text:
Talk:Australopithecus

A 2001 discovery and -- let's just say much more -- contradicts many conclusions in this entry.
First, two critics about a portion of the first paragraph (copied in red below) -- one supporting the possibility of afarensis as an ancestor, and one against it:

“...since then, Hominid fossils have been found that are older than A. africanus, yet nevertheless seem to belong to the genus Homo. Thus, the genus Homo either split off from the genus Australopithecus at an earlier date (the latest common ancestor being A. afarensis or an even earlier form), or both developed from an as yet possibly unknown common ancestor independently. ... The fossil record seems to indicate that Australopithecus is the common ancestor...”

1. | A recent discovery by those famous Leakey anthropologists shows that even afarensis had a non-Australopithecine competitor, so -- for the same reason that I agree with this Wikipedia entry when it says that we might not have descended from africanus, but from another, competing genus instead -- I think there's just as much reason that we should not state, with so much certainty as this author has, that afarensis is a "common ancestor" of ours. We can't be certain whether even afarensis is what we "developed from," especially given this 2001 discovery. This is why we still call these species the 'missing link(s)': We aren't certain; this part of our history is 'missing'. Also, since this other genus discovered in 2001 were contemporaries of afarensis, I also doubt that they "developed from" (to quote the red text) afarensis. And thus, this new genus brings up a very plausible scenario which the Wikipedia entry doesn't recognize the possibility of: that we descended from this other genus, Kenyanthropus, without them descending from any Australopithecines, which would contradict the two only scenarios which are recognized as possible in this "either...or" claim in red(that "genus Homo either split off from the genus Australopithecus at an earlier date...or...") ).

We can't even make an affirmative case that we descended from any Australopithecines: Basically, the claim of our ‘descent’ from afarensis was only a presumption to begin with: There wasn’t any actual evidence to merit this theory of descent from Australopithecines (or if there is evidence, I'd love to see it because I've been asking fruitlessly for years. ;-) ), but rather an assumption was made because (at the time, i.e. before 2001), "We know of no competitors to afarensis, nor species similar to us, like afarensis is, so we must have descended from them". Such presumptions are 'burden of proof' fallacies in the system of logic (i.e., A negative presumption, in logic, can never prove an affirmative conclusion, such as, "We did descend from...") : Or as we scientists would say, ‘Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,’ as the 1972 and 2001 Leakey discoveries painfully pointed out because finally, that evidence was no longer absent, with 1972 as the demise of africanus being considered the only known (homonid) species of that era, and 2001 being the demise for our assumptions about afarensis being our only possible ancestor from their respective era -- and with scientists on both sides, ever since, arguing about which species was 'more human' in each era and thus more likely to be our ancestors, without either side really having incontrovertible evidence. And really, who's to say a third species of that era won't be discovered, which is more similar to us than these two? The only rational stance on this issue is agnosticism, and to simply admit that we don't posess enough knowledge to come to any hard-formed opinions. To assume things without affirmative evidence is simply bad science and bad logic (with science being called Logical Empiricism by philosophers for a reason ;-) ), which ironically seems to have been accepted by a large portion of my fellow ‘scientists’ until the 1972 and 2001 discoveries made them question their assumptions. Can we try parsing the word assumption, to bring some levity to this regarding us 'oh so smart' scientists: ass|u|me.

2. Note that I put emphasis on the word ‘either,’ in the above red text: There’s another, plausible option which has been ignored by the author of this Wikipedia entry (Is anyone starting to see his pattern? ;-) ): that afarensis did exist earlier than the genus Homo but we simply haven’t yet discovered fossils to prove it, just as we “didn’t yet discover” *any* fossils of Kenyanthropus until 2001... Just because we haven't discovered it, doesn't mean it didn't happen, as we found with Kenyanthropus and as the saying "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" summarizes.  We can’t ASSume whether or not we’ll find such fossils, and therefore we shouldn’t be falsely led into this ‘either/or’ false claim, nor that no possibilities exist besides those two simply because they were the only two which the author came up with as possibilities.  This area of science, being so immature, still gives us very little evidence to back the claims of the Wikipedia author, especially given the certaintism with which some of these claims were stated; so of course I'm pleased that at some of the claims were stated with the appropriate amount of probabilism, but not certaintism, which is merited by the (lack of good) evidence.

And finally, a critique about this last bit:

“The existence of Australopithecus seems to have put firmly to rest the theory that human-like intelligence evolved first and bipedalism followed.”

3. Kenyanthropus platyops had a larger braincase than Australopithecus, and we can’t be sure whether these BOTH were evolutionary dead-ends because they might have competed with an even smarter species. We’re still discovering fossils, folks, and there might be a third, fourth, and so on as-yet-undiscovered species, one of which could have had human-like intelligence before any of these genera went bipedal, so no, the existence of Australopithecus proves nothing firmly; this is yet again non-sequitur logic from the author of this article.

Just a closing thought... History is like walking through fog: The further back we try to see, the harder it is to see much detail.

Oh, and if anyone wants to get more info on these two species of australopithecus and the newly-discovered species with whom they competed:

"The brain shape is also more humanlike and he likely was capable of rudimentary speech. The picture shown is of skull 1470, the most complete habilis skull ever found, found by Richard Leakey's team at Koobi Fora. Incidently, the stone tools made by habilis were a dramatic departure from what earlier hominids were able to do." "Kenyanthropus platyops [the 2001 discovery listed above] resembles skull 1470 found in the eastern Turkana basin in the 1970s. Called Homo rudolfensis by some researchers and a member of genus Australopithecus by others, the Nature article suggests researchers now must consider if it instead descended from Kenyanthropus." In the 1970s, Bernard Ngeneo, a member of Richard Leakey's field crew working the fossil beds on the eastern shore of Lake Turkana, found a skull known from its catalogue number - KNM-ER 1470. This skull, "1470 man" for short, looks very modern, and is generally assigned to Homo rudolfensis, a very early member of our own genus. Kenyanthropus has a very similar, flattened face, but is almost twice as ancient as 1470. "The line of descent promoted till not long ago was roughly Ramapitbecus (fossil ape), Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and finally ending up with Homo sapiens. In this sequence Australopithecus and Homo habilis were given rather humanlike characteristics, such as an apelike head or face on a modern looking human body. Paleoanthropological discoveries of the last 25 years have done much to undermine this fairly simple picture. Besides these, various other kinds of research on fossil hominids have disturbed the picture even more."

Please keep it scientific
I've had to change or delete several comments in the Australopithecus article, mainly because of inaccurate information or religious idealism set to demolish Australopithecus as completely not related to modern humans (vandalism). This article should only mention the theories and evidence, it is not an opinion article. For more information on how humans are closely related to apes (particularly Pan troglodytes) see Chimpanzee Genome Project --King of the Dancehall 01:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Firstly, what you'd have against religious? Answer me what's vandalism: Say what it think or using 'religious' in a negative connotation? Don't take it personally, but it offend me deeply. 177.105.90.13 (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Human?
I doubt that it's a human. It's extinct monkey that related to simple chimpanzee, skull of Australopithecus is more closer to chimp than to human. If we'll see skulls of chimpanzee & human, you'll see big difference.

Such metamorphosis of bones can't be possible even in 10 billion years. I doubt that Austoralopithecus is hominid. It's much closer to chimpanzee. Conclusion: It is monkey.

This article must be fixed, Australopithecus is not a hominid. I don't believe in any evolution & I think that appearance of evolutionary materials in any article about animals & human is violating of Wikipedia's principle of neutrality. End

 * Of course you have scientific sources for all these assertions right?

 * (Free use image removed by bot) compare to chimpanzee

 * Maybe you can explain why the teeth look much more like a human's or why the Foramen magnum is toward the bottom of the skull in the Australopithecine and toward the back in the chimpanzee.

 * BTW chimpanzees are not monkeys (monkeys have tails.)

 * see the archive on Talk:Evolution for numerous responses to the NPOV claim. In short they all come down to NPOV.

 * see and  if you have more questions. Nowimnthing 18:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I see, I would disagree with you, I saw two skulls near each other & if they were 'fresh', you wouldn't mention any difference. However, I respect your point of view.

Chimps aren't monkeys? Oh sorry, I meant apes. In my language, Ape & Monkey is the same word.

What teeth? You see teeth on the skull? Maybe it's forged teeth? Maybe there are no teeth at all? Maybe some upper jaw was destroyed to look more human-like. I mean that everything can explain your 'teeth' question.

 * I can't upload pictures(I'm not registered)
 * but text is here:

I respect your opinion, dude. But don't go about saying that everything related to evolution should be removed from Wikipedia. And, while you are right that Wikipedia is supposed to be written from a neutral point of view, it nonetheless is written only from both sides of a valid argument. Creationism is not an argument currently taken seriously by the scientific community. Furthermore, a chimpanzee is a hominid. Hominidae is the family containing all great apes (which humans do qualify as, I don't know why we keep pretending we're only "closely related" to them), but it is usually confused with Homininae, which contains the genus Homo and its closest relatives. Australopithecus is a close relative of the chimp, I'll give you credit for that, but it is an equally close relative of humans (although in behaviour and general appearance it was probably closer to a chimp). Wikipedia isn't the place for arguments questioning the validity of evolution. You're entitled to your beliefs, but for discussing them try somewhere else like Conservipedia for example, just not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

from www.evolutiondeceit.com

 * Australopithecus : An Ape Species

 * The first category, the genus Australopithecus, means "southern ape", as we have said. It is assumed that these creatures first appeared in Africa about 4 million years ago, and lived until 1 million years ago. There are a number of different species among the astralopithecines. Evolutionists assume that the oldest Australopithecus species is A. Afarensis. After that comes A. Africanus, and then A. Robustus, which has relatively bigger bones. As for A. Boisei, some researchers accept it as a different species, and others as a sub-species of A. Robustus.

