text:
European Ombudsman

The European Ombudsman is an inter-institutional body of the European Union that holds the institutions, bodies and agencies of the EU to account, and promotes good administration. The Ombudsman helps people, businesses and organisations facing problems with the EU administration by investigating complaints, as well as by proactively looking into broader systemic issues. The current Ombudsman is Emily O'Reilly.

The European Ombudsman has offices in Strasbourg and Brussels.

History
The European Ombudsman was established by the Maastricht Treaty and the first, Jacob Söderman of Finland, was elected by Parliament in 1995. The current Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly of Ireland, took office on 1 October 2013.

Appointment
The European Ombudsman is elected by the European Parliament. The Ombudsman is elected for the term of 5 years and the term is renewable. At the request of Parliament, the Ombudsman may be removed by the Court of Justice if "(s)he no longer fulfils the conditions required for the performance of his duties or if (s)he is guilty of serious misconduct". (Article 228 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU)

Remit and powers
Any EU citizen or entity may appeal the Ombudsman to investigate an EU institution on the grounds of maladministration: administrative irregularities, unfairness, discrimination, abuse of power, failure to reply, refusal of information or unnecessary delay. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the European Court of Justice in its judicial capacity, the General Court, the Civil Service Tribunal, national and regional administrations (even where EU law is concerned), judiciaries, private individuals or corporations.

The Ombudsman has no binding powers to compel compliance with their rulings, but the overall level of compliance is high. The Ombudsman primarily relies on the power of persuasion and publicity. In 2011, the overall rate of compliance by the EU institutions with their suggestions was 82%. The EU Agencies had a compliance rate of 100%. The compliance rate of the European Commission was the same as the overall figure of 82%, while the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) scored 69%.

Cases
It is a right of an EU citizen, according to the EU treaties, to take a case to the Ombudsman. One example of a case dealt with by the Ombudsman involved a late payment from the commission to a German science journalist. The Commission explained the delay, paid interest and accelerated future payments to experts. On another occasion, following a complaint from a Hungarian, EPSO agreed to clarify information in recruitment competition notices concerning eligibility and pre-selection tests. A third case was resolved when the Ombudsman compelled the council to release to the public documents it had previously not acknowledged the existence of.

The ombudsman received 2,667 complaints in the year 2010 and opened 335 investigations into alleged maladministration. In 2011 2,510 complaints were received and 396 investigations were opened. The largest number of complaints in 2011 came from Spain (361), followed by Germany with 308. Relative to population, however, the greatest proportion of complaints came from Luxembourg and Cyprus. The United Kingdom, despite its eurosceptic reputation, was in 2009 responsible for the smallest number of cases lodged. In 2011 the UK was responsible for 141 complaints to the Ombudsman, still representing a relatively low ratio of complaints to population.

According to the Ombudsman's own reports, 58% of complaints in 2011 were related to the European Commission. 11% related to the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) from dissatisfied applicants to the European Civil Service and 4% to the European Parliament. The Council of the European Union accounted for 3%.

Main subjects of action
The main mission guiding the European Ombudsman's work is the "right to good administration" that is recognized as a human right in the EU. The European Ombudsman helps citizens, companies and associations that face problems with EU administration. The main areas of inquiries of European Ombudsman relate to the transparency of EU institutions administration; transparency and accountability in EU decision-making; lobbying transparency; ethical issues; fundamental rights; EU competitions policy; and citizen participation in EU decision-making.

Transparency in the right of accessing EU documents
Complaints concerning lack of transparency are the most common category of complaints received by the European Ombudsman, representing between 20% and 30% of complaints. They are mainly related to the refusal of EU institution(s) to grant documents upon a citizen's request. This right of citizens to access EU documents is granted by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. In case a citizen is prevented from accessing such requested documents, he or she can turn with a complaint to the European Ombudsman to try to achieve a resolution. For instance, in case 693/2011/RA, following European Medicines Agency (EMA)'s refusal to grant public access to clinical studies carried out on a multiple sclerosis drug, the Ombudsman made a friendly solution proposal on it with some detailed suggestions for the particular case, trying to achieve the transparency the complainant was requesting. EMA positively received this and fully accepted the friendly solution proposal by European Ombudsman.

Lobbying transparency
European Ombudsman works to ensure that the EU's democratic decision-making process is characterized by the highest transparency standards. For that, special attention is given to interest groups and their engagement and influence in EU institutions. Lobbying transparency is one of the main topics of action of the European Ombudsman, through various strategic initiatives, trying to mitigate potential conflicts of interest. The European Ombudsman was involved in the Transparency Register, which has enabled citizens to know who is trying to influence EU decision-makers. For instance, in 2014, the European Ombudsman published, after a formal inquiry, a final decision stating that the "Commission's refusal to publish online details of all meetings which its services and its staff have with the tobacco industry" constituted maladministration.

Ethical issues
Ethic issues related complaints to European Ombudsman can go from conflicts of interest to "revolving doors" situations, where someone working in the private sector moves to closely links jobs in the public jobs or vice versa. The European Ombudsman has defended that EU administration must comply with "gold standards when it comes to ethical behaviour".

For instance, one inquiry, concluded in 2020, investigated corporate sponsorship of the Presidency of the Council of the EU. Started from a complaint NGO who raised the concern of the Romanian EU Presidency receiving sponsorship by a major soft drinks company in the context of the Presidency. The Ombudsman considered that "as the Presidency is part of the Council, its activities are likely to be perceived by the wider European public as being linked to the Council of the EU as a whole" and might entail "reputational risks". The Council ended up agreeing to the European Ombudsman consideration and drew guidance for Member States indicating that they would no longer accept sponsorship in the context of their presidencies.

Fundamental rights
A key part of European Ombudsman work is to ensure that EU institutions respect fundamental rights. For example, in 2015 the European Ombudsman conducted an investigation, in collaboration with 19 members of the European Network of Ombudsmen, into the compliance of fundamental rights by Frontex when forcing migrants to return to their home countries. It concluded that there was significant "room for improvement" as to how it was handling joint returns of illegal migrants and, in that scope, made detailed recommendations as to how Frontex could improve. Frontex responded positively to many of these recommendations.

Citizen participation
In its role as moderator and bridge between citizens and the EU institutions, the European Ombudsman also promotes citizens' participation and involvement in European politics, by, for example, demanding greater transparency so that citizens can follow the proceedings, or by promoting on his own initiative the implementation of more participatory decision-making processes. A large number of the complaints that the European Ombudsman receives in this context are related to problems in the functioning of the European Commission's public consultations, and the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI). In 2014, the European Ombudsman invited ECI organizers (such as civil society, organisations and interested bodies) to give feedback on the ECI.

European Ombudsman's procedures
The European Ombudsman, on one hand, a formal parliamentary body at a supranational level, "designed to strengthen the supervision and control of European Institutions and Administrations" and, on top of that, it works with a specific European concept of maladministration. The powers of the European Ombudsman, albeit limited, provide them the "opportunity to combine the instruments of parliamentary scrutiny and judicial control in an original way"

European Ombudsman can conduct inquiries following a complaint received and conduct inquiries on its own initiative. As methods of action, it can require the institution concerned for information, it can inspect the institution's files and it can take testimonies from officials.

The European Ombudsman complements the work of the courts, as it offers an alternative way for citizens to resolve disputes with the EU administration, without incurring in costs such as lawyers or fees. However, the European Ombudsman has no power to make legally binding decisions, so it can only act as a moderator in the dispute.

Using the powers conferred by the Statute of the European Ombudsman, the European Ombudsman can require any institution whose maladministration is in question "to provide some information, inspect its files and take testimony from its staff members" and it can propose solutions for the case.

