text:
Fairey Aviation Company

The Fairey Aviation Company Limited was a British aircraft manufacturer of the first half of the 20th century based in Hayes in Middlesex and Heaton Chapel and RAF Ringway in Cheshire that designed important military aircraft, including the Fairey III family, the Swordfish, Firefly, and Gannet. It had a strong presence in the supply of naval aircraft, and also built bombers for the RAF.

After World War II the company diversified into mechanical engineering and boat-building. The aircraft manufacturing arm was taken over by Westland Aircraft in 1960. Following a series of mergers and takeovers, the principal successor businesses to the company became FBM Babcock Marine Ltd, Spectris plc, and WFEL (formerly Williams Fairey Engineering Limited), the latter manufacturing portable bridges.

History
Founded in 1915 by Charles Richard Fairey (later Sir Richard Fairey) and Belgian engineer Ernest Oscar Tips on their departure from Short Brothers, the company first built under licence or as subcontractor aircraft designed by other manufacturers. The first aircraft designed and built by the Fairey Aviation specifically for use on an aircraft carrier was the Fairey Campania a patrol seaplane that first flew in February 1917. In the third report of the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors, reported in Flight magazine of 15 January 1925, aviation figures prominently. C. R. Fairey and the Fairey Aviation Co. Ltd, was awarded £4,000 for work on the Hamble Baby seaplane.

Fairey subsequently designed many aircraft types and, after World War II, missiles.

The Propeller Division (Fairey-Reed Airscrews) was located at the Hayes factory, and used designs based on the patents of Sylvanus Albert Reed. C. R. Fairey first encountered Reed's products in the mid-1920s when investigating the possibilities of the Curtiss D-12 engine. The Curtiss company also manufactured propellers designed by Reed. Another example of utilising the talents of independent designers was the use of flaps, designed by Robert Talbot Youngman (Fairey-Youngman flaps) which gave many of the Fairey aircraft and those of other manufacturers improved manoeuvrability.

Aircraft production was primarily at the factory in North Hyde Road, Hayes (Middlesex), with flight testing carried out at Northolt Aerodrome (1917–1929), Great West Aerodrome (1930–1944), Heston Airport (1944–1947), and finally at White Waltham (1947–1964). Losing the Great West Aerodrome in 1944 by requisition by the Air Ministry to build London Heathrow Airport, with no compensation until 1964, caused a severe financial shock which may have hastened the company's end.

One notable Hayes-built aircraft type during the late 1930s and World War II was the Swordfish. In 1957, the prototype Fairey Rotodyne vertical takeoff airliner was built at Hayes. After the merger with Westland Helicopters, helicopters such as the Westland Wasp and Westland Scout were built at Hayes in the 1960s.

Receipt of large UK military contracts in the mid-1930s necessitated acquisition of a large factory in Heaton Chapel Stockport in 1935 that had been used as the National Aircraft Factory No. 2 during World War I. Flight test facilities were built at Manchester's Ringway Airport, the first phase opening in June 1937. A few Hendon monoplane bombers built at Stockport were flown from Manchester's Barton Aerodrome in 1936. Quantity production of Battle light bombers at Stockport/Ringway commenced in mid 1937. Large numbers of Fulmar fighters and Barracuda dive-bombers followed during World War II. Fairey's also built 498 Bristol Beaufighter aircraft and over 660 Handley Page Halifax bombers in their northern facilities. Postwar, Firefly and Gannet naval aircraft were supplemented by sub-contracts from de Havilland for Vampire and Venom jet fighters. Aircraft production and modification at Stockport and Ringway ceased in 1960.

On 13 March 1959 Flight reported that Fairey Aviation Ltd was to be reorganised following a proposal to concentrate aircraft and allied manufacturing activities in the United Kingdom into a new wholly owned subsidiary called the Fairey Aviation Co. Ltd. The Board felt that the change, taking effect on 1 April 1959, would enable the Rotodyne and other aircraft work to be handled by a concern concentrating on aviation. It is proposed to change the company's name to the Fairey Co. Ltd, and to concentrate general engineering activities in the Stockport Aviation Co. Ltd, whose name would become Fairey Engineering Ltd. Under these changes, the Fairey Co. would become a holding company, with control of policy and finance throughout the group.

The government in the late 1950s was determined to rationalise the UK's aero industry. The Ministry of Defence saw the future of helicopters as being best met by a single manufacturer. The merger of Fairey's aviation interests with Westland Aircraft took place in early 1960 shortly after Westland had acquired the Saunders-Roe group and the helicopter division of the Bristol Aeroplane Company. Westland Aircraft and the Fairey Company announced that they had reached agreement for the sale by Fairey to Westland of the issued share capital of Fairey Aviation, which operated all Fairey's UK aviation interests. Westland acquired all Fairey's aircraft manufacturing business (including the Gannet AEW.3) and Fairey's 10% investment in the Aircraft Manufacturing Company (Airco) Fairey's workforce employed on manufacture of the outer wings of the Airco D.H.121. (later to be the HS 121 Trident) was transferred to Westland. Fairey received 2,000,000 Westland shares of 5 shillings each and a cash payment of approximately £1.4m. The sale did not include Fairey Air Surveys or the works at Heston which was home to the weapon division, which had a contract for research into advanced anti-tank missile systems. Fairey's remaining net worth was approximately £9.5m.

The collapse of the Fairey Group
In 1977 the Fairey Group went into receivership and was effectively nationalised by the Government. Fairey went into liquidation when it introduced a Britten-Norman Islander production line into its subsidiary company, Avions Fairey, and overproduced the plane and subsequently faced redundancy payments of about £16 million in Belgium. The companies involved were as follows:
 * Fairey Hydraulics Ltd, Heston, Hydraulic power controls and filters for aircraft; sold in 1999 to a management buyout, the name changed to Claverham Ltd, bought in 2001 by Hamilton Sundstrand.
 * Fairey Engineering Ltd, Stockport, General, and nuclear engineering;
 * Fairey Nuclear Ltd, Heston, Nuclear components and light engineering; see also Dungeness nuclear power station
 * Fairey Industrial Products Ltd, Heston, Management company;
 * Fairey Filtration Ltd, Heston, Industrial filters;
 * Fairey Winches Ltd, Tavistock, Vehicle overdrives, winches, and hubs;
 * Jerguson Tress Gauge and Valve Co Ltd, Newcastle, Liquid Level indicators;
 * The Tress Engineering Co Ltd, Newcastle, Petrochemical valves;
 * Fairey Marine Holdings Ltd, Hamble, Management company;
 * Fairey Marine (East Cowes) Ltd, East Cowes, Ship, and boat building;
 * Fairey Exhibitions Ltd, Hamble, Exhibition stand contractors;
 * Fairey Marine Ltd, Hamble, Boatbuilding and repair;
 * Fairey Yacht Harbours Ltd, Hamble, Boat handling, berthing, and storage;
 * Fairey Surveys Ltd, Maidenhead, Aerial and geophysical survey and mapping;
 * Fairey Surveys (Scotland) Ltd, Livingston, Aerial and geophysical survey and mapping;
 * Fairey Developments Ltd, Heston, Management company:

The Fairey Britten-Norman Aircraft Company was taken over by Pilatus, then a subsidiary of the Oerlikon group in Switzerland.

The rescue action was taken by the Government under section 8 of the Industry Act 1972 acquiring from the official receiver of the Fairey Company Ltd the entire share capital for £201,163,000. The companies were managed by the National Enterprise Board (NEB). In 1980 The Fairey Group was purchased by Doulton & Co. (part of S Pearson & Son) from the NEB. At the time, Pearson's interests in manufacturing were concentrated in the Doulton fine china business. The engineering interests were strengthened in 1980 by the acquisition of the high technology businesses of Fairey, and their merging with Pearson's other engineering interests in 1982. However, these businesses were disposed of in 1986 as part of Pearson wishing to concentrate on core activities; acquired by Williams Holdings they became Williams Fairey Engineering Ltd and then WFEL Ltd.

Other parts of the combined Fairey – Doulton group saw a management buy-out from Pearson, listing on the London Stock Exchange in 1988. During the 1990s this company concentrated on expanding its electronics business, acquiring a number of companies, and disposing of the electrical insulator and hydraulic actuator businesses. In 1997, the company acquired Burnfield, of which Malvern Instruments was the most significant company. Servomex plc was acquired in 1999. In July 2000, the acquisition of the four instrumentation and controls businesses of Spectris AG of Germany for £171m was the largest ever made by the company and marked an important strategic addition to the company's instrumentation and controls business. The reshaping of the group was marked with the change of name from Fairey Group to Spectris plc in May 2001.

Avions Fairey
On 27 August 1931, Avions Fairey SA was founded by Fairey engineer Ernest Oscar Tips. Fairey aircraft had impressed the Belgian authorities and a subsidiary, Avions Fairey was established to produce Fairey aircraft in Belgium The company staff left Belgium ahead of the German invasion of the Low Countries and returned after the war to build aircraft under licence for the Belgian Air Force. With Fairey's financial troubles in the later 1970s, the Belgian government bought Avions Fairey to preserve its involvement in the Belgian F-16 project. See also Tipsy Nipper.

Fairey Aviation of Canada
Formed in 1948 the Fairey Aviation Company of Canada Limited and grew from a six-man operation to a major enterprise employing around a thousand people. In March 1949, the company undertook repair and overhaul work for the Royal Canadian Navy on the Supermarine Seafire and the Fairey Firefly and later the Hawker Sea Fury and also undertook modification work on the Grumman Avenger. The Avro Lancaster conversion programme created the need for plant expansion. The Lancaster was followed in service by the Lockheed Neptune and again the company undertook a share of the repair overhaul and service of these aircraft. The company was engaged in the modification and overhaul of the McDonnell Banshee.

