text:
List of mayors of Ottawa

The following is a list of mayors of Ottawa. Until 1854, Ottawa was known as Bytown. Over the course of Ottawa's history, the borders of the municipality have greatly expanded through annexations. This most recently occurred in 2001 when a number of neighbouring communities were amalgamated with Ottawa.

Bytown

 * 1847 – John Scott
 * 1848 – John Bower Lewis
 * 1849 – Robert Hervey
 * 1850 – John Scott
 * 1851 – Charles Sparrow
 * 1852 – Richard William Scott
 * 1853 – Joseph-Balsora Turgeon
 * 1854 – Henry J. Friel

Ottawa, pre-amalgamation (1855–2001)

 * 1855–1857 – John Bower Lewis
 * 1858–1859 – Edward McGillivray
 * 1860–1862 – Alexander Workman
 * 1863 – ? – Henry J. Friel
 * 1864–1866 – Moss Kent Dickinson
 * 1867 – Robert Lyon
 * 1868–1869 – Henry J. Friel
 * 1870–1871 – John Rochester
 * 1872–1873 – Eugène Martineau
 * 1874–1875 – John Peter Featherston
 * 1876 – G. B. Lyon-Fellowes
 * 1877 – William Henry Waller
 * 1878 – Chauncey Ward Bangs
 * 1879–1881 – Charles Herbert Mackintosh
 * 1882–1883 – Pierre St. Jean, M.D.
 * 1884 – Charles Thornton Bate
 * 1885–1886 – Francis McDougal
 * 1887–1888 – McLeod Stewart
 * 1889–1890 – Jacob Erratt
 * 1891 – Thomas Birkett
 * 1892–1893 – Olivier Durocher
 * 1894 – George Cox
 * 1895–1896 – William Borthwick
 * 1897–1898 – Samuel Bingham
 * 1899–1900 – Thomas Payment
 * 1901 – William Dowler Morris
 * 1901 – James Davidson
 * 1902–1903 – Fred Cook
 * 1904–1906 – James A. Ellis
 * 1906 – Robert A. Hastey
 * 1907–1908 – D'Arcy Scott
 * 1908 – Napoléon Champagne
 * 1909–1912 – Charles Hopewell
 * 1912 – Edward H. Hinchey
 * 1913 – James A. Ellis
 * 1914 – Taylor McVeity
 * 1915–1916 – Nelson D. Porter
 * 1917–1920 – Harold Fisher
 * 1921–1923 – Frank H. Plant
 * 1924 – Henry Watters
 * 1924 – Napoléon Champagne
 * 1925–1927 – John P. Balharrie
 * 1928–1929 – Arthur Ellis
 * 1930 – Frank H. Plant
 * 1931–1933 – John J. Allen
 * 1934–1935 – Patrick Nolan
 * 1936–1948 – J.E. Stanley Lewis
 * 1949–1950 – E.A. Bourque
 * 1951 – Grenville Goodwin
 * 1951–1956 – Charlotte Whitton
 * 1957–1960 – George H. Nelms
 * 1961–1964 – Charlotte Whitton
 * 1965–1969 – Donald Bartlett Reid
 * 1970–1972 – Kenneth H. Fogarty, Q.C.
 * 1972–1974 – Pierre Benoit
 * 1975–1978 – Lorry Greenberg
 * 1978–1985 – Marion Dewar
 * 1985–1991 – James A. Durrell
 * 1991 – Marc Laviolette
 * 1991–1997 – Jacquelin Holzman
 * 1997–2000 – Jim Watson
 * 2000–2001 – Allan Higdon  (acting)

Amalgamation
When the city of Ottawa amalgamated in 2001, these were the mayors of the municipalities that amalgamated:

 * Chair of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton: Bob Chiarelli
 * Ottawa: Allan Higdon (acting)
 * Gloucester: Claudette Cain
 * Kanata: Merle Nicholds
 * Nepean: Mary Pitt
 * Vanier: Guy Cousineau
 * Cumberland: Gerry Lalonde (acting)
 * Goulbourn: Janet Stavinga
 * Osgoode: Doug Thompson
 * Rideau: Glenn Brooks
 * West Carleton: Dwight Eastman
 * Rockcliffe Park: Patrick J. Murray

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

title: List of mayors of Ottawa


text:
John Titor

John Titor and TimeTravel_0 are pseudonyms used on internet forums between 2000 and 2001 by an individual claiming to be an American military time traveler from the year 2036. His posts discussed various aspects of time travel, and described future calamitous events, including a global nuclear war. The uniform inaccuracy of their predictions and inconsistencies in their explanations has led many to view the story with skepticism. A 2009 investigation suggested that the entire affair was a hoax created by Larry Haber, a Florida entertainment lawyer, and his brother John Rick Haber, a computer scientist. These claims have never been verified.

Titor's posts
The first posts using John Titor's military symbol appeared on the Time Travel Institute forums on November 2, 2000, under the username TimeTravel_0 (The name "John Titor" was not used at that time.) The posts discussed time travel in general, the first one being the "six parts" description of the components required for a working time machine and responses to questions from other posters about how such a machine might work. These early posts tended to be short. A second thread was also made due to shortcomings of the forum software used at the time.

The name "John Titor" was first introduced in January 2001, when TimeTravel_0 began posting at the Art Bell Post-2-Post BBS Forums, which required a name or pseudonym for every account. The final Titor post was made in late March 2001.

Later, around 2003, various websites compiled Titor's posts, re-arranging them into narratives. Not all of these sites refer to the original dates that the messages were posted on the forums.

In his online postings, Titor claimed to be an American soldier from the year 2036, based in Tampa, Florida. He said that he was assigned to a governmental time-travel project, and that as part of the project he was sent back to 1975 to retrieve an IBM 5100 computer, which was needed to debug various legacy computer programs that existed in 2036 – a possible reference to the UNIX year 2038 problem. The IBM 5100 runs the APL and BASIC programming languages.

Titor said that he had been selected for this mission because his paternal grandfather was directly involved in the original assembly and programming of the 5100. He attempted to provide proof of this by describing unpublicized features of the 5100, which led some people to believe that a computer scientist must have been behind the postings.

Titor said that he was on a stopover in the year 2000 for "personal reasons": to collect pictures lost in the (future) civil war, and to visit his family, of whom he spoke often.

Titor also said that for several months he had been trying to warn anyone who would listen about the potential threat of Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease spread through beef products, and about the possibility of an upcoming civil war within the United States.

When questioned about the topic, Titor also expressed interest in mysteries such as UFOs, which he said remained unexplained in his time. Titor suggested that UFOs and extraterrestrials might be time travelers with superior time machines, from much further into the future than his own time.

Time machine
Titor described his time machine on several occasions. In one early post, he described it as a "stationary mass, temporal displacement unit powered by two top-spin, dual positive singularities", and producing a "standard off-set Tipler sinusoid".

The earliest post was more explicit, detailing the components of the machine: According to the posts, the device was installed in the rear of a 1966 Chevrolet Corvette convertible. Later posts mentioned a 1987 truck with four-wheel drive.
 * Two magnetic housing units for the dual micro singularities
 * An electron injection manifold, to alter mass and gravity of the micro singularities
 * A cooling and X-ray venting system
 * Gravity sensors, or a variable gravity lock
 * Four main cesium clocks
 * Three main computer units

Predictions
Although he frequently invoked the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, whereby events from his timeline may differ from our own, Titor also said that the differences would be minimal. As such, some have interpreted his descriptions of his timeline as predictions, and have compared them with actual historical events that have occurred since Titor's final post in 2001.

The most immediate of Titor's predictions foretold a civil war in the United States having to do with "order and rights". The war as Titor described it would begin in 2005 with civil unrest surrounding the presidential election of the previous year. According to Titor, this civil conflict, which he described as "having a Waco type event every month that steadily gets worse", would be "pretty much at everyone's doorstep" and erupt into war by 2008. As a result, the United States would split into five regions based on a variety of factors, including differing military objectives.

According to Titor, this civil war would end in 2015 with a brief but intense World War III, which Titor referred to as "N Day". He specified Washington, D.C. and Jacksonville, Florida as cities that would be hit in the exchange, and said that after the war, Omaha, Nebraska would be the new U.S. Capitol. Titor did not detail the exact causes of this World War III scenario, but in one post he said that the hostilities were led by "border clashes and overpopulation". He also pointed to the contemporary Arab-Israeli conflict not as a cause of the war, but as a milestone that precedes it.

Titor said that in 2011, when he was 13 years old, he joined a Florida-based shotgun infantry unit called the Fighting Diamondbacks for at least four years. In other posts, he described himself as hiding from the war.

Titor also said that the "Everett–Wheeler model of quantum physics", better known as the many-worlds interpretation, was correct. According to him, this meant that his time travel had caused the formation of a new timestream, and that in this new (current) timestream, the events that Titor had described would occur somewhat differently than they had in his home timestream. This made his predictions non-falsifiable.

