text:
Billie Burke

Mary William Ethelbert Appleton Burke (August 7, 1884 – May 14, 1970), better known as Billie Burke, was an American actress who was famous on Broadway and radio, and in silent and sound films. She is best known to modern audiences as Glinda the Good Witch of the North in the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer movie musical The Wizard of Oz (1939).

Burke was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her performance as Emily Kilbourne in Merrily We Live (1938). She is also remembered for her appearances in the Topper film series. Her unmistakable high-pitched, quivering and aristocratic voice, made her a frequent choice to play dimwitted or spoiled society types.

She was married to Broadway producer and impresario Florenz Ziegfeld Jr. from 1914 until his death in 1932.

Early life
Burke was born in Washington, D.C., the daughter of Blanche (née Beatty) and her second husband, William "Billy" Ethelbert Burke. She toured the United States and Europe with her father, a singer and clown who worked for the Barnum & Bailey Circus. Her family settled in London where she attended plays in the West End. She began acting on stage in 1903, making her debut in London in The School Girl. Her other London shows included The Duchess of Dantzic (1903) and The Blue Moon (1904). She eventually returned to America to star in Broadway musical comedies.

Career
Burke went on to play leads on Broadway in Mrs. Dot, Suzanne, The Runaway, The "Mind-the-Paint" Girl, and The Land of Promise from 1910 to 1913, along with a supporting role in the revival of Sir Arthur Wing Pinero's The Amazons. There she met producer Florenz Ziegfeld, marrying him in 1914. Two years later they had a daughter, author Patricia Ziegfeld Stephenson (1916–2008).

Burke was signed for the movies and made her cinematic debut in the title role of Peggy (1915). Her success was phenomenal, and she was soon earning what was reputedly the highest salary of any film actress up to that time. She followed her first feature with the 15-part serial Gloria's Romance (1916), another popular and critically acclaimed vehicle. By 1917, she was a favorite with silent-movie fans, rivaling Mary Pickford, Lillian Gish, Clara Kimball Young and Irene Castle. She starred primarily in provocative society dramas and comedies, similar in theme to The "Mind-the-Paint" Girl, her most successful American play. Her girlish charm rivaled her acting ability, and as she dressed to the hilt in fashionable gowns, furs and jewelry, her clothes sense also won her the devotion of female audiences. Among the films in which she appeared during this period were Arms and the Girl (1917), The Mysterious Miss Terry, Let's Get a Divorce (1918), Good Gracious, Annabelle (1919), Away Goes Prudence (1920) and The Frisky Mrs. Johnson (1920). As a nod to himself for his wife appearing for Zukor and Lasky, Ziegfeld insisted on promotions for each of the films to carry the tag "By Special Arrangement with Florenz Ziegfeld".

Burke's beauty and taste made her a major trendsetter throughout the 1910s and 20s. As early as 1909, following her Broadway performance in My Wife (1909), department stores began carrying the "Billie Burke Dress" with a signature flat collar and lace trim. During this time, much of Burke's on- and off-screen wardrobe was provided by the leading European couturier Lucile (in private life, Lady Duff Gordon), whose New York branch was the fashion Mecca of socialites and entertainment celebrities. Burke reflected on her reputation as "a new kind of actress, carefree, and red-headed, and I had beautiful clothes."

In 1916, Burke had a daughter. In 1917, Burke endorsed Pond’s Vanishing Cream.

Despite her success in film, Burke eventually returned to the stage, appearing in Caesar's Wife (1919), The Intimate Strangers (1921), The Marquise (1927) and The Happy Husband (1928).

Burke made her Hollywood comeback in 1932, when she starred as Margaret Fairfield in A Bill of Divorcement, which was directed by George Cukor. She played Katharine Hepburn's mother in the film, which was Hepburn's debut. Despite the death of her husband Florenz Ziegfeld during the film's production, she resumed acting shortly after his funeral.

In 1933, Burke was cast as Millicent Jordan, a scatterbrained high-society woman hosting a dinner party in the comedy Dinner at Eight, directed by George Cukor, co-starring with Lionel Barrymore, Marie Dressler, John Barrymore, Jean Harlow and Wallace Beery. The movie was a great success and revitalized her career. She subsequently starred in many comedies and musicals, typecast as a ditzy, feather-brained upper-class matron, with her high-pitched voice.

In 1936, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer filmed a biopic of Florenz Ziegfeld (The Great Ziegfeld), a film that won Academy Awards for Best Picture and Best Actress (Luise Rainer as Ziegfeld's common-law wife, Anna Held). William Powell played Ziegfeld and Myrna Loy played Burke; this infuriated Burke, who was under contract to the studio and believed she could have played herself. MGM, however, considered her too old to cast in the part of her younger self.

Burke appeared in Topper (1937) in which she played the twittering and puritanical Clara Topper, who is married to a man haunted by socialite ghosts played by Cary Grant and Constance Bennett. She returned to the role in the film's sequels. Her next performance as Emily Kilbourne in Merrily We Live (1938) resulted in her only Oscar nomination. In 1938, she was chosen to play Glinda the Good Witch of the North in the musical The Wizard of Oz (1939), directed by Victor Fleming, starring Judy Garland. She had previously worked with Garland in the film Everybody Sing, in which she played Judy's histrionically hysterical actress-mother. Director George Cukor offered her the role of Aunt Pittypat in Gone With the Wind (1939), but she declined it. The role went to Laura Hope Crews, in a performance that Cukor wanted to be played in a "Billie Burke-ish manner" with "the same zany feeling". Another successful film series followed with Father of the Bride (1950) and Father's Little Dividend (1951), both directed by Vincente Minnelli and starring Spencer Tracy, Joan Bennett, and Elizabeth Taylor. Burke also portrayed Mrs. Ernest (Daisy) Stanley in the 1942 film The Man Who Came to Dinner.

Burke wrote two autobiographies, both with Cameron Shipp, With a Feather on My Nose (Appleton 1949) and With Powder on My Nose (Coward McCann, 1959).

Radio and television
On CBS Radio, The Billie Burke Show was heard on Saturday mornings from April 3, 1943, until September 21, 1946. Sponsored by Listerine, this situation comedy was initially titled Fashions in Rations during its first year. Portraying herself as a featherbrained Good Samaritan who lived "in the little white house on Sunnyview Lane," she always offered a helping hand to those in her neighborhood. She worked often in early television, appearing in the short-lived sitcom Doc Corkle (1952). She was a guest star on several TV and radio series, including Duffy's Tavern.

On television, Burke starred in her own talk show, At Home With Billie Burke, which ran on the DuMont Television Network from June 1951 through the spring of 1952. She was one of the first female talk show hosts, after the hostesses of the earlier DuMont series And Everything Nice (1949–50) and Fashions on Parade (1948–49) which both included some talk show segments.

Billie Burke starred in an adaptation of Dr. Heidegger's Experiment on the TV version of Lights Out on November 20, 1950.

Return to stage and final film
Burke tried to make a comeback on the New York stage. She starred in two short-lived productions: This Rock and Mrs. January and Mr. X. Although she got good reviews, the plays did not. She also appeared in several plays in California, although her mind became clouded, and she had trouble remembering lines. In the late 1950s, her failing memory led to her retirement from show business, although her explanation at the time was, "Acting just wasn't any fun anymore."

Burke made her final screen appearance in Sergeant Rutledge (1960), a western directed by John Ford.

Personal life
Among Burke's early suitors was the operatic tenor Enrico Caruso.

In 1910, Burke bought the Kirkham estate on Broadway in Hastings-on-Hudson, New York, and renamed the mansion, Burkeley Crest.

In April 1914, Burke married Florenz Ziegfeld.

In 1921, Burke retired to raise her daughter Patricia, but resumed work after the Wall Street Crash of 1929.

In 1932, Burke moved from New York to Beverly Hills, California, after the death of Ziegfeld.

Burke died in Los Angeles of natural causes on May 14, 1970, at the age of 85, and she was interred beside Ziegfeld at Kensico Cemetery, Valhalla, Westchester County, New York.

Legacy
For many years, Burke's framed photo was displayed above the exit staircase at New York City's Ziegfeld Theatre, but it disappeared after renovations. An opening-night program bearing a picture of her from her 1912 triumph The Mind the Paint Girl (Sir Arthur Wing Pinero) is displayed in the lobby of the Lyceum Theatre in Manhattan.