Fairey of Canada also developed a component and instrument design and manufacturing organisation. The company began manufacture of Hydro Booster Units which control flight surfaces hydraulically rather than manually. Other flight controls were designed and manufactured for the Avro CF-100. The Canadair Argus used Fairey-designed hydraulic actuators. The company also produced the "Bear Trap" helicopter /ship handling system for the Royal Canadian Navy. In the early 1960s the company undertook the conversion of the Martin Mars flying boats to water-bearing firefighters.

Drawing on the parent company's expertise in the design of hydraulic equipment led to local manufacturer of the Fairey Microfilter, which had applications in industries beyond aviation. Yet another Fairey designed and manufactured component was the Safety Ohmmeter. This instrument had many applications in missiles, mining, quarrying and similar fields. The company was appointed agent for RFD Inflatable Marine Survival Equipment. This agency included sales, service inspection and repair of inflatable liferafts.

The West Coast Branch of the Fairey Aviation Company of Canada Limited was formed in 1955 at Sidney, Vancouver Island. The plant was located at Patricia Bay Airport. This facility handled mainly repair, overhaul and modification of military and civil aircraft including the conversion of ex-military Avenger aircraft to commercial cropdusting roles. Additionally, the company diversified into designing and manufacturing items of hospital equipment.

Following the failure of the UK parent, Fairey Canada was acquired by IMP Group International.

Fairey Aviation Company of Australasia
The Australian branch of Fairey Aviation was formed in 1948 as '''Fairey-Clyde Aviation Co Pty. Ltd''', a joint venture with Clyde Engineering and incorporated the aircraft division of CEC. The name was changed in November 1951. Based in Bankstown, Sydney, the factory overhauled aircraft for the Royal Australian Air Force and Royal Australian Navy, converted RAN Firefly AS.5s to Trainer Mark 5 standard. The Special Projects Division built the Jindivik, Meteor, and Canberra drones at Woomera missile test range. Fairey Australasia was the first company to be established at the Weapons Research Establishment (WRE). This was in 1949 when the firm was involved in supporting research trials of the scale model of the Fairey vertical-take-off aircraft. Shortly afterwards the company expanded to manufacture the RTV.l research rockets that were fired in Australia. From this developed a design and production factory that specialised in the manufacture of airborne and ground equipment for target aircraft and missile fields including the Tonic towed target, which can be carried and streamed by a Jindivik 3A.

In 1957 a miniature camera by the name of WRECISS (Weapons Research Establishment camera interception single-shot) was designed and developed by the WRE at Woomera and manufactured by the Fairey Aviation Co of Australasia, at Salisbury, South Australia. In most surface-to-air missile installations the cameras have been mounted in the nose telemetry bay. Although the firing lever must be replaced after each mission, it is estimated that some 30 per cent of the WRECISS can be re-used without repairs and a substantial further proportion can be repaired relatively cheaply. Its film was Ilford Photo SR101 in the form of 0.93in discs punched from 35 mm strip; weight 801; diameter 1.5in; length 1.25in; field of view 186 deg; exposure time 0.3 millisecond; effective relative aperture, approximately f/8. One hundred and ninety-two cameras were made in the initial production run. In 1988 this company was merged into AWA Defence Industries of Australia.

Aerial Survey
Fairey Air Surveys, Ltd, was initially headquartered at 24 Bruton Street, London W1. and later at Reform Road, Maidenhead, with companies across the world. The aircraft (Douglas Dakotas) and technical offices were based at White Waltham, Berks, along with a special research laboratory. Here the company undertook the design and development of anti-vibration isolators which were incorporated into camera mountings. Both mapping and geophysical work was undertaken. The UK based aircraft were sent out to work all over the world. The company undertook aerial surveys for local authorities within the UK and for many overseas Governments. Maps were also published under the Fairey-Falcon imprint. Over the years the companies names were changed to reflect Fairey ownership and operated into the late 1970s, later becoming Clyde Surveying Services Ltd. Fairey Surveys was absorbed into what eventually became Blom Aerofilms. Subsidiary companies were as follows:— Other companies were located in Nigeria, Zambia and the Republic of Ireland.
 * Fairey Surveys (Scotland), Livingston, Aerial and geophysical survey and mapping.
 * Aero Surveys, Vancouver International Airport, Canada. This company was equipped to handle processing and mapping. Aircraft included two Ansons and one P-38. Operated in partnership with Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Inc.
 * Air Survey Company of India, Dum Dum Airport, Calcutta. This branch was fully equipped for processing and mapping. Aircraft included a DC-3 and three DH Rapides (known in 1946 as the Indian Air Survey & Transport Limited).
 * Air Survey Company of Pakistan, Dunolly Road, Karachi, 2. This was an office only and no aircraft or ground equipment were permanently based there.
 * Air Survey Company of Rhodesia, Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia. Fully equipped for processing and mapping. An Anson or a Dove from the UK fleet was available for operations.

Heaton Chapel
The Fairey factory at Heaton Chapel, Stockport can trace its roots back to when Crossley Bros. Ltd having had by the end of 1916 supplied large numbers of tenders and aero engines to the Royal Flying Corps acquired premises at High Lane, Heaton Chapel to expand production. In 1917, following the Government's decision to build three National Aircraft Factories was taken, Crossley Motors Ltd was formed to manage National Aircraft Factory No.2 as it was known. The factory continued to produce aircraft until November 1918. After the First World War the site switched to vehicle production. The factory was taken over by Willys-Knight and Overland Motors for the manufacture of cars and commercial vehicles and retained by them until 30 November 1934 when it was acquired by Fairey. In 1935 the Fairey company received a substantial order for Hendon night bombers and established production lines at the Heaton Chapel factory. The production facilities at Heaton Chapel were incorporated as the Stockport Aviation Company Limited on 11 February 1936 and the Company took a site at Ringway (now Manchester Airport), where test flights were carried out.

After the end of aircraft production the Heaton Chapel works became Fairey Engineering Ltd and began production of medium and heavy engineering including portable bridges for military and emergency services use, notably the Medium Girder Bridge. Its bridges are in service with the British Army, U.S. Army and many other NATO forces. Fairey Engineering Ltd also made Nuclear Reactor cores and fuelling machines for Dungeness B and Trawsfynydd.

The company became Williams Fairey Engineering in 1986, and was then taken over by the Kidde portion of the American United Technologies Corporation. in 2000, and became now known as WFEL Ltd. In 2006 the Manchester Evening News reported that private equity investors Dunedin Capital Partners backed a management buy-out of WFEL from UTC which employs 160 people at its factory on Crossley Road, Heaton Chapel.

Land Rover hubs and overdrives

In the post-war period, from the late 1950s onwards, Fairey acquired Mayflower Automotive Products, including their factory in Tavistock, Devon, and with it the designs of its products, including winch and free-wheeling front hubs for Land Rover vehicles. By the 1970s Fairey was manufacturing a wide range of winches, covering mechanical, hydraulic and electric drive and capstan/drum configurations. Fairey winches formed the bulk of the manufacturer-approved winch options for Land Rover throughout the 1970s and early 1980s.

In 1975 Fairey designed and manufactured a mechanical overdrive unit for Land Rovers. Vehicles fitted with the unit carried a badge on the rear saying "Overdrive by Fairey", with the Fairey logo (see above).

This branch of products effectively ceased in the early 1980s when new product development at Land Rover and a trend for manufacturers to build accessories in-house forced Fairey to drop out of the sector. The American company Superwinch bought the Tavistock works and continued making Fairey-designed winches for a few years. The site was Superwinch's European base and manufacturing facility until its closure in 2019, when the US parent company ceased operations and the key assets were sold to the Westin company in San Dimas, California.

Fairey aircraft
Year of first flight in brackets
 * Fairey Hamble Baby – patrol floatplane, 1917
 * Fairey F.2 – three-seat fighter (1917)
 * Fairey Campania – carrier-based patrol/reconnaissance biplane (1917)
 * Fairey III – reconnaissance biplane (1917)
 * Fairey N.9 – experimental floatplane (1917)
 * Fairey Pintail – floatplane fighter (1920)
 * Fairey Flycatcher – biplane fighter (1922)
 * Fairey N.4 – long-range reconnaissance flying boat (1923)
 * Fairey Fawn – two-seat light bomber (1923)
 * Fairey Fremantle – long range seaplane (1924)
 * Fairey Firefly I – biplane fighter (1925)
 * Fairey Ferret – two-seat general purpose biplane (1925)
 * Fairey Fox – biplane bomber (1925)
 * Fairey Long-range Monoplane – experimental aircraft (1928)
 * Fairey Firefly IIM – biplane fighter (1929)
 * Fairey Fleetwing – carrier-based reconnaissance biplane (1929)
 * Fairey Seal – carrier-based spotter-reconnaissance (1930)
 * Fairey Hendon – monoplane heavy night bomber (1930)
 * Fairey Gordon – light bomber, utility biplane (1931)
 * Fairey G.4/31 – general purpose biplane (1934)
 * Fairey S.9/30 – fleet spotter/reconnaissance biplane (1934)
 * Fairey Swordfish – biplane torpedo bomber (1934)
 * Fairey Fantôme – single-seat fighter prototype (1935)
 * Fairey Battle – light bomber (1936)
 * Fairey Seafox – reconnaissance floatplane (1936)
 * Fairey P.4/34 – light bomber (1937)
 * Fairey Albacore – carrier-borne biplane torpedo bomber (1938)
 * Fairey FC1 - four-engine airliner project to Spec. 15/38, 1938
 * Fairey Fulmar – carrier-borne fighter (1940)
 * Fairey Barracuda – carrier-borne dive bomber/torpedo bomber (1940)
 * Fairey Firefly – carrier-borne fighter (1941)
 * Fairey Spearfish – torpedo bomber/dive bomber (1945)
 * Fairey FB-1 Gyrodyne – gyrodyne (1947)
 * Fairey Primer – trainer (1948)
 * Fairey Gannet – carrier-borne ASW (later AEW) aircraft (1949)
 * Fairey F.D.1 – experimental delta wing (1951)
 * Fairey F.D.2 – record-setting delta-wing (1954)
 * Fairey Jet Gyrodyne – compound gyroplane (1954)
 * Fairey Ultra-light Helicopter (1955)
 * Fairey Rotodyne – autogyro/compound helicopter (1957)
 * Fairey Gannet AEW.3 – carrier-borne AEW aircraft (1958)

Avions Fairey aircraft

 * Avions Fairey Belfair
 * Avions Fairey Junior
 * Tipsy B
 * Tipsy S.2
 * Tipsy Nipper

Subcontract production
As well as producing their own designs, Fairey produced other aircraft under subcontract.
 * Short Admiralty Type 827 (12)
 * Sopwith 1½ Strutter (100)

During the Second World War, Fairey produced nearly 500 Bristol Beaufighters and nearly 600 Handley Page Halifax(326 B Mk III and 246 B Mk V) Post war they held subcontracts for production of the de Havilland Vampire, and its successor the de Havilland Venom.