 * All of the Australopithecus species are extinct apes that resemble the apes of today. Their cranial capacities are the same or smaller than the chimpanzees of our day. There are projecting parts in their hands and feet which they used to climb trees, just like today's chimpanzees, and their feet are built for grasping to hold onto branches. They are short (maximum 130 cm. (51 in.)) and just like today's chimpanzees, male Australopithecus is larger than the female. Many other characteristics-such as the details in their skulls, the closeness of their eyes, their sharp molar teeth, their mandibular structure, their long arms, and their short legs-constitute evidence that these creatures were no different from today's ape.

 * However, evolutionists claim that, although australopithecines have the anatomy of apes, unlike apes, they walked upright like humans.

 * This claim that australopithecines walked upright is a view that has been held by paleoanthropologists such as Richard Leakey and Donald C. Johanson for decades. Yet many scientists who have carried out a great deal of research on the skeletal structures of australopithecines have proved the invalidity of that argument. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world-renowned anatomists from England and the USA, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, showed that these creatures did not walk upright in human manner. Having studied the bones of these fossils for a period of 15 years thanks to grants from the British government, Lord Zuckerman and his team of five specialists reached the conclusion that australopithecines were only an ordinary ape genus and were definitely not bipedal, although Zuckerman is an evolutionist himself.71 Correspondingly, Charles E. Oxnard, who is another evolutionist famous for his research on the subject, also likened the skeletal structure of Australopithecines to that of modern orang-utans.72

 * Briefly, Australopithecines have no link with humans and they are merely an extinct ape species.

 * 71 Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, New York: Toplinger Publications, 1970, pp. 75-94.

 * 72 Charles E. Oxnard, "The Place of Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt", Nature, Vol 258, p. 389.

 * Evolution deceit by Harun Yahya, chapter 10.

 * P.S

 * Evolution is NOT a science, it is only a theory(STILL UNPROOVED THEORY!).
 * I understand that you won't like to do this, but please visit www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter10.php & see pictures for yourself, if you want.

This is a place to discuss the article, not debate evolution, your sources are 36 year old debunked creationist hogwash, and  have all your answers. Nowimnthing 04:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I see, I'm not "creationist". But thist doesn't mean that I support evolution. That's all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.204.190.170 (talk • contribs).

 * One should register, but if one doesn't, one can should still use 4 tildes (~) to sign their comments. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Praeanthropus Senyuerek, 1955
Place Australopithecus afarensis, A. bahrelghazali, A. garhi, and A. anamensis in a new page, Praeanthropus. This is based on the new hominid family tree proposed by Cela-Conde & Ayala (2003), which shows that Orrorin is more related to Praeanthropus than to any other hominid genera. Praeanthropus africanus (Weinert, 1950) (P. afarensis [Johnason et. al., 1978] is a synonym) is the type species of Praeanthropus. Praeanthropus and Orrorin are placed in their own subfamily, Praeanthropinae Cela-Conde & Altaba, 2002. Strait & Grine (2004) suggest that Australopithecus is paraphyletic, based on a cladistic analysis.

Cela-Conde, C. J., & Altaba, C. R. 2002. Multiplying genera versus moving species: a new taxonomic proposal for the family Hominidae. South African Journal of Science 98: 229-232.

Cela-Conde, C. J., & F. J. Ayala. 2003. Genera of the human lineage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 100 (13): 7684-7689.

Strait DS, Grine FE. (2004). Inferring hominoid and early hominid phylogeny using craniodental characters: the role of fossil taxa. J Hum Evol 47(6):399-452. 72.194.116.63 01:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian 18.26 16 April 2007

The phylogeny of the australopithecines (and, for cladists, Paranthropus) is still under a lot of debate, but I don't see this reflected in the article. There is a lot of evidence on either side, but the article seems to take the cladistic view that aethiopicus, robustus, and boisei are in a separate genus when consensus in the scientific community does not support this. There's still too much conflicting evidence to state it definitively one way or another, and I'd like to rewrite part of the article to include this controversy. Anyone for or against? Thoughts? 71.197.87.105 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Properly referenced descriptions of all significant viewpoints is the essence of our neutral point of view policy, which of course must be done using verifiable information without "original research". By the way, good idea to get an account, . .. dave souza, talk 23:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Story time
They were the slowest-moving primates at the time and many fell prey to carnivorous creatures (lions and the extinct Dinofelis). Once upon a time there was a beautiful princess who kissed a frog..... Who wrote this divel? How the can we expect to persuade the creationists, et al if this is the quality of <insert another expletive here> our arguements. 125.25.181.38 15:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC) mja

When did the Australopithicines walk the earth
This article reads:
 * "were widespread ... as early as 3.9 to as late as 3 million years ago".

But as Australopithecus anamensis emerged about 4.2 million years ago (according to wikipedia), and Australopithecus africanus not went extinct before 2 million years ago. Wouldn't it be less confusing for the reader when the article would read: "lived in ... as early as 4.2 to as late as 2 million years ago". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel van Heusden (talk • contribs) 13:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I had reverted your edit because all you did was change the numbers, with no citation and no edit summary. Since you are changing the numbers so that they match another article, I'll unrevert. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Australopithecus firts appears as Australopithecus anamensis "between 4.17 and 4.12 million years" ago (according to the wikipedia article) and the Australopithecus africanus lived "between 2-3 million years ago" (according to the wikipedia article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel van Heusden (talk • contribs) 14:27 (2 edits), 7 December 2007
 * Uther seems to have reverted, and not to have unreverted. --Jerzy•t 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The text quoted by DvH 8 weeks ago got changed today to a mathematical contradiction, presumably resulting from a first-time IP editor's discomfort with associating the concept of "earl[ier]" with the larger number. I reworded it to avoid repeated mistaken edits, but it should be determined whether we can say "3.0 to 3.9", which is much more informative, and less annoying than "3 to 3.9". --Jerzy•t 23:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A few changes
I fixed a sentence that was confusing and could have been construed to imply that humans (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzees (pan troglodytes) interbred (something that has not been shown because of the chromosome number differences and such experimentation is so taboo) and instead clarified that it was the lineages that diverged and interbred for a while —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.31.163 (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Australopiths?
Is this even a word? Shouldn't it be "australopithecenes"? (Dare I propose australopitheci? Probably not.) Rwflammang (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

pronounced?
Is it australopithěcus or australopithēcus? The second seems more correct philologically. But what to scientists actually say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.123.252 (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The first one. Valeriya (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Parking controversial text here for discussion
This text recently added by an IP is a minority view based on dated sources. I'm doubting that it should be in the article.

"They were once thought to be a link between the evolution of man since they were bipedal. However, modern science showed they were definitely not bipedal and were just an ordinary ape species (Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, pp. 75-94.). Charles E. Oxnard, an evolutionary biologist, admitted that the skull closely resembled a modern day orangutan's (Charles E. Oxnard, 'The Place of Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt,' Nature, vol. 258, 4 December 1975, p. 389.). A science magazine later confirmed that Australopithecus was not a link. 'A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the human race… The results arrived at by the only woman authorized to examine St W573 are different from the normal theories regarding mankind's ancestors: this destroys the hominid family tree. Large primates, considered the ancestors of man, have been removed from the equation of this family tree… Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting to be discovered.' (Isabelle Bourdial, 'Adieu Lucy,' Science et Vie, May 1999, no. 980, pp. 52-62. )."

This is a fast-developing field, with regular discoveries of new fossils. We shouldn't be using these dated sources, which represent a minority view. And certainly not in the lead. TimidGuy (talk) 11:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Pasting here comments I left on the Talk page of the IP who added this -- comments in response to his query on my Talk page:

 * You apparently have a dynamic IP, so I don't know if you or someone else will get this message. But if you're the person who edited Australopithecus Afarensis, I removed the material because it doesn't represent the scientific consensus. See Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view, specifically the section on undue weight, which says that minor points of view need not be represented in an article. The scientific consensus is that modern humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. And that Afarensis was bipedal. Whether Afarensis is in the lineage of modern humans is not yet known, one way or the other. TimidGuy (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the cited sources verify the statement, 'modern science showed they were definitely not bipedal and were just an ordinary ape species.' Even the cited sources don't say any such thing, and it is unclear why we would use sources from 1975 to say anything about 'modern science.'  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No that is defnbitely wrong. The very solid consensus is that all australopithecines were bipedal, and that one of the autralopithecine (perhaps A. sediba) species evolved in to Homo habilis.The phrase "Ordinary ape" species doesn't mean anything since the most ordinary ape species is currently Homo sapiens.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Help with Evolutionary role section
" However, the view that human ancestors were knuckle-walkers is now questioned since the anatomy and biomechanics of knuckle-walking in chimpanzees and gorillas are different, suggesting that this ability evolved independently after the last common ancestor with the human lineage. s of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America]] | volume = 106 | issue = 34| pages = 14241–6 | doi = 10.1073/pnas.0901280106 | pmc = 2732797 | pmid = 19667206 |bibcode = 2009PNAS..10614241K }} Further comparative analysis with other primates suggests that these wrist-bone adaptations support a palm-based tree walking. "

Can't figure out what's wrong here. Help, please Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Genus status
The paraphyly of genus Australopithecus with respect to genus Homo (not the other way around) is actually a foregone conclusion. See e.g. and. Suggestions?

