text:
Talk:The Crying Game

Dil was a homosexual transvestite
So says the writer and director of the film, Neil Jordan, in a 25th anniversary discussion about the movie available to watch here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD2lhfB53Bs

British-Japanese?
What part of this movie or story is Japanese? There are no Japanese names associated with the movie, nor does Japan come up anywhere in this article. Am I missing something?Patwinkle (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

Spoiler
I just want to throw this out there- A huge FUCK YOU goes out to whoever it was that thought it was a GOOD idea to give away the huge plot twist with NO SPOILER TAGS in the SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE PAGE. Whoever made that call, please die in a chemical fire. Thank you!

And just to address the people who so desperately want to leave it in there: You can't say "oh people are coming to this article for this reason or that". you DONT KNOW why people are coming to this article, or what level of enjoyment of this film they expect for you to RUIN for them. HAs it ever occurred to you that Wikipedia is full of in-links, and someone (say, me) could arrive at this page without ever having heard of the film? I don't read through The Usual Suspects article and say "Hmm, it was rated as one of the best reveals, even topping The Crying Game. Gee what's that?" Oh that's what it is- Two hours I won't get to spend watching a classic film because you douchebags apparantly are psychic, and know the intentions and expectations of every person visiting this article

Thank you for helping to ruin Wikipedia.66.157.239.10 06:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm hardly an expert on these topics, but based on my own understanding of the (continually contested) meaning of the terms and my having seen this movie, I'm not sure "transsexual woman" is the best description of Dil. I would say he/she is a "transgendered man". As far as I know, and according the wikipedia article transsexual, a TS is someone who desires a physical sex change or operation of some sort, and is not merely someone who prefers to live with an identity of the other gender. There certainly is no evidence in the movie itself, or in anything I've read about the movie, to suggest that Dil desires an actual sex change operation. So, I don't see any reason why it's accurate to say she's "transsexual". Revolver 11:39, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I would add that TG has become accepted as generally the most inclusive term, so by this reason it errs on the side of caution to use it. Revolver 11:40, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * After reading the transgender article, maybe "transwoman" is better...it clearly identifies the gender identity and stays clear of the TS/TG terminology debate (it seems at least one group of people will find inaccuracy whether TS or TG is used). Revolver 11:52, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Being male to female TS myself, I associated myself immediately with Dil. She is one of the most accurate representations of a pre-operative transsexual in any movies, and I would recognize myself immediately in her - I was just like her when I was pre-op. The point is not her physique or dressing code; the point is that she acts, speaks, walks and behaves like a woman. She speaks of her mood changes and her medication; I interprete it is about hormone replacement therapy. I do remember my own wild mood swings and the horrible spells of agony while I was poisoned by my own hormonal production. I changed the text in the article as "transgendered"; she certainly was NOT a transvestite as the article suggested.62.237.141.27 21:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I discussed this movie with a M2F TS friend of mine who was of the complete opposite opinion, i.e. that Dil was a male gay drag queen. Certainly her manner of speech and behaviour is more typical of gay people than women (I have several trans friends, none of whom use to go on stage in feathers and a boa). The fact that the actor is a gay man himself may certainly have something to do with this, but in the end it's the actor's interpretation we're discussing here, not the intention of the scriptwriter.Geira (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Should the reference to Dils trasngendered nature be removed from the begining of the article? While this is a long time after the movie it IS still a spoiler and someone might conceivably look at the article without knowing about "the secret"

Novel
Shouldn't the novel be in a disambiguation position if it is, in fact, wholly unrelated to the film? Right now the link of the novel on the John Braine page links to this page, which, if I understand what's going on here correctly, should not be the case. But I don't know enough about either the book or the novel to be certain. Can someone who knows this stuff either fix it or make it clear? CoramVobis 03:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary
The summary of this movie contains POV information. There is nothing in the movie that implies that Fergus is actually "attracted" to the Dil character. The person who wrote this was biased by their personal interpretations. The final paragraph that discusses the nature of Fergus's sexuality is also pure speculation and should be removed.

Pronouns
I agree with the change of pronouns to 'she', in accordance with Wikipedia's guideline regarding self-identification. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree, I actually found the sudden use of male pronouns extremely offensive. 95.150.9.128 (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummm...
Is it just me, or does this article currently leave out a kind of important part of the film? Like, you know, the twist ending? 70.171.57.254 15:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the twist is described in the plot summary. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers vs. NPOV
I have redone the introduction to this article. Specifically, I have added the twist ending into the introduction. I expect that somebody will want to revert this. I encourage this person not to. Here's why:

One of the most important things about this film is that it is the first mainstream drama to deal with transgender issues in a remotely serious way. It is an absolute touchstone of discussions of transgender people and cinema. The LGBT perspective on this film is huge, and needs to be mentioned in the lead. This cannot, to my mind, be done well without using the word "transgender" in the lead.

More to the point, it is a gross violation of WP:NPOV to exclude this perspective from the lead. It is a highly notable, absolutely important perspective. It should not be marginalized far outside of the lead. The need to write a good introduction that actually informs people of the major issues surrounding this film trumps the need to cover the twist ending of a 15 year old movie. Phil Sandifer 21:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Furthermore, per Lead section, the intro should be a standalone short article. That means that not including the twist in the intro is a violation of NPOV - David Gerard 21:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Somebody has inserted a very ugly spoiler warning into the middle of the lead section, without giving justification or discussing it here. I've removed it pending justification. --Tony Sidaway 05:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

 * No, that is no justification. I haven't even seen the movie and now I know about the twist at the end.  I hate that.  Get that spoiler out of there.  Whey don't you just put what you said, "One of the most important things about this film is that it is the first mainstream drama to deal with transgender issues in a remotely serious way. It is an absolute touchstone of discussions of transgender people and cinema." instead of giving it away?  There is a reason something usually says "spoilers start here."  ---jdsully8 02:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

 * This is an encyclopedia.  It isn't Usenet. --Tony Sidaway 21:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Hi. The fact that this is an "encyclopedia" does not preclude wikipedia from politeness towards its users. It might be an encyclopedia but it's still on line and this page might be the most wieved source about this film. It's a simple matter of not ruining works of fiction for potential readers/audiences. And the fact that "you have to expect spoilers in a plot summary" is simply untrue.Wedineinheck 15:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Some film fans think that everyone has seen every movie, and has heard all discussions about every movie. This is false. I suggest that a significant proportion of the earth’s population has not seen crying game or read about the twist. A spoiler alert would b good 71.245.188.249 (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with putting the plot twist in the introduction, but there really should be a spoiler warning. There is nothing giving the reader any indication that the film's ending is going to be given away right off the bat.

Consensus hasn't been reached on spoiler warnings. I honestly don't see why people oppose them so much. I have added a spoiler warning at the beginning of the article, which is permitted in rare situations. From the policy:

"Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional, and where the editor proposing them presents compelling reasons for their insertion. Such reasons should demonstrate that the spoiler tag does not diminish article quality, and that knowledge of the spoiler would substantially diminish many readers' or viewers' enjoyment of the work. Very rarely, a spoiler warning may appear in the article lead. If this can be justified, the warning should be placed at the top of the article. The presumption should be that the article lead should not need to warn about plot spoilers that are significant enough to appear in the lead."

I think this applies in this case. True, the movie is 13 years old, but that doesn't mean that everybody has seen it already. There are surely people who were toddlers when the film came out and are looking to watch it. Adding the spoiler doesn't detract from the article because the important aspect remains intact in the lead. --YellowTapedR 03:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the film is not "frankly primarily notable for its twist," as one editor said in an edit summary. It had six Academy Award nominations, including best picture.--YellowTapedR 05:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see why there should be a spoiler warning. The movie has been out for thirteen years. People coming to this article want to know more about the movie, and that includes the transgender revelation. This isn't some unreleased, lots-of-speculation movie where someone who hasn't seen it could accidentally stumble on it. Lead sections of movie articles should have a brief summary of the film. You can't briefly summarized this movie without mentioning the one thing that makes it notable: that Dil's trans. Putting a spoiler warning is, imho, unnecessary. Why would people read this article if they didn't expect to be spoiled? If someone didn't want to be spoiled, they'd take two hours out of their day and watch the movie, or they'd look it up on IMDB. This is an encyclopedia article, not a movie review. Kolindigo 05:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The comment by jdsully8 shows that not everyone going to this article has seen the movie or wishes to be spoiled. The twist belongs in the article and even probably should be in the introduction, but adding a spoiler warning does not take anything away from it. And, again, the transgender angle is not the only notable thing about the film, since it was heavily nominated at the Academy Awards and was praised overwhelmingly by critics.

A decade before The Crying Game came out, Sleepaway Camppulled the-girl-is-really-a-boy trick. That revelation is not in the lead of that article (perhaps it should be, because that's the only scene anyone remembers from it). --YellowTapedR 06:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

 * The plot detail is the main thing that an encyslopedia on this article ought to discuss. There is no need for a spoiler tag; an ad description can be found on a more appropriate site. I have removed the spoiler tag again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And I have reinstated it. This is very uncivil for just a small compromise. Please be courteous. - Jeeny Talk 07:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

July 8
This plot detail is the key fact about the movie - it's embarrassing to put a "spoiler" tag on it. The movie isn't a new release, and people coming here are looking for critical commentary and historical importance, not for a summary to decide whether to go to the cinema to see it. I don't see why a spoiler tag is needed. As Kolindigo asks, "Why would people read this article if they didn't expect to be spoiled?" — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's your opinion that the plot detail is the key fact about the movie. Just because it isn't a new release doesn't mean that everyone's seen it. It is not wikipedia's job to provide "critical commentary." You have no basis for your claims on why people are coming to this article. The spoiler tag takes nothing away from the article and doesn't prevent anyone looking to learn about historical significance from reading it.