Whenever it finds a situation of maladministration, the European Ombudsman can make proposals through problem-solving proposals, recommendations and suggestions. The main way in which the European Ombudsman tries to resolve the case is by proposing a solution, that is, a solution that both the complainant and the institution concerned would be willing to accept. This method may result in a quick constructive and good outcome for the complainant. However, this method is far from being effective to provoke systemic change in the public interest. If the institution rejects the proposed friendly solution, then the European Ombudsman can proceed to the powers of Article 4 of the Statute and draft recommendations for the institution concerned. Such recommendations are published in the Ombudsman's website, creating therefore some publicity and raising public attention to the maladministration identified. If no resolution is found neither from the proposed friendly solution, nor from the recommendation, then the European Ombudsman can publish suggestions for improvements, directed to the institution, to address the issue. These public suggestions can publicly identify systemic maladministration problems and suggest corrections that can cause systemic improvements for the public interest. If, at the end of an investigation, an institution rejects its final findings or recommendations, the Ombudsman can criticize it publicly, raising importance on the issue, and can make a special report to the European Parliament.

Many of the complaints sent to the European Ombudsman are outside its mandate. In 2020, the European Ombudsman processed 1,400 complaints outside its scope of competence. This number of out-of-scope complaints came mainly from Spain, Poland and Germany. This counts to justify the significant difference in percentage of opened inquiries compared to the number of complaints submitted.

In any case, the European Ombudsman tries to reply to all complaints submitted, even the ones outside the mandate. In those cases, European Ombudsman helps complainants by explaining the Ombudsman's mandate, advising other bodies where to direct their complaint. If the complainant agrees, the European Ombudsman can also forward the complaint to members of the European Network of Ombudsmen (ENO).

The institution receiving the greatest number of inquiries conducted by the European Ombudsman has been throughout the years the European Commission. In 2020 for example, 210 inquiries opened concerned the European Commission, compared to 30 concerning the European Personnel Selection Office, 14 the European External Action Service, 12 the European Anti-Fraud Office, 11 the European Parliament, 9 the European Central Bank, 9 the European Investment Bank, 34 for EU agencies and 41 to all other organisms.

The major grand topic inquiries made by European Ombudsman in 2020 were: the functioning of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency's (Frontex) 'Complaints Mechanism' to deal with complaints related to fundamental rights; the transparency of the Council of the EU during the COVID-19 crisis; and the collection and processing of information by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control during the COVID-19 crisis.

Advice, complaints, and inquiries throughout the years
The high number of maladministration complaints made to European Ombudsman in parallel with the literature support, shows that "the ombudsman is an important platform protecting the rights of citizens and promoting democratic values at the EU level".

Effectiveness, impact, and achievements
The European Ombudsman has, since its appearance in 1995, profiled itself as an institution with the "good governance" mission, promoting this cause and its own place within the EU institutional system. It is active towards serving the wider public interest and one of its goals is to achieve "tangible improvements for complainants and the public vis-a-vis the EU administration" On one hand, European Ombudsman is responsive towards complaints from individuals, companies and associations, replying to and resolving complaints related to administration problems in the EU institutions. On the other hand, the European Ombudsman also takes an autonomous and active approach in "helping the institutions to improve the quality of the service they provide" by making proposals through problem-solving proposals, recommendations, and suggestions.

Accessing the European Ombudsman's effectiveness implies having into consideration quantitative data, such as the statistics of the responsiveness to complaints and statistics on own-initiative inquiries, but also qualitative data in order to try to better understand all kinds of achievements when contacting the institutions (that is, how EU institutions react to the European Ombudsman's proposals).

For this purpose, complying with Article 4(5) of the Statute, the European Ombudsman submits a comprehensive report to the European Parliament at the end of each annual session, with information on the rate of EU institutions' compliance with recommendations made by the European Ombudsman.

One of the goals of the European Ombudsman is to achieve improvements in the EU administration and, according to its way of working, statistics can partially measure their results, in terms of how the institutions responded to the Ombudsman's proposals.

European Ombudsman's responsiveness to complaints
Data from the 2020 Annual Report shows how responsive the European Ombudsman was in 2020 towards the complaints received by individuals, companies, and associations, including the complaints that were outside its mandate scope (which were more than 1400 in 2020). In 2020, 849 complainants (39.5% of all complaints dealt with during 2020) received advice or found their case transferred to another complaints body. Other 934, (representing 43,5%) received a response informing the complaint that all advice from European Ombudsman had already been provided. Finally, 365 complaints (17% of all complaints dealt with that year) resulted in the opening of formal inquiries for further analyses.

Cooperation and acceptance by EU institutions
European Ombudsman reports that in 2019, "the EU institutions responded positively to the Ombudsman's proposals (solutions, recommendations, and suggestions) in 79% of instances". Out of 119 proposals from the Ombudsman related to corrections the EU institutions should do to improve their administrative practices, 95 were positively received and had an influence on the correction of the maladministration situations detected. In 2020, 10 out of the 17 institutions to which the Ombudsman made proposals, fully complied with all solutions, suggestions, and recommendations.

Some examples of influence
- Case 2168/2019/KR: Revolving doors. European Ombudsman opened an inquiry after the ex-executive director of the European Banking Authority moved to the position of CEO of the Association for Financial Markets in Europe. The European Ombudsman concluded that the EBA should have forbidden such move of job, given the high risks of conflict of interests. Therefore, a recommendation was made that, in the future, the EBA should forbid, with clear criteria, senior staff members moving to certain positions after their term of office and access to confidential information would stop once it was known that a member of staff was taking up another job. The EBA agreed to implement the Ombudsman's recommendations.

- Case 860/2018/THH: positive cooperation following European Food Safety Authority's refusal to grant public access to declarations of interest of middle management staff. The EFSA ended up following the Ombudsman's request to make those declarations public and has a more transparent policy in this area.

- Case 357/2019/FP: positive cooperation following the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)'s refusal to grant public access to documents relating to contacts with stakeholders. The European Ombudsman opened an inquiry following a complaint and verified that some internal notes of meetings should have been disclosed. In the context of cooperation with the European Ombudsman, the ESMA disclosed to the complainant parts of eight documents.

- Joint cases 488/2018/KR and 514/2018/KR: positive cooperation in the context of an inquiry regarding the appointment of the commission's Secretary-General (its highest civil servant). The Commission improved the appointment procedure as it had been suggested by the European Ombudsman, indicating a vacancy notice and a well-defined timeline in the procedure.

Conclusion
While the discourse on fundamental rights is relevant to the European Ombudsman, its profile and, to some extent, its mandate leave the conceptual field of human rights outside of its scope capacity to act. The mission and performance of the European Ombudsman is positively seen by the EU institutions, shown by the rates of positive cooperation and compliance with the European Ombudsman's recommendations. Most scholars note that the European Ombudsman has been effective in promoting good governance in the EU. However, a few author note that it has had less impact in the field of fundamental rights, subject EU citizens most complain about.

title: European Ombudsman


text:
Talk:Anne, Queen of Great Britain

Merging of titles of infobox
I think the titles of the infobox should follow that of George III, as in keeping “Queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland” and adding a footnote describing that from 1707 she was Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, thereby condensing her offices in the infoboxes. AKTC3 (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Elizabeth II which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible move change and names
Although I don't plan on starting a discussion in the near future, I do believe the page's name could change. A few things that need to be taken into account are that Anne's page name follows the structure of "Anne, Queen of X". Although by no means the only important thing to note, Google Searches are telling. Following said structure here are the results:

 * 1) "Anne, Queen of England" has 70.500 results
 * 2) "Anne, Queen of Great Britain" has 63.800 results
 * 3) "Anne, Queen of Scotland" has 24.500 results
 * 4) "Anne, Queen of Ireland" provides only 4 results

It's clear that changing the page's name to "Queen of Ireland" would simply not work, and "Queen of Scotland" add confusion with Anne of Denmark, wife of James VI and I. In fact, these two searches don't even identify Queen Anne as the person being searched. Although "Queen of England" does bring up more results than "Queen of Great Britain", this isn't always the case, and given she spent longer as Queen of Great Britain, it makes sense for this to remain the page's name.