Aircraft engines
Fairey imported 50 Curtiss built D-12 engines in 1926, renaming them the Fairey Felix.
 * Fairey Felix
 * Fairey Prince (V-12)
 * Fairey Prince (H-16) Prince – 16-cylinder 1500 hp
 * Fairey Monarch – 2 x 12 cylinders (two engines with one propshaft passing through the other) 2,250 hp.  The P-24 flew in 1939 but was cancelled during the war.

Missiles and drones
Fairey's interest in missile production had been kept separate from the Fairey Aviation Co Ltd and its subsequent absorption into the Westland Group in 1960. Production was therefore invested in Fairey Engineering Ltd but by 1962 this had been transformed into a 50/50 joint venture with the British Aircraft Corporation (Holdings) Ltd known as BAC (AT) LTD, with offices at 100 Pall Mall, London SW1 and a share capital of £100. This was separate to the BAC Guided Weapons division.

The Fairey company was also involved in the early development of pilotless aircraft which led to the development of radio controlled pilotless target aircraft in Britain and the United States in the 1930s. In 1931, the Fairey "Queen" radio-controlled target was developed, building a batch of three. The Queen was a modified Fairey IIIF floatplane, (a catapult launched aircraft which was used for reconnaissance by the Royal Navy). Apart from installing radio gear the Queen also had some aerodynamic modifications to improve stability, however the first couple of pilotless flights came to quick endings as the drones crashed as soon as they left the catapult launcher on HMS Valiant.

In 1960, Fairey announced an agreement between Fairey Engineering Ltd and the Del Mar Engineering Laboratories, Los Angeles, California, to distribute a range of subsonic and supersonic towed target systems (RADOP) for air-to-air and surface-to-air guided weapon training in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, the Commonwealth and the UK.

The parent Fairey Company and its Australian subsidiary were heavily involved guided weapon development. The Weapon Division of Fairey Engineering Ltd was responsible in the UK for the Jindivik Mk 2B Pilotless target aircraft. This had a Bristol Siddeley Viper ASV.8 turbojet, giving a speed of 600 mph and an operational ceiling in excess of 50,000 ft.

The "Fairey V.T.O" was a vertical take-off delta wing aircraft was designed to explore the possibility of making an aircraft launched from short ramps with low acceleration. Shown for the first time at the Society of British Aircraft Constructors (SBAC) Show in 1952, the Fairey VTO Project was used to test the basic configuration of future research craft. Each wing had a large aileron and the vertical fin carried a large rudder. The V.T.O. obtained 900 lbf thrust from each Beta nozzle and, for launching, used two solid-fuel boosters of 600 lbf each, bringing the total thrust up to 3000 lbf—obviously more than the total weight. The Beta I rocket had two jets, one of which could be swivelled laterally and the other vertically, according to signals from an autopilot. The resulting mean thrust line could thus be varied to maintain controlled flight at low airspeeds. Fairey carried out many successful tests, the first of which was from a ship in Cardigan Bay in 1949.

Fairey Rocket Test Vehicle 1, formerly known as LOPGAP ("Liquid Oxygen and Petrol Guided Anti-Aircraft Projectile"). The original design can be traced back to the 1944 Royal Navy specification for a guided anti-aircraft missile known as LOPGAP. In 1947, the Royal Aircraft Establishment took over development work and the missile was renamed RTV1. Several versions of the basic RTV1 were developed.

The Fairey Aviation Company of Australasia Pty Ltd was awarded a contract to build 40 RTV1e rockets. The first of which were completed in early 1954. Components were built by the Royal Australian Navy Torpedo Establishment (hydraulic servo units), EMI (guidance receivers and amplifiers) and the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (magnesium castings). Some parts were also imported from the UK. Assembly was undertaken at Salisbury, South Australia by the Special Projects Division of Fairey. Test firings took place in 1955–56 but by this time the RTV1 was considered obsolete RTV1e was the beam guidance test vehicle. Radar guidance was provided by a radar unit which projected a narrow beam. Different versions of the test vehicle were created and each was concerned with a different aspect of control, guidance, propulsion and aerodynamics of the complete rocket. The RTV 1e was a two-stage liquid fuel rocket used for research and development into problems associated with beam riding missiles. It was fired at an angle of 35 degrees with a maximum altitude of about 12,000 feet. The vehicle was launched by seven solid booster rockets which had a burn time of four seconds, after which the liquid fuel sustainer motor took over.

At the 1954 Farnborough Airshow, Fairey Australia displayed a massive missile resembling the RTV-1. The base was formed by a booster unit about 6 ft high and 20 inches in diameter, stabilised by four large and four small fins and housing seven five-inch motors. The main body was about 17 ft in length with a diameter of 10 in. The body was fitted with four wings and four small control vanes.

Fairey Australia also displayed an aerodynamic test vehicle, described as a "three-inch winged round". This was a simple projectile, without guidance, to aid investigations into the properties of various wing/body assemblies at high supersonic speeds. The example shown was about 6 ft long, and had a finely finished, white-painted body apparently made of seamless tube. About two-thirds of the way back from the nose was fitted a laminated-wood wing of about two feet span, positioned across a diameter of the body, with a root chord of some 18 inches and a quarter-chord sweep of about 50 degrees.

In April 1947 Fairey released details of its first guided missile It was an anti-aircraft weapon designed for use in the Pacific war but not completed in time for use by the British Army (who originally ordered it) or for the Royal Navy. The Ministry of Supply requested that the work be completed, and the Stooge was the outcome. It had a length of 7 ft, a span of 6 ft, a body diameter of 17 in, and weighing 738 lb, with a warhead. Propulsion was by four 75 lbf-thrust solid-fuel main rockets, but initially four additional booster rockets delivering further 5,600 lb thrust accelerated the Stooge off its 10 ft long launching ramp. Unlike later designs, the Stooge was intended for high subsonic speeds—and limited ranges. The Stooge consisted of two-stage propulsion, an autopilot, radio control equipment with additional ground unit, and a warhead. The Stooge required a launching ramp and transport. The missile was extensively tested at Woomera

The Malkara missile was designed in Australia by British and Australian companies. It was a heavy wire-guided missile for deployment from vehicles, light naval craft and fixed emplacements. This weapon replaced the Fairey "Orange William" project for the MoS which would later lead to Swingfire. Fairey Engineering had the sales agency for all countries outside the US, and was also appointed by the Australian Department of Supply's to assist in the introduction of the Malkara to operational service and to design and produce modifications. The missile was in service with the Royal Armoured Corps, deployed on a special vehicle—the Humber Hornet, made by Wharton Engineering—which carried two rounds on launchers and two rounds stowed. The Hornet could be air-dropped, had a crew of three. For training purposes the Malkara Mk I was used, with a range of some 2,000 m (6,600 ft). The operational weapon was the Malkara Mk 1 A, which had a different type of tracking flare, thinner guidance wire, and other improvements to give approximately double the range of Mk 1.

The Fairey Fireflash was an early air-to-air weapon guided by radar beam riding. Developed as "Blue Sky" – a derated version of the Red Hawk missile. It was in service briefly before being replaced by the de Havilland Firestreak.

Green Cheese was a tactical nuclear anti-ship missile for use with the Gannet. Problems with Gannet led to continued development with the Blackburn Buccaneer but it was cancelled.

Fairey Marine
Fairey Marine Ltd was begun in the late 1940s by Sir Richard Fairey and Fairey Aviation's Managing Director, Mr Chichester-Smith. Both were avid sailing enthusiasts. Utilising techniques developed in the aircraft industry during WWII both men decided that they should produce sailing dinghies and so recruited Charles Currey to help run the company when he came out of the Navy. In the following years, thousands of dinghies were produced by Fairey Marine including the Firefly, Albacore, Falcon, Swordfish, Jollyboat, Flying Fifteen, 505 and International 14's along with the much smaller Dinky and Duckling. Later on in the 1950s they produced the larger sailing cruisers, the Atalanta (named after Sir Richard's first son's wife), Titania, Fulmar and the 27 ft Fisherman motor sailer (based on the Fairey Lifeboat hull) along with the 15 Cinderella (outboard runabout) and the 16'6" Faun (outboard powered family cruiser).

