text:
User:MykReeve/Alternative medicine

Medical research and alternative medicine
One significant concern is that there is often little scientific verification that many alternative medicine treatments actually work, and many of the studies cited in support of alternative medicine are not considered up to the normal double blind peer reviewed standard.

However, there is a significant quantity of research being carried out into fields of alternative medicine. MedLine, a database of biomedical articles dating back to the 1950s maintained by the National Library of Medicine, identifies 370,000 research papers in subjects classified as alternative medicine which have been published since 1966. MedLine itself does not indicate how many of these studies were controlled or double-blind peer-reviewed experiments, however, all of these papers were published in research journals.

The scientific community argues that many studies carried out on alternative medicine treatments are flawed as they use testimonials and hearsay as evidence, on the grounds that observer bias can distort results. They argue that the only way to counter observer bias is to run a double blind experiment, where neither the patient nor the practitioner knows whether the real treatment is being given or if a placebo has been administered. This research should then be reviewed by peers to determine the validity of the research methodology.

Alternative medicine chafes at the restrictions of government agencies which approve medical treatments (such as the American Food and Drug Administration), and their adherence to these experimental evaluation methods, seeking to bring new ideas and methods to the public more rapidly. The mainstream medical community maintain that official oversight is needed to prevent quackery, while advocates of alternative medicine loudly protest that their contributions and discoveries are being unfairly dismissed, overlooked or suppressed.

Practitioners of many alternative medicine treatments argue that these conventional experimental evaluation methods cannot be applied to their fields. For example, some problems recognised in Ernst 2003 include;

 * Double-blind trials are difficult for many alternative medicine techniques, which involve hands-on manipulation by trained practitioners that cannot easily be replaced by an equivalent placebo, or which require a holistic approach to treatment that cannot be reduced to a single variable.
 * Claimed effects of alternative medical practices are often subtle (requiring large sample sizes) and appear only after long periods of treatment (requiring long studies).

Nonetheless, increasing numbers of mainstream doctors and scientists believe that new research into alternative medicine is revealing evidence that some alternative health treatments are effective (e.g. Michelson et al. 2003; Gonsalkorale et al. 2003; Berga et al. 2003).

Further evidence that serious academic research into alternative medicine is being pursued comes from the existence of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States, which provides funding and other support for research into alternative medicine.

It should be noted, however, that one significant reason why less research is carried out on alternative medicine, is that many alternative medicine techniques cannot be patented, and hence there is less financial incentive to their study. Drug research, by contrast, can be very lucrative, which has resulted in funding of trials by pharmaceutical companies. Many people, including conventional and alternative medical practitioners, point out that this funding has led to corruption of the scientific process for approval of drug usage, and that ghostwritten work has appeared in major peer-reviewed medical journals.

Contemporary use of alternative medicine
Edzard Ernst wrote in the Medical Journal of Australia that "about half the general population in developed countries [use] complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)" (Ernst 2003), and it is certainly true that physicians that are subject to disciplinary actions of state licensing boards do offer alternative medicine services to their patients.

Increasing numbers of medical colleges have begun offering training courses in alternative medicine. For example, the University of Arizona College of Medicine offers a program in Integrative Medicine under the leadership of Dr Andrew Weil which trains physicians in various branches of alternative medicine which "neither rejects conventional medicine, nor embraces alternative practices uncritically."

However, despite this evidence of the increasing contemporary use of alternative medicine, in countries where healthcare is state-funded or funded by medical insurance, alternative therapies are often not covered, and must be paid for by the patient. This has led to the concern that gullible or desperate people may be exploited.

There is also a concern among conventional medical practitioners that patients may delay seeking conventional medicine that could be more effective, whilst they undergo alternative therapies, potentially resulting in harm.

Finally, there is the issue of regulation. in some countries, some branches of alternative medicine are not properly regulated. This means that there is no external control on practitioners, and no real way of knowing what training or expertise they possess.

Diversity of alternative medicine treatments
One point which is often overlooked by critics of alternative medicine is that their criticisms need not apply to all the different branches – it is not valid to lump them all together.

Alternative medicine as an alternative
Several conventional physicians have voiced criticisms of evidence-based medicine (Tonelli 2001, Downing 2003), in effect supporting the value of various branches of alternative medicine.

Alternative medicine may provide some health benefits through patient empowerment, by offering more choices to the public, including treatments that are simply not available in conventional medicine. Any positive effects that such alternative medicine treatments offer, even if they are only based on placebo effects, still provide benefits to overall patient health that traditional medicine might not have provided.

History and alternative medicine
From the 19th century and on into the early 20th century, new ideas about infection and disease were pioneered by Semmelweis and Pasteur, only to meet opposition and ridicule from an establishment which refused to examine the claims of these pioneers. Ignored or ostracized, these pioneers and others like Lister stolidly continued to work and amass evidence showing their theories were true, but it took years before the mainstream adopted them. At the same time, numerous snake oil salesmen sold remedies which had little physical benefit, and in some cases caused serious physical harm. Regulatory agencies like the US's FDA and NIH sought to remedy this contradiction by creating standards to verify the benefits offered by medicines, and a great number of falsifiable drugs and treatments were discarded as a result.

The boundary line between alternative and mainstream medicine has moved over time. Methods once considered alternative have later been adopted by conventional medicine as physicians have gradually incorporated effective branches of alternative medicine into their conventional medical practices. Supporters of alternative treatments suggest that much of what is currently called alternative medicine will be similarly assimilated into the mainstream in the future.

Proponents of alternative medicine treatments also point to the fact that conventional medicine has not historically been as rooted in science as it is publicly represented to be. One such proponent writes "[Michael L.] Millenson decries the lack of scientific-based medical practice and medicine's failure to wake up due to its own historical studies. He cites data that 85% of current practice has not been scientifically validated despite medicine's claims of the physician-scientist" (Gunn 1998).

Supporters of evidence based medicine respond that just because the scientific process was not formalised in the past, this does not mean that science should not underpin current and future medical practice.

Other observations
At least one report (Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century, published by the Committee on Quality of Health Care in America) has indicated that medical practice tends to lag behind accepted medical knowledge by 15-20 years. Thus, many medicine techniques dubbed “alternative” may actually be considered conventional, but practising physicians may either be unaware of it or lack the necessary training.

Social critic Ivan Illich believes that conventional and alternative medical practices are generally equally effective, for two reasons. Firstly, conventional practices are more effective at dealing with illnesses caused by microbes, whereas alternative practices are more effective at dealing with illnesses that are psychosomatic. Illich holds that conventional and alternative practices are equally effective at dealing with illness that are self-limiting (Illich 1976). In other words, Illich has suggested that conventional medicine treats illnesses that the human body would heal naturally all by itself without any form of treatment.

title: User:MykReeve/Alternative medicine


text:
GamesMaster

GamesMaster is a British television programme which originally aired on Channel 4 from 1992 to 1998. In 2021, it returned for a new series on YouTube and E4. It was the first UK television programme dedicated to video games.

Dominik Diamond was the host for six of the original seven series while astronomer Sir Patrick Moore featured as the GamesMaster. He was replaced in 2021 with Sir Trevor McDonald. The show's format consists of a mixture of game reviews, small "features", tips and challenges. Challenges form the biggest section of the show and generally consist of "average" players and celebrities, often competing against each other for the coveted Golden Joystick.

Origins
GamesMaster began when Jane Hewland, formerly of London Weekend Television, who had set up her own production company Hewland International, took an interest in her son's love of video games. She put together a pitch for a programme that would translate the excitement of games playing into watchable television. After some rejection, Hewland put together a video interviewing her son's friends about why they loved video games. It was Channel 4 that became interested in the concept and approved the production, though they only provided an initial budget of £10,000 per episode for a 10 episode first season.