The spoiler guidelines make it clear that tags in the introductions of articles are allowed in rare circumstances. This is one of the exceptions. People may expect to be spoiled when they read the plot summary in an article, but they don't expect to have the ending given away for them in the intro. --YellowTapedR 04:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

editprotected The "edit warring" is being done by a group of editors who are against spoiler warnings in just about every circumstance. The page in its current form is a version by one of those editors. --YellowTapedR 06:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Page protection is not an endorsement of any form of the page. Now is the time to reach concensus on the issue on this page. GDonato (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree that a spoiler warning is justified in the lead of this article. Revealing the key plot twist of a film in a Plot section is one thing, but I don't think a user would reasonably expect to come across it in the lead. It's not like the spoiler warning prevents the information being read by those who want to: As Jeeny says above, it's a "small compromise" of little detriment. Philip Reuben 17:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Also, "Why would people read this article if they didn't expect to be spoiled?" Very few movies justify a major spoiler in the lead, and if they are coming to the Crying Game article in the first place there's a good chance that they don't know enough about the movie to know it's one of those exceptions. They may accidentally find themselves reading an article they'd rather have avoided if they'd known this particular detail. Philip Reuben 17:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The big reveal does not need to be in the lead, as it does not compromise anything. If it stays in the lead, then the spoiler tag should be used. It shouldn't matter how old the movie is, it is not notable as a historical film. Why is this "embarrassing" to have a spoiler tag on the article? It's a small compromise -- There are people who were too young to see it the first time, and by putting the big reveal in the lead is a spoiler, as it will spoil the movie for those not having yet seen it. - Jeeny Talk 19:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Readers should expect us to cover plot details whenever necessary to write a good encyclopedia article. If they want to avoid being spoiled before seeing the movie, they shouldn't read the article before seeing it. I find it hard to believe that many people expect that reading an encyclopedia article on a classic film such as this will not reveal plot details, and I don't see any reason why we need to cater to such willful ignorance in this situation. I can see possible uses for spoiler tags on very recent works, but this movie is 15 years old. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide what readers should expect when going to any article. I read articles on movies I haven't yet seen, but I skip the plot section so as not to get spoiled. I would never expect a spoiler to be right there in the introduction without any kind of warning. --YellowTapedR 20:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Carl, how is this film concidered as "classic"? The big reveal? Sure, it is one of the more "shocking" twists, as it was unexpected, but it is not the whole movie. Please see this reviewer's take on the "big reveal", and how it takes away from the more significant aspects of the movie. The "big reveal" should not be in the lead at all. - Jeeny Talk 20:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes. It should. The big reveal is essential to LGBT criticism of the film and to the film's status in LGBT communities. To remove it from the lead is to marginalize this perspective, which violates WP:NPOV. Phil Sandifer 22:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But, how does it marginalize the film? By leaving out the reveal in the lead, but all the other info still there, as I did before, is not maginalizing. Put it in the plot section where it belongs, because of my reasons in my last comment. I am very sensitive to the LGBT community, so I am not pushing an agenda, just in case one would think so. In fact, I want to be fair AND neutral, by using the justification that it should be in the lead because of criticism from a specific community is POV, therefore, not keeping with NPOV. - Jeeny Talk 22:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you feel it is essential to the LGBT criticism of the film, then it should be in a section of critism, not in the lead. - Jeeny Talk 22:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * WP:LS notes (correctly) that all major aspects of a subject need to be mentioned in the article lead. For the basis of a whole and major school of criticism to be excluded from the lead of the article is a major problem. Fundamentally, the ending is one of the most important things to know about this film - in a way that just isn't true for, say, Silence of the Lambs. Phil Sandifer 23:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * It's not just LGBT criticism, really. The fact that Dil has a penis is not a massive surprise within the context of the film.  The cleverness of the thing is the way Jody seduces Fergus.  Fergus only makes contact with Dil because of the way Jody impresses Fergus.  After the raid, and Jody's death, Fergus knows he's not safe in the province. He'll be picked up sooner or later by one side or the other, and in Jody he has found someone worthy of love, and he seeks the woman who loved him, to fulfil his promise to Jody.  The imagery used here is cricket--the are cutaway sequences throughout the early part of the film showing Jody as a cricket bowler.  After the big reveal Jody is shown in a cutaway sequence.  I think some smashing of cricket bails is shown.  Jody bowls Fergus the biggest googly in cricket history.

 * I'm certainly not saying that this is a great cricket film, and I definitely cannot be absolved of a LGBT bias, but there are several things to say about this:
 * The dick isn't important within the plot. The surprise is that it isn't that important to Fergus. Fergus isn't depicted as a troubled, closeted gay man.  Rather, his capacity for love ("it is in my nature") prevails despite his obvious shock at Dil's ambivalent gender identity.
 * The film was part of a series of great works by Neil Jordan, including the great The Company of Wolves in which sexuality is very fluid (Rea, who plays Fergus here, appears as a werewolf in that film).
 * The film bankrupted the film makers and it was picked up by a distribution company that profited from this. The film makers never made a penny from it, but Neil Jordan won a direct-to-screen Oscar for it and the film picked up several other nominations, and Jaye Davidson even went on to star in Stargate, the film that spawned over a decade of TV shows.
 * This is a very important film for many reasons: that it's a definitive breakthrough film for LGBT cinema, that it won an Oscar as the people who made it mortgaged their houses to the hilt, that it's a visually very pleasing film, that it includes peak performances from great actors (Rea, Whitaker, Richardson, Broadbent).
 * It worries me more, frankly, that we're arguing about the dick instead of the extraordinary circumstances of the film's production and distribution. --Tony Sidaway 23:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, so why is it important in the lead, but not the plot? (the penis, I mean). As it is remarkable that Fergus loved her anyway, but that's not in the lead, and if it were, that would justify adding the "shocker" she had a penis. - Jeeny Talk 23:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Because we're still arguing about it fifteen years later, and nobody remembers the other things I mentioned. The dick is what gave this film wings. --Tony Sidaway 23:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a fair compromise to keep the twist in the lead but have a spoiler warning. --YellowTapedR 00:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A compromise with what? --Tony Sidaway 00:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

 * One side wants no spoiler in the lead at all. One side wants the spoiler in the lead and no tag. The middle ground is to have the spoiler in the lead with a tag. Philip Reuben 00:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

 * To be honest, for me that is not what made this film memorable to me. It was the relationships, the acting, the production, the plot everything. That was just a small "surprise". ( no pun intended), although it did make it more interesting. I cried, not because of the friggen dick, but the relationships, the music, and Dil's performance was wonderful, so were Whitaker, Rea's, etc. That's why I feel it should NOT be in the lead, everyone will concentrate on THAT. Sheesh. - Jeeny Talk 01:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Cricket?! Did I watch the same movie every else did? I'm tired of debating this. You guys do what you want. But the movie I watched was about the theme that you can't change your spots and it featured a man who fell in love with a transwoman and still loved her after finding out she was a transwoman, which was shocking and groundbreaking at the time (and I dare say, it would still be shocking today). If you look on spoiler sites, the catchphrase is always the crude "she's a he!" It's what makes the film still very notable even over a decade after its release, because Jaye Davison managed to make people think he's a woman, and so it was a shock to audiences. I'm not saying it isn't notable for being yet another indie movie that managed to do well in awards season, but it's also notable for being a mainstream depiction of transgender characters without condemning them. Kolindigo 01:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Can the article say that in the lede (presuming a source can be found) without a spoiler tag? — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking through the discussion above. I come to Wikipedia for information. I might do that before I watch a movie, to see if it's worth watching, or after I've watched it to look at it in more detail. I expect a "Plot Summary" section that I can avoid. I do not expect a revelation of the surprise ending in the introduction, or anywhere in an article other than "Plot Summary" or "Synopsis." I find above comments indicating that Wikipedia is telling me it's my own fault for looking at the article to be disturbing, and such a policy will simply mean that I no longer come to WP for information. I understand that the plot revelation needs to be in the lead for NPOV purposes, but please, put a spoiler tag in. TMac 03:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

 * We don't put warning tags on the ledes of other sorts of articles that some readers might not want to see. The case for putting a tag on this article seems much weaker. It's not your 'fault' for looking at an article - it's to your benefit, because if the article is well written you will learn about the subject.  If your goal is just to get vague information to decide whether to see a film, WP is probably not the place to look, because our goal is to be an encyclopedia rather than a movie review site. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines say spoiler tags are allowed in the introductions in rare circumstances. This is one of them, since the surprise is given away. --YellowTapedR 14:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The surprise is given away in every article about a fictional subject that has a surprise. That alone is not enough to justify a spoiler tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but not in the intro. Reading the above comments, I think you are clearly outnumbered here, so what's the point in arguing anymore?--YellowTapedR 15:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Consensus isn't measured by counting the number of people on each side. If I were the only person who was arguing against the spoiler tag, I would take that into consideration, but it's clear to me that others agree with my assessment of this article.