Fairey Band
In 1937, workers at the Fairey aviation plant formed a brass band. For some sixty years the band was associated with the company and its successors, although the Fairey Band has now had to turn to external sources for financial backing. Throughout its history though the band has retained its identity with the company under guises as the Fairey Aviation Works Band, Williams Fairey Band and later Fairey (FP Music) Band. The band has recently returned to roots, rebranding as just The Fairey Band. The Fairey Band has won many national and international titles throughout its proud history.

title: Fairey Aviation Company


text:
Fairey

Fairey may refer to:

People

 * Charles Richard Fairey, British aircraft manufacturer
 * David Fairey, English cricketer
 * Francis Fairey (1887 - 1971), Canadian politician
 * Jim Fairey, baseball player
 * Mike Fairey, British businessman
 * Shepard Fairey, American artist, designed the Barack Obama "Hope" poster

Companies

 * Fairey Aviation Company, British aircraft company
 * Avions Fairey, the Belgian-based subsidiary of the British Fairey Aviation Company
 * Fairey Marine Ltd, a shipbuilding company based on the River Hamble, Southampton, England

Aircraft
Many "Fairey" aircraft were made by the Fairey Aviation Company — see Fairey Aviation Company § Aircraft

Other

 * Fairey Fireflash was the first British air-to-air missile
 * Fairey Band is a brass band based in Heaton Chapel in Stockport, Greater Manchester

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

title: Fairey


text:
Frenzy

Frenzy is a 1972 British thriller film directed by Alfred Hitchcock. It is the penultimate feature film of his extensive career. The screenplay by Anthony Shaffer was based on the 1966 novel Goodbye Piccadilly, Farewell Leicester Square by Arthur La Bern. The film stars Jon Finch, Alec McCowen and Barry Foster and features Billie Whitelaw, Anna Massey, Barbara Leigh-Hunt, Bernard Cribbins and Vivien Merchant. The original music score was composed by Ron Goodwin.

The plot centres on a serial killer in contemporary London and the ex-RAF serviceman he implicates. In a very early scene there is dialogue that mentions two actual London serial murder cases: the Christie murders in the 1940s-1950s and the Jack the Ripper murders in 1888. Barry Foster has said that, in order to prepare for his role, he was asked by Hitchcock to study two books about Neville Heath, an English double murderer who would often pass himself off as an officer in the RAF.

Frenzy was the third and final film that Hitchcock made in Britain after he moved to Hollywood in 1939. The other two were Under Capricorn in 1949 and Stage Fright in 1950. (There were some interior and exterior scenes filmed in London for the 1956 remake of The Man Who Knew Too Much.) The last film he made in Britain before his move to the United States was Jamaica Inn (1939). Frenzy was the only Hitchcock film given an R rating during its initial release. Frenzy was screened at the 1972 Cannes Film Festival, but it was not entered into the main competition. Some critics – such as Raymond Foery, author of Alfred Hitchcock's Frenzy: The Last Masterpiece – consider Frenzy the last great Hitchcock film, and a return to form after his two previous works: Topaz and Torn Curtain.

Plot
Former RAF squadron leader Richard Blaney is fired from his job as a bartender in a pub near Covent Garden. He laments his loss with his friend Bob Rusk, who runs a fruit and vegetable stall in Covent Garden. Rusk consoles him and gives a tip on a forthcoming horse-race, but Blaney has no money to bet. He visits his ex-wife Brenda, who runs a successful matchmaking agency, and complains loudly about his situation. They briefly argue, but she invites him to dinner. Broke, Blaney ends up spending the night at a Salvation Army shelter, where he discovers that Brenda has slipped money into his coat pocket.

On the following day, Rusk, whom the agency has turned away because of his creepy sexual proclivities, arrives at Brenda's office. Finding her alone, he rapes her, then strangles her with his necktie, revealing that he is the serial killer whom the newspapers have dubbed the "Necktie Murderer". After Rusk leaves, Blaney arrives, hoping to talk to Brenda again, but he finds her office locked. Brenda's secretary, returning from lunch, sees Blaney leaving. When the murder is discovered, Blaney becomes the prime suspect.

Blaney meets up with Babs Milligan, his former pub co-worker, and convinces her that he is innocent. The two stay at a hotel, where they make love, then narrowly dodge the police. They appeal to one of Blaney's RAF buddies for help, but the man's wife refuses to harbour a fugitive. Blaney persuades Babs to fetch his belongings from the pub, so he can flee. While there, Babs runs into Rusk, who offers to let her use his flat for the night. After taking Babs there, he rapes and murders her. He hides her body in a sack and, late that night, stows it in the back of a lorry hauling potatoes. Back in his room, Rusk discovers that his distinctive jewelled tie pin (with the initial R) is missing, and realizes that Babs must have torn it off while he was strangling her. Knowing the tie pin will incriminate him, Rusk goes to retrieve it, but the lorry starts off on its journey while he is still inside. In spite of the bumpy ride, he retrieves the pin that is still clutched in Babs's hand. Dishevelled and covered in potato-dust, he gets out at a roadside café, then returns to his Covent Garden flat. When Babs's body is discovered, Blaney is suspected of her murder as well as Brenda's.

Blaney, unaware that Rusk is the actual murderer, turns to him for help. Rusk offers to hide Blaney at his flat and then tips off the police. In the face of this treachery, Blaney realizes that Rusk must be the murderer. At the trial, the jury finds Blaney guilty. During the trial and while being led away to prison, Blaney loudly protests that he is innocent and that Rusk is the real killer. Chief Inspector Oxford reconsiders the evidence and quietly investigates Rusk. He discusses the case with his wife while trying to avoid eating the unappetizing food she has learned to prepare in an "exotic cooking" course.

Blaney, now in prison, vows to escape and avenge himself on Rusk. He deliberately injures himself and is taken to the hospital, where his fellow inmate patients help him escape. He goes to Rusk's flat; Rusk is not there, but Blaney, thinking that Rusk is sleeping, hits that person on the head. It is revealed that that was not Rusk but a woman already dead in Rusk's bed, strangled with Rusk's necktie. Inspector Oxford, who has anticipated that Blaney would go after Rusk, arrives to find Blaney with the dead woman. Just as Blaney begins to protest his innocence, the two hear a loud banging noise coming from the stairwell. Rusk enters, dragging a large trunk into the flat, and is confronted by Blaney and Oxford. Realizing that his game is well and truly up, Rusk drops the trunk in defeat.

Cast

 * Jon Finch as Richard Blaney
 * Alec McCowen as Chief Inspector Timothy Oxford
 * Barry Foster as Bob Rusk
 * Billie Whitelaw as Hetty Porter
 * Anna Massey as Babs Milligan
 * Barbara Leigh-Hunt as Brenda Blaney
 * Bernard Cribbins as Felix Forsythe
 * Vivien Merchant as Mrs. Oxford
 * Michael Bates as Sergeant Spearman
 * Jean Marsh as Monica Barling
 * Clive Swift as Johnny Porter
 * Madge Ryan as Mrs. Davison
 * Elsie Randolph as Gladys
 * John Boxer as Sir George
 * Jimmy Gardner as Hotel Porter
 * Gerald Sim as Solicitor in Pub
 * Noel Johnson as Doctor in Pub
 * Rita Webb as Mrs. Rusk (uncredited)
 * Michael Sheard as Jim, Rusk's friend in pub (uncredited)
 * Richard Stapley as Truck Driver (uncredited)
 * Susan Travers as Rusk's final victim (uncredited)

Cast notes
 * Alfred Hitchcock's cameo appearance can be seen three minutes into the film in the centre of a crowd scene, wearing a bowler hat. Teaser trailers show a Hitchcock-like dummy floating in the River Thames and Hitchcock introducing the audience to Covent Garden via the fourth wall.
 * Michael Caine was Hitchcock's first choice for the role of Rusk, the main antagonist, but as Caine later said, "He offered me the part of a sadist who murdered women and I won't play that. I have a sort of moral thing and I refused to play it and he never spoke to me again."
 * Barry Foster was cast after Hitchcock saw him in Twisted Nerve (which featured Frenzy co-star Billie Whitelaw).
 * Vanessa Redgrave reportedly turned down the role of Brenda, and Deep Red's David Hemmings (who had co-starred with Redgrave in Blowup) was considered to play Blaney.
 * Helen Mirren, who later in life played Hitchcock's wife Alma Reville in Hitchcock, met with the director to discuss the role of Babs Milligan. "I didn't like Hitchcock very much," Mirren said years later, "and he didn't like me very much either ... I didn't really want to be in the movie."

Development
After a pair of unsuccessful films depicting political intrigue and espionage, Hitchcock returned to the murder genre with this film. The narrative makes use of the familiar Hitchcock theme of an innocent man overwhelmed by circumstantial evidence and wrongly assumed to be guilty.

Hitchcock announced the project in March 1968.

Hitchcock approached Vladimir Nabokov to write the script, but the author turned him down because he was busy on a book. He then hired Anthony Shaffer.

"It will be done comedically", said Hitchcock.

The film starred relative newcomers in the lead roles. "I prefer a fresh face", he said.

Shooting
Filming began in July 1971.

Hitchcock set and filmed Frenzy in London after many years making films in the United States. The film opens with a sweeping shot along the Thames to Tower Bridge; and while the interior scenes were filmed at Pinewood Studios, much of the location filming was done in and around Covent Garden and was an homage to the London of Hitchcock's childhood. The son of a Covent Garden merchant himself, Hitchcock filmed several key scenes showing the area as the working produce market it was. Aware that the area's days as a market were numbered, Hitchcock wanted to record the area as he remembered it. According to the 'making-of' feature on the DVD, an elderly man who remembered Hitchcock's father as a dealer in the vegetable market came to visit the set during the filming and was treated to lunch by the director.

No. 31, Ennismore Gardens Mews, was used as the home of Brenda Margaret Blaney during the filming of Frenzy.

During shooting for the film, Hitchcock's wife and long-time collaborator Alma had a stroke. As a result, some sequences were shot without Hitchcock on the set so he could tend to his wife.

The film was the first Hitchcock film to have nudity (with the arguable exception of the shower scene in Psycho). The nude scenes used body doubles in place of Barbara Leigh-Hunt and Anna Massey. The nude scene which shows the first victim being raped and strangled was called by Donald Spoto  "one of the most repellent examples of a detailed murder in the history of film". There are a number of classic Hitchcock set pieces in the film, particularly the long tracking shot down the stairs when Babs is murdered. The camera moves down the stairs, out of the doorway (with a rather clever edit just after the camera exits the door which marks where the scene moves from the studio to the location footage) and across the street, where the usual activity in the market district goes on with patrons unaware that a murder is occurring in the building. A second sequence set in the back of a delivery truck full of potatoes increases the suspense, as the murderer Rusk attempts to retrieve his tie pin from the corpse of Babs. Rusk struggles with the hand and has to break the fingers of the corpse in order to retrieve his tie pin and try to escape unseen from the truck.