Format and hosts
Although it featured game reviews, most of the programme was about challenges where game players would compete against one another for the title of "GamesMaster Champion". Contestants who were successful at their challenges were rewarded with the coveted "GamesMaster Golden Joystick" trophy. Dominik Diamond usually presented the programme with Sir Patrick Moore appearing in pre-recorded inserts as the 'Games Master'. During these challenges, Dominik was joined by a host of commentators. These included Derrick Lynch, Kirk Ewing, Julian Rignall, Rik Henderson, Dave Perry, Tim Boone and Neil West amongst others.

For the third series, Dexter Fletcher became the main presenter; this change was criticised by fans, who saw the new host as over-the-top, and too 'in-your-face'. To balance this, the production company dropped all other co-presenters and gave UK games champion Dave Perry a regular co-presenter slot on every episode. Fletcher was better known at the time for having played an American character called "Spike" in the ITV drama series Press Gang.

Review segments
From the very first episode, GamesMaster included reviews of forthcoming titles. In an attempt to give the programme some authority and get the gaming press on their side, as well as eliminate the need for extra staff to review games, the reviews featured a host of magazines journalists from the publishing house EMAP. This meant the programme could pool the collective opinions of magazines like Mean Machines, C&VG and ACE.

However, by series 5, it was decided that the reviews would be better presented by two of the programme's co-commentators, namely Rik Henderson and Dave Perry. It brought a much-needed stability to the format and some interesting banter between the reviewers. Series 6 also featured Rik, who was now joined by Ed Lomas, while series 7, due to time constraints and Dave Perry having resigned from the programme's cast (after complaining on-air about being "set up" during a Super Mario 64 challenge), employed two of its own research staff to present the slot, including Richard Pitt.

Stage set
Each series was set in a different location, with an in-universe narrative given for the changes of set, such as series 2 being set on an oil rig, which is evacuated at end of series 2 due to an explosion. The opening to series 3 has Dexter Fletcher announcing that the previous host (who had left the programme) had not survived. Diamond would later return in series 4 onwards which was set in Hell and then in Heaven for series 5. In the opening credits to series 6 Diamond was portrayed as falling from Heaven. The series 7 titles were a dream sequence in which Diamond travelled to the series' island setting.

Every series following Series 2 had the original series' closing moments portrayed in the series itself as the previous "set" being deconstructed in some manner. In the final series, the set was literally dismantled and the studio closed down over Diamond's final words.

Relationship with the games industry
Prior to GamesMaster appearing, games companies had very few TV programmes on which to have their titles featured. UK broadcasters had shown sporadic interest in the scene, normally confining coverage to segments within Saturday morning children's programming. From time to time, news programmes would report on one of the very successful British games studios, but in contrast to programming involving films and music videos, there was no regular showcase for video games.

GamesMaster was first broadcast in 1992, during the fourth (16-bit) console generation - after the launch of the Mega Drive, but before the SNES. Sega's success in the early 90s (with both the Master System and Mega Drive, as well as the huge hit game Sonic the Hedgehog) helped cause a video game console boom in 1991, bringing gaming into mainstream UK culture, which would only increase following the arrival of consoles with more advanced graphics capabilities, such as those found on the PlayStation. That GamesMaster regularly drew in audiences in the millions proved that there was a huge and so far untapped audience.

Despite competition with specialist gaming magazines, the programme managed to secure several exclusives over the series, showing games that were months or even years away from being finished. Because GamesMaster was largely a challenge-based programme, games studios could, for example, present a single level to be used for these competitive segments. Blast Corps is one example of a game that was demonstrated long before it, or even the Nintendo 64 that it played on, were released.

Occasionally, games studios made levels specifically for use on one of the challenges. Shiny Entertainment were one such studio when they put together a special level of Earthworm Jim. Though this worked out well for both game studio and the programme, the experience was somewhat soured when this code ended up being leaked on the Internet. It is believed that the only way for this to have happened is that one of the staff on the programme must have had links with online ROM crackers. It led to a great deal of embarrassment and likely upset the trust that existed between the producer, Shiny Entertainment and their publisher, Virgin Interactive.

Gamesmaster sponsorship

 * McDonald's (9 September 1993 – 14 January 1995) (Series 3 and 4)
 * Meta Quest 2 (21 November 2021 – present) (Series 8)

Demise
Prior to GamesMaster leaving UK television, there had been a crisis of confidence in games television over at rival channel ITV. Their children's department had commissioned another video games programme T.I.G.S. to accompany Bad Influence!. Then, one series later, they pulled the plug on both programmes, deciding that there was no demand for games coverage on their channel.

GamesMaster was not affected and continued with success. In 1998, towards the end of production for the 7th series, the programme was looking set to be re-commissioned; viewing figures were still strong, and the programme was finding a new audience, benefiting from the emerging PlayStation culture with the success of Sony's console bringing gaming into the mainstream. The production was also more oriented towards actual games players than the first few series, which had been decidedly light in feature content, and no longer poked fun at 'nerds' and 'geeks', as it was young adults and not children and teenagers who appeared on the programme; indeed, they and the publicity-seeking celebrities were now the subject of jokes.

It is believed that Dominik Diamond, along with the programme's producers, wanted to make a more adult programme that would air in a late night, more mainstream time slot. (Series 8 was going to be set on a pirate ship with buxom wenches as the Golden Joystick assistants.) There was also talk of a spin-off programme being made that would seek to emulate the US talk shows of the time. Whether this would have meant a programme that focused far less on games is unknown. No confirmation exists that any pilots of this concept were ever made; Channel 4 did not see the potential of a gaming programme for an older, adult audience.

However, changes in senior staff at Channel 4 were responsible for taking the programme off the air. The new head of Channel 4 was Michael Jackson who had worked at LWT at the same time as Jane Hewland; the two never saw eye-to-eye. Alternatively, having been the head of BBC Two, Jackson may have wanted less entertainment programming on Channel 4.

The first series of the programme was repeated on Challenge in 2003, but no further episodes have been shown. Challenge thought the programme was "too dated" and "the games being played wouldn't stand up today".

Broadcasting spin-offs
Several gaming shows were commissioned by Sky One in 1993 from Hewland International (one of which was Games World). Due to this close relationship with BSkyB, Hewland International were even successful in convincing them to launch a whole new channel dedicated to gaming, computers, the internet and technology. The Computer Channel launched in 1996 for only BSkyB subscribers, appearing for just two hours every night. Originally, the only gaming show was Game Over, made by some of the same production team as Gamesmaster and Games World. When The Computer Channel was relaunched as .tv in 1998, other shows began to start covering the gaming scene. These included Gear, Roadtest, ExMachina and also Games Republic.

The latter show was closest in style and tone to Gamesmaster, featured a themed studio set, studio challenges and the irreverent presenters Trevor and Simon. Though the show did not include any features or VT content, as it was a question based game show based on video games, it was produced by Gamesmaster and When Games Attack producer Johnny Ffinch. The series unfortunately came under fire from fans after several questions asked in the show had incorrect answers, infuriating several contestants over the series. (For example, poorly researched questions about the Dreamcast's online capabilities, and characters from Tekken).

Dominik Diamond returned to games television first as an interviewee in the 1999 documentary Games Wars, in which he commented that boys getting turned on by Lara Croft was tragic and "desperately sad". He then returned to presenting in 2004 with a show on Bravo, called When Games Attack. This programme was largely feature-based and contained plenty of Dominik's trademark humour. Prior to its broadcast, Dominik featured in a sizable Edge interview, with his longtime producer Johnny Finch. Both of them were quite vocal in stating their contempt for other shows about video games that were doing a bad job.

Though it did also feature minor celebrity challenges (mainly football players and glamour models), there were never any head-to-head competitions. To date, Bravo has yet to show a second series. However, in November 2007, a repeat of the only series to date was aired.

In 1999, the BBC filmed two pilot episodes of a new TV show franchise dedicated to video games titled Bleeding Thumbs - with Gamesmaster's Rik Henderson as assistant producer and initial commentator. The series would have run between 1999 and 2000 alternating with the hugely successful "Robot Wars", hoping to emulate the success GamesMaster achieved in the process. Two pilots were filmed and were hosted by Dermot O'Leary and Kate Thornton, and then Terry Alderton accompanying Thornton, the commissioning editor decommissioned the show claiming that "People want to play games, not watch them".

