was not for either Bush. Even though Saiki was not a member of the Cabinet, does the current level of the position make it worth including in the table?  Nevermore27  (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed the reference to Saiki serving as SBA Administrator when I removed the reference to Mink's service as Assistant Secretary of State. And you are correct to surmise that had the SBA been a Cabinet-level when Saiki held that post that I would have considered the position prominent enough to be notable.  Assistant Secretary of State for whatever it was and Administrator of the SBA were consolation prizes that Presidents Carter and Bush gave Mink and Saiki, respectively, after losing Senate races the prior year (the primary in the case of Mink, and the general in the case of Saiki).  Their post-House service in those positions just isn't notable enough to be mentioned in the article about Asian-American members of Congress, just as service as city councilman (another job that Mink held between her two tours of duty in the House), state legislator, or even state AG or Lieutenant Governor (which are more prominent positions than are Assistant Secretary of State or SBA Administrator) are not mentioned for anyone in this article or similar articles.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

fair enough I was just curious if it might merit inclusion just based on its current prominence. It would make sense either way to me.  Nevermore27  (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Chelseanick

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. KeithD (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. KeithD (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Chelseanick


text: User talk:70.94.1.72

title: User talk:70.94.1.72


text:
Dufresny

Dufresny is a surname. Notable people with the surname include:

 * Charles Rivière Dufresny (1648–1724), a French dramatist

title: Dufresny


text: User talk:70.48.239.28

title: User talk:70.48.239.28


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polom

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent 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 DELETE.  Rob e  rt  23:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Polom
Dicdef for an obscure slang neologism used on IRC, with a few links to Google searches at the bottom. Not really an encyclopedia article, IMHO. — Ливай | ☺ 17:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The villages mentioned at the bottom might be notable, but the "greeting" is not. Karol 18:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a candidate for moving to wiktionary. This is a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article.
 * Delete I wouldn't even move it to wiktionary as it is more urbandictionary slang than a real term.  I'd also support retaining the page as a disamgig for the names of the places mentioned at the bottom if someone wanted to watch this article for content and make sure the spurious slang def doesn't work its way back in.--Isotope23 20:09, 3 October 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.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polom


text:
William Lee D. Ewing

William Lee Davidson Ewing (August 31, 1795 – March 25, 1846) was a politician from Illinois who served partial terms as the fifth governor of the state and as U.S. Senator.

Biography
Ewing was born in Paris, Kentucky on August 31, 1795, and practiced law in Shawneetown, Illinois. James Monroe appointed him to be a land office receiver in Vandalia in 1820.

He married Caroline L. Berry on May 3, 1827.

He served as a Colonel of the "Spy Battalion" during the Black Hawk War. In 1830, he was elected to serve in the state House of Representatives as Speaker. He had previously been the clerk of the House. From 1832 to 1834, he was a State Senator, serving as President pro tempore of the State Senate in 1832. In 1833, he was also named acting Lieutenant Governor of Illinois and served as Governor of Illinois for fourteen days in 1834, the shortest gubernatorial term in Illinois history.

Upon the death of Elias Kane in 1835, Ewing was appointed by Joseph Duncan to serve out the rest of Kane's term in the U.S. Senate. In 1838 he was appointed Commissioner to adjust the claims of mixed-bloods and traders at Fort Snelling for the Dakota under the 1837 Dakota treaty. His re-election campaign was unsuccessful and he returned to the Illinois State House, becoming Speaker of the House again.

He died at his home in Springfield, Illinois on March 25, 1846.

title: William Lee D. Ewing


text:
Low-force helix

A low-force helix (LFH-60) is a 60-pin electrical connector (four rows of 15 pins) with signals for two digital and analog connectors. Each of the pins is twisted approximately 45 degrees between the tip and the plastic frame which holds the pins in place. Hence "helix" in the name.

The DMS-59 is a derivative of the LFH60.

The LFH connector is typically used with workstations, because it can connect a single computer graphics source to up to four different monitors. The standard interface is a 60-pin LFH connector with two breakout VGA or DVI cables. This system provides users with flexibility for a variety of display configurations, though forsakes standard DVI or VGA connectors. This renders the LFH connector unusable without an adapter.

It's also used in HDCI (High Definition Camera Interface) used in Polycom HDX video conferencing systems.

Using the LFH interface requires a graphics card with multi-monitor capabilities and an LFH port. NVIDIA and Matrox used to manufacture such cards.

Another application of LFH capabilities is manufactured by Matrox. The Matrox card outputs via two LFH cables to a single monitor, delivering 9.2 million pixels of resolution (3840 × 2400). This system provides large amounts of detailed information for professional applications such as aerospace and automotive visualization, computer aided design, desktop publishing, digital photography, life sciences, mapping, oil and gas exploration, plant design and management, satellite imaging, space exploration, and transportation and logistics.

The LFH connector is used in some Cisco routers and WAN Interface Cards.

