text:
Talk:DeLorean Motor Company

Photo
Any chance of a photo of one?2toise 12:56, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How about a detail shot - the steering column - specifically the little drawer that was just the right size for about three, maybe four, packets of cocaine. I sat in a De Lorean once, and that's the thing that sticks in my mind. ;Bear 04:25, 2004 Apr 8 (UTC)

 * Har har. Here's the owner's manual in PDF format, with no coke compartment to be found. There is an ashtray, a compartment behind the driver's seat, and a passenger-side glove compartment. Besides, he was acquitted of trying to sell $24,000,000 worth (in 1984 dollars) of cocaine, way more than would fit in the steering column. --Arteitle 22:53, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Move (2004)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I wonder if moving the article from "De Lorean" to "DeLorean" was appropriate, given that in the original owner's manual I linked to above, it's always written with the space, as it is on the emblems on the body of the car itself (see pictures here). Though it's often written without one, these sources would suggest that the article should include the space. --Arteitle 19:11, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

 * I note that even enthusiasts of the cars spell it without a space in their pages that you cite, though. One would have thought that they at least would pick the 'right' version, given how much such people tend to be sticklers for the correct vs common version.  References to without-a-space outnumber with-a-space sixteen to one online.  However, I'll do some more research and if it seems that the official version was unambigously always with a space, I'll put it back -- no change is irreversible on Wikipedia, after all.

 * Update: it seems that in official DMC publications that a half-space was used. See http://www.dmcnews.com/faq/img/docs/doc_11c.gif (part of the dealer information pack), for instance.  There is space between De and Lorean, but it is not a full inter-word space either.  I wonder if this is the source of the confusion; that neither a full space nor no space are correct? —Morven 20:21, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. The owner's manual was turned into a PDF, which may have meant that if half-spaces were used, they were reinterpreted as full spaces. I can't tell if the window sticker uses a half or a full space, but there is a space in "De Lorean". But you're right that usually it's typed without the space on the web. --Arteitle 01:14, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

This archive from the DeLorean Mailing List mentions the confusion (search for "spelling problems"). A few quotes:

 * It depends on when the name De Lorean was written. John changed his name from Delorean to De Lorean to sound french...so the book "Grand Delusions" states.  Since it is his name and his car I would say that the correct spelling is De Lorean! (That is unless he decides to change it again :)

 * Part of the confusion of the spelling of DeLorean (my preference) comes, no doubt from the use of the stylized letters in the logo. I have the window stickers to both my original 81 and my present 83 and there it is printed with what appears to be, at best, a half space between the e and the folowing L.

 --Arteitle 01:31, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * And the correct answer is A  because John always signs his mail as John Z. De Lorean. Not only but also have a look at the name badge on the bonnet if you have an 1982 car, there is clearly a gap, and the original company in Dunmurry spelt it that way on their letter headings etc.

 * Do you happen to know at what point Delorean became De Lorean for John? In historical contexts we probably want to use the correct version at the time.  I'll definitely be changing the car name back, at least, since it seems that official company literature uses a space. —Morven 07:16, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Y'know, not to beat this horse again, but JZD's autobiography is clearly titled DELOREAN by John Z. DeLorean. This spelling is consistant throughout the book, including references to his parents, and the transcript of United States of America, Plaintiff, v. John Z. DeLorean, Defendant. Also, I had him autograph the owner's manual of my DMC-12, and it's signed DeLorean - cursive with the "e" and "l" connected. This, added to the fact that DeLorean is far and away the most commonly expressed version, leads me to believe that our current versions are incorrect. Oh, and Grand Delusions, and Dream Maker also display "John Z. DeLorean" on their covers. What say?

--Detriment 20:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * It might be a typesetting thing. I don't remember seeing intercapitalized words in the 1970s (with the exception of Pontiac LeMans), and it seems to have crept in with word processors and less advanced typesetting programs in the 1980s (e.g. word processors which could not do half-spaces). I personally say there was a half-space in typesetting, and that that should be written with a full space in contexts such as Wikipedia. In period magazines I remember there being a space. The absence of a space in the transcript could well be to do with De Lorean's actual name on his birth certificate, which I understand did not have a space. Subsequent uses, with the intercapitalized form, could well be a carryover from bad '80s typesetting that we've inherited. This doesn't answer your autograph point, though I do note that my own signature omits a space between my Christian name and surname, and I definitely wouldn't want people to spell it without that space! Stombs 21:21, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

 * I've had a look at some DMC stock certificates, and it's clearly De Lorean, as is the name on the front of the manufacturing plant. The car has the same format on it's original documentation and bumper. JZD has had patents issued in both forms, but 7 to 2 (searchable) in favor of DeLorean. He's obviously used both versions at various times, and I have to agree with you on your signature argument - actually the one I have looks like "DeL orean", but I won't lobby to add that version to the list. His relatives seem to use DeLorean or Delorean. The typesetting theory is quite speculative, though. I don't know why I'm going on about this or why I really care, but it just strikes me as odd that as a DeLorean owner for years and a member of a few owner's associations, I have always known the car, company, and man as Delorean, or more formally DeLorean, yet wikificially it's De Lorean. Evidence is evidence, but I think if I had my choice, I'd have to go with De Lorean for the car and company, DeLorean for the person. --Detriment 04:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, when he first retired from GM, among other interests he owned a GM dealership in Cleveland. I believe his personal ownership is historical, but the dealership retains the name of that era when he procured it: DeLorean with the second capital but no space.  The transformation of his name was a topic of the time as well.  --Pmeisel 02:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Misc
The bit about mesmerizing Thatcher's government is spurious - the deal for the creation of the plant was arranged with the previous Labour government, and entailed heavy government subsidy, something completely at odds with both Thatcherism and capitalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.128.13 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Image
I just added an image, since two of them showed up at the weekly Garden Grove, California car show. This one was the more stock of the two. The other was completely done up as the Back to the Future car, complete with external wiring harness, internal controls, external stuff around the engine compartment, etc. I believe this is the car that I saw recently sold on eBay. Couldn't get a photo, though, too many people milling around ... —Morven 02:31, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Do you have a photo of the BTTF car? That page could do with one! Thanks, Mark Richards 23:14, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

commercial use?
Why is a commercial link included on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.2.2 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 21 December 2004 (UTC)

Move (2005) to De Lorean Motor Company?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Shouldn't this article really be moved to De Lorean Motor Company? De Lorean as a concept was probably a good idea at a time when the man, the car, and the car company all shared a page...but it seems like now, this really should just refer to the company itself. Any thoughts? --Milkmandan 08:59, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

 * agreed --Detriment 17:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Also, I think it makes sense to redirect De Lorean to De Lorean DMC-12 if these pages get moved—my experience is that when people say De Lorean, they mean the car, not the company. --Milkmandan 08:09, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Well, I tried to move this, and the admins want a more formal vote called. This is sortof a backwater page at the moment, but I suppose I jumped the gun. So, votes to move De Lorean to De Lorean Motor Company? Clearly, I support. --Milkmandan 07:39, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Support. I agree with Milkmandan's original comment. SamH|Talk 11:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I normally agree with Milkmandan's edits and comments but I wonder: would a newbie searching for info on the company go to De Lorean or De Lorean Motor Company? I tend to think the former. Sorry—decline here. Stombs 21:23, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

 * De Lorean is nearly universally used to describe the car, not the company. Shouldn't it redirect to the De Lorean DMC-12 instead?  --Milkmandan 21:31, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

 * I think that De Lorean should be a disambig to the company (at De Lorean Motor Company, its proper name), the car, and the person, as well as anything or anyone else that might share that name. SamH|Talk 21:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe SamH's solution is best because I agree with Milkmandan that some would search for the car under De Lorean, but there will be those who know less about the subject that might search for the car, the company or JZD. Stombs 02:40, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

 * Agree--Pmeisel 17:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree, the disambig could address the spelling variations as well. --Detriment 04:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For what may turn out to be an interesting extention to this debate goto Requested_moves and vote again. Philip Baird Shearer 16:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Patents
I did a quick patent search for De Lorean (which, oddly, are all under Delorean—whatever). Some of these may be relevant, but I really don't have the energy to sort through them right now. --Milkmandan 14:17, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC) 1      6,142,320 	Full-Text 	 Method of storing elongated implements between corner side walls, a holding member, and a floor 2 	D283,882 	Full-Text 	Automobile 3 	4,394,050 	Full-Text 	Apparatus for securing an article to a plastic frame-like structure 4 	4,383,818 	Full-Text 	Molding process 5 	4,382,626 	Full-Text 	Attachment of a stainless steel outerbody to a glass reinforced plastic inner body 6 	4,378,658 	Full-Text 	Mounting for a vehicle door 7 	4,373,885 	Full-Text 	Vacuum system for a moving production line 8 	D260,510 	Full-Text 	Automobile wheel 9 	4,042,746 	Full-Text 	Composite material and method of forming 10 	4,034,137 	Full-Text 	Composite sheet structure and method for manufacturing same 11 	4,026,747 	Full-Text 	Composite tubing 12 	4,013,102 	Full-Text 	Composite tubing 13 	3,975,492 	Full-Text 	Method to produce 3-dimensional matrix surface 14 	3,944,704 	Full-Text 	Composite structure

