Wikipedia - Benutzerbeiträge [de]

Federalist-Artikel Nr. 10

2008-01-13T17:18:55Z

KnowledgeOfSelf: Reverted edits by 72.154.158.165 (talk) to last version by VoABot II

[[Image:JamesMadison.jpg|right|thumb|200px|James Madison, author of Federalist No. 10]]
{{wikisource|The_Federalist_Papers/No._10|Federalist No. 10}}

'''Federalist No. 10''' ('''Federalist Number 10''') is an [[essay]] by [[James Madison]] and the tenth of the ''[[Federalist Papers]]'', a series arguing for the ratification of the [[United States Constitution]]. It was published on [[November 22]], [[1787]], under the [[pseudonym]] [[Publius]], the name under which all the ''Federalist Papers'' were published. The essay is the most famous of the ''Federalist Papers,'' along with [[Federalist No. 51]], also by James Madison, and is among the most highly regarded of all [[United States|American]] political writings.{{ref|Ep59}}

No. 10 addresses the question of how to guard against "[[political faction|factions]]," groups of citizens with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community. In today's discourse the term [[special interest]] often carries the same connotation. Madison argued that a strong, large republic would be a better guard against those dangers than smaller republics—for instance, the individual states. It is believed that James Madison took ideas from Thomas Hobbes in regards to Madison's ideas of a strong controlling government. Opponents of the Constitution offered counterarguments to his position, which were substantially derived from the commentary of [[Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu|Montesquieu]] on this subject.

Federalist No. 10 continues a theme begun in [[Federalist No. 9]]; it is titled, " The Same Subject Continued: The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection." The whole series is cited by scholars and [[jurist]]s as an authoritative interpretation and explication of the meaning of the Constitution. Jurists have frequently read No. 10 to mean that the [[Founding Fathers]] did not intend the United States government to be [[political party|partisan]].

==Publication==

By [[September 17]], [[1787]], the [[Philadelphia Convention]] had submitted the Constitution to the states for ratification. [[Anti-Federalist]] writers began to publish essays and letters arguing against ratification, and [[Alexander Hamilton]] recruited [[James Madison]] and [[John Jay]] to write a series of pro-ratification letters in response. Like most of the Anti-Federalist essays and the vast majority of the ''Federalist Papers'', No. 10 first appeared in popular [[newspaper]]s. It was first printed in the ''Daily Advertiser''; in this it was remarkable among the essays of Publius, as almost all of them first appeared in one of two other papers, the ''Independent Journal'' and the ''New-York Packet''. [[Federalist No. 37]], also by Madison, was the only other essay to appear first in the ''Advertiser''.{{ref|const}}

Considering the importance later ascribed to the essay, it was reprinted only on a limited scale. On [[November 23]], it appeared in the ''Packet'' and the next day in the ''Independent Journal''. Outside New York City, it made four appearances in early 1788: [[January 2]] in the ''Pennsylvania Gazette'', [[January 10]] in the ''Hudson Valley Weekly'', [[January 15]] in the Lansingburgh ''Northern Centinel'', and [[January 17]] in the ''Albany Gazette''. Though this number of reprintings was typical for the ''Federalist'', many other essays, both Federalist and Anti-Federalist, saw much wider distribution.{{ref|DHRC}}

On [[January 1]], [[1788]], the publishing company J. & A. McLean announced that they would publish the first 36 of the essays in a single volume. This volume, titled ''The Federalist'', was released on [[March 2]], [[1788]]. Two later editions are of note. The first was by George Hopkins in 1802; in this edition Hopkins revealed that Madison, Hamilton, and Jay were in fact the authors of the series. In 1818, James Gideon published a third edition containing corrections by Madison, who by that time had completed his two terms as [[President of the United States]].{{ref|spark}}

==The question of faction==

Federalist No. 10 continues the discussion of the question broached in Hamilton's Federalist No. 9. Hamilton there addressed the destructive role of [[Political faction|faction]] in breaking apart our republic. The question Madison answers, then, is how to eliminate the negative effects of faction. He defines a faction as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." He identifies the most serious source of faction to be the diversity of opinion in political life which leads to dispute over fundamental issues such as what regime or religion should be preferred. However, he thinks "the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society." He saw [[direct democracy]] as a danger to individual rights and advocated a [[representative democracy]] (also called a [[republic]]) in order to protect what he viewed as individual liberty from majority rule, or from the effects of such inequality within society. He says, "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Like the anti-Federalists who opposed him, Madison was substantially influenced by the work of Montesquieu, though Madison and Montesquieu disagreed on the question addressed in this essay. He also relied heavily on the philosophers of the [[Scottish Enlightenment]], especially [[David Hume]], whose influence is most clear in Madison's discussion of the types of faction and in his argument for an extended republic.

==Publius' argument==

Madison takes the position that there are two ways to limit the damage caused by faction: removing the causes of faction or controlling its effects. He contends that there are two ways to remove the causes that provoke the development of factions. One, the elimination of liberty, he rejects as unacceptable. The other, creating a society homogeneous in opinion and interest, he sees as impractical because the causes of faction, among them variant economic interests, are inherent in a free society. Madison concludes that the damage caused by faction can be limited only by controlling its effects.

Madison notes that the principle of popular sovereignty should prevent minority factions from gaining power. Majority factions are then the problem, and he offers two ways to check them: prevent the "existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time," or alternately render a majority faction unable to act. From this point Madison concludes that a small democracy cannot avoid majority faction, because small size means that common passions are likely to form among a majority of the people, and democracy means that the majority can enforce its will.

A republic, Madison writes, is different from a democracy because its government is placed in the hands of delegates, and as a result of this, it can be extended over a larger area. Regarding the first difference, Madison contends that a large republic will elect better delegates than a small one. In a large republic, the number of citizens per representative will be greater, and each chosen representative will be the best from a larger sample of people, resulting in better government. Also, the fact that each representative is chosen from a larger constituency means that "vicious arts" of electioneering will be less effective.

