text:
Talk:New Imperialism/Archive 3

3 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 1 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 2 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 3 (You are here.) Talk:New Imperialism/archive 4 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 5 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 6 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 7 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 8 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 9 Talk:New Imperialism/Linking to the alternative version from the top of the article Talk:New Imperialism/archive 10 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 11 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 12 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 13 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 14 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 15 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 16 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 17 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 18 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 19 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 20

Picking up with beginning of a new controversy.

An anonymous contributer mistakenly put this in the article, when it should be here on the talk page:
 * This material largely addresses matters from an economic perspective. For some other views of imperialism see the works of such Beit Professors of Imperial History at Oxford as Lionel Curtis and Reginald Coupland.

For the moment, there are no articles on Curtis and Coupland, so the links are not especially helpful -- but let's hope that will change. In any event, I hope this contributor, or others, will find ways to incorporate the views of these historians into the article. I am sure the contributor has read the talk pages before joining in, so s/he knows that I and others have called for more discussion of debate among historians (or political scientists) in the article. In the meantime, if you are not yet ready to make a substantive contribution to the article (anonymous person), I think your purposes would be better served if at the bottom of the article you said "see x and y for alternative views," and list specific books or articles by these two scholars. In any event the article should have a bibliography... Slrubenstein

Someone - Slrubenstein - suggested only mentioning the Beit Professors here, mistakenly supposing that that was a comment on the main article. However it was intended as a suggestion of alternatives for readers who did not have a largely economic focus. As such, it seemed necessary to provide an alternative suggestion early on, and the only "comment" was a hint about the nature of that focus. PML.

I -- Slrubenstein -- suggested in the paragraph above that PML place the following at the bottom rather than the top of the article:
 * "see x and y for alternative views," and list specific books or articles by these two scholars.

I also suggested that PML actually work these views into the body of the article. I stand by these suggestions. Slrubenstein

With all due respect, "We do not begin each article by stating that it is not yet complete, true though this necesarrily is", is precisely why I did not initially adopt that approach. I did so just there in order to clarify that the introductory part comprised hints for wider research and not comments on the main material, since that seemed to be the main outstanding objection. I stand by my view that readers should be steered right early on - a footnote is not suitable for people with a surfing approach. I fully appreciate that other views should be incorporated rather than referred to or linked - subject to space constraints etc. - but again with all due respect, the material is not currently amenable to that since it has not yet been webbed (well, the Encyclopaedia Britannica has some stuff, but that is restricted). It seemed and still seems appropriate to provide as much as is currently available, rather than waiting for some ultimate perfection.

Now, can we find some approach that does reconcile these requirements? PML.

go to the bottom, where it says See also: and do it there Vera Cruz

No, that does not reconcile the requirements. That imitates a textbook but fails to deliver the requirements of this medium; a surfer cannot use that to direct his course. It is as bad as giving someone spaghetti and telling him it is just the same as the fettucine he asked for, ignoring the possibility that there are real reasons quite apart from flavour and nutritional value. (That's a real case.)

So the question remains, how do we deliver surfers what they need on entry, without interfering with the flow of the material proper for those that do want it? I had supposed that spelling out the reasons would serve - like telling the waitress that I have difficulty eating spaghetti without splashing - only to find that the critics changed their objection to a comment to an objection to the digression. So, how to make this narrow - indeed, somewhat selective - material work as an entry to a wider field rather than what it presently is, a restriction of agenda? PML.

is there something you want to add to the first paragraph? A (See also) is hardly useful there. Vera Cruz

 * Surfers do not want a note telling them some Oxford professors who aren't even available on the World Wide Web have some different ideas than the article that follows. What surfers want is a clear, well-written article from us.  Wanna help?  Then tell us something about these interesting non-economic perspectives on imperialism.  Ortolan88

To take that position is to rule out any interim assistance. Pending being able to do it right, what do we do? Furthermore, even doing it right would involve some introductory material. My own feeling was that this whole piece was misguided by adopting a particular and possibly subjective view of historical mechanisms, but that the cure would involve distinct pieces rather than getting forever longer.

I want to refer people wider, pending writing something else and merely linking wider, but either way I want a usable entry point that does not get in the way while still telling people what they are getting early on - the principle of newspaper prose style, which is acknowledgedly stylistically poor prose (except in the hands of a master). So, how? Saying "don't" is no answer, and neither is "do nothing now". PML.

 * I didn't say do nothing. I said go to work and write something substantive for the article about these interesting non-economic perspectives on imperialism.  Get out of the talk page and into the article.  What did these people have to say?  Put it in there.  Your proposal to defuse the article at the beginning without adding any substance is just plain poor compositional technique.  Any newspaper writer would be able to knock out a couple of paragraphs on these Oxford johnnies, no sweat.  See if you can do as well.   If it is longer than a couple of paragraphs, make it a separate article and put a link to it near the beginning of this article, else, find a place for it somewhere in the body.  Don't tell us what writers do, show us.  Ortolan88

That does not address the issue of pending. I have already acknowledged the desirable end; I have also been pointing out, and other people have been steadfastly ignoring, the need for something provisional. I started in by trying to provide that, and what is more a fuller answer would not resolve the objection made to my provisional attempts - the objection was to anything before the main material. What can be done in those areas? So far, all attempts have been undercut - in effect if not in intent amounting to "do nothing now".

To state correctly that one is not recommending "do nothing" is bait and switch. The answer "do nothing now" is a non-answer - and people are just not seeing that "now".

By the way, any journalist who jumped in writing before he had access to his sources would be no journalist at all. This week, and possibly all this month, all I can do is something provisional. Unless someone can get hold of a copy of "Civitas Dei" (the other one) and do the work before I do... PML.

 * If you had spent half the time you've spent defending this silly idea to writing up what you already know we would be on to some other subject. I repeat.  Go to work.  Do the work.  Show us what a bright person you are and how much you know.  I am not your enemy.  I am trying to get you to show your stuff, but you are wasting your time shadow-boxing with me.  If you don't have anything to say now, then, in fact, my advice is, do nothing until you have something to say, but you must remember some shred of what these heroes of yours had to say, so put that shred in the article and then come back after you get hold of a copy of their books and do more.  That is how we do it here in Wikipedia land.  As someone else said at the beginning of this pointless debate, "Everything in Wikipedia is provisional." And, not that I'm recommending it, but if you think journalists wait until they have full informtion before writing, you really do not know anything about journalism.  (And I do know a lot about it.) Ortolan88

Well, I've tracked down the two mysterious gentlemen. First:

Lionel Curtis (1872-1955): town clerk of Johannesburg (1902); Acting Colonial Secretary to organize municipal government in Transvaal (1904-06); Beit Lecturer in Colonial History, Oxford University (1911); Fellow, All Souls College (1921); founder, Royal Institute of International Affairs (1919). He gives powerfully paternalistic expression to the White Man's Burden. Some quotes (taken, for dramatic effect, entirely out of context) follow:

 * The people of China are one race inhabiting one country.

 * The premature extension of representative institutions throughout the Empire would be the shortest road to anarchy.

 * As in the seventeenth and eighteenth centurles, so in the nineteenth, the British Commonwealth, as the price of its own existence, was forced to extend its commerce and settlements to the uttermost parts of the world. It was the people of Britain who were brought thereby into touch with the ultimate problem of politics, that which arises from the mutual contact of the principal families of mankind, and of one level of civilization with another. It was they who learnt by experience that those relations cannot be limited to trade. It was they who were forced by responsibility to recognize that a civilized state must intervene to redress the anarchy into which traders, armed with the resources of civlization, plunge the society of primitive races. It was they who recognized first the necessity and then the duty of creating a new order in the wake of, and indeed in advance of, trade. It was they who in time came to recognize that order itself is to be valued only as the necessary foundation for the further extension of liberty. It was the older Commonwealth, and not the new one, which was led by contact with ultimate facts to assume the task of preparing for freedom the vast multitude of human beings who have yet to realize what freedom means.

 * ... the stronger civilization has a responsibility for the weaker which it cannot evade.

 * Whilst enlarging its bounds in Asia, Africa, and the Pacific so as to include hundreds of millions who must for centuries remain incapable of assuming the burden of government ..... To-day some forty-five millions of Europeans are responsible for the peace, order, and good government of some three hundred and filty millions of the backward races

But he was by no means a mere jingoistic, paternalistic fool. There are subtleties, an ability to see more than John Bull saw:

 * It is a commonplace that states had developed and civilizations were flourishing in Asia at a period when Europe was still plunged in a barbarism as primitive as that prevailing in the other continents.

 * Frankly, we must realize that the first effect of European civilization on the older societies is disruptive.