Section on Cladistics, paraphyly, extinction, genus status, naming and human exceptionalism
The section on 'Cladistics, paraphyly, extinction, genus status, naming and human exceptionalism' reads as an unencyclopedic technical opinion essay on problems of definition in evolution and in my view does not belong in this article. I suggest deleting the whole section or reducing it to a neutrally worded non-technical paragraph about the issues specifically as they relate to Australopithecus. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A.afarensis.jpg

"extinct" and "no living descendents"
A sentence in the lead claims that this species is not "extinct" in "in the sense of having no living descendants," but as far as I can tell, there is NO sense in which the word "extinct" is used in this way. Furthermore, this contradicts the previous sentence. For example, see extinction: "The moment of extinction is generally considered to be the death of the last individual of the species." The entire article contains no mention at all of whether or not the existence of living descendants has any any bearing on its status as "extinct." In fact, from the article: "Pinpointing the extinction (or pseudoextinction) of a species requires a clear definition of that species. If it is to be declared extinct, the species in question must be uniquely distinguishable from any ancestor or daughter species, and from any other closely related species. Extinction of a species (or replacement by a daughter species) plays a key role in the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis of Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge." I perused through the references that are cited at the end of the sentence in question, and unless I missed it, none of them claim that this species is not extinct (in any sense). I'm going to modify the sentence to clarify the issue; this species is extinct (in every sense of the word) but gave rise to other species. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem appears to be that one of the twigs deep in the Australopithecus tree is you. In today's [cladistics|cladistic] world, we assign all descendents of a group to that group. There are good reasons for that. Among the reasons is that otherwise you can't, on a scientific basis, determine whether you belong to a group or not.Jmv2009 (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Australopithecus family.jpg

title: Talk:Australopithecus


text:
Talk:Appeal of 18 June

the correct link to "Original version in french:" seams to be : (that's the link that is on the french page)

http://sources.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appel_du_18_juin

Almost no one heard it. Although BBC could be received in France, very few people listened to it at this time (even its french-speaking programme). Add to that the fact that many people were on the roads, and that radio receivers were not portable devices... However, the Appeal was printed in most french newspapers the later day as his text was relayed by the news agency Havas.

--I went to the link above and it seems to have moved. The new link is http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Appel_du_18_juin Maltodextrin 00:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)Maltodextrin

Merger with Charles de Gaulle
"It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Charles de Gaulle." Please leave this as a separate article. Thank you. Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Illustration
The sketch is somewhat unfortunate because it makes De Gaulle look almost exactly like Adolf Hitler. --Mathew5000 20:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Time zone
The article implies that the speech was heard in France at 7 pm local time. Is that correct, or was it broadcast by De Gaulle at 7 pm London time? Either way, it should be made explicit in the article. --Mathew5000 20:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I had a look at the corresponding French Wikipedia article Appel du 18 juin; it says that De Gaulle's speech was recorded at 6pm on June 18th and broadcast at 10pm, then rebroadcast the next day at 4pm. It does not specify time zones. It also mentions another speech De Gaulle gave on June 22, which was heard more widely in France. Hopefully somebody can find a reliable source and either correct the English article or correct the French article. --Mathew5000 20:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I think the UK and France were then using the same time zones - Western European Time is ambiguous on this point. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article now says that 10PM BST (GMT+1) was 8PM Paris. That could not have been the case as France was either also on GMT+1 at that point, or on GMT+2 which Northern France moved to in Summer 1940, although I suspect it hadn’t happened at that point. Either way, it wouldn’t have been GMT-1 which a time 8PM would have implied. NotMuchToSay (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Why was British cabinet opposed to the speech?
Current version of the article states, "despite the British Cabinet's efforts to block the broadcast". The article Free French Forces says "Some of the British Cabinet had attempted to block the speech" which surely is more correct. But neither article says why there was opposition within the Cabinet. If a reliable source can be found to explain that, it should be put in the article. --Mathew5000 20:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

 * It was because they were worried that it might provoke Petain to hand over the French fleet to the fascists and wanted to avoid anything potentially inflammatory. I've added a ref to this effect. Badgerpatrol 11:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Some error
Hello i'm french and i see some error :

The appeal is the origin of the French Resistance to the German occupation.

The french communist resistants for exeample fight when Germany attack URSS. But this appeal is certainly the origin of the Free French Forces.

General de Gaulle was the de facto leader of the Free French Forces which had escaped to London in World War II.

De Gaulle went to London to ask help, Petain signed the armistice on June 15, 1940, De Gaulle make his speech the 18, but the Free French Forces was founded later. Moreover, I don't know if the difference between the Free French Forces and the resistance is understanding. The resistance was various group and all don't recognize De Gaulle as the leader, it's Jean Moulin who had unified the group and ,only after this unification, De Gaulle became the leader of resitance( 1942-1943).

I hope you understand what i mean. Rémi Thevenoux. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.214.162.136 (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC). Indeed, there are several errors (content). The armistice was signed the 22nd, for example.--132.231.54.1 (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"La France a perdu une bataille..."
When did de Gaulle give his famous "France has lost a battle. But France has not lost the war!" line? I always thought it was in this speech. Was it actually in a different radio address? Funnyhat 04:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not from a speech but from the London Poster: http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/L’Affiche_de_Londres?match=en

Awien (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:De-gaulle-radio.jpg
The image Image:De-gaulle-radio.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --21:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't the BBC record the speech?
"The BBC did not deem the speech important enough to be recorded" strikes me as not impossible but somewhat implausible. I have therefore, for now, changed it to simply read "The BBC did not record the speech".

We have here a speech that involved special permission from the Prime Minister, over the objections of at least some Cabinet members of the leader of the Free French Forces after the fall of France to Germany. It strikes me as pretty unlikely - though not impossible - that the BBC "did not deem the speech important enough".

I suppose if recording the speech was, at the BBC at that time, an incredibly difficult and rare thing to do, such that recording it would cost the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of pounds or something, then the reason for not recording it might be that they didn't deem it important enough. But given the amount of recorded material from that era, that seems unlikely. I doubt if anyone said "Oh, should we record this?" and got an answer of "Oh, gosh, no, it's not that important, it's just Charles de Gaulle speaking with special permission from the Prime Minister, making a speech urging the French people to keep fighting... how could that be important?"

Well, in any event, it seems that the best thing will be to remove that bit unless and until a source is found - and I hope that one will be, because this fact of it not being recorded seems to me to be a very interesting bit of historical trivia, and I would love to know more about it!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

 * One BBC page is here
 * It does say that the original was not recorded
 * Also details here and the only ref to reasons for not recording seem to be AOL here
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The AOL News source does seem to give more historical context, the theory being that "de Gaulle was the most junior general in the French army, so BBC engineers decided not to record it." That's plausible. The author appears to be a completely respectable contemporary journalist, but it is not clear to me whether the reason that the BBC didn't record it is something he knows from some other sources or just his own speculation.  Still, this is a solid first step to establishing this anecdote as not just something we accidentally invented here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