For her contributions to the film industry, Burke was inducted into the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 1960 with a motion pictures star at 6617 Hollywood Boulevard.

The Academy Film Archive houses the Florenz Ziegfeld-Billie Burke Collection, which consists primarily of home movies.

On November 4, 2015, the crater Burke, near the north pole of the planet Mercury, was named after Billie Burke.

Burke is referenced in the horror film The Exorcist III (1990). The character Kinderman says, "I have hobbies. In the meantime, we have cancer and mongoloid babies and murderers, monsters prowling the planet, even prowling this neighborhood, Father... right now, while our children suffer... and our loved ones die, and your God goes waltzing blithely through the universe like some kind of cosmic Billie Burke."

Radio

 * The Ziegfeld Follies of the Air – 1932
 * Doubting Thomas – 1935
 * Good News of 1939 – 1938
 * The Rudy Vallee Hour – 1939
 * The Gulf Screen Guild Theater – 1939
 * The Rudy Vallee Sealtest Show – 1940–41
 * The Pepsodent Show – 1941
 * The Billie Burke Show – 1943–1946
 * Duffy's Tavern – 1944
 * The Sealtest Village Store – 1944
 * Mail Call – 1944
 * The Charlie McCarthy Show – 1944–47
 * Tribute to Ethel Barrymore – 1945
 * The Rudy Vallee Show – 1945
 * Show Stoppers – 1946
 * The Danny Kaye Show – 1946
 * WOR 25th Anniversary – 1947
 * Your Movietown Radio Theatre – 1948
 * The Eddie Cantor Pabst Blue Ribbon Show – 1948
 * Family Theater – 1948–52
 * This Is Show Business – CBS-TV, 1949
 * The Martin and Lewis Show – 1949
 * The Bill Stern Colgate Sports Newsreel – 1949
 * Stagestruck – 1954
 * Biography in Sound – 1955–56

Broadway

 * My Wife – 1907
 * Love Watches – 1908
 * Mrs. Dot – 1910
 * Suzanne – 1910
 * The Philosopher in the Apple Orchard – 1911
 * The Runaway – 1911
 * The Amazons – 1913
 * The Land of Promise – 1913
 * Jerry – 1914
 * The Rescuing Angel – 1917
 * A Marriage of Convenience – 1918
 * Caesar's Wife – 1919
 * The Intimate Strangers (musical)|The Intimate Strangers – 1921
 * Rose Briar – 1922
 * Annie Dear – 1924
 * The Marquise – 1927
 * The Happy Husband – 1928
 * Family Affairs – 1929
 * The Truth Game – 1930
 * Ziegfeld Follies of 1934 – 1934 (producer)
 * Ziegfeld Follies of 1936 – 1936 (producer)
 * This Rock – 1943
 * Ziegfeld Follies of 1943 – 1943 (producer)
 * Mrs. January and Mr. X – 1944

title: Billie Burke


text:
16th (Irish) Division

The 16th (Irish) Division was an infantry division of the British Army, raised for service during World War I. The division was a voluntary 'Service' formation of Lord Kitchener's New Armies, created in Ireland from the 'National Volunteers', initially in September 1914, after the outbreak of the Great War. In December 1915, the division moved to France, joining the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), under the command of Irish Major General William Hickie, and spent the duration of the war in action on the Western Front. Following enormous losses at the Somme, Passchendaele and Ypres, the 16th (Irish) Division required a substantial refit in England between June and August 1918, which involved the introduction of many non-Irish battalions.

History

Moved by the fate of Belgium, a small and Catholic country, John Redmond had called on Irishmen to enlist "in defence of the highest principles of religion and morality and right". More Catholic Irish enlisted than Protestants.

The 16th Division began forming as part of the K2 Army Group towards the end of 1914 after Irish recruits in the early days of the war from England and Belfast first filled the ranks of the 10th (Irish) Division before being assigned to the 16th Division, formed around a core of National Volunteers. Initial training began in Ireland at Fermoy, Munster; recruits also trained at Buttevant. The division moved to Aldershot in Hampshire, England for more intensive training in September 1915. After thirteen weeks, the division was deployed to Étaples in France, joining the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), then commanded by Field Marshal Sir John French, but later replaced by General Sir Douglas Haig. From there the division left on 18 December for that part of the front in the Loos salient, under the command of Irish Major General William Hickie and spent the rest of the war on the Western Front.

Until March 1916 the 16th Division was part of IV Corps, commanded by the staunch unionist, Lieutenant General Sir Henry Wilson. Wilson, who had called the division "Johnnie Redmond's pets", inspected them over the course of a few days over Christmas 1915, noting that they "appear to be inferior" and that "at least 50p.c. are quite useless, old whiskey-sodden militiamen". Hickie agreed that he had "a political Divn of riff raff Redmondites". Wilson thought the 47th Brigade had "old officers, old & useless men, very bad musketry, rotten boots, and altogether a very poor show". Wilson reported to the Army Commander, Lieutenant General Sir Charles Monro (6 January) that the division, despite having been training since September–October 1914, would not be fit to serve in an active part of the line for six weeks. Although–in the opinion of Wilson's biographer Keith Jeffery–political prejudice probably played a part in these views, Wilson also attributed much of the difference in quality between his divisions to training, especially of officers, in which he took a keen personal interest, opposing Haig's wish to delegate training from corps to division level. Hickie was–in public–much more diplomatic and tactful and spoke of the pride which his new command gave him.

At Loos, in January and February 1916, the division was introduced to trench warfare and suffered greatly in the Battle of Hulluch. Personnel raided German trenches all through May and June. In late July they were moved to the Somme Valley where they were intensively engaged in the Battle of the Somme. Lieutenant General Hubert Gough, the British Fifth Army commander, had asked, at the end of 1915, for the division to be placed under his command, and had established the first corps school for the training of young officers. The 16th Division played an important part in capturing the towns of Guillemont and Ginchy, although they suffered massive casualties. During these successful actions between 1 and 10 September casualties amounted to 224 officers and 4,090 men; despite these very heavy losses the division gained a reputation as first-class shock troops. Out of a total of 10,845 men, it had lost 3,491 on the Loos sector between January and the end of May 1916, including heavy casualties from bombardment and a gas attack at Hullach in April. Bloodletting of this order was fatal to the division's character, for it had to be made good by drafts from England.

In early 1917, the division took a major part in the Battle of Messines alongside the 36th (Ulster) Division, adding to both their recognition and reputation. Their major actions ended in the summer of 1917 at the Battle of Passchendaele after, again, coming under the command of Gough and the Fifth Army. In July 1917, during the Third Battle of Ypres, although both divisions were completely exhausted after 13 days of moving weighty equipment under heavy shelling, Gough ordered the battalions to advance through deep mud towards well fortified German positions left untouched by totally inadequate artillery preparation. By mid August, the 16th had suffered over 4,200 casualties, the 36th almost 3,600, or more than 50% of their numbers. Haig, now a field marshal, was very critical of Gough for "playing the Irish card".

The 16th Division held an exposed position from early 1918 at Ronssoy where they suffered more heavy losses during the German Army's Spring Offensive in March and being practically wiped out in the retreat which followed Operation Michael. Haig wrote in his diary (22 March 1918) that the division was "said not to be so full of fight as the others. In fact, certain Irish units did very badly and gave way immediately the enemy showed". In fact the division's casualties were the highest of any BEF division at this time, and records of the German 18th and 50th Reserve Divisions show that the Irish fought hard. The corps commander, Lieutenant General Walter Congreve, wrote "the real truth is that their reserve brigade did not fight at all and their right brigade very indifferently". One battalion was greeted at the rear with cries of "There go the Sinn Feiners!" A report by Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, now the Chief of the Imperial General Staff (CIGS), concluded that there was no evidence that the men had not fought well, but pointed out that only two-thirds of the men were of Irish birth. The matter affected the debate over the introduction of conscription of Ireland.

The remnants of the division were later transferred to XIX Corps of the Third Army. The 16th helped to finally halt the German attack prior to the Battle of Hamel. The decision was then made to break up the division, the three surviving Service battalions were posted to other formations.

On 14 June the division returned to England for reconstitution. The Conscription Crisis of 1918 in Ireland meant that fewer Irish recruits could be raised so that the 16th Division which returned to France on 27 July contained five English battalions, two Scottish battalions and one Welsh battalion. The only original battalion left was the 5th Royal Irish Fusiliers.