If you can turn this sort of stuff into a useful contribution to an overview of the New Imperialism, PML, then I will tip my cap to you most humbly. Good luck! Tannin 11:27 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

Sir Reginald Coupland (1884-1952): Fellow, Trinity College, Oxford; lecturer, Trinity College, Oxford; Beit Lecturer in Colonial History, Oxford University (1913-18); Beit Professor of History of the British Empire, Oxford University (1920-48); Fellow, All Souls College (1920-48); Fellow, Nuffield College (1939-50); member, Palestine Royal Commission (1936-37); member, Cripp Mission to India (1942). Publications:

 * Britain and India, 1600-1941,1941
 * The Cripps mission, 1942
 * East Africa and its invaders, from the earliest times to the death of Seyyid Said in 1856. 1956
 * The exploitation of East Africa, 1856-1890; the slave trade and the scramble.
 * India; a re-statement. 1945
 * The Indian problem; report on the constitutional problem in India,. 1944
 * Kirk on the Zambesi, a chapter of African history. 1928
 * Livingstone's last journey. 1947
 * The Quebec Act: a study in statesmanship.
 * The war speeches of William Pitt, the younger. (Ed.) 1940
 * Welsh and Scottish nationalism; a study, 1954
 * Wilberforce, a narrative.

Harder to find any extracts from his work, but reading between the lines of what little is available on-line, I gather that Coupland was a significant behind-the-scenes mover and shaker in the administration of the Empire, but not until long after the period of interest to this article. The list of his publications is suggestive. (Having quite an interest in the Congo Free State, I'm sure I should enjoy his Kirk on the Zambesi.) Tannin

I have some problems with the structure of the first quarter or so of the article. Currently, it goes like this:
 * 1) Introduction
 * 2) The New Imperialism
 * 3) The Rise and Fall of Mercantilism and Pax Britanica
 * 4) Background: the Age of Pax Britanica

What is the logic for the third and fourth sections? They seem to have overlapping content, and to move back and forth chronologically. Frankly, I think it is a mess. I have a suggestion -- again, I want to know what others think, and am willing to let someone else start rearragning things.

After an introduction that really introduces the article as a whole, I'd do this:

 * 1) Introduction
 * 2) Mercantilism and its decline (I think this is important to explain why later forms of Imperialism are different from what you see in the 16th and 17th centuries)
 * 3) Pax Britanica and its Decline
 * 4) The New Imperialism (OR incorporate this etymological information into the introduction -- but it if is its own section, it should follow and not precede PB)

Does this make sense? Slrubenstein

No-I do not see how the ==New Imperialism== section can go before, if its part of the introduction, but must go after otherwise. I think it is quite fine early on because the reader is likely going to be wondering, "New Imperialism?" and yet is so long that it deserves a header.

 * An "introduction" section serves a different purpoas than a "body" section of an article, and must be conceived of differently. Obviously NI must be mentioned in the introduction, to introduce the whole article.  But in the body, it must go in its proper place -- and I am suggestion a chronological principal for organization, since so much of this is histoy.  What is your principle for organization, and why?

The third and 4th sections are my version and 172s version-I took mine and posted it there so that people could compare the two of them and thus encourage some form of editing.

 * you should have let people know.

 * I did.

Also, is it necesary to discuss Pax Britanica and Mercantilism seperately? Vera Cruz

 * I think so, since they are quite different. Slrubenstein

But are the that different in the context of New Imperialism? Each has its own page btw...

This is getting to be fun again, folks. I'm betting that the lines (that I removed because they seemed superfluous to me (as layout) but were restored as not superfluous by Vera Cruz (as guides to the reader)) actually mark places where there should be a break and a link to a separate article. Comments?

This is an unusually long article, and even though I generally dislike and doubt the value of the Wikipedian habit of breaking every article up into tiny little niblets, we should probably be looking ahead to breaking this one up after we get the writing all settled. Ortolan88 18:18 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

 * talk to Talk:Economic theories of the New Imperialist era

There is content in this page that gets off the topic, but i see no reason to discuss this as of yet. For now, plz examine:

 * 1) The Rise and Fall of Mercantilism and Pax Britanica
 * 2) Background: the Age of Pax Britanica

Vera Cruz

---

"This period is marked by a power vaccuum left by the crumbling Chinese, Russian and Ottoman Empires, and the rise of finance capitalism."

This over-simplistic statement removed, too POV.

Also, redundant paragraph on Pax Britannica/backround removed

172

I thought we were getting somewhere with this article, but now we have the return of the Death of a Thousand Cuts from Vera Cruz. What appear to be many, many changes, but who could figure them out? Italics lost, hierarchical heads ignored, half the article temporarily lost in the bit bucket, not a single summary line provided, no plot line of changes proposed here. You know, if I knew what you were up to, I might even agree with it, although I doubt it. This is bad for the Wikipedia. Ortolan88

 * I agree with Ortoloan88 and have a suggestion for EVERYONE: Given that there is a lot of difference of opinion not only over the content of this article but over its form, I think that for the time-being (a week or so) we should consider no change to be "minor" and discuss all proposed changes on these talk pages. I know this sounds tedious -- but given the endless reverts, with little net change, over the past week or so, I really, really believe discussing EVERY proposed change first will be more efficient and effective.  I myself proposed two changes recently, and brought them up here first, and I was satisfied by the results.  I urge all participants now to suggest changes here, and wait until there is at least one response before working on the article itself.  There are only five or us who have been very active, and it seems like one or two of us are on line at least several hours a day, so I do not think this process will take too much time.  And I repeat, it is better than a revert war. Slrubenstein

--

The article is in adequate to fine shape now. Why don’t we move on to articles that need much more attention? Why don’t we move on to writing articles for the red links, like the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, Tanganyika, or the Entente Cordiale, just to name a few.

As it is, we probably have the illuminating encyclopedia article on New Imperialism online.

172

The comments by Ortolan88 are absolutely, 100%, completely, wrong in stating "If you had spent half the time you've spent defending this silly idea to writing up what you already know we would be on to some other subject. I repeat. Go to work."

Frankly, I a currently unwell, busy at other work (note my delays revisiting here), away from my sources, and with limited access to download and upload facilities. This sort of provisional stuff is all I can currently do. To point out the "correct" way of proceeding is not constructive when it is not actually an option. He is perpetuating the mistake that people are not entitled to contribute what they can in areas that they can, if they cannot contribute in areas that would be ideal. It is the criticism that authors level at critics.

And frankly, if he thought I was under the impression I supposed journalists wait for full information, he mistook the point. They do not suppose that not being able to get information entitles them to make it up - not the reputable ones, anyway. I was certainly not going to quote from memory, and do not have any detail on the substance of the relevant works anyway. PML.

I think a chatroom would solve a lot of trouble. Vera Cruz

Which is more useful to somebody who has never heard of Pax Britannica or New Imperialism. (Pick one or submit your own revision)

 * A: The collapse of the British and Spanish empires in the New World following the American Revolution and revolutions in the viceroyalties of New Spain (to become Mexico) and Peru (to become Gran Colombia) signalled the failure of mercantilism and contributed to the appeal of the classical liberalism of Adam Smith for emerging nation-states. Richard Cobden, a disciple of Smith, contended that the costs of occupation often exceeded the financial return to the taxpayer. In other words, formal empire afforded no reciprocal economic benefit when trade would continue whether the overseas political entities were nominally sovereign or not.

or

 * B: The economic, political, and technological developments, of the late 19th century, rendered imperial competition feasible, in spite of Britain’s centuries of naval superiority. The decline of Pax Britannica, was made possible by developments such as the breakdown of the Concert of Europe and the establishment of industrial powers in Germany, Italy, the United States, and Japan. The industrial nations began to enter an era of aggressive national rivalry, particularly in regards to trade and colonialism, this era being known as that of the New Imperialism.

Vera Cruz

On a hurried reading (I have to go to work), the former is more learned and informative, the latter communicates much more to the non-expert reader. (Defining "expert reader" as one who knows enough of this subject not to need to read the Wikipedia entry.) Don't race in to change it just yet Vera Cruz. Wait a day or so and see what other participants think. It can probably (a) be improved further and (b) gain consensus support (saving yet more edit wars) if you let it sit here in talk for a while first. Tannin

(As is obvious from my comment above, I agree wholeheartedly with Slrubenstein's very sensible suggestion about discussing changes here before implementing them.) Tannin 23:34 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC) Its so easy to get bogged in the details, and forget the obvious. See my comments on the redirect on Talk:New Imperialism (1871-1914) -Sv

---

Aside from its confusing background information, the mad redirect itself was confusing. "New Imperialism 1871-1914" is confusing and redundant. That era was the one and only period known as "New Imperialism", not one era of many different eras known as "New Imperialism".

Some have called Bush's policies an era of "New Imperialism", but that's a historical allusion to another era. Realpolitik, for istanced is used today is much the same way.

I gave you guys a reason. The mad redirect is confusing and unnecessary.

---

I agree with 131. Why redirect?