Criticism and discussion
The New Republic described Titor as the most famous of several internet forum posters who claimed to be time travelers.

An Italian television program, Voyager – Ai confini della conoscenza, aired the results of an investigation of John Titor on May 19, 2008. Private investigator Mike Lynch found no registry evidence, past or present, of any individual named John Titor. He did, however, identify the John Titor Foundation, which was a for-profit company formed on September 16, 2003, and had no office or address other than a rented post box in Kissimmee, Florida. An IP address connected with Titor also geolocated to Kissimmee.

In 2009, a report by John Hughston of the Hoax Hunter website pointed to Larry Haber, a Florida entertainment lawyer, as the CEO of the foundation. Lynch concluded that Larry Haber and his brother Richard, a computer scientist, were very likely the men behind John Titor, whom they actually introduced in 1998, accompanied by different predictions, including chaos due to the Y2K "bug". John Hughston also reported that John Titor is a trademark registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office; the Titor trademark is now classified as "Abandoned".

In 2018, multimedia artist Joseph Matheny, creator of the alternate reality game Ong's Hat, said that he worked as a consultant for the unnamed individuals responsible for the legend. John Titor "is a story that was created as a literary experiment by people who were observing what I was doing with Ong's Hat and these people wanted to do something like that. I was a consultant on the project, [but] it wasn't my project."

In popular culture

 * In 2003, the John Titor Foundation published a book, John Titor: A Time Traveler's Tale (ISBN 1-59196-436-9), discussing his claims; the book is now out of print.
 * The 2009 visual novel Steins;Gate, which was adapted into an anime in 2011, heavily features time travel and has John Titor as a major part of the plot.
 * In 2009, a docudrama was created about John Titor called Timetravel_0 directed by Scott Norwood.
 * Titor was referred to in the shonen supernatural horror manga Magical Girl Apocalypse.
 * Japanese rock band Sōtaisei Riron's third studio album, TOWN AGE, featured a song, John Q, which references John Titor.
 * In an issue of The Unbeatable Squirrel Girl, John Titor is listed in the Deadpool's Guide to Super Villains card set as an alias of Kang the Conqueror.
 * In the video game Reverse: 1999, John Titor is a senior computer engineer from IBM claiming to be a time traveler who speaks in Hexadecimal code and was also behind the development of IBM 5100.

title: John Titor


text:
Talk:Parole

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 15 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Subaitar34. Peer reviewers: Kristiedelvalle.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

parole
Regarding Ferdinand de Saussure's terms 'langue' and 'parole', they aren't all that complex. I seriously doubt whether there is any other material to add to the lingustic stub. I suggest that it be removed, the description on Saussure's page should suffice.

As regards the other definition of Parole. As Wiki isn't a dictionary, could we also remove this entry, and thus the whole page? Dduck 19:48, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Hopefully it's a bit more than just a dictionary entry now. There's certainly room for more article content - parole boards, nature of supervision, most definitely information on parole in countries besides the US. 66.167.132.156 06:52, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * As for the linguistic meaning: Someone comes across the term somewhere, doesn't understand it, types it into Wikipedia thinking that's an encyclopaedia and, according to Dduck, should get either only the legal meaning or nothing at all. I don't see why. I agree with 66.167.132.156 that much more can be written here. --KF 21:12, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

California
I removed the following paragraph, as it is rather POV. It also seems rather odd to focus on one state.
 * California has a notoriously harsh parole system. The California Supreme Court has held that the Board of Prison Terms has carte blanche to refuse to parole an indeterminate life prisoner for any reason, including the vicious nature of the act upon which the original conviction was based, and the refusal of the otherwise well-behaved prisoner to stop proclaiming his innocence (which the Board is entitled to use as evidence that he is not rehabilitated).  In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal. 4th 1061 (2005).  Since crimes that get an indeterminate life sentence are usually vicious to begin with, the Dannenberg holding means that most indeterminate life sentences in California will become de facto life sentences.

If someone wants to rewrite this in an NPOV manner, go ahead. GoCardinal 09:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I contributed that paragraph. I disagree that the paragraph is POV---it is important to point out the contradiction inherent in a parole system where it is nearly impossible to get out.  Parole then becomes completely nonsensical and a false hope.  The more rational solution would be to just give out life sentences without the possibility of parole, or longer determinate sentences for years, as is currently done in the federal sentencing system and by a few states.

 * However, I do agree that the paragraph is too California-specific and should remain out of the article until citations to several other states can be added. Unfortunately, I am too busy right now with other priorities to research parole case law in all 50 states.  If anyone else following this article can do that, it would be great.  --Coolcaesar 16:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge of Medical parole
Medical parole has had no edits for nearly 2 years. Part of it is already covered in parole so I suggest it be merged here. If you do not agree, please suggest an alternative way of getting knowledgeable editors to improve it. --Bduke 06:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Parole in the US
After reading this article, I still don't have a clue about what a parole is in the united states. The article describes only when and why it happens, but not what happens. --63.226.216.238 03:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad Link
The first reference:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--parolequestioned0505may05,0,1199416.story

is a bad link. Should it be removed? mdkarazim (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Americacentric?
I came here to look for parole as a topic world wide, and its just full of americana! As if the whole parole idea was thought up by an american. very unencycopediac. Sparkyboi (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Parole vs. probation
Although I think that the respective articles on parole and probation do make the differences between them clear if you read both articles, I suggest that a short section be added to each article that clearly explains the distinction between them, and provide a cross reference to the other article. Thomas.Hedden (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Chesire incident

 * The accused perpetrators of the infamous July 2007 Cheshire, Connecticut home invasion were convicted burglars paroled from Connecticut prisons. The New York Daily News has called on parole to be abolished in the wake of this massacre  On September 21, 2007 Governor M. Jodi Rell announced a moratorium on the parole of violent offenders in the wake of the Cheshire massacre

Basically, this is just a news item, and one example, at that. The problem with one example is that sets the stage for more and more examples, to where it becomes like a Popular Culture section, which is a Very Bad Thing. A better way would be to list stats from a study or something. Arguably, (IMO of course) the most famous incident of a "paroled criminal killing someone" would be Willie Horton, which was critical in Dukakis' defeat in the 1988 election. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Well actually Willie Horton was sentenced to life without parole and was furlonged, which is different.

Validity of life without parole and gun rights
I removed the following from the Modern History Section
 * At the same time, most other nations, such as European nations and Mexico, have abolished life without the possibility of parole because it is considered cruel. Regardless of the 'validity' of parole, a convicted felon is not permitted to own or carry firearms at any time within the US.

I see this as POV, arguing that life without parole is cruel and questioning the validity of parole. At the very least, the European nations should be named and citations provided showing the reason they no longer issue life without parole sentences is that they find it to be cruel. The gun issue does not fit into that paragraph, but may be appropriate somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastshire (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of other issues with that passage, the phrasing in my opinion is not 'POV'. It would be 'POV' (a Wikipedia article promoting a certain opinion) if it read, for example: 'life imprisonment without possibility of parole is cruel, therefore several countries have abolished it'. However saying that certain nations (at least the lawmakers there) held something as cruel, is not itself an opinion, it only attibutes an opinion to other people. Bever (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

befuddled expression
"Parole should not be confused with probation, as parole is serving the remainder of a sentence outside of prison, where probation is given instead of a prison sentence and as such, tends to place more rigid obligations upon the individual serving the term." ???? As such ... the term (sentence, yes?) does not exist (for a probation circumstance) thus the qualifier invalidates the distinction. The all important intro paragraph is wrough with a lack of any clarity. Cisum.ili.dilm (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

 * This phrase seems to be completely gone from the article, now. Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. Thin Smek) (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Removed sentence
I removed a sentence ("One proposed reform is that parole bonds be used to encourage defendants not to re-offend. ") from the lead as it did not connect to anything around it. I am placing it on this talk page as it should probably be restored to the article, but placed in a dedicated "Parole reform" section. --Khajidha (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Parole. 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/20120505131850/http://www.paroleboard.govt.nz/about-us/cases-and-eligibility.html to http://www.paroleboard.govt.nz/about-us/cases-and-eligibility.html

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) 07:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Fees
Fees for ankle monitors and much more, I am reading about. No mention of this in the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 * Hi, if you think anything should be in this article, you are welcome to try adding it:

 * "No original research", "Neutral point of view", and "Verifiability" are the three core content policies that determine the type and quality of material acceptable in articles. Any notable addition should hopefully be fine if you follow these, but there are a ton of other guidelines that other editors can help you with if they think you violated any. If you don't want to edit the page because you're not sure about the policies linked, maybe you can post your new content on the article's talk page with their sources and request for other editors to check and publish them for you. Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. Thin Smek) (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

"Deri Law" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Deri Law. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Gamification?
Prisoners earned marks through good behavior, lost them through bad behavior...