GamesMaster was also the first UK show to feature the sport of robot fighting in a news item, which at the time was on Local Public-access television in the US. Hewland International worked for several years to translate the sport into something for UK viewers. Though they never succeeded, another production company, Mentorn, were able to get their show concept Robot Wars picked up by BBC Two.

Revival
In February 2021, Channel 4 announced that they were looking for a brand partner for a potential reboot of GamesMaster. According to the description of the format, celebrities will "undergo challenges, races and fights in virtual battle across all genres of gaming under the watchful eye of the all-knowing GamesMaster". On 29 September 2021, Frankie Ward, Robert Florence, and Ty Logan were announced as the new hosts. Episodes will first appear on E4's YouTube channel before broadcast on the E4 television channel. On 25 October 2021 it was announced that Sir Trevor McDonald would be the new GamesMaster. The series was filmed at Crossness Pumping Station in Abbey Wood, London from 5 to 6 October 2021.

On 10 November 2022, Channel 4 announced that GamesMaster would continue to another series after being successful in social platforms. The next series was announced to be broadcast on social media in 2023 though as of July 2024, no broadcast had taken place.

Magazine
In January 1993, Future Publishing began a tie-in magazine, also called GamesMaster. In the May issue of 2010, Editor-in-chief Robin Alway announced that Future Publishing were 'looking into' reintroducing the programme to British television, and promised that he would keep the readers of the magazine informed of any future details. The magazine ceased publishing in November 2018, having outlasted the original TV series by more than twenty years.

Series 1 – 1992

 * Episode 1 – John Fashanu – 7 January 1992
 * Episode 2 – Gary Mason – 14 January 1992
 * Episode 3 – Annabel Croft – 21 January 1992
 * Episode 4 – Eric Bristow – 28 January 1992
 * Episode 5 – Jimmy White, Archer Maclean and Ashley Paske – 4 February 1992
 * Episode 6 – Pat and Mick – 11 February 1992
 * Episode 7 – Wrestling - Featuring Kendo Nagasaki – 18 February 1992
 * Episode 8 – Pat Cash and Emily Cash – 25 February 1992
 * Episode 9 – Barry McGuigan – 3 March 1992
 * Episode 10 – Emlyn Hughes – 10 March 1992

Series 2 – 1992/1993

 * Episode 1 – Tony Slattery – 1 October 1992
 * Episode 2 – Frank Bruno – 8 October 1992
 * Episode 3 – Vinnie Jones and Nick Pickard – 15 October 1992
 * Episode 4 – Rory Underwood – 22 October 1992
 * Episode 5 – Take That – 29 October 1992
 * Episode 6 – Jim Duggan – 5 November 1992
 * Episode 7 – Shadow and Jet from Gladiators – 12 November 1992
 * Episode 8 – Kristian Schmid – 19 November 1992
 * Episode 9 – John Parrott – 26 November 1992
 * Episode 10 – Richard Norton – 3 December 1992
 * Episode 11 – Johnny Herbert – 10 December 1992
 * Episode 12 – Todd Carty – 17 December 1992
 * Episode 13 – Bob Holness – 24 December 1992
 * Episode 14 – Linford Christie and Colin Jackson – 31 December 1992
 * Episode 15 – Ian Wright – 7 January 1993
 * Episode 16 – Mark Wingett and Huw Higginson – 14 January 1993
 * Episode 17 – Cathy Dennis – 21 January 1993
 * Episode 18 – Ulrika Jonsson – 28 January 1993
 * Episode 19 – Vic Reeves – 4 February 1993
 * Episode 20 – Gordon Burns – 11 February 1993
 * Episode 21 – East 17 – 18 February 1993
 * Episode 22 – Josie Lawrence – 25 February 1993
 * Episode 23 – Tony Daley – 4 March 1993
 * Episode 24 – Steve Backley – 11 March 1993
 * Episode 25 – Duncan Goodhew and Arm wrestlers – 18 March 1993
 * Episode 26 – Kevin Conway and Sean Kerly – 25 March 1993

Series 3 – 1993/1994

 * Episode 1 – Mortal Kombat (which featured both Daniel Pesina and Elizabeth Malecki who were both dressed as their respective characters, Johnny Cage and Sonya Blade). – 9 September 1993
 * Episode 2 – Gabrielle – 16 September 1993
 * Episode 3 – Gladiators 1 (Shadow and Falcon) – 23 September 1993
 * Episode 4 – Gladiators 2 (Cobra and Scorpio) – 30 September 1993
 * Episode 5 – Gladiators Final (Shadow and Scorpio) – 7 October 1993
 * Episode 6 – Utah Saints – 14 October 1993
 * Episode 7 – Steve Punt and Hugh Dennis – 21 October 1993
 * Episode 8 – Sean Maguire – 28 October 1993
 * Episode 9 – Monie Love (a trailer featuring Paul Whitehouse was shown for this episode, but his appearance was never broadcast) – 4 November 1993
 * Episode 10 – Nigel Benn and Barry McGuigan (live episode) – 11 November 1993
 * Episode 11 – Dani Behr – 18 November 1993
 * Episode 12 – Liam Botham – 25 November 1993
 * Episode 13 – Footy 1 Vinnie Jones vs. Les Ferdinand – 2 December 1993
 * Episode 14 – Footy 2 Dennis Wise vs. John Barnes – 9 December 1993
 * Episode 15 – Footy 3 Vinnie Jones vs. John Barnes plus a young Simon Amstell – 16 December 1993
 * Episode 16 – Christmas Special with Frank Bruno, Mike Doyle, Lorraine Chase, John Altman, Robin Askwith, Wayne Morris, Robert Duncan, Graham Bickley and Ray Meagher – 23 December 1993
 * Episode 17 – Games Mistress – 28 December 1993
 * Episode 18 – Simone Robertson – 4 January 1994
 * Episode 19 – Kriss Akabusi – 11 January 1994
 * Episode 20 – Andrew Paul and Lisa Geoghan from The Bill – 18 January 1994
 * Episode 21 – Ronnie O'Sullivan – 25 January 1994
 * Episode 22 – Randy Savage – 1 February 1994
 * Episode 23 – 2 Unlimited (Kevin Keegan guested in the Consoletation Zone) – 8 February 1994
 * Episode 24 – Crash Test Dummies – 15 February 1994
 * Episode 25 – Bad Boys Inc – 22 February 1994
 * Episode 26 – GamesMaster Team Championship Final – 1 March 1994

Series 4 – 1994/1995

 * Episode 1 – Frank Skinner (with Richard Divizio as Baraka from Mortal Kombat II) – 20 September 1994
 * Episode 2 – Bruce Roberts, Dan Falzon and Sarah Vandenbergh – 27 September 1994
 * Episode 3 – Jimmy White – 4 October 1994
 * Episode 4 – PJ & Duncan – 11 October 1994
 * Episode 5 – Andy Cole vs. Kasey Keller – 18 October 1994
 * Episode 6 – Vinnie Jones vs. Andy Townsend – 25 October 1994
 * Episode 7 – Kasey Keller vs. Andy Townsend – 1 November 1994
 * Episode 8 – Ian Kelsey vs. Camilla Power "Emmerdale stars" – 8 November 1994
 * Episode 9 – Rupert Moon and Dewi Morris – 15 November 1994
 * Episode 10 – Let Loose – 22 November 1994
 * Episode 11 – C.J. Lewis – 29 November 1994
 * Episode 12 – Marcus Alexander Bagwell and Del Wilkes – 6 December 1994
 * Episode 13 – David Coulthard – 13 December 1994
 * Episode 14 – Christmas 'Stars' Special – 20 December 1994
 * Episode 15 – Roger Black and Du'aine Ladejo (shown at 5.35pm) – 27 December 1994
 * Episode 16 – Prince Naseem – 3 January 1995
 * Episode 17 – Natalie Imbruglia – 10 January 1995
 * Episode 18 – Gore Special (shown at 12:35am) – 14 January 1995