172

why pretend there is a consensus, is my question: three pages of talk? just specify the term, and leave the general term open for general use. "New" is not enough of a qualifier, especially if it refers to something OLD. thanks.-Sv

 * If 172 is right, the "New Imperialism" is the term by which historians know this period. In other words, if you call up a historian and say, "What can you tell me about the New Imperialism?" he would start telling you about this phase or British history. In that case, the name is exactly the one that should be used, and it is a layman's error to object to the term because to him it seems ambiguous. We need to validate that this really is the term used for this phase of history, and doesn't refer to other things as well, and if so the title stays, period. --Len

I think we should use a totally different name. Vera Cruz

 * Vera Cruz is troubled because there's too much discussion so he moves the whole article away. I am trolled out on this article, between Vera and that guy who is unwell, so good luck to you all, back to literature and music for me.  Ortolan88

-

the article is receiving well-deserved praise: regarding the most recent edit by AdamRetchless:

"M 04:51 Jan 9, 2003 . . AdamRetchless (wikify, remove redundancies...needs more simple editing! (but great article!))"

172

Vera Cruz seems to be the only person who wants to change the name. I agree that the title of the article should use the term used most often by historians. If there are other terms that have been used to describe the phenomena, thee should be redirects from those terms to this article. If there are related phenomena (e.g. mercantilism, colonialism) there should be links. These two measures will ensure that anyone who wants to learn about this topic will find the article.

On a side note, I think that any time such a valued contributor to Wikipidia as Ortolan88 is driven away from an article, people should seriously reconsider both the content and form of their interventions. Slrubenstein

Ortolan88 is constantly making these accusations against me which are totally false, the most latest being that I moved this article somewhere else...yah....I sure did.... Vera Cruz

 * I got the impression that Vera Cruz had redirected this article at some point. I was wrong.  Ortolan88

There may be some useful content in the following paragraph, but I think it is redundant. Also, if any of this does belong in the article, it certainly belongs later, not where it was -- you do not talk about the rise of PB before the paragraph on the decline of mercantilism:

 * ==Mercantilism and Pax Britannica==

 * The economic, political, and technological developments, of the late 19th century, rendered imperial competition feasible, in spite of Britain’s centuries of naval superiority. The decline of Pax Britannica, was made possible by developments such as the breakdown of the Concert of Europe and the establishment of industrial powers in Germany, Italy, the United States, and Japan. The industrial nations began to enter an era of aggressive national rivalry, particularly in regards to trade and colonialism, this era being known as that of the New Imperialism.

Slrubenstein

---

Good work, Slrubenstein.

Why does Vera Cruz want to restore that redundant version?

172

 * A: The collapse of the British and Spanish empires in the New World following the American Revolution and revolutions in the viceroyalties of New Spain (to become Mexico) and Peru (to become Gran Colombia) signalled the failure of mercantilism and contributed to the appeal of the classical liberalism of Adam Smith for emerging nation-states. Richard Cobden, a disciple of Smith, contended that the costs of occupation often exceeded the financial return to the taxpayer. In other words, formal empire afforded no reciprocal economic benefit when trade would continue whether the overseas political entities were nominally sovereign or not.

or

 * B: The economic, political, and technological developments, of the late 19th century, rendered imperial competition feasible, in spite of Britain’s centuries of naval superiority. The decline of Pax Britannica, was made possible by developments such as the breakdown of the Concert of Europe and the establishment of industrial powers in Germany, Italy, the United States, and Japan. The industrial nations began to enter an era of aggressive national rivalry, particularly in regards to trade and colonialism, this era being known as that of the New Imperialism.

---

Version b is very confusing. What economic, political, and technological developments? Why not address them in the section pertaining to the causes of New Imperialism? Wasn't the breakdown of the Concert of Europe the establishment of nation-states in Italy and Germany?

Version a tells us why Pax Britannica was possible in the first place. We can't really understand New Imperialism unless we understand why Pax Britannica was possible in the first place, right?

131.247.155.93

Paragraph B would naturally be followed by paragraphs on those changes. A discussion of Pax Britannica is for Pax Britannica, not this page. Vera Cruz

Vera Cruz, an article on New Imperialism is essentially the same as an article on the breakdown of Pax Britannica.

172

There is more to it than that. Vera Cruz

Vera Cruz is right! leave it with his version

MarcusAurelius

Let users who have contributed to the article have some imput, such as Slrubenstein.

172

--- Vera Cruz,

Slrubenstein already explained why:

There may be some useful content in the following paragraph, but I think it is redundant. Also, if any of this does belong in the article, it certainly belongs later, not where it was -- you do not talk about the rise of PB before the paragraph on the decline of mercantilism:

Mercantilism and Pax Britannica
The economic, political, and technological developments, of the late 19th century, rendered imperial competition feasible, in spite of Britain’s centuries of naval superiority. The decline of Pax Britannica, was made possible by developments such as the breakdown of the Concert of Europe and the establishment of industrial powers in Germany, Italy, the United States, and Japan. The industrial nations began to enter an era of aggressive national rivalry, particularly in regards to trade and colonialism, this era being known as that of the New Imperialism. Slrubenstein

172

 * talk moved to Talk:Economic theories of the New Imperialist era

I did some reorganization of the first three parts of the article -- I incorporated the discussion of the definition into the preamble, and I put in a "signpost" to expplain the logic of the second and third sections (following the introduction). I still have one concern about organization, but I do not want to make a change unilaterally. Slrubenstein

On a first-quick-glance basis, it looks much better. I confess to a marked reluctance to wade all the way through the article again though, as every time I start to do that, I get half-way down only to check Recent Changes and discover that it's been changed again already. If it's still there in the morning (almost bedtime for me here) I'll re-read it properly and comment more carefully. Tannin

 * Thanks for the compliment, and yes, please do look at it again when you are refreshed.

 * To Vera Cruz, 172, other recent contributors: given Tannin's understandable comment, perhaps we can hold of on reversions and major changes for a day or two, and have some more discussion first? Slrubenstein

title: Talk:New Imperialism/Archive 3


text:
Fort Vancouver

Fort Vancouver was a 19th-century fur trading post built in the winter of 1824–1825. It was the headquarters of the Hudson's Bay Company's Columbia Department, located in the Pacific Northwest. Named for Captain George Vancouver, the fort was located on the northern bank of the Columbia River in present-day Vancouver, Washington. The fort was a major center of the regional fur trading. Every year trade goods and supplies from London arrived either via ships sailing to the Pacific Ocean or overland from Hudson Bay via the York Factory Express. Supplies and trade goods were exchanged with a plethora of Indigenous cultures for fur pelts. Furs from Fort Vancouver were often shipped to the Chinese port of Guangzhou where they were traded for Chinese manufactured goods for sale in the United Kingdom. At its pinnacle, Fort Vancouver watched over 34 outposts, 24 ports, six ships, and 600 employees. Today, a full-scale replica of the fort, with internal buildings, has been constructed and is open to the public as Fort Vancouver National Historic Site.

Background
During the War of 1812, the Pacific Northwest was a distant region of the conflict. Two rival fur trading outfits, the Canadian North West Company (NWC) and the American Pacific Fur Company (PFC), had until then both operated in the region peaceably. Funded largely by John Jacob Astor, the PFC operated without many opportunities for military defense by the United States Navy. News of the war and of a coming British warship put the American company in a difficult position. In October 1813, management met at Fort Astoria and agreed to transfer its assets to the NWC. HMS Racoon arrived the following month and in honor of George III of the United Kingdom, Fort Astoria was renamed to Fort George.

In negotiations with American Albert Gallatin throughout 1818, British plenipotentiary Frederick John Robinson was offered a proposition for a partition that would have, as Gallatin stated, "all the waters emptying in the sound called the Gulf of Georgia." Frederick Merk has argued the definition used by the negotiators of the Gulf of Georgia included the entirety of the Puget Sound, in addition to the Straits of Georgia and Juan de Fuca. This would have given the United Kingdom the most favorable location for ports north of Alta California and south of Russian America. Robinson did not agree to the proposal and subsequent talks did not focus on establishing a permanent border west of the Rocky Mountains.

The Treaty of 1818 made the resources of the vast region were to be "free and open" to citizens from either nation. The treaty wasn't made to combine American and British interests against other colonial powers in the region. Rather, the document states that the joint occupancy of the Pacific Northwest was intended to "prevent disputes" between the two nations from arising. In the ensuing years, the North West Company continued to expand its operations in the Pacific Northwest. Skirmishes with its major competitor, the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC), had already flared into the Pemmican War. The end of the conflict in 1821 saw the NWC mandated by the British Government to merge into the HBC.

Later negotiations
Throughout 1825 and 1826, British officials continued to offer Americans partition plans for the Pacific Coast of North America. These largely originated in part from correspondence with the NWC and later HBC. The border would continue to extend west on the 49th parallel to the Rocky Mountains, where the Columbia (and some times the Snake River) would be used as the border until it reached the Pacific Ocean. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs George Canning has been appraised by later historians as the most supportive British Foreign minister in securing a border along the Columbia. United States Secretary of State Henry Clay had given instructions to the American plenipotentiaries to offer a partition of the Pacific Northwest along the 49th parallel to the Pacific Ocean. The difference in the two considered plans were too much to solve, making the diplomats put off a formal colonial division once more.