Page move (2005)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

(from WP:RM)

De Lorean → De Lorean Motor Company
Short discussion already took place at the De Lorean talk page. The target already has a history of redirects because of misspellings and a previous attempt to move. Consensus is to put disambig at old De Lorean page. Milkmandan 14:06, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
 * Oppose. DMC was set up to make cars which were called De Lorean.  There should be a primary topic disambig at the start for the De Lorean DMC-12 car. Using equal disambig in cases like this should be avoided. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:22, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a prime example while this RM is a mess at the moment: Tony Sidaway did you go and look at the page? If you had, you would have seen that there was no move template so as it stood at the moment the people who watched the "De Lorean" page would have had no idea that a debate about an aledged consensus on talk:De Lorean was being debated on this page. (I have just added it). How did you come to an informed position without reading the debate by people who are interested in the subject and probably know more about it than you and I, or if you did read the debate why did you not add the template to warn them that you were going to vote against most of them on another page? Philip Baird Shearer
 * Phil, please do not blame me for failing to put a move template up for a move that I did not propose and do not support, and please do not falsely claim that I have not visited Talk:De Lorean and read the discussion there or that if I had done so I should have performed a piece of housekeeping that the proponent had failed to do. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not claim that you either visited or did not visit the page. You have now explained that you did, but that you did not add the template because "I did not propose and do not support" and I believe you. However this is not supposed to be a competition to score points against an opposition. It is supposed to be a debate which ends in a consensus. Surely if one has contributed to a number of these polls and if one is the first to cast a vote, one ought to help out if one see an admission on the page to be moved, because many people who are proposing the move will be doing it for the first time and so it is easy for them to make a mistake? Philip Baird Shearer 10:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Philip, please stop repeatedly casting around for a reason to assume bad faith. I repeat: I did not propose this move, I did not have a duty to, and nor did I, carry out an inspection to make sure that the move had been correctly proposed.  I seldom get angry, but I'm angry now.  Take you revolting, false and unjustified insinuations elsewhere. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Tony, I don't understand why you think the De Lorean company is the predominant topic, and that equal disambig should be avoided. And also, the car was not named De Lorean, it was named DMC-12. SamH|Talk 18:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The tale of DMC is the most interesting thing about De Lorean. On Wikipedia, we go by popular names, not "official names".  Most people know that the car in Back to the Future was a De Lorean, nobody gives two hoots that the manufacturer called it the DMC-12.  Equal disambig should always be avoided where possible because it's annoying. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding the name of the car, we use the name DMC-12 in the De Lorean articles, so to avoid confusion, I think it's best to stick to that name when talking here. It's also the more factually correct name. But that's just a minor issue. However, you say that "the tale of DMC is the most interesting thing about De Lorean.". It may be so in your assessment, but I don't think we should force that assessment on all Wikipedia readers who search for De Lorean. Anyway, even if it could be proven that the De Lorean Motor Company is the most interesting topic of the name "De Lorean", that still wouldn't make it the predominant topic. I hope you'll change your mind. SamH|Talk 10:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the confusion with the missing template—that was my fault. I totally spaced putting it on there when I listed it here.  Nevertheless, the story behind the car really is mostly listed on the De Lorean DMC-12 page.  The De Lorean (Motor Company) page is, rightly so, devoted primarily to the development and fall of the company.   --Milkmandan 04:42, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

 * Support. Philip Baird Shearer 16:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. SamH|Talk 17:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Detriment 22:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * If the car was not named De Lorean, why is this move even under debate? Oppose.  ADH (t&m) 01:21, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't think you understand; This article is not about the car. There is already an entry for the car, De Lorean DMC-12. There is also an entry for John De Lorean. The article under debate, titled "De Lorean", is about the company, "De Lorean Motor Company" which should be it's title. --Detriment 02:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't think you understand; that's precisely my point. ADH (t&m) 07:28, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification (ehem)...if your point is that the article should be titled "De Lorean Motor Company", then why are you opposing?

 * Support. A company is a company and a car is a car. --Pmeisel 01:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Support. A question for clarification. After the move, De Lorean would become a disambiguation page with links to both De Lorean DMC-12 (the car) and to De Lorean Motor Company? If that is true, then I support completely. older ≠ wiser 03:09, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * I proposed that (De Lorean to become a disambig) at Talk:De Lorean and it was well supported, so I imagine that is what will happen. SamH|Talk 10:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I Support. I agree with Pmeisel. De Lorean, and De Lorean Motor Company are two different things. De Lorean is a car. De Lorean Motor Company is a company.CJS102793 01:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. De Lorean should be a disambiguation page to the separate articles about car, company and man. (For a long time, both car and company were on the same page at that location, but it has recently been split). —Morven 02:18, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly, car, company, and man. Each is an interesting story in its own right, and there were a lot of people who thought the DMC12 an interesting car and Delorean/DeLorean/De Lorean a fascinating man, but thought the company story the least interesting and saddest of the three.  Almost bought a De Lorean and a liveaboard boat with my then girlfriend -- wish I had all three now.  --Pmeisel 02:44, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Support. Concise title leaves no room for misunderstandings. Daeron 07:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Milkmandan's submission for disambiguation page. Stombs 12:34, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Prototype?
Does anyone have any information about the 2005 - "prototype"? Here's the image link: http://s89196484.onlinehome.us/files/delorean2005large.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.31.176 (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (2008)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

De Lorean Motor Company → DeLorean Motor Company — There is no external support (that I can find) that shows a space between "De" and "Lorean" being used in everyday and common use. All sources I find (Google and BTTF) show no space. The article title should be titles on how most people spell the name. — Nuclear  Vacuum  14:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Mention of new endeavours
When would it be appropriate to add material about things like DeLorean's taking over the Pontiac Solstice and perhaps the rest of Pontiac? Frotz (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Never; since it never happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.24.235.8 (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move (2011)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: nomination withdrawn (non-admin, housekeeping closure). Jenks24 (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

– This page was moved from De Lorean Motor Company to DeLorean Motor Company in 2008 without any discussion on the move. Information about the company naming suggests that there should have been some debate with a definitive decision before a move was made. There was some discussion in 2004-2005, but no definitive decision. I am requesting a reversion back to De Lorean Motor Company and opening of debate as to what should be the article title. My view: even though most spell it as DeLorean, official company documents say De Lorean, so that would be the correct spelling for the company and the car. For the man, that depends on when people want to count it as official: his latest signature, public record, etc. Ctetc2007 (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * DeLorean Motor Company → De Lorean Motor Company
 * John DeLorean → John De Lorean
 * DeLorean DMC-12 → De Lorean DMC-12
 * DeLorean time machine → De Lorean time machine

 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Just google it - if you search "De Lorean" it redirects your search to "DeLorean". Look at the NY Times, the BBC, DMOZ, the list of owners clubs, the name of the current incarnation of the company, etc. Virtually every source you can find talks about "DeLorean", including all of the books cited in this article as well as DeLorean DMC-12. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, basically per Biker Biker. "DeLorean" is clearly the common name used by the large majority of reliable sources and Wikipedia's naming convention is to follow the common name, not the official. WP:OFFICIALNAMES is a useful essay that you may be interested in reading. Jenks24 (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Thanks Jenks24 for the naming conventions page, that's just what I was looking for. I will agree on grounds of Wikipedia's naming convention to use the common name.  With that in mind, am I able to withdraw my move request or close the discussion? Ctetc2007 (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

As a point of further discussion outside of the move request, I do disagree with Biker Biker on the substance of the discussion. Just because everyone spells it DeLorean doesn't mean it's the true official name, it's what's on the company record that counts as the official name. I'll also give that the current incarnation is DeLorean, but the article is about the original company, which was the De Lorean Motor Company. Ctetc2007 (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

 * If you look in the London Gazette and search for DeLorean you see recent records. If you search for De Lorean you see all the records from 1982 relating to the time the company went under. So I have no argument that the official name was "De Lorean", it's just that nobody but the tax man and the insolvency service and companies house refer to it by that name. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Note: I have closed the discussion per your request, Ctetc, but left the latter two comments so that you can continue this conversation if you wish. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk if you feel I've placed too much or too little in the archived section (or be bold and alter it yourself). Best, Jenks24 (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Steve Wynn?
What evidence is there that the Texan billionaire entrepreneur Steve Wynn is the owner of DMC? According to this article on the BBC News website, "Stephen Wynne" is the owner of DMC, and he's a mechanic from Liverpool, England - you can see him being interviewed in this video (also more recently here, on Fox Business News) where it is claimed he is the "President" of Delorean Motor Company Houston, Texas, and he's clearly from Liverpool, and not Texas. I think this article has its wires crossed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.193.237 (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Have now updated the article to remove the incorrect references to the Texan billionaire. 188.222.193.237 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DeLorean Motor Company. 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/20070509193207/http://minneapolisfed.org/Research/data/us/calc/ to http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/data/us/calc/