However, looking at the following Google Search results:
 * 1) "Queen Anne of England" has 318.000 results
 * 2) "Queen Anne of Great Britain" has 217.000 results
 * 3) "Queen Anne of Scotland" has 149.000 results
 * 4) "Queen Anne of Ireland" has 8 results

It's clear that following the "Queen Anne of X" is far more recognizeable than "Anne, Queen of X". Moreover, if one looks at things like biographies of her, she is always referred to simply as "Queen Anne". Granted, as there have been many women named Anne to hold the title of queen - both queen consorts and regnants - it is understandable that there would be hesitancy to make Anne Stuart the primary topic. Especially when some of the other "Queen Annes" may be more popular than this Queen Anne is; whether in google searches or pageviews here on Wikipedia.

However, what is clear is that almost any discussion of Anne of Great Britain places her title as Queen before her name. Like her, we have "Queen Victoria", rather than "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom". Taking this into account, I would argue that if the page name were to ever change, it should follow the structure of "Queen Anne of X", rather than the present one. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @PanagiotisZois I think the article title should be her commonly used name in RSSs, which will be Queen Anne, just like Queen Victoria and King John. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

RfC of interest
(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 15 February 2024

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. After much-extended time for discussion, there is clear opposition to the proposed move, largely premised on an asserted ambiguity of the proposed target. BD2412 T 00:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

– "Queen Anne" is by far the most common way to refer to her. Yes, there were other Queen Annes, but they were either only consorts (i.e. Anne Boleyn) or they were obscure leaders of non-Anglophone countries. In English, the British monarchy is by far the most commonly discussed monarchy, so on English Wikipedia, it's entirely appropriate for the only Queen regnant named Anne to be "Queen Anne". "Anne, Queen of Great Britain" gets me 67,400 google results. "Queen Anne" gets me 28,000,000. She was also not just the Queen of Great Britain, she was also Queen of Ireland (and Queen of England and Scotland up until 1707), so let's ditch this inaccurate, awkward, uncommon title in favor of the more common and accurate way of referring to her. DieOuTransvaal (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Anne, Queen of Great Britain → Queen Anne
 * Queen Anne → Queen Anne (disambiguation)
 * Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject British Royalty has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Scotland has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Women's History has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Comment isn't "Queen" in front used for consorts, i.e. Queen Camilla, and queen regents are with the country format, i.e. Mary of Teck? cookie monster   755  23:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Mary of Teck was also a queen consort (she was neither a queen regnant nor a queen regent). For deceased consorts we typically use their maiden names (Alexandra of Denmark, Mary of Teck), unless they are predominantly remembered by their queenly titles or are strongly associated with the royal family they married into (Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, Marie of Romania, Anne of Romania, Empress Elisabeth of Austria). For living queens consort we use the "Queen [Name] of [Country]" format (Queen Letizia of Spain, Queen Sonja of Norway, Camilla being an exception when it comes to country name since her husband reigns over multiple realms). For kings and queens regnant we have all different sorts of formats: [Name], King/Queen of [Domain] (like this page or John, King of England); King/Queen [Name] (like Queen Victoria), and regnal names, either with or without domain (like Richard II of England or Elizabeth II). All of these examples are outlined at WP:NCROY. Keivan.f  Talk 06:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose this the English language Wikipedia, but it is not the Wikipedia of the English-speaking countries. PatGallacher (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME, as well as being WP:CONSISTENT with Queen Victoria whose title is specifically listed in WP:NCROY as an acceptable exception to the general rule for monarchs without ordinals. Note also that the proposal is technically incomplete as the dab page at Queen Anne will also need to be moved to . Rosbif73 (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No evidence of primary topic. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikinav statistics are pretty conclusive: Anne, Queen of Great Britain accounted for 85% of clicks from the Queen Anne dab page in December 2023, and over 90% in January 2024, i.e. significantly more likely than all the other topics combined to be the topic sought. Long-term significance would not seem to be in doubt either. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The proposed title removed any disambiguation between queens regnant and queens consort.Dimadick (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are other Queen Annes and the disambiguating clause is more precise. The primary use argument is weakened by considering that the Tudor Queen Anne is more popular in page views|Anne_Boleyn. DrKay (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Anne Boleyn's page might be more popular overall, but apparently it does not get the majority of views from people who visit the "Queen Anne" disambiguation page. I think Rosbif73's link shows that. Keivan.f  Talk 06:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's probably because, although Anne Boleyn was indeed a queen and is listed on the Queen Anne dab page, she is almost exclusively known by her WP:COMMONNAME, "Anne Boleyn"; she is definitely a red herring in this discussion. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Naturally, I am capable of forethought and I can see that this is a prelude to moving King John and King Stephen, but I don't agree with those moves either. I don't agree that concision is more desirable than precision when the article title is fairly short anyway. DrKay (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can understand your point. Keivan.f  Talk 17:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Reply There is no Wikipedia guideline which says that monarchs are necessarily more important than their consorts. It is possible that more British people have heard of Anne Boleyn (she's certainly featured in more historical dramas).  Page views and the like are not always decisive.  Queen Victoria may deserve her place as primary topic, but there are two significant differences.  Firstly, there are not many alternative people of this name.  Secondly, she is a more important historical figure, who gave her name to an era, e.g. Victorian values. PatGallacher (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, Anne's 12 years don't amount to an era, but we do have her architecture and her furniture, which are well used. Not sure how these affect this request. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment There is also Queen Anne's War (1702-1713), the North American theater of the War of the Spanish Succession. Dimadick (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Reply: I think an alternative would be to have the title be Queen Anne of Great Britain. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that naming format is reserved for WP:CONSORTS. Keivan.f  Talk 17:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose I believe this could lead to confusion with Anne of Denmark and other queens with the same name. Векочел (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If anything, concerning another British queen regnant - Queen Victoria should be moved back to Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The community already voted against that move a couple of months ago. It's simply her WP:COMMONNAME and is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I think we should all stop fixing things that are not broken. Keivan.f  Talk 17:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to fix the inconsistency mess (thanks to the updated WP:NCROY), among the monarch bios names. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Support Per WP:TITLEDAB at WP:AT, If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies. Wikinav is quite conclusive in showing that this article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There is no naming convention or other P&G that would tell us to use the longer existing title in a case such as this. The existing title was in accordance with WP:NCROY but this has been amended through RfC whereby the proposed move is now quite consistent with WP:NCROY. I would note that a consequence of this move is that Queen Anne (a disambiguation page) would need to be moved to Queen Anne (disambiguation) as a natural consequence. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:PRECISE and WP:NCROY. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NCROY says: "Where there has only been one holder of a specific monarchical name in a state, the ordinal is used only when it was in official use, as with Juan Carlos I (not Juan Carlos, King of Spain). When there is no ordinal, the formats John of Bohemia and Joanna of Castile or Stephen, King of England and Anne, Queen of Great Britain are used. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis, taking account of general article titling policy, e.g. Queen Victoria, Alexander Jagiellon." Why is Anne treated differently from Victoria? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Per WP:TITLEDAB at WP:AT, I actually requested this exact move over 3 years ago - to no avail. Good to see that some people are still calling for this. However it looks like it might fail again. Maybe try again in another 3 years! :) I still support it though, of course. (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as "Queen Anne" is too ambiguous. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, "Queen Anne" isn't ambiguous at all. The Tudor consort is almost universally called "Anne Boleyn" and not "Queen Anne" in English. DixonCider3 (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Support. For as long as Kings and Queens of the British Isles have existed, some have had colloquial names as well as regnal names. "Edmund II" is Edmund Ironside. "William I" is William the Conqueror. "Mary I of Scotland" is Mary, Queen of Scots. "Victoria I" is Queen Victoria, and "Anne, Queen of Great Britain"....is Queen Anne. She is not known by anything else. Look alone at the naming of derivative articles linked to her. Architecture of her era is Queen Anne style architecture. Furniture is Queen Anne style furniture. The war during her reign is Queen Anne's War. All this leaving aside the fact that the current tile naming her "Queen of Great Britain" leaves out that she was also Queen of Ireland. So even if this move request fails, the status quo doesn't work, either. LegerityFortis (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too many other Annes. Violates NCROY. And of course "Queen Anne" has more popular use in reference to architecture, furniture, etc., not the person. Walrasiad (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The very first point at WP:SOVEREIGN says Article titles are not normally prefixed with "King", "Queen", "Emperor" or equivalent. There is no need to do so in this case. Srnec (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * True, but the fourth point says that various formats are used for monarchs with no ordinal and specifically mentions Queen Victoria as an example of a possible format that is justified by policy. And, of course, the third point tells us not to use "of country" when the monarch is a primary topic (as Anne clearly is, based in particular on the wikinav stats cited above). Rosbif73 (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, agreeing with most of the points raised by the opposers above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, several queens both in the UK and in other countries which could cause confusion and it would clearer to differentiate the person from the furniture and architectural style. Suonii180 (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Comment There would appear from many of the comments added, that there is clearly a misunderstanding of title policy (WP:AT and particularly WP:TITLEDAB), disambiguation policy (WP:DISAMBIG) and the matter of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Per WP:NHC, irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue should be discarded.