Establishment

Fort Vancouver was established on the north bank of the Columbia River in the winter of 1824–1825. The London-based Hudson's Bay Company established it to serve as the headquarters of the Company's interior fur trade. In the early 1820s a general reorganization of all NWC properties, now entirely under HBC management, was overseen directly by Sir George Simpson. The newly established Columbia District needed a more suitable headquarters than Fort George at the mouth of the Columbia. Simpson was instrumental in the establishment of Fort Vancouver. Using the HBC position that any settlement of the Oregon boundary dispute would confirm the border placement along the Columbia; Simpson selected a location situated opposite from the mouth of the Willamette River. This expanse was an open and fertile prairie that was outside the flood plain and had easy access to the Columbia.

Description
An employee of the HBC, wrote a general description of Fort Vancouver and its structural composition as it was in 1843: "The fort is in the shape of a parallelogram, about 250 yards long, by 150 broad; enclose by a sort of wooden wall, made of pickets, or large beams firmly fixed in the ground, and closely fitted together, twenty feet high, and strong secured on the inside by buttressess. At each angle there is a bastion, mounting two twelve pounders, and in the centre there some eighteen pounders; ... these cannon have become useless. The area within is divided into two courts, around which are arranged about forty neat, strong wooden buildings, one story high, designed for various purposes..."

The fort was substantial. The palisades that protected it were 750 ft long, 450 ft wide and about 20 ft high. Inside, there were 24 buildings, including housing, warehouses, a school, a library, a pharmacy, a chapel, a blacksmith, plus a large manufacturing facility. The Chief Factor's residence in the center of Fort Vancouver was two stories tall. Inside was a dining hall where company clerks, traders, physicians, and others of the gentleman class would dine with the supervising Chief Factor. In general, the entirety of the Chief Factor's House and its meals were typically barred for general laborers and fur trappers. After dinner the majority of these gentlemen would relocate to the "Bachelor's Hall" to "amuse themselves as they please, either in smoking, reading, or telling and listening to stories of their own and others' curious adventures". As Dunn recalled;

"The smoking room ... presents the appearance of an armory and a museum. All sorts of weapons, and dresses, and curiosities of civilized and savage life, and of the various implements for the prosecution of the [fur] trade, may be seen there."

Outside the ramparts there was additional housing, as well as fields, gardens, fruit orchards, a shipyard, a distillery, a tannery, a sawmill, and a dairy. By 1843, situated roughly 600 yards outside Fort Vancouver were about sixty wooden houses. This small settlement was inhabited by fur trappers, machinists and other laborers of the fort. There they resided with their Indigenous or Métis wives and families. The dwellings were organized into orderly rows. The settlement was commonly referred to as Kanaka Village because of the many Hawaiians in company employ who lived there. In fact, it has been suggested that the Fort had the "largest single group of Hawaiians ever to congregate outside their home islands".

Fur trade operations
With high demand from Europe for fur-based textiles in the early 19th Century, the HBC was forced to expand its fur trade operations across North America to the Pacific Northwest. Prior to the establishment of Fort Vancouver, the HBC's largest westward fort was Fort William in present-day Ontario, which the company gained through its merger with the NWC. From its establishment, Fort Vancouver was the regional headquarters of the HBC's fur trade operations in the Columbia District. The territory it oversaw stretched from the Rocky Mountains in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west, and from Sitka in the north to San Francisco in the south. Fur trappers would bring pelts collected during the winter to the fort to be traded in exchange for company credit. The credit, issued by the company clerks, could be used to purchase goods in the fort's trade shops. Furs from throughout the Columbia District were brought to Fort Vancouver from smaller HBC outposts either overland, or by water via the Columbia River. Once they were sorted and inventoried by the company's clerks, the furs were hung out to dry in the fur storehouse, a large two-story post-on-sill building located within the walls of the fort. After the furs had been processed, they were mixed, weighed into 270 lb bundles, and packed with tobacco leaves as an insecticide. The 270-pound bundle of furs would be placed in a large press and wrapped in elk or bear hide to create overseas fur bales. The large 270-pound bales were then placed on boats on the Columbia River for shipment to London via the HBC trade routes. The furs would then be auctioned off to textile manufacturers in London. A large demand came from hatters who produced popular beaver felted hats.

Personnel
For most of its existence, Fort Vancouver was the largest non-indigenous settlement in the Pacific Northwest. The population of the fort and the environs was mostly French Canadians, Métis, and Kanaka Hawaiians; there were also English, Scots, Irish, and a variety of Indigenous peoples including Iroquois and Cree. The common language spoken at the fort was Canadian French, while company records and official journals were kept in English. However, trading and relations with the surrounding community were done in Chinook Jargon, a pidgin of Chinook, Nootka, Chehalis, English, French, Hawaiian, and other elements.

A survey of the total personnel at Fort Vancouver in 1846 reveals a culturally and materially diverse populace. Notably, the number of employees from the Hebrides, Orkney, and Shetland Islands was 57 men. This is exactly the same number as the combined number of workers from England and mainland Scotland. The number of men hired from Upper Canada, Lower Canada, and Rupert's Land was in total 91. These men came from English, French Canadian, Métis, Iroquois, Cree, and other cultural backgrounds. Most notable however, was that Kanaka Hawaiians totaled 154 that year, or 43% of the total fort population.

Chief Factor Dr. John McLoughlin was its first manager, a position he held for nearly 22 years, from 1824 to 1845. McLoughlin applied the laws of Upper Canada to British subjects, kept peace with the natives and sought to maintain law and order with American settlers as well. McLoughlin was later hailed as the Father of Oregon for allowing Americans to settle south of the Columbia River. Against the company's wishes, he provided substantial aid and assistance to westbound American settlers in the territory. He left the company in 1846 to found Oregon City in the Willamette Valley.

James Douglas spent nineteen years in Fort Vancouver; serving as a clerk until 1834 when he was promoted to the rank of Chief Trader. From October 1838 to November 1839, while McLoughlin was on furlough in Europe, Chief Trader Douglas was in charge. In November 1839 Douglas was promoted to the rank of Chief Factor. Douglas took on several temporary assignments elsewhere, to set up HBC's trading post at Yerba Buena (San Francisco) California in 1841, and to establish Fort Victoria in 1843, but from 1839 to 1845 there were normally two Chief Factors based at Fort Vancouver, with McLoughlin in charge and Douglas as his subordinate.

Agricultural production
At its inception, Governor George Simpson wanted the fort to be self-sufficient as food was costly to ship. Fort staff typically maintained one year's extra supplies in the fort warehouses to avoid the disastrous consequences of shipwrecks and other calamities. Fort Vancouver eventually began to produce a surplus of food, some of which was used to provision other HBC posts in the Columbia Department. The area around the fort was commonly known as "La Jolie Prairie" (the pretty prairie) or "Belle Vue Point" (beautiful vista). In time, Fort Vancouver diversified its economic activities beyond fur trading and begin exporting agricultural foodstuffs from HBC farms, along with salmon, lumber, and other products. It developed markets for these exports in Russian America, the Hawaiian Kingdom, and Mexican California. The HBC opened agencies in Sitka, Honolulu, and Yerba Buena (San Francisco) to facilitate such trade.

Express
Fort Vancouver was supplied in part through the overland York Factory Express. It originated from a route used by the NWC between Fort George to Fort William on Lake Superior. Each spring two brigades were sent, one from Fort Vancouver and the other from York Factory. A typical brigade consisted of about forty to seventy five men. These men carried supplies, furs and correspondence by boat, horseback and in backpacks for various HBC posts and personnel along the route. Furs stored at the York Factory would in turn be sold at London in an annual fur sale. Indians along the way were often paid in trade goods to help them portage around falls and unnavigable rapids.

Americans
The HBC, which controlled the fur trade in much of what Americans styled the Oregon Country, had previously discouraged settlement because it interfered with the lucrative fur trade. By 1838, however, American settlers were coming across the Rocky Mountains and their numbers increased each subsequent year. Many left from St. Louis, Missouri, and followed a fairly straight, but difficult, route called the Oregon Trail. For many settlers the fort became the last stop on the Oregon Trail where they could get supplies before starting their homestead.

During the Great Migration of 1843 an estimated 700 to 1,000 American settlers arrived via the Oregon Trail.

British response
The signing of the RAC-HBC Agreement with the Russian-American Company pushed the HBC into creating an agricultural subsidiary, the Pugets Sound Agricultural Company in 1840. Herds of sheep and cattle were purchased in Alta California and raised at Fort Nisqually. Agricultural products were sown and grown in abundance at Fort Cowlitz and exported with foodstuffs produced at Fort Vancouver to Russian America. Recruitment from retired HBC laborers residing in the Willamette Valley as agriculturalists, through the use of priests François Norbert Blanchet and Modeste Demers, utterly failed to convince any farmer to leave for vicinity of the Cowlitz farms. While additional plans called for recruitment in Scotland, these too came to nothing.