The fact that a republic can encompass larger areas and populations is a strength of that form of government. Madison believes that larger societies will have a greater variety of diverse parties and interest groups, which in competition will be less likely to yield a majority faction. This is a general application of the [[checks and balances]] principle, which is central to the American constitutional system. In conclusion, Madison emphasizes that the greater size of the Union will allow for more effective governments than were the states to remain more independent.

Though Madison argued for a large and diverse republic, the writers of the ''Federalist Papers'' recognized the need for a balance. They wanted a republic diverse enough to prevent faction but with enough commonality to maintain cohesion. In [[Federalist No. 2]], [[John Jay]] counted as a blessing that America possessed "one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion." Madison himself addresses a limitation of his conclusion that large constituencies will provide better representatives. He notes that if constituencies are too large, the representatives will be "too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests." He says that this problem is partly solved by [[federalism]]. No matter how large the constituencies of federal representatives, local matters will be looked after by state and local officials with naturally smaller constituencies.

==Contemporaneous counterarguments==

[[Image:George_clinton.jpg|right|frame|[[George Clinton (politician)|George Clinton]], widely believed to be the Anti-Federalist Cato]]

The [[Anti-Federalists]] vigorously contested the notion that a republic of diverse interests could survive. The author Cato (another pseudonym, most likely that of [[George Clinton (politician)|George Clinton]]) summarized the Anti-Federalist position in the article Cato no. 3:

:''Whoever seriously considers the immense extent of territory comprehended within the limits of the United States, together with the variety of its climates, productions, and commerce, the difference of extent, and number of inhabitants in all; the dissimilitude of interest, morals, and policies, in almost every one, will receive it as an intuitive truth, that a consolidated republican form of government therein, can never'' form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to you and your posterity, ''for to these objects it must be directed: this unkindred legislature therefore, composed of interests opposite and dissimilar in their nature, will in its exercise, emphatically be, like a house divided against itself.''{{ref|cato}}

Generally, it was their position that republics about the size of the individual states could survive, but that a republic on the size of the Union would fail. A particular point in support of this was that most of the states were focused on one industry—to generalize, commerce and shipping in the northern states and plantation farming in the southern. The Anti-Federalist belief that the wide disparity in the economic interests of the various states would lead to controversy was perhaps realized in the [[American Civil War]], which some scholars attribute to this disparity.{{ref|ransom}} Madison himself, in a letter to [[Thomas Jefferson]], noted that differing economic interests had created dispute, even when the Constitution was being written.{{ref|mad-jef}} At the convention, he particularly identified the distinction between the northern and southern states as a "line of discrimination" that formed "the real difference of interests."{{ref|cohler}}

The discussion of the ideal size for the republic was not limited to the options of individual states or encompassing union. In a letter to [[Richard Price]], [[Benjamin Rush]] noted that "Some of our enlightened men who begin to despair of a more complete union of the States in Congress have secretly proposed an Eastern, Middle, and Southern Confederacy, to be united by an alliance offensive and defensive."{{ref|rush}} However, compromise ideas like this gained little traction.

In making their arguments, the Anti-Federalists appealed to both historical and theoretic evidence. On the theoretical side, they leaned heavily on the work of [[Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu]]. The Anti-Federalists [[Robert Yates (politician)|Brutus]] and Cato both quoted Montesquieu on the issue of the ideal size of a republic, citing his statement in ''[[The Spirit of the Laws]]'' that:

:''It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected.''

Brutus points out that the [[Ancient Greece|Greek]] and [[Roman Republic|Roman]] states envisioned by many Americans as model republics (as evidenced by the choice of many authors on both sides of the debate to take Roman monikers) were small. Brutus also points out that the expansion of these republics resulted in a transition from free government to tyranny.{{ref|brutus}}

==Modern analysis and reaction==

In the first century of the American republic, No. 10 was not regarded as among the more important numbers of ''The Federalist''. For instance, in ''[[Democracy in America]]'' [[Alexis de Tocqueville]] refers specifically to more than fifty of the essays, but No. 10 is not among them.{{ref|adair110}} Today, however, No. 10 is regarded as a seminal work of American democracy. In "The People's Vote," a popular survey conducted by the [[National Archives and Records Administration]], [[National History Day]], and ''[[U.S. News and World Report]]'', No. 10 (along with [[Federalist No. 51]], also by Madison) was chosen as the 20th most influential document in United States history.{{ref|people}}

[[Douglass Adair]] attributes the increased interest in the tenth number to [[Charles A. Beard]]'s book ''[[An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution]]'', published in 1913. Adair also contends that Beard's selective focus on the issue of [[class struggle]], and his political [[progressivism]], has colored modern scholarship on the essay. According to Adair, Beard reads No. 10 as evidence for his belief in "the Constitution as an instrument of class exploitation."{{ref|Adair2}} Adair's own view is that Federalist No. 10 should be read as "eighteenth-century political theory directed to an eighteenth-century problem; and … one of the great creative achievements of that intellectual movement that later ages have christened 'Jeffersonian democracy.'"{{ref|Adair131}}

[[Garry Wills]] is a noted critic of Madison's argument in Federalist No. 10. In his book ''Explaining America'', he adopts the position of [[Robert Dahl]] in arguing that Madison's framework does not necessarily enhance the protections of minorities or ensure the common good. Instead, Wills claims: "Minorities can make use of dispersed and staggered governmental machinery to clog, delay, slow down, hamper, and obstruct the majority. But these weapons for delay are given to the minority irrespective of its factious or nonfactious character; and they can be used against the majority irrespective of its factious or nonfactious character. What Madison prevents is not faction, but action. What he protects is not the common good but delay as such."{{ref|Wills195}}