 * There is no actual article that occupies the name space Queen Anne. There are places called Queen Anne in the US that are disambiguated by convention by adding the state or other detail. No other person occupies this article-name space. Of the WP:CRITERIA, the key criteria is WP:COMMONNAME. The other criteria only become significant if there is no common name or if an other article might have a common name that would occupy the same name space. While there are other queens called Anne (eg Anne Boleyn), nobody has evidenced that their common name (per sources) is Queen Anne and that their article title should occupy the same name space as this Queen Anne daughter of James II. This addresses the first question, who has the common name that should occupy the article name-space Queen Anne.

 * The second question is whether this article being discussed should occupy the article name-space Queen Anne or whether it should be occupied by a disambiguation page? If there is no other article with a common name claim to the article title name, the answer is self-evident. In this case, there are four localities that have a common name to the article name-space Queen Anne. We then consider WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: is there an article much more likely to be the target of searches when using Queen Anne (alone) as the search term and is it this article about the daughter of James II? This is then the substantive question to be addressed by debate on the proposed move.

 * Through the recent RfC at WP:NCROY, there is no conflict between WP:NCROY and either WP:COMMONNAME or WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

 * At present, Queen Anne targets a disambiguation page from which a reader then selects the topic they seek. If this Queen Anne becomes the target, a hat note would then direct them to Queen Anne (disambuguation) if it was not their intended destination. Application of primary topic is used to get the greatest number of readers to the article they seek by the quickest route.

 * Arguments to effect: There are many Annes that are queens, do not of themself address either of the key questions that resolve from the prevailing P&G. They do not show an understanding of the matter of issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but there are errors in this statement. You say that Queen Anne currently is the disambiguation page, not a redirect to one. 🌺 Cremastra  (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Cinderella157 didn't realize that because this is not listed as a multi-move. Can you rectify that? Or should the move be closed on procedural grounds? Srnec (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The nom is a new user, so I don't blame them for not listing it as a multi-move. I'm not sure how to do that myself. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 * , there is no error in what I have stated. A disambiguation page is not an actual article about a particular topic/subject. Per MOS:DAB: Note that even though most disambiguation pages are kept in the Article namespace (mainspace), they are not articles. These pages are aids in searching for articles. Nor in fuller context of what I have written does this reasonably suggest the term Queen Anne is a redirect. Targets, means where one arrives upon selecting a search term.
 * In my comment of 19 February, I stated: I would note that a consequence of this move is that Queen Anne (a disambiguation page) would need to be moved to Queen Anne (disambiguation) as a natural consequence [emphasis added]. Is it a procedural technicality? Yes. Is it sufficient reason for a procedural close or would procedurally closing the discussion on this technicality fall to WP:NOTBURO and WP:PETTIFOGGING? I would view it as the latter. Can it be remedied at this time by adding the move to Queen Anne (disambiguation). Yes. Is it necessary? Probably not, given it is a natural consequence unlikely to be reasonably contested - it is after all a disambiguation page. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have added the second move as required.
 * If there is no other article with a common name claim to the article title name, the answer is self-evident. It is not. It does not follow that because there is no other article for which the common name is "Queen Anne", then "Queen Anne" must be the common name of this article. Nor does it follow that if this article is the primary topic for "Queen Anne", it's title must be "Queen Anne". Srnec (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Per WP:TITLEDAB: It is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article, as that title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles. According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary [emphasis added]. Article titles are primarily chosen by WP:COMMONNAME (per sources) unless there is no common name. Unless there is an article that would actually use the same name-space as Queen Anne, disambiguation is not required and should not be used unless a naming convention dictates otherwise. WP:NCROY no longer does this. It therefore does follow that if Queen Anne is the common name and no other article has an actual title competing for this article name space, then, this article should be titled Queen Anne.
 * Nor does it follow that if this article is the primary topic for "Queen Anne", it's title must be "Queen Anne". WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is telling us that it really, really should be, as does WP:NCROY and WP:TITLEDAB. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Oppose as per the reasons given above. It is important to note that she was the queen of Great Britain. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Oppose - Per WP:PRECISE. There have been dozens of Queens called Anne throughout history, many of who also have a great deal of long term significance (namely, Anne Boleyn). estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 * However, Queen Anne is not the WP:COMMONNAME of Anne Boleyn and WP:PRECISE must be read in full. It tells us to apply sufficient precision to disambiguate an actual conflict in article titles, while also making explicit reference to a primary topic, more fully detailed at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Grief
The article says: "She and her husband were "overwhelmed with grief"." The sources are: "Luttrell, vol. IV, p. 674; Somerset, p. 163" But page 674 of Luttrell but says only "The princesse being overwhelmed with grief for the losse of his highnesse, intends on Saturday to retire ..." And I'm unable to see any mention on p. 163 of Somerset. Does that say they were both grief stricken? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Somerset, p. 163: "Anne and George remained at Windsor 'overwhelmed with grief at the loss of his Highness'." DrKay (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC) p.s. it is curious to see her referred to, in Luttrell, as "The princesse" and not as "The Queen".
 * She was princess at the time (1700). DrKay (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, it was another 2 years away. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 5 June 2024

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

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by proposer as the current article name is correct per WP:NCROY naming conventions. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

– This move would match this article's name with the names of George I of Great Britain and George II of Great Britain. The other "Anne of Great Britain" is known in history of "Anne, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange" and is lesser known than Queen Anne. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Anne, Queen of Great Britain → Anne of Great Britain
 * Anne of Great Britain → Anne of Great Britain (disambiguation)
 * Cultural depictions of Anne, Queen of Great Britain → Cultural depictions of Anne of Great Britain
 * Oppose. No evidence of primary topic. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Celia Homeford, she was the Queen regnant of Great Britain so is clearly the primary topic. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The proposed title is not her WP:COMMONNAME (that would be Queen Anne, which I favour as a title, though the previous RM failed to find consensus for this) nor is it compliant with the WP:NCROY naming guideline.
 * Oppose. The current title fulfils the requirements of WP:AT: it is recognizable, precise, natural, and consistent with WP:NCROY, where it is used as an exemplar. I see no benefit from constant rehashing of move requests (this is the third in the last 12 months) when there is nothing wrong with the current title. |Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain|Anne,_Princess_Royal 10,000 people a day find the right article without visiting the disambiguation page. No-one is lost. There is no problem here to fix. DrKay (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @DrKay, yes I see it now. My own approach was after seeing her two immediately successors but having read WP:NCROY - which I didn't know - I understand the current form is the right one. If there is a way to speedy close this as not moved, I would support it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can close it as withdrawn per WP:RMEC. DrKay (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @DrKay, thank you. :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

title: Talk:Anne, Queen of Great Britain


text:
Jodrell Bank Observatory

Jodrell Bank Observatory in Cheshire, England hosts a number of radio telescopes as part of the Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics at the University of Manchester. The observatory was established in 1945 by Bernard Lovell, a radio astronomer at the university, to investigate cosmic rays after his work on radar in the Second World War. It has since played an important role in the research of meteoroids, quasars, pulsars, masers, and gravitational lenses, and was heavily involved with the tracking of space probes at the start of the Space Age.