The part of London shown in the film still exists more or less intact, but the fruit and vegetable market no longer operates from that site, having relocated in 1974. The buildings seen in the film are now occupied by banks and legal offices, restaurants and nightclubs, such as Henrietta Street, where Rusk lived (and Babs met her untimely demise). Oxford Street, which had the back alley (Dryden Chambers, now demolished) leading to Brenda Blaney's matrimonial agency, is the busiest shopping area in Britain. Nell of Old Drury, which is the public house where the doctor and solicitor had their frank, plot-assisting discussion on sex killers, is still a thriving bar. The lanes where merchants and workers once carried their produce, as seen in the film, are now occupied by tourists and street performers.

In a 29 May 1972 letter to the editor of The Times, novelist La Bern said he found Hitchcock's production and Shaffer's adaptation of his book "appalling", concluding: "Finally, I wish to dissociate myself with Mr Shaffer's grotesque misrepresentation of Scotland Yard offices."

Soundtrack
Henry Mancini was originally hired as the film's composer. "If the same film was made ten years ago it would've had twice the amount of music in it", he said.

His opening theme was written in Bachian organ andante, opening in D minor, for organ and an orchestra of strings and brass, and was intended to express the formality of the grey London landmarks, but Hitchcock thought it sounded too much like Bernard Herrmann's scores. According to Mancini, "Hitchcock came to the recording session, listened awhile and said: 'Look, if I want Herrmann, I'd ask for Herrmann. After an enigmatic, behind-the-scenes melodrama, the composer was fired. He never understood the experience, insisting that his score sounded nothing like Herrmann's work. Mancini had to pay all transportation and accommodation costs himself. In his autobiography, Mancini reports that the discussions between himself and Hitchcock seemed clear, and he thought he understood what was wanted; but he was replaced and flew back home to Hollywood. The irony was that Mancini was being second-guessed for being too dark and symphonic after having been criticized for being too light before. Mancini's experience with Frenzy was a painful topic for the composer for years to come.

Hitchcock then hired composer Ron Goodwin to write the score after being impressed with some of his earlier work. He had Goodwin rescore the opening titles in the style of a London travelogue - the director had heard his score for the Peter Sellers sketch Balham, Gateway to the South. Goodwin's music had a lighter tone in the opening scenes, and scenes featuring London scenery, while there were darker undertones in certain other scenes.

In 2023, Quartet Records issued a soundtrack album featuring both the Goodwin score and the unused Mancini score.

Critical reception
Frenzy received positive reviews from critics. Vincent Canby of the New York Times called it "a passionately entertaining film" with "a marvelously funny script" and a "superb" cast. He put it on his year-end list of the ten best films of 1972. Variety also posted a rave review, declaring: "Ingeniously fresh story-telling ideas, stamped with the same mischievous, audacious and often outrageous mixture of humor and suspense that first made him and later sustained him, make the Universal release one of Hitchcock's major achievements." Roger Ebert gave the film his highest grade of four stars, calling it "a return to old forms by the master of suspense, whose newer forms have pleased movie critics but not his public. This is the kind of thriller Hitchcock was making in the 1940s, filled with macabre details, incongruous humor, and the desperation of a man convicted of a crime he didn't commit." Penelope Gilliatt of The New Yorker wrote of Hitchcock that "we are nearly back in the days of his great English films", adding "He is lucky to have been able to draw on Anthony Shaffer to do Frenzy's sly screenplay, not to speak of a cast of first-rate, well-equated actors pretty much unknown outside England, so that audiences have no preconceptions about who are the stars and therefore unkillable." Kevin Thomas of the Los Angeles Times called the film "Alfred Hitchcock's best picture in years", with "all the marks of work by a master at his craft and at his most assured". Time printed a very positive review of the film: "In case there was any doubt, back in the dim days of Marnie and Topaz, Hitchcock is still in fine form. Frenzy is the dazzling proof. It is not at the level of his greatest work, but it is smooth and shrewd and dexterous, a reminder that anyone who makes a suspense film is still an apprentice to this old master." In its 2012 review, The Guardian called Frenzy a "complex and gripping thriller" praising the film as "a rich tapestry of suspense, and a masterpiece".

Some reviews were more mixed. Gary Arnold of The Washington Post wrote that the film "has a promising opening sequence and a witty curtain line, but the material in between is decidedly pedestrian. The reviewers who've been hailing Frenzy as a new classic and the triumphant return of the master of suspense are, to put it kindly, exaggerating the occasion ... If this picture had been made by anyone else, it would be described, justly, as a mildly diverting attempt to imitate Hitchcock." The Monthly Film Bulletin was unsure what to make of the picture, noting an "old-fashioned air" to it that seemed to suggest that Hitchcock's return to England "signalled a regression to an almost pre-war style of filmmaking". It concluded: "For all its apparent awkwardness of script and characterisation (Jon Finch especially can make little of Shaffer's anemically written hero) there is enough in Frenzy to suggest that, after the routine critical dismissals, it will repay serious assessment."

Frenzy ranked 14th on Variety's list of the Big Rental Films of 1972, with rentals of $6.3 million in the United States and Canada.

The film was the subject of the 2012 book Alfred Hitchcock's Frenzy: The Last Masterpiece by Raymond Foery. Frenzy holds a 91% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 44 reviews. The critical consensus reads: "Marking Alfred Hitchcock's return to England and first foray into viscerally explicit carnage, Frenzy finds the master of horror regaining his grip on the audience's pulse -- and making their blood run cold." On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 92 out of 100 based on 15 critics, indicating "universal acclaim".

However, Quentin Tarantino called it "a piece of crap."

title: Frenzy


text:
Talk:Juhan Parts

Untitled
He resigned today.

new Res Publica party, an ideology-free, technocratic party of mostly under-30 administrators, that party surprisingly gained a majority among the right/center parties,

If the party is ideology-free, how can it be right/center? I think the characterizations are dubious. They should be more detailed to be verifiable. Anyway, I think their place is in the article about the party. Andres 09:42, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Parts and Res Publica are linked; it makes no sense to pretend institutionalization here. It is also key to characterize Parts as technocratic; incidentally, in political science and encyclopedia parlance, that is not a pejorative term.  All reputable political scientists on Estonia (although there are very few around anyway, both inside and outside Estonia) agree that Res Publica does not have an ideology; if this is argued, it should be put forth what the ideology could possibly be.  There is hardly any detailed study on the party, so it's difficult to be more detailed here at this moment.  The current version states that Res Publica took its votes from the right/center block (Moodukad, Isamaaliit, Reformierakond), not that it is right/center in ideology.  The latter fact has never been debated by a single political scientist discussing this matter.  Thus, the criticism by Andres appears driven less by the wish for objectivization (to the extend that this is possible and/or desirable in such matters) than by dissatisfaction with an objective judgment.  What is possible, of course, is to have an entry on Res Publica as soon as someone manages to write one. Clossius

 * an ideology-free, technocratic party of mostly under-30 administrators, that party surprisingly gained a majority among the right/center parties,

 * Clossius, I think that this is an issue of fact, and I don't think it takes a reputable political scientist to solve it. I don't criticize judgment, and my concern here is not objectivity of asssessment but factual correctness.

 * On June 1, 2003, the party had approximately 4 100 members, 10% of them were under 20, 34% were 20 to 29. I don't know how many of them were administrators . My conclusion is that the statement in the article is false, at least for that date. Therefore, further evidence is needed if you dispute this data. Or else, if I misinterpreted you then probably a more precise formulation is needed. In the government there are some under 30 administrators. Maybe this is what is meant? Then this should be reformulated.

 * I am sorry that I misread your statement about the majority among the right/center parties. Perhaps it should be reformulated. Don't you think it's ambigous? That Res Publica took its votes from the right/center block (Mõõdukad, Isamaaliit, Reformierakond) is obvious enough for me. As to the ideology, see  for what the party presents as its ideology. Of course, political scientists may say that this is not to be taken seriously. I think that such opinions should be attributed. Anyway, I think it is important to make clear that the party itself doesn't hold it has no ideology.

 * As much as I understand, "technocratic" is a label for lack of ideology. I think Res Publica is not technocratic because it states its own ideology. In fact, there was a party in Estonianew Res Publica party, an ideology-free, technocratic party of mostly under-30 administrators, that party surprisingly gained a majority among the right/center parties,

If the party is ideology-free, how can it be right/center? I think the characterizations are dubious. They should be more detailed to be verifiable. Anyway, I think their place is in the article about the party. Andres 09:42, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Parts and Res Publica are linked; it makes no sense to pretend institutionalization here. It is also key to characterize Parts as technocratic; incidentally, in political science and encyclopedia parlance, that is not a pejorative term.  All reputable political scientists on Estonia (although there are very few around anyway, both inside and outside Estonia) agree that Res Publica does not have an ideology; if this is argued, it should be put forth what the ideology could possibly be.  There is hardly any detailed study on the party, so it's difficult to be more detailed here at this moment.  The current version states that Res Publica took its votes from the right/center block (Moodukad, Isamaaliit, Reformierakond), not that it is right/center in ideology.  The latter fact has never been debated by a single political scientist discussing this matter.  Thus, the criticism by Andres appears driven less by the wish for objectivization (to the extend that this is possible and/or desirable in such matters) than by dissatisfaction with an objective judgment.  What is possible, of course, is to have an entry on Res Publica as soon as someone manages to write one. Clossius

 * an ideology-free, technocratic party of mostly under-30 administrators, that party surprisingly gained a majority among the right/center parties,

 * Clossius, I think that this is an issue of fact, and I don't think it takes a reputable political scientist to solve it. I don't criticize judgment, and my concern here is not objectivity of asssessment but factual correctness.