The dispersion of the Irish battalions throughout the BEF in 1918, despite its practical considerations, appears to suggest that the Irish units were increasingly distrusted by the military authorities.

Order of battle
The 16th Division was composed of the following during World War I:

47th Brigade

 * 8th (Service) Battalion, Royal Munster Fusiliers (New Army) (disbanded 23 November 1916)
 * 6th (Service) Battalion, Royal Irish Regiment (disbanded 9 February 1918)
 * 7th (Service) Battalion, Prince of Wales's Leinster Regiment (Royal Canadians); (disbanded 31 July 1922)
 * 6th (Service) Battalion, Connaught Rangers (left June 1918)
 * 1st Battalion, Royal Munster Fusiliers (joined 22 November 1916 left 20 April 1918)
 * 2nd Battalion, Leinster Regiment (joined 2 February 1918 left 23 April 1918)
 * 18th (Service) Battalion Welsh Regiment (2nd Glamorgan), (joined May 1918)
 * 14th (Service) Battalion, Leicestershire Regiment (joined 26 June 1918)
 * 9th (Service) Battalion, Black Watch (Royal Highlanders) (joined 2 July 1918)
 * 47th Machine Gun Company, Machine Gun Corps (M.G.C.) (joined 28 April 1916, moved to 16th Battalion, M.G.C. 9 March 1918)
 * 47th Trench Mortar Battery (formed by 16 June 1916, reformed in England 1918)

The 47th Brigade was known as the "Nationalist Brigade" as the majority were men from Redmond's Irish Volunteers.

48th Brigade

 * 9th (Service) Battalion, Royal Munster Fusiliers (New Army) (disbanded 30 May 1916)
 * 7th (Service) Battalion, Royal Irish Rifles (left 23 August 1917)
 * 8th (Service) Battalion, Royal Dublin Fusiliers (merged with 9th Battalion 24 October 1917 renamed 8th/9th Battalion, disbanded 10 February 1918)
 * 9th (Service) Battalion, Royal Dublin Fusiliers (merged with 8th Battalion 24 October 1917, )
 * 1st Battalion, Royal Munster Fusiliers (joined 28 May 1916 left 22 November 1916)
 * 10th (Service) Battalion, Royal Dublin Fusiliers (joined 23 June 1917, left 13 February 1918)
 * 1st Battalion, Royal Dublin Fusiliers (joined 19 October 1917 left 26 April 1918)
 * 2nd Battalion, Royal Munster Fusiliers (joined 3 February 1918 left 19 May 1918)
 * 22nd (Service) Battalion, Northumberland Fusiliers (joined 2 June 1918)
 * 11th (Service) Battalion, Royal Irish Fusiliers (joined 2 June 1918 left August 1918)
 * 18th (Service) Battalion, Cameronians (Scottish Rifles) (joined 2 July 1918)
 * 5th (Service) Battalion, Royal Irish Fusiliers (joined 24 August 1918)
 * 48th Machine Gun Company (joined 28 April 1916, moved to 16th Battalion, M.G.C. 9 March 1918)
 * 48th Trench Mortar Battery (formed by 24 June 1916, reformed in England 1918)

49th Brigade

 * 7th (Service) Battalion, Royal Irish Fusiliers (merged with 8th Battalion 15 October 1916, renamed as 7th/8th Battalion, disbanded February 1918)
 * 8th (Service) Battalion, Royal Irish Fusiliers (merged with 7th Battalion 15 October 1916)
 * 7th (Service) Battalion, Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers (merged with 8th Battalion 23 August 1917, renamed as 7th/8th Battalion, left 17 June 1918)
 * 8th (Service) Battalion, Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers (merged with 7th Battalion 23 August 1917)
 * 2nd Battalion, Royal Irish Regiment (joined 14 October 1916 left 23 April 1918)
 * 7th (Service) Battalion, Royal Irish Regiment (South Irish Horse) Battalion,(joined 17 October 1917 left 17 July 1918)
 * 34th (Service) Battalion, London Regiment (County of London) Battalion (joined 27 June 1918)
 * 18th (Service) Battalion, Gloucestershire Regiment (joined 2 July 1918)
 * 6th (Service) Battalion, Prince Albert's (Somerset Light Infantry)- (joined 4 July 1918)
 * 49th Machine Gun Company, Machine Gun Corps (joined 29 April 1916, moved to 16th Battalion, M.G.C 9 March 1918)
 * 49th Trench Mortar Battery (formed by 16 June 1916, reformed in England 1918)

Divisional troops

 * 11th (Service) Battalion, Hampshire Regiment (joined 20 September 1914 as divisional pioneers)
 * 269th Machine Gun Company M.G.C. (joined 18 January 1918, moved to 16th Battalion M.G.C. 9 March 1918)
 * 16th Machine Gun Battalion M.G.C. (formed 9 March 1918, broken up 8 May 1918. A new 16th MG Battalion joined on 2 August 1918)
 * 19th Entrenching Battalion (joined 4 April 1918, disbanded 5 May 1918. Troops went to 2nd Royal Munster Fusiliers)
 * Divisional Mounted Troops
 * 16th Divisional Cyclist Company Army Cyclist Corps (joined 11 December 1914, disbanded 1 June 1916.)
 * C Squadron, South Irish Horse (joined January 1915, left 17 May 1916)
 * 16th Divisional Train Army Service Corps
 * 142nd, 143rd, 144th and 145th Companies
 * 217th Divisional Employment Company (formed by 30 June 1917)
 * 47th Mobile Veterinary Section Army Veterinary Corps

Royal Artillery

 * LXXIV Brigade Royal Field Artillery (R.F.A.) (left in July 1915 to join Guards Division)
 * LXXV Brigade R.F.A. (as for LXXIV Brigade)
 * LXXVI Brigade R.F.A. (as for LXXIV Brigade)
 * LXXVII (H) Brigade R.F.A. (left in July 1915 but rejoined 22 February 1916, left 22 February 1917)
 * CLXXVII Brigade R.F.A. (joined 22 February 1916)
 * CLXXX Brigade R.F.A. (joined 22 February 1916)
 * CLXXXII Brigade R.F.A. (joined 22 February 1916, broken up 27 August 1916)
 * 16th Divisional Ammunition Column R.F.A. (left in August 1915 to join Guards Division. Replaced 22 February 1916)
 * 16th Heavy Battery Royal Garrison Artillery (raised for the Division but moved independently to France in July 1915)
 * X.16, Y.16 and Z.16 Medium Trench Mortar Batteries R.F.A. (joined by June 1916. Z.16 broken up 27 February 1918. X.16 and Y.16 broken up 20 April 1918)
 * V.16 Heavy Trench Mortar Battery R.F.A. (joined 5 September 1916, left February 1918)

Royal Engineers

 * 75th Field Company (left 13 August 1915 to join Guards Division)
 * 76th Field Company (left 13 August 1915 to join Guards Division)
 * 16th Divisional Signal (left 13 August 1915 to join Guards Division, a new Company joined in September 1915)
 * 95th Field Company (joined 30 January 1915 from 26th Division, left 17 August 1915 to join 7th Division)
 * 155th Field Company (joined August 1915)
 * 156th Field Company (joined August 1915)
 * 157th Field Company (joined August 1915)

Royal Army Medical Corps

 * 48th Field Ambulance (left June 1915 and joined 37th Division)
 * 49th Field Ambulance (as for 48th Coy.)
 * 50th Field Ambulance (as for 48th Coy.)
 * 111th Field Ambulance (joined September 1915)
 * 112th Field Ambulance (joined September 1915)
 * 113th Field Ambulance (joined September 1915)
 * 81st Sanitary Section (joined before embarkation, left for IX Corps in April 1917)

General officers commanding
The following officers commanded the division at various times:

Battles

 * Battle of Hulluch
 * Battle of the Somme (1916)
 * Battle of Guillemont
 * Battle of Ginchy
 * Battle of Messines (1917)
 * Third Battle of Ypres

Great War Memorials

 * Irish National War Memorial Gardens, Dublin.
 * Island of Ireland Peace Park Messines, Belgium.
 * Ulster Tower Memorial Thiepval, France.
 * Menin Gate Memorial Ypres, Belgium.