==Application==

Federalist No. 10 is the classic citation for the belief that the [[Founding Fathers]] and the constitutional framers did not intend American politics to be [[political party|partisan]]. For instance, [[United States Supreme Court]] justice [[John Paul Stevens]] cites the paper for the statement, "Parties ranked high on the list of evils that the Constitution was designed to check."{{ref|stevens}} Discussing a California provision that forbids candidates from running as independents within one year of holding a partisan affiliation, Justice [[Byron White]] made apparent the Court's belief that Madison spoke for the framers of the Constitution: "California apparently believes with the Founding Fathers that splintered parties and unrestrained factionalism may do significant damage to the fabric of government. See The Federalist, No. 10 (Madison)."{{ref|white}}

Madison's argument that restraining liberty to limit faction is an unacceptable solution has been used by opponents of campaign finance limits. Justice [[Clarence Thomas]], for example, invoked Federalist No. 10 in a dissent against a ruling supporting limits on campaign contributions, writing: "The Framers preferred a political system that harnessed such faction for good, preserving liberty while also ensuring good government. Rather than adopting the repressive 'cure' for faction that the majority today endorses, the Framers armed individual citizens with a remedy."{{ref|Thomas}}. It has also been used by those that seek fairer and equitable [[ballot access law]], such as [[Richard Winger]] of [[Ballot Access News]].
==Notes==
<div class="references-small">
# {{note|Ep59}} Epstein, 59.
# {{note|const}} ''The Federalist'' contents, with dates and publication information, at [http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa00.htm the Constitution Society]
# {{note|DHRC}} ''The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution''. Ed. John P. Kaminski and Gaspare J. Saladino. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1981. Vol XIV, p. 175
# {{note|spark}} ''The Federalist'' timeline at [http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/federalist/timeline.html www.sparknotes.com]
# {{note|cato}} Cato, no. 3
# {{note|ransom}} Ransom, Roger L. [http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/article/ransom.civil.war.us "Economics of the Civil War"]. August 25, 2001. Referenced November 20, 2005.
# {{note|mad-jef}} [[October 24]], [[1787]] letter of Madison to Jefferson, at ''The Founders' Constitution'' [http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch17s22.html web edition]
# {{note|cohler}} Cohler, Anne. ''Montesquieu's Comparative Politics and the Spirit of American Constitutionalism''. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1988. 151.
# {{note|rush}} Letter by [[Benjamin Rush]] to [[Richard Price]], at ''The Founders' Constitution'' [http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch7s7.html web edition]
# {{note|brutus}} Brutus, no. 1
# {{note|adair110}} Adair, 110
# {{note|people}} "The People's Vote" website at [http://www.ourdocuments.gov/content.php?page=vote www.ourdocuments.gov]
# {{note|Adair2}} Adair, 120–124 ''passim''. Quotation at 123.
# {{note|Adair131}} Adair, 131.
# {{note|Wills195}} Wills, 195.
# {{note|stevens}} ''[[California Democratic Party v. Jones]]'', 530 U.S. 567, 592 (2000) [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/000/99%2D401.html#FN3.2]
# {{note|white}} ''[[Storer v. Brown]]'', 415 U.S. 724, 736 (1974) [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=415&page=728#728]
# {{note|Thomas}} ''[[Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC]]'', 528 U.S. 377, 424 (2000) [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/000/98%2D963.html#fn5.9]
</div>

==References==
<div class="references-small">
* Adair, Douglass. ''Fame and the Founding Fathers.'' Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1974. <small>A collection of essays; that used here is "The Tenth Federalist Revisited."</small>
* Epstein, David F. ''The Political Theory of The Federalist''. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.
* Hamilton, Alexander; Madison, James; and Jay, John. ''The Federalist''. Edited by Jacob E. Cooke. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1961.
* Storing, Herbert J., ed. ''The Complete Anti-Federalist''. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981. <small>A 7-volume edition containing most all relevant Anti-Federalist writings.</small>
* Wills, Garry. ''Explaining America''. New York: Penguin Books, 1982.
* {{cite web | title= ''Storer v. Brown'', 415 U.S. 724 (1974) | work=Findlaw | url= http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=415&invol=724 | accessdate=October 1 | accessyear=2005}}
* {{cite web | title= ''Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC'', 528 U.S. 377 (2000) | work=Findlaw | url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=528&invol=377 | accessdate=August 23 | accessyear=2005}}
* {{cite web | title= ''California Democratic Party v. Jones'', 530 U.S. 567 (2000) | work=Findlaw | url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=530&invol=567 | accessdate=August 23 | accessyear=2005}}
</div>

==External links==
{{wikisource|The_Federalist_Papers/No._10|Federalist No. 10}}

* Online text of [http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s14.html Brutus, no. 1], at [http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/ http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/], the online edition of ''[[The Founders' Constitution]]'', hosted by the [[University of Chicago]].
* Online text of [http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s16.html Cato, no. 3], same source as above.

{{Federalist Papers}}

{{featured article}}

[[Category:Federalist Papers by James Madison]]
[[Category:1787 in law]]

[[es:El Federalista No. 10]]
[[io:Federalist No. 10]]
[[id:Federalis No. 10]]

Quincy (Washington)

2007-12-07T06:05:04Z

KnowledgeOfSelf: Reverted edits by 71.115.210.100 (talk) to last version by 208.126.38.31

{{Infobox Settlement
|official_name = Quincy, Washington
|settlement_type = [[City]]
|nickname =
|motto =


|image_skyline =
|imagesize =
|image_caption =
|image_flag =
|image_seal =


|image_map = Grant_County_Washington_Incorporated_and_Unincorporated_areas_Quincy_Highlighted.svg
|mapsize = 250x200px
|map_caption = Location of Quincy, Washington
|image_map1 =
|mapsize1 =
|map_caption1 =


|subdivision_type = [[List of countries|Country]]
|subdivision_name = [[United States]]
|subdivision_type1 = [[Political divisions of the United States|State]]
|subdivision_name1 = [[Washington]]
|subdivision_type2 = [[List of counties in Washington|County]]
|subdivision_name2 = [[Grant County, Washington|Grant]]


|government_footnotes =
|government_type =
|leader_title =
|leader_name =
|leader_title1 =
|leader_name1 =
|established_title =
|established_date =