 * On June 1, 2003, the party had approximately 4 100 members, 10% of them were under 20, 34% were 20 to 29. I don't know how many of them were administrators . My conclusion is that the statement in the article is false, at least for that date. Therefore, further evidence is needed if you dispute this data. Or else, if I misinterpreted you then probably a more precise formulation is needed. In the government there are some under 30 administrators. Maybe this is what is meant? Then this should be reformulated.

 * I am sorry that I misread your statement about the majority among the right/center parties. Perhaps it should be reformulated. Don't you think it's ambigous? That Res Publica took its votes from the right/center block (Mõõdukad, Isamaaliit, Reformierakond) is obvious enough for me. As to the ideology, see  for what the party presents as its ideology. Of course, political scientists may say that this is not to be taken seriously. I think that such opinions should be attributed. Anyway, I think it is important to make clear that the party itself doesn't hold it has no ideology.

 * As much as I understand, "technocratic" is a label for lack of ideology. I think Res Publica is not technocratic because it states its own ideology. In fact, there was a party in Estonia that could be labeled as technocratic: Koonderakond. Res Publica could probably with some justice called populist, but not technocratic (this is just my opinion).

 * For whom was the victory of Res Publica a surprise? I think not for its voters. For political scientists? Then perhaps their theories were inadequate? Or did it contradict the polls? I don't think so but this can be checked. This seems to be a point of view. If you insist that this was a surprise then please make it clearer.  Still, probably you mean that it was a surprise that a party without ideology took the votes that used to go to parties with ideologies.

 * There is a (stub) entry on Res Publica, as you state in your first sentence (if I don't misinterpret it). Or I don't understand your last sentence. I don't want to write much because it takes too much research to get an objective assessment.  I don't understand what do you mean by institutionalization.

 * You are probably right that the stuff on the party belongs here.

 * Who are the reputable political scientists on Estonia? Can you quote them? Andres 02:52, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Some answers, although I do not know how much this makes sense:

 * On June 1, 2003, the party had approximately 4 100 members, 10% of them were under 20, 34% were 20 to 29. I don't know how many of them were administrators . My conclusion is that the statement in the article is false, at least for that date. Therefore, further evidence is needed if you dispute this data. Or else, if I misinterpreted you then probably a more precise formulation is needed. In the government there are some under 30 administrators. Maybe this is what is meant? Then this should be reformulated.

 * A party has members, but it is of course made up by another group. In the case of Res Publica, it is fairly clear who the 4-5, or if you will 10-12, leading figures who founded the party and still continue to dominate it.  I think that of these, at least 75% are under-30 administrators (or were the latter until they got into political office proper).

 * In the board (eestseisus) 7 members of 23 are under 30. My personal opinion is that party's dominant members are Juhan Parts, Urmas Reinsalu, Ken-Marti Vaher, Olari Taal and Tõnis Palts. Reinsalu and Vaher are under 30 administrators (not for long anyway). Among other prominent members Indrek Raudne and Taavi Veskimägi could be cited. I know no more. My proposal is something like that: the key figures of the party conspicuously include under 30 administrators. I suspect the real power is represented by Olari Taal and partly Tõnis Palts. This seems to be the reason why the party has changed.

 * By the way, Res Publica was attractive for very idealistic people too (Anzari Barkalaja, Ülo Vooglaid, Avo Üprus). Barkalaja and Vooglaid have expressed their discontent. Andres 09:20, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I am sorry that I misread your statement about the majority among the right/center parties. Perhaps it should be reformulated. Don't you think it's ambigous? That Res Publica took its votes from the right/center block (Mõõdukad, Isamaaliit, Reformierakond) is obvious enough for me.

 * I don't think the statement is ambiguous in the current context, but it can of course be improved. In the Wikipedia, much can be improved and fleshed out. My proposal is to write like that: Res Publica took its votes from the right/center block.

 * As to the ideology, see for what the party presents as its ideology. Of course, political scientists may say that this is not to be taken seriously. I think that such opinions should be attributed. Anyway, I think it is important to make clear that the party itself doesn't hold it has no ideology.

 * This is actually indeed a famous and fascinating resource, because it is probably the only governing party in Europe that uses the word "ideology" about itself, as in the general discourse, that is a pejorative term. But indeed, what is listed here are non-ideological features.  In an encyclopedia, one has to hold to certain technical-professional standards, and as regards parties, that would obviously be political science.  In this context (as well as in history as a scholarly discipline), ideology has a very clear meaning - it means a certain world view, not some points of principle.  I would be interested to hear what substantive ideology Res Publica actually does have.

 * As much as I understand, "technocratic" is a label for lack of ideology. I think Res Publica is not technocratic because it states its own ideology. In fact, there was a party in Estonia that could be labeled as technocratic: Koonderakond. Res Publica could probably with some justice called populist, but not technocratic (this is just my opinion).

 * Several issues here. Again, for short statements for an encyclopedia in the making like this, short statements are fine.  I don't think attribution to political scientists is needed or indeed common, even with finished ones; there is a communis opinio, and clearly footnotery is for scientific articles and not for this space.  Then, technocratic means problem-solving; that is clearly focus and aim of Res Publica.  Further, to some extent Res Publica is indeed populist, but the really populist party in Estonia is of course Keskerakond.  Finally, it is not up to a party to say whether they are ideological or not; this is why it needs the outside perspective.  In a scholarly article, or a longer one in such an encyclopedia, it might be worth pointing out that the website referred to above does exist.

 * My proposal is to write like that: according to the consensus of reputable political scientists of Estonia Res Publica has no ideology though it states its "ideology" on its homepage . Make sure that the article ideology means the same that you mean. Else you should explain. "Technocratic" too needs a link. Andres 09:20, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * For whom was the victory of Res Publica a surprise? I think not for its voters. For political scientists? Then perhaps their theories were inadequate? Or did it contradict the polls? I don't think so but this can be checked. This seems to be a point of view. If you insist that this was a surprise then please make it clearer.  Still, probably you mean that it was a surprise that a party without ideology took the votes that used to go to parties with ideologies.

 * It was not a surprise that Res Publica received fairly many votes as far as the polling was concerned, although this kind of polling has to be taken with a grain of salt in Estonia (EMOR, Saar etc. all have their problems). The surprise is that they were actually winning.

 * So, it must have been surprising under some presuppositions. Which ones? Perhaps: surprisingly this technocratic party tool its votes from the right/center party. Though it is not surprising that a party of the "unbribable" promising a "new politics" should win. Andres 09:20, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Who are the reputable political scientists on Estonia? Can you quote them?

 * The leading one, Taagepera, is obviously biased, as he was used as the Res Publica figure-head in the party's beginning phase. I would assume, though, that he by now agrees with the "technocrat" label.  If with "reputable" we mean people who publish in serious scientific journals about these matters, be it on the side or focussing on them, I would probably mention Vello Pettai, Wolfgang Drechsler, and Rainer Kattel (there are others of course as well).  I think all three of them would agree with the "technocratic" label for Res Publica and/or have used it it writing.  But for myself as well, I agree with you that the effort that has gone into this discussion is already unpoportional for the result and really a waste of efforts, so if you want to take the - in my opinion appropriate and necessary - descriptions of Res Publica and/or Parts out, so be it. It would be sad, though, inasmuch as bold, thumbnail-sketch like statements done with broad brush-strokes are the only way how non-experts can get a quick impression about an unknown party or political figure and place them in their context.  Clossius

 * Taagepera has grown critical of the party, as much as I know.

 * I don't want to have your characterization of the party omitted, I just want it to be more detailed and less ambiguous. Formulations that might be clear enough for experts need not be so for the general reader. However, perhaps a more appropriate place for more detailed and substantiated characterization is the article about the party because here it is not proportinate (though of course much more could be written about him). Nevertheless, let me propose a new version of the passage (proposals see above, inserted in your text; I am not integrating them yet).

 * Would you add necessary corrections when I sketch an impressionistic overview of the party in its own article?

 * I don't think efforts are wasted if the result is good.

 * Wikipedia is still in its initial phase, and what is extant, is not the ideal. References are encouraged by WP's "official" policy. You could have the same article in different degrees of depth: with an overview at the beginning and a subsequent detailed account.

 * In Wiki much could be improved, but this does not mean that we shouldn't try our best.

 * For signing your user name and the date just use four times the sign ~. Andres 09:20, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I am sorry, I got in an edit conflict, and I didn't get what was your recent change. And some text is doubled now. Andres 09:25, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I really don't want to spend too much effort on characterizing Res Publica, seeing that the leaders (indeed Parts, Reinsalu, Veskimägi, Vaher; not Palts and certainly not Taal!) haven't even done this themselves. :-) Again, I really think short charcterizations are both necessary and appropriate, and I think in politics they necessarily entail judgments and/or generalizations.  But do with it whatever you wish - I am not up for a fight here (nor for the famous discussion of the objectivization problem in Estonia, or the one on the problem with scientific representation of Estonian matters).  Thanks for the quadruple tilde hint! Clossius 12:31, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't want to fight you, I just am aiming a consensus and collaboration with you as I think you are knowledgeable and can make very valuable contributions. This is why I didn't go on to edit. Andres 12:56, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * All the better, as I'm at least intending to do a few more EE entries. But you are genuinely welcome to change the piece now as you see fit; if I would phrase it differently, I can amend (and if appropriate explain) it.  I think this is what wiki is for, and I actually like that. Clossius

16:40, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for newbie formatting but I think this is important link about this man to be considered to be included. http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2004/12/08/opinion/20041208_ESTONIA_VIDEO.html

-

I changed some of the recent changes back. Res Publica is not conservative, and to call it anti-bureaucratic is completely wrong; this is (see above) largely a party of young buraucrats, and their reform initiatives are completely buraucratic and only geared against a certain school of public administration. Clossius 12:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Juhan Parts


text:
Johan Witteveen

Hendrikus Johannes "Johan" Witteveen (12 June 1921 – 23 April 2019) was a Dutch politician and economist who served as the fifth managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) from 1973 to 1978. Witteveen attended the Gymnasium Erasmianum in Rotterdam from June 1933 until June 1939 and applied at the Rotterdam School of Economics in June 1939 majoring in Economics. On 10 May 1940 Nazi Germany invaded the Netherlands and the government fled to London to escape the German occupation. During the German occupation Witteveen continued his study obtaining a Bachelor of Economics degree in June 1941 but in April 1943 the German occupation authority closed the Rotterdam School of Economics. Following the end of World War II Witteveen returned to the Rotterdam School of Economics and worked as a student researcher before graduating with a Master of Economics degree in December 1945 and worked as an associate professor of Financial economics at the Rotterdam School of Economics from December 1945 until July 1947 when got a doctorate as an Doctor of Philosophy in Financial economics. Witteveen worked as a researcher for the Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB) from April 1945 until July 1947 and as a professor of Financial economics at the Rotterdam School of Economics from July 1947 until 24 July 1963. He also served as Rector Magnificus of the Erasmus University Rotterdam from 1 January 1951 until 1 January 1952.