References and further reading
Four Courts Press (2007) The Military Heritage of Ireland Trust. ISBN 978-1-84682-080-9
 * Bartlet, Thomas & Jeffery, Keith: A Military History of Ireland, Cambridge University Press (1996) (2006), ISBN 978-0-521-62989-8
 * Bowen, Desmond & Jean: Heroic Option: The Irish in the British Army, Pen & Sword Books (2005), ISBN 978-1-84415-152-3.
 * Cooper, Bryan (1918): The 10th (Irish) Division in Gallipoli, Irish Academic Press (1993), (2003). ISBN 978-0-7165-2517-2.
 * Denman, Terence: Ireland's Unknown Soldiers: the 16th (Irish) Division in the Great War, Irish Academic Press (1992), (2003) ISBN 978-0-7165-2495-3.
 * Dooley, Thomas P.: Irishmen or English Soldiers? : the Times of a Southern Catholic Irish Man (1876–1916), Liverpool Press (1995), ISBN 978-0-85323-600-9.
 * Dungan, Myles: They Shall not Grow Old: Irish Soldiers in the Great War, Four Courts Press (1997), ISBN 978-1-85182-347-5.
 * Grayson, Dr. Richard S.: Belfast Boys – How Unionists and Nationalists fought and died together in the First World War, Continuum UK, London (2009) ISBN 978-1-84725-008-7
 * Horne, John ed.: Our War 'Ireland and the Great War': The Thomas Davis Lectures, The Royal Irish Academy, Dublin (2008) ISBN 978-1-904890-50-8
 * Jeffrey, Keith: Ireland and the Great War, Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge (2000), ISBN 978-0-521-77323-2.
 * Moore, Steven: The Irish on the Somme (2005), ISBN 978-0-9549715-1-9.
 * Murphy, David: Irish Regiments in the World Wars, Osprey Publishing (2007), ISBN 978-1-84603-015-4
 * Murphy, David: The Irish Brigades, 1685–2006, A gazetteer of Irish Military Service past and present,
 * Moore, Steven: The Irish on the Somme (2005), ISBN 978-0-9549715-1-9.
 * Murphy, David: Irish Regiments in the World Wars, Osprey Publishing (2007), ISBN 978-1-84603-015-4
 * Murphy, David: The Irish Brigades, 1685–2006, A gazetteer of Irish Military Service past and present,
 * Prior, Robin & Wilson, Trevor. (1997). Passchendaele: The Untold Story. Yale University Press.
 * Maxwell Staniforth, At war with the 16th Irish Division 1914-1918 : the Staniforth letters
 * Walker, Stephen: Forgotten Soldiers; The Irishmen shot at dawn Gill & Nacmillan (2007), ISBN 978-0-7171-4182-1

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

title: 16th (Irish) Division


text:
Wikipedia:List of articles with Pascal programs

This is a list of articles which contain programming examples with source code written in the programming language Pascal:

 * Hello world program
 * Stupid sort
 * Tagged union


text:
Talk:Hokkaido

Aynu Mosir
''These comments are in reply to this section in the archives. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 02:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)''
 * (Sorry, I do not know how far to indent here in this section) I added "Ainu Mosir" in the header and intro with the very clear distinction that it does not refer to simply Hokkaido but, rather, to the entire Ainu Country. There is a footnote in the infobox connected to the three instances of "Aynumosir"/etc. directing people to the Etymology section. I firmly believe the Ainu-itak name should be present up front because it is their homeland even if their naming convention does not match with the Japanese and Russian nation-state delineations. I also believe that we can clearly and cleanly explain the distinction between Hokkaido the island and Ainu Mosir the homeland (of which Hokkaido is the largest region), which I think I have done 206.125.79.123 (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Just a quick additional note: The fact that Hokkaido is just one part of Ainu Country and that Ainumosir does not equal Hokkaido is why "Ainu Mosir" is not bolded. Whereas equivalent names would have been bolded, this remains italicised. There should, however, be a proper Ainu Mosir page (disambiguated and not only of a movie), though 206.125.79.123 (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Do not unarchive comments that have been archived just so you can reply to one section that was last commented on nearly 8 years ago. Instead, post a link to the archived section (as I did above for you). ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 02:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

As someone whom studies Ainu, Ainu Mosir just means the Universe, the Ainu word for Hokkaido that Ainu speakers have told me personally is "Yaunmosir" ヤウンモシㇼ in kana, which means "Floating Land", hope this helps :) 86.30.52.72 (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Population statistics
If someone wants to update the population statistics, here is the Hokkaido prefecture site with updated statistics (though they are based on juminhyo so they are estimates):

Pinging

Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Put Cities, Towns Tables on Separate Page
Can we put the cities, town tables on a separate page? Because it takes up too much vertical space imo. -Artanisen (talk) 11:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Ainu Placenames for Hokkaido?
Like in the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug and places like Huanren Manchu Autonomous County I believe we should include Native names to all regions whether they are recognised or not by the central government, you might say:

"Hardly anyone speaks Ainu, why put in the effort?" "Ainu isn't recognised by the Japanese government" And? I can give a list of places where the Federal government doesn't recognise said languages and yet we still transcribe their native names!
 * 1) We have no problem adding place names to areas in other countries with low numbers of speakers, why should we draw the line at ainu? it has nothing to do with native speaker numbers? for example the Manchu Autonomous Counties
 * 2) With every language lost we lose 1000 years of history! how many people here can say that they fluently speak Sumerian or Akkadian? there are books that teach you these obscure languages, however it will never be the same as how the original people had it!
 * 3) Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia, things like Ainu Place names should be recorded before its too late
 * 1) Brittany
 * 2) Chukotka Autonomous Okrug
 * 3) Huanren Manchu Autonomous County
 * 4) Benxi Manchu Autonomous County
 * 5) Oklahoma
 * 6) Anadyr (town)
 * 7) Truro
 * 8) Cornwall
 * 9) Nunavut

In my humble opinion I believe we should not draw the line for any language that is indigenous 86.30.52.72 (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your suggesting is like including the ancient Celtic names for British places on the Great Britain page or the United States page with Native American names. Ainu place names have not been used for centuries or more nor officially recognized. Most people, including Japanese in Hokkaido, don't know those names. This would be more appropriate on the Ainu people page. You could make a map of Hokkaido with Ainu place names and put it on the Ainu page. The Ainu language and few remaining ethnic Ainu are moribund. -Artanisen (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

It is arrogant to assume that everyone names geographical features the same way as Westerners do. We have seen an influx of this kind of social justice warrior. They are characterized by a poor understanding of the situation. They are unaware that they are imposing their own biased view on the peoples they supposedly help.

An essay by Kojima Kyōko gives a sense of what Ainu language "toponyms" look like. The so-called Ainu toponyms are so descriptive that one would wonder if they are really proper names. Kojima provides an explanation as to why this happened: it is because Japanese geographers recorded (and thereby fossilized) Ainu "toponyms" by asking Ainu informants, with the assumption that every geographical feature must have a proper name. She even points to a possibility that many of these "toponyms" were invented on the fly by Ainu informants. In other words, what we see today are Japanese toponyms of Ainu language origin. They are by no means identical with what we imagine as toponyms of the Ainu people.

Now let's move on to large geographical entities. I replaced the following text fragment with mine, citing sources written by Ainu language experts.
 * in the Ainu language "Yaun Mosir" (ヤウンモシㇼ in Kana)  is the word for the island of Hokkaidō. the Ainu people also have a name for all of their domain, which included Hokkaidō along with the Kuril Islands, Sakhalin, and parts of northern Honshu, which was Aynu Mosir (アィヌ・モシ リ), a name taken by the modern Ainu to refer to their traditional homeland.     "Ainu Mosir" literally translates as "The Land Where People (the Ainu) Live", and it was traditionally used to be contrasted with Kamuy Mosir, "The Land of the Kamuy (spirits)".

--Nanshu (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No source gives an in-depth explanation of Ainu phrases in question. They are just instances of how activists use terms of Ainu language origin.
 * After all, you must acknowledge the plain fact that the Ainu had no proper name for the large geographical entity.

Sources for future article expansion
There is a ridiculously involved and well-done entry on Hokkaido under its former name Yeso here that could probably helpfully expand history and historical data here and at related pages like History of Hokkaido, Economy of Hokkaido, &c. It is in French but machine translation is getting better and easier all the time. — Llywelyn II   06:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE
In other news, the list of names is still in the wrong place. That's why we built a name section in the first place; we probably only need Ezo in the lead since the others are variants of the same basic idea. It's also still incomplete, missing other variants like Jesso, Iesso, Iezo, Ieco, Yedeo, Esso, Ieso-Gasima, Iesse, &c. as already noted in the archives here. — Llywelyn II   06:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

NPOV language
I changed the wording of the lead article because the wording seems to be pushing a certain viewpoint of a contributor, therefore undermining the neutrality of the article.