The only successful source of early colonists for the PSAC would come from the Red River colony. In November 1839, Sir George Simpson instructed Duncan Finlayson to begin promoting the PSAC to colonists. James Sinclair was later appointed by Finlayson to guide the settler families that signed the PSAC agreement to Fort Vancouver. They left Fort Garry (modern Winnipeg) in June 1841 with 121 people that consisted of 23 families. When they arrived at Fort Vancouver, they then numbered 21 families of 116 people. Fourteen of them were relocated to Fort Nisqually, while the remaining seven families were sent to Fort Cowlitz.

Oregon Treaty
Signed in 1846, the Oregon Treaty set the Canada–United States border at the 49th parallel north, putting Fort Vancouver within American territory. Although the treaty ensured that the HBC could continue to operate and had free access to navigate the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and the Columbia River, company operations were effectively stifled by the treaty and became unprofitable and were soon closed down.

Restoration
Because of its significance in United States history a plan was put together to preserve the location. Fort Vancouver was declared a U.S. National Monument on June 19, 1948, and redesignated as Fort Vancouver National Historic Site on June 30, 1961. This was taken a step further in 1996 when a 366 acre area around the fort, including Kanaka Village, the Columbia Barracks and the bank of the river, was established as the Vancouver National Historic Reserve maintained by the National Park Service. It is possible to tour the fort. Notable buildings of the restored Fort Vancouver include a bake house, where hardtack baking techniques are shown, a blacksmith shop, a carpenter shop and its collection of carpentry tools, and the kitchen, where daily meals were prepared.

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

title: Fort Vancouver


text:
Talk:Monty Python's Flying Circus

The "It's" Man-hermit or castaway?
Unless the Pythons themselves have described this character as a hermit, I think it's more accurate that he is a castaway, from a shipwreck or some other disaster. His tattered clothes tend to indicate that he has survived some disaster and a long period of isolation and a long trek back to civilization. Consider the show openings in which he came up out of the surf onto a shore. It's a minor detail, to be sure, but I recommend reviewing and updating this.---theBaron0530 5. October 2010 12:30 ET

Transnational themes (again)
I know this has been discussed before, but I don't think the "transnational themes" section is particularly relevant or that this is a notable aspect of Monty Python. Given that the section is only based on two sources, both of which are by the same author, it seems that one person's hobby horse has been given more prominence than it merits. Should we delete it? MFlet1 (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. There have been thousands of articles written about the show, I'm not sure why these two are of particular importance to the general public. The show was internationally popular, I think that's covered elsewhere in the article. Jbmcb (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Merge this with the "Monty Python" article.
There's another article named "Monty Python", with mostly the same content: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python

I suggest that article be amalgamated with this and the result published here. zwaa 11:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Flying Circus
I can't speak for what the group actually intended at the time, but Richthofen's squadron was named after an already extant term used to describe a traveling circus, in the sense of moving often and quickly. The aviators adopted the term because the word 'flying' took on a new meaning when applied to an aviation uni, but mostly because the unit was housed in tents and frequently moved around to different sectors of the front on little notice, so it essentially meant 'traveling circus'. The flying circus aspect came from the way they lived and traveled on the ground, and was not meant to imply anything circus-like or humorous about their actual flying, which was dead serious and professional. In any case, unless the group themselves stated that they were thinking of WW1 aviators, there is no particular reason to think they weren't simply adopting the same term as Richthofen did, rather than copying him specifically. A Flying Circus is a thing even without WW1 aviation. 64.222.88.237 (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

"And now for something completely different (quote)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=And_now_for_something_completely_different_(quote)&redirect=no And now for something completely different (quote)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Monty Python's Flying Circus


text:
Matthew Wood (sound editor)

Matthew Russell Wood (born August 15, 1972) is an American sound editor and voice actor. He is a supervising sound editor at Skywalker Sound in Marin County, California. He also provides the voice of General Grievous in the Star Wars franchise.

Career
Starting at Lucasfilm as a game tester at LucasArts, Wood then moved to the company's sound department and worked on all three films of the Star Wars prequel trilogy as supervising sound editor and also did an uncredited acting role in The Phantom Menace as Bib Fortuna and the voice of Ody Mandrell. In Attack of the Clones, he played Seboca and Magaloof. In Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith, in addition to a brief appearance as Orn Free Taa, Wood plays the voice role of General Grievous, a role originated by voice actors John DiMaggio and Richard McGonagle in the series Star Wars: Clone Wars. In the film, he dubbed the voice of stuntman Kyle Rowling, who played General Grievous utilizing motion capture.

He would later come back to work with the Star Wars expanded universe. He reprised his voice role of General Grievous in General Grievous Halloween audiocast as well as all video game appearances of Grievous with the exception of Star Wars Battlefront: Elite Squadron where Grievous was played by David W. Collins. He reprised his role as General Grievous and the battle droids in the Star Wars: The Clone Wars film and associated television series. In the series, he once again voiced Grievous as well as Wat Tambor, HELIOS-3D, senate guards, the battle droids and Poggle the Lesser. He provided the voice of RO-GR/Roger, a reprogrammed battle droid in Lego Star Wars: The Freemaker Adventures. He also voiced Bib Fortuna in Star Wars: The Bad Batch.

He has received five Academy Award nominations for Sound Editing: for Paul Thomas Anderson’s There Will Be Blood at the 80th Academy Awards, for the Pixar sci-fi film WALL-E at the 81st Academy Awards, for Star Wars: The Force Awakens at the 88th Academy Awards, for Star Wars: The Last Jedi at the 90th Academy Awards, and for Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker at the 92nd Academy Awards.

Wood made an appearance in Adult Swim's Robot Chicken in 2008.

title: Matthew Wood (sound editor)


text:
Charlotte County, New Brunswick

Charlotte County (2016 population 25,428 ) is the most southwestern county of New Brunswick, Canada.

It was formed in 1784 when New Brunswick was partitioned from Nova Scotia and named for Queen Charlotte. Once a layer of local government, the county seat was abolished with the New Brunswick Equal Opportunity program in 1966. Counties continue to be used as census subdivisions by Statistics Canada.

Located in the southwestern corner of the province, bordering the US state of Maine, Charlotte County is at the northern end of the Appalachian Mountains, which gives it a rugged terrain that includes Mount Pleasant. The St. Croix, Magaguadavic, and Digdegaush rivers drain into the Bay of Fundy. The county includes the large, populated islands of Grand Manan, White Head, Deer Island, and Campobello.

Eighteen per cent of the workforce is employed in aquaculture. Connors Bros., the largest sardine canning facility in North America, is located in Blacks Harbour. Cooke Aquaculture is an Atlantic salmon farming company, founded and headquartered in St. George. A paper mill, operated by JD Irving, is in Utopia, and Flakeboard Co. Ltd. operates outside of St. Stephen. Ganong Bros., Canada's oldest chocolate company, maintains its factory in St. Stephen.

Governance is in the form of New Brunswick municipalities in the case of the towns of St. Andrews, St. George, and St. Stephen, the villages of Grand Manan and Blacks Harbour, and the rural community of Campobello Island. The remaining parts of the county are administered as local service districts of the Southwest New Brunswick Regional Service Commission, except Clarendon, which is part of RSC 11 in neighbouring Sunbury County.

Demographics
As a census division in the 2021 Census of Population conducted by Statistics Canada, Charlotte County had a population of $26,015$ living in $11,560$ of its $13,449$ total private dwellings, a change of NaN% from its 2016 population of $25,428$. With a land area of 3418.24 km2, it had a population density of in 2021.

Power generation
Hydroelectric dams operate in St. George and St. Stephen at Milltown, though the latter is currently being decommissioned.

title: Charlotte County, New Brunswick


text:
Talk:Fort Vancouver

Untitled
Someone seemed to have vandalised this page - I restored it to its former glory. There are some strange people out there! Andy

I too live here and it has always had the claim to being the largest fireworks display west of the Mississippi ... I'm the one who made the orginal notation. I've been to many other cities as well and I stand by the statement. It is what it claims to be. Amandalee-from Vancouver, Washington State P.S. Zoe ... it is in Vancouver, Washington State, U.S.A
 * Hi Amandalee, thanks for your reply here. I went ahead and added "said to be the largest west of the Mississippi". I can dig up at least three cases where Lake Tahoe claims their 4th of July fireworks is the "largest fireworks display west of the Mississippi", Idaho Falls claims their 4th of July fireworks is the "largest west of the Mississippi", and The Columbian calls Vancouver's claim "shaky". I know local folklore dies hard, and it's an oft-repeated statement, so it deserves to be in the article, but not authoritatively. --Nate 08:59 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)
 * Although the claim is shaky, the basis for the claim was based on total cost of fireworks and timed length of show from first burst to last. - Rorybowman 05:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

In what city and country is this located? -- Zoe

Removed note about fireworks display being the largest west of the Mississippi. I live here and I know it's a huge fireworks display but like the "largest Oktoberfest in North America" which several different cities claim to have, lots of local events make exaggerated claims. --Nate 04:21 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

Comment about Fort Astoria discussed here

 * ''But it was rumored that the border may be set at the Columbia River.