 * As I see it, there is no way to write this article in an encyclopedic fashion without including major plot details, because those plot details are exactly the reason this film is notable. I don't believe we need to use a spoiler tag merely because these plot details are present in the lede, as though the reader could simply skip them and still get thorough coverage of the film from the rest of the article. Since they details can't be skipped, there's no point of a tag whose only purpose is help the reader skip them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, some others agree with your assessment of the article. And? That doesn't mean consensus is on your side any more than it means consensus is on the other side. As I said, the middle ground seems to be including the spoiler in the lead but tagging it. It would be nice if you would accept a compromise. Philip Reuben 14:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Kolindigo (above) suggested a different compromise, but apart from me nobody has commented on it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any suggested compromise in those comments. What do you suggest? --YellowTapedR 16:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, another spoiler dispute, with dear Tony showing up out of nowhere to show his support for getting rid of spoiler tags as always. Completely regardless of the situation. Let's sum this up. - The twist ending of this movie is apparently so essential to the reception and influence of this film that it has to be in the introduction. Argument accepted. - Putting the twist ending in the introduction will ruin the film for whoever reads the introduction. You can't stop in time. Common courtesy dictates you don't ruin a piece of art for someone in the introduction. If someone starts reading the plot/synopsis/etc, that's indeed at someone's own risk. This is something else. People - this is what spoiler tags were made for. There is no other way to put the twist ending of the movie in the introduction (where it apparently belongs) without ruining it for those who have not seen this film yet. This delay isn't getting the article anywhere. Cayafas 01:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The idea that knowing the plot "ruins" a film is a certain point of view but not at all universal. This isn't a new release in any sense; we don't need to worry so much about people reading this article having the film "ruined" for them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's okay to put the transgender spoiler in the lead of this article, someone should go and add the spoiler to the lead of The Sixth Sense. Seems only reasonable.--167.30.38.188 (talk) 03:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"has a penis"
Hmmm, I get the idea, "the big reveal is a dick". But the phrasing makes it sound like surrealism or radical plastic surgery, or even science fiction, when it's quite apparent that Dil, irrespective of whatever gender self-identification she may have, is biologically male. In fact, perhaps "biologically male" would be the right term. --Tony Sidaway 03:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

 * My problem with "biologically male" is that it's not as clear as it could be. The "shock" of the movie is that Dil is a transwoman and the "shocking scene" is when she strips naked and you can tell that she has a penis. "Biologically male" seems like unnecessary censoring to me. Kolindigo 03:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, I think on balance this wording is best. The revelation on the screen is intentionally startling.  --Tony Sidaway 03:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I altered the wording slightly to say: "The film was notable for its dramatic plot twist, when the male protagonist discovers that his seemingly female love interest has a penis while undressing." I think it better represents why the revelation is so startling and takes away the sci-fi element. --YellowTapedR 01:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Negative progress?
I decided to look at a diff between the last unprotection and the current protection.

It's here.

A bit depressing, really.

The puzzling phrase "and the event passed without incident" remains. Perhaps it's just me, but doesn't that presuppose that Jaye Davidson turning up in any other gear might have caused a problem? The supposed "speculation about what Davidson would wear to the Oscars, as his appearing as a man would possibly spoil the film's surprise" seems to be completely unsupported.

And we have:

 * A parody of the The Crying Game was used as a twist in Jim Carrey's breakthrough film, Ace Ventura: Pet Detective.

Oh dear.

On the plus side of the equation, we now know what Jaye Davidson wore to the Oscars. Nice. --Tony Sidaway 04:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the trivia section needs to go, but maybe the Ace Ventura bit belongs somewhere. There are surely a lot of people who only know the twist in The Crying Game because they saw Ace Ventura. The part about Jaye Davidson going to the Oscars can be snipped, too. I've stopped caring what happens in the intro though, but I did add a citation request because the second paragraph seems somewhat opionated. --YellowTapedR 07:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring
Instead of continuously edit warring, why don't both sides of the spoiler issue come to a compromise. I think the info about the twist should be in the lead. The more I think about it, the more I think the tag is unneccessary because of the film's age and the fact that it has been countlessly spoofed.

But I could go either way on it. To stop the article from being protected again because of edit warring, why not just keep the info in the lead and place a spoiler tag before the second paragraph? --YellowTapedR 19:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh
Don't assume that everyone who visits wikipedia is familiar with this movie, or has even heard of it. Why spoil the surprises of the movie for someone who is just reading the main info section of the page. I mean it's not like people are putting in "Dil blasts away Jude at the movie's conclusion" in the intro. Why would you put the penis reference there? Just put it in the plot summary. The intro already mentions that the film has to do with transgenderism, alternate relationships, an effect on the LGBT community, etc, you don't need to put specific plot points in it that are meant to be surprising. "The movie everyone is talking about, but no one is giving away it's secrets" is how the movie was marketed. Come on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tprayx (talk • contribs) 20:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Except that WP:LS says we have to give all the major information in the lead. And, fundamentally, at this point "she's a he" is the biggest thing about this film. It's the touchstone moment of the film. To my mind, the key question is this - what does someone, in 2007, need to know about this film? And for this film, the ending is one of the things they need to know. Phil Sandifer 22:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Did you happen to read the very first blurb on the WP:LS page:

 * "This page is considered a style guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Tprayx 22:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

 * You ask why spoil the surprise. This is not a page that describes the movie. It is not a plot summary. It is not an advertisement for the movie, nor is it meant to be used for marketing in any way. It is not a whole bunch of things that aren't supposed to "spoil" movies. It's an encyclopedia article about the movie, and one of the most noteworthy things about the film is the "big reveal". It's one of those things that people who have heard about the movie but don't know much about it will come to this page expecting to see. If a movie's been out for 15 years, I do not think I have a moral obligation to make sure people don't get spoiled for it. Kolindigo 23:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, I'm not saying it shouldn't be mentioned. But common-sense wise, this revelation is the ulimate type of spoiler.  Practically made for the word 'spoiler'.  There at least should be a warning about it, but apparently this battle has long been fought.  Put it back without a spoiler if you want, someone will eventually be pissed and change it again.  That alone should tell you that it needs one.  I have no idea why some people would be so adamant about having one. Tprayx 01:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

 * The word "spoiler" doesn't mean a lot on Wikipedia. We're making an encyclopedia, not a fan site. --Tony Sidaway 01:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) About WP:LS again, it clearly states The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article.. I believe that the mention of the penis in the lead actually violates this part of the guideline.--Ramdrake 22:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Um... how? What important aspect of "She's a he" is left out of the lead? If anything, teasing its relevance to GLBT criticism and not explaining that is a bigger problem. Phil Sandifer 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 * The fact that it is mentioned in the lead but not explained in the body of the article is what I'm referring to. If you want it included in the body of the article, I have no objection, but if it is mentioned in the lead, it should be because there is at least some further explanation in the article. The way it is now, it looks like the 1)the spoiler is in the intro and 2)the intro is written for shock value. I also believe there is a rather sizable number of editors who have disagreed with this inclusion over the last few days, all the more reason to pause and take stock of the situation.--Ramdrake 23:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 * It is expanded in the article - we give the full plot summary. What do you think is missing? Phil Sandifer 23:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I was looking further down in the article. Still, something seems wrong to me, as the mention that Dil is a transwoman seems more appropriate to the lead, and the mention of the penis seems more appropriate for the body of the article. Would you object to switching the sentences? As it was, the intro still looked like it was written for shock value.--Ramdrake 00:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I'd say go for it, but I never liked the "has a penis" formulation in the first place. So you might get reverted by somebody else - but I'd say do it. Phil Sandifer 00:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Lol, what the hell is a transwoman? is that even a word?? Or maybe I'm just not up on the latest lingo. Tprayx 21:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess you're not up on the lastest lingo. Did you click on the wikilink that explains the term? That might help you and others learn that much more. :) Jeeny 23:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection
Because it is quite clear (see the talk page history) that Tprayx has logged-out to continue reverting the page (and to avoid WP:3RR, which he/she has now broken), I have semi-protected the page from editing. Tprayx, I could have blocked you for violating the three revert rule, but opted to protect instead. Do not break the 3RR in the future, using either your account or your IP or a combination, or you will be blocked. If the reverting continues on this page, I will be blocking anyone who breaks the 3RR (including Tprayx's backdated reverts if this user starts up again in the next twenty-four hours).  Daniel  01:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you would block the page instead of the user. Regardless, the warring is getting silly. --YellowTapedR 04:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Forgive me, I am new to Wikipedia and did not know the protocol. But I was reprimanded, then blocked, and now I feel like a criminal with a record.  But all's fair in love and penises i guess.   Tprayx 16:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Transwoman or male-to-female transexual
Transwoman is what Dil was in the movie and best fits the role, rather than to use "male-to-femle transexual", while linking to the article Transwoman is over-kill. More people will click on the link and read more and learn more, as is encouraged for wikipedia. Please don't change it. Thanks. Jeeny 00:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I find the use of the word transsexual dishonest. Every true transsexual has surgery as the goal and would hate their penis too much to have sex with a man while having a penis.  This sounds more like a transgendered gay man pretending that he is a woman, and calling him a transsexual woman defames true-transsexual women who are a part of the mainstream community.  What this guy in constant drag seems to have is the lifestyle/recreation of transgenderism, not the correctable medical condition or transsexualism nor any other therapeutic reason.  True-transsexuals have nothing in common with this man living as a woman but treasuring his penis enough to keep it and let guys mess with it, nor the cross-dressed men in porno mags who get breast implants and take Viagra.72.11.40.181 (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Irish film?
Is the film an Irish film? I ask because it credits the country of origin is given as Uk/Japan, (which confuses me also). The film is by an Irish filmmaker, and one of the themes is about the troubles in Ireland. --Dumbo1 23:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The film was listed as being of japanese/UK because thats where the finance came from. However Neil Jordan (who's irish) has said on several occasion that it's an irish film. Both because of the themes/subject matter and the fact that the guy who concieved it and directed it is irish. So...take your pick I guess. Though I really don't think you could call it a japanese film. User:Teknolyze —Preceding comment was added at 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh Yeah But That's So Cool.
The Crying Game That Cries Out For Help.--2600:1702:4B28:F760:808B:CA42:FF39:E267 (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Crying Game