Series 5 – 1995/1996

 * Episode 1 – The Shamen – 21 September 1995
 * Episode 2 – Jadene Doran – 28 September 1995
 * Episode 3 – Stephen Hendry – 3 October 1995
 * Episode 4 – Donna Air and Vicky Taylor from Byker Grove – 12 October 1995
 * Episode 5 – Stuart Wade and Tonicha Jeronimo from Emmerdale – 19 October 1995
 * Episode 6 – Dean Holdsworth and David Kerslake – 26 October 1995
 * Episode 7 – Phil Babb and Graeme Le Saux – 7 November 1995
 * Episode 8 – Dean Holdsworth and Phil Babb – 9 November 1995
 * Episode 9 – Johnny Herbert and Mark Blundell – 16 November 1995
 * Episode 10 – Cobra and Panther from Gladiators – 23 November 1995
 * Episode 11 – Ronnie O'Sullivan – 30 November 1995
 * Episode 12 – E.Y.C. – 7 December 1995
 * Episode 13 – Whigfield – 14 December 1995
 * Episode 14 – Patsy Palmer and Dean Gaffney from EastEnders – 21 December 1995
 * Episode 15 – Christmas Special - highlights from previous series – 28 December 1995
 * Episode 16 – Mr Motivator – 4 January 1996
 * Episode 17 – Stewart Lee and Richard Herring – 11 January 1996
 * Episode 18 – Janick Gers – 18 January 1996

Series 6 – 1996/1997

 * Episode 1 – Samantha Fox – 24 October 1996
 * Episode 2 – Danny John-Jules – 31 October 1996
 * Episode 3 – John Regis and Tony Jarrett – 7 November 1996
 * Episode 4 – Paul Leyshon – 14 November 1996
 * Episode 5 – Uri Geller – 21 November 1996
 * Episode 6 – Richard Rufus and Michael Duberry – 28 November 1996
 * Episode 7 – Chris Armstrong – 5 December 1996
 * Episode 8 – Richard Rufus and Chris Armstrong – 12 December 1996
 * Episode 9 – Christmas Special - The Gamesmaster Christmas Quiz – 19 December 1996
 * Episode 10 – Zoë Ball – 2 January 1997
 * Episode 11 – Deepak Verma – 9 January 1997
 * Episode 12 – Bear Van Beers (Beertje Van Beers) – 16 January 1997
 * Episode 13 – Tracy Shaw – 23 January 1997
 * Episode 14 – Adam Hollioake and Phil Tufnell – 30 January 1997
 * Episode 15 – Paul McKenna – 6 February 1997
 * Episode 16 – The Brotherhood (band) – 13 February 1997
 * Episode 17 – Gene (band) – 20 February 1997
 * Episode 18 – Michael Fish – 27 February 1997

Series 7 – 1997/1998

 * Episode 1 – Jo Guest – 19 November 1997
 * Episode 2 – Kaleef – 26 November 1997
 * Episode 3 – Boxers Ryan Rhodes and Khalid Shafiq – 3 December 1997
 * Episode 4 – Sol Campbell and Christian Dailly – 10 December 1997
 * Episode 5 – Emma Harrison (Christmas special) – 17 December 1997
 * Episode 6 – All Saints – 6 January 1998
 * Episode 7 – Sarah Vandenbergh and Carryl Varley – 13 January 1998
 * Episode 8 – Catalina Guirado – 20 January 1998
 * Episode 9 – Debbie Flett and Emma Noble – 27 January 1998
 * Episode 10 – Compilation look-back show (the final episode) – 3 February 1998

Series 8 – 2021

 * Episode 1 – Snoochie Shy – 21 November 2021 (E4's YouTube channel) and 24 November 2021 (E4)
 * Episode 2 – Warren Brown – 28 November 2021 (E4's YouTube channel) and 1 December 2021 (E4)
 * Episode 3 – Elz The Witch, Dev Griffin – 5 December 2021 (E4's YouTube channel) and 8 December 2021 (E4)

Series 9 – 2024

 * Episode 1 – 2024
 * Episode 2 – 2024

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

title: GamesMaster


text: User talk:62.103.79.96

title: User talk:62.103.79.96


text:
Korandje language

Korandje (Korandje: kwạṛa n dzyəy; البلبالية) is a Northern Songhay language which is by far the most northerly of the Songhay languages. It is spoken around the Algerian oasis of Tabelbala by about 3,000 people; its name literally means "village's language". While retaining a basically Songhay structure, it is extremely heavily influenced by Berber and Arabic; about 20% of the 100-word Swadesh list of basic vocabulary consists of loanwords from Arabic or Berber, and the proportion of the lexicon as a whole is considerably higher.

The only published studies of Korandje based on first-hand data are Cancel (1908), a 45-page article by a French lieutenant covering basic grammar and vocabulary and a couple of sample texts; Champault (1969), an anthropological study containing some incidental linguistically relevant materials such as sentences and rhymes; Tilmatine (1991, 1996), an article (published in German, then reworked in French) revisiting Cancel and Champault and adding about a page of new data recorded by the author; and Souag (2010a, 2010b), the former arguing the case for Western Berber loans in the lexicon, the latter studying the effect of contact with Berber and Arabic on its grammar.

Phonology
No complete phonological study of Korandje, systematically justified by minimal pairs, has yet been made. According to Souag (2010), the vowel system consists of lax ə, ŭ [], ə̣̣ [] and tense a [], i, u, ạ [], ụ [], while the consonant system is as follows:

Items in brackets are not normally used by older speakers. A bilabial click is attested in one baby-talk word.

An earlier proposal by Nicolaï (1981), based on a very limited corpus of recordings provided by Champault, suggested a smaller phoneme inventory:

alongside pharyngealised consonants ṭ ḍ ṣ ẓ ṇ ḥ as well as x q, found mainly in loanwords, and a six-vowel system: a, i, u, e, o, and ə (schwa).

Pronouns
The pronouns are: aγəy, I; ni, you; ana, he/she/it; yayu, we; ndzyu, you (plural); ini, they. Possessive forms are ʕan, my; nən, your; an, his/her/its; yan, our; ndzən, your (pl.); in, their. Subject agreement prefixes on the verb are ʕa- I; n-, you; a-, he/she/it; ya-, we; ndz-, you (plural); i-, they.

Verbs
The infinitive and singular imperative are both the stem (e.g. kani "sleep"); the plural imperative takes a prefix wə- (wə-kkani "sleep! (pl.)"). Cancel describes the conjugations as follows (also for xani):

According to Tilmatine, verbs are negated by surrounding them with `as ... hé/hi, e.g. ni `as ba enγa hé > n`esbanγa hé "do not eat!". "No" is hoho or ho: n'd'xani bînu, willa ho? "did you sleep yesterday, or not?".

Nouns
The most productive plural marker is the clitic =yu:

tsəksi > tsəks=yu

"goat" {} "goats"

This marker comes at the end of the "core noun phrase", the unit consisting of noun+numeral+adjective+demonstrative:

"these three big mountains"

Some Berber loans retain versions of their original plurals, usually with the circumfix (ts)i-...-ən,

awṛəẓ > iwṛạẓən

"heel" {} "heels"

While the morphemes involved are clearly of Berber origin, the details of this system differ from any one attested Berber language, and this plural is extended to at least one item of Songhay origin, tsạṛə̣w "spoon" > tsiṛạwən. Some Arabic loans similarly retain Arabic plurals.