However, it was reverted again.

In 1869, following the Meiji Restoration, Ezo, which means "the land of the barbarians" in Japanese,[5] was annexed by Japan under on-going colonial practices, and renamed Hokkaido.[6] After this event, Japanese settlers started to colonize the island, establishing Japan's first modern settler colony.[4][5] While Japanese settlers colonized the island, the Ainu people were dispossessed of their land, forced to assimilate, and aggressively discriminated against by the Japanese settlers.[4][6] Many Ainu people were put into forced labor camps and exploited by the Japanese.[7] In the 21st century, the Ainu have been almost totally assimilated into Japanese society; as a result, many Japanese of Ainu descent have no knowledge of their heritage and culture.[8][9][10]

Kyuzoaoi (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Your version is simply too long for the lead, as this article is about Hokkaido as a whole. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the version you pasted, which I realize is not yours. I shortened. Ainu deserves a mention but so do other major aspects of the island. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The shortening is a significant improvement (in terms of alignment with NPOV), and very much appreciated. But I think there's more to do; both in terms of reducing the current focus, and in including additional aspects which are currently absent.
 * For example: In reviewing the source,, I find that it has sections on: Exploitation of Ainu Labour, Convict Labour (largely political prisoners from outside Hokkaido), Tako labour and Korean labour. The lead section currently includes only one of these. I note also that we reference this source 17 times, which may evidence an undue focus. And finally, this source does not seem to support the lead text Many Ainu were put into forced labor camps, for which it is the sole reference. Rotary Engine talk 03:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Valid point. I removed "Many Ainu were put into forced labor camps." from the lede. LilAhok (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In addition to the concerns above, the lead is supposed to summarize the article. It's worth noting that only 1/14 of the paragraphs under the History header of the article discuss the Ainu experience following the Meiji restoration. I shortened it somewhat to a more proportional representation so the sentence represents about 1/16th of the third paragraph in the lead. I agree with Rotary Engine that there seems to be an excessive reliance on the Jolliffe article which is only cited 6 times on Google Scholar. DCsansei (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My edit to the lead which I believe better summarized the history (and corrected the word "annexed" to "incorporated" to reflect sources) was undone with a request to go to talk. Pinging prior contributors @Kyuzoaoi @LegalSmeagolian @Rotary Engine @LilAhok for feedback.
 * I must disagree with LilAhok that the "point of that lede paragraph is to give a brief explaination of how japan acquired the island and what happened to the ainu people who lived there for thousands of years". I believe the point of the paragraph is to summarize the history of Hokkaido as described later in the article and therefore should include additional information. I am also not seeing a consensus here as much as an ongoing discussion and an agreement that the Jolliffe is overused in this article. DCsansei (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The user's replacement of "annexed" with "incorporated" is inappropriate because it inaccurately describes how Japan acquired the island, failing to reflect the historical context. It's important to note that the term "annexed" is present in various reputable sources, not limited to just the Jolliffe source. Both the Hokkaido Museum and the official website of the Hokkaido Tourism Organization also use this term. To prevent any misunderstandings, I'll include the sources in the article.
 * Hokkaido Tourism Organization: https://www.visit-hokkaido.jp/en/feature/ogawamotoi
 * Hokkaido Musuem:https://www.hm.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/wp-content/themes/hokkaidomuseum/images/forign_pdf/ENG-2-4.pdf LilAhok (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think annexed is also the correct language, however I have copyedited the paragraph to use active voice and to shorten it. I think its in a good state now. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I added information about colonization into the lede because it's referenced in the article, which draws from a range of sources, including an entire book. I think it's important to note the distinction between "dispossessed" and "colonization". LilAhok (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not everything needs to be spelled out with blue links, I think it is clear who was dispossessing the Ainu from their land from the way it is currently written. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In the comment for the recent edit, it was noted that "Settler colonialism is not likely appropriate in this context for a bluelink, not all imperialism is settler colonialism, also restored active voice"
 * I disagree with the point that settler colonialism is not appropriate for the lede. Three references within the article affirm that Hokkaido underwent a process of colonization, transforming it into a colony.
 * Dominant Narratives of Colonial Hokkaido and Imperial Japan by Michele M. Mason pg.7: "In as much as an outside power, the Meiji state, came to exert absolute political sovereignty over Ainu Moshir (Land of Humans), subjugated the indigenous people, undertook rapacious economic exploitation, and pursued an aggressive permanent settlement project, Hokkaido can be regarded as Japan’s only successful settler colony." http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/71693/1/29.pdf.pdf
 * Japanese Empire in Hokkaido by Philip Seaton: "..., after which Japanese settlers colonized the island beyond Wajinchi."https://oxfordre.com/asianhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277727-e-76
 * Forced Labour In Imperial Japan’s First Colony Hokkaidō By Pia M. Jolliffe:"I draw attention to how in this process, different groups of subaltern people ... contributed to the making of imperial Japan’s first colony..."https://apjjf.org/2020/20/Jolliffe LilAhok (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Only one of those sources describe Hokkaido as a "settler colony" - I would use this characterization with attribution and blue link in the body. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hokkaido


text:
Talk:HMS Ark Royal (91)

Comments
What are "16 4.5-inch/45-caliber guns"? Moriori 02:45, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * A little clearer? —Morven 07:25, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Morvem, I believe Moriori may be referring to Ark Royals anti-aircraft machine guns? Capt.Nero

 * 16 of 4.5 inch diameter 45 calibres long. GraemeLeggett 08:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * That's right: 16 guns paired in 8 turrets, each of which had a bore diameter of 4.5 inches, and the barrels were 45 times the length of the bore, i.e. 202.5 inches or 16 feet 10.5 inches. I am surprised to see them described as "anti-aircraft guns" as most navies considered a barrel that long too unwieldy to track aircraft accurately.  Perhaps these were actually dual-purpose, i.e. a compromise gun for use against both destroyers and aircraft, like the American 5/38? 207.245.172.22 (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The 4.5" Mk I was a new dual-purpose weapon fitted on high-angle/low-angle mounts on new aircraft carriers like the Ark Royal and reconstructed battleships and battlecruisers like the Renown. The later had ten twin 4.5" counter-sunk turrets, spit into four groups; each group had its own director with a HACS Mk IV fire control table for high-angle fire and an AFCC Mk VII fire control table for low-angle fire.  They were used against both aircraft and surface targets - the Renown used her 4.5s with success against the battleship Gneisenau.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Under design, it is stated "The hangar decks were placed inside the hull, thus benefiting from the protection of the 4.5 inches (110 mm) belt armour." This doesn't make sense. The hangar decks were above the belt armor. The armor belt can be clearly seen in the adjacent photo; the armor belt is the t-shaped patch on the side of the ship, just above the water line. The top of the armor belt is 1 to 2 decks below the lower hangar deck. I would be curious to know the exact wording of the source cited, which I don't have access to. 207.245.172.22 (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Court Martial of Ark Royal's Captain, 1941
In the BBC 2's program "Shipwreck Ark Royal" at 8 pm this evening (12/02/06) a very short reference was made about 2 minutes from the end saying that the captain was court martialled. Can enyone confirm that? Was he convicted? What was the charge?

Steve K. Thanks.

See below for clues as to the reason for the court martial. The charge would probably have been "Hazarding his ship". There appears to be no public record of the result but these proceedings were normally a formality to establish the facts and produce a definitive report.

Damage Report - Ark Royal

HMS Ark Royal was torpedoed by U-81 on November 14th, 1941. A single g7e torpedo struck the ship on the starboard side, abreast of the Island. This position was the worst possible in that, being dead midships, it was where the list caused would be greatest and its position relative to the transverse bulkheads was such that four main compartments plus over 106 feet of the ship's starboard bilge was immediately subject to flooding.

The enemy torpedo was running very deep and, at the time, there was some speculation that it may have used a non-contact (magnetic) exploder. This was later discounted on grounds that the damage inflicted by the hit was not as extensive as, nor was it of the type typical of, under-the-keel hits.

The explosion opened a hole 130 feet long by 30 feet deep, the size being increased by the time taken to bring the ship to a halt, resulting in additional hull plating being peeled off. This resulted in the starboard boiler room, air spaces and oil tanks flooding as did the main switchboard and the lower steering position. The starboard power train was also knocked out by the hit but the port and centerline trains kept functioning.

