text:
Foramen magnum

The foramen magnum (great hole) is a large, oval-shaped opening in the occipital bone of the skull. It is one of the several oval or circular openings (foramina) in the base of the skull. The spinal cord, an extension of the medulla oblongata, passes through the foramen magnum as it exits the cranial cavity. Apart from the transmission of the medulla oblongata and its membranes, the foramen magnum transmits the vertebral arteries, the anterior and posterior spinal arteries, the tectorial membranes and alar ligaments. It also transmits the accessory nerve into the skull.

The foramen magnum is a very important feature in bipedal mammals. One of the attributes of a biped's foramen magnum is a forward shift of the anterior border of the cerebellar tentorium; this is caused by the shortening of the cranial base. Studies on the foramen magnum position have shown a connection to the functional influences of both posture and locomotion. The forward shift of the foramen magnum is apparent in bipedal hominins, including modern humans, Australopithecus africanus, and Paranthropus boisei. This common feature of bipedal hominins is the driving argument used by Michel Brunet that Sahelanthropus tchadensis was also bipedal, and may be the earliest known bipedal ape. The discovery of this feature has given scientists another form of identifying bipedal mammals.

Structure
The foramen magnum is a large, oval-shaped opening (foramen) in the occipital bone of the skull. It is present in humans, and in many other animals. Anteriorly, it is bounded by the basiocciput. Posteriorly, it is bounded by the supraocciput. Laterally, it is bounded by the occipital condyles.

On the occipital bone, the foramen magnum presents two midline cephalometric landmarks. The opisthion is the midpoint on the posterior margin of the foramen magnum. The basion is located at the midpoint on the anterior margin of the foramen magnum.

The alar ligament, which is attached on each side to the tubercle of occipital condyle, divides the foramen magnum into an anterior smaller compartment and a posterior larger compartment.

Variation
From the size, position and where it is located the foramen magnum can help determine many factors. In humans, the foramen magnum is found to be located and positioned anteriorly. In some rodents and mammals, the foramen magnum can be found anteriorly in the cranium.

The foramen magnum varies in size between individuals. Earlier ossification of the occipital bone leads to a smaller foramen.

The foramen magnum varies in size and shape when comparing different populations to each other. In humans, men tend to have a larger sized foramen magnum than women, but the overall shape is consistent.

In humans, the foramen magnum is farther underneath the head than in the other great apes. Thus, in humans, the neck muscles (including the occipitofrontalis muscle) do not need to be as robust in order to hold the head upright. Comparisons of the position of the foramen magnum in early hominid species are useful to determine how comfortable a particular species was when walking on two limbs (bipedalism) rather than four (quadrupedalism).

Heart-shaped foramen magnum
In an early hominin, Paranthropus boisei, also known as Australopithecus boisei, has a foramen magnum that is similar to a shape of a heart or a cardioid. When KNM-ER 406 was examined among other species, the foramen magnum was different. Compared to the usual oval-shaped foramen magnum, the shape of the Australopithecus boisei foramen magnum appears to be shortened. In the foramen magnum of Australopithecus boisei, both the anterior and posterior are different in size and diameter. The anterior of the foramen magnum had a greater lateral diameter and was more broad compared to other early hominins. While the lateral diameter of the posterior foramen magnum was shortened to create more of a cardioid shape. The anterior edges of the foramen magnum in Australopithecus boisei lacks the oval curve that would normally appear in other species that have an oval to circular-shaped foramen magnum. The unique shape of the foramen magnum was also seen in some casts of Hadar species. The Hadar shows traits and characteristics of having a similar cardioid shape. The change in the shape of the foramen magnum has been studied to identify the possibility of different functions. There is a potential correlation between the change of shape of the foramen magnum to how it functions in the body. Although not proven, compared to other hominins, the route that blood travels through the foramen magnum in Australopithecus boisei are more straight and direct. With the enlargement and broadening of the anterior foramen magnum, allow for more venous drainage from the occipital and marginal sinuses.

Function
The foramen magnum transmits a number of important structures between the neck and the neurocranium.

Structures passing through anterior compartment (osseoligamentous compartment) include:

 * the apical ligament and tip of the dens.
 * the upper band of cruciate ligament of the atlas (C1 vertebra).
 * the membrana tectoria.

Structures passing through posterior compartment (neurovascular compartment) include:
 * the lower end of medulla oblongata, surrounded by meninges.
 * the fourth part of the vertebral artery, surrounded by sympathetic plexus of nerves.
 * accessory nerves.
 * anterior and posterior spinal arteries.
 * the tonsil of the cerebellum (occasionally) as in a tonsillar herniation known as a Chiari malformation.

Clinical significance
The foramen magnum may be too large, too small, or the wrong shape. A small foramen magnum can cause neurological problems, and the reduced circulation of cerebrospinal fluid can cause hydrocephalus. This may be treated with suboccipital craniectomy.

Other animals
An anterior foramen magnum can be found in other bipedal mammals besides humans. The jerboa, a bipedal rodent, also has a foramen magnum.

Evolution of foramen magnum in fossils
Although not fully proven, there are many studies that show the possibility that where the foramen magnum is positioned in the cranium is significant in fossils. By being able to locate where the foramen magnum is positioned, anthropologists and other researchers are able to determine whether or not the species were bipedal (among other factors). The positioning of the foramen magnum changing over time can be seen in different fossils. Analyzing the foramen magnum in fossils like Ardipithecus ramidus, links the fossil to other earlier and later hominid who share similar anterior foramen magnum and other bipedalism features. Although not proven, there are correlations with the foramen magnum being more anterior positioned to the ability of mammals to walk on two limbs. Comparing this to other animals, such as some primates, the foramen magnum are located more of a posterior position in the cranium. With the foramen magnum being position anterior in the cranium, the body of bipedal mammals is given a different center of gravity compared to quadrupedal mammals. The anterior foramen magnum shifts the weight of the body more to the mammals' pelvis and femur, present in some primates, like great apes. With a posterior foramen magnum, the alignment and weight of the body falls more lateral under the head This allows for humans and other bipedal mammals to be able to walk on two limbs. Even with a posterior foramen magnum, some primates are still able to use their lower two limbs to walk.

With a common anterior foramen magnum in fossils, the fossils can be studied and researched to link mammals to others who are potentially bipedal. With more correlations and similarities of fossils who have an anterior foramen magnum; it links to the idea that these species might be bipedal. The shift in the foramen magnum moving towards a more anterior position in the cranium, gives rise to the idea of possible bipedalism.

title: Foramen magnum


text:
Mac the Knife

Mac the Knife was the pen name (inspired by the homophonous well-known song "Mack the Knife") of an anonymous gossip columnist for the (now defunct) Apple Macintosh-focused trade publication MacWEEK. Mac the Knife was always written by a single writer, but the identity of that writer changed more than once over the long publishing history of MacWEEK. The column was known not only for its wide-ranging and often accurate Macintosh-related rumors, but for its gonzo, Hunter S. Thompson-like style.

Tipsters who provided juicy gossip were provided with coffee mugs emblazoned with the Knife's logo. During the column's heyday, the trophy mugs were occasionally sent randomly to Apple employees in order to obscure the true leakers.

MacWEEK's party at Macworld Conference & Expo was named for this fictional character. The party was often more secretive than Apple's own parties, to protect the identity of the Knife.