Witteveen became a Member of the Senate after the death of Anthonie Nicolaas Molenaar, taking office on 23 December 1958 serving as a frontbencher and spokesperson for Finances and deputy spokesperson for Economic Affairs and Small business. Witteveen was elected as a Member of the House of Representatives after the election of 1963, he subsequently resigned as a Member of the Senate the same day he was installed as Member of the House of Representatives, taking office on 5 June 1963. Following the cabinet formation of 1963 Witteveen was appointed as Minister of Finance in the Cabinet Marijnen, taking office on 24 July 1963. The Cabinet Marijnen fell on 27 February 1965 after a disagreement in the coalition about reforms to the public broadcasting system and continued to serve in a demissionary capacity until the cabinet formation of 1965 when it was replaced by the Cals cabinet on 14 April 1965. Witteveen returned as a distinguished professor of Public economics at the Rotterdam School of Economics on 1 September 1965. Witteveen subsequently returned as a Member of the House of Representatives after the resignation of Lambertus Oldenbanning, taking office on 21 September 1965 serving as a frontbencher chairing the parliamentary committee for Finances and spokesperson for Finances and deputy spokesperson for Economic Affairs. After the election of 1967 Witteveen was again appointed as Minister of Finance and became Deputy Prime Minister in the De Jong cabinet, taking office on 5 April 1967. Witteveen served as acting Minister of Economic Affairs from 7 January 1970 until 14 January 1970 following Leo de Block's resignation. In February 1971 Witteveen announced that he wouldn't stand for the election of 1971 but wanted to return to the Senate. After the Senate election of 1971 Witteveen returned as a Member of the Senate, taking office on 8 June 1971 serving as a frontbencher chairing the parliamentary committee for Finances and spokesperson for Finances and Economic Affairs. Following the cabinet formation of 1971 Witteveen per his own request asked not to be considered for a cabinet post in the new cabinet, the Cabinet De Jong was replaced by the Cabinet Biesheuvel I on 6 July 1971. In August 1973 Witteveen was nominated as the next Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), he resigned as a Member of the Senate the same day he was installed as Managing Director, serving from 1 September 1973 until 18 June 1978.

Witteveen retired after spending 20 years in national politics and became active in the private sector and public sector and occupied numerous seats as a corporate director and nonprofit director on several boards of directors and supervisory boards (Rockefeller Foundation, Tinbergen Institute, Group of Thirty, Institute of International Relations Clingendael, Society for Statistics and Operations Research and the Helen Dowling Institute) and served on several state commissions and councils on behalf of the government (SEO Economic Research, Cadastre Agency and Statistics Netherlands) and as an advocate and lobbyist for Sufism and Financial regulation. Witteveen was also a prolific author, having written more than a dozen books since 1947 about Politics, Finances, Economics, Business and Sufism.

Witteveen was known for his abilities as a manager and consensus builder. Witteveen continued to comment on political affairs as a statesman until his death at the age of 97 and holds the distinction as the only Dutchman that served as Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund. His eldest son Willem was also a politician, professor, and author, he like his father had served in the Senate.

Early life and education
Witteveen was born on 12 June 1921 in Zeist in the province of Utrecht. He is the son of architect Willem Gerrit Witteveen and Anna Maria Wibaut and the grandson of Social Democratic politician Floor Wibaut. He went to the public secondary school Gymnasium Erasmianum in Rotterdam. He studied economics at the Netherlands School of Economics from 1939 to 1946. He received his PhD in 1947 with the dissertation Loonhoogte en werkgelegenheid (Height of wages and employment). His advisor was Nobel Prize laureate Jan Tinbergen.

Career
Witteveen worked as an economist at the Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis under Jan Tinbergen and Fred Polak from 1947 until 1963. He is a member of the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD). He served as a Senator from 23 December 1958 until 5 June 1963 and as a member of the House of Representatives from 5 June 1963 until 24 July 1963.

He then became Minister of Finance in the Marijnen cabinet serving from 24 July 1963 until 14 April 1965. He then served as a Member of the House of Representatives again from 21 September 1965 until 5 April 1967, when he returned as Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister serving from 5 April 1967 until 6 July 1971 in the De Jong cabinet. He again returned to the Senate, serving from 8 June 1971 until 1 September 1973.

Afterwards he became the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, serving from 1 September 1973 until 18 June 1978. From 1978 to 1985 he was the first chairman of the Washington-based economics body, the Group of Thirty. He became member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1980.

Personal life
On 3 March 1949 Witteveen married Liesbeth de Vries Feijens (born 1 April 1920). They had four children, three sons, and one daughter. Willem Witteveen (1952–2014), Paul Witteveen (1955–1979), Raoul Witteveen and their daughter (born 1960). Liesbeth de Vries Feijens died on 25 November 2006 at the age of 86. His eldest son Willem Witteveen was also a politician, professor and author, he like his father had served in the Senate. Willem Witteveen, his wife and daughter died on 17 July 2014 when Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down over Ukraine. Witteveen was also a first cousin once removed of the in 2004 murdered filmmaker Theo van Gogh. Witteveen died on 23 April 2019 in his home in Wassenaar at the age of 97 years, 339 days.

title: Johan Witteveen


text:
Stephen K. Hayes

Stephen K. Hayes (born September 9, 1949) is an American martial artist and writer.

Early life
Stephen K. Hayes was born in Wilmington, Delaware, and raised in Dayton, Ohio. He graduated from Fairmont West High School in Kettering, Ohio, in 1967.

Hayes attended Miami University in nearby Oxford, Ohio, because he "heard they had a judo club". It turned out to be a Korean Tang Soo Do school, not judo, but Hayes remained. In 1971, he graduated from Miami with a Bachelor of Arts degree, having majored in speech and theatre.

Martial arts career
In the 1970s, Hayes traveled to Japan. In June 1975, he met and began training under Tsunehisa Tanemura. He later trained under Masaaki Hatsumi, who refers to himself as 34th Grandmaster of Togakure-ryū ninjutsu and is the founder of the Bujinkan (武神館) organization.

Hayes returned to the United States with his wife, Rumiko, in late 1980 when his Japan residency visa expired, and began teaching and authoring numerous books and magazine articles.

In 1985, he was entered into the Black Belt magazine's Hall of Fame as Instructor of the Year. He was again featured on the cover of Black Belt in the March 2007 issue. The magazine's opening editorial described him as "one of the 10 most influential living martial artists in the world".

In 1993, Hayes was awarded the judan (tenth-degree black belt) in Togakure-ryū ninjutsu from Hatsumi.

In 1997, he founded the martial art of To-Shin Do, an art based in his experience of budō taijutsu.

In 2006, Hayes's name was removed from the display of active Bujinkan teachers, ending his official role within that organization. That his name plank was removed from the Bujinkan Honbu wall has been documented by both parties. However, the specifics regarding the motivation for the removal are in dispute. Some suggest Hayes was expelled from the organization. Hayes explains that he simply no longer participates as an active Bujinkan instructor. To-Shin Do is taught through his SKH (Stephen K. Hayes) Quest locations. The SKH Quest network now spans 31 schools across North America, Europe, Australia and Africa.

Hayes acted in the 1980 television miniseries Shogun and in 2004 was featured in the Discovery Channel documentary Unsolved History regarding ninja and their practices.

Buddhism
Hayes is an ordained practitioner of esoteric Tendai Mikkyō Buddhism. He apprenticed under Dr. Clark Jikai Choffy, an ordained Tendai priest and personal disciple of Jion Haba, the bishop of Tokyo's Reisho-in temple. He received empowerments and teachings from Choffy, received transmission in the Homan Ryu school of Tendai esoteric Buddhism, and in 1991 he received Tokudo priesthood ordination in Tendai Buddhism. Hayes has founded a Buddhist Order based on his teachings and experiences with Tibetan Buddhism and Tendai, called the Blue Lotus Assembly.

While traveling through Tibet, Hayes met the Dalai Lama in 1987. During a conference in the United States when the Dalai Lama learned that he had received the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize Hayes assisted with the unexpected security concerns as reporters arrived. For many years in the 1990s, Hayes served as the Dalai Lama's personal protection escort and security adviser, especially during visits to the United States.

Personal life
Hayes resides and works in Dayton, Ohio. He and his wife, Rumiko Hayes, have two daughters, Reina and Marissa.