Some of the torpedo blast vented upwards through a bomb trunk forward of the Island. The ship whipped violently with the explosion which caused the fully-loaded torpedo-bombers on the flight deck to be hurled into the air. The ship however, showed very little shock damage internally and her masts remained standing. The Ark Royal (immediately after the explosion) took on a 10 degree list that increased to 18 degrees within 20 minutes.

Due to the flooding of the switchboard, communications within the ship were lost, explaining the delay in bringing the ship to a halt. At this point the Captain decided to evacuate the ship. All personnel were withdrawn from the machinery spaces and assembled topside in order to determine who should leave the ship and who should remain on board. As a result of this action, damage control measures were only initiated 49 minutes after the hit, the flooding having been uncontrolled for this period. During this critical period, the centerline boiler room started to flood from below. During the evacuation of the machinery spaces several covers and armored hatcheswere left open, allowing the flooding to spread further than otherwise would be expected.

As the ship listed further, water came in through the uptakes of the starboard boiler room, flooding over into the centerline, and later into the port, boiler rooms. This flooding further reduced the area through which the funnel gases could escape, causing severe local overheating and fires.

One hour and 19 minutes after the torpedo hit, all power within the ship failed. Meanwhile, most of the crew had been ordered to evacuate the ship. Those that left the ship included the entire staff of shipwrights and key members of the electrical staff, depriving the damage control crews of much-needed expertise. There were still further delays before the repair crews returned to the machinery spaces and attempts at counter-flooding started.

Only half of the available compartments on the portside were flooded, (which reduced the list to 14 degrees) because there was a lack of specialist expertise in the damage control parties. To make matters worse, the flooding valves were not then closed, so the water in the counterflooded units was gradually expelled as more water entered the starboard side of the ship.

Flooding and the loss of feedwater had already shut the ship's power-plant down. Since all the generators were steam-powered, this deprived the ship of electrical as well as motive power. The ship's engineers fought to get the plant back on line despite the rising floodwaters.They won that battle five hours and 34 minutes after the torpedo hit when the portside boiler room was lit off.

However, by that time, the list had increased to 18 degrees and the flooding was starting to spread across the ship's boiler room flat. This was an uninterrupted compartment running across the whole width of the ship, making the entire area of the machinery spaces vulnerable. The efforts made by the engine room crews to restore power were futile. The boiler room flat flooding forced the plant to be shut down again.

Progressive flooding now caused the list to increase rapidly. The list reached 20 degrees 11 hours and 4 minutes after the hit and touched 27 degrees an hour and a quarter later. At this point, the abandon ship order was again given. All crew were off the ship at 0430hrs, 12 hours 19 minutes after the hit, at which time the list had reached 35 degrees.

HMS Ark Royal capsized and sank at 0619hrs after the list reached 45 degrees. Although the ship had been designed with a great reserve of buoyancy, this had been allowed to dwindle away and an invaluable warship had been lost.

After the Second World War, the loss of Ark Royal was investigated. The conclusion drawn was that, on a target of 22,000 tons, the provision of an effective anti-torpedo scheme was difficult.

However, when a comparison with the Yorktown was held it was demonstrated that it was possible, and that the Yorktown had only sunk when all her reserve buoyancy had been exhausted.

The primary cause of the loss of Ark Royal was held to be the inexperience and poor judgement of those responsible for damage control and their lack of initiative. Proper damage control measures were not undertaken in good time nor was action to tow the ship to Gibraltar, less than 25 miles away undertaken promptly.

The torpedo hit on Ark Royal was serious but put the ship in no immediate danger of sinking The prompt application of counterflooding and standard damage control procedures would have saved the ship.

The Investigation also concluded that there were a variety of design factors contributing to the loss:

The uninterrupted boiler room flat was a significant error that was immediately rectified in the Illustrious and Indefatigable class. The adoption of a double hangar had forced the use of cross-deck uptakes low in the ship adding to vulnerability. The reliance on steam generators was also an error and diesel generators were back-fitted to the armored carriers. The power train design itself was strongly criticized. --- Thanks. Steve K.

Successful Good Article Nomination
According to the good article criteria, I have passed this article. Some useful suggestions I can give include a copyedit (from WP:MHL, and an A-Class review from WP:MILHIST before an attempt at FAC. Also, if you have an opportunity, please consider reviewing an article here. -MBK004 01:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's now a FA, but I have significant reservations about its reliance on just two sources. Surely such a notable, recent topic has more good material available than that. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Name?
What is the significance/origin of the name "Ark Royal"? Can this be added to the article, please? Johntex\talk 18:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The name is taken from the first ship, HMS Ark Royal (1587). The 'Ark' part was chosen by Walter Raleigh and ships usually took the name of the owner, so she was 'Ark Raleigh'. The government then purchased her for the navy, and since the crown was the owner and no longer Raleigh, she became 'Ark Royal'.  All subsequent ships have been named after this one. However the reason why a ship may receive a certain name can vary and be based on speculation.  HMS Ark Royal (1914) had been an early seaplane carrier so perhaps the Admiralty wanted to perpetuate the name in connection with naval aviation, but this is OR on my part.  For a similar example it was decided to name the current HMS Ark Royal (R07) after the previous HMS Ark Royal (R09) was scrapped, to try to ease public anger at the loss of Britain's fleet carriers to budget cuts. While that Ark Royal had probably been named after this Ark Royal because of her fame. Since this article is about this specific ship, I don't think this is the place to go into a discussion on the origin of the name with regards to this lineage, since for the most part it's unsourced and not directly relevant. One way to get to it is to follow the 'other ships' link to see where the name comes from.  Or it could be briefly outlined in a note. Benea (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Rediscovery
These findings seemed to absolve Ark Royal’s captain of blame for failing to save her.

That's unwarrented, IMO. E.g. no damage control for 49 minutes after the hit. The fact that the currents at the time prevented her being moved to Gibralter is one thing, but she might not have sunk in the first place had damage control promptly occurred.

Toby Douglass (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I think you have misunderstood this section. The findings of the investigation were 'The sinking of the Ark Royal was shown to be only a matter of time once the damage had been done.' So she would have sunk even if damage control measures were carried out promptly, in other words the torpedo hit was fatal.  The fact that Maund had failed to save the ship was not his fault, no captain could have saved Ark Royal.  That's not to say that Maund was guilty for not having initiated procedures at once, and indeed the board of inquiry condemned him for not having done so. But the ultimate sinking was not due to Maund's failure to do so. Benea (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft
Why did the RN not deploy naval version of the Hurricane or the Seafire on this ship?

 * becasue she was sunk before the Seafire was widely used, adn the naval Hurris were mostly used on CAM or MAC ships, rather than fleet carriers I should think. David Underdown (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Hurricanes could be flown from her flight deck, but they couldn't be carried on her lifts, so they'd have had to remain on the deck at all times. There were vague intentions to adapt the lifts to take Hurricanes, but as the flight deck was a major part of the structure this would have required a long time in dock, which simply wasn't available. Shimgray | talk | 12:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Bismarck's predictors
The suggestion that BISMARCK's predictors could not track Swordfish should be removed. Swordfish dropped torpedo at the same speed as other torpedo bombers of the era, the fragility of torpedoes being the determining factor. Also Swordfish were somewhat faster than the towed targets used for AA practice.

Skeltonp (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Peter Skelton
 * I'm sorry, but I don't see any part of the article that suggests Bismarck could not detect the aircraft. -- saberwyn 21:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Swordfish flying into any headwind would have their groundspeed reduced by the relevant amount, so it's quite possible that a Swordfish on its torpedo run could be doing as little as 60-70kts over the sea. It's not groundspeed that keeps an aeroplane in the air, but airspeed, and if the headwind is high enough - such as is commonly encountered in the North Atlantic, 30-40kts - then it's quite possible for a Swordfish's actual approach groundspeed to its ship target to be way off the lower end of a predictor's fuze-setting scale, e.g., ~40-50kts.