General

 * Molex DMS-59 Product Page

title: Low-force helix


text:
Saturable absorption

Saturable absorption is a property of materials where the absorption of light decreases with increasing light intensity. Most materials show some saturable absorption, but often only at very high optical intensities (close to the optical damage). At sufficiently high incident light intensity, the ground state of a saturable absorber material is excited into an upper energy state at such a rate that there is insufficient time for it to decay back to the ground state before the ground state becomes depleted, causing the absorption to saturate. The key parameters for a saturable absorber are its wavelength range (where in the electromagnetic spectrum it absorbs), its dynamic response (how fast it recovers), and its saturation intensity and fluence (at what intensity or pulse energy it saturates).

Saturable absorber materials are useful in laser cavities. For instance, they are commonly used for passive Q-switching.

Phenomenology
Within the simple model of saturated absorption, the relaxation rate of excitations does not depend on the intensity. Then, for the continuous-wave (cw) operation, the absorption rate (or simply absorption) $$A$$ is determined by intensity $$I$$:
 * $$(1) A= \frac{\alpha}{1+I/I_0}$$

where $$ \alpha $$ is linear absorption, and $$I_0$$ is saturation intensity. These parameters are related with the concentration $$ N $$ of the active centers in the medium, the effective cross-sections $$\sigma $$ and the lifetime $$\tau$$ of the excitations.

Relation with Wright omega function
In the simplest geometry, when the rays of the absorbing light are parallel, the intensity can be described with the Beer–Lambert law,
 * $$(2) \frac{\mathrm{d} I}{\mathrm{d}z}=-AI$$

where $$z$$ is coordinate in the direction of propagation. Substitution of (1) into (2) gives the equation
 * $$(3) \frac{\mathrm{d}I}{\mathrm{d}z}=-\frac{\alpha~ I}{1+I/I_0} $$

With the dimensionless variables $$u=I/I_0$$, $$t=\alpha z$$, equation (3) can be rewritten as
 * $$(4) \frac{\mathrm{d}u}{\mathrm{d}t}=\frac{-u}{1+u} $$

The solution can be expressed in terms of the Wright omega function $$\omega$$:
 * $$(5) u = \omega(-t) $$

Relation with Lambert W function
The solution can be expressed also through the related Lambert W function. Let $$u=V\big(-\mathrm{e}^t\big)$$. Then
 * $$(6) -\mathrm{e}^t V'\big(-\mathrm{e}^t\big)= - \frac{V\big(-\mathrm{e}^t\big)}{1+V\big(-\mathrm{e}^t\big)} $$

With new independent variable $$p=-\mathrm{e}^t$$, Equation (6) leads to the equation
 * $$(7) V'(p)=\frac{V(p)}{p\cdot (1+V(p))}$$

The formal solution can be written
 * $$(8) V(p)=W(p-p_0)$$

where $$ p_0$$ is constant, but the equation $$V(p_0)=0$$ may correspond to the non-physical value of intensity (intensity zero) or to the unusual branch of the Lambert W function.

Saturation fluence
For pulsed operation, in the limiting case of short pulses, absorption can be expressed through the fluence
 * $$(9) F=\int_{0}^t I(t) \mathrm{d}t$$

where time $$t$$ should be small compared to the relaxation time of the medium; it is assumed that the intensity is zero at $$t<0 $$. Then, the saturable absorption can be written as follows:
 * $$(10) A=\frac{\alpha}{1+F/F_0} $$

where saturation fluence $$ F_0$$ is constant.

In the intermediate case (neither cw, nor short pulse operation), the rate equations for excitation and relaxation in the optical medium must be considered together.

Saturation fluence is one of the factors that determine threshold in the gain media and limits the storage of energy in a pulsed disk laser.

Mechanisms and examples
Absorption saturation, which results in decreased absorption at high incident light intensity, competes with other mechanisms (for example, increase in temperature, formation of color centers, etc.), which result in increased absorption. In particular, saturable absorption is only one of several mechanisms that produce self-pulsation in lasers, especially in semiconductor lasers.

One atom thick layer of carbon, graphene, can be seen with the naked eye because it absorbs approximately 2.3% of white light, which is π times fine-structure constant. The saturable absorption response of graphene is wavelength independent from UV to IR, mid-IR and even to THz frequencies. In rolled-up graphene sheets (carbon nanotubes), saturable absorption is dependent on diameter and chirality.

Microwave and terahertz saturable absorption
Saturable absorption can even take place at the microwave and terahertz band (corresponding to a wavelength from 30 μm to 300 μm). Some materials, for example graphene, with very weak energy band gap (several meV), could absorb photons at Microwave and Terahertz band due to its interband absorption. In one report, microwave absorbance of graphene always decreases with increasing the power and reaches at a constant level for power larger than a threshold value. The microwave saturable absorption in graphene is almost independent of the incident frequency, which demonstrates that graphene may have important applications in graphene microwave photonics devices such as: microwave saturable absorber, modulator, polarizer, microwave signal processing, broad-band wireless access networks, sensor networks, radar, satellite communications, and so on.