During the latter part of the Knife's career, his or her columns appeared on a website called The Electric Knife, which was published by Mac Publishing at mactheknife.com, but after the Knife's retirement, the domain expired. For some time, it was not associated with the Knife. Recently, it has been pointed at the defunct MacEdition homepage.

Today, none of the former Mac the Knife columnists write using this name. The columnist himself moved to MacEdition in 2000, penning a column called the "Naked Mole Rat Report" (an allusion to a phrase used in one of the Knife's last columns). The column seems to have ceased publication in 2003.

Many of the later Mac the Knife columns are still available from the Internet Archive's copy of the Electric Knife site.

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

title: Mac the Knife


text:
Talk:Ben Chifley

Untitled
Mr Austin,

Association with left-wing elements ( = Communist) issues was indeed an election issue in 1949, rightly or wrongly. Dismissing such statements (and me) as right-wing is utterly wrong.

Two examples of references for this are this webpage and (closing paragraphs).

BTW - I wrote that second paragraph which described his achievements - how is that right-wing or biased? However, you wote that analysis of his election defeat - which I did not regard as NPOV.

Arno 06:47, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The Ben Chifley article says that Ben Chifley opposed the Communist Party Dissolution Bill in 1951 "on civil liberties grounds". Yet over at the Robert Menzies article, it says that the Labor Party led by Chifley let the bill pass through the Senate (which the ALP controlled during Menzies' first term). Which is correct?

Based on my reading of that period of Australian history, I have the impression that Chifley was vehemently anti-Communist (e.g. sending in the troops at the Minmi coal mine), while his successor Doc Evatt favoured a softer approach towards the Reds. I know that Evatt campaigned against the Bill at the referendum later in 1951 after Chifley passed away - perhaps Chifley was quite happy to let Menzies ban the CPA, but Evatt was more libertarian?

In any case, the Chifley article is right and the Menzies article is wrong, or vice versa. --Humehwy 00:46, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Answer to the above:

Both Chifley and Evatt were anti-Communist in the sense that they opposed Communism as an ideology and the influence of the CPA in the labour movement in particular. Evatt was after all Attorney-General in Chifley's government and was responsible for jailing Lance Sharkey for sedition. Evatt also founded ASIO as a means of keeping the CPA under surveillance.

Both Chifley and Evatt, however, opposed the Menzies government's bill to ban the CPA and the subsequent referendum. This was not through any sympathy towards the CPA but on two grounds of principle: that it was wrong to ban political parties (and also counter-productive), and that the reverse onus of proof in the bill was contary to the principles of British law.

Nevertheless, the ALP allowed the anti-Communist bill through the Senate, much against the wishes of both Chifley and Evatt, after the ALP Federal Executive ordered them to do so (as it then had the power to do). The Executive was strongly influenced by the Catholic right-wing faction of the party, and was also motivated by fear that Menzies would use the bill as a pretext for an election if it was blocked in the Senate.

Once the bill was passed, Evatt (as a lawyer) took the lead in the campaign against it, successfully arguing in the High Court that it was unconstitutional, and then leading the campaign to defeat the referendum. In this he had Chifley's full support. Chifley was dying and unable to carry the campaign burden that Evatt took on.

So there is no contradiction between the two articles, although they should probably be edited so that they tell the same story about these events.

Adam 13:13, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Chifley University
Can anyone explain what this sentence means?

 * According to a debate (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/HansArt.nsf/0/ca256d11000bd3aa4a25656e000f21b6?OpenDocument) on the topic, held in 1997 after the Labour party had regained government, the decision to rename Chifley University reflected a desire to attach the term of Western Sydney to institutions of lasting significance, and that the idea ultimately received the support of Bob Carr, later the Premier of New South Wales.

Adam 09:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No I can not explain the above sentence. But in the sited hansart Mr Aqulina claims, Western Sydney University was intended to be named Chifley University (during its establishment under the Wran and Unsworth governments). Mr Aqulina states that until a debtate lead by Terry Metherel the university was going to be established as Chifley University, claiming Terry Metherel said "Ben Chifley’s only claim to fame so far as western Sydney was concerned was that he once drove a steam train through the region."

Is there any reference that actually supports the claim of the Western Sydney name being supported by Bob Car? C4sc4 (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Economist?
Peter Ryan wrote (in Brief Lives) that Ben Chifley was a self taught economist and he worked on a ship, or took a trip to see South East Asia during the depression. Does anyone know of anywhere else these claims are made? C4sc4 (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Second Clause and NPOV
''Australian politician and the 16th Prime Minister of Australia, was one of Australia's most influential Prime Ministers. Among his government's accomplishments were the post-war immigration scheme under Arthur Calwell, the establishment of Australian citizenship in 1949, the Snowy Mountains Scheme, airlines Qantas and TAA, a social security scheme for the unemployed, reorganising and enlarging the CSIRO, and the founding of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). One of the few successful referenda to modify the Australian Constitution took place during his term.'' - is there any real justification for rating him as influential as PM? Most of the lauded schemes were only initiated in '49 and probably carried out because of Menzies support for the projects. Qantas and TAA were not requiring PM's support (TAA was a private company). ASIO was later revealed to be riddled with communist spies. CSIRO can't even report accurately on the weather. Instead of claiming that Chifley was influential, how about saying he was "Highly lauded by his supporters." DDB (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Misleading Hyperbole
Quote "unprecedented government involvement in education ," end quote this may be a correct citation but is not fact and is hyperbolic. Education was the provenance of state government both before and after Chifley. Chifley may have spent federal money on aspects of schooling, but that is hardly federal reform. State curriculum was determined by states and buildings were still built by the states. Private schools still ran privately. In fact, without detail, I would question that there was any federal involvement. DDB (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

POV?
One of the few successful referendums to modify the Australian Constitution, the 1946 Social Services referendum, took place during Chifley's term.

It seems to me that a referendum that passes is only "successful" from the perspective of those who were advocating the YES case. Those advocating NO would only consider the outcome to be successful if the NO vote got the numbers. It's a campaign that is successful or not; a referendum itself is neither successful nor unsuccessful.

Am I being too anal here, or do we need to fix the wording? --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  09:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Love of Rocks?
"Ben Chifley was also known for his immense love of geology, especially rocks. His love of Australian rocks was unknown to most except his close family and he often advocated for the preservation of Australia's natural rocky landforms." Can we reference this statement? Is it possible this is merely an oblique reference to Ayer's Rock, later renamed Uluru and not geological stone formations in general? Or is his love for such stone broadened to include Three Sisters and the Apostles? Sadly he missed Jagger or Australian culture might have been more welcoming of that stoned group. The pet kangaroo riding reads like a joke .. much like the cloying and turgid wording of most of this hagiography. DDB (talk) 10:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Love of rocks was vandalism. Spoke with fellow student of vandal who confirmed this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColBatGuano (talk • contribs) 02:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