 * BTW, against a towed target the fuze timing is known, so the fuzes can be timed to detonate at the target's distance, whereas against a real aircraft target, the fuze timing depends on both target speed and distance. So if the target aircraft is flying too slow for the fuze settings then the shell will explode too early, before it has reached the slow-flying target. The predictors predict the trajectory of the target and allow the time to be set on the clockwork time fuzes that cause the flak shell to explode at the correct height or distance. So if the designers of the Bismarck's predictors assumed that no 'modern' aircraft would be attacking the ship at less than 90-100kts - a perfectly reasonable assumption for the time - then the claim about the Swordfish may well be true. If so, then in a head-on torpedo attack the shells would have been exploding in front of the attacking Swordfish as in any sort of strong headwind the Swordfish's ground speed may have been as low as 50kts.

 * So if true, the Swordfish claim would have been not that they couldn't be hit - in itself, a very difficult thing to do if there's any amount of deflection involved - but that the flak shells were exploding at the wrong time. This difficult ballistics problem was why the British devised, and the Americans later developed, the VT proximity fuze. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Both the USN Mk33/37 AA FCS and RN HACS III/IV could track aircraft down to 35 knots and it would be incredible if the German AA systems couldn't do the same. German naval intelligence was fully aware that the RN FAA were using Swordfish torpedo bombers, and had encountered them many times before, but the German navy was also having severe development problems with it's AA directors, and there is evidence that Bismarck's AA systems were not fully ready (see Koop, Battleships of the Bismarck class), however in 1942 Tirpitz did only marginally better, when she shot down 2 of 14 Albacores, but then she had an escort of 3 or 4 destroyers, and so a much greater volume of fire, especially from close range weapons, as the Albacores had to pass low over the destroyer screen.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

First Fleet Carrier?
Is the Ark Royal the first Royal Navy Fleet Carrier they got? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.65.197 (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the Royal Navy had been operating fleet carriers since the First World War, the first ones being the Glorious class aircraft carriers, and HMS Argus (I49). Benea (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsinkable Sam
Is it worth mentioning or linking to Unsinkable Sam, the ship's cat? -- saberwyn 06:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

'Websites' section under Bibliography
This is strange and unusual formatting, and does not appear to be following known guidelines such as the MOS or the examples laid out by the other FA articles in WikiProject:Ships. Why is it there? For consistancy with the formatting of other articles of this quality grade, it should be removed as unnecessary. Why has it been done here, and not on the other HMS "" FA-class articles? Why be inconsistent, either the other FAs need to be dragged into line, or this one should have the section binned. Kyteto (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

 * This is a featured article, and removal of cited references without a good reason is unacceptable. The citation of websites is certainly not unnecessary. That the format appears unusual is subjective and not grounds for removal. The MOS allows for a number of referencing styles, and the style is also seen on HMAS Melbourne (R21) for example. To attain consistency is not grounds for this action. Benea (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 * The citations were not removed, they are where they are supposed to be, as inline citations. Why repeat the internet citations outside of the inline at all; as I've noted the great majority of FA class articles, even within the WikiShips project, but in general FAs outside of this context, there's no use of the repetition style. The details given between the incline citation and the unneccessary duplication don't entirely match up either, making it more odd; The BBC's official name, as a publisher, is "BBC" not "BBC.com" or some such, that is simply a stripped down internet URL address, which is usually avoided where a formal publisher's name exists. I agree, the removal of cited references without good reason is unacceptable; but as my actions are clearly made with thought and meaning, there is therefore reason at work, thus reason exists, there is no void of reason here, so the declared statement of principle doesn't fit this situtation in the slightest. I also object to it being labelled as 'removal of references', the elimination of duplication is far more precise and accurate. The citation of websites isn't unncessary, but the secondary listing of them like a book beneath the Bibliography is a minority habbit that is uncreasingly disused; and it has been a while since I've seen an article pass an FA review with one in place, I'd dare say it would be removed as an obsolete irrelivance if it were for its FA today.

 * I also detest the accusation that my designation of the formatting being unusual is wholley subjective. As I stated in my first post, I had went through many of the FA, and now GA articles in the project's portfolio. I would conservatively estimate less than 10% used this system, by this percentage it is not a common feature. Common features are usual, the opposite of usual is unusual. It is, objectively via statistical comparison with a sampling of article, unusual. Therefore the assertion that it is subjective is unfounded, as it was made in ignorance to its objective base, which makes the statement based upon the sampling, in a word, objective itself. Kyteto (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 * The notes/citations in the body of the text are 'short form' (intended to convey the minimum of data required to identify the source, thereby taking up less space), while those in the "References"/"Bibliography" section are intended to carry the full bibliographic data. I don't know when or how the BBC reference in the body became long form...it wasn't that way when the article was promoted, so I have shortened it back and moved the updated data to the References.
 * For the "BBC.com", the reason I cited it like this is because some recent Australian works differentiate between print and paper incarnations of the same source, because the former can be chnged, updated, or altered after first publication. For example, an article printed in The Sydney Morning Herald would be cited as such, while its web-based equivalent would be cited to [www.smh.com.au the website], SMH.com.au. If this is the wrong way to handle British sources, I'm more than happy to go with it.
 * As for not passing FA, HMAS Australia (1911) was promoted with an "Online sources" subsection of the "References" a couple of days ago. The Manual of Style page on layout states in regards to notes and references that "Some articles divide this type of information into two or more separate sections; others combine it into a single section. How to best organize and title the results when the footnotes are separate from the works cited proper is mostly unresolved." While not the most common way of formatting references, it appears to be an acceptable way of doing so, at least in regards to current FA standards and the MOS. -- saberwyn 21:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 * In my opinion, the use of references as in this article is particulalry appropriate when the article uses multiple references to different parts of the same source, even more so when the source is a book. So notes/citations can refer to particular page numbers thus making it possible for someone wishing to check a particular reference for themselves.  Otherwise all we get is reference to the book, which might be a very large one and finding the relevant quotations may be well nigh impossible.  Furthermore, I support saberwyn's defferentiation beteen online and physical versions of similar sources, especially news sources because the online versions are very rarely the same as the printed ones.  Many newspapers use entirely different editorial staff and policies between the two versions and simply using one is likely to be very misleading. -  Nick Thorne  talk  22:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 * This seems good enoguh reasoning then. But I would like to point out to Nick Thorne that the Bibliography for Books was never under threat by any means, that is by far a highly common and encouraged feature. The main reason the BBC News Devision is perhaps a case outside of the seperation scheme, is that there is no form in print, BBC News is entirely online and on television, thus the destinction is unnecessary at least with this example, it just looks less neat with no need to ID as necessarily online, as it is online as the one and only way; and most articles do simply refer to the Publisher as BBC News. As long as consistancy and inconsistancy is well explained, I am happy. Kyteto (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Couple of comments
Hi all, excellent work on this article, and congratulations on getting it on the main page today! I read through the article, and noticed a few places where some citations should be added. I didn't want to add cn tags, what with the article being on the main page and all, but I still wanted to bring it to your attention. For instance, the bit on Bismarcks fate after being torpedoed by Ark Royals Swordfishes needs a citation. Most of these should be pretty easy to tidy up. Let me know if you need any clarification or anything. I can probably help with some of them, but I'm about done for the night, so I'll come back tomorrow and see what I can do. Congrats again on such a fine article on the main page. Parsecboy (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Should be easy to fix, I'm off as well now, but I'll add them later. Thanks for not tagging them immediately, I know many editors would not have been sensible/sensitive enough before dashing through. Benea (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I've fixed most of them, but I'm probably as far as I can go. There's a line about the refit that started on 3 November (I'm guessing Jameson will cover this, but the majority of his book isn't viewable in Google Books) and the bit about the hangar decks being in the hull and causing the flight deck to be 66 feet above the waterline. Parsecboy (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Thanks for this. My internet went down suddenly for the entire day, so I missed practically the entire period of its appearance on the mainpage. Probably for the best, since I'd have spent a lot of time fighting vandals. When I got on I saw you at work, so thought I'd not cause edit conflicts. I'll sort out the remaining cites. Benea (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all. Yeah, it's always sad to miss your article on the main page. One of mine, SMS Moltke (1910), ran during a vacation, so I missed the whole thing. Everything looks good now, excellent work tying off those last couple of loose ends. Parsecboy (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Friedman reference for British Carrier Aviation
One of the references is:
 * <ref name=pompom>Friedman, British Carrier Aviation, Appendix A. Ark Royal entered service with four 8 barreled mountings, but by October 1941 all six mountings were in place.</ref>

I suspect someone forgot to then add this to the "books" section after adding this to the body of the article.