Saturable X-ray absorption
Saturable absorption has been demonstrated for X-rays. In one study, a thin 50 nm foil of aluminium was irradiated with soft X-ray laser radiation (wavelength 13.5 nm). The short laser pulse knocked out core L-shell electrons without breaking the crystalline structure of the metal, making it transparent to soft X-rays of the same wavelength for about 40 femtoseconds.

title: Saturable absorption


text:
Nathan Hecht

Nathan Lincoln Hecht (born August 15, 1949) is the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Texas. A Republican from Dallas, Hecht was first elected to the Supreme Court in 1988 and was reelected to six-year terms in 1994, 2000 and 2006. He secured his fifth six-year term on November 6, 2012. He was appointed chief justice by Governor Rick Perry on September 10, 2013, and was sworn into that position by retiring Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson on October 1, 2013.

Background
Chief Justice Hecht was born in Clovis, New Mexico to a farming family, and graduated from Clovis public schools. He earned his Bachelor of Arts from Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, with honors in Philosophy and graduated thereafter cum laude from the Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law. He was a law clerk to Judge Roger Robb of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He served as a lieutenant in the U.S. Naval Reserve. He practiced law in the area of general litigation with the Dallas firm of Locke Purnell Boren Laney & Neely, and was a shareholder in that firm prior to his appointment to the bench.

While on the District Court, Chief Justice Hecht was the local administrative judge, presiding over all county and district judges in Dallas County and representing them before other branches of government.

He began his judicial service on the 95th District Court of Dallas County, to which he was appointed by Governor Bill Clements, on September 1, 1981, elected in 1982, and re-elected in 1984. In 1986, he was elected to the Texas Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas, where he served until his election to the Supreme Court. Throughout his tenure on the Supreme Court, Hecht has been designated to oversee all changes in state court rules.

Harriet Miers nomination
In the days after the October 3, 2005, nomination of Harriet Miers to be an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, Hecht became nationally known as a strong supporter of White House Counsel Miers based upon his long friendship with her. According to Hecht, he and Miers dated in the past and were members of the same church. Hecht gave 120 interviews in support of the eventually-unsuccessful nomination.

The New York Times has reported that, on the day of Miers' nomination, Hecht participated in a conference call with the Arlington Group, a coalition of Christian conservatives, assuring them of her pro-life views.

In May 2006, Hecht was admonished by the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct for "an improper use of his office and position to promote Miers's private interest" during the nomination; a three-judge panel exonerated Hecht of the charge after he appealed the decision.

In March 2007, Hecht said that he had asked then Texas State Representative Tony Goolsby to propose a bill that would make the state reimburse his $340,000 legal fees acquired from the case before the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct. His lawyers had discounted his fees by $167,500. Goolsby withdrew the bill after learning that Hecht had already been reimbursed for the bill through "donations." Hecht defended his position by saying, "Here is the problem: If judges are sanctioned like this and it's unjust and it's wrong and they want to prove it, they can represent themselves or hire a lawyer that you can't pay for on a judge's salary." He is paid $152,500.

In December 2008, he was fined $29,000 by the Texas Ethics Commission in connection with the discount, which the Commission ruled was an improper political contribution. Hecht has filed an appeal of the decision in Travis County District Court, which removed the fine. The appeal was filed in January 2009 and it began the whole process over again. After nearly eight years, in August 2016 the Texas Ethics Commission and Hecht settled the case. Neither side was deemed to have prevailed, but Hecht did agree to pay a $1,000 fine.

Memberships, awards and community service
Hecht is a member of the American Law Institute, a member of the Texas Philosophical Society, and a fellow of the Texas and American Bar Foundations. He is on the advisory board of the S.M.U. Law Review and was named Outstanding Young Lawyer in 1984 by the Dallas Association of Young Lawyers. Musically talented, Hecht has played the organ for his non-denominational Christian church.

Election of 2012
In the November 6 general election, Hecht polled 4,116,102 votes (53.7 percent), compared to 3,208,479 (41.9) percent for the Democrat Michele Petty. Two minor candidates held the remaining 4.4 percent of the ballots. Hecht lost his own county of Dallas, in which he polled 273,105 votes (40.2 percent), compared to Petty's 382,140 (56.2 percent). However, he won neighboring Tarrant County, which includes Fort Worth.

Election of 2014
Hecht, backed by U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, easily won re-nomination as chief justice in the Republican primary election held on March 4, 2014. He polled 707,692 (60.5 percent); his challenger, former State Representative Robert Talton of Pasadena in Harris County, received 462,273 votes (39.5 percent).

In the November 4 general election, Justice Hecht defeated William Moody, who ran unopposed in the Democratic party primary. With 426,898 primary votes, Moody ran 281,000 below Hecht's Republican primary total.

Though Hecht himself has benefited from straight ticket voting for his court position, the justice has called for abolition of master levers for political parties on voting machines in Texas. According to Hecht, on November 8, 2016,

"many good judges [such as Laura Parker in Bexar County) lost solely because voters in their districts preferred a presidential candidate (Hillary Rodham Clinton carried Bexar County.) in the other party. These kinds of partisan sweeps are common, with judicial candidates at the mercy of the top of the ticket. Such partisan sweeps are demoralizing to judges and disruptive to the legal system. But worse than that, when partisan politics is the driving force, and the political climate is as harsh as ours has become, judicial elections make judges more political, and judicial independence is the casualty."