text:
County Cork

County Cork (Contae Chorcaí) is the largest and the southernmost county of Ireland, named after the city of Cork, the state's second-largest city. It is in the province of Munster and the Southern Region. Its largest market towns are Mallow, Macroom, Midleton, and Skibbereen. , the county had a population of 584,156, making it the third-most populous county in Ireland. Cork County Council is the local authority for the county, while Cork City Council governs the city of Cork and its environs. Notable Corkonians include Michael Collins, Jack Lynch, Roy Keane, Sonia O'Sullivan, Cillian Murphy and Graham Norton.

Cork borders four other counties: Kerry to the west, Limerick to the north, Tipperary to the north-east and Waterford to the east. The county contains a section of the Golden Vale pastureland that stretches from Kanturk in the north to Allihies in the south. The south-west region, including West Cork, is one of Ireland's main tourist destinations, known for its rugged coast and megalithic monuments and as the starting point for the Wild Atlantic Way. The largest third-level institution is University College Cork, founded in 1845, and has a total student population of around 22,000. Local industry and employers include technology company Dell EMC, the European headquarters of Apple, and the farmer-owned dairy co-operative Dairygold.

The county is known as the "rebel county", a name given to it by King Henry VII of England for its support, in a futile attempt at a rebellion in 1491, of Perkin Warbeck, who claimed to be Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York.

Political and governance
The local government areas of county Cork and the city of Cork are administered by the local authorities of Cork County Council and Cork City Council respectively. The boundary between these two areas was altered by the 2019 Cork boundary change. It is part of the Southern Region and has five representatives on the Southern Regional Assembly.

For elections to Dáil Éireann, the city and county are divided into five constituencies: Cork East, Cork North-Central, Cork North-West, Cork South-Central and Cork South-West. Together they return 18 deputies (TDs) to the Dáil. It is part of the South constituency for European elections.

Geography
Cork is the largest county in Ireland by land area, and the largest of Munster's six counties by population and area. At the latest census in 2022, the population of the entire county stood at 584,156. Cork is the second-most populous county in the State, and the third-most populous county on the island of Ireland.

County Cork is located in the province of Munster, bordering Kerry to the west, Limerick to the north, Tipperary to the north-east and Waterford to the east. The county shares separate mountainous borders with Tipperary and Kerry. The terrain on the Kerry border was formed between 360 and 374 million years ago, as part of the rising of the MacGillycuddy's Reeks and Caha Mountains mountains ranges. This occurred during the Devonian period when Ireland was part of a larger continental landmass and located south of the equator. The region's topography of peaks and valleys are characterised by steep ridges formed during the Hercynian period of folding and mountain formation some 300 million years ago.

Twenty-four historic baronies are in the county—the most of any county in Ireland. While baronies continue to be officially defined units, they are no longer used for many administrative purposes. Their official status is illustrated by Placenames Orders made since 2003, where official Irish names of baronies are listed. The county has 253 civil parishes. Townlands are the smallest officially defined geographical divisions in Ireland, with about 5447 townlands in the county.

Mountains and upland habitats
The county's mountains rose during a period mountain formation some 374 to 360 million years ago and include the Slieve Miskish and Caha Mountains on the Beara Peninsula, the Ballyhoura Mountains on the border with Limerick and the Shehy Mountains which contain Knockboy (706 m), the highest point in Cork. The Shehy Mountains are on the border with Kerry and may be accessed from the area known as Priests Leap, near the village of Coomhola. The upland areas of the Ballyhoura, Boggeragh, Derrynasaggart, and Mullaghareirk Mountain ranges add to the range of habitats found in the county. Important habitats in the uplands include blanket bog, heath, glacial lakes, and upland grasslands. Cork has the 13th-highest county peak in Ireland.

Rivers and lakes
Three rivers, the Bandon, Blackwater, and Lee, and their valleys dominate central Cork. Habitats of the valleys and floodplains include woodlands, marshes, fens, and species-rich limestone grasslands. The River Bandon flows through several towns, including Dunmanway to the west of the town of Bandon before draining into Kinsale Harbour on the south coast. Cork's sea loughs include Lough Hyne and Lough Mahon, and the county also has many small lakes. An area has formed where the River Lee breaks into a network of channels weaving through a series of wooded islands, forming 85 hectares of swampland around Cork's wooded area. The Environmental Protection Agency carried out a survey of surface waters in County Cork between 1995 and 1997, which identified 125 rivers and 32 lakes covered by the regulations.

Land and forestry
Like many parts of Munster, Cork has fertile agricultural land and many bog and peatlands. Cork has around 74,000 hectares of peatlands, which amount to 9.8% of the county's total land area. Cork has the highest share of the national forest area, with around 90020 ha of forest and woodland area, constituting 11.6% of the national total and approximately 12% of Cork's land area. It is home to one of the last remaining pieces of native woodland in Ireland and Europe.

Wildlife
The hooded crow, Corvus cornix is a common bird, particularly in areas nearer the coast. Due to this bird's ability to (rarely) prey upon small lambs, the gun clubs of County Cork have killed many of these birds in modern times. A collection of the marine algae was housed in the herbarium of the botany department of the University College Cork. Parts of the South West coastline are hotspots for sightings of rare birds, with Cape Clear being a prime location for bird watching. The island is also home to one of only a few gannet colonies around Ireland and the UK. The coastline of Cork is sometimes associated with whale watching, with some sightings of fin whales, basking sharks, pilot whales, minke whales, and other species.

Coastline
Cork has a mountainous and flat landscape with many beaches and sea cliffs along its coast. The southwest of Ireland is known for its peninsulas and some in Cork include the Beara Peninsula, Sheep's Head, Mizen Head, and Brow Head. Brow Head is the most southerly point of mainland Ireland. There are many islands off the coast of the county, in particular, off West Cork. Carbery's Hundred Isles are the islands around Long Island Bay and Roaringwater Bay.

Fastnet Rock lies in the Atlantic Ocean 11.3 km south of mainland Ireland, making it the most southerly point of Ireland. Many notable islands lie off Cork, including Bere, Great Island, Sherkin, and Cape Clear. With an estimated 1199 km of coastline, Cork is one of three counties which claims to have the longest coastline in Ireland, alongside Mayo and Donegal. Cork is also one of just three counties to border two bodies of water – the Celtic Sea to the south and the Atlantic Ocean to the west.

History
The county is colloquially referred to as "The Rebel County", although uniquely Cork does not have an official motto. This name has 15th-century origins, but from the 20th century, the name has been more commonly attributed to the prominent role Cork played in the Irish War of Independence (1919–1921) when it was the scene of considerable fighting. In addition, it was an anti-Treaty stronghold during the Irish Civil War (1922–23). Much of what is now county Cork was once part of the Kingdom of Deas Mumhan (South Munster), anglicised as the "Desmond", ruled by the MacCarthy Mór dynasty. After the Norman invasion in the 12th century, the McCarthy clan were pushed westward into what is now West Cork and County Kerry. Dunlough Castle, standing just north of Mizen Head, is one of the oldest castles in Ireland (AD 1207). The north and east of Cork were taken by the Hiberno-Norman FitzGerald dynasty, who became the Earls of Desmond. Cork City was given an English Royal Charter in 1318 and for many centuries was an outpost for Old English culture. The Fitzgerald Desmond dynasty was destroyed in the Desmond Rebellions of 1569–1573 and 1579–1583. Much of county Cork was devastated in the fighting, particularly in the Second Desmond Rebellion. In the aftermath, much of Cork was colonised by English settlers in the Plantation of Munster.

In 1491 Cork played a part in the English Wars of the Roses when Perkin Warbeck, a pretender to the English throne spread the story that he was really Richard of Shrewsbury (one of the Princes in the Tower), landed in the city and tried to recruit support for a plot to overthrow King Henry VII of England. The Cork people supported Warbeck because he was Flemish and not English; Cork was the only county in Ireland to join the fight. The mayor of Cork and several important citizens went with Warbeck to England, but when the rebellion collapsed they were all captured and executed. Cork's nickname of the 'rebel county' (and Cork city's of the 'rebel city') originates in these events.