New Research/so called reforms
The danger of new research in listing items Chifley was involved in is that they may be factually wrong, misleading, unencyclopedic and partial. For example, higher education is mentioned as being a triumph of Chifley. He is said to have initiated scholarships. However, the expansion of higher education was related to returning soldiers not having traditional vocations on return from world war 2. It mistakes opportunism with policy. There is no evidence Chifley wanted it but that his Minister applied a quick fix to the problem that the Chifley government was maintaining post war rationing years after the war ended. Chifley was a control freak who wanted social change and used government control to get his way. His government was so unpopular at the end that the succeeding Liberal government held office for twenty two years. The hagiographic detail ignores this. DDB (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistencies relating to death & parliamentary term
If Chifley died on 13 June 1951, why does the info box say he was member of Macquarie till 28 July 1951? He could not continue to represent his electorate for another 6 weeks after his death! Mrodowicz (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 28 July was the date of the by-election. It's wrong anyway, though; changed. Frickeg (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Dealings with Laurence Hartnett
I am working on the Hartnett_(car) page. Laurence_Hartnett was the former Australian Managing Director of General Motors Holden. He had a disagreement with his superiors in Detroit and resigned his position in 1947. The current Hartnett Car article states that "The former Managing Director of General Motors-Holden's, Laurence Hartnett, was approached by then Australian Prime Minister Ben Chifley regarding the possible establishment of an Australian motor manufacturing company to challenge the dominance of GMH in the Australian market." This is attributed to an article in "Australian Classic Car" magazine.

From my research I can not find any evidence of Ben Chifley approaching Hartnett. All I can find are press articles reporting on meetings where Hartnett has approached Chifley or other members of the Cabinet.

A popular belief is that the Hartnett Car failed because the Federal government reneged on promises to support the project in terms of financial inducements. I am forming the opinion that this may not be true. A very early "confidential" memo from Hartnett to potential investors states that " the car has the full support of the Australian Government including the Prime Minister. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hartnett_Prospectus_Annexure_A.pdf

A later draft of this memo makes no such claim https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hartnett_Prospectus_Annexure_B.pdf . Nor does the final prospectus https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hartnett_Prospectus.pdf .

I am considering the option that Hartnett (a good salesman) simply spread the idea to early investors that he was approached by Chifley. When the project failed he then blamed Chifley. Does any editor of this article have any thoughts or reference materials to help document the true position? Brycewhite (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit note: lists of legislative achievements
There were at least three overlapping but different lists of legislative achievements, presumably from different sources: one in the lead, and the others in the body under the Prime Ministership heading. In particular, most of the items that were in the lead were not mentioned anywhere in the body, which was unsatisfactory.

I have consolidated these and eliminated duplications. I have adopted the list format as the minutiae of some of the items are surely only of interest to specialist scholars in the history of social welfare, and break the flow of the article. There are now two lists, one about social welfare, and one about other legislative achievements. The PBS stays in its own, prose-form paragraph, as that paragraph also discusses the referendum which is of general relevance in the narrative. The banking reforms also stay in their own paragraph, as it is linked to the bank nationalisation controversy.

I have taken a "minimum change" approach, preserving all content that is not explained in more detail somewhere else in the body, so the lists and the narrative before and after them may need further rationalisation and refinement. --62.189.73.197 (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ben Chifley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513234015/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/HansArt.nsf/0/ca256d11000bd3aa4a25656e000f21b6?OpenDocument to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/HansArt.nsf/0/ca256d11000bd3aa4a25656e000f21b6?OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ben Chifley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013120930/http://asio.gov.au/About/Content/History.aspx to http://www.asio.gov.au/About/Content/History.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031119093359/http://www.chifley.org.au/index.php to http://www.chifley.org.au/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ben Chifley


text:
Drift migration

Drift migration is the phenomenon in which migrating birds are blown off course by the winds while they are in flight. It is more likely to happen to birds heading south in autumn because the large numbers of inexperienced young birds are less able to compensate than the adults heading north in spring.

Drift is assisted by disorientating conditions such as mist or drizzle, and can result in large numbers of birds arriving together in an area in which they are not normally seen. In the UK this is called a fall, while in the U.S. it is known as a fallout, though in the latter case, it need not involve vagrant birds.

An example would be an east wind in September blowing Scandinavian migrants such as bluethroats, wrynecks, and the continental race of robin onto the east coast of England and Scotland, leading to temporary concentrations of these species at headlands like Spurn.

title: Drift migration


text:
Genesis Energy Limited

Genesis Energy Limited, formerly Genesis Power Limited is a New Zealand publicly listed electricity generation and electricity, natural gas and LPG retailing company. It was formed as part of the 1998–99 reform of the New Zealand electricity sector, taking its generation capacity from the breakup of the Electricity Corporation of New Zealand (ECNZ) and taking retail customers from three local power boards in the Lower North Island. The New Zealand Government owns a 51% share of the company.

Genesis Energy is the largest electricity and natural gas retailer in New Zealand with 26% and 39% market share respectively in the 2015–2016 financial year. In 2015, Genesis produced 14% of New Zealand's electricity, and is the third largest electricity generating company in New Zealand in terms of MW capacity, GWh generation and revenue (see comparison table at New Zealand electricity market).

History
Genesis Energy began business on 1 April 1999, after the reform of the New Zealand electricity market and the breakup of the Electricity Corporation of New Zealand (ECNZ). It took over the Huntly Power Station, Tongariro Power Scheme and Waikaremoana Hydro Scheme from ECNZ, and the Hau Nui Wind Farm and the Kourarau Hydro Scheme from Wairarapa Electricity. It also inherited the retail arms of Powerco, Central Power and Wairarapa Electricity, while Powerco and Central Power concentrated on electricity distribution (the distribution arm of Wairarapa Electricity merged with Powerco on the same day).

During 2000 to 2002 Genesis Energy purchased several electricity and gas retailing entities, following changes to laws governing the electricity industry. These included electricity retail businesses of Todd Energy, and electricity and gas customers from NGC (now Vector Limited) and Energy Online.

In September 2013, the company announced a change of name from Genesis Power Limited to Genesis Energy Limited.

On 17 April 2014, the National Government sold a 49% stake in Genesis Energy through an initial public offering at NZ$1.55 per share.

In February 2018, Genesis Energy announced a pathway to a coal-free electricity future for New Zealand by 2030.

Power stations
Genesis Energy owns and operates a diverse portfolio of assets that includes hydroelectric, thermal and wind generation.

Genesis Energy operates three hydroelectric generating stations on the (361.8 MW) Tongariro Power Scheme – Rangipo (120 MW), Tokaanu (240 MW) and Mangaio (1.8 MW). It also operates the (138 MW) Lake Waikaremoana hydro scheme, comprising the Tuai (60 MW), Kaitawa (36 MW) and Piripaua (42 MW) stations. On 1 June 2011, Genesis Energy purchased Tekapo A (27 MW) and B (160 MW) hydroelectric power stations from Meridian Energy.

Genesis Energy operates the Huntly Power Station, a (953 MW) coal- and gas-fired thermal plant on the Waikato River. In addition to two gas/coal-fired generating units, Huntly has a 50 MW open-cycle gas turbine unit that runs as base load, and a (403 MW) combined cycle gas turbine commissioned in June 2007 as a NZ$500 million project. Huntly also has a third coal unit, which can be taken out of storage within 90 days. The coal units are mainly used as hydro firming when New Zealand is in a dry winter.

The first of the four coal-fired units at the Huntly Power Station was taken out of service in late 2012. A second unit was placed into long-term storage in December 2013 and permanently retired in June 2015.

The company also operates the (7.3 MW) Hau Nui windfarm in the North Island.