The main telescope at the observatory is the Lovell Telescope. Its diameter of 250 ft makes it the third largest steerable radio telescope in the world. There are three other active telescopes at the observatory; the Mark II and 42 ft and 7 m diameter radio telescopes. Jodrell Bank Observatory is the base of the Multi-Element Radio Linked Interferometer Network (MERLIN), a National Facility run by the University of Manchester on behalf of the Science and Technology Facilities Council.

The Jodrell Bank Visitor Centre and an arboretum are in Lower Withington, and the Lovell Telescope and the observatory near Goostrey and Holmes Chapel. The observatory is reached from the A535. The Crewe to Manchester Line passes by the site, and Goostrey station is a short distance away. In 2019, the observatory became a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Early years

Jodrell Bank was first used for academic purposes in 1939 when the University of Manchester's Department of Botany purchased three fields from the Leighs. It is named from a nearby rise in the ground, Jodrell Bank, which was named after William Jauderell, an archer whose descendants lived at the mansion that is now Terra Nova School. The site was extended in 1952 by the purchase of a farm from George Massey on which the Lovell Telescope was built.

The site was first used for astrophysics in 1945, when Bernard Lovell used some equipment left over from World War II, including a gun laying radar, to investigate cosmic rays. The equipment was a GL II radar system working at a wavelength of 4.2 m, provided by J. S. Hey. He intended to use the equipment in Manchester, but electrical interference from the trams on Oxford Road prevented him from doing so. He moved the equipment to Jodrell Bank, 25 mi south of the city, on 10 December 1945. Lovell's main research was transient radio echoes, which he confirmed were from ionized meteor trails by October 1946. The first staff were Alf Dean and Frank Foden who observed meteors with the naked eye while Lovell observed the electromagnetic signal using equipment. The first time Lovell turned the radar on – 14 December 1945 – the Geminids meteor shower was at a maximum.

Over the next few years, Lovell accumulated more ex-military radio hardware, including a portable cabin, known as a "Park Royal" in the military (see Park Royal Vehicles). The first permanent building was near to the cabin and was named after it.

Searchlight telescope
A searchlight was loaned to Jodrell Bank in 1946 by the army; a broadside array, was constructed on its mount by J. Clegg. It consisted of 7 elements of Yagi–Uda antennas. It was used for astronomical observations in October 1946.

On 9 and 10 October 1946, the telescope observed ionisation in the atmosphere caused by meteors in the Giacobinids meteor shower. When the antenna was turned by 90 degrees at the maximum of the shower, the number of detections dropped to the background level, proving that the transient signals detected by radar were from meteors. The telescope was then used to determine the radiant points for meteors. This was possible as the echo rate is at a minimum at the radiant point, and a maximum at 90 degrees to it. The telescope and other receivers on the site studied the auroral streamers that were visible in early August 1947.

Transit Telescope
The Transit Telescope was a 218 ft parabolic reflector zenith telescope built in 1947. At the time, it was the world's largest radio telescope. It consisted of a wire mesh suspended from a ring of 24 ft scaffold poles, which focussed radio signals on a focal point 126 ft above the ground. The telescope mainly looked directly upwards, but the direction of the beam could be changed by small amounts by tilting the mast to change the position of the focal point. The focal mast was changed from timber to steel before construction was complete.

The telescope was replaced by the steerable 250 ft Lovell Telescope, and the Mark II telescope was subsequently built at the same location.

The telescope could map a ± 15-degree strip around the zenith at 72 and 160 MHz, with a resolution at 160 MHz of 1 degree. It discovered radio noise from the Great Nebula in Andromeda – the first definite detection of an extragalactic radio source – and the remnants of Tycho's Supernova in the radio frequency; at the time it had not been discovered by optical astronomy.

Lovell Telescope

The "Mark I" telescope, now known as the Lovell Telescope, was the world's largest steerable dish radio telescope, 76.2 m in diameter, when it was constructed in 1957; it is now the third largest, after the Green Bank telescope in West Virginia and the Effelsberg telescope in Germany. Part of the gun turret mechanisms from the First World War battleships HMS Revenge (06) and HMS Royal Sovereign (05) were reused in the telescope's motor system. The telescope became operational in mid-1957, in time for the launch of the Soviet Union's Sputnik 1, the world's first artificial satellite. The telescope was the only one able to track Sputnik's booster rocket by radar; first locating it just before midnight on 12 October 1957, eight days after its launch.

In the following years, the telescope tracked various space probes. Between 11 March and 12 June 1960, it tracked the United States' NASA-launched Pioneer 5 probe. The telescope sent commands to the probe, including those to separate it from its carrier rocket and turn on its more powerful transmitter when the probe was eight million miles away. It received data from the probe, the only telescope in the world capable of doing so. In February 1966, Jodrell Bank was asked by the Soviet Union to track its unmanned Moon lander Luna 9 and recorded on its facsimile transmission of photographs from the Moon's surface. The photographs were sent to the British press and published before the Soviets made them public.

In 1969, the Soviet Union's Luna 15 was also tracked. A recording of the moment when Jodrell Bank's scientists observed the mission was released on 3 July 2009.

With the support of Sir Bernard Lovell, the telescope tracked Russian satellites. Satellite and space probe observations were shared with the US Department of Defense satellite tracking research and development activity at Project Space Track.

Tracking space probes only took a fraction of the Lovell telescope's observing time, and the remainder was used for scientific observations including using radar to measure the distance to the Moon and to Venus; observations of astrophysical masers around star-forming regions and giant stars; observations of pulsars (including the discovery of millisecond pulsars and the first pulsar in a globular cluster); and observations of quasars and gravitational lenses (including the detection of the first gravitational lens and the first Einstein ring). The telescope has also been used for SETI observations.

Mark II and III telescopes
The Mark II telescope is an elliptical radio telescope, with a major axis of 38.1 m and a minor axis of 25.4 m. It was constructed in 1964. As well as operating as a standalone telescope, it has been used as an interferometer with the Lovell Telescope, and is now primarily used as part of the MERLIN project. The Mark III telescope, the same size as the Mark II, was constructed to be transportable but it was never moved from Wardle, near Nantwich, where it was used as part of MERLIN. It was built in 1966 and decommissioned in 1996.

Mark IV, V and VA telescope proposals
The Mark IV, V and VA telescope proposals were put forward in the 1960s through to the 1980s to build even larger radio telescopes.

The Mark IV proposal was for a 1000 ft diameter standalone telescope, built as a national project.

The Mark V proposal was for a 400 ft moveable telescope. The concept of this proposal was for a telescope on a 3/4 mi railway line adjoining Jodrell Bank, but concerns about future levels of interference meant that a site in Wales would have been preferable. Design proposals by Husband and Co and Freeman Fox, who had designed the Parkes Observatory telescope in Australia, were put forward.

The Mark VA was similar to the Mark V but with a smaller dish of 375 ft and a design using prestressed concrete, similar to the Mark II (the previous two designs more closely resembled the Lovell telescope).

None of the proposed telescopes was constructed, although design studies were carried out and scale models were made, partly because of the changing political climate, and partly due to the financial constraints of astronomical research in the UK. Also it became necessary to upgrade the Lovell Telescope to the Mark IA, which overran in terms of cost.

Other single dishes
A 50 ft (15 m) alt-azimuth dish was constructed in 1964 for astronomical research and to track the Zond 1, Zond 2, Ranger 6 and Ranger 7 space probes and Apollo 11. After an accident that irreparably damaged the 50 ft telescope's surface, it was demolished in 1982 and replaced with a more accurate telescope, the "42 ft". The 42 ft (12.8 m) dish is mainly used to observe pulsars, and continually monitors the Crab Pulsar.

When the 42 ft was installed, a smaller dish, the "7 m" (actually 6.4 m, or 21 ft, in diameter) was installed and is used for undergraduate teaching. The 42 ft and 7 m telescopes were originally used at the Woomera Rocket Testing Range in South Australia. The 7 m was originally constructed in 1970 by the Marconi Company.