The possessive is expressed by the particle n, with the possessor preceding the possessed:

wi n tsə̣ffạ

woman POSS knife

"woman's knife"

Numbers
The only non-Arabic numbers in normal use are a-ffu "one", inka "two", and inẓa "three". There also exist "cryptic" (argot) and children's counting systems. The syntax of numerals in the noun phrases is complicated.

title: Korandje language


text:
Talk:Aneurin Bevan

later life style
I happen to know, or at least have excellent evidence for believing, that rather late in his life Bevan enjoyed "the good things of life", eg wearing expensive clothes, and associating with old-fashioned noblemen, but I have no references for this. It seems to me an interesting, and to me attractive, facet of his character, and I wonder if anybody can document it? Sgd Seadowns (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 * He made little secret of his association with the likes of Lord Beaverbrook, and hints of affairs with upper class women were sometimes floated in the tabloids (Bevan and Jennie Lee appear to have had an open marriage in later years). What you thought of all this depended on what you thought of Bevan. Somewhere I still have a little booklet published after his death describing him as "The Beloved Patrician" (given to me by an uncle in the late 80s). Others thought him an appalling hypocrite and gobshite - refusing to wear black tie but instead wearing expensive suits, (allegedly) driving to Chepstow in his Rolls (no Severn Bridge in those days) and then driving on to Ebbw Vale in an old banger.Paulturtle (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Well, Bracken didn't call him the 'Bollinger Bolshevik' for nothing. It's the phrase by which Bevan is remembered and it's odd that it doesn't appear in the article. Nor does Attlee's 1955 comment on the leadership contest, in light of Bevan's attack on Attlee and resulting near-expulsion in March: 'He's so unstable, all over the place, you never know where you are with him. Anyway, he's cooked his goose for the time being and the party would never stand for him.' (Leo McKinstry, Attlee and Churchill: Allies in War, Adversaries in Peace, London, Atlantic Books, 2019, ISBN 978-1-84887-661-3, p.618.) The article is also wrong to claim that Bevan got the whip restored 'due to his popularity.' In fact the NEC would have expelled him from the party, at the instance of Hugh Gaitskell and Arthur Deakin of the TGWU, but for Attlee's pro-unity motion that Bevan should instead be required to apologise and give assurances for future conduct, which won by just one vote. (Op. cit., p.610.) Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

David Bevan
I don't understand the reference to "David" Bevan. Is it an error, or was that his dad's name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.47.40 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 4 March 2004

 * David Bevan was his Dad's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.204.242 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 12 May 2007

Comment by Marx
The article claims Bevan quoted a comment made by Marx in 1885. If somebody would like to explain how a corpse can stress the benefits of war, now would be the time to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.254.252 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 June 2005

Picture
Do we have a picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.237.111 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 10 December 2005

 * If you are interested, there is a Statue of him by cardiff castle, if you think that will do ill try and nab a photo of it next time im about with my camera —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.248.217 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 16 March 2006

Bevan and Mosley
As I recall, Mosley attempted to form an independent political group in the aftermath of his resignation. It is true that Bevan was associated with that, but this group failed. When Mosley started to be influenced by Mussolini, Bevan clearly smelled a rat, and severed all contacts with him. Bevan was never a fascist. I will do some digging in Foot's biography. When I get a citation, I will change the entry. --Train guard 17:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Whoever changed the Mosley bit did a very poor job. Bevan never joined the New Party, nor did he consider it. This whole article is pretty poor. I've just finished a dissertation on Bevan and will change this article fully in the Summer when my exams are over. In the meantime I'd advise anyone researching Bevan to double check any "fact" they find on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.204.242 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 12 May 2007

 * Article is basically correct as it is. Bevan, who by all accounts was an engaging and convivial bloke off-duty, had friends amongst mavericks across the political spectrum, even Tories like Beaverbrook and Edward Marjoribanks before the latter's suicide. He was a supporter of the Mosley Memorandum in May 1930 and Mosley's Manifesto in December 1930 - the latter became the core of the New Party's programme. Mosley at this time was advocating public works, tariffs and capital to be invested at home rather than abroad. Bevan broke with Mosley not because he disagreed with him (he later claimed to have predicted that Mosley would end up as a fascist but it's unclear that he said so at the time) but because of his quasi-Marxist belief that only a party united and with a solid class base could achieve real change. His close friend John Strachey did join the New Party for a bit. Bevan was equally contemptuous of the ILP's secession from Labour in the early 1930s. See John Campbell 1987, pp.40 et ff.Paulturtle (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Two identical articles
I don't understand why there are two identical articles, one called Nye and one called Aneurin Rathfelder 22:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In Place of Fear
Just to note that In Place of Fear is a book and not a collection of essays. Bevan frequently refers to it as a book, to other "chapters" and so forth. Andysoh 09:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely it should have its own page? (I'm not knowledgeable enough to create this though) Gilgamesh4 (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

'Free at the point of need for all Britons'
I think this is an innacurate phrase to describe the current NHS in England (though may be true for Scotland, Wales, and/or Northern Ireland). I am put off getting medications because I can't afford the prescription fee, or the £125 for having a tooth drilled, and glasses are also not free. The sentence uses the present tense, and is not expressly placed in a historical context. I do not believe the phrase 'free at the point of need' has a specific common contemporary use; 'free' to me just means without charge, 'point-of-need' I think is also generally interpreted literally.

According to this prescription charges were introduced in 1952, and prompted the resignation of Aneurin Bevan. So, perhaps it's fair to say the implementation of the NHS failed his ideal.

I am new to editing wikipedia and the BRM cycle (though I've read over the tutorial and other pages today), please advise me of any mistakes I've made in attempting to resolve this disagreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobius Greenwald (talk • contribs) 12:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

 * The point is that if you turn up at a hospital or a Doctor you will be treated. Dentistry is a more complex topic, and so are opticians.  Yes in England there is a token charge for prescribed medicines, but none if its in hospital and whole categories of people are exempt anyway.   Within the context of the article and the time its a reasonable statement.   Including his sense of betrayal at the prescriptions is relevant but "failing his ideal" is an opinion, you would have to find an authoritative source  Snowded  TALK 13:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A sizeable amount of healthcare in Briton, these days, is not free. The NHS page does not use the phrase 'free at the point-of-need' in an unqualified way, even though it is a great and succinct phrase, because it's not accurate. You mention the context of the time; the sentence implies this is specifically how the NHS works today. It would be fine if it was past tense. Otherwise it needs to be qualified, perhaps prefixed with 'designed to', 'mainly' or 'generally'.

I could probably compromise and say, as the main NHS page says, '[services] the vast majority of which are free at the point of use'. Although since 85% of Britains have to pay for prescriptions, I think it erroneous to say that the 'vast' majority of healthcare is free. The vast majority of cost is paid for, however I believe the majority of patients are outpatients and (in England) have to pay something.

'Free' should not be used in place of 'heavily subsidised'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobius Greenwald (talk • contribs) 14:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Additionally: I know from personal experience, if you turn up at A&E you will always be treated. But if, as you say, you turn up to a doctors, you may not be. If you are in receiept of income based JSA, disability benefit, or a similar benefit then you will be, otherwise you must find the money. If you have no money, you can't get your prescription. It's not free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobius Greenwald (talk • contribs) 14:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a need for historical perspective here. When it was set up it was a huge thing, it was free, it was a great blessing for millions of Britons. From what I remember there were some minor charges but I don't remember for what. This can be ascertained from reliable sources. In the past years there have been changes in the care offered by the NHS and attempts to privatize it. When it was set up it was essentially free, and the establishment of the NHS needs to be thought of in comparison to what existed at the time. So maybe a distinction is needed between the original purpose, mandate, and conditions of the NHS and what is happening now? Bevan fought very hard so far as I know to have a free NHS. Nathan43 (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read everything above. But I think on an entry about Aneurin Bevan the situation of the NHS as it was in his lifetime should be emphasized. It was an amazing success and he was vilified for it. It has been the envy of the world until recently. Nathan43 (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The NHS was a huge thing when it was set up, a blessing, and continues to be a (for the most part) a blessing. The magnitude of setting up the NHS should be emphasised in the introduction. Just, as you say, emphasising the historical perspective if the word 'free' is to be used. Perhaps the end of the intro could be changed from:

His most famous accomplishment came when, as Minister of Health in the post-war Attlee government, he spearheaded the establishment of the National Health Service, which provides medical care free at point-of-need to all Britons.

to:

His most famous accomplishment came when, as Minister of Health in the post-war Attlee government, he spearheaded the establishment of the National Health Service, in order to provide medical care free at the point-of-need to all Britons.