|area_footnotes =
|area_magnitude =
|area_total_km2 = 5.8
|area_land_km2 = 5.8
|area_water_km2 = 0.0
|area_total_sq_mi = 2.2
|area_land_sq_mi = 2.2
|area_water_sq_mi = 0.0


|population_as_of = [[United States Census, 2000|2000]]
|population_footnotes =
|population_total = 5044
|population_density_km2 = 869.8
|population_density_sq_mi = 2252.8


|timezone = [[Pacific Time Zone|Pacific (PST)]]
|utc_offset = -8
|timezone_DST = PDT
|utc_offset_DST = -7
|elevation_footnotes =
|elevation_m = 397
|elevation_ft = 1302
|latd = 47 |latm = 14 |lats = 1 |latNS = N
|longd = 119 |longm = 51 |longs = 8 |longEW = W


|postal_code_type = [[ZIP code]]
|postal_code = 98848
|area_code = [[Area code 509|509]]
|blank_name = [[Federal Information Processing Standard|FIPS code]]
|blank_info = 53-57115{{GR|2}}
|blank1_name = [[Geographic Names Information System|GNIS]] feature ID
|blank1_info = 1512590{{GR|3}}
|website =
|footnotes =
}}
'''Quincy''' is a city in [[Grant County, Washington|Grant County]], [[Washington]], [[United States]]. The population was 5,044 at the 2000 census.

==History==
Quincy was a founded as a railroad camp in 1892 and officially incorporated on [[March 27]], [[1907]].

==Geography==
Quincy is located at {{coor dms|47|14|1|N|119|51|8|W|city}} (47.233691, -119.852296){{GR|1}}.

According to the [[United States Census Bureau]], the city has a total area of 5.8 [[km²]] (2.2 [[square mile|mi²]]), all land.

==Demographics==
As of the [[census]]{{GR|2}} of 2000, there were 5,044 people, 1,470 households, and 1,176 families residing in the city. The [[population density]] was 869.4/km² (2,252.8/mi²). There were 1,552 housing units at an average density of 267.5/km² (693.2/mi²). The racial makeup of the city was 63.96% [[White (U.S. Census)|White]], 0.24% [[African American (U.S. Census)|African American]], 1.33% [[Native American (U.S. Census)|Native American]], 0.52% [[Asian (U.S. Census)|Asian]], 0.06% [[Pacific Islander (U.S. Census)|Pacific Islander]], 31.07% from [[Race (United States Census)|other races]], and 2.84% from two or more races. [[Hispanic (U.S. Census)|Hispanic]] or [[Latino (U.S. Census)|Latino]] of any race were 64.71% of the population.

There were 1,470 households out of which 50.1% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 62.0% were [[Marriage|married couples]] living together, 11.8% had a female householder with no husband present, and 20.0% were non-families. 17.9% of all households were made up of individuals and 8.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 3.38 and the average family size was 3.79.

In the city the population was spread out with 36.0% under the age of 18, 10.6% from 18 to 24, 28.3% from 25 to 44, 16.1% from 45 to 64, and 9.0% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 27 years. For every 100 females there were 106.3 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 104.7 males.

The median income for a household in the city was $32,181, and the median income for a family was $31,847. Males had a median income of $27,813 versus $18,750 for females. The [[per capita income]] for the city was $12,649. About 18.4% of families and 20.9% of the population were below the [[poverty line]], including 24.5% of those under age 18 and 6.3% of those age 65 or over.

57% of the population speaks [[Spanish (language)|Spanish]] as their primary language

==Activities==

Quincy has several parks including an [[aqua park]] with a [[waterslide]] of 2 water fed half tubes. The pools are heated, and include such things as a waterfall mushroom for the kids, and a 0 foot end for the younger children. The park is also home to a large field complete with a baseball diamond, playground, picnic area, and small skate-park.

Every 2nd Saturday in September is the annual celebration known as Farmer-Consumer Awareness Day. For a month beforehand, the roads leading into the town are decorated with several signs showing what local crops are used to make. On the day of the celebration, some schools will create large floats for the parade that marches throughout the town. People gather to see the large farming equipment go by, and cheer on the floats created by students. Free agricultural and geology tours are offered, as well as a produce sale, tractor pull, Farm-to-Market fun run, booths of all kinds, live entertainment and more.

Quincy is celebrating its Centennial in 2007. The mayor has appointed a Centennial Committee which has been in place and planning centennial activities since early 2006. There are special events and activities planned throughout the year. On March 30, 2007 the committee is throwing a 100th birthday party for the city. It will be held at the Grant County Fire District No. 3 firehall and will be open to everyone, without charge. State and local dignitaries, local entertainment and a 100 square foot birthday cake will be featured. On August 4, 2007 there will be a "Taste of Quincy" multi-cultural celebration in the downtown area. Beginning May 11, 2007 there will be free weekly bus tours, the first of which is a blossom tour. Other bus tours include winery tours, geology tours and various agricultural tours. Each tour begins at the Reiman-Simmons House museum at 2:00 every Friday and will end no later than 5:00 pm. Information on these events and the many other Quincy Centennial can be obtained from the Quincy Valley Chamber of Commerce.

== A role in the high-tech economy ==
In July 2006, it was reported that high tech giants such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft were building facilities for hosting computer [[server farm]]s because of the cheaper [[electricity]] from the [[Columbia River]]. The local utility district offered the companies electricity at under 3 cents per [[kilowatt-hour]], about half the national average. Current construction by Microsoft of a 1.5 million [[square foot]] facility will hold 150,000 computers, with an expected rise with further construction to 800,000.