It was assumed by the British (HBC) that the logical boundary would be the Columbia. But in the US, it was "assumed" that the Columbia was entirely American and the boundary would be at 54-40 (based on inflated interpretations of the Russo-Spanish treaty the Americans had inherited rights from the Russians on). There were no "rumours" as there was no one in the territory to make/spread rumours.Skookum1 16:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

 * ''This prompted the establishment of Fort George (now Astoria, Oregon), an American fort on the south bank near the mouth of the Columbia.

Uh, no. Astoria's existence predates Fort Vancouver's, and now that I look at it the linktag for "Fort George" goes to Fort Astoria; there's a distinction but I don't know if the article for THAT Fort George exists yet so I'll leave it for now. Skookum1 16:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Fort George was what the British renamed Astoria after taking control after the War of 1812. When I have more time I can provide more info on this. Pfly 06:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Start class assessment
This article is currently a start class article. If it was properly sourced, it would qualify as B class. Aboutmovies —The preceding  signed but undated.

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Reason for HBC move to Victoria
I'm moving this sentence from the article to here. It has a citation needed tag already, and my understanding is that it is simply incorrect. The HBC had been planning to abandon Fort Vancouver, and all its operations south of the 49th parallel if the Oregon Treaty turned out that way. I don't think the US fort had much to do with it. But rather that just delete the sentence, I'm moving it here in case someone can provide a source:

Political pressure from the new fort prompted the Hudson's Bay Company to move its headquarters to Fort Victoria (now Victoria, British Columbia) over a period of time.

Thanks! Pfly (talk) 05:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

My memory from when I worked there as a volunteer NPS tour guide in the 1980's was that the move was made subsequent to the Compromise of 1846 but I am physically near the fort and will try to get more precise information about Columbia Barracks. Rorybowman (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Hmm, it seems that the moving of the headquarters/depot from Ft Vancouver to Victoria did not happen all at once. The book I have at hand, Mackie's "Trading Beyond the Mountains", says that in 1844 the HBC ship Vancouver was ordered to go from London directly to Victoria instead of Ft Vancouver and that the first supply vessel arrived in 1845. The first shipment of Columbia Department fur returns from Victoria was in 1846. And "within a short time, Fort Victoria's commercial purpose would be fulfilled..." Mackie goes on to say, "In 1843, the centre of gravity of the HBC's operations began to shift. The new depot... formed the centre of a new regional economy... With the founding of Fort Victoria, the move of British commercial capital to the north started in earnest." So, perhaps it is hard to say exactly when the headquarters actually "moved", but if nothing else the plan to move and founding of the new depot predates the 1846 Oregon Treaty. Pfly (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Termination of "The Express"
I noticed this:
 * ''The furs they had traded were shipped back on the supply ships with the furs from Fort Vancouver often being shipped to China where they were traded for Chinese goods before returning to England, with the furs from York Factory being sold in London in an annual fur sale. This continued until 1846, when the fort found itself on American soil.

Actually I'm not certain that 1846 was the year of the very last Express, although it was in this period when alternate routes were being sought by Anderson north of 49....When was the date of transfer of Fort Vancouver from HBC to the US mlitary? BEcause under the Oregon Treaty the Company retained ownership of its assets south of the line, though continued operation of them proved impractical and they were soon shut down....just wondering if there wasn't an Express in '47, even '48....the Brigade that went from Fort Langley via Fort Hope and the Coldwater Trail to Kamloops wasn't, I think, until 1848, and even so it was only experimental (and was a flop); there's another route that was used, in the vicinity of today's BC Hwy 3....but something tells me in the back of my noggin the Express didn't end until Ft Vancouver was completely given up by the HBC, whever that exactly was. At the time of the treaty's signing, SFAIK, it remained in HBC hands despite underlying title passing to the US.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Separate Vancouver Barracks onto new page
The current Vancouver Barracks is worthy of its own page as it is currently a Washington Army National Guard Facility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BGinOC (talk • contribs) 11:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

1824
Show 1824 drawing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.54.225 (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fort Vancouver


text:
Jules Bordet

Jules Jean Baptiste Vincent Bordet (13 June 1870 – 6 April 1961) was a Belgian immunologist and microbiologist. The bacterial genus Bordetella is named after him. The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to him in 1919 for his discoveries relating to immunity.

Education and early life
Bordet was born at Soignies, Belgium. He graduated as Doctor of Medicine from the Free University of Brussels in 1892 and began his work at the Pasteur Institute in Paris in 1894, in the laboratory of Elie Metchnikoff, who had just discovered phagocytosis of bacteria by white blood cells, an expression of cellular immunity.

Career
In 1895 Bordet made his discovery that the bacteriolytic effect of acquired specific antibody is significantly enhanced in vivo by the presence of innate serum components which he termed alexine (but which are now known as complement). Four years later, in 1899, he described a similar destructive process involving complement, "hemolysis", in which foreign red blood cells are ruptured or "lysed" following exposure to immune serum. In 1900, he left Paris to found an institute in Brussels like Pasteur's, and continued to work extensively on the mechanisms involved in the action of complement. These studies became the basis for complement-fixation testing methods that enabled the development of serological tests for syphilis (specifically, the development of the Wassermann test by August von Wassermann). The same technique is used today in serologic testing for countless other diseases.

With Octave Gengou, he isolated Bordetella pertussis in pure culture in 1906 and posited it as the cause of whooping cough. He became Professor of Bacteriology at the Université Libre de Bruxelles in 1907.

Awards and honours
In March 1916, he was elected a Foreign Member of the Royal Society and in 1930, delivered their Croonian Lecture. In this lecture, Bordet also concluded that bacteriophages, the bacteria-killing "invisible viruses" discovered by Felix d'Herelle did not exist and that bacteria destroyed themselves using a process of autolysis. This theory collapsed in 1941 with the publication by Ruska of the first electron microscope pictures of bacteriophages. The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to him in 1919 for his discoveries relating to immunity.

Bordet died in 1961 and was interred in the Ixelles Cemetery in Brussels.
 * 1919: Member of the Royal Academy of Science, Letters and Fine Arts of Belgium.
 * 1921: Awarded the Cameron Prize for Therapeutics of the University of Edinburgh.

The Bordet railway station in Brussels is named after him.

The cancer hospital Institut Jules Bordet is also named after him.

title: Jules Bordet


text:
Peter Finch

Frederick George Peter Ingle Finch (28 September 1916 – 14 January 1977) was an English-Australian actor of theatre, film and radio.

Born in London, he emigrated to Australia as a teenager and was raised in Sydney, where he worked in vaudeville and radio before becoming a star of Australian films. Joining the Old Vic Company after World War II, he achieved widespread critical success in Britain for both stage and screen performances. One of British cinema's most celebrated leading men of the time, Finch won the BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role five times, and won a posthumous Academy Award for Best Actor for his portrayal of crazed television anchorman Howard Beale in the 1976 film Network.

According to the British Film Institute, "it is arguable that no other actor ever chalked up such a rewarding CV in British films, and he accumulated the awards to bolster this view". He died only two months before the 49th Academy Awards, making him the first person to win a posthumous Oscar in an acting category. As of 2023, the only other person to have done so was fellow Australian Heath Ledger.

Family
Finch was born as Frederick George Peter Ingle Finch in London to Alicia Gladys Fisher. At the time, Alicia was married to George Finch.

George Finch was born to British parents in New South Wales, Australia, but was educated in Paris and Zürich. He was a research chemist when he moved to Britain in 1912 and later served during the First World War with the Royal Army Ordnance Depot and the Royal Field Artillery. In 1915, at Portsmouth, Hampshire, George married Alicia Fisher, the daughter of a Kent barrister. However, Peter only learned in his mid-40s that Wentworth Edward Dallas "Jock" Campbell, an Indian Army officer, not George Finch, was his biological father. George Finch divorced his wife in 1920 on the grounds of her adultery with Campbell. Alicia Finch married Jock Campbell in 1922.

Early childhood
George gained custody of Peter, who was taken from his biological mother and raised by his adoptive paternal grandmother, Laura Finch (formerly Black), in Vaucresson, France. In 1925 Laura took Peter with her to Adyar, a theosophical community near Madras, India, for a number of months, and the young boy lived for a time in a Buddhist monastery. Perhaps as a result of his childhood contact with Buddhism, Finch always claimed to be a Buddhist. He is reported to have said: "I think a man dying on a cross is a ghastly symbol for a religion. And I think a man sitting under a bo tree and becoming enlightened is a beautiful one."

In 1926 he was sent to Australia to live with his great-uncle Edward Herbert Finch at Greenwich Point in Sydney. For three years he attended the local school, then North Sydney Intermediate High School, until 1929. RAF pilot and author Paul Brickhill was a school friend.

Early career in Australia
After graduating, Finch went to work as a copy boy for the Sydney Sun and began writing. However, he was more interested in acting, and in late 1933 appeared in a play, Caprice, at the Repertory Theatre.

In 1934–35 he appeared in a number of productions for Doris Fitton at the Savoy Theatre, some with a young Sumner Locke Elliott. He also worked as a sideshow spruiker at the Sydney Royal Easter Show, in vaudeville with Joe Cody and as a foil to American comedian Bert le Blanc. At age 19 Finch toured Australia with George Sorlie's travelling troupe.