In 1601 the decisive Battle of Kinsale took place in County Cork, which was to lead to English domination of Ireland for centuries. Kinsale had been the scene of a landing of Spanish troops to help Irish rebels in the Nine Years' War (1594–1603). When this force was defeated, the rebel hopes for victory in the war were all but ended. County Cork was officially created by a division of the older County Desmond in 1606.

In the early 17th century, the townland of Leamcon (near Schull ) was a pirate stronghold, and pirates traded easily in Baltimore and Whiddy Island.

In the 19th century, Cork was a centre for the Fenians and for the constitutional nationalism of the Irish Parliamentary Party, from 1910 that of the All-for-Ireland Party. The county was a hotbed of guerrilla activity during the Irish War of Independence (1919–1921). Three Cork Brigades of the Irish Republican Army operated in the county and another in the city. Prominent actions included the Kilmichael Ambush in November 1920 and the Crossbarry Ambush in March 1921. The activity of IRA flying columns, such as the one under Tom Barry in west Cork, was popularised in the Ken Loach film The Wind That Shakes The Barley. On 11 December 1920, Cork City centre was gutted by fires started by the Black and Tans in reprisal for IRA attacks. Over 300 buildings were destroyed; many other towns and villages around the county, including Fermoy, suffered a similar fate.

During the Irish Civil War (1922–23), most of the IRA units in Cork sided against the Anglo-Irish Treaty. From July to August 1922 they held the city and county as part of the so-called Munster Republic. However, Cork was taken by troops of the Irish Free State in August 1922 in the Irish Free State offensive, which included both overland and seaborne attacks. For the remainder of the war, the county saw sporadic guerrilla fighting until the Anti-Treaty side called a ceasefire and dumped their arms in May 1923. Michael Collins, a key figure in the War of Independence, was born near Clonakilty and assassinated during the civil war in Béal na Bláth, both in west Cork.

Irish language
County Cork has two Gaeltacht areas in which the Irish language is the primary medium of everyday speech. These are Múscraí (Muskerry) in the north of the county, especially the villages of Cill Na Martra (Kilnamartyra), Baile Bhúirne (Ballyvourney), Cúil Aodha (Coolea), Béal Átha an Ghaorthaidh (Ballingeary), and Oileán Chléire (Cape Clear Island).

There are 14,829 Irish language speakers in County Cork, with 3,660 native speakers in the Cork Gaeltacht. In addition, in 2011 there were 6,273 pupils attending the 21 Gaelscoileanna and six Gaelcholáistí all across the county. According to the Irish Census 2006, there are 4,896 people in the county who identify themselves as being daily Irish speakers outside of the education system. Ballingeary is a centre for Irish language tuition, with a summer school, Coláiste na Mumhan, or the College of Munster.

Anthem
The song "The Banks of My Own Lovely Lee" is traditionally associated with the county. It is sometimes heard at GAA and other sports fixtures involving the county.

Media
Several media publications are printed and distributed in County Cork. These include the Irish Examiner (formerly the Cork Examiner) and its sister publication The Echo (formerly the Evening Echo). Local and regional newspapers include the Carrigdhoun, the Cork Independent, The Corkman, the Mallow Star, the Douglas Post, the East Cork Journal and The Southern Star. Local radio stations include Cork's 96FM and dual-franchise C103, Red FM, and a number of community radio stations, such as CRY 104.0FM.

Places of interest
Tourist sites include the Blarney Stone at Blarney Castle, Blarney. The port of Cobh in County Cork was the point of embarkation for many Irish emigrants travelling to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa or the United States. Cobh (at the time named 'Queenstown') was the last stop of the RMS Titanic before it departed on its fated journey.

Fota Wildlife Park, on Fota Island, is also a tourist attraction. Nearby is Fota House and Gardens and the Fota Golf Club and Resort; a European Tour standard golf course which hosted the Irish Open in 2001, 2002 and 2014.

West Cork is known for its rugged natural environment, beaches and social atmosphere, and is a common destination for British, German, French and Dutch tourists.

Economy
The South-West Region, comprising counties Cork and Kerry, contributed €103.2 billion (approximately US$111.6 billion) towards the Irish GDP in 2020.

The harbour area east of Cork city is home to many pharmaceutical and medical companies. Mahon Point Shopping Centre is Cork's largest, and Munster's second-largest, shopping centre; it contains over 75 stores including a retail park. The Golden Vale is among the most productive farmland for dairy in Ireland. The chief milk processor is Dairygold, a farmer-owned co-operative based in Mitchelstown, which processes 1.4 billion litres a year, converting the milk into cheeses and powder dairy nutrition for infant formula.

Demographics
The city of Cork forms the largest urban area in the county, with a total population of 224,004 as of 2022. Cork is the second-most populous city in the Republic of Ireland, and the third-most populous city on the island of Ireland. According to 2022 census statistics, the county has 13 towns with a population of over 4,000. The county has a population density of 77.8 PD/km2. A large percentage of the population lives in urban areas.

In the 1841 census, before the outbreak of the Great Famine, County Cork had a recorded population of 854,118. By the 2022 census, Cork city and county had a combined population of 584,156 people.

As of the 2022 census, ethnically the population included 78.5% White Irish people, 9.9% other White background, 1.4% Asian and 1.1% Black. In 2022, the largest religious denominations in Cork were: Catholicism (71%), Church of Ireland (2.3%), Orthodox (1.2%), and Islam (1.2%). Those stating that they had no religion accounted for 15.7% of the population in 2022.

Transport
Cork's main transport is serviced from:
 * Air: Cork International Airport
 * Rail: Iarnród Éireann's InterCity, Commuter and Freight rail services
 * Sea: Port of Cork at Cork Harbour

People
Common surnames in the county include Barry, Buckley, Callaghan, Connell, Connor, Crowley, Lynch, McCarthy, Murphy, O'Leary, O'Sullivan, Sheehan, Walsh, and Fitzgerald (the latter with a Norman derivation).

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

title: County Cork


text:
Fort Ticonderoga

Fort Ticonderoga, formerly Fort Carillon, is a large 18th-century star fort built by the French at a narrows near the south end of Lake Champlain, in northern New York, in the United States. It was constructed by Canadian-born French military engineer Michel Chartier de Lotbinière, Marquis de Lotbinière between October 1755 and 1757, during the action in the "North American theater" of the Seven Years' War, often referred to in the US as the French and Indian War. The fort was of strategic importance during the 18th-century colonial conflicts between Great Britain and France, and again played an important role during the Revolutionary War.

The site controlled a river portage alongside the mouth of the rapids-infested La Chute River, in the 3.5 mi between Lake Champlain and Lake George. It was thus strategically placed for the competition over trade routes between the British-controlled Hudson River Valley and the French-controlled Saint Lawrence River Valley.

The terrain amplified the importance of the site. Both lakes were long and narrow and oriented north–south, as were the many ridge lines of the Appalachian Mountains, which extended as far south as Georgia. The mountains created nearly impassable terrains to the east and west of the Great Appalachian Valley that the site commanded.

The name "Ticonderoga" comes from the Iroquois word tekontaró:ken, meaning "it is at the junction of two waterways".

During the 1758 Battle of Carillon, 4,000 French defenders were able to repel an attack by 16,000 British troops near the fort. In 1759, the British returned and drove a token French garrison from the fort. During the Revolutionary War, when the British controlled the fort, it was attacked on May 10, 1775, in the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga by the Green Mountain Boys and other state militia under the command of Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold, who captured it in the surprise attack. Cannons taken from the fort were transported to Boston to lift its siege by the British, who evacuated the city in March 1776. The Americans held the fort until June 1777, when British forces under General John Burgoyne occupied high ground above it; the threat resulted in the Continental Army troops being withdrawn from the fort and its surrounding defenses. The only direct attack on the fort during the Revolution took place in September 1777, when John Brown led 500 Americans in an unsuccessful attempt to capture the fort from about 100 British defenders.

The British abandoned the fort after the failure of the Saratoga campaign, and it ceased to be of military value after 1781. After gaining independence, the United States allowed the fort to fall into ruin; local residents stripped it of much of its usable materials. Purchased by a private family in 1820, it became a stop on tourist routes of the area. Early in the 20th century, its private owners restored the fort. A foundation, the Fort Ticonderoga Association, now operates the fort as a tourist attraction, museum, and research center.

Geography and early history
Lake Champlain, which forms part of the border between New York and Vermont, and the Hudson River together formed an important travel route that was used by Native Americans long before the arrival of European colonists. The route was relatively free of obstacles to navigation, with only a few portages. One strategically important place on the route lies at a narrows near the southern end of Lake Champlain, where Ticonderoga Creek, known in colonial times as La Chute River, because it was named by French colonists, enters the lake, carrying water from Lake George. Although the site provides commanding views of the southern extent of Lake Champlain, Mount Defiance, at 853 ft, and two other hills (Mount Hope and Mount Independence) overlook the area.

Native Americans had occupied the area for centuries before French explorer Samuel de Champlain first arrived there in 1609. Champlain recounted that the Algonquins, with whom he was traveling, battled a group of Iroquois nearby. In 1642, French missionary Isaac Jogues was the first white man to traverse the portage at Ticonderoga while escaping a battle between the Iroquois and members of the Huron tribe.