Former Chief Justices Wallace Jefferson, Thomas R. Phillips, and John Luke Hill, the last Democrat in the position, have also called for reforms in the selection of judges. Joe Straus, the former Moderate Republican Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives has urged that straight ticket voting be abolished for all elections, not just judicial ones.

Personal life
In April 2022, Hecht married Priscilla Richman, who is currently the chief judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

title: Nathan Hecht


text:
User talk:AtomicDragon

Leave any comments.

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:AtomicDragon


text:
Gaoping, Guizhou

Gaoping (高坪) is a small town in the mountains near Zunyi, in Guizhou (Guizhou) province, People's Republic of China.

It is near the Moutai brewery, where Maotai rice liquor is brewed.

Lai fun, a variety of rice noodle is made locally.

The rice liquor Dongjiu is brewed nearby.

title: Gaoping, Guizhou


text: User talk:80.87.128.33

title: User talk:80.87.128.33


text:
SuperClash III

SuperClash III was the third SuperClash professional wrestling event produced by American Wrestling Association (AWA). The event was held on December 13, 1988 from the UIC Pavilion in Chicago. It was the only AWA show to be broadcast on pay-per-view (PPV). The Texas-based World Class Wrestling Association (WCWA; formerly known as World Class Championship Wrestling), women wrestling promotion Powerful Women of Wrestling (POWW), and Memphis-based Championship Wrestling Association (CWA) also provided wrestlers for the show.

Twelve matches were contested at the event. The main event was a tag team match, in which The Rock 'n' Roll Express (Ricky Morton and Robert Gibson) fought The Stud Stable (Robert Fuller and Jimmy Golden) to a double disqualification. The penultimate match was the most important match of the event, in which the AWA World Heavyweight Champion Jerry Lawler defeated the WCWA World Heavyweight Champion Kerry Von Erich in a title unification match to unify the WCWA World Heavyweight Championship into the AWA World Heavyweight Championship.

The show was poorly received, not a financial success and soon after the WCWA was bought out by Jerry Lawler and Jerry Jarrett and merged with the CWA to become the United States Wrestling Association (USWA). The show was added to the WWE Network in June 2016.

Preliminary matches
The opening match of the event was a six-man tag team match in which the Guerrero brothers Chavo Guerrero, Mando Guerrero and Hector Guerrero took on Cactus Jack and Rock 'n' Roll RPMs (Mike Davis and Tommy Lane). Chavo hit a moonsault to Lane for the win.

Next, Jeff Jarrett defended the WCWA World Light Heavyweight Championship against Eric Embry. The two reversed several pinfall attempts which ended with Embry pinning Jarrett to win the title.

Next, Jimmy Valiant took on Wayne Bloom. Bloom attacked Valiant from behind but Valiant quickly countered by hitting an elbow drop for the win.

Next, Iceman King Parsons defended the WCWA Texas Heavyweight Championship against Brickhouse Brown. Brown hit a flying bodypress to Parsons and covered him for the pinfall, assuming that he had won the title while Parsons had put his foot on the bottom rope. Parsons then grabbed a foreign object and hit Brown with it to retain the title.

The match was followed by a six-person mixed tag team match pitting The Top Guns (Ricky Rice and Derrick Dukes) and Wendi Richter against Badd Company (Paul Diamond and Pat Tanaka) and Madusa Miceli, where Badd Company's World Tag Team Championship and Richter's World Women's Championship were on the line. Near the end of the match, Madusa held Richter while Tanaka tried to hit a savate kick but Richter ducked and Madusa was accidentally hit with it, allowing Richter to pin Madusa to retain her title. Stipulations for the match said that both the women's title and tag title were on the line but only changed hands depending on who pinned whom. Therefore, Badd Company retained their tag team championship.

Next, Greg Gagne took on Ron Garvin for the vacant International Television Championship. The action spilled to the outside of the ring until Gagne went back to the ring before the ten count to win the match and the vacant title.

The following match was a Lingerie Battle Royal. Syrian Terrorist won the match.

Next, Sgt. Slaughter took on Colonel DeBeers in a Boot Camp match. Slaughter put on a helmet and hit DeBeers with it and applied a cobra clutch for the win. After the match, The Iron Sheik and Shiek Adnan Al-Kaissey attacked Slaughter until the Guerreros made the save.

Next, The Samoan Swat Team (Samu and Fatu) defended the WCWA World Tag Team Championship against Michael Hayes and Steve Cox. A brawl broke out between Samu and Fox and several referees tried to break it, allowing Buddy Roberts to hit Hayes with his wallet and Fatu then pinned Hayes to retain the titles.

Later, Wahoo McDaniel took on Manny Fernandez in an Indian Strap match. McDaniel touched all four corners to win the match. Fernandez attacked McDaniel after the match until Tatsumi Fujinami made the save.