Is it an early example of gamification of life? Zezen (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Sentence changed about politics
The article originally said "The United States is the only nation in the world where parole is a politically divisive issue." I find this completely impossible (probably the opinion of the author of the source, but I didn't look at the source), so I changed it to "Parole in the United States has proven to be politically divisive". — Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 04:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Porel
Can your porel be extended if your classes drug alcohol mental health aren't done before your porel is up can they extend your porel I've have 6 months left I get off in October 18 th this year I'm just trying to get this clarified I haven't been in any trouble arrested or anything the compservices is really backed up because of covid like a month between appointments please answer this question 2600:6C42:6700:271:9D2C:E744:59E3:4B7E (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Parole


text:
Talk:Vanity

Vanity Furniture
Golly, I wrote the definition for the piece of furniture. But as it stands, it just looks like a dictionary definition. Is there more to be said for it, such as the history or other noteworthy aspects? Even an image would help. If not, perhaps it should just be deleted. —Frecklefoot 19:50, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You were going to make an encyclopedic entry for the thing you shave in front of in the morning? OK, I get it, I think...

Character trait
What about an entry as Vanity as a character trait? 71.65.54.92 21:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You can find the vanity as a character trait on wiktionary Optimix 17:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

No reference to "Meaninglessness"
I am no expert in this area, but I feel there is a whole lot missing from this article. Shouldn't there at least be some reference to the idea of "meaninglessness"? In my opinion all the present connotations of vanity (that are dealt with extensively in this article, the idea of excessive narcisstic self-belief) arose from the fact that to an outside observer these people are grasping at nothingness, that in the end (with respect to the greater world, and the eventual death of the individuals)what they care about (i.e. themselves) do not truly "matter"; their concerns are trivial and completely "meaningless" in the long-run. So there should be some sort of reference (even a single word would be fine)in the article relating vanity to the idea of "meaninglessness".

Agreed. The quote from Ecclesiates is entirely out of context. The Hebrew word translated as vanity in Ecclesiastes is hevel, is literally breath, or breeze, metaphorically coupled with the phrase "striving after the wind". It is interpreted as "meaningless", "useless", "fruitless" or as expressed in this article "vanity", as in, "He attempted in vain to save her life." In this sense vanity does not mean arrogance or pride.

Psychological underpinnings
In psychology, vanity could be considered an ego defense or a compensatory behavior. This defense might arise out of a inner or outer power struggle over perceived attractiveness or value. This compensatory response might arise from a mis-attribution of the source of perceived attractiveness or value. For example, if the brain registers pleasure when receiving a compliment persistently and intensely it could shape a person's self-concept as being determined by outside sources. It might be valuable to perceive vanity as an addictive behavior to receive a pleasure that one does not realize can arise from one's self. This description is probably most closely aligned with Heinz Kohut and Self-psychology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.148.33 (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Nietzsche and vanity
From the Wiki article on Vanity:

 * 1) Vanity (compare Pride) is the excessive belief in one's own abilities or attractiveness to others. [NOTE: in the article on Pride, pride is equated with vanity and arrogance, at least in a Christian perspective]
 * 2) Friedrich Nietzsche wrote that "vanity is the fear of appearing original: it is thus a lack of pride, but not necessarily a lack of originality."

The two definitions are obviously antithetic: pride (1.) vs. lack of pride (2.).

A comment should be added to the main article underlining, and if possible trying to explain this antithesis. --Miguel de Servet 13:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC) hello

true. also, "emptiness", though it might not be directly connected to pride, but there is some belief that emptiness emerges from stolen or hurt pride. I wish that we would open a discussion about this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silenced121 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A little bit off topic but I don't get how one would get to Nietzsche's conclusion if someone was vainglorious why would one fear being original common sense would tell you they'd want to appear original to seperate them from the crowd, make them seem better, unique. In fact dictionary.com states: Vanity: "1. excessive pride in one's appearance, qualities, abilities, achievements, etc.; character or quality of being vain; conceit" not only does it make it appear to be synonymous it actually uses "pride" to define it.Props888 (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Vanity


text:
Salvador

Salvador, meaning "salvation" (or "saviour") in Catalan, Spanish, and Portuguese may refer to:

 * Salvador (name)

Music

 * Salvador (band), a Christian band that plays both English and Spanish music
 * Salvador (Salvador album), 2000
 * Salvador (Ricardo Villalobos album), 2006
 * Salvador (Sega Bodega album) 2020
 * "Salvador", a song by Jamie T from the 2007 album Panic Prevention

Other uses in arts, entertainment, and media

 * Salvador (book), a 1983 book by Joan Didion
 * Salvador (character), a fictional character from the Borderlands video game series
 * Salvador (film), a 1986 motion picture about the Salvadoran civil war of the 1980s
 * Salvador (Puig Antich), a 2006 Spanish film about Salvador Puig Antich
 * "Salvador" (short story), a 1984 science fiction short story by Lucius Shepard

Brazil

 * Salvador, Bahia, the capital of the State of Bahia, Brazil, the largest city in the world with this name

Canada

 * Salvador, Saskatchewan, a hamlet in Saskatchewan

El Salvador

 * El Salvador, a Central American country
 * San Salvador, the capital of El Salvador

Philippines

 * El Salvador, Misamis Oriental, a city in the province of Misamis Oriental
 * Salvador, Lanao del Norte, a municipality in the province of Lanao del Norte
 * Salvador Benedicto, Negros Occidental, a municipality in the province of Negros Occidental

United States

 * Lake Salvador, a lake in the State of Louisiana, United States of America

Elsewhere

 * Salvador (Madrid), a ward of San Blas-Canillejas district, Madrid, Spain
 * Salvador Settlement, a community in the Falkland Islands, United Kingdom
 * Tevego, previously known as Villa del Divino Salvador, a settlement in the Concepción Department, Paraguay
 * El Salvador, Chile, a village in the Atacama Desert, Chile

Other uses

 * Salvador (grape), a red wine grape grown primarily in California
 * Salvador (Sav), a protein kinase involved in the Hippo signaling pathway

title: Salvador


text:
Battle of the Saintes

The Battle of the Saintes (known to the French as the Bataille de la Dominique), also known as the Battle of Dominica, was an important naval battle in the Caribbean between the British and the French that took place 9–12 April 1782. The British victory was considered their greatest over the French during the American Revolutionary War.

The British fleet under Admiral Sir George Rodney defeated a French fleet under the Comte de Grasse, forcing the French and Spanish to abandon a planned invasion of Jamaica.

The battle is named after the Îles des Saintes, a group of small islands between Guadeloupe and Dominica in the West Indies. The French had blockaded the British Army at Chesapeake Bay the year before, during the Siege of Yorktown, and supported the eventual American victory in their revolution. This battle, however, halted their momentum and had a significant effect on peace negotiations to end the war.

The French suffered heavy casualties at the Saintes and many were taken prisoner, including de Grasse. Four French ships of the line were captured (including the flagship) and one was destroyed. Rodney was credited with pioneering the tactic of "breaking the line" in the battle, though this is disputed.

Background
In October 1781 Admiral Comte de Grasse, commander of the French fleet in the West Indies; Francisco Saavedra de Sangronis, General Bureau for the Spanish Indies; and Bernardo de Gálvez, court representative and aide to the Spanish Governor of Louisiana, developed a plan against British forces. The strategic objectives of the Franco-Spanish military forces in the West Indies in this plan were:
 * to aid the Americans and defeat the British naval squadron at New York
 * to capture the British Windward Islands and
 * to conquer Jamaica.

This plan became known as the "De Grasse–Saavedra Convention." The first objective had been essentially met by the surrender of the British army under General Cornwallis at the Siege of Yorktown in September 1781. De Grasse and his fleet had played a decisive part in that victory, after which they returned to the Caribbean. On arrival in Saint-Domingue in November 1781, the admiral was notified to proceed with a plan for the conquest of Jamaica.

Jamaica was the largest and most profitable British island in the Caribbean, mainly because of sugar: it was more valuable to the British economy than all of the 13 American colonies. King George III wrote to Lord Sandwich, saying that he would protect Britain's important Caribbean islands at the risk of Britain herself, and this was the strategy implemented in 1779. Sugar made up 20% of all British imports and was worth five times as much as tobacco. The French and Spanish were fighting to take over Jamaica in order to expel the British from the West Indies, and to strike a massive blow against the British economy. The courts at Paris and Madrid perceived the invasion of Jamaica as an alternative to the Spanish and French attempts to take Gibraltar, which for two years had been a costly disaster.

Whilst de Grasse waited for reinforcements to undertake the Jamaica campaign, he captured St. Kitts in February 1782. The rest of the Windward Islands—Antigua, St. Lucia, and Barbados—still remained under British control. Admiral George Rodney arrived in the Caribbean theatre the following month, bringing reinforcements. These included 17 ships of the line and gave the British a slight numerical advantage.