A Polar Axis telescope was built in 1962. It had a circular 50 ft (15.2 m) dish on a polar mount, and was mostly used for moon radar experiments. It has been decommissioned. An 18 in reflecting optical telescope was donated to the observatory in 1951 but was not used much, and was donated to the Salford Astronomical Society around 1971.

MERLIN
The Multi-Element Radio Linked Interferometer Network (MERLIN) is an array of radio telescopes spread across England and the Welsh borders. The array is run from Jodrell Bank on behalf of the Science and Technology Facilities Council as a National Facility. The array consists of up to seven radio telescopes and includes the Lovell Telescope, the Mark II, Cambridge, Defford, Knockin, Darnhall, and Pickmere (previously known as Tabley). The longest baseline is 217 km and MERLIN can operate at frequencies between 151 MHz and 24 GHz. At a wavelength of 6 cm (5 GHz frequency), MERLIN has a resolution of 50 milliarcseconds which is comparable to that of the HST at optical wavelengths.

Very Long Baseline Interferometry
Jodrell Bank has been involved with Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) since the late 1960s; the Lovell telescope took part in the first transatlantic interferometer experiment in 1968, with other telescopes at Algonquin and Penticton in Canada. The Lovell Telescope and the Mark II telescopes are regularly used for VLBI with telescopes across Europe (the European VLBI Network), giving a resolution of around 0.001 arcseconds.

Square Kilometre Array
In April 2011, Jodrell Bank was named as the location of the control centre for the planned Square Kilometre Array, or SKA Project Office (SPO). The SKA is planned by a collaboration of 20 countries and when completed, is intended to be the most powerful radio telescope ever built. In April 2015 it was announced that Jodrell Bank would be the permanent home of the SKA headquarters for the period of operation expected for the telescope (over 50 years ).

Research

The Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics, of which the Observatory is a part, is one of the largest astrophysics research groups in the UK. About half of the research of the group is in the area of radio astronomy – including research into pulsars, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, gravitational lenses, active galaxies and astrophysical masers. The group also carries out research at different wavelengths, looking into star formation and evolution, planetary nebula and astrochemistry.

The first director of Jodrell Bank was Bernard Lovell, who established the observatory in 1945. He was succeeded in 1980 by Sir Francis Graham-Smith, followed by Professor Rod Davies around 1990 and Professor Andrew Lyne in 1999. Professor Phil Diamond took over the role on 1 October 2006, at the time when the Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics was formed. Prof Ralph Spencer was Acting Director during 2009 and 2010. In October 2010, Prof. Albert Zijlstra became Director of the Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics. Professor Lucio Piccirillo was the Director of the Observatory from Oct 2010 to Oct 2011. Prof. Simon Garrington is the JBCA Associate Director for the Jodrell Bank Observatory. In 2016, Prof. Michael Garrett was appointed as the inaugural Sir Bernard Lovell chair of Astrophysics and Director of Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics. As Director JBCA, Prof. Garrett also has overall responsibility for Jodrell Bank Observatory.

In May 2017 Jodrell Bank entered into a partnership with the Breakthrough Listen initiative and will share information with Jodrell Bank's team, who wish to conduct an independent SETI search via its 76-m radio telescope and e-MERLIN array.

There is an active development programme researching and constructing telescope receivers and instrumentation. The observatory has been involved in the construction of several Cosmic Microwave Background experiments, including the Tenerife Experiment, which ran from the 1980s to 2000, and the amplifiers and cryostats for the Very Small Array. It has also constructed the front-end modules of the 30 and 44 GHz receivers for the Planck spacecraft. Receivers were also designed at Jodrell Bank for the Parkes Telescope in Australia.

Visitor facilities, and events

A visitors' centre, opened on 19 April 1971 by the Duke of Devonshire, attracted around 120,000 visitors per year. It covered the history of Jodrell Bank and had a planetarium and 3D theatre hosting simulated trips to Mars. Asbestos in the visitors' centre buildings led to its demolition in 2003 leaving a remnant of its far end. A marquee was set up in its grounds while a new science centre was planned. The plans were shelved when Victoria University of Manchester and UMIST merged to become the University of Manchester in 2004, leaving the interim centre, which received around 70,000 visitors a year.

In October 2010, work on a new visitor centre started and the Jodrell Bank Discovery Centre opened on 11 April 2011. It includes an entrance building, the Planet Pavilion, a Space Pavilion for exhibitions and events, a glass-walled cafe with a view of the Lovell Telescope and an outdoor dining area, an education space, and landscaped gardens including the Galaxy Maze. A large orrery was installed in 2013. It does not, however, include a planetarium, though a small inflatable planetarium dome has been in use on the site in recent years.

The visitor centre is open Tuesday to Sunday and Mondays during school and bank holidays and organises public outreach events, including public lectures, star parties, and "ask an astronomer" sessions.

A path around the Lovell telescope is approximately 20 m from the telescope's outer railway, information boards explain how the telescope works and the research that is done with it.

The 35 acre arboretum, created in 1972, houses the UK's national collections of crab apple Malus and mountain ash Sorbus species, and the Heather Society's Calluna collection. The arboretum also has a small scale model of the Solar System, the scale is approximately 1:5,000,000,000. At Jodrell Bank, as part of the SpacedOut project, is the Sun in a 1:15,000,000 scale model of the Solar System covering Britain.

On 7 July 2010, it was announced that the observatory was being considered for the 2011 United Kingdom Tentative List for World Heritage Site status. It was announced on 22 March 2011 that it was on the UK government's shortlist. In January 2018, it became the UK's candidate for World Heritage status.

In July 2011 the visitor centre and observatory hosted "Live from Jodrell Bank - Transmission 001" – a rock concert with bands including The Flaming Lips, British Sea Power, Wave Machines, OK GO and Alice Gold. On 23 July 2012, Elbow performed live at the observatory and filmed a documentary of the event and the facility which was released as a live CD/DVD of the concert. On 6 July 2013, Transmission 4 featured Australian Pink Floyd, Hawkwind, The Time & Space Machine and The Lucid Dream. On 7 July 2013, Transmission 5 featured New Order, Johnny Marr, The Whip, Public Service Broadcasting, Jake Evans and Hot Vestry. On 30 August 2013, Transmission 6 featured Sigur Ros, Polca and Daughter.

On 31 August 2013, Jodrell Bank hosted a concert performed by the Hallé Orchestra to commemorate what would have been Lovell's 100th birthday. As well as a number of operatic performances during the day, the evening Halle performance saw numbers such as themes from Star Trek, Star Wars and Doctor Who among others. The main Lovell telescope was rotated to face the onlooking crowd and used as a huge projection screen showing various animated planetary effects. During the interval the 'screen' was used to show a history of Lovell's work and Jodrell Bank.

There is an astronomy podcast from the observatory, named The Jodcast. The BBC television programme Stargazing Live was hosted in the control room of the observatory from 2011 to 2016.

Since 2016, the observatory hosted Bluedot, a music and science festival, featuring musical acts such as Public Service Broadcasting, The Chemical Brothers, as well as talks by scientists and scientific communicators such as Jim Al-Khalili and Richard Dawkins.

Threat of closure
On 3 March 2008, it was reported that Britain's Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), faced with an £80 million shortfall in its budget, was considering withdrawing its planned £2.7 million annual funding of Jodrell Bank's e-MERLIN project. The project, which aimed to replace the microwave links between Jodrell Bank and a number of other radio telescopes with high-bandwidth fibre-optic cables, greatly increasing the sensitivity of observations, was seen as critical to the survival of the facility. Bernard Lovell said "It will be a disaster … The fate of the Jodrell Bank telescope is bound up with the fate of e-MERLIN. I don't think the establishment can survive if the e-MERLIN funding is cut".

On 9 July 2008, it was reported that, following an independent review, STFC had reversed its initial position and would now guarantee funding of £2.5 million annually for three years.