 * It's clear from BBC Sound Archive that the BBC sometimes recorded things they were told not to, and retained things they were told to destroy; the historical perspective may not have been clear to them at the time; however, I did watch a programme on the Yesterday channel (A Year To Remember) this very day (actually, now yesterday, technically, since my day currently runs from 15:00 UTC to 03:00 UTC), dealing with 1940 in which this point is specifically made and cite episode would seem to cover this as a reliable source. Problem? Rodhull  andemu  01:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You sort of lost me there. Anyway, I don't doubt that the BBC didn't record it.  What interests me is whether they didn't record it by accident, or seriously because they didn't think it would be important.  That's a very cute anecdote if true, but also so cute as an anecdote that one must wonder if it is true.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I will see if I can retrieve the episode from my HD or otherwise; I tend to retain a lot of stuff in case it may be useful, but it is a struggle to keep up with the details unless there is a difference of opinion. However, that may take some time to arise, and sadly I am not the Library of Congress, although one day, I may be. Bedtime. Rodhull  andemu  01:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I absolutely understand you now. You watched a program about this, and the program may have or did specifically say that it was not recorded because it wasn't thought to be important at the time, and if so (and you will try to go back and find it) this could be a reliable source.  Yes.  I know that's exactly what you said when I said that you lost me but for some reason I wasn't parsing correctly. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems a bit bizarre though. There was so much uproar caused and so many who wanted it stopped that I would have thought someone in one of the secret services, either UK or US, would have asked them to record it for playback to interested parties.
 * As for the BBC not recording it themselves it may well have been that they did record it and perhaps broke the record...and I'm sure they wouldn't want to admit that !
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed! I think that, either way, it's a fascinating bit of history and I'm curious to know what the best sources have to say about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I'd regard this as authoritative, since for once, they don't cite Wikipedia as a source! Rodhull  andemu  02:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strange - that archived French version says that it was recorded at 18:00 on the 18th and played from the recording at 22:00 and broadcast again from the recording the next day at 16:00.
 * no refs though !! quel surprise
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 02:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The plot thickens! Now I am indulging in a fantasy that there has been a myth circulating for years that it wasn't recorded, but it really was recorded and just hasn't turned up yet.  It's in a desk drawer somewhere at the BBC, maybe. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK - the Glasgow Herald printed this article on Monday 24 Jun 1940. It states:
 * "General De Gaulle was relieved of his command on account of the broadcast he made over the London wireless on Saturday."
 * That would have been the 22 June - quite an outcome for the poor man !
 * The Glasgow Herald, 19 June 1940, also gives text of the speech from the 18th, but it is unclear as to how accurate the translation may have been. In any event it seems to differ, quite substantially in the parts quoted, from the text in the article.
 * If the Herald account is accurate that would imply that he varied quite a lot from the text. I am still searching for other accounts from the weekend to see if there were other reports which may verify if he went in person on the seperate days (by way of differences in the speeches etc.). One problem is that many of the standard American papers, such as the New York Times, are pay-per-view.
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And on todays date in 1940 (lol nice coincidence) reported by "(C.P.)", on 24 June in the Ottowa Citizen, it says the broadcast from Petain dismissing De Gaulle was "in a broadcast heard in London tonight" - unclear as to whether it is 23rd or 22nd though I suspect the latter.
 * But the report from the St. Petersburg Times Thursday 20 June 1940 says "...last Monday night..." - implying the London broadcast was on the 17th June -  and "De Gaulle was taken to task specially by the Interior Minister Charles Pomaret, for having advocatedin a London broadcast Monday nighta French-British union, with the industrial help ofthe United States "to crush our enemies" Pomaret said De Gaulle had been ordered to return to France from London."
 * That same report says "(A British radio broadcast picked up last night by NBC...)" - If "picked up" means by radio is it possible that there may be a recording somewhere in the US ? - If not then the only way they could have heard it the other broadcast (not the speech but supposedly in London only? before the 22nd speech) was if they had a recording sent from England and if that is the case then they may have had a recording of the 18th sent over also...(I added this after server lost session)
 * Sounds like the whole thing dragged on from the first broadcast on the 17th where he is reprimanded to him getting fired on the 24th.
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Strange - that archived French version says that it was recorded at 18:00 on the 18th and played from the recording at 22:00 and broadcast again from the recording the next day at 16:00. no refs though !! quel surprise Chaosdruid (talk) 02:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, how about:
 * Fenby, Jonathan; The General: Charles de Gaulle and the France He Saved: New York; Skyhorse Publishing; 2012; p. 33 (This was originally published in London)
 * The General's speech was recorded and then broadcast at 10 p.m. By the time it went out, he had dined at the Langham Hotel with de Courcel and gone back to his flat. His aide thought he was happier than he had been since leaving Bordeaux. To his understandable annoyance when he discovered this the following day, the BBC did not keep the recording. Very few people heard his words that night.
 * Dick Kimball (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Philippe pétain speech 16th of june / appel du 16 juin 1940
Does anyone know where I could find Philippe Pétain's speech of the 16th of June 1940?

Quelqu'n a une idée où peux-je trouver l' appel du Philippe Pétain le 16 juin 1940?

Thank you / Merci

--David-bel (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)  Are you quite sure of the date? According to:
 * http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_P%C3%A9tain#Carri.C3.A8re_politique

Carrière politique
 * 16 juin 1940, président du Conseil
 * 11 juillet 1940 - 20 août 1944, chef de l’État français
 * 11 juillet 1940 - 20 août 1944, chef de l’État français

Meilleurs vœux, Dick Kimball (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant use of english term "appeal" instead of "call"
With my little english knowledge and the good on-line french-englis dictionnaries, I pretend taht the term "appeal" has a sexual connotation as "sex-appeal". The french meaning of "appel du 18 juin 1940" is better translated in english as "call", "call for arms (weapons, fight).

--Rgimilio (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Rgimilio, you're right that "call" would be a reasonable translation here, although it could potentially sound trivialising, as though de Gaulle had made a phone call to somebody.
 * However, you're quite wrong about "appeal" having the suggestive connotation of sex appeal. The legal denotation is completely specific, the attempt to get a sentence overturned, and has no sexual connotations whatsoever. As for the meaning of "earnest request", most people would probably think first of fund-raising campaigns rather than sex, but would also find the term used to urge a certain action or attitude perfectly normal and completely free of any sexual overtones. In other words, both denotation and connotation are appropriate and acceptable in this context.
 * But in any case, the point is moot, because the broadcast simply (and correctly) is known as the "appeal", and that is also the term used by your own government on its official website . WP follows trustworthy sources, and the government of France is as authoritative a source as it gets on a subject such as this.
 * So the bottom line is, the present version should stand. Thank you. Awien (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Allegiance vs. Alliance
In the § Context it says: ...the British Cabinet's objections that such a broadcast could provoke the Pétain government into a closer allegiance with Germany. I quote the synonyms for each from Wiktionary: allegiance: fidelity, loyalty, adherence alliance: (union by relationship in qualities): connection, affinity, union (act of allying): union (persons or parties allied): coalition, league, confederation, team (informal) I respectfully suggest that alliance would more accurately convey the relationship between Das Reich and l'État français (commonly called "Vichy.") Dick Kimball (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Appeal of 18 June. 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/20130423194941/http://www.france.fr:80/en/institutions-and-values/appeal-18-june to http://www.france.fr/en/institutions-and-values/appeal-18-june

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Appeal of 18 June. 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/20170606021817/http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org/pages/l-homme/dossiers-thematiques/1940-1944-la-seconde-guerre-mondiale/l-appel-du-18-juin/documents/l-appel-du-22-juin-1940.php to http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org/pages/l-homme/dossiers-thematiques/1940-1944-la-seconde-guerre-mondiale/l-appel-du-18-juin/documents/l-appel-du-22-juin-1940.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170606021817/http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org/pages/l-homme/dossiers-thematiques/1940-1944-la-seconde-guerre-mondiale/l-appel-du-18-juin/documents/l-appel-du-22-juin-1940.php to http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org/pages/l-homme/dossiers-thematiques/1940-1944-la-seconde-guerre-mondiale/l-appel-du-18-juin/documents/l-appel-du-22-juin-1940.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170618094523/http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org/pages/l-homme/dossiers-thematiques/1940-1944-la-seconde-guerre-mondiale/l-appel-du-18-juin/documents/l-affiche-de-londres.php to http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org/pages/l-homme/dossiers-thematiques/1940-1944-la-seconde-guerre-mondiale/l-appel-du-18-juin/documents/l-affiche-de-londres.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170614070539/http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org/pages/l-homme/dossiers-thematiques/1940-1944-la-seconde-guerre-mondiale/l-appel-du-18-juin/temoignages/elisabeth-de-miribel.php to http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org/pages/l-homme/dossiers-thematiques/1940-1944-la-seconde-guerre-mondiale/l-appel-du-18-juin/temoignages/elisabeth-de-miribel.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The later speech
Is there a transcript of the speech of June 22nd, the one that was heard all over the world? Valetude (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Jonquières Square du 18 juin 1940.JPG

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Jonquières Square du 18 juin 1940.JPG

France, not Vichy France.
Am I not correct in noting that Vichy France did not exist at this time?

So saying "Broadcasted to Vichy France" is incorrect, no? I've changed it to France (the third republic) instead. Techyo12 (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Appeal of 18 June


text:
User:PRB

Template:Infobox_settlement

 * WikiProject Language Template
 * Nyangumarta language
 * Faroese language

CAT:STUB

 * Template:Heraldry_in_Malaysia
 * Template:Infobox Flag
 * Template:Infobox Coat of arms
 * Template:country data De Wolden
 * Template:country data Greater Poland Voivodeship

title: User:PRB


text: Template:NW England

title: Template:NW England


text:
Talk:Paranthropus/Archive 1

Images
I recently added this image only to have it reverted, with the edit comment "stop adding images to articles". I think this must have been due to poor judgement. I will of course entertain opinions to the contrary, but lacking that, I will be returning the image shortly. Jack 13:10, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * (I cropped the table to just the image in question.)

I wasn't aware you were in the habit of adding images, Jack. That was a strange thing for someone to say.Lizard King 00:36, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) The image of Paranthropus does look like reconstructions of the extinct hominid, of which images are copyrighted. I already checked into the matter, and if I had found otherwise all entries for extinct hominids would now sport photos of reconstructions.
 * 2) When UtherSRG says otherwise he is simply lying, Jack. Don't ever give him the benefit of the doubt at this point.
 * 3) I was asked to render the image by Wikipedia users. I did not elect to create the image, but for being prompted by other users.  Despite this obvious fact (which I am certain UtherSRG was well aware of), he elected to delete the image from the entry to spite the users who requested it and the artist who created it.  Anything short of that would not be an accurate or incisive account of this matter.
 * 4) Although, up until this point I did not think it was particularly important, most of the images UtherSRG has put up in place of my own have come from copyrighted material. I do not believe UtherSRG was ignorant of this fact.