On 7 April 1782, de Grasse set out from Martinique with 35 ships of the line, including two 50-gun ships and a large convoy of more than 100 cargo ships, to meet with a Spanish fleet of 12 ships of the line. In addition de Grasse was to rendezvous with 15,000 troops at Saint Domingue, who were earmarked for the conquest and intended to land on Jamaica's north coast. Rodney, on learning of this, sailed from St. Lucia in pursuit with 36 ships of the line the following day.

The British ships' hulls by this time had been given copper sheathing to protect them from marine growth, fouling, and saltwater corrosion, dramatically improving speed and overall sailing performance in good wind.

Opposing fleets and officers
The British flagship was HMS Formidable under Admiral Rodney. Second in command was Admiral Samuel Hood. and third was Vice Admiral Francis Samuel Drake. As was the convention of the day, the fleet was split into three sections: Rodney had individual control as Admiral of the White of 12 ships flying the White Ensign; Drake had command of 12 ships as Admiral of the Blue flying the Blue Ensign; and Hood was Admiral of the Red with 12 ships flying the Red Ensign.

Formidable was accompanied by three 98-gun ships: HMS Barfleur (commanded by Hood), HMS Prince George, and HMS Duke, plus the 90-gun HMS Namur. The remaining 31 ships were equipped with 64 to 74 guns. In total the British fleet had 2,620 guns compared to the French total of 2,526. Most of the British fleet was equipped with carronades on the upper decks, which had a major advantage in flexibility and were a great advantage at close quarters.

In March 1782 Formidable was stationed at Gros Islet Bay between the island of St. Lucia and Pigeon Island. She was under the command of Admiral Rodney, serving as his flagship at the head of 36 ships of the line. Meanwhile, French Admiral de Grasse headed 34 ships of the line at Fort Royal Bay in Martinique. Rodney had been dispatched from Britain with 12 well-fitted ships to rescue the West Indies from a series of attacks from the French, which had already resulted in the loss of several islands. They joined 24 ships on St. Lucia who had already seen action against the French and were undergoing repairs.

The French had allies in the Spanish, who had 13 ships of the line at Cap‑Français on the island of San Domingo (Hispaniola). Together with transport ships, the Spanish had a considerable force of 24,000 men. They awaited the arrival of a further 10,000 French troops dispatched from Brest, under escort of five men-of-war, to further boost their strength. The plan was for Grasse's fleet, with at least 5,000 further troops, to unite with the Spanish at Cap‑Français, and from there to attack and capture the island of Jamaica with their conjoined armada of some 60 ships and 40,000 troops.

Rodney had been in communication with de Grasse during March, organising the exchange of prisoners, who were conveyed by HMS Alert under Captain Vashon. The two officers had much mutual respect. Rodney's task was to intercept the French fleet en route to Cap‑Français.

Grasse's vice admiral at the time was Louis-Philippe de Rigaud, Marquis de Vaudreuil. Third in command was Louis Antoine de Bougainville. The French flagship was the huge 104-gun Ville de Paris. The troops were under the command of the Marquis de Bouillé. The French fleet was also split into three squadrons: Grasse led the "Cornette Blanche;" Bougainville led the "Escadre Bleue;" and Vaudreuil as a second-in-command flew the mixed white and blue colours of the "Blanche et Bleue."

Other British commanders included Captain Lord Robert Manners of HMS Resolution, Admiral William Cornwallis in command of HMS Canada, and HMS Monarch under the command of Captain Francis Reynolds. Other aristocrats present included Captain Lord Cranstoun, a supernumerary onboard Formidable. Sir Charles Douglas, a nephew of Charles Douglas, 3rd Duke of Queensberry, was Captain of the Fleet. Sir James Wallace was also present. Other commanders included Captains Blair, Buckner, Burnett, Charrington, Cornish, Dumaresq, Graves, Inglefield, Inglis, Knight, Parry, Saumarez, Savage, Symons, Truscott, Wilkinson, Williams, and Wilson. Frederick Thesiger, Acting Lieutenant on board Formidable, was appointed as Rodney's aide-de-camp shortly before the battle.

A lookout squadron, a line of frigates headed by Captain George Anson Byron on HMS Andromache, reported all of de Grasse's movements at Fort Royal. This squadron included the speedy HMS Agamemnon and also HMS Magnificent.

Pre-battle movements
On 3 April it was signalled that the repairs on the French fleet were complete. On 5 April it was reported that the French troops were boarding the ships. At 8:00 am on Sunday 8 April, it was reported that the French fleet were leaving Fort Royal. Rodney's fleet called all men to join their ships and they began leaving Gros Islet Bay at 10:30 am.

The total French armada comprised 35 ships of the line, 10 frigates, and over 100 smaller ships. The smaller ships moved in advance of the men-of-war, heading for St. Pierre.

Just past 4:00 pm Hood's Barfleur, at the head of the British fleet, espied five sails ahead that she presumed to be part of the French fleet. These came into view of Formidable around two hours later, just before sunset. They pursued the French through the night. At 2:00 am on 9 April, HMS St Albans dropped alongside Formidable, reporting that along with HMS Valiant, she had located the French fleet in the darkness. Rodney rested for the remainder of the night.

The sun rose at 5:30 am. The French fleet extended from six to 12 miles distant, navigating the waters between Dominica and Guadeloupe. The majority of the warships lay off Prince Rupert's Bay.

Due to a dead calm from 3:00 until 7:00 am, neither fleet could move. The initial wind only reached Barfleur and its eight support ships, causing them to detach ahead of the main fleet, which lay in the lee of Dominica. De Grasse saw the opportunity to cripple this advanced section and wheeled to begin the first attack.

Battle
On 9 April 1782 the copper-sheathed British fleet caught up with the French, who were surprised by their speed. Admiral de Grasse ordered the French convoy to head into Guadeloupe for repair, forcing him to escort two 50-gun ships (Fier and Experiment), and placing his fleet in line of battle in order to cover the retreat.

First encounters
Hood's section of the fleet, headed by Barfleur, braced for the first attack. As the first action, HMS Alfred taunted the 18 approaching French ships under de Vaudreuil by exposing her broadside to the approaching French, but without consequence. The British patiently awaited the formal signal from Rodney on Formidable, some six miles behind, and eventually received a red flag signal telling them to "engage the enemy." As the wind rose around noon, it enabled most of the French fleet and part of the British fleet (including Rodney in Formidable) to join the melee. At this point the French outnumbered the British two to one. Captain William Bayne on Alfred was killed during this action.

After an inconclusive encounter during which both sides suffered damage, de Grasse realised that the remainder of the British fleet would soon be upon them and broke off the engagement to withdraw a safe distance. De Grasse moved his ships to the Saintes Islands to the north (south of Guadeloupe). Meanwhile, Rodney reversed the order of his line to bring Drake's hitherto undamaged ships to the front, and allow Hood to undertake repairs in the rear lines.

On 10 April the French began 10 miles distant but did not turn to engage, instead continuing on their original course, and by nightfall had increased their separation to 15 miles. This appears to be partly due to the incorrect presumption on Rodney's part that the French were going to turn to engage.

On Wednesday 11 April two French ships, FRENCH SHIP Zélé and Magnanime, who had accidentally collided and fallen behind the main French fleet, came into view around noon. Rodney decided that attacking these two ships would cause de Grasse to return to protect them, which worked: a large section of the French fleet turned to protect the pair. These movements were executed without any physical attacks.

Main engagement
On 12 April the French were ranged from six to 12 miles distant and were not in formation, as the two fleets manoeuvred between the northern end of Dominica and the Saintes in the Saintes Passage. The unfortunate Zélé had had a second collision during the night with one of its rescuers, Ville de Paris, and was now being towed to Basse-Terre in Guadeloupe by Astrée with General de Bouillé on board. They were chased by four British ships: Monarch, Valiant, HMS Centaur and HMS Belliqueux. De Grasse made for Guadeloupe and bore up with his fleet to protect the ship. At the same time, Rodney recalled his chasing ships and made the signal for line of battle.

Rear Admiral Hood's van division were still making repairs from the action three days earlier, so he directed his rear division, under Rear Admiral Drake, to take the lead. At 7:40, HMS Marlborough (1767) under Captain Taylor Penny led the British line and opened battle when she approached the centre of the French line. Having remained parallel with the French, the ships of Drake's division passed the remaining length of de Grasse's line and the two sides exchanged broadsides, a typical naval engagement of the time.

Initial attack
Marlborough headed the British attack. As the battle progressed, the strong winds of the previous day and night began to temper and became more variable. As the French line passed down the British line, the sudden shift of wind let Rodney's flagship Formidable and several other ships, including Duke and HMS Bedford (1775), sail toward the French line.