Main event matches
The title unification match was the major highlight of the event, in which Jerry Lawler's AWA World Heavyweight Championship and Kerry Von Erich's WCWA World Heavyweight Championship were on the line and the match would result in the WCWA title being unified into the AWA title. Near the end of the match, Von Erich applied an Iron Claw on Lawler but the referee stopped the match due to Von Erich's excessive bleeding, rendering him unable to continue and awarding the victory to Lawler, making him the undisputed world champion.

The main event of SuperClash III was a tag team match in which The Rock 'n' Roll Express (Ricky Morton and Robert Gibson) took on Robert Fuller and Jimmy Golden. Near the end of the match, Morton and Gibson hit a double dropkick to Golden and attempted to cover him for the pinfall but Fuller interfered and both teams brawled in the ring, leading the referee to disqualify both teams.

Reception
SuperClash III was very poorly received as the event was not a financial success and Verne Gagne did not pay the visiting talent the agreed amount for their participation, due to low buyrates. Many professional wrestling experts have considered the event to be the downfall of AWA as people refused to work for Gagne for his failure to pay the wrestlers. The most notable criticism came from the AWA World Heavyweight Champion Jerry Lawler, who was not paid for his participation in the event and Gagne ultimately stripped him of the title and buried him on AWA television.

title: SuperClash III


text:
User talk:Silverwolf1885

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. --Pgk 18:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Breast. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Kusma (討論) 05:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Silverwolf1885


text: User talk:81.107.151.34

title: User talk:81.107.151.34


text:
The Sharon Osbourne Show

The Sharon Osbourne Show is an American first-run syndicated talk show that was hosted by Sharon Osbourne. The show ran for one season from September 15, 2003 to May 2004.

The Sharon Osbourne Show was produced by Telepictures Productions. It served as a replacement for The Jenny Jones Show.

Format
The Sharon Osbourne Show primarily focused on celebrity interviews, which included interviews on set and follow-up interviews at the guest's home.

Production
In November 2002, Osbourne made a deal with Telepictures Productions to host a talk show.

The Sharon Osbourne Show recruited producers of The Jenny Jones Show, including executive producer Kerrie Moriarity, and repurposed some of its materials.

Broadcast history
The Sharon Osbourne Show was placed in first-run syndication in the United States, in which it was distributed by Warner Bros. Domestic Television Distribution. The premiered on September 15, 2003, as a replacement for The Jenny Jones Show. It was cleared in over 90 percent of the United States.

Television viewership and ratings
The show was eventually canceled due to poor ratings and scathing attacks by critics as being too focused on Osbourne's family. Due to a disappointing array of guests including several little known actors, actresses and country music performers, Osbourne's contract was not renewed.

International broadcasts
It was also shown in the UK on Sky One and on cable channel ARENA in Australia.

title: The Sharon Osbourne Show


text: User talk:209.184.251.20

title: User talk:209.184.251.20


text:
Talk:Knight Rider (film)

Question: ''When asked about his role, he hinted that he would return as Michael Knight, but that Knight was taking over Devon Miles' position as the leader of FLAG. Incidentally, this is an unlikely possibility as Devon Miles was killed back in 1990's Knight Rider 2000, and actor Edward Mulhare passed away in 1997.'' If Devon/Mulhare died... wouldn't it be logical for Michael Knight to take over? I'd call this obvious, not unlikely. // Gargaj 18:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Same here. I mean, I'm not sure whether Michael Knight is legally the adopted son of FLAG's founder Wilton Knight, but he's certainly the closest thing to a descendant they have. Incidentally, if this article is accurate, it gives me a bit more respect for David Hasselhoff. So many movies these days ignore, mock, or "re-imagine" a beloved television show from childhood instead of doing a straight-up adaptation (Disney's been the worst at this lately, with The Shaggy Dog re-interpreted as a genetic accident on a grown man instead of an ancient curse on a teenager, and the upcoming live-action Underdog turned into a real dog instead of an anthropomorphic one). The fact that he fought to keep the story true to the show and wouldn't do the movie otherwise is a good thing. - 24.131.38.46 00:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

--

Bloom snubs The Hoff's role : http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,23663,20323578-36557,00.html

The Poster
AICN thinks it's fake. Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary? --Maxamegalon2000 03:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Too many questions for my comfort, from a cursory Google. I was bold and removed it until we have something from Weinstein (AICN isn't terribly trustworthy). --JS talk 06:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Rework and templates
Let me explain in the text, in case you're curious. The page linked to is simply podcasts of a radio show out of England, I'm assuming the show Hasselhoff appeared on to make this statement. However, it is temporal -- the page linked to is a moving target and has already forgotten the statement. We need a better citation.

That applies to the whole article, really. I'm having trouble citing this stuff through Google, I hope interested parties or original author can. I also deleted a lot of irrelevant fluff. --JS talk 19:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Knight Rider (film)


text:
Frank Hadow

Patrick Francis "Frank" Hadow (2 January 1855 – 29 June 1946) was an English tennis player, who won the Wimbledon championship in 1878.

Personal life
Born 2 January 1855 Regent's Park, his father was Patrick Douglas Hadow who was educated at Harrow School and Balliol College Oxford University and became Chairman of the P&O Shipping Company.