So at this point I am going to politely ask UtherSRG, In regard to his future decisiions concerning the content of the site, to take into consideration the welfare of Wikipedia and its users, and more relevantly to UtherSRG, the full consequences of his actions, including those not immediately forthcoming.Lizard King 00:36, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Compare the image to the ones found using Google and you can see that this image has significantly more created data (shape and relative size of body parts) than matches the established works based upon the fossil records. - UtherSRG 14:08, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This image is not copywritten. Its is also the only Paranthropus image available for this article to my knowledge. Even had you another, I see no reason not to include both. The only argument against including this image which I understand you to be presenting is your general objection to all artwork created by LK, which is in my opinion entirely unreasonable and persecutory. Jack 15:16, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * No, my issue with LK is not the only factor. Again, compare this image to the existing images in the Google search above. It does not look like any of the images of Paranthropus. It does a disservice to the encyclopedia by not accurately describing Paranthropus. - UtherSRG 15:27, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * First the other image is not available on public domain, to my knowledge. Secondly I see nothing about this image that is less considerate of the (rather minimal) informations available on Paranthropus. The fact it is dissimilar from other equally loose interpretations of ancient bone fragments is not particularly disturbing to me. Rather than rejecting this image as a "disservice", why can you not accept it for the humble service it seeks to provide to our neglected reading public? The wikipedia is not about the personalities of our editors, but rather the qualities of our articles. Occasionally we must surrender a battle of pride in return for the reward of progress. Jack 15:36, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * The image is not representative of the images in the Google search. Did you even look at them to compare? Or even this search? I'll try to say it again another way: newly created images should have some reasonable similarity to the existing (but unusable from a GFDL standpoint) images. If it is not, there is no reason to include the image, and in fact it does harm by (at the least) giving a wrong impression of what the object in question looks like. Worse, it can discredit the remainder of the valuable information in the article. - UtherSRG 15:57, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I understand your position, but I do not agree with it. I do not see any need for any similarity between artists conceptions outside of conforming to the hard evidence. Do you have any hard evidence showing how LK's image differs substantially from what little scientific documentation regarding Paranthropus is available? I see no such proof. Rather, I see you focusing on the (IMO) irrellevent subtle differences betwixt LK's image and those fashioned by artists posessing differing interpretations of said evidence. The differences between any quality representations can be as wide as the hard evidence is vague. When dealing with remains such as those of Paranthropus, valid depictions of physical features neccesarilly have such an opportunity for wide variance. Jack 16:17, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * If you want specific details: The head is pointed when all Paranthropus images have a flat head.

The hands are exceptionally long compared to the rest of the body features. I agree that different artists will come to different conclusions given the small amount of data available. For instance, this image shows three different interpretations. I can easily look at the image and point out the features taken directly from the skull fossils found. I can find no such features on the image you want to put in the article. - UtherSRG 16:38, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * The image you selected is a VERY old one that was based on incomplete skulls, unlike the one on the top of the page, which is of a skull at the Smithsonian.Lizard King 21:16, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Half of the recreations on the page search you showed actually have pointed heads!! How could you miss that?  The only images that did not were based on incomplete fossils or were of a profile where the hominid was looking up or to the side in such a way that angle obufuscated the cranium.Lizard King 21:16, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Uther, at one point I really wanted to believe that this was just a misunderstanding but after looking at this you have lost all credibility.Lizard King 21:16, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) Paranthropus has a crested (pointed) head, not a rounded one. The crest was used to anchor massive jaws for masticating roots and bark. The most complete skulls of Paranthropus show this and reconstructions also do.  I was Australopticus that had a rounded head.  Uther knows this Jack, don't give him the benefit of the doubt.
 * 2) '''From what is know of Paranthropus it has been surmised that its hands and other features would have been decidely Chimpanzee like, with the exception of its Pelvis.  Again, Uther knows this.
 * 3) Skull fossils do correlate with the drawing, but only the applicable fossils of the correct hominid. Don't let him mislead you, Jack.

 * Now we are getting somewhere! IMO any objections/suggestions must be based on the skulls and other bones, rather than alternate drawings. As far as the specific objections, I assumed the pointiness was ment meerely to be hair rather than a (what would be an innacurate) pointy skull. The elongated hands I don't know enough about. I am not an expert in this area by any stretch. I do however love learning, and feel a visual image is a potent assistant in that quest on this page. Jack 17:24, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, we aren't getting anywhere. I have learned from talking to Uther that when he does rarely present a fact it is obfuscated in verbose language and inconsistant details.  When he presents a fact, point blank, he is usually lying but doesn't think anyone will spend the time and energy to prove it.  The point is, never take any fact that UtherSRG presents at face value.  If you give him credibility that quickly shifts the argument in his favor  Lizard King 01:11, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Wow, I didn't know about that crest head thing. I don't really know much about apes at all, but I do like to learn. Seeing pictures helps us learn, and tthats why I support LK's drawings. I still have not heard any good reason why they shouldn't be here (and else where) assuming there isn't anything better availiable, and a problem with size, formatting. Jack 06:19, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Assume the best
Wikiquette Jack 06:13, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. Lizard King, I'm not going to argue with you. I know you are wrong, and yelling at me is a surefire way to prove that you don't know what you are talking about. - UtherSRG 21:09, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

LOL Lizard King 21:31, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * sigh The image of the reconstruction proves my point. It has a flat head. The muscle connects to the ridge of the skull, making a flat head. - UtherSRG 21:39, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * sigh The image clearly has a pointed head. You are funny. Lizard King 21:45, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Uther, I think you should actually do some reading of that page. "Avoid reverting and deleting." "Work towards agreement." "Give praise when due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise." I almost never see you following these. From what I've seen you go out of your way to do just the opposite. a lot of time. I personally like to assume the best about people but when someone demonstrates they do thing a certain way practically every instance you deal with them, I quit assuming anything about them and work from an understanding of evidence. ScifiterX 4:44 PM EST 02.03.04

 * The musles are ANCHORED to the ridge by tendons. Just like gorillas.  Have you ever seen a gorilla head?    I will admit the accentuation of the crest might be overdone a bit on my illustration, but basically that is what Paranthropus looked like.  At this point the fossil record we have has some very complete Paranthropus boisei skulls.  Not only that but some other species of Paranthropus had a MORE accentuated crest than boisei!!!! Lizard King 22:21, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As far as the the images being posted the earlier Paranthropus skulls have a very distinct point. The later species of Paranthropus, like boise and robustus and which include some of the ones you posted Uther, appear to demonstrate a less pronounced but still quite prominent domed point. ScifiterX 5:26 PM EST 02.03.04

Why does this article sound demeaning to Paranthropus? It does seem too. How can anyone know enough about them to say they were too stupid to learn fire. Its possible of course, but the way its put.. We're talking 200,000 years ago with a thousand years being a trivial matter to us? Who knows what they did in such time frames? sunja 11:39, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Why the objection to the image?
I don't remember there being any valid reason for its removal last time, other than aggression towards Lizard king. Is there some other convincing reason, so long as a better image is not available? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 21:53, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Compare it to any other image used to describe P. boisei. Compare it to any image used to describe an extinct species here on Wikipedia. It does hold up to those standards. - UtherSRG 22:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have an image of such right here. I agree the image in my kids book is better, but big deal. The article has no image, and this one isn't all that bad. I guess I'll just wait another six months... [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 22:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No consensus on Paranthropus genus
There is no consensus in the scientific community that the species A. aethiopicus, A. boisei and A. robustus belong in the genus Paranthropus. They are commonly referred to as A. aethiopicus, A. boisei and A. robustus in current peer reviewed articles and books. To provide a neutral viewpoint, both models of classification systems should be described in detail. For these reasons I have added a disputed tag. Please do not remove until article is updated to be NPOV. 154.20.161.143 08:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added several links that show Paranthropus is considered a distinct genus by mainstream scientists. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is supposed to provide a NPOV. Although your own opinion on Paranthropus is obvious, personal opinions do not belong on wikipedia articles. I am not suggesting that this article should be changed to say that the three species belong in the Australopithecus genus, because then the article would continue to provide a biased point of view. What I am suggesting is that BOTH models of classification systems are mentioned and described in detail. For these reasons, I have added a POV tag. Please do not remove the tag until both classification systems are given the equal attention which they deserve. Also, this article does not list it's sources and so I have added, for the third time now, an unreferenced article tag. I do not understand why you removed that tag, as you did not add any references to the article. Please do not remove the tag again until this article has been rewritten in a NPOV using references or until the original references are added to the existing article. Thank you. --154.20.161.143 19:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added several pointeres to source material that has been used to craft this article, hence, I remove the unsourced tag. Equal time is not neutral, if the differeng views are of differeing weights or of differing quality. I, and the other editors of this article, have crafted the view that seems to be the more accepted or the view whose acceptance seems to be growing in acceptance. To put both taxonomies as equal would be un-neutral. I'm again reverting your tags. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the article so that it includes the POV tag and the unreferenced tag.
 * Re: unreferenced tag
 * Adding a few external links is not considered citing the source material (as an administrator, you are already aware of this). At present, this article does not cite the sources used to create it. Until sources have been referenced, do not remove the unreferenced tag. You cannot argue the validity of the unreferenced tag as this article clearly does not mention any references. This is not an arguable point. Once references have been cited, then the tag can be removed.
 * Re: POV tag
 * Although I accept your point that equal time is not neutral in all cases, in this case I am saying that it is. Currently, both taxonomies are equally used in peer reviewed journals and books. The article currently lacks any source information, much less information from peer reviewed sources. The links to external sites are not links to peer reviewed journals and books. Four links to external, non-peer reviewed information, does not represent a holistic view of the subject or the view of the "scientific community". The view of the "scientific community" can be found in peer reviewed articles and books. If you can prove, through citing peer-reviewed material, that the consensus in the scientific community is that there are three genera of Australopiths and not one genus, then of course the POV tag can be removed. I can assure you, though, that there is no consensus on this subject matter. Those in the scientific community, regardless of which taxonomic scheme they prefer, will tell you that there is no consensus on the matter and that which taxonomic system one uses relies on how the individual interprets the specific fossil remains. I am including references to back up my point, please check these references before considering reverting the POV tag (also please be aware that if you remove the tag again you will be in violation of 3RR - which applies to all Wikipedians).
 * References: Conroy (2005), White et al. (1994, 1995), Whitehead et al. (2005)
 * --154.20.161.143 22:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A quote from The Smithsonian Institute, which is listed as a reference on the Paranthropus page, which says exactly what I have said before on the talk page:

"In recent years, many researchers have sought to emphasize the uniqueness of the heavy-chewing adaptations seen in at least three separate species of ealry human. Many favor the separation of these species into a robust genus of early human, for which the name Paranthropus was the first used, and therfore has seniority over all other names. It is this classification that we favor here, but it should be noted that there is, as yet, no consensus among paleoanthropologists on this issue." -http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/rob.htm

I am not going to try adding this information to the page because I don't want to get into another revert war with UtherSRG. I don't feel like getting blocked again for trying to improve this page. I would appreciate it if someone else added this information to the page seeing as the sources cited agree that there is NO consensus in the scientific community on the issue.--Bubbleteagirl 05:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I have no problem with that information included in the article, and I never have been. Regardless of that, we still have to pick some taxonomy to present in the taxobox, which is consistent with the other articles on the subject. PLEASE YES add that information, but leave the presented taxonomy as it is. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

 * If you have no problem with this article being written in a NPOV, then why did you remove the POV tag and say "I've added several links that show Paranthropus is considered a distinct genus by mainstream scientists." The several links that were added to the site show that mainstream scientists are all very polite, regardless of their own personal opinion, stating the fact there is no consensus in the scientific community on the issue. Not only that, they state their reasons for choosing to use the taxonomic system that includes the genus Paranthropus. I can find just as many articles and books that use the one genera taxonomic system which, as the links on the Paranthropus page do, also give a nod to the other side and explain why they use the taxonomic system they do. I guess it doesn't matter why this had to turn into such a huge issue that ended in a revert war... I'm just happy that this page finally is written in a NPOV. Seeing as I wasn't the one to choose which taxonomic system is used, maybe who ever did could explain why the chosen system is used on Wikipedia. I added that this is the taxonomic system used on Wikipedia, but it would be nice if someone else could add the information as to why. If no one knows and it was a completely random choice, then the usual answer is: "it was the original name given to the genus".--Bubbleteagirl 07:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you for finally adding the needed text to the article and note that the amount was considerably smaller than all of your ranting and complaining on the talk pages. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My ranting? My complaining? Wow. I just added a POV tag and backed it up with reasons on the talk page. Sometimes all it takes is the word "not" to completely change the meaning of a statement. "It is the consensus," means something entirely different from "It is not the consensus." You were the one that removed the POV tag over and over and over again and refused to discuss why. It's a shame that you were so rude and turned it into such a huge issue considering that the information was so easily corrected in the end.--Bubbleteagirl 00:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the added disclaimer. It took me while to get the organization down here since what I learned in the 90s was that all these were under the australopithicus genus. But I think the current organization works out well and most who study early hominids will understand the fluidity in some categorizations as new information is always being discovered. All we can really do is stay abreast of scientific consensus and when there is no clear consensus pick the organization that works best in this format. Nowimnthing 17:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that special?
The article says, "specialized in an herbivorous diet that required a stronger jaw and molars". I've seen a piece in the New York Times (21 Nov 2006?) suggesting no specialization existed. Trekphiler 05:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Paranthropus/Archive 1


text: Template:FIFA World Cup

title: Template:FIFA World Cup


text:
Skræling

Skræling (Old Norse and Icelandic: skrælingi, plural skrælingjar) is the name the Norse Greenlanders used for the peoples they encountered in North America (Canada and Greenland). In surviving sources, it is first applied to the Thule people, the proto-Inuit group with whom the Norse coexisted in Greenland after about the 13th century. In the sagas, it is also used for the peoples of the region known as Vinland whom the Norse encountered and fought during their expeditions there in the early 11th century.

Etymology
The word is most likely related to the Old Norse word, meaning "dried skin", in reference to the animal pelts worn by the Inuit. William Thalbitzer (1932: 14) speculated that skræling might have been derived from the Old Norse verb skrækja, meaning "bawl, shout, or yell". In modern Icelandic, means "barbarian", whereas the Danish descendant,, means "weakling".

The term is thought to have first been used by Ari Thorgilsson in his work Íslendingabók, also called The Book of the Icelanders, written well after the period in which Norse explorers made their first contacts with indigenous Americans. By the time these sources were recorded, skræling was the common term Norse Greenlanders used for the Thule people, the ancestors to the modern Inuit. The Thule first arrived in Greenland from the North American mainland in the 13th century and were thereafter in contact with the Greenlanders. The Greenlanders' Saga and the Saga of Erik the Red, which were written in the 13th century, use this same term for the people of the area known as Vinland whom the Norse met in the early 11th century. The word subsequently became well known, and has been used in the English language since the 18th century.

"Kalaallit", the name of the largest ethnic group of Greenlandic Inuit, is probably derived from skræling. In 1750, Paul Egede mentions that the Inuit used "Inuit" among themselves, but used Kalaallit when speaking to non-Inuit, stating that this was the term used by Norse settlers.

Norse exploration of the New World
Norse exploration of the New World began with the initial sighting of North America by an Icelander named Bjarni Herjólfsson, who spotted land after drifting off course on a journey to Greenland in 985 or 986.

"They speculated among themselves as to what land this would be, for Bjarni said he suspected this was not Greenland."

His voyage piqued the interest of later explorers including Leif Eriksson, who would explore and name the areas of Helluland, Markland and Vinland.

First contact
Leif laid the groundwork for later colonizing efforts by establishing a foothold on Vinland, where he constructed some "large houses." Upon his return to Greenland,

"There was great discussion of Leif's Vinland voyage, and his brother Thorvald felt they had not explored enough of the land. Leif then told Thorvald, 'You go to Vinland, brother, and take my ship if you wish, but before you do so I want the ship to make a trip to the skerry to fetch the wood that Thorir had there'"

Thorvald has the first contact with the native population which would come to be known as the skrælings. After attacking and killing eight of the natives, they were attacked beside their beached ships, which they defended:

"'I have been wounded under my arm,' he said. 'An arrow flew between the edge of the ship and the shield into my armpit. Here is the arrow, and this wound will cause my death.'"

Thorfinn Karlsefni

Thorfinn Karlsefni was the first Norse explorer to attempt to truly colonize the newly discovered Vinland, on the same site as his predecessors Thorvald and Leif Eriksson. According to the Saga of Erik the Red, he set sail with three ships and 140 men.

Upon reaching Vinland, their intended destination, they found the now famous grapes and self-sown wheat for which the land was named. They spent a very hard winter at this site, barely surviving by fishing, hunting game inland, and gathering eggs on the island. The following summer they sailed to the island of Hop where they had the first peaceful interactions with the native people, with whom they traded. Thorfinn forbade his men to trade their swords and spears, so they mainly exchanged red cloth for pelts. They described the aboriginal inhabitants:

"They were short in height with threatening features and tangled hair on their heads. Their eyes were large and their cheeks broad."

Shortly thereafter, the Norsemen were attacked by natives frightened by a bull that broke loose from the Norse encampment. They were forced to retreat to a more defensible location before engaging their attackers; at the end of the battle two of his men had been slain, while "many of the natives" were killed. As with any inhabited foreign land, Thorfinn and his men realized that

"despite everything the land had to offer there, they would be under constant threat of attack from its prior inhabitants."

After this adventure, they returned to Greenland. Their three-year excursion would be the longest lasting known European colony in the New World, until Columbus's voyages nearly 500 years later initiated full-scale European conquest of the Americas.

Inuit folktales of the Norse
There are also accounts from the Inuit:

"[S]oon the kayaker sent out his spear in good earnest, and killed [the Norseman] on the spot. When winter came, it was a general belief that the Kavdlunait would come and avenge the death of their countrymen"

Kavdlunait (plural) was the Inuit word for foreigner or European. Compare modern Greenlandic qallunaaq ("Dane"), formerly spelled ĸavdlunâĸ.

title: Skræling


text:
Lusatian culture

The Lusatian culture existed in the later Bronze Age and early Iron Age (1300–500 ) in most of what is now Poland and parts of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, eastern Germany and western Ukraine. It covers the Periods Montelius III (early Lusatian culture) to V of the Northern European chronological scheme. It has been associated or closely linked with the Nordic Bronze Age. Hallstatt influences can also be seen particularly in ornaments (fibulae, pins) and weapons.

Origins
The Lusatian culture developed as the preceding Trzciniec culture experienced influences from the Tumulus culture of the Middle Bronze Age, essentially incorporating the local communities into the socio-political network of Iron Age Europe. It formed part of the Urnfield systems, origin of the Celts and Romans,  found from eastern France, southern Germany and Austria to Hungary and the Nordic Bronze Age in northwestern Germany and Scandinavia. It was followed by the Billendorf culture of the Early Iron Age in the West. In Poland, the Lusatian culture is taken have spanned part of the Iron Age as well (there is only a terminological difference) and was succeeded in Montelius VIIbc in the northern ranges around the mouth of Vistula by the Pomeranian culture spreading south.

'Lusatian-type' burials were first described by the German pathologist and archaeologist Rudolf Virchow (1821–1902). The name refers to the Lusatia area in eastern Germany (Brandenburg and Saxony) and western Poland. Virchow identified the pottery artifacts as 'pre-Germanic' but refused to speculate on the ethnic identity of their makers. The Polish archeologist Józef Kostrzewski, who started in 1934 to conduct extensive excavations of a Lusatian settlement of Biskupin, hypothesised that the Lusatian culture was a predecessor of later cultures that belonged to the early Slavs. Modern archeologists, such as both K. Godłowski and P. Kaczanowski, hold the view that the ethnic geography of Bronze Age Central Europe then included peoples whose languages and ethnic identity are simply unknown.