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) 23:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Split (April 2018)
This article is attempting to describe two separate companies with the same name. Consequently it is using past tense to refer to the original company, even though the Texas company is operating in the present. The article is also under representing the activities of the Texas company (lobbying for legislation, multiple lawsuits, branches in 5 states, new car production, etc). So it seems prudent to split off a new article about the new company and call it DeLorean Motor Company (Texas). Although the current article call it DMCH; DMC (Texas) is how the company refers to itself on its own website, here. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with the proposed split. The two companies are completely unrelated in terms of history and I would be in favor of a split. Expandinglight5 (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I also agree. The first DMC should be considered totally removed from the current company which "only" supports the original's products and is otherwise a completely different entity. Allreet (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

How has this not happened yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.24.235.8 (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This page needs to be split into two separate pages; one for the original DeLorean Motor Company and one for the DeLorean Motor Company (Texas) that started in 1995, as the two companies are stated to have nothing to do with one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.24.235.8 (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Support it is a bad idea to conflate two topics just because they share a name. WP:NOTPAPER we are not restricted to one page per topic name. IT shouldn't be done here, and it definitely should not be done to merge the two Fisker articles as is currently proposed there at Talk:Fisker Inc. (that would become a WP:COATRACK, as this might become as well) -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Support - Since they are separate companies they shouldn't share the same article; however, the information on the modern company is still rather sparse. Splitting that section into its own article would work better if there were more content for it to stand on its own with. --Sable232 (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I previously added my support comments in April 2018. The two companies are completely unrelated in terms of history and I would be in favor of a split.  Expandinglight5 (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

DeLorean Fraud (serious omission)
Lack of mention of the fraud by John DeLorean, Colin Chapman, and Fred Bushill, is a major deficiency in the article. "Chapman, then at the height of his career when his cars dominated the Grand Prix circuit, only agreed after DeLorean offered him a large bribe: he would split with him the $16.5m he had raised from investors to put into the project in Belfast. The trail of DeLorean's half was later uncovered but Chapman took the secret to his early grave."

"Just three months after signing the master agreement with the British government, in July 1978, well before the foundations of the factory were laid, DeLorean decided that he should benefit personally from the cash windfall, courtesy of the investors. A contract with Colin Chapman chairman of Lotus through an intermediary GPD, a Panamanian company with offices in Geneva, would be the conduit to move the cash out of the company. In all $17.65 million of payments went walkabouts to GPD and onwards. The money was split between Colin Chapman chairman of Lotus and John DeLorean with the loose change going to Fred Bushell the finance director of Group Lotus. The fraud would have gone unnoticed if not were not for receivership. It wasn’t too long before the receiver’s staff noticed a hole in DeLorean Motor Cars Ltd’s accounts and reported this to the government."

 * —John Navas (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Certainly an ommission that should be addressed. Some belongs on the DMC page while other info may be more appropriate on the John DeLorean page. Expandinglight5 (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Flounder vs founder
, "founder" means to sink, "flounder" means to flop about. There is room for confusion in a maritime context whereby a ship may "flounder" prior to "foundering". In this context, (the company had floundered /foundered before the first movie was made) the company had already collapsed, ceased to be, it was an ex-company, i.e. it had foundered. For "floundered" to be correct, the meaning would have to be that the company had flopped about, or struggled ineffectually, at some point before the first movie was made, without any indication of the company's status at the actual time of the movie.

It is clear to me that the first meaning, being congruent with the facts, is the one intended, and that "foundered" is the correct word. I have reinstated.

Captainllama (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Didn't see you had written here as well, so I'll copy and paste from my talk page - That is only one meaning. In business, to flounder uses another definition "be in serious difficulty." "many firms are floundering" "Similar: struggle financially be in dire straits face financial ruin" MartinezMD (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks, sorry for the double post.
 * You're right, in business to flounder means to be in serious difficulty, to face financial ruin. It's a metaphorical extension of the meaning to "flop about ineffectually", like a ship in a storm, like horses in deep snow, or like the eponymous fish out of water. It's all about "struggling".

 * So the content would be saying that, at the time of the first Back to the Future film, The DeLorean company had (i.e. at some prior time) struggled financially, had faced financial ruin. While no doubt true, so what? If it had stopped struggling it's irrelevant, or had it still been struggling? If so, being an on-going action, the tense would be that at the time in question, the company was struggling, not had struggled.

 * "To founder" means to sink, to run aground, to fail, to end. That is what had happened to the Delorean company in 1982, three years before the first Back to the Future film was made in 1985. It had sunk, gone bust, had ended in receivership and bankruptcy. The Delorean company wasn't floundering when Back to the Future was made, it couldn't have floundered if you put 1 million volts through it. It was dead, it had foundered three years before. Captainllama (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

 * So you're saying it floundered then foundered? lol. How about we pause and hear from other editors. I wasn't the one to write flounder so there is at least someone else thinking it's appropriate language. MartinezMD (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

 * (Long pause)

 * "...you're saying it floundered then foundered?" Exactly so! It floundered for a while, then it foundered, then the movie was made.

 * floundered: There is little point in writing that that the company had (at some indeterminate past time) struggled before the movie was made, without no explanation of how long the struggle lasted, what was the outcome, and crucially how it is relevant to the movie. It pushes several "so what" buttons, and worse, could be taken to incorrectly imply that the making of the movie resolved the company's difficulties.

 * foundered: On the other hand, to write that the company had ceased to be and gone bust before the movie was made instantly and completely resolves those questions.

 * Thanks for the discussion, I hope it is as clear to all as it is to me that the first version is vague and misleadingly ambiguous, and that the second version concisely conveys the intended meaning. All down to a single letter! lol

 * founder flounder difference
 * Captainllama (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Wouldn't it be better to just change it to a more widely understood term? FDW777 (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

 * . Captainllama (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

DeLorean not DMC-12
There is explanation on the DMC DeLorean page explaining the correct name of the vehicle and significant discussions have been archived on the talk page as well explaining the DMC-12 is not a correct name of the vehicle.

Expandinglight5 (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Rightly or wrongly, people call this car the "DMC-12".    Google returns 1.75 million hits for "Delorean DMC-12". I see no reason not to acknowledge this fact in this article. Letdorf (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC).

 * It is incorrect. The car was never sold as a DMC-12.  An encyclopedia should only discuss in facts not incorrectly spread false statements even if wide spread.

 * Expandinglight5 (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

 * DMC Sticker.jpg
 * The sticker clearly indicates that the name of the production model is "DeLorean", not "DMC-12". But, anyway, the article about the car needs more sources on this matter. The more references the article has, the better the doubts will be clarified. --Mark Gasoline (talk) 10:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

 * I don't see what the big deal is. It's not unusual for internal model designations to enter common parlance in the automotive world: see for example the Ford 7Y, BMC ADO16, Rover SD1, BMW E39, Porsche 997, Volkswagen Type 2 etc. These designations might never have appeared on any brochure or advert or sticker, but that doesn't make them "incorrect" − adverts and brochures and stickers don't tell the whole story, and the reality is that this is how these models are/were referred to, both inside and outside of the company that made them. An encyclopaedia should describe the real world, so why not mention unofficial or alternative names/designations, as long as it's made clear what was "official" and what wasn't?

 * The links I give above show that the DeLorean has been referred to as the "DMC-12" in such notable publications as Time, R&T, Autocar and the Sunday Times, so it's clearly very common practice. I can't understand why you wouldn't want to acknowledge this fact in a WP article?

 * You could say it is "incorrect" to call the F-16 a "Viper", but you can't deny that people do call it a "Viper" and of course its WP article mentions this, because, well, why wouldn't it?

 * Besides, in this particular article, it's entirely appropriate, IMHO, to note that the DeLorean was referred to internally as the "DMC-12" in a list of DMC projects, where all the others are identified by DMC- numbers. Omitting any mention of "DMC-12" from the list of DMC projects gives the false impression that the DeLorean was unique in not being assigned a DMC- number, which of course is not the case! Letdorf (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC).

Internal codes such as Honda DC2, BMW E39 etc. are official chassis codes or production generation designations. Often times these codes are integrated into the VIN or are official internal generation codes within the manufacturer. “DMC-12” is neither. The DeLorean had multiple pre-production monikers prior to the official name of the DeLorean as indicated on the Monroney sticker (which is always the official name of the vehicle.) Prior to the official name of “DeLorean”, during development the car was referred to as the DeLorean Safety Vehicle (shorted to DSV-1) and then later changed to DSV-12 and then DMC-12. The 12 represented the targeted sale price of what at the time was $12,000. Many cars have project codes or secret names during development that are subsequently discarded as is the case for DMC-12 and the other previously used monikers (DSV-12 and DSV-1).