Any objections, improvements or alternatives? Tobius Greenwald (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

 * I don't see any value in that change I'm afraid. In the context of the time (which is what the article is about) its correct.   Your personal experiences in the present day are not relevant.   Please also learn to use outdenting in your comments on the talk page  Snowded  TALK 01:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Use of the phrase 'which provides' strongly suggests the statement is not about history, but relates to the ongoing state of the NHS. Therefore knowledge of how the NHS is today is relevant, including my personal experiences.Tobius Greenwald (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Sorry don't agree Snowded  TALK 12:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Since the question is in dispute, it needs to be justified by citing a reliable source WP:RS.  There is no point in having a debate about it, because the opinions of the editors do not qualify as reliable sources.   Just go find a source that either says the NHS provides service for free at the point of need, or a source that says that it doesn't.   If both sources are found, then we need to start thinking carefully about whether they are reliable.
 * Having said that, I think that the disputed phrase, in the context where it's presented, is creating useless controversy.  This is a biography, not an article about the NHS (there's already an excellent article about the NHS on Wikipedia which talks about the issue you are disputing in some depth).   It is more interesting to say what Aneurin Bevan _wanted_ for the NHS than what the NHS is now.   So using the present tense here is unnecessary and undesirable.
 * I think the disputed sentence should read "he spearheaded the establishment of the National Health Service, which was to provide medical care free at point-of-need to all Britons."  Now you are talking about him, not the NHS, and what you are saying is indisputably true. Abhayakara (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree, and think your proposed wording is accurate. As for sources; I was going by personal experience, not just an opinion. But in addition to the above page I cited, the NHS itself self-describes with the phrase 'Point of use' in a qualified way, pointing out prescriptions/dental treatment/etc are not free. If the contemporary NHS is to be described, even in a biography, 'free at the point of need' must be qualified, otherwise the phrase gives an innacurate image. But, general consensus here seems to be that to describe it that way would be too circumlocutory for the Aneurin Bevan page. So I am implementing your more succinct suggestion.Tobius Greenwald (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Outside comment - I think the wording change suggested by Abhayakara, now in effect, is a much better phrasing. It remains, of course, to provide a source that this was Bevan's intention with the NHS, which is really the only issue relevant to the biography. Danger! High voltage! 19:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's time and input: Nathan43, Abhayakara, Danger!, and Snowded. It's just one sentence, but I think it's important.Tobius Greenwald (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the time to research this just now, but perhaps a phrase such as "for five decades" or something in the same vein could be added. I grew up in the UK and I am so thankful for the care I got, and that my parents still get now. What is being done to privatize and impose charges in the NHS is fairly new, isn't it? I live in the US now and the state of health care here is appalling. Bevan essentially succeeded, and this entry is about him. The difference between "UK - NHS" and "UK + NHS" was immense. If you read (maybe all of you have read them) biographies of him or histories of Britain at the time, it's clear that there was a sea change that occurred in those years, and not just in the NHS. What do you think about adding a phrase to show that things are different today, but which doesn't lessen the size of the original change? As to "at the point of need" I don't love the phrase either. Nathan43 (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Nationality
British, surely. 'Welsh' is not (yet) a nationality in the sense that is clearly intended in the box. Is George Bush, for example, a 'Texan'? I think not! 131.111.88.9 (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Korean War
The part-privatization of the NHS in 1951 was to pay for the cost of Britain's involvement in the Korean War. (HymanFam (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC))
 * Which came on top of other financial pressures on the government and the numbers were pretty small anyway.  You are forming your own conclusion here. Its relevance in the lede is also questionable.  If supported then maybe in the body of the article but not here.   Please make the argument with supporting references and WAIT until you have agreement before changing the article itself.  I've tagged it for the moment but will revert tomorrow unless you come up with something and get agreement  Snowded  TALK 19:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a few books which refer to the need to pay for British involvement in the Korean War, which is why Labour had to abandon its plan for a fully-free NHS after less than three years. The Korean War should be mentioned to put the part-privatization in context. (HymanFam (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC))
 * (i) If you have a clear reference then provide it, but it will have to be explicit. (ii) you then have to make a case for it to be in the lede which is not the same thing as the main article (iii) you have to WAIT until you get agreement on the talk page to make a contested change.   I'm going to formally warn you of that and then revert.  Please wait for agreement here before making a change  Snowded  TALK 17:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Libel case against The Spectator
I admire Bevan's contribution to the creation of the welfare state as much as the next man, but we should not self-censor here. Bevan's participation in the libel suit against The Spectator with Crossman and Phillips was no shining hour, but let's please treat our readers as adults and not try to whitewash the episode out of history. Nandt1 (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure you have really made the case for its inclusion.  Yes there is a reference in a biography written much later, but its third party.  Assuming its true and fully referenced I'm not sure it is notable enough to include and certainly not at that length.   I have removing it for the moment and lets get some more involvement and discussion here if people think it is (i) adequately sourced for a serious accusation and (ii) relevant in the overall context of the article  Snowded  TALK 05:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

 * I've now gone back over the history of the article. The earlier discussion of the libel case, which stood for several years, was removed comparatively recently -- not for not being notable, but for being unsourced.  Notability is surely hard to dispute: the case is by now notorious as an example of leading British public figures (if one buys into what I take to be the now generally accepted view) perjuring themselves.  So, as to sourcing, I have so far provided three sources: one of Bevan's Labour Party colleagues and a famous political biographer, a leading journalist, and a historian.  Is this "adequate"?  It would not be hard to provide more.  It is evident that Crossman's diaries represent a crucial primary source (I believe he writes something like "we were pissed as newts").  But that would appear to be his backbench diaries, to which I do not currently have access, rather than the better-known Diaries of a Cabinet Minister.  Very well.  I have today ordered the backbench diaries, and will cite them once they arrive.  In the meanwhile, with respect, I propose to reinstate the entry. Nandt1 (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

 * You need to read WP:BRD. You think its properly sourced, but there seems to be a bit of synthesis for me,   You think its it relevant but I am not sure it is per WP:WEIGHT.  All of that means that you get agreement here BEFORE you reinstate disputed material.  You say it is notorious?  Is it?  Show me something current that says it and I might buy in.  You don't have Bevan's responses.  So with respect get your sources and argue for relevance, get other editors involved.   You have not convinced me so I am reverting to the stable state UNTIL agreement is reached here.  You need a clear authoritative source as to its current relevance to Bevan's career as a whole  Snowded  TALK 14:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

 * I accept the idea of reverting to a "stable version" of the text. It strikes me, though, that the relevant "stable version" would be the one that stood unchallenged by any users from 5 August 2009 to 5 June 2014, until being challenged, not on grounds of noteworthiness or relevance or undue weight, but merely lack of sourcing.  So I propose that, for now, we revert to that text, with just the addition of the hitherto missing sourcing.

 * On the other issues you raise, I am willing to continue the discussion. Some are easier to handle than others.  Given that Bevan died in 1960, he was obviously in no position to respond to later revelations such as Crossman's published diaries: I have to date seen nothing to suggest that he publicly retreated from his sworn testimony.  Relevance?  Clearly not challenged by anyone else here during 5 years.  If one accepts the charges, Bevan's integrity is impugned.  If one does not, then I suppose it's a Tory plot to bring down an icon of the Left.  Hardly "irrelevant" either way.  Notoriety?  Well, the pieces by Lawson and Bose are both essays on larger themes (misuse of the libel laws, and political risk-taking, respectively) that consider the B/C/P case sufficiently egregious to be worth singling out as an exceptional example.