Frank Hadow attended Harrow School along with six of his seven brothers who were known as the "Harrow Hadows". Hadow represented Harrow at rackets and the brothers were well known as distinguished cricketers. Hadow's oldest brother Douglas Robert Hadow died during the descent after the first ascent of the Matterhorn in 1865.

Sporting career
He was the loftiest Wimbledon Champion. He played at Wimbledon whilst on holiday from his coffee plantation in Ceylon. He did not defend his title – and is therefore the only male champion never to have lost a set in singles there. He returned to Wimbledon nearly half a century later to collect a commemorative medal from Queen Mary for being the oldest surviving champion.

When asked if he would defend his title Hadow is reported to have said "No sir. It's a sissy's game played with a soft ball."

Hadow was also a distinguished big game hunter, hunting in Africa in the early years of the 20th century. He has listings in many categories of the 1928 Rowland Ward "Records of Big Game", including ranking trophies in the sable antelope, Cape buffalo, Uganda kob and eland categories.

As a cricketer, he also represented Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), Middlesex, the Orleans Club, the South and the Gentlemen of England as a right-handed batsman in seven first-class matches between 1883 and 1891. He also played cricket in Ceylon.

He died on 29 June 1946 in Bridgwater, Somerset.

Creator of the lob
Hadow introduced the tennis technique of lobbing—sending the ball high and deep into the opponent's court—and used it to defeat the volleyer Spencer Gore in the 1878 (second) Wimbledon Men's Final, 7–5, 6–1, 9–7.

title: Frank Hadow


text:
Hyundai Aero

The Hyundai Aero (hangul:현대 에어로) was a full-sized single-decker coach built by the Hyundai Motor Company. It was primarily used as an intercity bus.

It is distinguishable by a front 'Aero' badge by Aero Space, Aero Express, and Aero Queen, but the common Hyundai badge is usually used on the rear.

In Japan, Asia-Pacific, Mid-East, Africa, South America, its principal Korean competitors are Kia Granbird, Daewoo BH.

Models
The Aero was designed by Hyundai Motor Company and Mitsubishi Fuso. It was a rebadged Mitsubishi Fuso Aero Bus. The three variants are:
 * Aero Space: both available for diesel and CNG.
 * Aero Space LD: A short wheelbase, standard deck bus.
 * Aero Space LS: A short wheelbase, standard deck bus with air suspension.
 * Aero Hi-Space: A long wheelbase, standard deck bus with air suspension.
 * Aero Express: A long wheelbase bus with air suspension.
 * Aero Express LDX: standard deck bus with air suspension.
 * Aero Express HSX: high deck bus with air suspension.
 * Aero Express Hi-Class: high deck bus with air suspension.
 * Aero Queen: A luxurious long wheelbase, high deck bus with air suspension.
 * Aero Queen
 * Aero Queen Hi-Class

title: Hyundai Aero


text:
Category:Cryptogams

 * Cryptogams is a name referring to plants and fungi that reproduce by spores, not by seeds.
 * The term is sometimes used as a term of convenience but since the organisms in question are not regarded as a coherent group by contemporary plant systematics, the word is considered obsolete in taxonomy.

title: Category:Cryptogams


text:
Gordon Willis

Gordon Hugh Willis Jr., ASC (May 28, 1931 – May 18, 2014) was an American cinematographer and film director. He is best known for his photographic work on eight Woody Allen films (including Annie Hall and Manhattan), six Alan J. Pakula films (including All the President's Men), four James Bridges films, and all three films from Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather series.

Fellow cinematographer William A. Fraker called Willis's work a "milestone in visual storytelling", while one critic suggested that Willis "defined the cinematic look of the 1970s: sophisticated compositions in which bolts of light and black put the decade's moral ambiguities into stark relief". When the International Cinematographers Guild conducted a survey in 2003, they placed Willis among the ten most influential cinematographers in history.

Early life and beginnings
Willis was born in Astoria, Queens, New York. His parents had been dancers in Broadway theatre before his father became a makeup man at Warner Bros. in Brooklyn. As a child, Willis fell in love with films. He wanted to be an actor and then became interested in lighting and stage design, later turning to photography. For a time he intended to be a fashion photographer, photographing models he knew from living in Greenwich Village. "I didn't know shit," Willis said, "[I was] dumber than dirt, as they say. No money, no jobs etc." Through contacts of his father's he worked as a "gofer" on various movies in New York.

During the Korean War, Willis served in the Air Force, managing to join the Photographic and Charting Service in a motion picture unit. "I spent four years learning everything I could about making movies," Willis said. After leaving the Air Force a friend helped him to join the East Coast union in New York and he started to work as an assistant cameraman, working his way up to become a first cameraman about thirteen years later. He worked in advertising, shooting numerous commercials, and made a number of documentaries, a discipline that strongly influenced his later style. "You learn to eliminate, as opposed to adding," Willis said of his time making documentaries. "Not many people understand that."

He was a camera operator on the feature documentary Windjammer (1958) filmed in the widescreen format Cinemiracle.