==External links==
* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800973.html Tech Firms Go Mining for Megawatts], Washington Post, July 9, 2006
*[http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_24/b3988087.htm Servers As High As An Elephant's Eye], [[BusinessWeek]], June 12, 2006
*[http://ncwportal.com/grant/cities/quincy Information and Photos of Quincy]
{{Mapit-US-cityscale|47.233691|-119.852296}}

[[Category:Grant County, Washington]]
[[Category:Cities in Washington]]
{{Grant County, Washington}}

[[lmo:Quincy, Washington]]
[[nl:Quincy (Washington)]]
[[vo:Quincy (Washington)]]

Bedtime for Bonzo

2007-12-03T02:02:28Z

KnowledgeOfSelf: Reverted edits by 198.51.130.254 (talk) to last version by Blofeld of SPECTRE

{{Infobox Film
| name = Bedtime for Bonzo
| image = Bedtime for Bonzo 1951.jpg
| caption = original 1951 movie poster
| director = [[Frederick de Cordova]]
| producer = [[Michael Kraike]]
| writer = screenplay by<br>[[Lou Breslow]] &<br>[[Val Burton]]<br>story by <br>[[Ted Berkman]] &<br> [[Raphael Blau]]
| starring = [[Ronald Reagan]]<br>[[Diana Lynn]]<br>[[Walter Slezak]]<br>[[Jesse White (actor)|Jesse White]]
| music = [[Frank Skinner]]
| cinematography = [[Carl Guthrie]]
| editing = [[Ted Kent]]
| distributor = [[Universal Pictures]]
| released = [[April 5]], [[1951]]
| runtime = 83 min
| country = [[USA]]
| awards =
| language = [[English language|English]]
| budget =
| preceded_by =
| followed_by = [[Bonzo Goes to College]]
| amg_id = 1:4575
| imdb_id = 0043325
}}
'''''Bedtime for Bonzo''''' is a [[1951 in film|1951]] comedy film directed by [[Frederick de Cordova|Fred de Cordova]]. It revolves around the attempts of the central character, Professor Peter Boyd (played by [[Ronald Reagan]]), to teach human [[morals]] to a [[chimpanzee]], hoping to solve the "[[nature versus nurture]]" question. He hires a woman (played by [[Diana Lynn]]) to pose as the chimp's mother while he plays father to it.

This movie is one of the most remembered of Reagan's acting career.

A sequel was entitled ''[[Bonzo Goes to College]]'' ([[1952 in film|1952]]).
[[Image:Bedtime for Bonzo.jpg|left|240px]]
==External links==
*{{imdb title|id=0043325|title=Bedtime for Bonzo}}
*{{tcmdb title|id=68336|title=Bedtime for Bonzo}}
*{{amg title|id=1:4575|title=Bedtime for Bonzo}}

[[Category:1951 films]]

{{1950s-comedy-film-stub}}

Federalist-Artikel Nr. 10

2007-09-26T23:44:46Z

KnowledgeOfSelf: Reverted edits by 70.101.19.97 (talk) to last version by 64.247.97.4

[[Image:JamesMadison.jpg|right|thumb|200px|James Madison, author of Federalist No. 10]]
{{wikisource|The_Federalist_Papers/No._10|Federalist No. 10}}

'''Federalist No. 10''' ('''Federalist Number 10''') is an [[essay]] by [[James Madison]] and the tenth of the ''[[Federalist Papers]]'', a series arguing for the ratification of the [[United States Constitution]]. It was published on [[November 22]], [[1787]], under the [[pseudonym]] [[Publius]], the name under which all the ''Federalist Papers'' were published. The essay is the most famous of the ''Federalist Papers,'' along with [[Federalist No. 51]], also by James Madison, and is among the most highly regarded of all [[United States|American]] political writings.{{ref|Ep59}}

No. 10 addresses the question of how to guard against "[[political faction|factions]]," groups of citizens with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community. In today's discourse the term [[special interest]] often carries the same connotation. Madison argued that a strong, large republic would be a better guard against those dangers than smaller republics—for instance, the individual states. Opponents of the Constitution offered counterarguments to his position, which were substantially derived from the commentary of [[Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu|Montesquieu]] on this subject.

Federalist No. 10 continues a theme begun in [[Federalist No. 9]]; it is titled, "The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection." The whole series is cited by scholars and [[jurist]]s as an authoritative interpretation and explication of the meaning of the Constitution. Jurists have frequently read No. 10 to mean that the [[Founding Fathers]] did not intend the United States government to be [[political party|partisan]].

==Publication==

By [[September 17]], [[1787]], the [[Philadelphia Convention]] had submitted the Constitution to the states for ratification. [[Anti-Federalist]] writers began to publish essays and letters arguing against ratification, and [[Alexander Hamilton]] recruited [[James Madison]] and [[John Jay]] to write a series of pro-ratification letters in response. Like most of the Anti-Federalist essays and the vast majority of the ''Federalist Papers'', No. 10 first appeared in popular [[newspaper]]s. It was first printed in the ''Daily Advertiser''; in this it was remarkable among the essays of Publius, as almost all of them first appeared in one of two other papers, the ''Independent Journal'' and the ''New-York Packet''. [[Federalist No. 37]], also by Madison, was the only other essay to appear first in the ''Advertiser''.{{ref|const}}

Considering that butch w is gay, the importance later ascribed to the essay, it was reprinted only on a limited scale. On [[November 23]], it appeared in the ''Packet'' and the next day in the ''Independent Journal''. Outside New York City, it made four appearances in early 1788: [[January 2]] in the ''Pennsylvania Gazette'', [[January 10]] in the ''Hudson Valley Weekly'', [[January 15]] in the Lansingburgh ''Northern Centinel'', and [[January 17]] in the ''Albany Gazette''. Though this number of reprintings was typical for the ''Federalist'', many other essays, both Federalist and Anti-Federalist, saw much wider distribution.{{ref|DHRC}}

On [[January 1]], [[1788]], the publishing company J. & A. McLean announced that they would publish the first 36 of the essays in a single volume. This volume, titled ''The Federalist'', was released on [[March 2]], [[1788]]. Two later editions are of note. The first was by George Hopkins in 1802; in this edition Hopkins revealed that Madison, Hamilton, and Jay were in fact the authors of the series. In 1818, James Gideon published a third edition containing corrections by Madison, who by that time had completed his two terms as [[President of the United States]].{{ref|spark}}