As for the other concepts, they were exactly that and never developed beyond that and thus the only reference would be DMC-24, etc. for those projects. However, the DeLorean was an official production vehicle and should only be referred to as it’s official name. I do find it bizarre how “DMC-12” has proliferated throughout the Internet in recent years but it nevertheless is incorrect. None of the marketing materials, owner’s manuals, official service manuals, etc. from release ever reference “DMC-12” nor is “DMC-12” badged anywhere on the vehicle or included in the VIN. Every writeup from the automotive press during it’s release in 1981 all refer to it as a “DeLorean” and make no reference to “DMC-12” and most importantly, as previously mentioned by another editor, the official name is always listed on the Monroney sticker which indicates “DeLorean.”

Expandinglight5 (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

 * In a few minutes I can find four books on the subject, three written by former senior DMC employees,   and the other published in 1983,  which all refer to the production DeLorean model as the DMC-12. To quote the preface of Wills' book, "My stories cover the years during which the production DeLorean (code-named DMC-12) was created, manufactured and sold". Maybe that's why “DMC-12” has proliferated throughout the Internet?  Are you seriously going to argue three senior managers/directors of DMC are all "incorrect" about their own product? Letdorf (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC).

DMC-12 was one of several code names used during development. Just the same as DSV-12 and DSV-1. However, there is no dispute that the name of the vehicle is the DeLorean. DMC-12 was dropped during development and the name DeLorean was chosen as indicated on the Monroney sticker.

Besides, considering the “12” in “DMC-12” represents a $12,000 MSRP, it would make no logical sense to have DMC-12 as the name since the actual MSRP in 1981 was $25,000 and was never $12,000.

With all due respect, I believe you’re misreading the quote you referenced. "My stories cover the years during which the production DeLorean (code-named DMC-12) was created, manufactured and sold". He states the production DeLorean. He mentions the code name DMC-12 used during development but he isn’t saying it was manufactured and sold as a DMC-12.

Expandinglight5 (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

 * If you've read Wills' book, you'll know that he refers to the car that was designed/engineered by Delorean Motor Company Ltd and Lotus in the UK as the DMC-12 pretty consistently throughout the book. The DSV-1 was an early prototype that shared very little apart from the styling with that car - the one that former employees (and others) consistently call the DMC-12. I'm not sure what your point is about the "12" - $12,000 was the target price at the point in the project when they chose the DMC-12 designation. It wasn't $12,000 when it finally went on sale a few year later. So $12,000 was too optimistic and they missed their target. That's hardly unusual! Once they had chosen a designation, they weren't going to keep changing it according to the latest retail price estimate as the project progressed!

 * I'm not claiming the car wasn't officially called the DeLorean or that the car was sold as a DMC-12. My last edit (that you reverted) didn't do that either.

 * Reading the above comments, it seem like we agree on two facts:
 * (a) The DeLorean was referred to internally as the DMC-12 during development ("DMC-12 was one of several code names used during development").
 * (b) Lots of people still like to call it that ("...“DMC-12” has proliferated throughout the Internet").

 * We can then summarize the above as:
 * (c) The DeLorean is also commonly known by its internal designation DMC-12.

 * Therefore, can you explain why you reverted my edit which added the text "(also commonly known by its internal designation, DMC-12)" to this article? Letdorf (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m pinging, , and  as they all had input on this issue on the DMC Delorean page.

Maybe I’m making a bigger issue out of this than necessary but I’m trying to prevent the spread of an incorrect name. As previously discussed, there is a spread of misinformation surrounding the DeLorean name and many incorrectly refer to the car as a DeLorean DMC-12.

Arguably the statement, “the DeLorean is sometimes incorrectly referred to as a DMC-12” might be more appropriate?

Expandinglight5 (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

 * I think that would be an appropriate addition, especially since we had some struggle with good sources naming DMC-12. MartinezMD (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that it should be clarified that the name DMC-12 is used incorrectly in reference to production cars. And I also insist that the article needs more sources because otherwise this confusion about the name will never end. Greetings. --Mark Gasoline (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

 * "Incorrect" implies that either the "DMC-12" referred to a different car altogether or was never used in any context to refer to the DeLorean. it would be incorrect to call a Ford Mustang a DMC-12. It would be incorrect to say the DeLorean was given the internal designation XYZ-123. But, based on multiple reliable sources, it is entirely correct, IMHO, for a WP article to say the DeLorean was given the internal designation DMC-12. I can see why you might get irritated by various writers using "DMC-12" without that clarification, but I think it would be more helpful if the relevant WP articles actually explained where "DMC-12" came from rather than pretend it didn't exist at all. Letdorf (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC).

Just because other sources, even if the source is reliable, mistakenly call the vehicle by the wrong name doesn’t make it correct. We’ve agreed that the correct name of the vehicle is a DeLorean and if it’s commonly referred to by another name (DMC-12), it should be noted that is incorrect. Since it’s a common error, I agree it makes sense to address in the article as mentioned by and  as well. An example of this is on the Tucker 48 page which discusses it being called the Tucker Torpedo noting that this name is incorrect.

I would propose: “the DeLorean is sometimes incorrectly referred to by one of its pre-production monikers, the “DMC-12” However, the correct name of the vehicle is the “DeLorean” and the name “DMC-12” was never used in conjunction with the production model.”

Expandinglight5 (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I just made a few changes to the article, including that clarification about the name. We just need to add more sources on that topic in the History section. --Mark Gasoline (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the DMC DeLorean page. We'll wait to hear back from before updating the DeLorean Motor Company page. Expandinglight5 (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. In this discussion I added a link to the December 2018 discussion about the title change in the DMC DeLorean's talk page, where users can see the links to some documents about the car and where it is clearly seen that the DMC-12 name is not used. --Mark Gasoline (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Using internal type designations for Wikipedia lemmata is perfectly acceptable and already used for most car articles. This is because car names are not uniform across all markets, and because car manufacturers reuse their existing names for entirely new models. Imagine if we had single-model articles like BMW 520i or Toyota Corolla instead of the much more reasonable BMW E28 and Toyota Corolla (E20). In this case, using DeLorean DMC-12 is perfectly acceptable as long as this car has this type designation, even if DeLorean never made more than this one model. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 * The problem is DMC-12 is not an internal type designation. It was a pre production moniker abandoned in favor of the final name.  You cannot compare that with Porsche 911 and Porsche 996. Expandinglight5 (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 * I think you're trying to split hairs here. In any case, the DMCL Managing Director's Report of 22 April 1981 shows they were still referring to the car internally as the DMC-12 three months after full production started. Letdorf (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC).

 * "Just because other sources, even if the source is reliable, mistakenly call the vehicle by the wrong name doesn’t make it correct.". Well, I'm afraid in the context of WP, it does. As far as WP is concerned, "correctness" means in accordance with reliable sources - see the WP:RS and WP:V guidelines. In particular, WP:RS says we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. If the three former senior DMC employees who wrote books about it, wrote in their books that the car was called the DMC-12 inside DMC, then I can't see how there can be any valid objection, under the principles of WP, to saying that the DeLorean was referred to as the DMC-12 inside DMC, in a WP article. I still think it's harsh, inappropriate and misleading to label DMC-12 as "incorrect", when its only sin was to have originated outside of the context of sales and marketing. Letdorf (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC).

 * Everyone should bear in mind that this is the article about DeLorean Motor Company, the manufacturer, not the article about the car itself. We're dealing with a single sentence here that could very easily read "The DeLorean, sometimes referred to as the DMC-12, was the only car produced by DMC." That's it. There's no need to delve into whether or not it's "correct" or where it came from. The intricate details of the car's name should be dealt with at DMC DeLorean.To the point, "DMC-12" is a well-known and oft-used designation that is supported by reliable sources. I can see no justification for omitting it. --Sable232 (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:DeLorean Motor Company


text:
Spring Festival

Spring Festival may refer to:

 * Chinese New Year, as it is referred to in China
 * Holi, a spring festival in India
 * Kakava, a spring festival of the Romani people in Turkey
 * Nowruz, an Iranian festival that occurs on the first day of spring
 * Tết, a festival in Vietnam
 * Spring Day, a holiday observed in several countries
 * The Spring Festival, a 1991 Chinese film

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

title: Spring Festival


text:
DishnetDSL

DishnetDSL was a broadband internet service provider in India. VSNL, a part of the Tata group acquired DishnetDSL in 2004 and it is now a part of Tata Indicom Broadband.