Willis once stated: "I'm a mimimalist. I see things in simple ways ... It's human nature to define complexity as better. Well, it's not." In 1969, director Aram Avakian hired Willis to work on his film End of the Road. This was Willis' first movie.

Making films
Willis went on to work for some of the most acclaimed directors of what is now seen as a golden age of American film-making. He captured America's urban paranoia in three films he shot with Alan J. Pakula: Klute (1971), The Parallax View (1974) and All The President's Men (1976). He collaborated with Hal Ashby on The Landlord (1970), James Bridges on The Paper Chase (1973), and Herbert Ross on Pennies From Heaven (1981); as well as shooting all three of Coppola's Godfather films and working with Woody Allen on a succession of films that included Annie Hall (1977) and Manhattan (1979).

At a seminar on film-making he gave in 2003, Willis said, "It's hard to believe, but a lot of directors have no visual sense. They only have a storytelling sense. If a director is smart, he'll give me the elbow room to paint". He added: "It's the judgment they're paying for." In a later interview he explained that when he started out in films he "did things in visual structure that nobody in the business was doing, especially in Hollywood", explaining: "I wasn't trying to be different; I just did what I liked". When asked by the interviewer how he applied his style to different genres and to working with different directors, Willis answered: "You're looking for a formula; there is none. The formula is me."

Up to the making of The Godfather (1972), Willis mostly used Mitchell reflex cameras with Baltar or Cooke lenses. After that he used Panavision equipment, which he had first used on Klute. Willis went back to using Mitchells on The Godfather Part II (1974), in order to retain the visual coherence of the two films. Asked in 2004 about shooting films digitally, he was skeptical: "The organics aren't the same," he said. "The interpretive levels suffer", adding: "Digital is another form of recording an image, but it won't replace thinking."

Collaboration with Francis Ford Coppola
Originally, Willis turned down the first two Godfather films, until Coppola told him they would not look the same without him. His work turned out to be groundbreaking in its use of low-light photography and underexposed film, as well as in his control of lighting and exposure to create the sepia tones that denoted period scenes in The Godfather Part II. His contributions carefully strengthened the themes of the story, as when shooting Marlon Brando with his eyes hooded in shadow, a piece of lighting design that followed from the fact that Brando's make-up had to be lit from above.

Willis said that it was the color that stitched the Godfather films together. The visual structure of the films was, he said, his, but he gave Coppola credit for hiring him, saying: "I'm not that easy to deal with". He praised the director for the "management hell" of his struggles with Paramount, adding that he was "grateful he could separate the visual structure of these movies from the mess that went on to fashion them".

Collaboration with Woody Allen
Willis' collaboration with Woody Allen began with Annie Hall (1977). Willis described making films with Allen as being so comfortable that it was like "working with your hands in your pockets". On Annie Hall he contrasted the warmth of Annie and Alvy Singer's romance in New York with the overexposure of the film's California scenes, while in Allen's Manhattan he was responsible for what has been called a "richly textured black-and-white paean to the beauty and diversity of the city itself". Willis, whose idea it was to use anamorphic widescreen for the filming, said: "We both felt that New York was a black-and-white city".

Willis also worked on the Allen films Interiors (1978), Stardust Memories (1980), A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy (1982), Zelig (1983), Broadway Danny Rose (1984), and The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985). Allen said that working with Willis had helped to improve his technical skills, saying of him: "He's an artist. He's got a great sense of humor--he taught me a lot."

Academy Awards
In the seven-year period up to 1977, Willis was the director of photography on six films that received among them 39 Academy Award nominations, winning 19 times, including three awards for Best Picture. The fact that Willis did not receive a single nomination was a subject of some controversy. His frequent absence from this period's nominees has been ascribed both to his unhidden "antipathy for Hollywood" and his work being ahead of its time. He was once quoted as saying of Hollywood, "I don't think it suffers from an overabundance of good taste". Willis was later nominated twice, once for his recreation of 1920s photography in Woody Allen's Zelig (1983), and then for The Godfather Part III (1990). In 2009, at the inaugural Governors Awards, the Academy chose Willis as the recipient of the Academy Honorary Award for his life's work.

Directing and retirement
Willis directed one film of his own, Windows, in 1980. He admitted the film had been a mistake, and later said of directing that he didn't really like it. "I've had a good relationship with actors," he reflected, "but I can do what I do and back off. I don't want that much romancing. I don't want them to call me up at two in the morning saying, 'I don't know who I am'". He was nominated for the Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director one year after the film's release.

His last film was The Devil's Own (1997), directed by Pakula. Of his decision to retire, Willis said: "I got tired of trying to get actors out of trailers, and standing in the rain".

Death
Willis died of cancer on May 18, 2014, ten days before his 83rd birthday, in North Falmouth, Massachusetts. ASC president Richard Crudo said: "He was one of the giants who absolutely changed the way movies looked. Up until the time of The Godfather and The Godfather Part II, nothing previously shot looked that way. He changed the way films looked and the way people looked at films."