At 8:00 am Formidable raised the red flag to permit Marlborough to open fire and engage the French. At this point Marlborough was opposite Dauphin Royal, who received her full broadside. Sixteen ships in line separated Marlborough from Formidable and each stood 200 metres apart. As each circled past the French, they fired a broadside against them. Second, behind Marlborough, was HMS Arrogant, who had been recently re-equipped and managed three broadsides against one from the French as they passed. Third in line was HMS Alcide under Captain Charles Thomson. Then followed HMS Nonsuch under Captain Truscott, and then HMS Conqueror under Captain George Balfour.

Next in line was Admiral Drake on HMS Princessa, who was in command of the first 12 vessels, and was followed by Prince George under Captain Williams. Then came the 100-year-old HMS Torbay under Captain Keppel and the year-old HMS Anson under Captain William Blair on the main deck, who was struck by round shot at waist level and sliced in two. The blue squadron was then completed by HMS Fame and HMS Russell under Captain James Saumarez.

The white squadron under Rodney followed in exact formation after the blue. This was headed by HMS America under Captain Thompson. HMS Hercules under Captain Henry Savage followed. Then came HMS Prothee under Captain Buckner and Resolution under Captain Robert Manners. The 24-year-old Manners was the first casualty on his ship and was severely injured in both legs and right arm, dying later of these wounds. Resolution was followed by Duke under Captain Alan Gardner.

As Formidable was in the centre of the British line, it took her almost an hour to reach the centre of the action. All ships had to maintain a steady speed, and as she passed de Grasse's flagship, the 104-gun Ville de Paris, the two met for the first time. Ville de Paris was already damaged by the 15 ships ahead of Formidable in the line. Although it was a sunny day, the smoke of the battle was like a dense fog. Formidable entered the smoke and approached Ville de Paris at 8:40 am.

The countermovement of the fleets brought a series of ships opposite Formidable in sequence behind Ville de Paris, movements that brought about a different pairing of enemies every five minutes. Next was Couronne, followed by Éveillé under Le Gardeur de Tilly, and then Sceptre under the command of de Vaudreuil.

Breaking the line
Within an hour, the wind had shifted to the south, forcing the French line to separate and bear to the west, as it could not hold its course into the wind. This allowed the British to use guns on both sides of their ships without fear of return fire from the front and rear of the French ships, between which they were passing. The effect was greater using the carronades, with which the British had just equipped nearly half their fleet. This relatively new short-range weapon was quicker to reload and more of them could be carried. HMS Glorieux, under command of Captain des Cars, moving in the wake of Ville de Paris, was the next victim. Virtually a sitting duck due to damage in the previous 10 minutes from Duke, she was quickly pounded and dismasted by intense fire.

In the confusion four French ships beginning with Diadem broke out of sequence, partly due to the uncontrollable speed of the mastless Glorieux. Formidable turned to starboard and brought her port guns to bear on them. As a result, Formidable sailed through the gap, breaking the French line. This breach was further followed through by five other British ships. The breach was later recorded by Charles Dashwood, who was a midshipman on Formidable on that day.

Although the concept of "breaking the line" was born here, it is logically of mixed blessings, since in breaking the enemy line, one breaks one's own line. Whilst the movement has the advantage that guns can be fired on both port and starboard sides, it also exposes the ship to attack on both sides. The advantage in this instance was that many of the French gunners left their post, in fear of Formidable's three tiers of guns bearing down on them.

Diadem appears to have fully withdrawn from the battle at this stage, and many presumed her to be sunk. Formidable was followed by Namur under Captain Fanshawe and then St Albans under Captain Inglis. These were followed by the deadly Canada under Captain William Cornwallis, HMS Repulse under Captain Thomas Dumaresq, and HMS Ajax under Captain Nicholas Charrington. Each of these fired further upon the hapless and already crippled Glorieux.

Simultaneously, and because of the smoke, Commodore Edmund Affleck on Bedford, the hindmost ship of the central white squadron, accidentally sailed through the confused French line, between César and Hector, only to discover this error when no enemy lay on his starboard side in the clearing smoke.

Bedford was followed by Hood's red squadron and this broke the French line into three sections. In the confusion the two leading ships of the rear red squadron, HMS Prince William and Magnificent, had somehow passed Bedford, who was now third in line within the red squadron and completely detached from her own white squadron. The whole red squadron then passed between César and Hector, causing each to be crippled. The final ship of the red squadron, HMS Royal Oak, passed the stern of César and delivered a final blow a few minutes after 11:00 am. Both fleets then drifted apart for some time and became temporarily becalmed.

Around noon, both fleets observed that the waters were teeming with sharks attracted by the noise and blood. French casualties were greatly increased due to the high number of troops packed onto the lower decks: a minimum of 900 per ship and no fewer than 1,300 on Ville de Paris. In order to lessen the confusion, the French had been throwing the dead (and perhaps the near-dead) overboard, a rich feast for the sharks.

French retreat
The French now lay totally to the leeward of the British fleet, which stood between them and their destination. They had little option on the re-emergence of the wind but to sail west with it and attempt escape. At 1:00 pm the frigate Richemont, under the command of Captain De Mortemart, but with Denis Decrès in charge of the marines, was sent to join a towing cable to the heavily crippled Glorieux. Souverain moved alongside to provide covering fire. However, the British, with both wind and cannon-power in their favour, moved a number of ships up to block this movement.

The captain of Glorieux was already dead, and the ship was now under command of the senior officer remaining, Lieutenant Trogoff de Kerlessi. Souverain and Richmond retreated under heavy fire, and Kerlessi had little choice but to tear the flag from the mast and surrender, which was done to Royal Oak. Captain Burnett used this opportunity to restock his depleted powder supplies. Meanwhile, Monarch stood alongside Andromache, who was acting as a supply ship to the British fleet; 40 barrels of powder were exchanged.

In the next action, around 1:30 pm, Centaur and Bedford attacked the stricken César, captained by Bernard de Marigny, who refused to surrender and was seriously wounded in the first five minutes. Command then fell to his Captain Paul.

With their formation shattered and many of their ships severely damaged, the French fell away to the southwest in small groups. Rodney attempted to redeploy and make repairs before pursuing the French. By 2:00 pm the wind had freshened and a general chase ensued. As the British pressed south, Ardent was flanked by HMS Belliqueux and HMS Prince William and soon surrendered. They then took possession of Glorieux and caught up with the French rear at around 3pm. Admiral de Grasse signalled other ships to protect Ville de Paris, but this was only partially fulfilled. Nine ships from de Vaudreuil's squadron came to his aid.

The British fleet bore down on this small group. In succession Rodney's ships isolated the other three ships. César, which was soon totally dismasted and in flames, was captured by Centaur. Soon after 5:00 pm, Hector, having been flanked by Canada and Alcide, soon became a completely dismasted wreck. Following the mortal wounding of his captain, De la Vicomte, his first lieutenant De Beaumanoir, lowered the ship's flag and surrendered to Alcide.

Bougainville, who commanded FRENCH SHIP Auguste, had ordered eight ships of his own division to aid Ville de Paris, but only Ardent had proceeded. Her isolation caused her to be flanked by Belliqueux and Prince William, soon leading to her capture.

At 5:30 pm de Grasse's Ville de Paris stood practically alone and had Barfleur in close pursuit, with Formidable close behind. Five ships from de Vaudreuil's squadron were trying to protect her, but none in close formation. These were Triomphant (de Vaudreuil's flagship), Bourgogne (under De La Charette), Magnifique (Macarty Macteigue), Pluton (De Rions), and Marseillais (De Castellane-Majastre). Three ships from de Grasse's squadron also still remained: Languedoc, Couronne and Sceptre.

De Grasse's closest protector, Couronne, moved away at the approach of Canada, who began the final attack on Ville de Paris. With little support and suffering huge losses in men, de Grasse made another attempt to signal the fleet and gave the order "to build the line on the starboard tack," but again this was not done. By this time, most of the French fleet, apart from those ships that were surrounded, had retreated.

End of the battle
Canada swept past Ville de Paris, doing damage to the spars and slowing her further. HMS Russell under Captain Saumarez then moved diagonally along the stern of the flagship and fired a broadside that ripped the entire length of the ship. Russell then moved to the leeward side to hamper the ship's retreat, whilst Barfleur moved onto the opposite side. Languedoc attempted to approach and give aid but was beaten back by Duke.

Ville de Paris was in desperate condition, with all masts damaged, the rudder shot away, and at least 300 men dead or injured in the cockpit. Around 6:00 pm, overwhelmed and suffering terrible losses, Ville de Paris eventually struck her colours, signaling surrender. Hood approached on Barfleur, which de Grasse had indicated was his preferred method of surrender, to receive the French surrender.

The boarding crew, which included the British fleet surgeon Gilbert Blane, were horrified at the carnage. Admiral de Grasse appeared not to have a scratch on him, whilst every one of his officers had either been killed or wounded; only three men were unwounded. Rodney boarded soon after, and Hood presented de Grasse to him. With his surrender, the battle had effectively ended, except for a few long-range desultory shots and the retreat of many of the French ships in disorder. The gallantry of William Cornwallis of Canada (younger brother of Charles Cornwallis) gained the admiration of the whole fleet. One officer noted that he was "like Hector, as if emulous to revenge his brothers cause."