The French, who had colonized the Saint Lawrence River valley to the north, and the English, who had taken over the Dutch settlements that became the Province of New York to the south, began contesting the area as early as 1691, when Pieter Schuyler built a small wooden fort at the Ticonderoga point on the western shore of the lake. These colonial conflicts reached their height in the French and Indian War, which began in 1754 as the North American front of the Seven Years' War.

Construction
In 1755, following the Battle of Lake George, the French decided to construct a fort here. Marquis de Vaudreuil, the governor of the French Province of Canada, sent his cousin Michel Chartier de Lotbinière to design and construct a fortification at this militarily important site, which the French called Fort Carillon. The name "Carillon" has variously been attributed to the name of a former French officer, Philippe de Carrion du Fresnoy, who established a trading post at the site in the late 17th century, or (more commonly) to the sounds made by the rapids of La Chute River, which were said to resemble the chiming bells of a carillon. Construction on the star-shaped fort, which Lotbinière based on designs of the renowned French military engineer Vauban, began in October 1755 and then proceeded slowly during the warmer-weather months of 1756 and 1757, using troops stationed at nearby Fort St. Frédéric and from Canada.

The work in 1755 consisted primarily of beginning construction on the main walls and on the Lotbinière redoubt, an outwork to the west of the site that provided additional coverage of La Chute River. During the next year, the four main bastions were built, as well as a sawmill on La Chute. Work slowed in 1757, when many of the troops prepared for and participated in the attack on Fort William Henry. The barracks and demi-lunes were not completed until spring 1758.

Walls and bastions
The French built the fort to control the south end of Lake Champlain and prevent the British from gaining military access to the lake. Consequently, its most important defenses, the Reine and Germaine bastions, were directed to the northeast and northwest, away from the lake, with two demi-lunes further extending the works on the land side. The Joannes and Languedoc bastions overlooked the lake to the south, providing cover for the landing area outside the fort. The walls were 7 ft high and 14 ft thick, and the whole works was surrounded by a glacis and a dry moat 5 ft deep and 15 ft wide. When the walls were first erected in 1756, they were made of squared wooden timbers, with earth filling the gap. The French then began to dress the walls with stone from a quarry about one mile (1.6 km) away, although this work was never fully completed. When the main defenses became ready for use, the fort was armed with cannons hauled from Montreal and Fort St. Frédéric.

Inside and outside
The fort contained three barracks and four storehouses. One bastion held a bakery capable of producing 60 loaves of bread a day. A powder magazine was hacked out of the bedrock beneath the Joannes bastion. All the construction within the fort was of stone.

A wooden palisade protected an area outside the fort between the southern wall and the lake shore. This area contained the main landing for the fort and additional storage facilities and other works necessary for maintenance of the fort. When it became apparent in 1756 that the fort was too far to the west of the lake, the French constructed an additional redoubt to the east to enable cannon to cover the lake's narrows.

Analysis
By 1758, the fort was largely complete; the only ongoing work thereafter consisted of dressing the walls with stone. Still, General Montcalm and two of his military engineers surveyed the works in 1758 and found something to criticize in almost every aspect of the fort's construction; the buildings were too tall and thus easier for attackers' cannon fire to hit, the powder magazine leaked, and the masonry was of poor quality. The critics apparently failed to notice the fort's significant strategic weakness: several nearby hills overlooked the fort and made it possible for besiegers to fire down on the defenders from above. Lotbinière, who may have won the job of building the fort only because he was related to Governor Vaudreuil, had lost a bid to become Canada's chief engineer to Nicolas Sarrebource de Pontleroy, one of the two surveying engineers, in 1756, all of which may explain the highly negative report. Lotbinière's career suffered for years afterwards.

William Nester, in his exhaustive analysis of the Battle of Carillon, notes additional problems with the fort's construction. The fort was small for a Vauban-style fort, about 500 ft wide, with a barracks capable of holding only 400 soldiers. Storage space inside the fort was similarly limited, requiring the storage of provisions outside the fort's walls in exposed places. Its cistern was small, and the water quality was supposedly poor.

French and Indian War
In August 1757, the French captured Fort William Henry in an action launched from Fort Carillon. This, and a string of other French victories in 1757, prompted the British to organize a large-scale attack on the fort as part of a multi-campaign strategy against French Canada. In June 1758, British General James Abercromby began amassing a large force at Fort William Henry in preparation for a military campaign directed up the Champlain Valley. These forces landed at the north end of Lake George, only four miles from the fort, on July 6. The French general Louis-Joseph de Montcalm, who had only arrived at Carillon in late June, engaged his troops in a flurry of work to improve the fort's outer defenses. They built, over two days, entrenchments around a rise between the fort and Mount Hope, about three-quarters of a mile (one kilometer) northwest of the fort, and then constructed an abatis (felled trees with sharpened branches pointing out) below these entrenchments. They conducted the work unimpeded by military action, as Abercromby failed to advance directly to the fort on July 7. Abercromby's second-in-command, Brigadier General George Howe, had been killed when his column encountered a French reconnaissance troop. Abercromby "felt [Howe's death] most heavily" and may have been unwilling to act immediately.

On July 8, 1758, Abercromby ordered a frontal attack against the hastily assembled French works. Abercromby tried to move rapidly against the few French defenders, opting to forgo field cannon and relying instead on the numerical superiority of his 16,000 troops. In the Battle of Carillon, the British were soundly defeated by the 4,000 French defenders. The battle took place far enough away from the fort that its guns were rarely used. The battle gave the fort a reputation for impregnability, which affected future military operations in the area, notably during the American Revolutionary War. Following the French victory, Montcalm, anticipating further British attacks, ordered additional work on the defenses, including the construction of the Germain and Pontleroy redoubts (named for the engineers under whose direction they were constructed) to the northeast of the fort. However, the British did not attack again in 1758, so the French withdrew all but a small garrison of men for the winter in November.

The British under General Jeffery Amherst captured the fort the following year in the 1759 Battle of Ticonderoga. In this confrontation 11,000 British troops, using emplaced artillery, drove off the token garrison of 400 Frenchmen. The French, in withdrawing, used explosives to destroy what they could of the fort and spiked or dumped cannons that they did not take with them. Although the British worked in 1759 and 1760 to repair and improve the fort, it was not part of any further significant action in the war. After the war, the British garrisoned the fort with a small number of troops and allowed it to fall into disrepair. Colonel Frederick Haldimand, in command of the fort in 1773, wrote that it was in "ruinous condition".

Early Revolutionary War
In 1775, Fort Ticonderoga, in disrepair, was still manned by a token British force. They found it extremely useful as a supply and communication link between Canada (which they had taken over after their victory in the Seven Years' War) and New York. On May 10, 1775, less than one month after the Revolutionary War was ignited with the battles of Lexington and Concord, the British garrison of 48 soldiers was surprised by a small force of Green Mountain Boys, along with militia volunteers from Massachusetts and Connecticut, led by Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold. Allen claimed to have said, "Come out you old Rat!" to the fort's commander, Captain William Delaplace. He also later said that he demanded that the British commander surrender the fort "In the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress!"; however, his surrender demand was made to Lieutenant Jocelyn Feltham and not the fort's commander, who did later appear and surrender his sword.

With the capture of the fort, the Patriot forces obtained a large supply of cannons and other armaments, much of which Henry Knox transported to Boston during the winter of 1775–1776. Ticonderoga's cannons were instrumental in ending the siege of Boston when they were used to fortify Dorchester Heights. With Dorchester Heights secured by the Patriots, the British were forced to evacuate the city in March 1776. The capture of Fort Ticonderoga by the Patriots made communication between the British Canadian and American commands much more difficult.

Benedict Arnold remained in control of the fort until 1,000 Connecticut troops under the command of Benjamin Hinman arrived in June 1775. Because of a series of political maneuvers and miscommunications, Arnold was never notified that Hinman was to take command. After a delegation from Massachusetts (which had issued Arnold's commission) arrived to clarify the matter, Arnold resigned his commission and departed, leaving the fort in Hinman's hands.

Beginning in July 1775, Ticonderoga was used as a staging area for the invasion of Quebec, planned to begin in September. Under the leadership of generals Philip Schuyler and Richard Montgomery, men and materiel for the invasion were accumulated there through July and August. On August 28, after receiving word that British forces at Fort Saint-Jean, not far from the New York–Quebec border, were nearing completion of boats to launch onto Lake Champlain, Montgomery launched the invasion, leading 1,200 troops down the lake. Ticonderoga continued to serve as a staging base for the action in Quebec until the battle and siege at Quebec City that resulted in Montgomery's death.

In May 1776, British troops began to arrive at Quebec City, where they broke the Continental Army's siege. The British chased the American forces back to Ticonderoga in June and, after several months of shipbuilding, moved down Lake Champlain under Guy Carleton in October. The British destroyed a small fleet of American gunboats in the Battle of Valcour Island in mid-October, but snow was already falling, so the British retreated to winter quarters in Quebec. About 1,700 troops from the Continental Army, under the command of Colonel Anthony Wayne, wintered at Ticonderoga. The British offensive resumed the next year in the Saratoga campaign under General John Burgoyne.