Castle Hill
Genesis Energy has resource consents for a wind farm at Castle Hill, 20 km north-east of Masterton in the northern Wairarapa. It is planning up to 286 turbines over a 30 km2 area, with a total installed capacity of up to 860 MW and potentially generating over 2000 GWh per year.

Slopedown Wind Farm
In 2010, Genesis Energy purchased the Slopedown wind from Wind Prospect CWP Ltd. It is 15 km east of Wyndham. Genesis Energy has not yet applied for resource consents.

Science Based Targets
Genesis has created Science Based Targets to align their sustainability goals to. They aim to reduce scope 1 and 2 emissions by 36% and reduce scope 3 emissions 21%.

School-gen and School-gen Trust
Genesis Energy began its School-gen programme in 2006 to teach students about solar power, renewable energy and energy efficiency. The School-gen programme has created extensive teaching resources, including Maker Projects and eBooks that are free for any school in New Zealand. It has also provided 92 New Zealand schools with either a 2, 4 or 6 kilowatt photovoltaic (PV) solar panel system, at no cost to the schools. The largest solar array on a School-gen school is 16 kilowatts on Vauxhall School in Auckland. The PV system allows these schools to generate a portion of their electricity from the sun while also teaching students about solar energy.

Duffy Books in Schools
Duffy Books in Homes aims to encourage reading and supports students in lower socio-economic areas where the children are more likely to come from homes without access to books.

Whio Forever Project
Genesis Energy has partnered with the New Zealand Department of Conservation to help save the endangered native whio or blue duck. The Whio Forever Project includes a national recovery plan that will double the number of fully operational secure breeding sites throughout New Zealand and boost pest control efforts.

Curtain Bank
Genesis Energy is the major sponsor of the Wellington Curtain Bank and the Christchurch Curtain Bank. The curtain banks take donated second-hand curtains or fabric and re-cut and line them for distribution to households in need. This helps households in saving money on their energy bills and to create warmer, healthier homes. Some retailers offer a service in which they take down and donate your old curtains when installing new ones.

Ngā Ara Creating Pathways
This Genesis developed programme creates transformational education, training and employment opportunities to prepare young people in our local communities for the future of work.

POU at Huntly
POU is a marae-owned entity that delivers facilities maintenance services to Huntly Power Station.

Retail focus areas

 * Genesis is focusing on electricity management tools for its customers including their app that has been around since 2016 - app functions include energy usage graphs, bill payments and moving home tools
 * The Genesis website was updated in 2022 and focuses messaging on Energy IQ, joining and moving house through their website content

Other developments

 * Genesis Energy owns a 46% interest in the Kupe natural gas field.
 * Genesis Energy is a founding member of Awatea, the New Zealand marine energy association.
 * The Gasbridge LNG project was a 50:50 joint venture between Genesis and Contact Energy.

Frank Energy (previously Energy Online)
Genesis Energy purchased Energy Online in December 2002 from the Newcall Group Limited. After continued growth Energy Online now services 70,000 customers with a primary focus on retailing energy services to an expanding customer base in the North Island. Energy Online was rebranded to Frank Energy in 2021.

Infogen
Genesis energy retailed internet services to its customers through its Infogen service. The service was outsourced and provided by Orcon until it was purchased by Orcon in 2009.

title: Genesis Energy Limited


text:
Molson Canadian Rocks for Toronto

Molson Canadian Rocks for Toronto, also known as SARSStock, was a benefit rock concert that was held in Toronto, Ontario, Canada on July 30, 2003. An estimated 450,000 and 500,000 people attended the concert, making it is the largest outdoor ticketed event in Canadian history and one of the largest events in North American history.

Overview
The concert was organized in about a month, upon the suggestion of headliners the Rolling Stones, who wanted to help revive Toronto's economy after the SARS outbreaks earlier in the year. The Rolling Stones have held tour rehearsals in Toronto on more than one occasion; Toronto was also the setting for Keith Richards's 1977 arrest and subsequent trial. When The Rolling Stones announced the concert, Toronto was still under a SARS warning from the World Health Organization. The publicity garnered by the SARS outbreak led to a downturn in Toronto's tourism industry, which the concert was intended to help revive.

Tickets for the concert went on sale on June 27, 2003 and cost $21.50 Canadian. The Canadian portion of 150,000 tickets sold out almost immediately and made a single-day record for the Canadian arm of Ticketmaster.

The concert was held at Downsview Park in northern Toronto, a former military base which also accommodated 800,000 people when Pope John Paul II visited the city in 2002. The concert was hosted by actor/singer Dan Aykroyd, and vendors sold Alberta beef in support of the Canadian beef industry, which had recently suffered because of a case of mad cow disease. North York General Hospital, which had been hit the hardest by the SARS outbreak in previous months, provided emergency on-site hospital services. The Toronto water department was initially supposed to provide free water by tapping the groundwater at the site, but were unable to do so due to health concerns. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and cable music station MuchMoreMusic provided coverage of parts of the concert throughout the day, including the end of the Rolling Stones' set.

The concert opened in the afternoon with Have Love Will Travel Revue, including Aykroyd and James Belushi, Sam Roberts, Kathleen Edwards, La Chicane, The Tea Party, and The Flaming Lips who invited artists from backstage to dance on stage with them dressed in fuzzy animal costumes, Sass Jordan, The Isley Brothers, and Blue Rodeo. Each band performed for 15–20 minutes. The second part of the concert began later in the afternoon and lasted into the night and featured Justin Timberlake, The Guess Who, Rush, AC/DC, and the Rolling Stones, who performed a 90-minute set to end the concert.

Justin Timberlake was booed by the crowd, which was anticipating the harder-rocking second half of the concert. Throughout his performance he had to dodge water bottles, toilet paper, muffins, and other items thrown by the audience. He later returned to duet with Mick Jagger on "Miss You" and also for Justin Timberlake's "Cry Me a River". When some fans continued to throw bottles at Timberlake, the crowd was harangued by a visibly angry Keith Richards.

Rush was the last band to be added to the lineup. According to drummer Neil Peart, "When we were first asked to play Molson Canadian Rocks For Toronto, it seemed impossible to say yes. We had been off the road for 8 months, our gear was in the warehouse, most of our crew was out on other tours, and even we were all over the place - Geddy with his family in France, Alex working in the studio mixing our Rio de Janeiro show, and me on my motorcycle in the California mountains. However, when we thought about everything Toronto meant to our lives, to our work and play, our homes and families and friends, it seemed impossible to say no!"