 * How can one respond to a suggestion that the sources so far provided represent "a bit of synthesis"? I suppose I could point out that Roy Jenkins knew all three plaintiffs personally (including serving in Cabinet with Crossman) -- it is also often forgotten that Jenkins's father was, like Bevan, a Welsh miner who became a Labour MP.  But in some ways more importantly Jenkins was also one of the pre-eminent political biographers of his generation (Dilke, Asquith, Gladstone, Churchill....) and understood the handling of evidence.  Beyond this, I have indicated that I plan to cite the Crossman diaries, an essential primary source, as soon as I can get my hands on them; I've now also ordered Campbell's biography to be able to quote it first-hand.  But I must also just point out that it can be abusive of the system to keep raising the bar for sourcing so high that no citations can ever be considered adequate....... Nandt1 (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

 * As a token of good faith I shall make the same reversion to the article on Crossman, although no one has objected there. Nandt1 (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

 * You are edit warring, making the change you want without agreement, Sorry that is unacceptable.  If you edits are contested you do not simply reinstate them, you have to reach consensus.  I will tag the section you have changed and provide a formal warning.  You have not provided a single third party reference to establish that this is significant, you seem to think that is the case simply because some biographies mention it.  You are also synthesising primary sources to make a point.    Snowded  TALK 16:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

 * This is an unfair and unwarranted allegation. I have been engaged in substantive discussion here in good faith.  My recent revert was not, as you imply, to my own edits but to an earlier stable version of the text -- something you yourself suggested as an approach -- and now I am told that doing this constitutes edit-warring!! I have already pointed out that this earlier stable text was not objected to on grounds of significance over the course of five years.  I am willing to continue discussions here on the substance, and would be interested to hear what types of indications you would accept as evidence of significance.  However, I must point out immediately that jumping to a charge of edit-warring is not a constructive way of pursuing a serious substantive discussion. Nandt1 (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Let me just add for now, since you raise concern about my failure to provide "a single third party reference to establish that this is significant", that the work by Jenkins that I have already cited is an essay length piece in which be tried to summarize what he saw as the most important aspects of Bevan's life and career, and that within that brief compass he considered the libel action warranted two paragraphs, quite strongly worded at that. Nandt1 (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

 * OK, one more point now that I've had a chance to look at Wikipedia's policy on synthesis, since I didn't at first know quite what the charge was. I gather it involves drawing on multiple sources in a way that would give a conclusion that none of the individual sources would necessarily support.  I don't know whether you have read any of the sources cited for this section, but my reading of them is that any or all of them would fully support the storyline followed in the article. Nandt1 (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

 * You were bold, you were reverted you should discuss, not discuss and revert (hence the warning). You went back to a version which was over a month old so it was not the prior state.  Whoever deleted the original reference did not have that deletion contested.   You currently have material from a biography which is not about Bevan directly.   It contains an allegation which has not been tested so we can't draw a conclusion as to fact.  I don't see anything in what you have said which establishes it as significant.   All you offer is that a former politician from a different party (and formerly a different wing of the same party) wrote two paragraphs in an essay which you consider were strongly worded.   That is not evidence that the material is significant to Bevan's life.  Snowded  TALK 20:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

 * I repeat my question on what type of evidence of significance would satisfy your personal demands. I am really too old to waste my time playing football and seeing the goalposts constantly moved.  Nandt1 (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

 * I can't see any goal posts moving and you need to address arguments from other editors rather than assume they are simply "personal demands". Age is not an excuse for simply assuming you can reinstate material on your own cognisance.  The Jenkins book you reference has no chapter on Bevan so I assume you are relying on a paragraph in a chapter about Crossman.  That cannot provide evidence that Jenkins thought this incident was significant in Bevan's life, it might possibly do so for Crossman but even then I would be dubious.   If it was in a biography or commentary on Bevan's life and more than just a minor reference you would have evidence.   Using primary sources is frowned on in Wikipedia and almost always ends up as a form of synthesis or original research when it is indirect or focused on another subject.  Adding another primary source (Crossman diaries) will not satisfy sourcing requirements.  I'll just leave it tagged for the moment but if you can't provide something I'll delete it       Snowded  TALK 05:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Jenkins book does indeed include a chapter on Bevan. It is in an expansion of his earlier collection, "Nine Men of Power", in which Bevan was not included.  The version of the book that I am looking at online has an introduction by Jenkins dated December 1992.  I came to this by typing Bevan Crossman Spectator into Google, and one of the earlier entries that came up seems to be those sections of the text that met some sort of search criterion, including, oddly, several pages of the chapter on R.A. Butler, and then significant chunks of the chapter on Bevan.  Let me know if you have difficulty finding it.  Nandt1 (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link that is helpful, the version I found did not have a chapter but it was obviously different from the yours. Helpful as it is I think it makes the point more strongly. Jenkins makes the point that you should now view Bevan through Crossman's diaries as they were enemies. Compounded by the fact that Jenkins himself was seen as Crossman's inheritor. He also makes the point that Bevan could hold his alcohol so the pejorative description might not have applied to him. Within the chapter Jenkins is saying that aspects of Bevan's later career were less glorious. That as an assertion may be notable. Something like "Jenkins asserts that the latter days of Bevan's career were less than glorious, citing the Spectator libel case and ......." The examples can be referenced. That is just about sustainable and I would support it. The current contested text shows no third party evidence that would justify more than a casual reference. I also took the liberty of putting your link into the text of your comment to make the page more readable. I hope that is OK   Snowded  TALK 12:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks for incorporating the link -- good idea. I have tried to understand the suggestion made here but am not sure I have done so. En route, though, here are some observations on your comments:

 * (a) I take Jenkins to be saying that, as a general rule, one needs to 'avoid' viewing Bevan through the perspective of the Crossman diaries -- perhaps you meant to type "not" rather than "now"?

 * (b) RJ does not say that Crossman and Bevan were enemies, but rather that "Crossman did not really like or admire Bevan, although he followed him for nearly five years". Especially in political life, that is something quite different.

 * (c) I have never heard the suggestion that Jenkins was seen as "Crossman's inheritor." This is implausible for many reasons, including, but not limited to: (i) Crossman was (with however many reservations) seen as a member of the Bevanite wing of the party, while Jenkins was a Gaitskellite (indeed, especially personally close to Gaitskell); (ii) Crossman was an individualistic, idiosyncratic figure, who just was not the sort of personality to really attract disciples; (iii) Crossman's diaries unwittingly show Jenkins cynically playing on Crossman's vanity in suggesting that Crossman was a plausible successor to Wilson (a ludicrous notion).

 * (d) The question of Bevan's ability to hold his liquor is really fundamental, and your comment strengthens my feeling me that the original Spectator text should appear in the article (though I think in a footnote would be preferable). Many people believe that The Spectator wrote that the three men were drunk.  But if you read the actual quote it is far more subtle than that.  She says that they were able to consume a lot of whisky, that the Italians could not tell if they were sober or not, but they spoke of their political acumen admiringly.  These words would be entirely compatible with one or more of them being able to hold their liquor pretty well.

 * (e) I take RJ to be saying that not that "the latter days of Bevan's career were less than glorious" but that not all of it was. His own next sentence is "But much of it was".  So I don't think the article should quote Jenkins as saying what is in the above quote.  More broadly, I don't think it is appropriate for the article to treat the matter simply as something that Jenkins brought up: the significance of the libel case clearly extends beyond Jenkins's personal views of Bevan.

 * (f) You and I are engaged in a serious discussion, and I treat it seriously, but there are also some genuinely humorous aspects to the affair. One of the readings (I forget which) has the journalist interviewing members of the hotel staff.  A barman says to her, very likely admiringly, "If I had four [or perhaps it is five] clients like Mr. Bevan, I could start my own establishment".

 * The question remains, what to do. And are we really discussing the substance of the charges of perjury (their truth or lack thereof) or their notability?  Or both?  If the substance, I would be very comfortable with (and, indeed, would positively suggest) adding in a footnote that Bevan's major biographers are divided over the charge of perjury.  On my count to date, we have Campbell accepting it (or so I believe based on the History Today quote: I have not yet received his book), Foot rejecting it, on the double grounds that, as noted, Bevan could hold his drink pretty well and was only rarely seen the worse for it, and that (rather endearingly) in Italy surely one would drink the local wine rather than whisky(!), and Thomas-Symonds on the face of it agnostic, if also apparently awkward about the subject -- reporting the bare facts and The Spectator's later claim of having been wronged rather tersely (I read a review of this book which argues that the author, while handling many aspects of Bevan's career well, is least comfortable with his "lifestyle").