Culture
Burial was by cremation; inhumations are rare. The urn is usually accompanied by numerous (up to 40) secondary vessels. Metal grave gifts are sparse, but there are numerous hoards (such as Kopaniewo, Pomerania) that contain rich metalwork, both bronze and gold (hoard of Eberswalde, Brandenburg). Graves containing moulds (like at Bataune, in Saxony) and tuyeres attest to the production of bronze tools and weapons at the village level. The 'royal' tomb of Seddin, Brandenburg, Germany, covered by a large earthen barrow, contained Mediterranean imports like bronze vessels and glass beads. Cemeteries can be quite large and contain thousands of graves.

Well-known settlements include Biskupin, in Poland, and Buch, near Berlin. There are both open villages and fortified settlements (burgwall or gord) on hilltops or in swampy areas. The ramparts were constructed of wooden boxes filled with soil or stones.

Its economy was mainly based on arable agriculture, as is attested by numerous storage pits. Wheat (emmer) and six-row barley formed the basic crops, together with millet, rye and oats, peas, broad beans, lentils, and gold of pleasure (Camelina sativa). Flax was grown, and remains of domesticated apples, pears, and plums have been found. Cattle and pigs were the most important domestic animals, followed by sheep, goats, horses, and dogs. Pictures on Iron Age urns from Silesia attest horse riding, but horses were used to draw chariots as well. Hunting was practiced, as bones of red and roe deer, boar, bison, elk, hare, fox, and wolf attest, but it did not provide much of the meat consumed. The numerous frog bones found at Biskupin may indicate that frogs' legs were eaten as well.

title: Lusatian culture


text:
Peter Tinniswood

Peter Tinniswood (21 December 1936 – 9 January 2003) was an English radio and TV comedy scriptwriter, and author of a series of popular novels. He was born in Liverpool, but grew up above a dry cleaner's on Eastway in Sale, Cheshire.

Early career
Tinniswood attended Sale Boys' Grammar School. His career began in journalism. He spent four years in Sheffield from 1958, first working for The Star, and then for the Sheffield Telegraph, where he was a leader writer and specialised in feature writing. He won widespread admiration for a week-long series Travels with a Donkey, an account of a tramp round the Peak District with a reluctant donkey.

Television and radio
In 1964, Tinniswood collaborated with his long-term writing partner David Nobbs on the BBC sketch show The Frost Report and the comedy Lance At Large, a sitcom starring Lance Percival in which Percival's character, Alan Day, was involved in different scenarios and meeting different people in each episode. The short-lived ITV series Never Say Die (1970) drew on Tinniswood's days as a hospital porter. Set in Victoria Memorial Hospital, the show derived much of its comedy from the interactions betweenvpatients and staff. It starred Reginald Marsh and Patrick Newell. Tinniswood based the BBC comedy I Didn't Know You Cared (1975–1979) on his novels. Featuring the Brandons, a dour northern family, the programme ran until 1979, and featured Liz Smith, Robin Bailey, John Comer and Stephen Rea. In 1980, the BBC produced a series based on other Tinniswood books, featuring the character the Brigadier, an erstwhile cricketer and latterly raconteur, played by Robin Bailey. Some of the stories were adapted for BBC Radio 4. The series was remade in 1985 for Channel 4.

For ITV in 1983, Tinniswood wrote The Home Front, again set in the north of England. It starred Brenda Bruce as Mrs Place, a nosey, arrogant mother who lorded it over her three children. Two years later ITV produced Mog, based on Tinniswood's 1970 novel and starring Enn Reitel as the title character. The episodes were written by Ian La Frenais and Dick Clement, but it was not a success. Also in 1985, was South Of The Border starring Brian Glover as Edgar Rowley, a Yorkshireman forced to migrate to the south of England.

In later years, Tinniswood's output was mostly for Radio 4 and included the continuing adventures of Uncle Mort and Carter Brandon in Uncle Mort's North Country, Uncle Mort's South Country and Uncle Mort's Celtic Fringe and a series about poacher Winston Hayballs, his "bit of fluff" Nancy and her family adapted from his novel "Winston". Liz Goulding, his second wife, played Rosie.

A lifelong pipe smoker, Peter Tinniswood died of throat cancer at the age of 66. Since his death, the Writers' Guild of Great Britain and the Society of Authors have jointly administered in his memory the annual Tinniswood Award, to honour the best original radio drama script broadcast in the UK during the previous year, with a prize of £3,000 for the winner.

TV credits

 * That Was The Week That Was (1962)
 * The Dick Emery Show (1963)
 * Lance At Large (1964)
 * The Frost Report (1966)
 * Roy Hudd (1970)
 * Never Say Die (1970)
 * I Didn't Know You Cared (1975)
 * Tales From A Long Room (1980) (BBC)
 * The Home Front (1983)
 * Mog (1985)
 * South Of The Border (1985)
 * Tales From A Long Room (1985) (Channel 4)
 * Duck Patrol (1998)

==Novels and other fiction ==

THE BRANDON FAMILY SERIES:
 * A Touch Of Daniel (1968) – Winner of the Author's Club First Novel Award and Book of the Month choice
 * Mog (1970)
 * I Didn't Know You Cared (1973) – Winner of the Winifred Holtby Memorial Prize from the Royal Society of Literature for best regional novel.
 * Except You're A Bird (1974)
 * The Home Front (1982)
 * Call it a Canary (1985)
 * Uncle Mort’s North Country (1986)
 * Uncle Mort’s South Country (1990)

CRICKETING TALES AND SKETCHES: (A table of the individual pieces in these books is given at the foot of this section).
 * Tales From A Long Room (1981)
 * More Tales From A Long Room (1982)
 * Collected Tales From A Long Room (1982) - a compilation of the above two titles
 * The Brigadier Down Under (1983)
 * The Brigadier In Season (1984)
 * The Brigadier’s Brief Lives (1984)
 * The Brigadier’s Tour (1985)
 * The Brigadier's Collection (1986) - a compilation of 'The Brigadier’s Brief Lives’ and 'The Brigadier’s Tour’
 * Tales from Witney Scrotum (1987)
 * Witney Scrotum (1995) - despite a similar title to the above, this is a different set of stories

HAYBALLS AND ITS SEQUEL:
 * Hayballs (1989)
 * Winston (1991)

OTHERS:
 * The Stirk Of Stirk (1974)
 * Shemerelda (1981)
 * Dolly’s War (1987)

The books listed above under the heading Cricketing Tales And Sketches contain short stories and other humorous pieces as shown here:

Collected Tales From A Long Room - stories 1-13 are the same as 1-13 in Tales From A Long Room; stories 14-24 are the same as 1-11 in More Tales From A Long Room.

The Brigadier’s Brief Lives - contains the following short sketches:

 * 1) Miss Petula Clark
 * 2) Lord Carrington
 * 3) Mr Rupert Murdoch
 * 4) Mr Richard Baker
 * 5) Sir John Mills
 * 6) Mr Ray Buckton
 * 7) Mr E. W. Swanton
 * 8) Lord Wilson
 * 9) Mr Kevin Keegan
 * 10) Mr Norman St John Stevas
 * 11) Sir Douglas Bader
 * 12) Mr Roy Jenkins
 * 13) Sir Robin Day
 * 14) Miss Jan Leeming
 * 15) Prince Philip
 * 16) Mr Andrew Lloyd-Webber
 * 17) Lord Goodman
 * 18) Miss Jilly Cooper
 * 19) The Duke of Westminster
 * 20) Mr David Frost
 * 21) Mr Laurie McMenamy
 * 22) The Village Tea Lady
 * 23) Miss Esther Tantzen
 * 24) Andrew Previn
 * 25) Lord Lichfield
 * 26) Mr Geoffrey Boycott
 * 27) Mrs Mary Whitehouse
 * 28) Sir Richard Attenborough
 * 29) Mr Robert Robinson
 * 30) Mr Winston Churchill
 * 31) Lord Longford
 * 32) Mr Michael Parkinson
 * 33) Mr Terry Wogan
 * 34) Mr David Attenborough
 * 35) Mr Roy Plomley
 * 36) Mr Sebastian Coe
 * 37) Miss Pamela Stephenson
 * 38) Mr Arthur Scargill
 * 39) Mr Roy Hattersley
 * 40) Mr Ian Paisley
 * 41) Cardinal Hume
 * 42) Mr Ian Botham
 * 43) Mr Michael Foot
 * 44) Mr H. D. 'Dicky' Bird
 * 45) Mr Frank Muir
 * 46) Earl Spencer
 * 47) Mr Jimmy Hill
 * 48) Mr Leon Brittan
 * 49) Mr Jimmy Saville OBE
 * 50) Miss Elizabeth Jane Howard
 * 51) Mr Tony Benn
 * 52) Mr Tom Stoppard
 * 53) Mr Bob Willis
 * 54) Mr Barry Took
 * 55) Miss Britt Ekland
 * 56) Sir Peter Hall
 * 57) Sir Geoffrey Howe
 * 58) Mr James Cameron
 * 59) Lord Lucan
 * 60) Mr Ned Sherrin
 * 61) The Archbishop of Canterbury
 * 62) Princess Margaret
 * 63) Miss Jean Rook
 * 64) Mr Norman Tebbitt
 * 65) Mr Mick Jagger
 * 66) Mr Patrick Moore
 * 67) Doctor David Owen
 * 68) Mr Jimmy Young
 * 69) Sir Anthont Blunt
 * 70) Mr Clive Jenkins
 * 71) Mr Enoch Powell
 * 72) Lady Falklander
 * 73) Miss Jan Morris
 * 74) Mr Ludovic Kennedy
 * 75) Mr Brian Redhead
 * 76) Mr Brian Johnson
 * 77) Mr Reginald Bosanquet
 * 78) Mr Auberon Waugh
 * 79) Mr Bill Sowerbutts
 * 80) Mr Jim Laker
 * 81) Mr Jackie Stewart
 * 82) Lord Kagan
 * 83) Sir Harold Macmillan
 * 84) Mr John Wells
 * 85) Mrs Shirley Williams
 * 86) Mr Henry Cooper
 * 87) Mr John Lennon
 * 88) Mr Neil Kinnock
 * 89) Captain Mark Phillips
 * 90) Mr Winston Place
 * 91) Dame Vera Lynn
 * 92) Mr Feliks Topolski
 * 93) Mr Alan Ayckbourn
 * 94) Sir John Hackett