A documentary DVD entitled Toronto Rocks was released in 2004, showing highlights of the event.

title: Molson Canadian Rocks for Toronto


text:
Talk:Henry I of England

Charter of Liberties
To omit mention of King Henry's landmark "Charter of Liberties" of 1100 is absurd. It's the forerunner to, and almost as important as, the Magna Carta. It promises justice and lawfulness to all, and is a seminal moment in human legal history. KyZan (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)KyZan
 * There is a lot of academic work on this, but I don't think it supports that position. Worth reading through Hollister's or Green's analysis of the charter; the references and page numbers are cited in the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
Loren - I have revert your correction as regards Richard and William. I agree that the evidence for Richard is very slender ( it pretty much consists of a reference to Richard, the son of Queen Matilda, in her will) but it is there. The slenderness of his existance is noted in the article. Arno 07:35, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC) There is a factual discrepancy between this article and White Ship: this article describes Richard as legitimate while the other says the opposite. I don't know which one is correct, so I don't think I should change it myself. - rsutphin 00:50, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the article to remove the contradiction. Thanks for pointing it out. Arno 05:16, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * William of Malmesbury frankly states that Richard (who drowned on the White Ship) was born to King Henry before his marriage, the son of a woman of low birth. The only reference to a legitimate son named Richard is from Gervase of Canterbury, an early but not contemporary chronicler. Gervase describes the births of Empress Maud and William Adelin, then writes "Alium quoque habuit filium Ricardum, et cessavit parere" (Another son, Richard, was had, and then no more [children]). If this son Richard existed, then he must've died in infancy. Hermann of Tournai says King Henry had "duos filios et unam filiam genuit" (Two sons and one daughter were born to him) but this is probably a mistake for Henry's illegitimate son Richard. Hermann of Tournai is so error-prone it's hard to accept anything he says. Missi 08:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--- I've written parts of the article to smooth out some of the paragraphs, specifically to put things in a more orderly time sequence. I also included: I think there's a lot more to be done and fleshed out. I didn't touch the paragraphs about his marriages and children. I am not at all sure about that "holding the record for illegitimate children." I would like to see a source on that. I also avoided the verb "usurp" (which I think was in the article previously) which although is probably technically true, has a perjorative ring about it, especially considering that up through Anglo-Saxon times, the designation of an heir by an existing king still had to be ratified by the witan. The article as it stands is basically a discussion of how he achieved the throne and kept it, and well as the mess of passing it on to an heir. I'm planning in the near future to expand the section on his governmental reforms, which I think are the most important features of his reign. Most of the material I've added is from Cross' history, which is nice and detailed. Decumanus 04:49, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC) I've been using Alison Weir's researches on the matter of Henry's illegitimate children, Decumanus. I daresay a google search will come up with something as well. Also, what word would you use in place of usurp? Henry didn't exactly acquire the throne by anyone's agreement. Arno 05:05, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC) Further to this, your factual additions are certainly appreciated. But why the occasional use of bold type for Henry's name. Also, isn't beauclerc spelt with a c? Arno 05:09, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC) Allison Weir. I just looked the name up. The feminist writer? It sounds interesting. Boldface--well I've been evolving a wiki style. I'm perfectly willing to remove that. As far the spelling of Beaucler(c/k), I am perhaps in error about that.Decumanus 05:12, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * a boldface Beauclerk and a mentioning origin of term
 * brief synopsis of major accomplishments of his reign in opening paragraph
 * discussion of how William divided up his kingdom, leading to eventual succession issues.
 * mentioning of Charter of Liberties (arguably most important thing in his reign)
 * mentioning of Treaty of Alton
 * clarification of events leading up to Battle of Tinchebray
 * clarification of succession issues with Mathilda and Stephen
 * inclusion of references and external sites
 * The Royal Bastards of Medieval England, Chris Given-Wilson and Alice Curteis, 1984, Chapter 4, "Henry I's Bastards", p. 60: "He fathered, by various mistresses, at least twenty royal bastards, more than any other king in English history." The Complete Peerage, vol. XI, Appendix D, is devoted to Henry's bastards, listing 20-21 of them. These are also shown in Walter Lee Sheppard, Jr., ?Royal Bye-Blows: The Illegitimate Children of the English Kings from William I to Edward III,? New England Historical and Genealogical Register, vol. 119, April 1965, pp. 94-102. - Binky 05:16, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Now that's a darn good quote. Decumanus 05:18, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * The Weir reference is Weir, Alison, "Britain's Royal Families" (1996 Edition), Random House:London. The Henry I stuff on his offspring, both legitimate and illegitimate, comes from pages 47-50 of that volume. The bibliography includes the first two books listed above by Binky. Arno 07:35, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Further to bolding - I've taken the liberty of taking it out. No offence, but the bolding that you've used is not used elsewhere and it look plain untidy. I've also removed some unnecessary links - you should ideally only have one link to a related article. HOWEVER - please do not let this prevent you from adding more to this article as stated above. You have made a good start. Arno 07:45, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hello, I am new to the wikipedia thing and was doing research on female rulership in the early middle ages and had this question: Is there a reference as to what inspired Henry II to recall his daughter Maud, the dowager Empress of Holy Roman Empire, and install her as his single legitimate heir over other male canidates? As far as I can see, with the exception of a few Spanish Visgothic kingdoms there was no precident for designnating a female heir to rule as Queen Regnant in her own right. Eleanor of Aquataine is the next closest example and her father willed her the succession with an independant duchy. But this would not be for a few years yet.
 * This seems to be a huge problem with the article. It reads "and his controversial (although well-founded) decision to name his daughter as his heir." Neither Norman nor English law/custom allowed female succession so what's well founded about itAlci12 10:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I finally managed to find the description of Henry from William of Malmesbury. I confess I love the rare snippets of what medieval people looked like, how they dressed, etc. Both Henry and his brother William Rufus seem to have had a similar body type -- thickset and muscular, though William Rufus is blond while Henry is dark-haired. I don't suppose if anyone knows of a reference to what Robert Curthose looked like? Missi I believe Robert Curthose was short and fat with dark hair, like Henry. I will add this into the Robert Curthose article. User: Dark Lord of the Sith Revan

First Sentence
There's something wrong with the first sentence of this article, but I'm unsure what it's meant to say: "..was the fourth son of William I the Conqueror [of?] the first England"

Birthdate
The article notes that Henry was born between two dates. I assume this is because the only mention is in passing, ie, he was mentioned to be alive at some date after this? Or is it that two different dates are given in texts? I am curious as to the source of this "range" and think that it might be worth a footnote Maury 12:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * See Warren Hollister's Henry I for a full examination of Henry's possible birthdate. Let's see if I can briefly summarize the evidence, with my copy a thousand miles away. The chroniclers report that Henry was born "within a year" of King William and Queen Matilda's crowning on Christmas 1066. This means he could've been born anytime between January 1066-January 1068. Missi 07:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

TINCHEBRAY- I've just read the Wikipedia page on the Battle of Tinchbray and I think someone should strike it off completely. To begin with, there's no castle on a hill at Tinchebray, the land is flat and cut with small valleys, 2) it was a running battle which lasted all day, 3)if you don't like my version take a trip there and see for yourself.

 * A number of souurces have him being born in September 1068. -  JackofOz (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Imperial measures
Weren't units of measurement such as the yard, foot and so on first standardised by Henry I? Surely this is an important part of his legacy.