Fictional references
Jodrell Bank has been mentioned in several works of fiction, including Doctor Who (The Tenth Planet, Remembrance of the Daleks, "The Poison Sky", "The Eleventh Hour", "Spyfall") and Birthday Boy by David Baddiel. It was intended to be a filming location for Logopolis (Tom Baker's final Doctor Who serial) but budget restrictions prevented this and another location with a superimposed model of a radio telescope was used instead. It was also mentioned in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (as well as The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy film), The Creeping Terror and Meteor.

Jodrell Bank was also featured heavily in the 1983 music video "Secret Messages" by Electric Light Orchestra and also "Are We Ourselves?" by The Fixx. The Prefab Sprout song Technique (from debut album Swoon) opens with the line "Her husband works at Jodrell Bank/He's home late in the morning".

The observatory is the site of several episodes in the novel Boneland by the local novelist Alan Garner (2012), and the central character, Colin Whisterfield, is an astrophysicist on its staff.

Appraisal
Since 13 July 1988 the Lovell Telescope has been designated as a Grade I listed building. On 10 July 2017 the Mark II Telescope was also designated at the same grade. On the same date five other buildings on the site were designated at Grade II; namely the Searchlight Telescope, the Control Building, the Park Royal Building, the Electrical Workshop, and the Link Hut. Grade I is the highest of the three grades of listing, and is applied to buildings that are of "exceptional interest", and Grade II, the lowest grade, is applied to buildings "of special interest".

At the 43rd Session of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee in Baku on 7 July 2019, the Jodrell Bank Observatory was adopted as a World Heritage Site on the basis of 4 criteria
 * Criterion (i): Jodrell Bank Observatory is a masterpiece of human creative genius related to its scientific and technical achievements.
 * Criterion (ii): Jodrell Bank Observatory represents an important interchange of human values over a span of time and on a global scale on developments
 * Criterion (iv): Jodrell Bank Observatory represents an outstanding example of a technological ensemble which illustrates a significant stage in human history
 * Criterion (vi): Jodrell Bank Observatory is directly and tangibly associated with events and ideas of outstanding universal significance.

Books

 * Gunn, A. G. (2005). "Jodrell Bank and the Meteor Velocity Controversy". In The New Astronomy: Opening the Electromagnetic Window and Expanding Our View of Planet Earth, Volume 334 of the Astrophysics and Space Science Library. Part 3, pages 107–118. Springer Netherlands.
 * Gunn, A. G. (2005). "Jodrell Bank and the Meteor Velocity Controversy". In The New Astronomy: Opening the Electromagnetic Window and Expanding Our View of Planet Earth, Volume 334 of the Astrophysics and Space Science Library. Part 3, pages 107–118. Springer Netherlands.

title: Jodrell Bank Observatory


text:
Sid Gillman

Sidney Gillman (October 26, 1911 – January 3, 2003) was an American football player, coach and executive. Gillman's insistence on stretching the football field by throwing deep downfield passes, instead of short passes to running backs or wide receivers at the sides of the line of scrimmage, was instrumental in making football into the modern game that it is today. He was inducted as a coach into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1983, and the College Football Hall of Fame in 1989.

Gillman played football as an end at Ohio State University from 1931 to 1933. He played professionally for one season in 1936 with the Cleveland Rams of the second American Football League. After serving as an assistant coach at Ohio State from 1938 to 1940, Gillman was the head football coach at Miami University from 1944 to 1947 and at the University of Cincinnati from 1949 to 1954, compiling a career college football record of 81–19–2. He then moved to the ranks of professional football, where he headed the NFL's Los Angeles Rams (1955–1959), the American Football League's Los Angeles and San Diego Chargers (1960–1969), and the NFL's Houston Oilers (1973–1974), amassing a career record of 123–104–7 in the National Football League and the American Football League. Gillman's 1963 San Diego Chargers won the AFL Championship.

Early life, family and education
Sidney Gillman was born in Minneapolis, Minnesota, to a Jewish family.

He played college football at Ohio State University under coach Sam Willaman, forming the basis of his offense. He was a team captain and All-Big Ten Conference end in 1933. While attending Ohio State, Gillman was a brother of the Nu chapter of the Zeta Beta Tau fraternity.

Career
Always deeply interested in the game, while working as a movie theater usher, he removed football segments from newsreels the theater would show, so that he could take them home and study them on a projector he had bought. This dedication to filmed football plays made Gillman the first coach to study game footage, something that all coaches do today.

Gillman debated between pursuing a pro football career and entering coaching upon leaving college, with the Boston Redskins offering him a contract while Willaman wished to hire him as end coach at Western Reserve University. His participation in the inaugural Chicago College All-Star Game caused him to arrive late for Redskins training camp, and he would fail to make the team. He played one year in the American Football League (1936) for the Cleveland Rams. He became an assistant coach at Denison University, Ohio State University, and was an assistant coach to Earl Blaik of Army, then head coach at Miami University and the University of Cincinnati. He spent 21 years as a college coach or head coach, and his total record for these years was 79–18–2.

He became a professional head coach for the first time with the Los Angeles Rams in 1955 after the team had declined in wins the previous two seasons with a team bolstered and hindered by its emphasis on explosive offense as quarterbacked by Norm Van Brocklin. A trade for Jim Cason with the San Francisco 49ers also proved helpful in the rookie season that saw Gillman's coaching described as "red-meat, un-finessed brand of football" on the way to a record of 8–3–1 that narrowly beat the Chicago Bears for the right to play for the 1955 NFL Championship Game (their fourth appearance in the past five seasons) against the Cleveland Browns, appearing in their sixth straight NFL Championship Game and the defending league champion. Playing at home in the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum due to the rotation of the time, the Browns never trailed while forcing six Van Brocklin interceptions on their way to a 38–14 victory. His second season with the Rams, which saw them trade away future defensive star Andy Robustelli in the offseason, was a disaster, as the team lost eight of their first ten games for a 4-8 overall record, their first losing mark since 1944 when the team was still in Cleveland. The 1957 season was the last for both Van Brocklin (traded to Philadelphia after the season) and receiver Elroy Hirsch, each future members of the Pro Football Hall of Fame. A multi-player deal with the Cardinals for Ollie Matson did not help matters. The season ended on a middling note as the Rams won their last two games of the year to finish at .500. The 1958 season was the closest the Rams got to the top of the division, finishing one game behind the Baltimore Colts. The 1959 season saw the Rams close the year with eight straight losses that led to the dismissal of Gillman.

He then moved to the American Football League (AFL, 1960–1969), where he coached the Los Angeles and San Diego Chargers to five Western Division titles and one league championship in the first six years of the AFL's existence. His greatest coaching success came after he was persuaded by Barron Hilton, then the Chargers' majority owner, to become the head coach of the AFL franchise he planned to operate in Los Angeles. When the team's general manager, Frank Leahy, became ill during the Chargers' founding season, Gillman took on additional responsibilities as general manager. As the first coach of the Chargers, Gillman gave the team a mercurial personality that matched his own. He had much to do with the AFL being able to establish itself. Gillman was a thorough professional, and in order to compete with him, his peers had to learn pro ways. They learned, and the AFL became the genesis of modern professional football. "Sid Gillman brought class to the AFL," Oakland Raiders managing general partner Al Davis once said of the man he served under on that first Chargers team. "Being part of Sid's organization was like going to a laboratory for the highly developed science of professional football." Others however, painted Gillman as who kept the team under pressure at all times regardless of how it felt for the players, with Dickie Post calling him a "dictator". Described as "impulsive" by quarterback John Hadl, Gillman had arguments with defensive stars Ernie Ladd and Earl Faison. When Faison was released in 1966, Gillman called the former four-time All-AFL defensive end one who "has a long way to go to become average, much less outstanding." Hadl stated that these removals were part of the beginning of the decline of the Chargers in the late 1960s. When asked about the money made by players once, Gillman responded by saying “With some of them, football is a vocation. With some, it’s an avocation. You know what football is to me? It’s blood.”