History
DishnetDSL was started by Chinnakannan Sivasankaran as part of Sterling Group in 1998. Initially DSL was a part of much bigger plan which is "Education To Home" or ETH. Dr. Vijay P. Bhatkar is the chairman for ETH and under his leadership Dishnet DSL started operations in Pune. It was the first ISP to offer DSL services in India. However, due to the model it adapted (overhead cables similar to broadcasting cable) it couldn't gain a larger customer base. This model was adapted as BSNL rejected Dishnet request to use Telecom exchanges to house DSLAM.

During 2000–2003, Dishnet aggressively connected five star hotels with DSL in every room which was considered a luxury. It worked with prestigious hotels like Leela Kempinski in Mumbai and Goa, Sun & Sand, Ritz Carlton in Mumbai, Le Meridien in Pune & some others in Chennai, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Cochin.

In 2004 it was sold to VSNL which was acquired by TATA Telecom and the assets are merged with TATA.

title: DishnetDSL


text:
James Stirling (Royal Navy officer)

Admiral Sir James Stirling (28 January 1791 – 22 April 1865) was a British naval officer and colonial administrator. His enthusiasm and persistence persuaded the British Government to establish the Swan River Colony and he became the first Governor and Commander-in-Chief of Western Australia. In 1854, when Commander-in-Chief, East Indies and China Station, Stirling on his own initiative signed Britain's first Anglo-Japanese Friendship Treaty. Throughout his career Stirling showed considerable diplomatic skill and was selected for a number of sensitive missions. Paradoxically, this was not reflected in his personal dealings with officialdom and his hopes for preferment received many rebuffs. Stirling also personally led the attack in Western Australia on a group of approximately seventy Bindjareb men, women and children now known as the Pinjarra massacre.

Stirling entered the Royal Navy at age 12 and as a midshipman saw action in the Napoleonic Wars. Rapid promotion followed and when he was 21 he received his first command, the 28-gun sloop HMS Brazen (1808), and, in the War of 1812 between the US and the UK, seized two prizes. Brazen carried the news of the end of that war to Fort Bowyer and took part in carrying to England the British troops that had captured the fort. On return to the West Indies, Stirling made two surveys of the Venezuelan coast and reported on the strengths, attitudes and dispositions of the Spanish government and various revolutionary factions, later playing a role in the British negotiations with these groups.

In his second command, HMS Success (1825), he carried supplies and coinage to Australia, but with a covert mission to assess other nations' interest in the region and explore opportunities for British settlements. He is chiefly remembered for his exploration of the Swan River, followed by his eventual success in lobbying the British Government to establish a settlement there. On 30 December 1828, he was made Lieutenant-Governor of the colony-to-be. He formally founded the city of Perth and the port of Fremantle and oversaw the development of the surrounding area and on 4 March 1831 he was confirmed as Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the new territory, Western Australia, in which post he remained until in 1838 he resumed his naval career.

In October 1834 Stirling personally led a group of twenty-five police, soldiers and settlers in a punitive expedition against approximately seventy Bindjareb men, women and children camped on the Murray River partly in retaliation for several murders and thefts. This bloody attack involving rifles and bayonets against spears is known as the Pinjarra Massacre – and sometimes the Battle of Pinjarra. An uncertain number of Aboriginal men, women and children were killed during this encounter; Stirling reported 15 males killed, John Septimus Roe 15–20, and an unidentified eyewitness 25–30 including 1 woman and several children with probably more floating down with the stream. One of Stirling's party was injured and one was injured and died about two weeks later, although it is uncertain if from existing injuries, injuries suffered during the massacre, poor medical treatment after the massacre, or a combination thereof. An uncertain number of Bindjareb were injured, and an uncertain number died of their injuries.

From 1840 to 1844, in command of the 80-gun HMS Indus (1839), he patrolled the Mediterranean with instructions to "show the flag" and keep an eye on the French. In 1847, he was given command of the 120-gun first rate ship of the line HMS Howe (1815) and his first commission was to conduct Her Majesty, the Dowager Queen Adelaide on trips to Lisbon and Madeira and then back to Osborne House on the Isle of Wight. After that, Howe was assigned to the eastern Mediterranean, where she reinforced the squadron led by Vice Admiral Parker using gunboat diplomacy to secure an uneasy peace in the region.

Stirling's fifth and final command was as Commander in Chief, China and the East Indies Station, and his flag, as Rear Admiral of the White, was hoisted on HMS Winchester (1822) on 11 May 1854. Shortly afterwards news arrived that war had been declared on Russia. Stirling was anxious to prevent Russian ships from sheltering in Japanese ports and menacing allied shipping and, after lengthy negotiations through the Nagasaki Magistrate, concluded a Treaty of Friendship with the Japanese. The treaty was endorsed by the British Government, but Stirling was criticised in the popular press for not finding and engaging with the Russian fleet.

Family background
Stirling was the fifth of eight sons, ninth of the sixteen children, of Andrew Stirling, Esq. of Drumpellier near Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, Scotland, and his father's second cousin, Anne Stirling.

The Glaswegian Stirling family was made enormously wealthy by the slave trade in Britain, and Stirling's father in law James Mangles was a wealthy Atlantic Ocean slaver. The Stirling family were also well-known and celebrated in the naval annals of the 18th century. His maternal grandfather was Admiral Sir Walter Stirling and his uncle was Admiral Sir Charles Stirling. With such a family background, it was natural for James to enter the Royal Navy. His education at Westminster School was interleaved with periods of training on board British warships, and on 14 January 1804, at the age of 12, he entered the navy as a First-Class Volunteer, embarking on the storeship HMS Camel for the West Indies. Thus he began a distinguished career.

Period as a midshipman
Stirling trained for midshipman on board HMS Camel (1788) and also served for a period on HMS Hercule (1798) under the flag of Admiral Sir John Duckworth, Commander-in-Chief, Jamaica Squadron. He passed his midshipman tests on 20 January 1805 and shortly afterwards was posted to HMS Prince George (1772), but on 27 June, at the request of his uncle, Rear-Admiral Charles Stirling, he joined his uncle's flagship, the 98-gun HMS Glory (1788).

The following month, at age 14, he was to see his first naval action. Glory was in the fleet, commanded by Vice-Admiral Robert Calder, which in July that year engaged against the combined French and Spanish fleets off Cape Finisterre during the Napoleonic Wars. Glory sustained a damaged foremast spar and sails "much torn". After the battle, the Squadron returned to England with two captured Spanish ships as prizes.

In July 1806 his uncle was given a new ship, HMS Sampson (1781), and orders to convoy General Samuel Auchmuty and his troops to the Río de la Plata and take over command of the squadron there from Admiral Sir Home Popham on the flagship HMS Diadem (1782). James accompanied his uncle and saw the fall of Montevideo to General Auchmuty's forces and the capture of twenty-five warships and more than 10,000 tons of merchant shipping. In August 1807 the Stirlings crossed the South Atlantic for a stay of five months at the Cape of Good Hope and at the end of February 1808 Diadem returned to England via a short period in Rio de Janeiro.

On arrival in England in April, Midshipman Stirling was posted to HMS Warspite (1807) under Captain Henry Blackwood. At this time he was preparing for his examinations to become a lieutenant, and Blackwood arranged for him to have short stints as Acting Lieutenant on other vessels in the Channel Fleet. He started his examinations at Somerset House on 1 August 1809 and on 12 August rejoined Warspite as a full Lieutenant.

West Indies
On 1 April 1810 Stirling was transferred from Warspite to HMS Hibernia (1804) under Captain R.D. Dunn and moved with Dunn when the Captain was transferred to HMS Armide (1806) in November. A year later, on 20 November 1811, he received a significant elevation to flag lieutenant on HMS Arethusa (1781), the flagship of his uncle, now vice-admiral and commander-in-chief of the Jamaica Station. On 3 March 1812, he was appointed acting commander of the sloop HMS Moselle (1804) and three months later, at age 21, he was promoted to the rank of commander. Soon after that he was given command of the 28-gun sloop HMS Brazen (1808), built in 1808, in which he was to serve for six years.

In the War of 1812 between the United States of America and Britain, the role assigned to the ships of the Jamaica Station was to attack the US coast and ports on the Gulf of Mexico and to destroy their ships and stores. On 11 July 1812 Brazen weighed anchor on Stirling's first mission, which was to be against New Orleans and the Mississippi delta. However, Brazen was severely damaged by a hurricane and had to abandon the mission and enter the Spanish port of Pensacola to carry out repairs. Despite this, Stirling was able to make a valuable survey of Mobile Bay and the Spanish-held Florida coastline and capture an American ship, which he took back to Jamaica as a prize on 20 November.

He had no immediate opportunity to revisit the Gulf of Mexico, as Brazen was ordered to return to England for a maintenance survey. After docking in Sheerness for four months, the ship escorted a convoy carrying settlers and stores to Hudson Bay. On his return to the Strait of Dover at the end of December 1813, Stirling received confidential orders for an important mission, to carry the Duke of Brunswick to Holland. After that, during most of 1814, Brazen patrolled the Irish Sea and the Hebrides in search of French or American ships until, at the end of the year, Stirling received orders to return to the West Indies, to the Windward Islands Station at Barbados, where Admiral Duckworth was now Commander-in-Chief.