Radio work
He did radio acting with Hugh Denison's BSA Players (for Broadcasting Service Association, later to become Macquarie Players). He came to the attention of Australian Broadcasting Commission radio drama producer Lawrence H. Cecil, who was to serve as his coach and mentor throughout 1939 and 1940. He was "Chris" in the Children's Session and the first Muddle-Headed Wombat.

He later starred with Neva Carr Glyn in an enormously popular series by Max Afford as husband-and-wife detectives Jeffery and Elizabeth Blackburn as well as other ABC radio plays.

First films
Finch's first screen performance was in the short film The Magic Shoes (1935), an adaptation of the Cinderella fairy tale, where Finch played Prince Charming.

He made his feature film debut in Ken G. Hall's Dad and Dave Come to Town (1938), playing a small comic role. His performance was well received and Hall subsequently cast Finch in a larger role in Mr. Chedworth Steps Out (1939), supporting Cecil Kellaway.

Finch appeared in a war propaganda film, The Power and the Glory (1941), playing a fifth columnist.

War service
Finch enlisted in the Australian Army on 2 June 1941. He served in the Middle East and was an anti-aircraft gunner during the Bombing of Darwin.

During his war service Finch was given leave to act in radio, theatre and film. He appeared in a number of propaganda shorts, including Another Threshold (1942), These Stars Are Mine (1943), While There is Still Time (1943) and South West Pacific (1943), the latter for Ken G. Hall. He also appeared in two of the few Australian feature films made during the war, The Rats of Tobruk (1944) and the less distinguished Red Sky at Morning (1944).

Finch produced and performed Army Concert Party work, and in 1945 toured bases and hospitals with two Terence Rattigan plays he directed, French Without Tears and While the Sun Shines. He narrated the widely seen documentaries Whose War Is It? (1943), Jungle Patrol (1944) and Sons of the Anzacs (1945).

Finch was discharged from the army on 31 October 1945 at the rank of sergeant.

Post-war career in Australia
After the war, Finch continued to work extensively in radio and established himself as Australia's leading actor in that medium, winning Macquarie Awards for best actor in 1946 and 1947. He also worked as a compere, producer and writer.

In 1946, Finch co-founded the Mercury Theatre Company, which put on a number of productions in Sydney over the next few years (initially in the diminutive St James' Hall), as well as running a theatre school.

Finch continued to appear in the (rare) Australian feature films made around this time including A Son Is Born (1946) and Eureka Stockade (1949). He was a leading contender to play Sir Charles Kingsford Smith in Smithy (1946) but lost out to Ron Randell.

Finch was also involved in some documentaries, narrating Indonesia Calling (1946) and helping make Primitive Peoples about the people of Arnhem Land.

Visit of Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh, and return to Britain
Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh toured Australia in 1948 with the Old Vic Company. They attended the Mercury production of The Imaginary Invalid on the factory floor of O'Brien's Glass Factory starring Finch. Olivier was impressed with Finch's acting and encouraged him to move to London, his birthplace, which he did that year.

Theatrical success
When Finch arrived in Britain, success came relatively early. Harry Watt arranged for a screen test at Ealing Studios, which led to Finch being cast as a murderous actor in the movie Train of Events (1949) under the direction of Basil Dearden.

While making the film, Olivier cast Finch as a Pole in a stage play at The Old Vic, James Bridie's Daphne Laureola (1949) supporting Edith Evans. This was a significant critical and commercial success and established Finch in London immediately. Olivier signed Finch to a five-year contract. When Train of Events was released, critic C. A. Lejeune praised Finch's work in the London Observer, commenting that he "adds good cheekbones to a quick intelligence and is likely to become a cult, I fear." The Scotsman said Finch "should be regarded as one of the most hopeful recruits to the British screen."

Finch had a small role as an Australian prisoner of war in the World War two drama The Wooden Horse (1950), directed by Jack Lee; this film would be the third-most-popular film at the British box office in 1950.

Finch's performance as a Pole in Daphne Laureola led to his casting as a Polish soldier in The Miniver Story (1950), the British-filmed sequel to the wartime morale boosting film Mrs. Miniver; unlike its predecessor, it was poorly received critically, but it did give Finch an experience of working for a movie financed by a major Hollywood studio.

During this time, Finch continued to appear on stage in various productions while under contract to Olivier. He directed a stage production of The White Falcon in January 1950. In February 1950 he toured in a production of The Damascus Blade by Bridget Boland under the direction of Olivier, co starring with John Mills.

Finch returned to the London stage in Captain Carvallo by Denis Cannan, once more directed by Olivier.

Finch's closeness to the Olivier family led to an affair with Olivier's wife, Vivien Leigh, which began in 1948, and continued on and off for several years, ultimately ending because of Leigh's deteriorating mental condition.

In March 1951 Finch replaced Dirk Bogarde for six weeks in a production of Point of Departure by Jean Anouilh. Later that year he played Iago opposite Orson Welles in a production of Othello, directed by Welles.

Despite his stage experience, according to the Sunday Times Finch, like his mentor Olivier, had stage fright, and as the 1950s progressed he worked increasingly in film.

Rising film reputation
Finch's film career received a considerable boost when cast as the Sheriff of Nottingham in The Story of Robin Hood (1952) for Walt Disney, opposite Richard Todd.

In 1952 Finch performed at St James's Theatre, King Street, London, in Sir Laurence Olivier's and Gilbert Miller's The Happy Time a comedy by Samuel Taylor. He played the part of Papa. He also did Romeo and Juliet at the Old Vic, playing Mercutio, to strong reviews.

He then made two films for Alexander Korda. In The Story of Gilbert and Sullivan (1953) Finch played Richard D'Oyly Carte opposite Robert Morley and Maurice Evans in the lead; the resulting movie was a box office disappointment. In The Heart of the Matter (1953), from the Graham Greene novel, Finch played a priest opposite Trevor Howard; his was a critical success.

Finch returned to the stage at the Old Vic with an appearance in An Italian Straw Hat by Eugène Labiche and Marc Michel adapted by Thomas Walton. He then received an offer from Paramount to star in Elephant Walk (1954), shot in Ceylon and Los Angeles. The part was intended for Laurence Olivier who turned it down, but Vivien Leigh agreed to play the female lead; Dana Andrews was the other star. The circumstances of production were turbulent; Leigh had a nervous breakdown during production, leading to her being replaced by Elizabeth Taylor. The experience helped sour Finch on a Hollywood career and he would only work occasionally there for the rest of his career.

Back in England, Finch was cast as the villain Flambeau in Father Brown (1954), receiving superb reviews opposite Alec Guinness in the title role. He narrated a documentary The Queen in Australia and had his first real star part in the Group 3/British Lion comedy, Make Me an Offer (1954), playing an antiques dealer. He was then a villain in the medieval swashbuckler The Dark Avenger (1955), opposite another Australian, Errol Flynn, for Allied Artists.

He was much in demand. C.G. Scrimgeour of Associated TV wanted Finch to play a patrol officer in a film based on Colin Simpson's articles about Shangri-La Valley in New Guinea. The Rank organisation wanted him to star in a film directed by Hugh Stewart called The Flying Doctor.

Under contract to Rank and stardom
In November 1954 Finch's contract with Olivier (five years extended to six) had expired and he signed a seven-year contract with the Rank Organisation worth £87,500 to make one film a year for them. "We are going to build Peter into a major British star", said Earl St. John, Rank's head of production, at the time.

Finch's first roles for Rank under the new arrangement gave him star parts but were, on the whole, undistinguished: Passage Home (1955), a drama with Anthony Steel and fellow Australian Diane Cilento; Josephine and Men (1955), a comedy from the Boulting Brothers with Glynis Johns and Donald Sinden; and Simon and Laura (1955), a comedy with Kay Kendall based on a hit play. None of these films performed particularly well at the box office.

Finch was then cast as an Australian soldier in A Town Like Alice (1956), opposite Virginia McKenna under the direction of Jack Lee from the novel by Neville Shute. The World War II drama, mostly set in Malaya and almost entirely shot at Pinewood Studios, became the third-most-popular film at the British box office in 1956 and won Finch a BAFTA for Best Actor.

Finch followed it with another war movie, The Battle of the River Plate (1956), playing Captain Hans Langsdorff for the team of Powell and Pressburger. This was also hugely popular at home, and British exhibitors voted Finch the seventh-most-popular British star at the box office for 1956. In October 1956, John Davis, managing director of Rank, announced him as one of the actors under contract that Davis thought would become an international star.

Finch returned to Australia to make The Shiralee (1957), made for Ealing Studios and MGM from the novel by D'arcy Niland, under the direction of Leslie Norman. It was one of Finch's favourite parts; the resulting movie was critically acclaimed and the tenth-most-popular movie at the British box office that year.

Finch followed it with another Australian story filmed on location, the bushranger tale Robbery Under Arms (1957), which did less well, despite having the same producer and director as A Town Like Alice. However, exhibitors still voted Finch the third-most-popular British star of 1957, and the fifth most popular overall, regardless of nationality.