==The question of faction==

Federalist No. 10 continues the discussion of a question broached in Hamilton's Federalist No. 9. Hamilton had addressed the destructive role of [[Political faction|faction]] in breaking apart a republic. The question Madison answers, then, is how to eliminate the negative effects of faction. He defines a faction as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." He identifies the most serious source of faction to be the diversity of opinion in political life which leads to dispute over fundamental issues such as what regime or religion should be preferred. However, he thinks "the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society." He saw [[direct democracy]] as a danger to individual rights and advocated a [[representative democracy]] (also called a [[republic]]) in order to protect what he viewed as individual liberty from majority rule, or from the effects of such inequality within society. He says, "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Like the anti-Federalists who opposed him, Madison was substantially influenced by the work of Montesquieu, though Madison and Montesquieu disagreed on the question addressed in this essay. He also relied heavily on the philosophers of the [[Scottish Enlightenment]], especially [[David Hume]], whose influence is most clear in Madison's discussion of the types of faction and in his argument for an extended republic.

==Publius' argument==

Madison takes the position that there are two ways to limit the damage caused by faction: removing the causes of faction or controlling its effects. He contends that there are two ways to remove the causes that provoke the development of factions. One, the elimination of liberty, he rejects as unacceptable. The other, creating a society homogeneous in opinion and interest, he sees as impractical because the causes of faction, among them variant economic interests, are inherent in a free society. Madison concludes that the damage caused by faction can be limited only by controlling its effects.

Madison notes that the principle of popular sovereignty should prevent minority factions from gaining power. Majority factions are then the problem, and he offers two ways to check them: prevent the "existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time," or alternately render a majority faction unable to act. From this point Madison concludes that a small democracy cannot avoid majority faction, because small size means that common passions are likely to form among a majority of the people, and democracy means that the majority can enforce its will.

A republic, Madison writes, differs from a democracy in that its government is delegated to representatives, and as a result of this, it can be extended over a larger area. Regarding the first difference, Madison contends that a large republic will elect better delegates than a small one. In a large republic, the number of citizens per representative will be greater, and each chosen representative will be the best from a larger sample of people, resulting in better government. Also, the fact that each representative is chosen from a larger constituency means that "vicious arts" of electioneering will be less effective.

The fact that a republic can encompass larger areas and populations is a strength of that form of government. Madison believes that larger societies will have a greater variety of diverse parties and interest groups, which in competition will be less likely to yield a majority faction. This is a general application of the [[checks and balances]] principle, which is central to the American constitutional system. In conclusion, Madison emphasizes that the greater size of the Union will allow for more effective governments than were the states to remain more independent.

Though Madison argued for a large and diverse republic, the writers of the ''Federalist Papers'' recognized the need for a balance. They wanted a republic diverse enough to prevent faction but with enough commonality to maintain cohesion. In [[Federalist No. 2]], [[John Jay]] counted as a blessing that America possessed "one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion." Madison himself addresses a limitation of his conclusion that large constituencies will provide better representatives. He notes that if constituencies are too large, the representatives will be "too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests." He says that this problem is partly solved by [[federalism]]. No matter how large the constituencies of federal representatives, local matters will be looked after by state and local officials with naturally smaller constituencies.

==Contemporaneous counterarguments==

[[Image:George_clinton.jpg|right|frame|[[George Clinton (politician)|George Clinton]], widely believed to be the Anti-Federalist Cato]]

The [[Anti-Federalists]] vigorously contested the notion that a republic of diverse interests could survive. The author Cato (another pseudonym, most likely that of [[George Clinton (politician)|George Clinton]]) summarized the Anti-Federalist position in the article Cato no. 3:

:''Whoever seriously considers the immense extent of territory comprehended within the limits of the United States, together with the variety of its climates, productions, and commerce, the difference of extent, and number of inhabitants in all; the dissimilitude of interest, morals, and policies, in almost every one, will receive it as an intuitive truth, that a consolidated republican form of government therein, can never'' form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to you and your posterity, ''for to these objects it must be directed: this unkindred legislature therefore, composed of interests opposite and dissimilar in their nature, will in its exercise, emphatically be, like a house divided against itself.''{{ref|cato}}

Generally, it was their position that republics about the size of the individual states could survive, but that a republic on the size of the Union would fail. A particular point in support of this was that most of the states were focused on one industry—to generalize, commerce and shipping in the northern states and plantation farming in the southern. The Anti-Federalist belief that the wide disparity in the economic interests of the various states would lead to controversy was perhaps realized in the [[American Civil War]], which some scholars attribute to this disparity.{{ref|ransom}} Madison himself, in a letter to [[Thomas Jefferson]], noted that differing economic interests had created dispute, even when the Constitution was being written.{{ref|mad-jef}} At the convention, he particularly identified the distinction between the northern and southern states as a "line of discrimination" that formed "the real difference of interests."{{ref|cohler}}

The discussion of the ideal size for the republic was not limited to the options of individual states or encompassing union. In a letter to [[Richard Price]], [[Benjamin Rush]] noted that "Some of our enlightened men who begin to despair of a more complete union of the States in Congress have secretly proposed an Eastern, Middle, and Southern Confederacy, to be united by an alliance offensive and defensive."{{ref|rush}} However, compromise ideas like this gained little traction.

In making their arguments, the Anti-Federalists appealed to both historical and theoretic evidence. On the theoretical side, they leaned heavily on the work of [[Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu]]. The Anti-Federalists [[Robert Yates (politician)|Brutus]] and Cato both quoted Montesquieu on the issue of the ideal size of a republic, citing his statement in ''[[The Spirit of the Laws]]'' that:

:''It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected.''