Unorthodox Monitary Policy
Henry I is the English King cited as the initiator of the "talley-stick" system in locations such as, but I can't seem to find any references that such as that which cite their sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AltiusBimm (talk • contribs) 05:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I get better results searching for "tally stick" (without the 'e') (or more precisely for "tally stick Henry I"). Try searching in google books or google scholar. I found a number of mentions of its use in Henry I's reign, but nothing that says it was an innovation, though I just skimmed a few of the search results. See for example in William Stubbs's classic The Constitutional History of England in Its Origin and Development, vol. 1 p. 429. Loren Rosen 06:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In looking through various book search results including The Constitutional History of England in Its Origin and Development, I don't seem to find references to tally sticks being used as money, but rather a form of record-keeping. That strikes me as having the possibility of being similar to how a LETSystem might be misunderstood as being not a form of money (in its "secondary commodity" sense). (E.g., see Number Words and Number Symbols: A Cultural History of Numbers 1992 by Karl Menninger, page 239.)—AltiusBimm (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Googling in 2010, there seem to be a number of sites heavily into the idea that tally-sticks were a way for the mediaeval English monarchy/state to go on its way unbeholden to 'the money-lenders' or 'the money-changers' - who I think one should understand to be Not Like Us - and that the modern US should do likewise. The account of the later development of tally sticks and their supposed successful funding of the British Empire is off-topic and of a piece with such polemic.  Within topic, I can't see anything to support the proposition that in the reign of Henry I the tally stick was introduced, used as currency, or used to pay taxes, rather than record the farm of them being paid.  If there is evidence that 'ironically' Henry introduced the tally-stick system as a means of printing his own money, rather than having to borrow from "International Capital"- if you catch my drift - then it should be cited.   Failing some supporting evidence, the relevant article paragraph should be deleted  Rjccumbria (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Henry's Legitimate Children
Noticing that my edits as to Henry's legitimate children were recently reverted (I have now re-reverted the information), I would like to state my sources for this information:

Britain's Royal Families, the Complete Genealogy, by Alison Weir (Pimlico, 2002) Kings and Queens of Britain, by David Williamson (Guild Publishing, London, 1986)

James David Harris (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Robert Curthose
I've never read anywhere that Henry had his brother Robert blinded. This definitely needs corroboration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.102.212 (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Henry agreed to pay Robert 3,000 marks after Robert invaded England upon his return from the First Crusade. However, this payment was discontinued after the two met in 1103. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.70.54.73 (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

First Post Norman Conquest King?
This is just a query about the statement in this article that relates, Henry I is the first king following the Norman Conquest of 1066. However, it was of my understanding that William Rufus, or William II, the third son of William the Conquerer, reigned prior to him--from 1087-1100.

That's right Pink Floyd 1966 (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

First Post Norman Conquest King?
This is just a query about the statement in this article that relates, Henry I is the first king following the Norman Conquest of 1066. However, it was of my understanding that William Rufus, or William II, the third son of William the Conquerer, reigned prior to him--from 1087-1100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.17.187 (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

First sentence suggestion
I think it should read:

Henry I (c. 1068/1069 – 1 December 1135) was the fourth son of William I the Conqueror, the first King of England born after the Norman Conquest of 1066

William I was the first King of England after the Norman Conquest of 1066. MartianBeerPig (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Surfeit of lampreys
The article notes Henry's death resulting from a "surfeit of lampreys". Could someone please tell me where this phrase originates? It's firmly ingrained in the English language in relation to this particular king; this wiki page is Google's first result on the phrase and if my memory serves me correctly it's included in "1066 And All That".

I note that the page on lampreys references a Time article when it used the phrase, but even that article merely provides an unsourced footnote. If there is a historical source, I would be keen to know it, and it may also be worthy of inclusion in the article. Worldbeing (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The overeating of lampreys comes from Henry of Huntingdon in his History of the English People (p. 64 in Greenway's translation). The translation I use doesn't have the exact phrase in it though. It should be noted that O,,,,,,,rderic Vitalis and William of Malmesbury do not say anything about lampreys. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

 * The entry for Henry I in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, by C. Warren Hollister (who is also the author of two other works cited multiple times in this article), says that Henry "fell mortally ill on about 25 November after feasting on lampreys—a delicacy that his physician had forbidden him. The legend that Henry died of ‘a surfeit of lampreys’ has no basis in the historical record. It was not that he ate too many lampreys, but that his physician had advised him not to eat any at all." I have edited the article to this effect and added a citation to Hollister's ODNB article, but my Wikipedia skills (and spare time) are not up to the task of getting the Hollister ODNB article properly included in the Bibliography and referencing it with a tidy keyphrase. If someone else would like to do this, please go ahead! The DOI for the Hollister article is doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/12948. The online Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is subscription-only, but free to users of many public libraries and educational institutions; for instance, a free New York Public Library card gets you full online access to it from any computer. pnh (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Check out Hollister's footnote, though, in his main work on Henry on p.468, where he notes that "Henry of Huntingdon is the first to mention the famous 'surfeit of lamphreys'", although Hollister does note that this is from a single source and implies doubt about Henry's account. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not like Henry of Huntingdon is writing long after Henry's death - HH died around 1157 or so. I think the original wording is fine - it doesn't take HH's word as gospel but neither does it leave the story out, as the story has very wide currency. And if he had been told not to eat lampreys, surely eating any would have been "too many". Green's biography also mentions the story on page 6, as an aside. Barlow Feudal Kingdom of England p. 200 (4th ed.) says "... he [Henry I] died on 1 December in the forest of Lyons, not far from the battle field of Bremule, having feasted too well on lampreys after a hard day's hunting." Ealdgyth - Talk 13:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

New file File:File:King Henry I from NPG.jpg|File:King Henry I from NPG.jpg}}
thumb Recently the file : (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 11:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually really annoyed by this picture since it is not a genuine portrait of Henry I - the first English King to have a portrait was Richard II who ruled in the 14th century. My late grandfather acquired a book of cigarette cards depicting English Kings many years ago. This looks like one of those pictures. Obviously the manufacturers had to commission artists to make up pictures of early Kings like Henry I that did not have portraits. I really do despair of W'pedia. This is not a genuine portrait of this King, so in the interests of historical accuracy it should be removed! The same applies to many other so-called portraits of early English kings appearing in W'pedia. Johnpretty010 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Bibliographic niggle
Re the source cited as

Green, Judith A. "Henry I, King of England and Duke of Normandy" Cambridge University Press 2008:

The British Library catalogue at http://catalogue.bl.uk/F/KPSXLFYBGXKHH45MF45ICVRBRUY23DDQJNKEKNUUD2TRUU45MP-39721?f only lists the 2006 edition that I have just cited in referring to the 'blinding' (or not) of Robert Curthose.

MacAuslan (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

 * WorldCat shows two editions. Go ahead and correct the bottom to 2006, if that is the edition you're using. I do not yet have access to this work, so can't check it. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Tally sticks
I am certainly no expert, but I can't seem to find any reliable source supporting the claim that tally sticks were a "monetary system." It seems to me that it was rather a system of reckoning -- a proof of payment, or receipt. If someone can provide me with any more information on the tally stick system, I would be grateful. (For the time, I've put a citation tag next to the paragraph on tally sticks.) -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 * I would also make note that the original editor added some rather ominous mentions of the "Bank of England", which are not verified and feature no source. Considering the frequency with which Henry I is brought up in the context of monetary conspiracy theories, I think a re-write for this section may be needed. This edit should either provide legitimate historical sources that tie the Bank of England with the tally sticks or skips out of the ominous mentions if none can be provided. 68.222.51.30 (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

 * After doing some research, I personally edited the entry and added sources for the information.66.32.127.232 (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Illegitimate Children
I find this section confusing. Are all the individuals listed as children believed illegitimate of Henry I? I started with Sybil Corbet. Write-up says she married Herbert Fitzherbert. Then the article says the children are Sybil's which would always be the case. Is the point that the children are all from Henry I as dad and Herbert did not father them? Or Herbert fathered some and Henry I fathered the others? I don't know the answers unfortunately or I'd do edits myself. As written this section is not clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkhydema (talk • contribs) 18:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Children
I note that the existence of Euphemia is considered unlikely, but how is it even possible, given that the postulated birth month is less than 9 months before the birth of Matilda?

-Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.170.240.10 (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Consolidation of citation style...
A quick query in search of consensus. At the moment, the article uses a range of citation styles (some long, some short, and different styles of both). I'm proposing consolidating these into a single, consistent style. My proposal would to use the harvnb template for short citations throughout, combined with the cite book template in the bibliography. How would this seem to others? If the consensus is for consolidation in a different style, of course, I'll happily implement that instead. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Expansion...
I've gone through and given the article a thorough scrub. I think it is all now referenced, etc., and I've expanded it a bit in the process. I've used Henry's two main biographers, Green and Hollister for the bulk of the narrative, backed up by some specialist works on particular aspects. For Henry's illegitimate children, I've used Thompson, who's the current authority in this area, but noted in footnotes where her opinion varies from the older work by White. Stylistically, I've used William Rufus rather than William II in the text, to avoid an awkward transition between the two styles. It will need a decent copy-edit etc... Hchc2009 (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Untitled 2
There is a problem in the last sentence of the first paragraph under Childhood and appearance, 1068-86. It says, "Henry's mother, Matilda, was the daughter of Robert II of France, and she probably named Henry after her nephew, King Henry I of France.[4]" Henry's mother Matilda was the daughter of Baldwin V, Count of Flanders and Adela of France who was the daughter of Robert II. So Matilda would have been a granddaughter of Robert II and cousin to Henry I of France, unless the other Wiki pages are wrong on relationship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:2880:80:C053:B6FB:8E1A:5211 (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

 * fixed format and moved down for visibility GermanJoe (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Referencing
As this article is going through further reviews and improvements, some references could use minor cleanups: A nice and apparently comprehensive article, very interesting to read. GermanJoe (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ref 2 Carpenter 2003 or 2004?
 * ref 179 "Green Crouch" is corrupted, should be 2 separate references
 * ref 193 Hollister 200(?)
 * ref 230 see above, Carpenter 2003 or 2004?
 * ref 327 Hollister & Baldwin 1978 - full biblio has 2003 as year.
 * (if the article is planned to move towards FA, ISBN numbers should be consistent 13 digits and formatted for all ISBNs).
 * Cheers, well spotted! - will sort later. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The refs should be sorted now; will find a script for the ISBN's. Thank again, Hchc2009 (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, images are OK copyright-wise (polished a few tags). GermanJoe (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments

 * Investiture controversy is mentioned twice, the first unlinked and the second to the relevant section of the article on Anselm. I am not clear about the rules on linking, but it might be helpful to link the first mention to the main article on the Investiture controversy.
 * "Henry's mother, Matilda, was the daughter of Robert II of France, and she probably named Henry after her nephew, King Henry I of France." Matilda was the daughter of Adele of France, who was the daughter of Robert II and sister of Henry I of France, so Matilda was granddaughter of Robert and Henry was her uncle.
 * "As a result of their age differences and Richard's early death" These are referred to as if they have already been mentioned and Richard's death in a hunting accident is mentioned below. I would prefer "Henry was much younger than his brothers and Richard died early in a hunting accident, so...", and the later mention of Richard's death could then be deleted.
 * "Robert's rule of the Duchy was chaotic, and parts of Henry's lands became almost independent of central control from Rouen." I am not clear what this means. Was Rouen Robert's or Henry's base, and were not Henry's lands already effectively independent of Robert?
 * "Odo, the Bishop of Bayeux, who regarded Henry as a potential competitor" - presumably for control of Normandy, but this could be spelled out.
 * "In the aftermath, Robert forced Henry to leave Rouen, probably because Henry's role in the fighting had been more prominent than his own, and potentially because Henry had possibly asked to be formally reinstated as the count of the Contentin." This seems an excessive number of qualifiers. Perhaps "and possibly because Henry had asked to be formally reinstated as the count of the Contentin."
 * "He left for Brittany and crossed over into France." Was not Brittany legally part of France even if the Duchy was effectively independent?
 * Porphyrogeniture. This is a very unusual word. It is not in the online Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries. Perhaps link to Agnatic seniority?
 * I've written a stub for an article on it, and wikilinked. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

 * "he promised to prevent royal abuses of the barons' property rights, and assured a return to the gentler customs of Edward the Confessor" This sounds a bit odd to me. How about "and to return to the customs of Edward the Confessor (linking Edward)? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Tenure
Is there a reason for the use of the word 'Tenure' in the info panel instead of 'Reign' which is used for both William II and Stephen? I'm no expert, but Reign the normal term when discussing an English/British monarch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.123.147.3 (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization of "King"
There is no consistency with regard to when "King" is, or is not, capitalized. It seems to me that, without exception, "King" should be capitalized every single time in an article about a King. --EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Worth having a look at the MOS on this, which gives clear guidelines about when it should be capitalised and when it should be iin lower case. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Henry's birthdate
Why is his birthdate just 1068? Pink Floyd 1966 (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it's not known when exactly he was born in 1068. We're lucky we know the year - his older brothers' birth years are unknown exactly. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * [Ealdgyth posted before I had a chance to...] I just wanted to add, since your account is fairly new, that details about questions such as yours are often contained in the cited reference(s) or explained by a particular editor in the Notes section, as was done in #1 here. — DennisDallas (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

2016: Is Henry Ready for his Close-up? Is this article?
Following last summer's great publicity success, when Richard III was found under a car park, the spotlight has moved to Henry. Summer fun, great for tourism, and for us professors, a "teachable moment." Everybody wins. Since Henry, alas, isn't in Shakespeare, if they find Henry's bones, I think the media angle we'll hear most about will be "the King who fathered more royal bastards than any other in English history." That and the beautiful phrase, "a surfeit of lampreys." I would enjoy seeing a graph showing how many users came to this article before the story broke, and after. It would tell us something meaningful about the public's acceptance of Wikipedia. Is there any such feature? "We're ready for our close-up, Mr. de Mille!" Best to all, Profhum (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Reign Date
Article currently states that his reign began with the death of his predecessor as it does for William II of England, Richard I of England and John, King of England. However, the reigns of William the Conqueror, Stephen, King of England and Henry II of England begin with the coronation date. This seems inconsistent as the succession of William II and Henry I was disputed by Robert Curthose, John by Arthur of Brittany etc. It is also inconsistent with List of English monarchs which uses coronation dates. The more important political point however is that for Norman and Angevin kings it was the coronation ceremony itself that made the king not acclamation or male primogeniture as with the anglo-saxons or later Plantagenets. Hence, the rush to Westminster for coronation of Henry I, Stephen, King of England, William II of England. The arguments are set out more fully in this blog post. Having the reigns of all norman and angevin kings starting with their coronations would therefore be consistent with how contemporaries viewed the English kingship and how kings dated their reigns.--Jhood1 (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Reigns began at death of the previous monarch - there isn't an "official" position. We wouldn't use either the wikipedia list article nor a blog post as a reference, so they aren't of any help here. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Further - the beginning of the reign for William the Conqueror isn't a good example - since (despite his claims) he won the throne by conquest. Nor is Stephen a good example because he basically stole the throne from the expected heiress. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying, do you know of a source that says reigns are dated at the death of the predecessor in this period because I'm not aware of one? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by an official position but if you mean a scholarly consensus then I'm not sure that there would be a clear one on an issue such as this. I think that medieval charters dated from the years of the kings reign would "tick over" as it were on the anniversary of the coronation rather than the death of the predecessor. The easiest example I could find online was the translation of Magna Carta which states that the regnal years at the end are dated from the anniversary of John's coronation rather than the death of Richard I. I guess my view is that the reign of a king is not a classification imposed in retrospect but something that the contemporaries of the Norman and angevin kings recognised as lasting from coronation until death. I'm not aware of a reliable source that disputes this.--Jhood1 (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My point about William the Conqueror and Stephen, King of England was simply that they were examples where their coronations made them kings, William's reign is not dated from the Battle of Hastings. Also, Henry stole the throne from the heir Robert Curthose like Stephen --Jhood1 (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Further to the above, I've found Bartlett (2000) England under the Norman and Angevin Kings has a section on the Interregnal Period. "The Norman and Angevin kings did not claim to succeed to the royal title immediately upon the death of their predecessor, as was the case in later English history. It was coronation that made a king and kings dated their regnal years from the day of that ceremony" p.123 --Jhood1 (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That says what the contemporaries might think - but it still doesn't address what other secondary sources state, especially modern historians. When do modern historians date a reign from starting? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Cheney's Handbook of Dates (RHS) gives Henry I's reign as 5 August 1100 – 1 December 1135. I would go with Cheney, unless it's been superseded. Nortonius (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