 * If notability, two further possible tests occur to me. First, how does Wikipedia handle credible charges of perjury over personal conduct against other public figures?  We could fan out and canvass such coverage.  Secondly, and stepping a short distance away from political life for a moment, to look at this as in part a legal matter.  In my (so far brief) look at the literature on UK libel law, I have the impression that this case is cited fairly frequently as an example of the potential for abuse of these laws.  But, if you agree, a further search could be done to see if it is indeed as "notable" in this context as it so far appears to me.  Nandt1 (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

 * You can't add a footnote to say that an encyclopaedia entry is controversial  It is obvious it is far from clear that he is guilty as charged and there is no evidence whatsover from a third party source that this is notable.  Look through your comments above, you are discussing what primary sources mean.  That is not what we do on wikipedia, its called synthesis or original research.  I've suggested a compromise which is to report what Jenkins says (as his commentary from the right of party is significant) in a sentence or two at most.    Snowded  TALK 14:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Oh dear, oh dear, here we go again. AAA.  The big question I still don't see addressed is what would constitute "evidence from a third party source" [satisfactory to you] that the story [of a leading public figure being credibly accused of perjury!] is notable.  Earlier you stated that "If it was in a biography or commentary on Bevan's life and more than just a minor reference you would have evidence".  But now that I've jumped that hurdle, it seems, the goalpost moves and "there is no evidence whatsoever from a third party source that this is notable"!!  I have further adduced that the case features in various commentaries on the law, as for example the Bose reference, which incidentally could be multiplied over and over...  No acknowledgement of this at all!  One really has to ask: when is enough enough?  And that is not intended as a rhetorical question: I am (still) hoping for an answer.

 * BBB. "You can't add a footnote to say that an encyclopedia entry is controversial". Actually, if you think about it for a moment, this is merely a challenge of drafting the entry and the footnote.  One could, for example (and this is just one way of doing it), draft the main entry in such a way as to suggest that such-and-such evidence (e.g., Crossman's posthumously published diaries and his oral comments witnessed by Wheatcroft and others) "led many to conclude" that the three had perjured themselves, and then in the footnote one could cite examples of those on ether side of the argument (including Foot, for example, as opposed)  Not an insuperable problem at all.

 * I reiterate that the story is not just one of what Jenkins thought. To present it that way is to seek (whether consciously or subconsciously) to minimize its significance (and make it seem like a subjective view of one other individual), and is, I am afraid, not a reasonable compromise at all.  Let's try to make progress on this.  I have made several practical suggestions on ways to handle this issue.

 * I will just add one further point. My largest single project on Wikipedia has involved the biography of an important 20th century US progressive politician, Senator Robert Latham Owen, whom I admire.  He worked on many worthy causes -- establishment of the Federal Reserve, the fight against child labour, etc., etc.  A fine public servant.  Yet I have not flinched from incorporating material that many would consider unflattering -- controversial land deals, typically involving Indian land; a secret deal with the German government of the day to subsidize his book about responsibility for the First World War; the fact that a leading historian of the day dismissed the book as worthless; and so on. Bevan like Owen was a fine and important progressive leader.  But I do not believe that those of us on the Left (as I consider myself) should be in the business of covering up the human frailties of our leaders, and that goes for Bevan just as it goes for Owen. Nandt1 (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Your further point is irrelevant unless you are suggesting I am motivated by covering up something about Bevan. If you are please stop and address the content issues.  Equally this constant harping on about moving goal posts when you do not deal with questions is not helpful.  Your own evidence shows that the accusation against Bevan is not accepted by all who were there at the time so relying on limited sources from those who were hostile to him in a polemical piece (I just read it again and it is) by a contemporary politician in a different wing of the party is not on.   I've offered you a compromise of a couple of sentences that record the accusation referencing the accuser and the fact it is controversial.   That seems reasonable and is supported by the sources.  Snowded  TALK 07:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed compromise
''Roy Jenkins argues that Bevan was one of the few political "stars" of the 20th Century, and with Churchill the last great politicians "never to adapt to television", great orators who needed an audience. However he also considers Bevans cynical support of Morrison against Gaitskell in 1955 and the Spectator Libel trial (where Bevan has been accused by Crossman of perjury) as the "two really despicable performances" of Bevan's life. '' I think the above is supported and more balanced. I think we probably need to note that Jenkins came from the opposing wing of the Labour Party and/or that his criticisms are disputed by Foot. Something along those lines is OK. But the extended and elaborate discussion taking one political perspective is not on. You might want to consider a sourced article on the libel trial that could be linked from the above. Snowded TALK 07:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Your proposal rests on the assumption that there are limited sources and that the accusation rests on Roy Jenkins's "polemical piece". I am not convinced that this is factually the case, but I suffer from some constraints on my ability to round up additional sources if they are not online.  I propose, however, to do my best to do so.  This will take me a little time, but rest assured that I will be back before long.  Please note that I had already proposed citing the fact that Foot contested the truth of The Spectator's charge, so I was not suggesting to take "one political perspective". Nandt1 (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

 * I have no problem with properly sourced material as to relevance and notability.  Pending you finding sourced material I am reverting the insert.  No one contested its original removal so that is the default position.  Happy to talk more when you have material.  I'd also repeat my suggestion that you create a separate article on the libel case which can be referenced here.    Snowded  TALK 19:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Noted.Nandt1 (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Fuller account
If anybody is interested, the fullest account I've ever read of this disreputable incident is in Brian Brivati's 1999 biog of Arnold Goodman, solicitor to the rich and famous. The truth of the matter appears to be that it was Morgan Phillips, who notoriously could not hold his drink, who made a fool of himself. However Bevan, who resented press criticism which he had received in the past, saw it as a chance to score off the press (in the full knowledge that he was committing perjury). I do have some notes kicking around somewhere but I'm not making any promises as to when I'll ever get round to posting them.Paulturtle (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Aneurin Bevan. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newstatesman.com/200505300005

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Coal and fish and organising geniuses...
Aneurin Bevan is virtually unknown here in America, yet I am surprised his most famous quote, circa 1945, is nowhere to be found in either the article or the Talk page: "This island is made mainly of coal and surrounded by fish. Only an organising genius could produce a shortage of coal and fish at the same time." I have not been able to find the context from which this quote came. Was Clement Attlee the organizing genius? Not much online, but perhaps a dusty biography on the shelf of some British library could put these ironic words into context. British political scholars, you have your assignment! His Manliness (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Ref 1 G.F. Will, "To Commemorate the Paris Climate Conference, Let's Celebrate Coal," National Review Online, 16 Dec 2015.

Ref 2 D. Craig, "Where's Our Coal, Where Are Our Fish?," Snouts in the Trough, 29 May 2013.

This link gives the source as a speech at Blackpool, 24 May 1945 Gilgamesh4 (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The speech was made at the Labour Party's annual conference, immediately after the dissolution of Parliament but before the General Election. Bevan meant that the country could afford the socialist programme proposed by Labour, despite Conservative claims that it would all cost too much. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Tredegar-ise
I have removed the following material - "In 1947, Bevan stated: "All I am doing is extending to the entire population of Britain the benefits we had in Tredegar for a generation or more. We are going to Tredegar-ise you." There is no contemporary evidence for him saying this, and there is also a Swindon version, with similarly nebulous origins. DuncanHill (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Aneurin Bevan


text:
User:Wikibob/calendar

This is a prototype three month calendar as an alternative to using table of contents for such things as timelines or diaries. Remember to put the NOTOC tag in your wiki source to switch off the automatic TOC. See also User:Wikibob/calendar_only.

Click here to jump to start of diary

title: User:Wikibob/calendar