There were now two stations in the West Indies, at Barbados and Jamaica, and for a while Brazen shuttled between the two, carrying communications between the two admirals. On one such trip Stirling was introduced to Simón Bolívar, who was in Jamaica following a defeat on the South American mainland. Soon after that he was given a mission to carry the news of the Treaty of Ghent, ending the War of 1812, to the British troops under the command of General John Lambert, near New Orleans, and to assist in their return to England. His reconnaissance of Mobile Bay and the coast of Florida three years earlier now stood him in good stead. The troops, who had captured Fort Bowyer, were recovered and some of them, under the command of Lieutenant Harry Smith, were taken to England on Brazen after surviving a severe gale in the Gulf of Florida. Smith was impressed with Stirling's seamanship and became a long-standing friend.

The Treaty of Paris, signed by France, Great Britain, Austria, Prussia and Russia on 20 Nov 1815, ended the Napoleonic Wars and a large fleet was no longer needed. The Admiralty set about decommissioning ships and retiring officers. However, Stirling and Brazen received a stay of execution, as they were needed again in the West Indies. Spain was losing its grip on the north of South America and rival factions were struggling for power. So close to the West Indies, Britain had an interest in the establishment of secure government on the mainland, but needed to be careful to avoid offending Spain, now an ally. Brazen arrived at Barbados in June 1816 and on 20 July Stirling and the Barbados Harbourmaster were sent to survey the coast of Venezuela and gain intelligence regarding the attitudes of the population and the disposition of the various revolutionary factions.

After making his report Stirling went back to patrolling the Caribbean with orders to prevent piracy and the contraband trade. Late in September he seized the Hércules. This action turned out to be unwise. Hércules, not to be confused with Hercule on which Stirling had served in 1804, was nicknamed Black Frigate and had at one time been the flagship of the Argentine Navy. When taken by Stirling, she was a privateer with 22 guns carrying a valuable cargo plundered from Spanish American cities and ships. She was under the command of William Brown, who had been an admiral in the Argentine Navy and was in command of the revolutionary fleet fighting the Spaniards. Her capture compromised the cautious line taken by the British between the Spanish and the revolutionaries. The Governor of Barbados ordered her release, but, when she had left Barbados, Stirling recaptured her and took her to Antigua as a prize. After long drawn-out proceedings, the High Court of the Admiralty ruled in Brown's favour, but he lost the frigate and her cargo. Stirling continued to receive demands for payment of damages for many years.

At the end of 1816 Stirling was commissioned to make a further detailed inspection of the conditions in Venezuela. From Güiria in the Paria Peninsula he sailed west to Caracas and the port of La Guaira and returned eastward by an inland route, in order to study the conditions in the interior of the country. In February 1817 he submitted a detailed report to the Commander-in-Chief, Admiral John Harvey. In it he blamed Spanish neglect for the devastation and decay he found in the interior. He described the insurgent "Patriots" as determined and disciplined, but the Loyalists were indisciplined and lazy. Following this, Stirling was given a number of covert missions in connection with Venezuela. The exact orders he received are not known, as the period from January to June 1817 has been removed from Brazen's log in Admiralty files. In May, the Executive Committee of the Patriots prepared a draft Constitution for the Republic of Venezuela which was given to Stirling for transmission to the West Indies Stations and thence to England. However this draft was subsequently rejected by Bolívar. Another source reports that a secret agreement, between the British and the Republicans, was signed later on board Brazen, in which the British would assist Bolívar in exchange for preferential trading rights when the Republic came into being.

In the second half of 1817 Stirling returned once again to patrolling the Caribbean with orders to seize any vessels suspected of piracy, orders which he carried out with alacrity because of the prize money. By June 1818 Brazen was in need of repair and he returned with her to England, where the ship was taken out of commission and Stirling received the dread news that he was to be placed on half pay. However, Admiral Harvey had sent the Lords of the Admiralty a letter strongly commending "the zeal and alacrity of this intelligent and excellent officer", which may have influenced their decision to promote him to Post Captain on 7 December 1818.

Surrey
Although at the end of 1817 he was not to know it, Stirling was to be without a command for eight years. Between 1818 and 1822 his father, Andrew, was a tenant at Henley Park in Surrey, and Stirling made use of his enforced leave to visit his parents and other members of his scattered family. He also made several visits to the Continent of Europe. On one such visit to France he met and befriended Captain James Mangles, RN, who was also on half pay. Mangles was returning from a tour of North Africa and Asia Minor and was among the first Europeans to have visited Petra. His uncle had an estate at Woodbridge Park, about ten miles from the Stirlings at Henley Park and had extensive interests in the East Indies, had been High Sheriff for Surrey in 1808 and was a director of the British East India Company.

Captain Mangles invited Stirling to visit Woodbridge, where he met for the first time the, then, 13-year-old Ellen Mangles, his future wife. The two families got on well together and the parents were delighted two years later when, according to the etiquette of that era, Stirling formally asked the uncle's permission to propose marriage to his daughter. The permission was granted on the condition that Stirling should not make the proposal until Ellen completed her schooling. The couple were married at Stoke Church, Guildford on 3 September 1823, on Ellen's 16th birthday, and went on a nine-month honeymoon and grand tour. On their return, Ellen gave birth to their first child, Andrew, at Woodbridge on 24 October 1824.

During the next eighteen months Stirling put forward several ideas to the Admiralty, including a means of assessing compass declinations at sea and a proposal for improving stowage in warships. He was keen to keep his name in front of those in the Admiralty who could post him to active service. He had returned from the grand tour short of funds, his father had died in 1823, the family businesses were not prospering and he himself had to make payments to the court in connection with the Hércules case. The competition for preferment from other officers on half pay was intense, so he was fortunate that on 23 January 1826 he was recommissioned and given command of the newly built HMS Success (1825).

Australia
In 1826 the western side of Australia was still called New Holland, however the Dutch appeared to have no interest in its development. For the British, a port on the west or north coast might be a useful stage for trade with their settlements in the Cape of Good Hope, India and Singapore. However, the French were known to have an intense interest and French ships were exploring the Australian coasts. The British needed to assess further the potential of the region and find out the extent of the French interest without creating a diplomatic incident. For this task, Stirling, with his record of exploration, diplomacy and covert missions, was a natural choice. New South Wales was running short of currency and the settlement on Melville Island was short of food and scurvy was rife. A supply mission to these would be excellent cover for intelligence gathering activities.

Success sailed on 9 July 1826, carrying cases of coins and a distinguished passenger, Admiral Sir James Saumarez, Knight Companion of the Bath, a hero of the Napoleonic Wars. Ellen and one year old Andrew remained at home at Woodbridge. One of Stirling's officers was 3rd Lieutenant William Preston, who would marry Ellen's sister Hamilla seven years later. Success arrived at the Cape of Good Hope on 2 September, discharged its passenger, took on provisions and set sail again, arriving at Sydney Heads on 28 November.

Captain Jules d'Urville arrived in Sydney Harbour on 2 December on the French corvette L'Astrolabe. L'Astrolabe was on a voyage of exploration, which gave Stirling an opportunity to assess French interest in the region. Stirling and d'Urville dined together several times and Stirling discovered that Astrolabe had a detailed chart of the Swan River. Before leaving England, Stirling had studied the available charts of the west coast of Australia and had concluded that the Swan was a possible site for a harbour and settlement and had hoped to be the first European to explore and chart it. However, d'Urville indicated that the French did not consider that the Swan would be a suitable site for a harbour, because of the difficulty of access and lack of fresh water. This gave Stirling a free hand.

A ship arrived from Melville Island on the same day as L'Astrolabe, bringing reassuring news that scurvy was under control and the settlement was progressing more satisfactorily. The Governor, Major General Ralph Darling, advised Stirling to delay his visit to Melville until later in the year. Stirling then made a report to Darling, setting out detailed arguments for a mission to the Swan River. Darling gave his approval and, on 17 January 1827, Success sailed from Sydney for the Swan, via Hobart in Van Diemen's Land, where several cases of coins were delivered. On board Success were the Colonial Botanist Charles Frazer, the surgeon Frederick Clause and the landscape artist Frederick Garling.