The Marquis de Vaudreuil, seeing de Grasse's fate through his telescope, took command of the remaining scattered French naval fleet. On 13 April he had 10 ships with him and sailed toward Cap-Français. Rodney signaled his fleet not to pursue the remaining ships. The battle was thus over.

Later that night around 9:00 pm, fire broke out on César, begun by the entrapped French crew on the lower decks, who had broken into the liquor stores. By 10:30 pm the fire was out of control and the magazine exploded, killing more than 400 French and 58 British sailors, plus the lieutenant in charge, all from Centaur. Many men jumped overboard trying to avoid the conflagration, only to fall victim to the sharks below. Captain Marigny, who had been confined to his cabin, was one of the many killed, and none of the British prize crew survived.

Casualties
The British lost 243 killed and 816 wounded, and two captains out of 36 were killed, whilst no ships were lost. The highest casualties were on Duke, with 73 killed or wounded, including the death of Lieutenant Rowland de Cerjat. The total French casualties have never been stated, but six captains out of 30 were killed. In terms of soldiers and sailors, estimates range from 3,000 killed or wounded and 5,000 captured, to as many as around 3,000 dead, 6,000 wounded, and 6,000 captured. In addition to several French ships captured, others were severely damaged. The high number of casualties demonstrates the considerable force the French committed to achieve the invasion of Jamaica. Of Ville de Paris's crew alone, over 400 were killed and more than 700 were wounded—more than the casualties of the entire British fleet. De Grasse—the first French admiral in history to be captured by an enemy—was sent to England, where he was paroled.

Aftermath
Rodney's failure to follow up the victory by a pursuit was criticised. Samuel Hood said that the 20 French ships would have been captured had Rodney maintained the chase. In 1899 the Navy Records Society published the Dispatches and Letters Relating to the Blockading of Brest. In the introduction, they include a small biography of William Cornwallis. A poem purportedly written by him includes the lines: "Had a chief worthy Britain commanded our fleet, Twenty-five good French ships had been laid at our feet."

On 17 April Hood was sent in pursuit of the French, and promptly captured two 64-gun ships of the line (Jason and FRENCH SHIP Caton) and two smaller warships in the Battle of the Mona Passage on 19 April. Following this victory, Hood rendezvoused with Rodney at Port Royal on 29 April. As a result of the damage the fleet had sustained in battle, repairs took nine weeks.

Soon after the defeat, the French fleet reached Cap-François in several waves. The main contingent, under de Vaudreuil, arrived on 25 April. Marseillais, along with Hercule, FRENCH SHIP Pluton and Éveillé, arrived on 11 May. In May all 26 French ships from the battle arrived from Martinique and were soon joined by 12 Spanish ships. Disease struck the French forces, in particular the soldiers, of whom thousands died. The allies' hesitation and indecision soon led them to abandon plans to attack Jamaica. Instead the French and Spanish focused on protecting their own territories. Jamaica remained a British colony, as indeed did Barbados and Antigua.

Disaster struck the British months after the battle when Admiral Graves was leading a fleet back to England that included the French prizes from the battle. The fleet encountered the 1782 Central Atlantic hurricane in September, which hit off Newfoundland. Glorieux, Hector and Ville de Paris, along with other ships, foundered or sank with heavy loss of life.

Reactions
News of the battle reached France in June and was met with despair. The defeat along with the loss of Ville de Paris was a devastating blow to French king Louis XVI. The navy minister, the Marquis de Castries, greeted the news as "a grim disaster". The Comte de Vergennes felt undermined in the confidence of the French navy. All blame lay on the Comte de Grasse, whilst he himself sought long to clear his name. He blamed his subordinates de Vaudreuil and Bougainville for the defeat, but an infuriated Louis bluntly told de Grasse to retire.

The battle had repercussions for France's finances: the monetary loss was huge. On  Ville de Paris alone, 36 chests of money worth at least £500,000 were found, this being payment for the troops. During the first four years of the war, the French navy had lost four ships of the line (three of them to accidents), whereas during 1782 it would lose 15 ships of the line, nearly half of these in April alone. The losses of these ships were significant. Nevertheless, Louis promised to build more ships after new taxes were levied. The French finance minister, Jean-François Joly de Fleury, successfully secured the addition of a Vingtième income tax, the third and last one of its kind in the ancien regime.

There was widespread celebration in Britain upon news of the victory. In the newspaper Cumberland Pacquet it was noted, "A joy unknown for years past seemed to spread itself amongst all ranks of people." On his return Rodney was feted as a hero, and a number of cartoons and caricatures were created to commemorate the victory. He presented the Comte de Grasse personally to King George III as a prisoner, and was created a peer with £2,000 a year settled on the title in perpetuity. A number of paintings were commissioned to celebrate his victory, notably by Thomas Gainsborough and Joshua Reynolds. Hood was also elevated to the peerage, whilst Drake and Affleck were made baronets.

Impact on peace negotiations
Following the Franco-American victory at Yorktown six months earlier and the change of Government in England, peace negotiations in Paris had begun among Britain, the American colonies, France, and Spain in early 1782. The battle had a significant effect on those talks when news arrived of its outcome in June. The result of the Battle of the Saintes transferred the strategic initiative to the British, whose dominance at sea was reasserted. News of the defeat reached the Americans, who soon realised they were unlikely to have much French support in the future. American General Nathanael Greene had high hopes of French assistance in the recapture of Charleston, but the defeat led to its abandonment.

No longer humbled, the British stiffened their resolve: they objected to American claims on the Newfoundland fisheries and Canada. As a result, the American negotiators led by John Jay became more amenable. Not only did they drop their minimum demands and insist on the single precondition of recognition of their independence, they also put forward America's abandonment of its commitment to make no separate peace treaty without the French. The victory at the Saintes thus signaled a collapse in the Franco-American alliance. Despite this the battle did not affect the overall outcome of the American Revolution.

De Castries urged Spain to join the French to send another armada against the British West Indies. On the theory of this victory, it would win bargaining power to force Britain's acceptance of American independence. Vergennes, however, was desperate for peace, and time was running out: France was approaching the limits of its ability to borrow money. France had also promised not to make peace with England until Spain had achieved its principal goal of conquering Gibraltar. By October this attempt had been defeated: a huge Spanish attempt in September was repelled with heavy losses, following which Richard Howe, with a large naval convoy, then relieved the garrison. As a result, Vergennes demanded that Spain give up its claim on Gibraltar to make peace, to which the latter acquiesced.

The Comte de Grasse, who was a high-profile prisoner in Britain, was used to exchange messages of peace between Great Britain and France. A preliminary peace treaty between Great Britain and the United States was signed on 30 November 1782. Thus, with the Americans split from their allies, peace was signed with France and Spain in January 1783. Initial articles of peace were signed in July, following by a full treaty in September 1783. Owing to their military successes in 1782, the peace treaties that brought the war to an end were less disadvantageous for Britain than had been anticipated.

Impact on naval tactics
Superior British seamanship and gunnery ruled the day in what is considered the greatest naval victory for the British over the French during the American Revolutionary War.

The battle is famous for the innovative British tactic of "breaking the line," in which the British ships passed through a gap in the French line, engaging the enemy from leeward and throwing them into disorder. Historians disagree about whether the tactic was intentional or made possible by weather. If intentional, who should receive credit is ambiguous: Rodney, his Scottish Captain-of-the-Fleet and aide-de-camp, Sir Charles Douglas, or John Clerk of Eldin.

As a result of the battle, British naval tactics changed. The old method had involved the attacking fleet spreading itself along the entire enemy line. In the five formal fleet actions involving the Royal Navy between the Battle of the Saintes and the Battle of Trafalgar, all were victories for the British and achieved by the creation of localised numerical superiority.

Monuments
A huge ornate monument to the three captains lost in the battle—William Blair, William Bayne and Robert Manners—was erected to their memory in Westminster Abbey. The 25 feet high marble monument by Joseph Nollekens was completed in 1793. It consists of a figure of Fame standing on a column which has relief portraits of the captains attached, above figures of Britannia and a lion opposite figures of Neptune and a sea horse.

A monument in Spanish Town, Jamaica, was created to honour Admiral Rodney's role in the battle. It was created by the sculptor John Bacon in 1801. Two of the Ville de Paris guns flank Rodney's statue.

France
Not in line: Frigates Richemont (Mortemart); Amazone (Ensign Bourgarel de Martignan, acting captain replacing Montguyot); Aimable (Lieutenant de Suzannet); Galathée (Lieutenant de Roquart); corvette Cérès (Lieutenant de Paroy); and cutter Clairvoyant (Ensign de Daché); cutter Pandour (Grasse-Limermont).

In popular culture
The battle is the subject of the title track on No Grave But the Sea, the 2017 album by the Scottish "pirate metal" band Alestorm. The lyrics mention de Grasse, the British ships Duke and Bedford, and the tactic of "breaking the line."