Saratoga campaign
During the summer of 1776, the Americans, under the direction of General Schuyler, and later under General Horatio Gates, added substantial defensive works to the area. Mount Independence, which is almost completely surrounded by water, was fortified with trenches near the water, a horseshoe battery part way up the side, a citadel at the summit, and redoubts armed with cannons surrounding the summit area. These defenses were linked to Ticonderoga with a pontoon bridge that was protected by land batteries on both sides. The works on Mount Hope, the heights above the site of Montcalm's victory, were improved to include a star-shaped fort. Mount Defiance remained unfortified.

In March 1777, American generals were strategizing about possible British military movements and considered an attempt on the Hudson River corridor a likely possibility. General Schuyler, heading the forces stationed at Ticonderoga, requested 10,000 troops to guard Ticonderoga and 2,000 to guard the Mohawk River valley against British invasion from the north. George Washington, who had never been to Ticonderoga (his only visit was to be in 1783), believed that an overland attack from the north was unlikely, because of the alleged impregnability of Ticonderoga. This, combined with continuing incursions up the Hudson River valley by British forces occupying New York City, led Washington to believe that any attack on the Albany area would be from the south, which, as it was part of the supply line to Ticonderoga, would necessitate a withdrawal from the fort. As a result, no significant actions were taken to further fortify Ticonderoga or significantly increase its garrison. The garrison, about 2,000 men under General Arthur St. Clair, was too small to man all the defenses.

General Gates, who oversaw the northern defenses, was aware that Mount Defiance threatened the fort. John Trumbull had pointed this out as early as 1776, when a shot fired from the fort was able to reach Defiance's summit, and several officers inspecting the hill noted that there were approaches to its summit where gun carriages could be pulled up the sides. As the garrison was too small to properly defend all the existing works in the area, Mount Defiance was left undefended. Anthony Wayne left Ticonderoga in April 1777 to join Washington's army; he reported to Washington that "all was well", and that the fort "can never be carried, without much loss of blood".

General Burgoyne led 7,800 British and Hessian forces south from Quebec in June 1777. After occupying nearby Fort Crown Point without opposition on June 30, he prepared to besiege Ticonderoga. Burgoyne realized the tactical advantage of the high ground, and had his troops haul cannons to the top of Mount Defiance. Faced with bombardment from the heights (although no shots had yet been fired), General St. Clair ordered Ticonderoga abandoned on July 5, 1777. Burgoyne's troops moved in the next day, with advance guards pursuing the retreating Patriot Americans. Washington, on hearing of Burgoyne's advance and the retreat from Ticonderoga, stated that the event was "not apprehended, nor within the compass of my reasoning". News of the abandonment of the "Impregnable Bastion" without a fight, caused "the greatest surprise and alarm" throughout the colonies. After public outcry over his actions, General St. Clair was court-martialed in 1778. He was cleared on all charges.

One last attack
Following the British capture of Ticonderoga, it and the surrounding defenses were garrisoned by 700 British and Hessian troops under the command of Brigadier General Henry Watson Powell. Most of these forces were on Mount Independence, with only 100 each at Fort Ticonderoga and a blockhouse they were constructing on top of Mount Defiance. George Washington sent General Benjamin Lincoln into Vermont to "divide and distract the enemy". Aware that the British were housing American prisoners in the area, Lincoln decided to test the British defenses. On September 13, he sent 500 men to Skenesboro, which they found the British had abandoned, and 500 each against the defenses on either side of the lake at Ticonderoga. Colonel John Brown led the troops on the west side, with instructions to release prisoners if possible, and attack the fort if it seemed feasible.

Early on September 18, Brown's troops surprised a British contingent holding some prisoners near the Lake George landing, while a detachment of his troops sneaked up Mount Defiance, and captured most of the sleeping construction crew. Brown and his men then moved down the portage trail toward the fort, surprising more troops and releasing prisoners along the way. The fort's occupants were unaware of the action until Brown's men and British troops occupying the old French lines skirmished. At this point Brown's men dragged two captured six-pound guns up to the lines, and began firing on the fort. The men who had captured Mount Defiance began firing a twelve-pounder from that site. The column that was to attack Mount Independence was delayed, and its numerous defenders were alerted to the action at the fort below before the attack on their position began. Their musket fire, as well as grapeshot fired from ships anchored nearby, intimidated the Americans sufficiently that they never launched an assault on the defensive positions on Mount Independence. A stalemate persisted, with regular exchanges of cannon fire, until September 21, when 100 Hessians, returning from the Mohawk Valley to support Burgoyne, arrived on the scene to provide reinforcement to the besieged fort. Brown eventually sent a truce party to the fort to open negotiations; the party was fired on, and three of its five members were killed. Brown, realizing that the weaponry they had was insufficient to take the fort, decided to withdraw. Destroying many bateaux and seizing a ship on Lake George, he set off to annoy British positions on that lake. His action resulted in the freeing of 118 Americans and the capture of 293 British troops, while suffering fewer than ten casualties.

Abandonment
Following Burgoyne's defeat at Saratoga, the fort at Ticonderoga became increasingly irrelevant. The British abandoned it and nearby Fort Crown Point in November 1777, destroying both as best they could prior to their withdrawal. The fort was occasionally reoccupied by British raiding parties in the following years, but it no longer held a prominent strategic role in the war. It was finally abandoned by the British for good in 1781, following their surrender at Yorktown. In the years following the war, area residents stripped the fort of usable building materials, even melting some of the cannons down for their metal.

Tourist attraction

In 1785, the fort's lands became the property of the state of New York. The state donated the property to Columbia and Union colleges in 1803. The colleges sold the property to William Ferris Pell in 1820.

Pell first used the property as a summer retreat. Completion of railroads and canals connecting the area to New York City brought tourists to the area, so he converted his summer house, known as The Pavilion, into a hotel to serve the tourist trade. In 1848, the Hudson River School artist Russell Smith painted Ruins of Fort Ticonderoga, depicting the condition of the fort.

The Pell family, a politically important clan with influence throughout American history (from William C. C. Claiborne, the first Governor of Louisiana, to a Senator from Rhode Island, Claiborne Pell), hired English architect Alfred Bossom to restore the fort and formally opened it to the public in 1909 as an historic site. The ceremonies, which commemorated the 300th anniversary of the discovery of Lake Champlain by European explorers, were attended by President William Howard Taft. Stephen Hyatt Pell, who spearheaded the restoration effort, founded the Fort Ticonderoga Association in 1931, which is now responsible for the fort. Funding for the restoration also came from Robert M. Thompson, father of Stephen Pell's wife, Sarah Gibbs Thompson.

Between 1900 and 1950, the foundation acquired the historically important lands around the fort, including Mount Defiance, Mount Independence, and much of Mount Hope. The fort was rearmed with fourteen 24-pound cannons provided by the British government. These cannons had been cast in England for use during the American Revolution, but the war ended before they were shipped over.

Designated as a National Historic Landmark by the Department of Interior, the fort is now operated by the foundation as a tourist attraction, early American military museum, and research center. The fort opens annually around May 10, the anniversary of the 1775 capture, and closes in late October.

The fort has been on a watchlist of National Historic Landmarks since 1998, because of the poor condition of some of the walls and of the 19th-century pavilion constructed by William Ferris Pell. The pavilion was being restored in 2009. In 2008, the powder magazine, destroyed by the French in 1759, was reconstructed by Tonetti Associates Architects, based in part on the original 1755 plans. Also in 2008, the withdrawal of a major backer's financial support forced the museum, which was facing significant budget deficits, to consider selling one of its major art works, Thomas Cole's Gelyna, View near Ticonderoga. However, fundraising activities were successful enough to prevent the sale.

The not-for-profit Living History Education Foundation conducts teacher programs at Fort Ticonderoga during the summer that last approximately one week. The program trains teachers how to teach Living History techniques, and to understand and interpret the importance of Fort Ticonderoga during the French and Indian War and the American Revolution.

The fort conducts other seminars, symposia, and workshops throughout the year, including the annual War College of the Seven Years' War in May and the Seminar on the American Revolution in September.

The Pell family estate is located north of the fort. In 1921, Sarah Pell undertook reconstruction of the gardens. She hired Marian Cruger Coffin, one of the most famous American landscape architects of the period. In 1995, the gardens were restored and later opened for public visiting; they are known as the King's Garden.

Memorials
The U.S. Navy has given the name 'Ticonderoga' to five different vessels, as well as to entire classes of cruisers and aircraft carriers.

The fort was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1960. Included in the landmarked area are Mount Independence and Mount Defiance, as well as the fort. It was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1966. The Ticonderoga pencil, manufactured by the Dixon Ticonderoga Corporation, is named for the fort.

Other sources

 * and (13.5 MB)
 * and (13.5 MB)
 * and (13.5 MB)

title: Fort Ticonderoga


text:
User:Efm~enwiki

Welcome to Wikipedia, Efm!

It's great that you're uploading stuff from the 1911 encyclopedia, but please don't call it the "Gutenberg Encyclopedia"--they don't want us to do that, for some reason. --LMS

title: User:Efm~enwiki


text:
User talk:Egern~enwiki

Describe the new page here.I shall be ruled by you, sir. (from some Shakespearean play, I think). I'm currently wondering whether to engage the interlocutor or just wait for him to get bored.

By the way, where's the "unvandalized" version?