Through Gillman's tenure as head coach, the Chargers went 87–57–6 and won five AFL Western Division titles. The 1960 and 1961 teams were led by Jack Kemp at quarterback to go with Paul Lowe and Keith Lincoln as backs and Lance Alworth as star receiver. They narrowly lost each time in the AFL Championship Game to the Houston Oilers. Injuries to Kemp and Alworth saw the only losing season by the Chargers in their AFL tenure, and when Kemp was put on waivers to try and hide him, Buffalo bought his rights and made him their starting quarterback from 1963 until his retirement in 1969. John Hadl had been drafted in 1962 as quarterback, but the 1963 season would have 35-year old Tobin Rote as the primary starter. Thar year, under an MVP season from Rote, they captured the only league championship the franchise ever won by outscoring the Boston Patriots, 51–10, in the American Football League championship game in Balboa Stadium. Gillman crafted a game plan, "Feast or Famine", that used motion, then seldom seen, to negate the Patriots' blitzes. His plan freed running back Keith Lincoln to rush for 206 yards. In addition to Lincoln, on Gillman's teams through the '60s, were these notable players: wide receiver Lance Alworth; offensive tackle Ron Mix; running back Paul Lowe; quarterback John Hadl; and defensive linemen Ernie Ladd and Earl Faison (Alworth and Mix are Hall of Famers). Gillman was one of only two head coaches to hold that position for the entire 10-year existence of the American Football League (the other being fellow Hall of Fame coach Hank Stram, who coached the Dallas Texans and Kansas City Chiefs from 1960 through 1974). Gillman approached NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle in 1963 with the idea of having the champions of the AFL and the NFL play a single final game, but his idea was not implemented until the Super Bowl (originally titled the AFL-NFL World Championship Game) was played in 1967. Gillman left the Chargers nine games into the 1969 season due to a hiatal hernia only to come back to coach the first ten games of the 1971 season.

Gillman served as a quality control coach for the Dallas Cowboys in 1972. In March 1973, Bud Adams hired Gillman to serve as executive vice president and general manager of the Houston Oilers (to replace John W. Breen) after head coach Bill Peterson won one game in his inaugural season as coach. The 1973 season turned out to be a worse disaster, as the Oilers continued their losing ways. Before the fourth game, Gillman took over the duties of offensive coordinator. After a fifth straight loss to start the season, Gillman took over as coach by firing Peterson, which saw them win once the rest of the way. In 1974, Gillman hired Bum Phillips (the defensive coordinator for the 1967-71 Charger teams) to serve as defensive coordinator. The 1974 team won on opening day before going on a five-game losing streak. Midway through the season, Gillman and the Oilers acquired defensive tackle Curley Culp and a first-round draft choice in 1975 from the Kansas City Chiefs for John Matuszak (each player had threatened to jump to the World Football League). They then won four games in a row to get to 5–5 before trading wins and losses in the last four games of the year, which included a win over the Cleveland Browns to close the season at 7-7 (.500), their first non-losing season in four years. He was awarded the AFC Coach of the Year by UPI after the season before electing to move back to the GM position while Phillips was promoted to head coach. The matter of who would do what for personnel proved to key in the eventual departure of Gillman. The contract that Phillips had signed with Gillman had a clause that gave him final approval of the moves that Phillips wanted to make, but this clause was asked to be removed by Phillips in a meeting between him and Adams when Gillman was out of town, which was accepted. Later, with the support of Adams, Phillips had Gillman barred from being able to attend practice or be in the locker room. Gillman appealed to Adams about the changes but resigned when Adams sided with Phillips, who was later quoted as stating "I had control of the team. I had the right to draft, waive, trade. I had the control I needed. That’s what [Gillman] gave me. I told Sid that’s what I wanted, and he said that was fine. We didn’t have any disagreement over that. Evidently, the disagreement was with Bud. “There was a whole lot of stories running around, I guess. Believe me, I’m telling you what happened. I worked for [Gillman] for six years, and I enjoyed it for six years. If he wanted to draft somebody that I didn’t want to draft, we wouldn’t have drafted him. I had no problem with knowing my responsibilities." With Phillips at the helm and a defensive front that would have Culp for years to come alongside that draft choice used to draft Robert Brazile, the Oilers jumped to ten wins in the following season.

In 1977, Gillman was hired as offensive coordinator for the Chicago Bears in 1977. The Bears, with Walter Payton leading the way in rushing yards (1,852), won 9 games and earned their first postseason appearance in 14 years, which ended in a loss in the Divisional Round. However, Gillman resigned after the year when his ideas about opening up the offense was rejected. For four months of 1978, Gillman was the coach of the football team at United States International University; one of the coaches he hired was Tom Walsh, who would coach the team when Gillman left in early 1979. Philadelphia Eagles coach Dick Vermeil hired Gillman in 1979 to take over an offense ranked 27th, 19th, and 18th the previous three seasons. In Gillman’s three years under Vermeil, the Eagles scored the 3rd-most points in the NFL, won the 2nd-most games, reached the playoffs all three seasons, and reached their first Super Bowl in 1980, with Vermeil stating that the appearance in the Super Bowl would not have happened without the "encylcopedia" knowledge of Gillman. He had retired after the 1980 season as “Physically and mentally drained" before returning in 1982.

In July 1983, at age 71, Gillman came out of retirement after an offer from Bill Tatham, Sr. and Bill Tatham, Jr., owners of the United States Football League (USFL) expansion team the Oklahoma Outlaws. Gillman agreed to serve as director of operations and signed quarterback Doug Williams, who later led the Washington Redskins to victory in Super Bowl XXII. Although Gillman signed a roster of players to play for the Tulsa, Oklahoma-based franchise, he was fired by Tatham six months later in a dispute over finances. Gillman then served as a consultant for the USFL's Los Angeles Express in 1984. He later did work for the Eagles in 1985 before serving as an unpaid consultant to the University of Pittsburgh football team (as coached by Mike Gottfried) in 1987. Even when he was out of coaching by 1991, Gillman was still at the helm of looking at tapes of game film, with a number of teams regularly sending him coaching tapes for him to view through multiple VCRs.

Influence
Gillman's influence on the modern game can be seen by listing the current and former coaches and executives who either played with him or coached for him:
 * George Blackburn, former coach for Miami (OH), Cincinnati, and Virginia
 * Frank Clair, who coached the Toronto Argonauts and Ottawa Rough Riders of the Canadian Football League to a total of five Grey Cup championships
 * Al Davis, late coach and owner of the Los Angeles/Oakland Raiders
 * Chuck Noll, coached the Pittsburgh Steelers to four Super Bowl titles
 * Ara Parseghian, former coach at the University of Notre Dame who led the Fighting Irish to two national titles
 * Bo Schembechler, former coach at the University of Michigan
 * Bill Walsh, who coached the San Francisco 49ers to three Super Bowl titles
 * Chuck Knox, former head coach of Los Angeles Rams, Buffalo Bills and Seattle Seahawks
 * Dick Vermeil, coached the St. Louis Rams to a Super Bowl title and the Philadelphia Eagles to the Super Bowl
 * George Allen, former coach of the Los Angeles Rams and Washington Redskins
 * Bum Phillips who coached for Gillman for 5 years in San Diego prior to coaching for him in Houston.

Coaching tree
Numbers in parentheses indicate Super Bowls won by Gillman's "descendants" as head coach, a total of 29.

Don Coryell, the coach at San Diego State University when Gillman was coaching the San Diego Chargers, would bring his team to Chargers' practices to watch how Gillman ran his practices. Coryell went on to coach in the NFL, and some of his assistants, influenced by the Gillman style, included coaches Joe Gibbs, Ernie Zampese, Tom Bass, and Russ A. Molzahn. A larger and more extended version of Sid Gillman's coaching tree, which in some ways could be called a forest, can be found here.

Honors and awards
Gillman was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1983, and into the College Football Hall of Fame in 1989. In 1990 he was inducted into the Southern California Jewish Sports Hall of Fame.

Personal life and death
Gillman and his wife Esther had four children and were married for 67 years (until his death). They resided in Carlsbad, California before moving in 2001 to Century City in Los Angeles.

On January 3, 2003, Gillman died in his sleep at age 91. He was interred in the Hillside Memorial Park Cemetery in Culver City, California.

title: Sid Gillman