The battle was the climax of the first written Richard Bolitho novel by Alexander Kent.

The battle is featured in Le Dernier Panache, a show in the Puy du Fou, wherein the show's main character, François de Charette, fights in the Battle of the Saintes. In the show and in reality he fought the battle as a lieutenant de vaisseau.

In the verse epic Omeros by Nobel-prize-winning poet Derek Walcott, which is set largely on St. Lucia, the retired British officer Major Plunkett is researching the battle. Two chapters tell the story of his namesake Midshipman Plunkett, who dies in the battle.

title: Battle of the Saintes


text:
Talk:Soviet submarine K-219

Some comments dating from 2006
Am I confused, or are you saying the sub sank in Oct'86 and the captain was imprisoned until May'86? I'm notoriously unreliable about time (and space), but this sounds impossible: released 5 months BEFORE the sub sank? -- The author of this page shows a certain lack of care and accuracy in their writing. I suggest that the wording and accuracy needs to be checked. As another example stating as a fact that the USS Augusta interfered with rescue efforts, rather then it is a Soviet charge that the USS Augusta interfered. -- Yes, this article does seem to have some bias and (currently) unfounded claims. I've flagged it as biased, so the "interference" from the USS Augusta can be either cleared up or have a citation & explanation added. (Russell Newman 00:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

What's in a name?
What are the Eng translation of Navaga? Trekphiler 19:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

19-year old?
This sort of is in keeping with the other complaints, but it appears that the seaman who sacrificed his life was 20 and not 19-years old according to the article about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkyisdashiznit (talk • contribs) 04:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Say what?
"Not to be confused with Soviet submarine K-219"? TREKphiler  hit me ♠  04:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the page history, it seems Pamporoff mistakenly changed it. I'm not sure a dab to K-19 is really necessary...so I propose deleting.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  04:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed it back. The edit was unexplained and doesn't make any sense on the surface.  CarbonX (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Crew roles
Valery Pshenichny was regarded in the article as a political officer (zampolit), but he was the security officer, the political officer was a diferent crew member i corrected it. Actually they played very diferent roles in the incident. Several withness described the political officer as short of a coward, while Pshenichny as security officer was well regarded by the crew and worked alongside the rest of them to control the crisis. The movie also incorrectly identifiques Pshenichny as political officer, but that was as dramatic licence since they deleted the character of the zampolit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.9.166.57 (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Missing nukes?
No explanation is given as to the nuclear missiles that were apparently missing. This seems a bit strange, surely someone cared that the weapons were gone and made an effort to find out what happened to them? 59.167.49.215 (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Robert Ballard went and did recon on it before finding Titanic. It is unknown still who did the work to recover the items. Russia never released any photos that ive been able to find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.64.185.60 (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The only source for the "forced hatches/missing nukes" story is the "Hostile Waters" book by Kurdin, et. al. Is there any reason to believe it's true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.165.172.37 (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

 * ”Hostile Waters” is a dramatised account, and should not be used as a source. The only information regarding the missing missiles is heresay as the Russians never released photos or a statement to confirm they were actually missing. No credible reference showing they are actually missing exists. Enderwigginau (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Given the context and the timing, one explanation that *must* be considered is that there never were any nukes on board in the first place. Recent studies showed that Cold War USSR had nowhere near the number of all sorts of military hardware that the US claimed they did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E448:D401:300C:3520:DD18:4DEA (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Casualties: specific cause of death
This edit changed an unsupported assertion re Sergei Preminin's cause of death from "overheating" to "radiation poisoning." AFAICS, any unsupported editorial assertion re specific cause of death is WP:OR. I've changed the assertion at that point so as not to contain an unsupported assertion re cause of death.

FWIW, Hostile Waters, Huchthausen, Kurdin & White 1997 (a novelization cited in a number of places in this article), on p.199 says, speaking of Preminin, ".. he yanked [his OBA] off. He took a small breath, testing. The burning got worse. His nostrils began to gush green foam. It was almost over. ... He looked at the steel hatch, opened his mouth wide, sucked in a tremendous gasp of poison, and let his soul go free"; p.202 says, "The wet tissues of their lungs had been seared by nitric acid. The foam was the body's protective response to those burns. But the protection was drowning the injured sailors. Three had already died and Preminin made four."; p. 203 says, "[Kochergin had] left three dead back in eigh; two of the missilemen from four and Weapons officer Petrachkov. Their bodies had bloated in the heat ..."; p.224 says, re Petrachkov and two other crewman who died in the missile compartment (as if quoting): michman:"They're in the next compartment, Petrachkov and two more. Their bodies, I mean, ..." Kapitulsky:"The heat?" michman:"And the poison. The bodies swelled up like balloons. ...". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not worth a anything - a work of fiction.50.111.42.37 (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Assertion re collision with Augusta
Per WP:BRD, in this edit I had reverted an unsupported bold edit to this article which contradicted cited supporting sources. That was unreverted here. I'm going to re-revert and request that this be discussed here before the changes are reintroduced. The supporting surce cited in the article says, "The Soviet Union claimed that the incident was due to a collision with a U.S. submarine. Captain Britanov says, 'There was no collision.'" and "... I do not tell the story the way my government wants me to tell it. I did not collide with an American sub.", citing further sources named therein. If this is contradicted by other reliable sources, neutrality requires that this article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. (see WP:DUE). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also find odd this mention of a story (that) "government wants be the one told", but then no details about it. If it's (or was) the officious / official Russian story, that surely deserves a paragraph, yes? Unless there has been nothing "official" published, which would not be too surprising (too many negatives, sorry, just lost) 72.48.98.210 (talk) 06:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Source
I cant find the TV programme with the interview with CINC Northern Fleet. --109.91.86.174 (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I haven't seen/heard the documentary myself, and the article says that it was interview recorded in February 2013. Confusingly, there was a 2011 documentary about India titled "The Silent War" (see and ), and an episode by that same name in a 2013 series on the Cold War (see ). Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Here are the details of the programme containing the piece about K219: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03lnswn. Vladimir Chernavin is listed as a participant. Eckaslike1 (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Soviet submarine K-219. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120205050321/http://www.theroyalgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061006/NEWS/110060129&SearchID=73259541411267 to http://www.theroyalgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061006/NEWS/110060129&SearchID=73259541411267

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Soviet submarine K-219. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041216052722/http://www.ieee.org:80/organizations/pubs/newsletters/oes/html/fall04/soundings.html to http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pubs/newsletters/oes/html/fall04/soundings.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Soviet submarine K-219. 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/20130723022550/http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_28/yankee.html to http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_28/yankee.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theroyalgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20061006%2FNEWS%2F110060129&SearchID=73259541411267
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120410091234/http://www.submarine.id.ru/memory/K219.htm to http://submarine.id.ru/memory/K219.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205125624/http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_28/yankee.html to http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_28/yankee.html

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) 08:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Were there nukes?
THe lede says that "it carried" so many of such a nuke. Given that there is some doubt as to this, perhaps that should be changed to something along the lines of "it was capable of carrying". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E448:D401:300C:3520:DD18:4DEA (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 * The following Source claims that Russian investigators discovered plutonium traces on floating debris. I'd argue that it is thus relatively likely that there were nukes aboard K-219.
 * https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Sunken-Soviet-sub-leaked-Plutonium-3113164.php Darkcoucou (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That source says explicitly at several points that there were nuclear missiles aboard. That info is already in this WP article, supported by cites of several other sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Aftermath and Wreckage
For anyone editing this article later:

I intended on writing about the Wreckage of the K-219, when I discovered that an archived version had a claim in which it is stated that: 'In 1988, the Soviet hydrographic research ship Keldysh positioned itself over the wreck of K-219, and found the submarine sitting upright on the sandy bottom. It had broken in two, aft of the conning tower. Several missile silo hatches had been forced open, and the missiles, along with the nuclear warheads they contained, were gone.'

This phrase seems to have sparked the attention of conspiracy theorists, which have spun a lot of theories about who 'stole the warheads', making my attempts to find out whether or not this claim is true quite difficult.

I'd like to offer my alternative explanation: As the K-219 sunk beneath the depth it was engineered for, water started to leak inside the missile containers, putting the missiles under extreme pressure. The R-27 Zyb Missiles that were usually carried by subs of this class are fueled with hypergolic propellant (fuel and oxidiser ignite on contact), meaning that when the missiles were finally crushed by the water pressure, they must have exploded, ripping off the silo covers and ejecting any warheads carried on them out of the sub. What remains of the warheads is very likely crushed and scattered around the wreckage of the sub in 6 000 meters depth. I cannot confirm this claim, but I'd like to leave it here in case another editor wants to make an edit in this regard. Darkcoucou (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Soviet submarine K-219


text:
Swedetown, Michigan

Swedetown is a small, unincorporated community in Houghton County in the Upper Peninsula of the U.S. state of Michigan. It is within Calumet Charter Township at 47.23639°N, -88.46472°W, west of Osceola Road and the junction with Swedetown Road. It is south of Calumet and west of Laurium and the intersection of US 41 and M-26.