--User:Ed Poor

Ed, it's not my attempt to overrule you, I just don't want a vandal to be encouraged. If you want to work on the article, I've restored the non-vandalized version.

In view of some of your recent comments I would be interested in knowing if you know much about the topic of feminism, and especially 19th century feminism in the United States?

You seem to believe that you have no bias yourself. Perhaps this is true. The problem is that after you study a topic for a long time you generally do have certain views about it. Do you feel that a lack of knowledge of the topic of feminism is the reason that you have to wipe out other people's work, rather than correct it? What I mean is do you have a gut feeling that what I've said is wrong, but lack the ability to balance it out because of your ignorance, and this is why you resort to simply wiping out entire paragraphs?

Perhaps I should ask someone who knows something about the topic to look at the page (that is -- before you vandalised it). David Byron

Well now I am embarrassed by what I wrote because you decided to reinstate my efforts... but honestly I do wonder about how the system of balances and checks can work if on some obscure topic one person is writing with enthusiasm (and therefore likely a POV) and the people who would normally be the saftey net aren't as knowledgeable. Said without prejudice. I don't know what you know about the topic. Call it a theoretical question.

I freely admit that I have biases. I try to be aware of my biases when I write an article, and I (like lots of other people here) try to correct biases from others that I find to be wrong. But I am also human, which means that I make mistakes and I sometimes show my bias even when I try otherwise. You are correct that often people who care passionately about a controversial subject often know more about it and are less able to be objective. Feminism is obviously a subject that both you and I feel strongly about. I let my emotions overrule my reactions to this subject, and it was inappropriate. I am not a "senior" participant in this project, by the way. I am relatively new here, although not as new as you are.

I have a little experience with XP programming and with Wiki in other contexts. But this encyclopedia is something else. I really like Wiki, but I have to wonder if this is just too much. This whole project is like some Wiki-nutcase asked themselves one day, '''what's the hardest most mind-blowing thing to do with Wiki? What is the hardest thing to do considering the supposed weaknesses of Wiki?'''. Oh right. Let's write an authoratative document. No make it 100,000 authoratative documents.....

Sure. I'm game :-)

But I think this is a bridge too far. On the other hand I think the commitment and discipline of the Wiki way will help me thresh out my own ideas on feminism which I find invaluable. I've been on the net for about three years discussing feminism with hundreds of feminists on bill boards but the problem is without a structure it becomes flame almost immidiately (partly because most feminists don't know much about feminism). Don't worry I am not going to turn the article into an argument for my favourite theories on feminism - beleive me it gets a lot worse than what you've seen so far. Actually just trying to put down words in a good structure has already been rewarding for me. David Byron

I noticed you removed an "of course" from the God article. I agree that that particular article was better without it, but for a rebuttal of the general principle that the words "of course" should never be used here, see.

Hmmm, that is an interesting example of when it might be acceptable to use "of course". My first take on it (and here is a long reply) is that the parallel construction that is used there is a little awkward. Is it saying the following?

the Hebrew letter "Aleph" is often used by mathematicians to denote certain kinds of infinity the Hebrew letter "Aleph" is also used by mathematicians in ordinary Hebrew text.

or is it saying this: the Hebrew letter "Aleph" is often used by mathematicians to denote certain kinds of infinity the Hebrew letter "Aleph" is also used generally in ordinary Hebrew text

I actually think the phrasing is ambiguous as to what it means, but my guess is that it means the latter. If it means the latter, then I think the construction isn't quite right, and I would probably rephrase it with some other parallel construction, probably without the "of course". I think the "of course" is a way of justifying repetition in the two clauses of the sentence, because you are using "Hebrew" in both parts of it, so the "of course" is a way of acknowledging the repetition in the second clause and explaining it away with an "of course". Anyway, you could say:

 * Yes, I meant the latter. But I'm not trying to cover repitition, I'm deliberately using "of course" to say something like "This usage, unlike the one I just mentioned earlier, is not a special usage by a limited group for some odd purpose, but the everyday usage you'd expect, and I'm just mentioning it here to be complete."

In addition to its everyday use in Hebrew text, the letter "Aleph" is also used in mathematical notation to denote certain kinds of infinity.

 * Yes, that works quite well, and is pretty much what the sentence says, but you're omitting the context around the sentence: that I'm trying to explain the difference between a "character" as a unit of information and a "glyph" which is its physical appearance; notably, different characters can share an apprearance, for example, the Hebrew letter Aleph.... If I used your sentence, I'd have to say "For example, the Hebrew letter Aleph, in addition to its everyday use in Hebrew text, is also used...".  It's purely a matter of taste, but I find that one a bit awkward.  I'd rather have the main point of the sentence (that the character has this special use) up front and complete, and only then mention that oh, by the way, that's a special case.

 * At any rate, I'm sure it could be worded in many other ways; I just used it as an example that one of the ways I happen to like has an "of course" in it, and that it seemed OK in that case. Just a curiosity.

In that case, I am not repeating "Hebrew" because the antecedent is in the previous clause and "Hebrew" is implied. But even if I did put "Hebrew" in the second clause, I think it would only be a little awkward.

or:

In addition to its general use in the everyday text, the Hebrew letter "Aleph" is also used in mathematical notation to denote certain kinds of infinity.

Anyway, my 2 cents worth. Thanks for pointing out that example, though--I can definitely see where it is not exactly the same thing as the use of "of course" as it often appears in other examples, and I am not terribly bothered but it in the example you cited.

It is clear to me that there is little serious committment to NPOV in Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles on controversial subjects seem to end up being everyone's pet debating forum, where everyone tries to get their own side in. Then the article becomes "balanced" if both sides manage to get an approximately equal amount of text into the article. If one side doesn't happen to participate in this process, oh well, c'est la vie.

This whole process can be carried out to absurdity. An article on cross burning? Oh yeah, here's how the wikipedia approach would work: "Well, proponents say that it is a legitimate form of self expression to protect the white race, while opponents consider it intimidation." Slavery? "Proponents argue that certain classes of human beings are inferior, while others believe that all human beings have the right to dignity". Blah blah blah. This is NPOV, this is just nonsense. --Egern

Things that can be done about it: Of course no specifics from me - I've never made scientific research about NPOV issue on Wikipedia. --Taw
 * This issue can be ignored, as more than 95% of articles don't have such problems. This is probably prefered solution now.
 * In such projects, people follow existing examples, this can be exploited in some way. Still quite realistic.
 * Structure of project changes the way participants behave, this can be exploited in some way. Least realistic, but could give best results.

When I first participated in this project, I had a certain naive idealism about it. I hoped that, except for the occasional obvious act of vandalism, that there would be in general a certain commitment to objectivity, rather than just using articles as a means of promoting one's own agenda. Yet, except for the patently noncontroversial articles, it seems to be all about personal agendas. This clash of agendas is supposed to miracuslously produce objective articles as the end result, I suppose, and sometimes perhaps it does, but having to go into battle in every single article gets tiresome real quickly. Do people actually edit their own writing here before they press the save button? Do they say to themselves, "I feel strongly about this subject, but I should be careful about what I write so as to be fair."?

I realize we all have our biases, and I admit to having mine, but this is just ridiculous. I find this whole process draining. I have neither the time nor the inclination to constantly go into battle with other points of view in every article that gets written. It shouldn't have to be that way. There is no culture here of "bending over backwards". Instead, the prevailing culture of this project is to "charge forward and let the other side edit what I write if they don't like it". It seems like everyone here wears their agendas on their sleeve like a badge of honor, and while that might be fun for a debating society, it isn't very enjoyable for an encyclopedia project.

I am sorry that you feel this way. I just want to say that I have appreciated your contributions and wish you would reconsider. I for one would (will?) regret your leaving. -- SR

 * Thanks, SR. I appreciate your comments.  I think I need to leave for my own peace of mind as much as anything else.

I wrote a question about the phrase in your paragraph on Esperanto, Because Esperanto is so well known on talk:Esperanto.

Well personally, I appreciate your balance of anti-Esperantism on the Esperanto article and hope you'll write more for the Wikipedia... and I admit to my lack of NPOV on that article and I hope you're not leaving because of that... I've since learned what NPOV means...

(rant mode) Actually what you said about idealism hits home to me too now, when I first learned Esperanto I thought there could be a chance everyone would be speaking it as a second language, but I realize now that this really isn't possible, but it's still a great way to meet people from around the world. The idea isn't that it's perfect (like Wikipedia isn't perfect), but it's very cool, and very useful. This is probably one reason I'm putting so much time and effort into the Esperanto Wikipedia after all... (end rant mode)

That said, I would have much rather that you edited the article yourself after my comment rather than just suggesting how to fix it. If you need to take leave, I hope you can come back soon. Thanks. --Chuck Smith

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Egern. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Egern~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Egern~enwiki


text:
User:Eijkhout

Victor Eijkhout is a Dutch mathematician/computer scientist, currently residing in the United States of America. His hobbies include music and dancing. He has written a TeX book (source available under GFDL, printed version through lulu.com; see external links).

Short history

 * 1959 - born in Arnhem in the Netherlands
 * 1965 - moved to Nijmegen
 * 1990 - Ph.D. in mathematics from the Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen in the Netherlands (now the Radboud University Nijmegen). Moved to the US.

title: User:Eijkhout