Brutus points out that the [[Greece|Greek]] and [[Roman Empire|Roman]] states envisioned by many Americans as model republics (as evidenced by the choice of many authors on both sides of the debate to take Roman monikers) were small. Brutus also points out that the expansion of these republics resulted in a transition from free government to tyranny.{{ref|brutus}}

==Modern analysis and reaction==

In the first century of the American republic, No. 10 was not regarded as among the more important numbers of ''The Federalist''. For instance, in ''[[Democracy in America]]'' [[Alexis de Tocqueville]] refers specifically to more than fifty of the essays, but No. 10 is not among them.{{ref|adair110}} Today, however, No. 10 is regarded as a seminal work of American democracy. In "The People's Vote," a popular survey conducted by the [[National Archives and Records Administration]], [[National History Day]], and ''[[U.S. News and World Report]]'', No. 10 (along with [[Federalist No. 51]], also by Madison) was chosen as the 20th most influential document in United States history.{{ref|people}}

[[Douglass Adair]] attributes the increased interest in the tenth number to [[Charles A. Beard]]'s book ''[[An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution]]'', published in 1913. Adair also contends that Beard's selective focus on the issue of [[class struggle]], and his political [[progressivism]], has colored modern scholarship on the essay. According to Adair, Beard reads No. 10 as evidence for his belief in "the Constitution as an instrument of class exploitation."{{ref|Adair2}} Adair's own view is that Federalist No. 10 should be read as "eighteenth-century political theory directed to an eighteenth-century problem; and … one of the great creative achievements of that intellectual movement that later ages have christened 'Jeffersonian democracy.'"{{ref|Adair131}}

[[Garry Wills]] is a noted critic of Madison's argument in Federalist No. 10. In his book ''Explaining America'', he adopts the position of [[Robert Dahl]] in arguing that Madison's framework does not necessarily enhance the protections of minorities or ensure the common good. Instead, Wills claims: "Minorities can make use of dispersed and staggered governmental machinery to clog, delay, slow down, hamper, and obstruct the majority. But these weapons for delay are given to the minority irrespective of its factious or nonfactious character; and they can be used against the majority irrespective of its factious or nonfactious character. What Madison prevents is not faction, but action. What he protects is not the common good but delay as such."{{ref|Wills195}}

==Application==

Federalist No. 10 is the classic citation for the belief that the [[Founding Fathers]] and the constitutional framers did not intend American politics to be [[political party|partisan]]. For instance, [[United States Supreme Court]] justice [[John Paul Stevens]] cites the paper for the statement, "Parties ranked high on the list of evils that the Constitution was designed to check."{{ref|stevens}} Discussing a California provision that forbids candidates from running as independents within one year of holding a partisan affiliation, Justice [[Byron White]] made apparent the Court's belief that Madison spoke for the framers of the Constitution: "California apparently believes with the Founding Fathers that splintered parties and unrestrained factionalism may do significant damage to the fabric of government. See The Federalist, No. 10 (Madison)."{{ref|white}}

Madison's argument that restraining liberty to limit faction is an unacceptable solution has been used by opponents of campaign finance limits. Justice [[Clarence Thomas]], for example, invoked Federalist No. 10 in a dissent against a ruling supporting limits on campaign contributions, writing: "The Framers preferred a political system that harnessed such faction for good, preserving liberty while also ensuring good government. Rather than adopting the repressive 'cure' for faction that the majority today endorses, the Framers armed individual citizens with a remedy."{{ref|Thomas}}. It has also been used by those that seek fairer and equitable [[ballot access law]], such as [[Richard Winger]] of [[Ballot Access News]].
==Notes==
<div class="references-small">
# {{note|Ep59}} Epstein, 59.
# {{note|const}} ''The Federalist'' contents, with dates and publication information, at [http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa00.htm the Constitution Society]
# {{note|DHRC}} ''The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution''. Ed. John P. Kaminski and Gaspare J. Saladino. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1981. Vol XIV, p. 175
# {{note|spark}} ''The Federalist'' timeline at [http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/federalist/timeline.html www.sparknotes.com]
# {{note|cato}} Cato, no. 3
# {{note|ransom}} Ransom, Roger L. [http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/article/ransom.civil.war.us "Economics of the Civil War"]. August 25, 2001. Referenced November 20, 2005.
# {{note|mad-jef}} [[October 24]], [[1787]] letter of Madison to Jefferson, at ''The Founders' Constitution'' [http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch17s22.html web edition]
# {{note|cohler}} Cohler, Anne. ''Montesquieu's Comparative Politics and the Spirit of American Constitutionalism''. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1988. 151.
# {{note|rush}} Letter by [[Benjamin Rush]] to [[Richard Price]], at ''The Founders' Constitution'' [http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch7s7.html web edition]
# {{note|brutus}} Brutus, no. 1
# {{note|adair110}} Adair, 110
# {{note|people}} "The People's Vote" website at [http://www.ourdocuments.gov/content.php?page=vote www.ourdocuments.gov]
# {{note|Adair2}} Adair, 120–124 ''passim''. Quotation at 123.
# {{note|Adair131}} Adair, 131.
# {{note|Wills195}} Wills, 195.
# {{note|stevens}} ''[[California Democratic Party v. Jones]]'', 530 U.S. 567, 592 (2000) [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/000/99%2D401.html#FN3.2]
# {{note|white}} ''[[Storer v. Brown]]'', 415 U.S. 724, 736 (1974) [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=415&page=728#728]
# {{note|Thomas}} ''[[Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC]]'', 528 U.S. 377, 424 (2000) [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/000/98%2D963.html#fn5.9]
</div>

==References==
<div class="references-small">
* Adair, Douglass. ''Fame and the Founding Fathers.'' Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1974. <small>A collection of essays; that used here is "The Tenth Federalist Revisited."</small>
* Epstein, David F. ''The Political Theory of The Federalist''. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.
* Hamilton, Alexander; Madison, James; and Jay, John. ''The Federalist''. Edited by Jacob E. Cooke. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1961.
* Storing, Herbert J., ed. ''The Complete Anti-Federalist''. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981. <small>A 7-volume edition containing most all relevant Anti-Federalist writings.</small>
* Wills, Garry. ''Explaining America''. New York: Penguin Books, 1982.
* {{cite web | title= ''Storer v. Brown'', 415 U.S. 724 (1974) | work=Findlaw | url= http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=415&invol=724 | accessdate=October 1 | accessyear=2005}}
* {{cite web | title= ''Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC'', 528 U.S. 377 (2000) | work=Findlaw | url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=528&invol=377 | accessdate=August 23 | accessyear=2005}}
* {{cite web | title= ''California Democratic Party v. Jones'', 530 U.S. 567 (2000) | work=Findlaw | url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=530&invol=567 | accessdate=August 23 | accessyear=2005}}
</div>