It is the site of the Swedetown Cross Country Ski Trails, a system of cross-country skiing and mountain biking trails, sledding and snowboarding hills. The trails are the site of the annual Great Bear Chase Ski Race and "Great Deer Chase Mountain Bike Race".

title: Swedetown, Michigan


text:
Charlotte Whitton

Charlotte Elizabeth Whitton (March 8, 1896 – January 25, 1975) was a Canadian feminist and mayor of Ottawa. She was the first woman mayor of a major city in Canada, serving from 1951 to 1956 and again from 1960 to 1964. Whitton was a Canadian social policy pioneer, leader and commentator, as well as a journalist and writer.

Early life and education
Charlotte Elizabeth Hazeltyne Whitton was born in Renfrew, Ontario, a small Ottawa Valley town about 100 km northwest of Ottawa.

She attended Queen's University, where she was the star of the women's hockey team, and was known as the fastest skater in the league. At Queen's, she also served as editor of the Queen's Journal newspaper in 1917; and was the newspaper's first female editor. She was a top student, winning several scholarships at Queen's. She earned her Master of Arts degree in 1917.

Career and accomplishments
From Queen's, she became a civil servant as the private secretary for Thomas Low, MP and Minister of Trade in Liberal Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King's first government.

When Low lost his parliamentary seat, Whitton then focused on her role as founding director (1922) of the Canadian Council on Child Welfare, and worked there to 1941. This became the Canadian Welfare Council, now the Canadian Council on Social Development, and helped bring about a wide array of new legislation to help children and immigrants.

In 1934, Whitton was named a Commander of the Order of the British Empire at the 1934 New Year Honours.

She served on the League of Nations Social Questions Committee.

Whitton was awarded an honorary Doctorate of Laws by Queen's in 1941.

She published two books in 1943.

Despite her strong views on women's equality, Whitton was a strong social conservative, and did not support making divorce easier. She was a regular columnist in Ottawa's daily newspapers.

Political career
Whitton was elected to Ottawa's Board of Control in 1950, leading the city-wide polls, and started her term on January 1, 1951.

Upon the unexpected death of mayor Grenville Goodwin in August of the same year, only some eight months into his term, Whitton was immediately appointed acting mayor, and on 30 September 1951 was confirmed by city council to remain mayor until the end of the normal three-year term.

Whitton is sometimes mistakenly credited as the first woman ever to serve as a mayor in Canada, but this distinction is in fact held by Barbara Hanley, who became mayor of the small Northern Ontario town of Webbwood in 1936. Whitton is the first woman to serve as mayor of a large Canadian city.

Whitton was elected Ottawa mayor in the general municipal election in her own right in 1953, serving until 1956. She turned it into a full-time job.

She ran again for mayor of Ottawa in 1960, and was elected, serving until 1964, when she was defeated on her try for re-election.

Opposes new flag
Whitton was a staunch defender of Canada's traditions, and, as Ottawa mayor, condemned Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson's proposal in 1964 for new national flag to replace the traditional Canadian Red Ensign. Whitton dismissed Pearson's design as a 'white badge of surrender, waving three dying maple leaves' which might as well be 'three white feathers on a red background,' a symbol of cowardice. 'It is a poor observance of our first century as a nation if we run up a flag of surrender with three dying maple leaves on it,' she said. For Whitton, the Red Ensign, with its Union Jack and coat of arms containing symbols of England, Scotland, Ireland and France (or a similar flag with traditional symbols on it) would be a stronger embodiment of the Canadian achievement in peace and war.

She became well-known for her assertiveness, and for her vicious wit with which many male colleagues, and once the Lord Mayor of London, were attacked. She is noted for the quotation: "Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult."

On October 23, 1955, while mayor, Whitton appeared on the Sunday evening American game show What's My Line.

In the 1958 federal election, Whitton made her only attempt to run for Parliament, in the riding of Ottawa West, as the Progressive Conservative nominee. Prime Minister John Diefenbaker and Ontario Premier Leslie Frost campaigned for her. However, she lost to Liberal Party incumbent George McIlraith by 1,425 votes. McIlraith held the riding from 1940 to 1968, and Whitton's challenge was the closest he faced during that period.

Whitton was made an Officer of the Order of Canada in 1967.

She ran for the position of city alderwoman (councillor) in 1967, and was elected, serving until 1972.

Accusations of racism
Whitton had many remarkable achievements, but her story is framed by current controversy over some of her actions.

She has been accused in print of espousing, "a 'scientific' racism that viewed groups such as Jews and Armenians as 'undesirable' immigrants." (Open Your Hearts: The Story of the Jewish War Orphans in Canada by Fraidie Martz)

In 1938, she attended a conference in Ottawa to launch the Canadian National Committee on Refugees (CNCR). She showed opposition to some of the other attendees' arguments. A common belief is that she was directly opposed to Jews and in particular Jewish children. Oscar Cohen of the Canadian Jewish Congress is reported to have said she "almost broke up the inaugural meeting of the congress on refugees by her insistent opposition and very apparent anti-Semitism." This sentiment is countered by the official record, which includes notes from her presentation, including "lobby the government to initiate a long-term refugee program ..." and an interest in protecting all at risk, "particularly Hebrews in the Reich and in Italy."

According to the Canadian Jewish Congress: "Certainly in the course of the Second World War and the Holocaust, she was instrumental in keeping Jewish orphans out of Canada because of her belief that Jews would not make good immigrants and were basically inferior."

As Mayor in 1964, she declined Bertram Loeb's $500,000 donation to the City's Ottawa Civic Hospital. The official rationale was that the city could not afford to keep the centre operating. The sentiment exists that she "simply didn't want the name of a Jewish family on an Ottawa hospital building.".

According to Patricia Rooke (co-author of a 1987 biography of Whitton), Whitton was a "complete anglophile" who opposed all non-British immigration to Canada. "Charlotte Whitton was a racist," according to Rooke. "Her anti-Semitism, I think, was the least of it. She was quite racist about the Ukrainians, for example. She really didn't like the changing character of Canadian society."

In opposition to the anti-Semite argument, Whitton was well received by various Jewish organizations in her lifetime, including B'nai B'rith and various Jewish-centred publications. She was also a supporter of—and the first to sign the nomination papers of—the first Jewish Mayor of Ottawa, Lorry Greenberg, who served as Ottawa mayor from 1975–1978.

In 2011 Whitton's name was kept off a new Archives Building in Ottawa due to this controversy.

Personal life
Whitton never married, but lived for years in a Boston marriage living arrangement with Margaret Grier (1892 – December 9, 1947). Her relationship with Grier was not widespread public knowledge until 1999, 24 years after Whitton's death, when the National Archives of Canada publicly released the last of her personal papers, including many intimate personal letters between Whitton and Grier. The release of these papers sparked much debate in the Canadian media about whether the relationship between Whitton and Grier could be characterized as lesbian, or merely as an emotionally intimate friendship between two unmarried women. However, Whitton never publicly identified as lesbian during her political career, and Grier died before Whitton was elected as mayor, so Whitton could not be credited as Canada's first out LGBT mayor regardless of the nature of her relationship with Grier.

Grier died in 1947 and she is buried at Thompson Hill Cemetery, Thompson Hill, Horton, Ontario, Canada. In 1975 Whitton was buried alongside her.

Portrayals
Whitton's relationship with Grier was dramatized in a 2008 play called Molly's Veil written by Canadian playwright and actor Sharon Bajer. Bajer was inspired to write the play after reading letters written between Whitton and Grier, and used these as the basis for the play. The play explores Whitton's relationship with her partner Grier, portraying Whitton as a loving partner in a lesbian relationship and deals with the tension between Whitton's private life and her public one.

Major works

 * "The Dawn Of Ampler Life", 1943.
 * "A Hundred Years A-Fellin'", 1943. (1842-1942, A History of Logging by the Gillies Family and Others, in the Ottawa Valley)

Legacy
The Ontario Heritage Trust erected a plaque for Charlotte Elizabeth Whitton, O.C., C.B.E. 1896-1975 in the council chambers, Ottawa City Hall, 111 Sussex Drive, Ottawa. "A controversial fighter for social reform, Charlotte Whitton served on the Canadian Council on Child Welfare (later the Canadian Welfare Council) and on the League of Nations Social Questions Committee. In 1951, she was elected mayor of Ottawa."

Two biographies of Whitton were published in 1987 and 2010 (see below). Author David Mullington's 2010 work Charlotte: The Last Suffragette won the 2011 Donald Grant Creighton Award for biography from the Ontario Historical Society.

Whitton has entries in the Queen's University Encyclopedia and The Canadian Encyclopedia.

title: Charlotte Whitton