Books
Non-fiction

 * Ninja: Spirit of the Shadow Warrior (1980), Ohara Publications
 * The Ninja and Their Secret Fighting Art (1981), Charles E. Tuttle Co.
 * Ninja vol. 2: Warrior Ways of Enlightenment (1981), Ohara Publications
 * Ninja vol. 3: Warrior Path of Togakure (1983), Ohara Publications
 * Ninjutsu: The Art of the Invisible Warrior (1984) Contemporary Books
 * Wisdom from the Ninja Village of the Cold Moon (1984) Contemporary Books
 * Ninja vol. 4: Legacy of the Night Warrior (1985), Ohara Publications
 * The Mystic Arts of the Ninja: Hypnotism, Invisibility, and Weaponry (1985), Contemporary Books
 * Ninja Realms of Power: Spiritual Roots and Traditions of the Shadow Warrior (1986)
 * The Ancient Art of Ninja Warfare: Combat, Espionage, and Traditions (1988), Contemporary Books
 * Ninja vol. 5: Lore of the Shinobi Warrior (1989), Ohara Publications
 * Enlightened Self-Protection: The Kasumi-An Ninja Art Tradition: An Original Workbook (1992), Nine Gates Press
 * Action Meditation: The Japanese Diamond and Lotus Tradition (1993), Nine Gates Press
 * The Ninja Defense: A Modern Master's Approach to Universal Dangers (2012), Tuttle Publishing
 * The Complete Ninja Collection (2013), Black Belt Communications

Fiction
 * Tulku, a Tale of Modern Ninja (1985) Contemporary Books

Filmography

 * Ninja Vengeance (1988), Himself (as Ninjutsu Instructor)

title: Stephen K. Hayes


text:
Property (philosophy)

In logic and philosophy (especially metaphysics), a property is a characteristic of an object; a red object is said to have the property of redness. The property may be considered a form of object in its own right, able to possess other properties. A property, however, differs from individual objects in that it may be instantiated, and often in more than one object. It differs from the logical/mathematical concept of class by not having any concept of extensionality, and from the philosophical concept of class in that a property is considered to be distinct from the objects which possess it. Understanding how different individual entities (or particulars) can in some sense have some of the same properties is the basis of the problem of universals.

Terms and usage
A property is any member of a class of entities that are capable of being attributed to objects. Terms similar to property include predicable, attribute, quality, feature, characteristic, type, exemplifiable, predicate, and intensional entity.

Generally speaking, an object is said to exemplify, instantiate, bear, have or possess a property if the property can be truly predicated of the object. The collection of objects that possess a property is called the extension of the property. Properties are said to characterize or inhere in objects that possess them. Followers of Alexius Meinong assert the existence of two kinds of predication: existent objects exemplify properties, while nonexistent objects are said to exemplify, satisfy, immanently contain or be consubstantiated by properties that are actually possessed and are said to encode, be determined by, be consociated with or be constituted by properties that are merely ascribed to objects. For example, since Pegasus is merely mythical, Pegasus encodes the property of being a horse, but Pegasus exemplifies the property of being a character of Greek mythology as well. Edward Jonathan Lowe even treated instantiation, characterization and exemplification as three separate kinds of predication.

Broadly construed, examples of properties include redness, the property of being two, the property of being nonexistent, the property of being identical to Socrates, the property of being a desk, the property of being a property, the property of being both round and square, and the property of being heterological. Some philosophers refuse to treat existence as a property, and Peter van Inwagen suggested that one should deny the existence of certain "properties" so as to avoid paradoxes such as Russell's paradox and Grelling–Nelson paradox, though such moves remain controversial.

Metaphysical debates
In modern analytic philosophy there are several debates about the fundamental nature of properties. These center around questions such as: Are properties universals or particulars? Are properties real? Are they categorical or dispositional? Are properties physical or mental?

Universals vs. particulars
At least since Plato, properties are viewed by numerous philosophers as universals, which are typically capable of being instantiated by different objects. Philosophers opposing this view regard properties as particulars, namely tropes.

Realism vs. anti-realism
A realist about properties asserts that properties have genuine, mind-independent existence. One way to spell this out is in terms of exact, repeatable, instantiations known as universals. The other realist position asserts that properties are particulars (tropes), which are unique instantiations in individual objects that merely resemble one another to various degrees. Transcendent realism, proposed by Plato and favored by Bertrand Russell, asserts that properties exist even if uninstantiated. Immanent realism, defended by Aristotle and David Malet Armstrong, contends that properties exist only if instantiated.

The anti-realist position, often referred to as nominalism claims that properties are names we attach to particulars. The properties themselves have no existence.

Categoricalism vs. dispositionalism
Properties are often classified as either categorical and dispositional. Categorical properties concern what something is like, e.g. what qualities it has. Dispositional properties, on the other hand, involve what powers something has, what it is able to do, even if it is not actually doing it. For example, the shape of a sugar cube is a categorical property while its tendency to dissolve in water is a dispositional property. For many properties there is a lack of consensus as to how they should be classified, for example, whether colors are categorical or dispositional properties.

According to categoricalism, dispositions reduce to causal bases. On this view, the fragility of a wine glass, a dispositional property, is not a fundamental feature of the glass since it can be explained in terms of the categorical property of the glass's micro-structural composition. Dispositionalism, on the other hand, asserts that a property is nothing more than a set of causal powers. Fragility, according to this view, identifies a real property of the glass (e.g. to shatter when dropped on a sufficiently hard surface). Several intermediary positions exist. The Identity view states that properties are both categorical (qualitative) and dispositional; these are just two ways of viewing the same property. One hybrid view claims that some properties are categorical and some are dispositional. A second hybrid view claims that properties have both a categorical (qualitative) and dispositional part, but that these are distinct ontological parts.

Physicalism, idealism, and property dualism
Property dualism describes a category of positions in the philosophy of mind which hold that, although the world is constituted of just one kind of substance—the physical kind—there exist two distinct kinds of properties: physical properties and mental properties. In other words, it is the view that non-physical, mental properties (such as beliefs, desires and emotions) inhere in some physical substances (namely brains).

This stands in contrast to physicalism and idealism. Physicalism claims that all properties, include mental properties, ultimately reduce to, or supervene on, physical properties. Metaphysical idealism, by contrast, claims that "something mental (the mind, spirit, reason, will) is the ultimate foundation of all reality, or even exhaustive of reality."

Intrinsic and extrinsic
An intrinsic property is a property that an object or a thing has of itself, independently of other things, including its context. An extrinsic (or relational) property is a property that depends on a thing's relationship with other things. The latter is sometimes also called an attribute, since the value of that property is given to the object via its relation with another object. For example, mass is a physical intrinsic property of any physical object, whereas weight is an extrinsic property that varies depending on the strength of the gravitational field in which the respective object is placed. Another example of a relational property is the name of a person (an attribute given by the person's parents).

Essential and accidental
In classical Aristotelian terminology, a property (Greek: idion, Latin: proprium) is one of the predicables. It is a non-essential quality of a species (like an accident), but a quality which is nevertheless characteristically present in members of that species. For example, "ability to laugh" may be considered a special characteristic of human beings. However, "laughter" is not an essential quality of the species human, whose Aristotelian definition of "rational animal" does not require laughter. Therefore, in the classical framework, properties are characteristic qualities that are not truly required for the continued existence of an entity but are, nevertheless, possessed by the entity.

Determinate and determinable
A property may be classified as either determinate or determinable. A determinable property is one that can get more specific. For example, color is a determinable property because it can be restricted to redness, blueness, etc. A determinate property is one that cannot become more specific. This distinction may be useful in dealing with issues of identity.

Pure and impure
Impure properties are properties that, unlike pure properties, involve reference to a particular substance in their definition. So, for example, being a wife is a pure property while being the wife of Socrates is an impure property due to the reference to the particular "Socrates". Sometimes, the terms qualitative and non-qualitative are used instead of pure and impure. Most but not all impure properties are extrinsic properties. This distinction is relevant for the principle of identity of indiscernibles, which states that two things are identical if they are indiscernible, i.e. if they share all their properties. This principle is usually defined in terms of pure properties only. The reason for this is that impure properties are not relevant for similarity or discernibility but taking them into consideration nonetheless would result in the principle being trivially true. Another application of this distinction concerns the problem of duplication, for example, in the Twin Earth thought experiment. It is usually held that duplication only involves qualitative identity but perfect duplicates can still differ concerning their non-qualitative or impure properties.

Lovely and suspect
Daniel Dennett distinguishes between lovely properties (such as loveliness itself), which, although they require an observer to be recognised, exist latently in perceivable objects; and suspect properties which have no existence at all until attributed by an observer (such as being suspected of a crime).

Properties and predicates
The ontological fact that something has a property is typically represented in language by applying a predicate to a subject. However, taking any grammatical predicate whatsoever to be a property, or to have a corresponding property, leads to certain difficulties, such as Russell's paradox and the Grelling–Nelson paradox. Moreover, a real property can imply a host of true predicates: for instance, if X has the property of weighing more than 2 kilos, then the predicates "..weighs more than 1.9 kilos", "..weighs more than 1.8 kilos", etc., are all true of it. Other predicates, such as "is an individual", or "has some properties" are uninformative or vacuous. There is some resistance to regarding such so-called "Cambridge properties" as legitimate. These properties in the widest sense are sometimes referred to as abundant properties. They are contrasted with sparse properties, which include only properties "responsible for the objective resemblances and causal powers of things".

Role in similarity
The traditional conception of similarity holds that properties are responsible for similarity: two objects are similar because they have a property in common. The more properties they share, the more similar they are. They resemble each other exactly if they share all their properties. For this conception of similarity to work, it is important that only properties relevant to resemblance are taken into account, sometimes referred to as sparse properties in contrast to abundant properties.

Relations
The distinction between properties and relations can hardly be given in terms that do not ultimately presuppose it.

Relations are true of several particulars, or shared amongst them. Thus the relation "... is taller than ..." holds "between" two individuals, who would occupy the two ellipses ('...'). Relations can be expressed by N-place predicates, where N is greater than 1.

Relations should be distinguished from relational properties. For example, marriage is a relation since it is between two people, but being married to X is a relational property had by a certain person since it concerns only one person.

There are at least some apparent relational properties which are merely derived from non-relational (or 1-place) properties. For instance "A is heavier than B" is a relational predicate, but it is derived from the two non relational properties: the mass of A and the mass of B. Such relations are called external relations, as opposed to the more genuine internal relations. Some philosophers believe that all relations are external, leading to a scepticism about relations in general, on the basis that external relations have no fundamental existence.

title: Property (philosophy)