The Brigadier’s Tour - contains the following 116 short sketches:

The Introduction

The Captain: • Mr W. H. Wooller

The Vice-Captain: • Mr D. J. Insole

The Opening Batsmen: • Mr W. Place • Sir J. B. Hobbs  • Mr J. B. Stollmeyer  • Mr H. L. Collins  • Mr W. Rhodes  • Mr W. M. Lawry  • Mr A. Jones  • Mr S. M. Gavaskar  • Mr A. R. Morris  • Mr A. C. Maclaren  • Mr F. A. Lowson  • Mr Hanif Mohammed  • Mr R. T. Simpson  • Mr C. Milburn  • Mr G. Boycott  • Mr T. Meale

The Specialist Batsmen: • Mr F. R. Spofforth • Mr K. C. Bland  • Mr E. de C. Weekes  • Mr W. Watson  • Mr C. B. Fry  • Mr I. R. Redpath  • Mr M. P. Donnelly  • Mr C. H. Lloyd  • Mr G. Gunn  • Mr D. I. Gower  • Sir D. G. Bradman  • Mr G. R. Viswanath  • Mr D. C. S. Compton  • Mr A. D. Nourse  • Nawab of Pataudi  • Mr P. M. Roebuck  • Mr V. T. Trumper  • Mr I. V. A. Richards  • Mr J. E. P. McMaster  • Mr R. H. Spooner  • Brigadier-General R. M. Poore  • Mr D. W. Randall  • Mr Z. Abbas  • Mr K. D. Mackay  • Mr G. L. Jessop  • Charles Lawrence, Mullagh, Dick-A-Dick, Twopenny, Red Cap, Mosquito, King Cole, Peter, Cuzens, Tiger, Jim Crow, Bullocky,  Dumas, Sundown  • Mr D. B. Close  • Mr R. L. Dias  • Mr C. L. Walcott  • Mr T. W. Hayward  • Rt Rev D. S. Sheppard  • Mr R. N. Harvey  • Mr T. W. Graveney  • Sir P. F. Warner  • Mr A. R. Lewis  • Mr A. R. Border  • Mr H. Pilling

The All Rounders: • Mr W. G. Grace • Mr R. G. Garlick  • Mr R. Benaud  • Mr G. H. Hirst  • Lord Constantine, Baron of Maraval and Nelson  • Mr M. A. Noble  • Mr R. M. Kapil Dev  • Sir G. St. A. Sobers  • Mr P. M. Walker  • Mr M. J. Procter  • Mr A. E. Trott  • Mr F. E. Woolley  • Sir F. M. M. Worrell  • Mr W. R. Hammond  • Mr I. T. Botham

The Fast Bowlers: • Mr J. B. Statham • Mr J. Barton King  • Mr H. Larwood  • Mr D. K. Lillee  • Mr Fazal Mahmood  • Mr R. V. Divecha  • Mr W. Voce  • Mr R. R. Lindwall  • Mr W. J. O'Reilly  • Mr R. G. D. Willis  • Mr E. A. McDonald  • Mr M. W. Tate  • Mr T. Richardson  • Mr I. J. Jones  • Mr J. M. Gregory  • Mr R. J. Hadlee  • Mr F. E. Rumsey  • Sir C. A. Smith

The Spinners: • Mr D. J. Shepherd • Mr C. V. Grimmett  • Mr R. Peel  • Mr P. H. Edmonds  • Mr B. S. Bedi  • Mr R. Tattersall  • Mr J. E. Emburey  • Mr H. J. Tayfield  • Mr S. Ramadhin  • Mr J. C. White  • Mr D. V. P. Wright  • Mr J. Briggs  • Mr J. C. Laker  • Mr L. R. Gibbs  • Mr C. H. Parkin  • Mr H. Verity  • Mr Abdul Qadir  • Mr C. Blythe

The Greatest Bowler Of Them All: • Mr S. F. Barnes

The Wicket Keepers: • Mr D. Tallon • Mr R. W. Marsh  • Mr F. M. Engineer  • Mr R. W. Taylor  • Mr J. R. Reid  • Mr J. G. Binks  • Mr W. H. V. Levett

The Replacements: • The Replacements.

Radio drama
(snt = BBC Saturday-Night Theatre; aft = BBC Afternoon Theatre, m = monologue)

 * 1964 Hardluck Hall (6 x 30m, series of comedy plays)
 * 1973 Sam's Wedding (aft)
 * 1980 A Gifted Child (aft)
 * 1981 An Occasional Day (aft)
 * 1981 Stoker Leishman's Diaries (snt)
 * 1981 The Siege
 * 1981 The Bargeman's Comfort
 * 1985 Crossing the Frontier
 * 1987 A Touch Of Daniel (snt)
 * 1987 The Village Fete rpt. 1988 (snt)
 * 1990 A Small Union
 * 1992 Tales from the Brigadier
 * 1992 Two into Three
 * 1993 The Governor's Consort (for M. Wimbush) R3
 * 1995 Pen Pals
 * 1997 Secret life of the Shed–feature on shed life–with P.Tinniswood
 * 1997 Batteries not included-feature on batteries-with P.Tinniswood
 * 1997 A Very Rare Bird Indeed
 * 1998 The Last Obituary (for Billie Whitelaw;m),rpt 1999
 * 1998 Visiting Julia: 6-episode comedy drama series
 * 1998 Next time we might play better
 * 1998 The wireless lady
 * 1998 On the whole it's been jolly good (for Maurice Denham;m),rpt.1999
 * 1998 Verona-a conspiracy of parrots (for Stephanie Cole;m),rpt 1999
 * 1999 The House Swap
 * 1999 The Scan
 * 2000 Dorothy, a Manager's wife
 * 2000 Age Gap
 * 2000 The Packer
 * 2000 Admiral of the night
 * 2000 Monument (adapted from Eduardo De Filippo), dram.
 * 2001 The Duvet Lady (Billie Whitelaw monologue)
 * 2001 Mr. Reliable
 * 2001 Tales from the backbench (series 1, 4 episodes)
 * 2001 On the train from Chemnitz
 * 2001 Tales from the Backbench (series 2, 4 episodes)
 * 2002 On the whole it's been jolly good, rpt
 * 2002 The Air Raid
 * 2002 Anton in Eastbourne (for Paul Scofield)
 * 2003 The Goalkeeper's Boo-Boo
 * 2010 The Visitor (BBC Radio 4 7.10.2010, Roy Hudd and Emma Fielding)

Serials
(numbers show no. of episodes)

 * Home Again 6 (R4 2.6.1980– 7.7.1980 Robin Bailey/Doreen Mantle/Liz Goulding/David Troughton/Christopher Benjamin)
 * Uncle Mort's North Country 5 (R4 21.7.1988 -18.8.1988 Stephen Thorne/Peter Skellern/Christian Rodska)
 * Winston 6 (R4 26.4.1989– 31.5.1989 Maurice Denham/Christian Rodska/Shirley Dixon/Liz Goulding/Bill Wallis)
 * Winston Comes To Town 6 (R4 1.1.1990– 5.2.1990 Maurice Denham/Shirley Dixon/Liz Goulding/Christian Rodska/Bill Wallis)
 * Uncle Mort's South Country – Series 1 5 (R4 12.7.1990 9.8.1990 Stephen Thorne/Sam Kelly/Liz Goulding/Christian Rodska)
 * Uncle Mort's South Country – Series 2 5 (R4 27.10.1990 -24.11.1990 Stephen Thorne/Sam Kelly/Liz Goulding/Christopher Good/Christian Rodska)
 * Winston In Love 6 (R4 31.12.1990 -4.2.1991 Shirley Dixon/Bill Wallis/Maurice Denham/Liz Goulding/Christian Rodska)
 * Winston In Europe 6 (R4 12.3.1992 -16.4.1992 Shirley Dixon/Maurice Denham/Liz Goulding/Christian Rodska/Bill Wallis)
 * Winston Back Home 6 (R4 31.3.1994 -5.5.1994 Shirley Dixon/Maurice Denham/Liz Goulding/Christian Rodska/Bill Wallis)
 * Uncle Mort's Celtic Fringe 5 (R4 12.2.1996 -11.3.1996 Stephen Thorne/Sam Kelly/Christian Rodska/Liz Goulding)

title: Peter Tinniswood