Legacy
Willis's work became celebrated for his ability to use shadow and underexposed film with a "subtlety and expressivity previously unknown on color film stock", with one critic citing as examples Don Corleone's study in The Godfather and a parking garage in All the President's Men. Willis's friend, cinematographer Conrad Hall, named him "The Prince of Darkness" but Willis himself preferred to talk in terms of "visual relativity", saying: "I like going from light to dark, dark to light, big to small, small to big". Discussing The Godfather he said:"'You can decide this movie has got a dark palette. But you can't spend two hours on a dark palette. . . So you've got this high-key, Kodachrome wedding going on. Now you go back inside and it's dark again. You can't, in my mind, put both feet into a bucket of cement and leave them there for the whole movie. It doesn't work. You must have this relativity.'"

Director Francis Ford Coppola said of Willis, "He has a natural sense of structure and beauty, not unlike a Renaissance artist," while Willis was praised for his capacity to use "painterliness" to define "not just the look but the very meaning and feel of a film". Speaking of contemporary film-making in 2004, Willis said:"'I'm delighted that people can fly, dogs can talk, and anything destructive can be fashioned on the screen, but much of what's being done lacks structure or taste. As I've asked in the past: can anyone give me the definition of a camera? It's a tool, a means to an end. So is a light, and everything else you can pile on your back. They're all meant to transpose the written word into moving pictures that tell a story.'"

title: Gordon Willis


text:
Talk:Kilmainham Gaol

Firing Squad Executions
The leaders of the 1916 Easter Rebellion were all killed by firing squad while at Kilmainham (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Rising#Arrests_and_executions), I'm surprised this isn't mentioned in the main article. Bernfarr (talk)

2005 post
Considering that the residents of Ireland refer to it as Kilmainham Gaol, shouldn't it be listed as such on Wikipedia?
 * I think it should be. The Gaol is also the spelling used in the tourist literature. Kerowyn 21:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Name
As the building is named Gaol not Jail, all the tourist brocheres call it that, and it was a gaol (called that and spelt that way) long before the Americanism Jail ever began to be used in Ireland or the UK, I've returned the page to the correct spelling. FearÉIREANN \(caint)|undefined 23:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The "Jail" spelling is not just an Americanism - the Oxford English Dictionary has examples from 1400ish, including John Milton in 1674. It's also by far the most common modern usage on both sides of the pond. However, if the official documents call it Gaol, the article ought to as well. Rbreen 15:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems interesting to me that this prison has the Jeremy Bentham "panopticon" design. Maybe that should be mentioned in the article.

OMG I CANT WAIT!
Ha I've been here before but didn't really understand it

but i'm going tomorrow and cant wait! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.66.88 (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Films
The article claims Boondock Saints did some filming in Kilmainham but IMDB makes no reference to it and the film was shot in Boston primarily so the suggestion that some filming took place in Kilmainham seems highly unlikely. The IMBD page for Boondock Saints doesn't mention any filming in Dublin or even Ireland. I've added a citation request but it might need to be removed entirely. As another poster mentioned the panopticon design is quite interesting and perhaps someone else mistook a prison of the same design for Kilmainham? -- 86.47.161.201 (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kilmainham Gaol. 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/20080220095939/http://www.heritageireland.ie/en/Dublin/KilmainhamGaol/ to http://www.heritageireland.ie/en/Dublin/KilmainhamGaol/

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) 09:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 April 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Cglynn62.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kilmainham Gaol. 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/20080220095939/http://www.heritageireland.ie/en/Dublin/KilmainhamGaol/ to http://www.heritageireland.ie/en/dublin/kilmainhamgaol/

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) 14:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Kilmainham Gaol Main Hall 2016-06-03.jpg}} scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for May 13, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-05-13. Any improvements or maintenance to this article should be made before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If there are any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kilmainham Gaol


text:
Richard M. Young

Richard Montgomery Young (February 20, 1798 – November 28, 1861) was a U.S. Senator from Illinois.

Young was born in Fayette County, Kentucky and was admitted to the bar in 1816. In 1817, he moved his law practices to Jonesboro, Illinois, and was appointed a captain in the state militia. He served in the Illinois state house from 1820 to 1822 and as a circuit court judge from 1825 to 1837. He resigned his judgeship after being elected to the U.S. Senate in 1837 as a member of the Democratic Party. As a federal Senator, he served one six-year term; during the first four of his six years in office he was Chairman of the Senate Committee on Roads and Canals.

Upon the end of his term in the Senate, he was appointed to the Illinois Supreme Court (1843–1847) and then became a land office commissioner by appointment of James K. Polk. He served as the Clerk to the United States House of Representatives in 1850 and practiced law in Washington, D.C. from 1851 until his death.

Young was the presiding judge at the 1844 trial of the accused killers of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement.

Young owned slaves.

title: Richard M. Young


text:
User talk:Nitr021

g'day!
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Reply
Don't post an article unless it can pass muster. I still endorse the deletion since it sucks. John Reaves 09:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So certainly proved that whole "I can't write well" thing in that message. John Reaves 09:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

 * prove what exactly? --Nitr021 09:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia.  Thank you.John Reaves 17:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nitr021