Swan River exploration
The Nyoongar people call the river Derbarl Yerrigan. On 10 January 1697, the Dutch sea captain Willem De Vlamingh renamed it to the Swan River (Zwaanenrivier in Dutch) after the large number of black swans they observed there. One hundred and thirty years later, the British ship Success arrived off the west coast of Australia on 5 March 1827 and anchored near the north east corner of Rottnest Island. The following day, the ship moved cautiously towards the coast and anchored about a mile from the mouth of the Swan. Lieutenant Carnac and the ship's Master, Millroy, were left to take soundings and look for channels and possible landing places. Meanwhile, Stirling, Frazer and Lieutenant Preston made a preliminary reconnaissance up the river in the gig. They sailed about five miles upstream, reaching a wide section which Stirling named Melville Water. Other features were named after Stirling's brother Walter and Lieutenant Preston. During the next day more soundings were taken, and Isle Berthelot and Isle Buache were renamed Carnac Island and Garden Island. Stirling gave the name Cockburn Sound to the "Magnificent Sound between that Island and the Main possessing great attractions for a Sailor in search of a Port".

At mid-day on 8 March the exploration party - Stirling, Frazer, Garling, Clause, Lieutenant Belches, Midshipman Heathcote, the ship's clerk Augustus Gilbert, 7 seamen and 4 marines - left Success in the cutter and the gig and sailed to Point Belches. There the boats grounded and, as the party was unable to find a channel, the boats were unloaded and dragged across the shallows until nightfall. While this was being done, Stirling, Frazer and Garling climbed the commanding hill on the west bank, which Stirling named Mount Eliza in honour of Eliza Darling, the New South Wales Governor's wife. While there, Garling painted a watercolour landscape view showing the entrance to the river on the opposite side of Melville Water. Stirling later named this Canning River after the British Prime Minister at that time.

The next day, dragging across the shallows started at daybreak and continued until nightfall. Frazer, exploring on land, found a freshwater brook and Stirling named the nearby point of land Point Frazer. Frazer also found a lagoon of fresh water and the party moved camp to beside it. On the following morning three armed Aboriginal warriors demonstrated their anger at the "invasion" (Stirling's word) of their territory with violent gestures, but eventually retired. During the day, the boats reached the Heirisson Islands and in the channel above them progress was much easier, but still slow, due to the winding of the river. On 11 March the boats passed through a long narrow stretch and encountered more Aboriginal people who threatened the boats with their spears from higher ground. When the boats reached more level terrain, gestures of goodwill defused the situation and the Aboriginals moved on.

On 12 March the boats reached a place where a tributary, later named Helena River, joined the Swan from the east. The party also found another fresh water stream, which they named Success, on the west side of the Swan. From this point on, the Swan narrowed and there were many obstructions. The next day, the cutter was holed and had to be repaired, after which the party reached a creek which Stirling named Ellen Brook, after his young wife. The Swan was not navigable any further and Stirling and Garling set off on foot for the hills to the east, arriving at about sunset. On their return to camp they lost their way in the dark, but Frazer sent out search parties to guide them back. On 14 March the party split into three groups. Frazer went east and Belches and Heathcote north. Stirling and Clause went west and discovered a freshwater lagoon, some Aboriginal huts and a fertile region which so pleased Stirling that he named it Henley Park after his Surrey home.

The return journey was much quicker, being downstream and through previously charted areas. On arrival at Melville Water, Belches was sent to explore the Canning River. The rest of the party returned to Success and spent the next four days surveying the surrounding islands and finding a safe channel into Cockburn Sound. On 21 March Success weighed anchor and three days later arrived at Geographe Bay, in order to carry out Governor Darling's instructions to explore and report on the region. Geographe Bay was named in May 1801 by French explorer Nicolas Baudin. Success then sailed to King George Sound, to pick up Major Edmund Lockyer and unload provisions for the settlement there, after which the ship returned to New South Wales, anchoring off Sydney Heads on 16 April.

Stirling's report to Darling and Frazer's report on the quality of the land were enclosed with Darlings report of 21 April 1827 to the Colonial Office in the United Kingdom. Stirling's report consisted of a diary Narrative of Operations and a section Observations on the Territory, which included a report by Clause on the healthiness of the climate. Later events showed that all three reports were over enthusiastic, the party having explored only the strip of soil in the vicinity of the Swan. Frazer was heavily criticised for this later. However, in their defence, both Clause and Frazer were subject to Stirling's intense enthusiasm for the project and may have been unduly influenced by it. Stirling wrote a second report on the Swan River on 31 August. This was addressed to the Admiralty and was shorter, placing more emphasis on naval concerns and the strategic value of the area.

Melville Island and North Australia
Stirling's original mission included a task to carry supplies to Melville Island. However, Darling had received further instructions to investigate the formation of a new settlement on the coast to the east of Melville Island. Accordingly, Success left Sydney on 19 May 1827 carrying an establishment force for a new settlement and accompanied by the brig Mary Elizabeth. The two ships separated. Mary Elizabeth sailed to Melville Island and on 15 June Success anchored in Palm Bay, on the western side of Croker Island. Stirling quickly established that the island was unsuitable for settlement and sent a boat across to the mainland to explore Raffles Bay. The report being favourable, Stirling looked no further and on 18 June he went ashore with his officers to take possession of Raffles Bay and the surrounding territory in His Majesty's name. The establishment force and supplies were landed and Stirling named the settlement Fort Wellington. A month later, believing all to be well, Stirling set sail for Melville island.

Success arrived at Fort Dundas on Melville Island on 25 July and set sail again four days later for Madras, and then to Penang, to report to Admiral Gage, Commander of the Eastern Station. Stirling was keen to return home to see his family and to further his case for a settlement at the Swan River. However, Gage instructed him to base Success in Trincomalee Harbour, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), where he arrived on 4 January 1828. There he succumbed rapidly to the tropical climate and on 21 February three Royal Navy surgeons certified that he was so ill he should return immediately to England.

The settlements at Fort Dundas and Fort Wellington rapidly got into difficulties with outbreaks of scurvy and fever, supply shortages and communication failures. The Melville Island outpost was abandoned in November 1828 and the Raffles Bay settlement was broken up in July 1829.

Western Australia
On returning to London in 1828, Stirling lobbied the Foreign Office and the Admiralty for support for a settlement in the vicinity of the Swan River, describing it as ideal for a permanent establishment. He emphasised the defensive prospects of Mount Eliza, the large hill on which Kings Park is now situated, "as it is near the narrows of the Swan River, which would make defending the colony from gunships easy, with just a few cannons."

On 21 August 1828, Stirling and his friend the colonial expert Thomas Moody wrote to Under-Secretary Robert Hay to offer to form an association of private capitalists to using their own money settle Australia in fulfilment of the "principles" of William Penn's settlement of Pennsylvania. Moody was endorsed by the Tories in Parliament, who had recently commended his report to Parliament on slavery. Moody had previously advised Stirling's relation James Mangles about the settlement of the Swan River Colony at minimal cost to the British Government.

Parliament initially rejected the proposal of Stirling and Moody, but rumours of a new French interest in the region provoked Sir George Murray, on 5 November, to request that the Admiralty send a ship-of-war "to proceed to the Western Coast of New Holland and take possession of the whole territory in His Majesty's name." This task was given to HMS Challenger (1826) under the command of Captain Charles Fremantle and, a week later, a further order was issued to prepare HMS Sulphur (1826) to carry a detachment of troops to the Swan River.

On 31 December Murray wrote to Stirling confirming his title as Lieutenant-Governor of the new colony and on the same day his Under-Secretary, Robert Hay, confirmed the appointment of the members of the civil establishment including Colonial Secretary Peter Brown, Surveyor-General John Septimus Roe, Harbourmaster Mark John Currie, naturalist James Drummond, a surgeon, a storekeeper, a cooper, a blacksmith and a boatbuilder. After hectic preparations, on 6 February 1829 these pioneers, with their assistants, families, servants and livestock, departed Plymouth in Parmelia under Captain J H Luscombe out of Spithead in company with Sulphur, carrying 100 men of the 63rd Regiment of Foot, under the command of Major Frederick Irwin, and three years' of army stores, 10,000 bricks and £1,000 to meet all expenses of government.

On arrival on 31 May at Garden Island, at what became known as the Swan River Colony, they re-erected a wooden house that had first been assembled at Lieutenant Preston's home in Sutton Green, Surrey, that would become the Governor's home. These pioneers were responsible for laying the foundations of Perth, Fremantle and the market-town named Guildford that is now a suburb of Perth. Stirling administered the Swan River settlement from June 1829 until 11 August 1832, when he left on an extended visit to England where he was knighted, and again from August 1834 until December 1838. However, he was commissioned as Governor of Western Australia only from 6 February 1832, rectifying the absence of a legal instrument providing the authority detailed in Stirling's Instructions of 30 December 1828. Stirling had said "I believe I am the first Governor who ever formed a settlement without Commission, Laws, Instructions and Salary."

With the creation of the Western Australian Legislative Council in 1830, Stirling automatically became an official member.

In October 1834 Stirling led a detachment of 25 armed troopers and settlers including Septimus Roe and Thomas Peel that attacked an encampment of 60-80 Pindjarep Aboriginal people. The Pindjarep fled into the bush and were later encircled near a crossing on the Murray River at Pinjarra, Stirling referred to this as the Battle of Pinjarra. Settlers accounts claim between 10 and 80 Aboriginal people died, compared to Aboriginal oral history which claim 150 people died.