At the suggestion of Dweller I think this discussion would be better had a Wikipedia talk:WikiProject English Royalty Jhood1 (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Lineage
Is it necessary to mention that Henry was a descendant of Alfred the Great himself? In his mothers page you can find the following: Matilda’s principal attribute was her descent from Charlemagne and her many royal ancestors, her closest being Robert II of France. She was the niece of King Henry I of France, William's suzerain, and at his death in 1060, first cousin to his successor King Philip I of France. A member of the aristocracy she was closely related to most of the royal families of Europe. A marriage to a member of the (Carolingian) royal family was a means of upward mobility for a soldier or nobleman like William. Her descent from Alfred the Great (whose daughter Ælfthryth was the mother of Arnulf I, Count of Flanders, and great-great-great-great-grandmother of Matilda) also proved a legitimizing factor as queen of England. See: Hilton, Queen Consort (Pegasus, 2010), p. 17; Régine Le Jan, 'Continuity and Change in the Tenth-Century Nobility', Nobles and Nobility in Medieval Europe: Concepts, Origins, Transformations, ed. Anne J. Duggan (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002), pp. 56, n. 14, 57; A. Wareham, Lords and Communities in Early Medieval East Anglia (Boydell Press, 2005), p. 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.46.97 (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems relevant to Matilda's page, but not really to Henry. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Reign and Coronation
In this period a person did not become king until their coronation: "Until, apparently, the reign of Edward I, no English king assumed the royal style before his coronation" p.30 Handbook of British Chronology E B Pryde

No reliable source dates the reign of Henry from the 2nd August. These sources date the reign from the 5th August:

Handbook of British Chronology p.35

Handbook of Dates (Cheney) p.32

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography 1

Hollister (2003) does not give a precise (reign start - reign end) but does refer to Henry as "king-elect" i.e. not yet king during the period 2-5 Aug. p.107-108. Does anyone know of another source? Jhood1 (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Name
What's the meaning of Beauclerc? --2A02:908:C33:A180:9871:CF94:39BE:E6CE (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, presumably the "well-learnèd" or the "good clerk", but just came here to post that this needs to be covered. — Llywelyn II   04:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Ancestry
The source given for this ancestry do not support the information being put in the article. Carpenter pp. 531-532 does not show Richard II or Judith of Brittany nor Fulbert nor Herleva nor Doda nor Baldwin V nor Baldwin IV nor Ogive nor Robert II nor Constance nor Adela of France nor Matilda of flanders. Green shows the wife of William I as Matilda, but does not give any ancestry for her nor for William the Conqueror. Thus, an edit claiming that those sources support the information is wrong and should not be repeated. Adding refrences that do not support the text is not good editing and should not happen. Ealdgyth (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Hello Victoria, what do you think about to add his ancestry with using such 2 sources?

Sources: Dmitry Azikov (talk) 06:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Bernard Burke, Ashworth P. Burke (1934). A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Peerage and Baronetage, the Privy Council, Knightage, and Companionage. https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/A_Genealogical_and_Heraldic_History_of_t/vpHySDcAmU8C?hl=en&gbpv=0&kptab=overview#pli=1
 * Frederick Lewis Weis, Walter Lee Sheppard, William Ryland Beall, Kaleen E. Beall (2004). Ancestral Roots of Certain American Colonists who Came to America Before 1700: Lineages from Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Malcolm of Scotland, Robert the Strong, and Other Historical Individuals. ISBN 0806317523, ISBN 9780806317526 https://books.google.ru/books/about/Ancestral_Roots_of_Certain_American_Colo.html?id=3F9nG8aFJ7MC&redir_esc=y

We use academic historians as sources for medieval history, not genealogists, who are less reliable. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Hello Dudley, but unfortunately mostly only genealogical sources like Burke's peerage which I can source and reference are completely or partially in the free public domain... Is very old Burke's peerage a bad source? Dmitry Azikov (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Then it is better to edit articles which you do have access to reliable sources for. However, it is worth checking what you can get from libraries in your area. In Britain you can get most sources from public libraries through the inter-library loan service, although this can take some time. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 * What other wikipedia's do is not relevant to what the rules are here on English wikipedia. In general, we are not a genealogical source - we should not aim to present genealogical information. See WP:NOTGENEALOGY. And unsourced information is also not acceptable - please do not introduce unsourced information. And you shouldn't combine unrelated sources to produce family trees - if the sources for a subject's life do not give a four or five generation ancestral tree, then per WP:UNDUE and WP:OR, we should not combine unrelated sources to produce information that sources about a subject do not consider important about that subject. FOr Henry - we should report what the high quality sources provide about his ancestry - in this case Green and Hollister. Green only lists Henry's parents but also includes information on his siblings, which an ahnentafel does not provide. Hollister provides a table with the descent of the Norman rulers, but no other ancestry for Henry, while also showing his collateral relatives who were involved in his biography. It does not show remote ancestors shuch as Ogive or Judith of Brittany. Thus it's clear that biographers of Henry don't consider a chart of all of his ancestors at all useful and thus its not WP:DUE. That leaves aside the issue of using outdated sources like Burke's A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Peerage and Baronetage, the Privy Council, Knightage, and Companionage or strictly genealogical sources like Weis (also - which edition of Weis is being referenced - there are 8 of them, after all.) Ealdgyth (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, I'm not so experienced in adding good sources. For a long time due to watching wikipedia and genealogical sources I was sure that genealogy and ancestries of English king starting from houses of Normandy, Blois and Plantagenet-Anjou were well documentated in most pieces. Dmitry Azikov (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So, I don't Live in Great Britain or United States Dmitry Azikov (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Henry I of England