Finch's next two films for Rank were not particularly successful: Windom's Way (1957), where he played a doctor caught up in the Malayan Emergency (the film was shot in Corsica and London); and Operation Amsterdam (1959), a war-time diamond thriller. Finch returned to the stage for the London production of Two for the Seesaw by William Gibson, under the direction of Arthur Penn.

The Nun's Story and international stardom
Finch's career received a boost when Fred Zinnemann cast him opposite Audrey Hepburn in The Nun's Story (1959). This was an enormous financial and critical success and established Finch's reputation internationally. In August 1959 he said this and The Shiralee were the only two films he had done that he liked.

For Disney he played Alan Breck in a version of Kidnapped (1960) then went to Hollywood to make The Sins of Rachel Cade (shot in 1959, released in 1961), an attempt to repeat the success of The Nun's Story, with Angie Dickinson.

He was much in demand and still owed Rank three films under his contract. They wanted him to appear opposite Dirk Bogarde in The Singer Not the Song. Instead Finch decided to co-write and direct an award-winning short film, The Day (1960). He announced plans to direct a feature – Dig, about Australian exploration – but it did not eventuate.

Then, for a fee of £25,000 he played Oscar Wilde in The Trials of Oscar Wilde (1960), winning another BAFTA; the film, however, was not popular. He played a Labour politician in Rank's No Love for Johnnie (1961), and won his third BAFTA for Best Actor – although like Oscar Wilde, the film lost money.

Finch was originally chosen to play Julius Caesar in Cleopatra (1963) opposite Elizabeth Taylor, and filmed some scenes in London, under the direction of Robert Mamoulian. When the film was postponed Finch withdrew; new director Joseph Mankiewicz wanted to still use him, but the actor was unable to make his schedule work, and the role was recast with Rex Harrison.

Finch made two unsuccessful Hollywood films with director Robert Stevens at MGM: I Thank a Fool (1962) and In the Cool of the Day (1963). While filming the latter he was reported in the Los Angeles Times as saying that the star system was dead and the future lay in independent films. He also said he would direct a second film The Hero.

Finch restored his critical reputation with two highly acclaimed British films: The Pumpkin Eater (1964) and Girl with Green Eyes (1964). He had an uncredited cameo in First Men in the Moon (1964), then had a good role in a tough adventure film for Robert Aldrich, The Flight of the Phoenix (1965).

Finch's next three films saw him support high-profile female stars: Sophia Loren in Judith (1966), Melina Mercouri in 10:30 P.M. Summer (1966) and Julie Christie in Far from the Madding Crowd (1967). He was reunited with Aldrich for The Legend of Lylah Clare (1968). The Red Tent (1970) was an expensive international adventure film, with Finch as Umberto Nobile.

Later career
Finch's career received another boost when Ian Bannen dropped out of the lead in Sunday Bloody Sunday (1971). Finch replaced him and his performance was rewarded with another BAFTA for Best Actor and an Oscar nomination.

The momentum of this was lost somewhat by Something to Hide (1972) and the disastrous musical remake of Lost Horizon (1973). He played Lord Nelson in Bequest to the Nation (1973) and an opportunistic financier in England Made Me (1973). The Abdication (1974) was an unsuccessful historical drama.

Network
Finch was asked to audition for the part of news presenter Howard Beale in Network (1976), written by Paddy Chayefsky and directed by Sidney Lumet. The movie, with Finch as its star, was his biggest commercial and critical hit in years. His line "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this any more!" has become iconic.

He then played Yitzhak Rabin in Raid on Entebbe (1977).

Poet
Finch was also an occasional poet. He was encouraged by Kenneth Slessor, who published Finch's poem "Tell them" in Australian Poetry 1945, of which he was the editor. Slessor also arranged for a volume of Finch's early poems to be published. Finch's biographer Trader Faulkner reported that Finch told him that "no film award ... ever gave him the sense of fulfillment comparable to seeing a poem he'd written in print".

Personal life
Finch was married three times. In 1943, he married Romanian-born French ballerina Tamara Tchinarova; they worked together on a number of films. They had a daughter, Anita, born in 1950. They divorced in 1959, after she discovered his affair with actress Vivien Leigh in California.

Finch then married South African-born actress Yolande Turner (née Yolande Eileen Turnbull); they had two children together, Samantha and Charles Peter. During their marriage, Finch had an affair with the singer Shirley Bassey. Bassey had a daughter, also named Samantha, born in 1963; Bassey's husband at the time, the openly gay film producer Kenneth Hume, believed that Finch was Samantha's biological father. Finch and Turner divorced in 1965.

On 9 November 1973 in Rome, Finch married Mavis "Eletha" Barrett, who was known as Eletha Finch. They had a daughter together, Diana.

Death
Shortly after Raid on Entebbe finished shooting, Finch undertook a promotional tour for Network. On 13 January 1977 he appeared on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson. George Carlin was also on the show that night; he joked about death. The day after, Finch had a heart attack in the lobby of the Beverly Hills Hotel and died at the age of 60. He is interred in the Hollywood Forever Cemetery.

Oscar
Finch was nominated for an Oscar for Network and went on to posthumously win the award, which was accepted by his widow, Eletha Finch. Although James Dean (twice) and Spencer Tracy had previously been posthumously nominated for a Best Actor Oscar, Finch was the first actor to win the award posthumously, as well as the first Australian actor to win a Best Actor award. He was the only posthumous winner of an Oscar in an acting category until fellow Australian Heath Ledger won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor in 2009; there were many earlier posthumous Oscar winners in non-acting categories. Finch also won five Best Actor awards from the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA), including one for Network.

Shortly before he died, Finch told a journalist:"We all say we're going to quit occasionally. I'd like to have been more adventurous in my career. But it's a fascinating and not ignoble profession. No one lives more lives than the actor. Movie making is like geometry and I hated maths. But this kind of jigsaw I relish. When I played Lord Nelson I worked the poop deck in his uniform. I got extraordinary shivers. Sometimes I felt like I was staring at my own coffin. I touched that character. There lies the madness. You can't fake it."

Biographies
In 1954, the Australian journalist and author George Johnston wrote a well-researched series of biographical articles on Finch, his life, and his work, which appeared in the Sydney Sun-Herald on four consecutive Sundays, which were certainly the first detailed account of Finch's life to be published. Finch later provided the inspiration for the character Archie Calverton in Johnston's novel, Clean Straw for Nothing.

In 1980, American author Elaine Dundy published a biography of Finch titled Finch, Bloody Finch: A Biography of Peter Finch. That year, his second wife, Yolande Finch, also published a posthumous account of their life together, Finchy: My Life with Peter Finch. Another biography had previously been published by his friend and colleague Trader Faulkner, in 1979.

According to an entry in Brian McFarlane's The Encyclopedia of British Film, republished on the British Film Institute's Screenonline website, Finch "did not emerge unscathed from a life of well-publicised hell-raising, and several biographies chronicle the affairs and the booze, but a serious appraisal of a great actor remains to be written."

A profile of Finch at Screenonline asserts that "it is arguable that no other actor ever chalked up such a rewarding CV in British films."

title: Peter Finch


text:
Production sound mixer

A production sound mixer, location sound recordist, location sound engineer, or simply sound mixer is the member of a film crew or television crew responsible for recording all sound recording on set during the filmmaking or television production using professional audio equipment, for later inclusion in the finished product, or for reference to be used by the sound designer, sound effects editors, or Foley artists (aka Foley dancers). This requires choice and deployment of microphones, choice of recording media, and mixing of audio signals in real time.

Usually, the recordist will arrive on location with their own equipment, which normally includes microphones, radio systems, booms, mixing desk, audio storage, headphones, cables, tools, and a paper or computer sound logs. The recordist may be asked to capture a wide variety of wild sound on location, and must also consider the format of the finished product (mono, stereo or multi channels). Production sound mixers are tasked with recording audio in many different types of environments. Shoots outside require extra equipment such as microphone screens or wind blockers. Larger productions will often take advantage of a sound stage, or a large prepared environment that has been treated for acoustic control and is attended by an audio staff, directed by the mixer. The production sound mixer may travel to each potential shooting site to scout any potential audio disturbances. This is a critical preparatory step that allows the mixer to begin planning the equipment that will be needed for the shoot.

The recorded production soundtrack is later combined with other elements, i.e. effects, music, narration, Foley or re-recorded dialog by automated dialogue replacement (ADR).

Often, when taping on video, the sound recordist may record (single system) audio directly onto the camera rather than use a separate medium (double system), although a separate copy is often made, as it both provides an extra copy which may have more tracks and also may include other sound captured without the camera.

The sound mixer is considered a department head, and is thus completely responsible for all aspects of production sound including the hiring of a boom operator and utility sound technician, planning the technical setup involving sound including both sound equipment and ancillary devices involved in syncing and time offsets, anticipating and discussing sound-related problems with the rest of the crew, and ordering and preparing the sound equipment to be used on the set.

title: Production sound mixer