==External links==
{{wikisource|The_Federalist_Papers/No._10|Federalist No. 10}}

* Online text of [http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s14.html Brutus, no. 1], at [http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/ http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/], the online edition of ''[[The Founders' Constitution]]'', hosted by the [[University of Chicago]].
* Online text of [http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s16.html Cato, no. 3], same source as above.

{{Federalist Papers}}

{{featured article}}

[[Category:Federalist Papers by James Madison]]
[[Category:1787 in law]]

[[es:El Federalista No. 10]]
[[io:Federalist No. 10]]
[[id:Federalis No. 10]]

Cephalanthus

2006-09-06T20:01:07Z

KnowledgeOfSelf: Reverted edits by Dubba Dubba (talk) to last version by MPF

{{Taxobox
| color = lightgreen
| name = ''Cephalanthus''
| image = Cephalanthus occidentalis.jpg
| image_width = 240px
| image_caption = ''Cepalanthus occidentalis''
| regnum = [[Plant]]ae
| divisio = [[Flowering plant|Magnoliophyta]]
| classis = [[Dicotyledon|Magnoliopsida]]
| ordo = [[Gentianales]]
| familia = [[Rubiaceae]]
| genus = '''''Cephalanthus'''''
| genus_authority = [[Carolus Linnaeus|L.]]
| subdivision_ranks = species
| subdivision = See text
}}

'''''Cephalanthus''''' ('''Buttonbush''') is a [[genus]] of of [[flowering plant]]s in the family [[Rubiaceae]]. Different authorities accept between six and 15 species. The name derives from ancient [[Greek]] "head flower" (cephalo meaning head and anthus meaning flower).

They are [[shrub]]s or small [[tree]]s growing to 5-15 m tall, native to temperate to tropical regions of the [[Americas]], [[Africa]] and [[Asia]]. The [[leaf|leaves]] are simple, arranged in opposite pairs or whorls of three. The [[flower]]s form a dense globular [[inflorescence]].

Species include:
*''[[Cephalanthus glabratus]]'' (Sarandi). South America.
*''[[Cephalanthus natalensis]]''. Southern Africa.
*''[[Cephalanthus naucleoides]]''. Taiwan.
*''[[Cephalanthus occidentalis]]'' (Button-willow, Common Buttonbush, or Honey-bells). North America.
*''[[Cephalanthus salicifolius]]'' (Mexican Buttonbush, Willowleaf Buttonbush). Mexico, Texas.

==References==
*[http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/splist.pl?2262 Germplasm Resources Information Network: ''Cephalanthus'']
*[http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=CEPHA USDA Plants Profile: ''Cephalanthus'']
*[http://tai2.ntu.edu.tw/udth/bin/fot1.exe/browse?BID=4&page=248 Flora of Taiwan: ''Cephalanthus'']
{{commons|Cephalanthus}}

[[Category:Rubiaceae]]

{{Asterid-stub}}

Balti (Sprache)

2006-08-24T17:43:58Z

KnowledgeOfSelf: Reverted edits by 152.163.100.196 (talk) to last version by KnowledgeOfSelf

{{language
|name=Balti
|nativename=بلتی
|states=[[Pakistan]], [[India]]
|region=[[Kashmir]]
|speakers=337,000
|familycolor=Sino-Tibetan
|fam2=[[Tibeto-Burman languages|Tibeto-Burman]]
|fam3=[[Bodic languages|Bodic]]
|fam4=[[Bodish languages|Bodish]]
|fam5=[[Tibetan language|Tibetan]]
|fam6=Western
|iso2=sit|iso3=bft}}

'''Balti''' ([[Urdu]]: بلتی) is a [[language]] spoken in [[Baltistan]], in the [[Northern Areas, Pakistan|Northern Areas]] of [[Pakistan]]. Baltistan - before independence - was part of [[Ladakh]] province. The language is a sub-dialect of Ladakhi and an archaic [[dialect]] of the [[Tibetan language]]. Many of the consonants that are silent in most modern Tibetan dialects are pronounced in Balti.

== Script ==
Balti is also the name of the Tibetan [[Balti (script)|Balti]] script, which was replaced by the [[Persian language|Persian]] script in the [[17th Century]].

Recently a number of Balti scholars and social activists are trying to repromote the use of the Balti script (Yige) which will also help to preserve indigenous Ladakhi and Balti form of culture and racial identity.

== Vocabulary ==
The Balti language shares 80-90% of the vocabulary with the neighboring [[Ladakhi language|Ladakhi]], although they have adopted words from [[Shina language|Shina]], [[Burushaski language|Burushaski]] and [[Persian language|Persian]] with the process of Islamization.

== See also ==
* [[Balti people]]

== External links ==
* [http://groups.msn.com/JulayBaltiyul]
* [http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr3-2 Unicode]
* [http://koshur.org/Linguistic/7.html Koshur: The Balti Language]
* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1491179.stm Pakistan's Northern Areas dilemma]
* [http://www.northernareas.org.pk Northern Areas Development Gateway]
* [http://paknews.com/articles.php?id=1&date1=2003-04-17 Pakistan's Northern Areas]

[[Category:Languages of Pakistan]]
[[Category:Bodic languages]]

{{st-lang-stub}}

[[id:Bahasa Baltistani]]

Balti (Sprache)

2006-08-24T17:43:37Z

KnowledgeOfSelf: Reverted edits by 152.163.100.196 (talk) to last version by Sjorford