Stirling remained entirely unsympathetic to the needs of Aboriginal people in Western Australia, and never recognised their prior ownership of the land despite the fact that the Buxton Committee of the British House of Commons informed him that this was a mistake for which the new colony would suffer. Stirling mentioned in dispatches that the Aborigines "must gradually disappear" and the "most anxious and judicious measures of the local government [could] prevent the ulterior extinction of the race".

As recognition of his service in establishing the colony Stirling was granted land near Beverley, Western Australia. This land, along with neighbouring properties was re-acquired by the Western Australian Government, who later subdivided the land into farmlets for returning soldiers. The remaining land was later used to establish the Avondale Agricultural Research Station, which includes Stirling's restored homestead.

Harvey
In 1829 Stirling selected 12800 acre of land in Harvey and called it the "Harvey River Settlement". However, the only improvement made was a convict built cottage on the banks of the Harvey River. The cottage featured a shingled roof and pit-sawn jarrah walls with hexagonal-shaped paving blocks fitted together to form firm flooring. A replica cottage known as Stirling's Cottage has been built on the site and includes one of the original paving blocks in its history room.

HMS Indus
In 1840 Stirling was given command of HMS Indus (1839) and instructions to join the Mediterranean Fleet. The British Foreign Secretary, Lord Palmerston, considered it was necessary to show a strong British naval presence in the Mediterranean. Muhammad Ali Pasha had triggered the Oriental Crisis of 1840 by declaring himself Khedive of Egypt, which had been until then a province of the Ottoman Empire. Also King Ferdinand II of the Two Sicilies and Naples, had been persuaded by a British naval blockade of Naples to restore to a British company the monopoly for Sicilian sulphur, an essential ingredient of gunpowder. Indus reached Gibraltar in August 1841 and made herself felt along the Algerian coast on her way to the Mediterranean station at Malta. For a few months she was deployed around Sicily and the boot of Italy, but in November Stirling received new instructions to show a presence and monitor the situation at Lisbon. Portugal had been in turmoil for several years and the British Admiralty had received intelligence that Lisbon was threatened by a 5,000 strong revolutionary army and the Portuguese Government was preparing for conflict. Stirling was directed not to take part in any action, but to safeguard British subjects and the Portuguese royal family. In the event, the conflict was resolved peacefully.

In June Indus was ordered back to Malta and then to Smyrna, where there had been an insurrection and British subjects and property in the region were thought to be at risk. This threat also failed to materialise and after three months at Piraeus in Greece Indus sailed to Naples to take part in the farewell celebrations sending the Princess Teresa Cristina on her way to marry the Emperor Pedro II of Brazil. This was a major diplomatic event and Stirling entertained the British Ambassador and British Consul on board and was received by King Ferdinand. The harbour was filled with vessels of the Neapolitan, Brazilian and British navies as well as an American warship and Stirling sent a detailed report on the foreign warships to the Admiralty.

A brief spell at Gibraltar was followed by a visit to Cadiz to prevent a planned blockade of the harbour by rebel troops. Then, in September 1843, Vice-Admiral Sir Edward Owen, Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean Fleet, received an urgent request for assistance from Sir Edmund Lyons, the British Consul in Athens. King Otto of Greece had rejected a proposed new constitutional government for Greece and was facing an armed rebellion. Stirling was to join HMS Formidable (1825), under the command of Sir Charles Sullivan, place himself at the disposal of Sir Edmund and arrange for the protection of British subjects. Stirling's charm and diplomatic skill, combined with the presence of three British warships in the harbour, calmed the situation and, despite the King's reluctance to adopt the new constitution, Sullivan and Stirling persuaded him that acceptance was the wisest course. In gratitude for their help in quelling the rebellion and negotiating with his ministers, the King bestowed on Sullivan and Stirling Greece's high honour, Knight Commander of the Order of the Redeemer. Following this, Stirling returned to England, where Indus was paid off on 13 June 1844.

HMS Howe
Stirling received his fourth command, the 120-gun first rate ship of the line HMS Howe (1815) in May 1847 and joined the Channel Fleet under the command of the newly appointed Rear-Admiral Sir Charles Napier on HMS St Vincent (1815). In September he received special orders. He was to conduct Her Majesty, the Dowager Queen Adelaide, Queen Victoria's aunt, on trips to Lisbon and Madeira and then back to Osborne House on the Isle of Wight. Flying the Royal Standard at the main, Howe entered the River Tagus on 22 October. Sir Charles Napier immediately boarded to pay his respects, followed shortly afterwards by Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg Gotha, King of Portugal, and two princes. The next day, all the captains in the squadron donned full dress and white trousers and were formally presented to the Dowager Queen, after which Napier and Stirling escorted her to the royal Palace of Necessidades, where they were received by Queen Maria II.

After five days of sightseeing, the party set sail for Madeira. Leaving the Tagus, Howe was struck by a large wave and the Queen slipped and nearly fell overboard, but was saved by Stirling, who in so doing lost his ceremonial sword overboard. The grateful Queen later presented him with a magnificent replacement, a fine gold plated dress sword and scabbard which had been specially made for her. She also presented him with a silver snuff box with an inscription thanking him for his presence of mind on the occasion. After delivering the Queen in Madeira, Howe returned to Lisbon and took part in various exercises and manoeuvres before leaving again to collect her for the return voyage. She arrived at Osborne House on 27 April and Stirling learned a year later that she had honoured him by appointing him as her naval aide-de-camp.

He now had a few weeks with his family before receiving orders to report at Malta to Vice-Admiral Sir William Parker, Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean Fleet, who had succeeded Sir Edward Owen. During the next few years, the presence of the British and French fleets encouraged an uneasy peace in the eastern Mediterranean. In 1849 Howe was recalled. She reached England on 2 July and two weeks later the ship's company was paid off.

Far East
In July 1851, Stirling was promoted to rear admiral and in the following year served as Third Naval Lord at the Admiralty. From January 1854 to February 1856 Stirling was commander in chief of the East Indies and China Station. Using gunboat diplomacy he signed the first British treaty with Japan (the Anglo-Japanese Friendship Treaty) on 14 October 1854.

In November 1854, with Hong Kong Governor John Bowring, he led a fleet up the Pearl River to Canton to support the Viceroy of Liangguang (modern day Guangdong and Guangxi) Ye Mingchen and his forces besieged by the Tiandihui army. The fleet carried weapons and ammunition, food and Qing reinforcements.

Retirement
Stirling was promoted vice admiral in August 1857. He became an admiral in November 1862 and died in comfortable retirement at his home in Woodbridge Park, near Guildford in Surrey, on 22 April 1865 aged 74. There is a memorial tablet within St Marks Church, Wyke. Ellen survived him by nine years. Stirling and his wife were buried in the extension to the graveyard of St John's Church on Stoke Road, near Guildford where they had been married.

Honours
The plant genus Stirlingia, was named in his honour by Stephan Endlicher in 1838. A variety of Pittosporum is also named in his honour. In England, Stoke Church's social centre and hall is named The Stirling Centre.

In Western Australia the suburb of Stirling is named after him, as is a seat in the lower House of the federal Parliament and Governor Stirling Senior High School. The Royal Australian Navy's Indian Ocean Fleet is based at HMAS Stirling, near Rockingham. Stirling Highway (which links Perth and Fremantle) was named so in his honour. There are also many buildings and businesses named after him throughout Perth and Fremantle.

Dishonours
Following the well-conceived ambush leading to a massacre lasting at least one hour and now known as the Pinjarra Massacre that Stirling led personally, Stirling threatened the Noongar people with genocide should they continue to resist colonisation. Given historical records of his involvement, "there's no ambiguity in it anymore, Stirling set out to punish the Noongar tribe down there for blocking expansion of the colony. He told everyone what he was going to do, went down there, did it and reported on it."

In 2020 a statue of Stirling on Hay Street in Perth's central business district was defaced amid Black Lives Matter protests. The statue had its neck and hands painted red, and the Australian Aboriginal Flag was painted over the plaque on the ground in front of the statue.

Increasingly there are efforts to remove Stirling's name from Western Australian landmarks. In 2019, a petition to rename Stirling Highway received little support. In 2021, "residents at a [City of] Stirling council electors meeting voted in favour of changing their local government's name", although the city "eventually passed a motion that made no mention of any name change", with one councillor saying "while nobody condoned historical atrocities, a name change would cost 'millions of dollars', would set a dangerous precedent and should be 'nipped in the bud'." However, shortly afterwards, Western Australian senators called for a broader review of Western Australian "place names, such as Stirling Range, linked to colonial figures with known racist histories ... such as William Dampier, John Forrest and John Septimus Roe."

title: James Stirling (Royal Navy officer)