I went ahead and added it to "Books" myself but as I don't have the book I may have added the wrong edition. I found these:
 * Friedman, Norman (1988) British Carrier Aviation: The Evolution of the Ships and their Aircraft. Conway Maritime Press ISBN 0851774881
 * Friedman, Norman (1989) British Carrier Aviation: The Evolution of the Ships and their Aircraft. Naval Institute Press ISBN 0870210548

The troublesome aspect is the Conway edition is 352 pages and the Naval Institute edition is 384 pages. They are roughly the same size. The page count difference may be typesetting or that the Naval Institute edition includes Appendix A which is the part being used by the citation <ref>s in the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, the info was from the N.I.P., ISBN 0870210548. I should have specified this when I created the original reference.Damwiki1 (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Congratulations on WP:TFA. I enjoyed reading the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Final Captain Loben Maund
The article links no article to the Captain Maund's mention in the end of the article. The name should link to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loben_Edward_Harold_Maund, which details his career.
 * Generally, only the first occurence of a wikilink 'target' is linked to. -- saberwyn 21:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Captain Val Bailey
I don't know if this is worth mentioning in the article. Captain Val Bailey is reported to be the last person off the HMS Ark Royal

--Marc Kupper|talk 07:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Length
Certainly an interesting ship, but at 6,500 words this article seems overly detailed. Sca (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The first? really?
The article states:

 * Ark Royal was the first ship on which the hangars and flight deck were an integral part of the hull, instead of an add-on or part of the superstructure.

Wasn't the Hōshō the first ? (Hōshō, Japan, 1922). Kintaro (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

take a look at Hōshō and you see that the hanger deck is the weather deck level and the flight deck is an additional structure atop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.212.16 (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

 * The flight deck on Ark Royal and Illustrious were integral to the hull and contributed a significant part of the structural strength of the ship. On the other ships the flight deck was merely a platform built on top of an otherwise normal hull. On these the flight deck contributes little to the structural strength of the ship.

 * Using the flight deck as the main strength deck kept the weight down and allowed the ship to be built within the tonnage limit of the relevant treaty regulations in-force at the time. The other advantage of the design is that the interior of the ship's hangar deck is protected from bad weather, a desirable thing in the North Atlantic in winter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.150 (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Sailors
Ship's complement is listed as "1,580 officers and sailors" which I find odd since I think of Officers as being sailors too. I assume here it means what I would call "seaman" or "enlisted." Is this standard British usage? Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. Look around British books on such vessels and you'll find it quite often Sometimes it's "officers and men". Britmax (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed corrections
I found two sentences in the article which I think need to be corrected/improved, but I am reluctant to do this in a featured article before putting the changes up to discussion: --Marinebanker (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "As hangar decks were within the hull, the flight deck rose to 66 feet (20 m) above the waterline." The citation nonwithstanding, it is irrelevant to the height of the flight wether the hangar decks are in the hull or in the superstructure. The only point is that the hangars are below the flight deck, which at that point in time was always the case. I propose to change the sentence to "As there were two hangar decks, the flight deck rose to 66 feet (20 m) above the waterline." and dropping the citation, because I do not know if this would still be covered by the source.
 * "The hangar decks were placed inside the hull, thus benefiting from the protection of the 4.5-inch (11.4 cm) belt armour." Now this has a citation as well, and I do not have sources to the contrary. But I consider it obvious that the belt, which covered part of the waterline, did not extend up to the hangars high up in the ships structure. Possibly this is a confusions with the Illustrious-class, which had armoured hangar sides. I propose chaneging it to "The hangar decks were placed inside the hull.", again dropping the citation.

 * British carriers' main deck was the flight deck, not the hangar deck as in US carriers. So it is entirely correct to say that the hangar was within the hull. - Nick Thorne talk  12:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it seems I expressed myself badly. Of course the hangars were within the hull. But the first sentence I brought up was ""As hangar decks were within the hull, the flight deck rose to 66 feet (20 m) above the waterline." (my emphasis). So the sentence is not about whether the hangar was within the hull or not. The sentence states that the fact that the hangars were inside the hull (and - by implication - not part of the superstructure) is the reason for the flight deck being 20 m above the waterline. What I do not see is the connection between the height of the fight deck on the one hand and the fact that hangars were part of the hull on the other hand. --Marinebanker (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

 * I don't think you understood my point. Because the flight deck on British carriers is the main deck, the hangar is not part of the superstructure.  This is quite different to US carriers, at least in WWII.  I don't know whether modern US carriers consider their flight deck to be the main deck, or the hangar deck. - Nick Thorne talk  09:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

 * I fully agree with what you say about different design practices in Royal and US navy. But I am afraid I do not understand how this relates to my my original point. My original point (first bullet point above) is: Why does the fact that the hangars are in the hull cause the flight deck to be 20 m above the waterline? Because that is what the article says in the sentence I cited. --Marinebanker (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Here's my proposed wording along with references to help clarify things:

Ark Royal featured an enclosed hangar design[1] where the fight deck was the 'strength deck'[2] and was strongly built with .75in (19mm) thick Ducol steel plating.[2] The two hangar decks were thus enclosed within the hull girder, which also gave splinter protection to the hangars. Three lifts moved aircraft between the hangars and the flight deck.[R] Another feature was the length and height of the flight deck. At 800 feet (240 m), the flight deck was 118 feet (36 m) longer than the keel; the latter dictated by the length of Royal Navy drydocks in Gibraltar and Malta.[R] Due to the twin hangar decks, the flight deck rose to 66 feet (20 m) above the waterline.
 * [1]Friedman, British Carrier Aviation. When the flight deck becomes the strength deck, the aircraft hangars are then enclosed within the hull structure. The terms, 'enclosed' and 'open' hangars do not, strictly speaking, refer to a hangar that is closed or open on the sides, but rather to whether the hangar is, respectively, below or above the strength deck.
 * [2]Friedman, British Carrier Aviation. The flight deck was designed with .75 in of Ducol steel. The enclosed hangar design required a deck of approximately this thickness to ensure adequate hull integrity, so the limited armour protection was a by-product of the enclosed hangar design. The strength deck is designed to carry structural loading in combination with the hull girder and side and bottom plating. Ship's structure above the strength deck is termed 'superstructure'. Ducol steel was an advanced type of high tensil steel which had great strength and was often used to provide armour for splinter protection. ***
 * [R] existing reference
 * Modern USN carriers also have the flight deck as the strength deck as this is a structurally more efficient design. Damwiki1 (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Thanks a lot, this adresses both points and is better than my original proposal. I agree with the proposed change, assuming the proposed paragraph will replace the following part of the text: " The hangar decks were placed inside the hull, ..., the flight deck rose to 66 feet (20 m) above the waterline." --Marinebanker (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Ok, I'll do it tomorrow. Damwiki1 (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote Ducol, and I'm trying to pinpoint the actual page in Friedman on which this info appears. A snippet search for 'Ducol' in the Google books copy returns 0 results. By the way, the [2] above appears in the article itself, rather than a proper blue ref. Can anyone enlighten me, please? Cheers, >MinorProphet (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Friedman, notes or quotes?
Several of the Friedman citations are accompanied by prose, for example: "Ark Royal entered service with four 8-barrelled mountings, but by October 1941 all six mountings were in place." I can't tell if these are explanatory notes or quotes from the source. If they are notes, I think they should be placed in the Notes section; if they are quotes, they should have quote marks around them. Anyone know which they are? GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

"Steam catapults" is wrong, these were invented in the late 1940s by CC Mitchell and prototyped on HMS Perseus in 1950. The ones used on Ark in WW2 must have been hydraulic catapults.

title: Talk:HMS Ark Royal (91)


text:
Oakes Ames

Oakes Ames (January 10, 1804 – May 8, 1873) was an American businessman, investor, and politician. He was a member of the United States House of Representatives from Massachusetts. As a congressman, he is credited by many historians as being the single most important influence in the building of the Union Pacific portion of the transcontinental railroad. He is also noted for the subsequent scandal that alleged the improper sale of stock of the railroad's construction company.

Biography
Ames was born in Easton, Massachusetts, the son of Susanna (Angier) Ames and Oliver Ames Sr., a blacksmith who had built a business of making shovels, the Ames Shovel Shop, and became nicknamed "King of Spades". In his youth, he obtained a public school education and later worked in the family workshops to learn each step of the manufacturing process. He eventually became a partner in the business, and with his brother Oliver Ames Jr. he established the firm Oliver Ames & Sons. Driven by the settlement of the Midwest, by the discovery of gold in California and Australia, as well as by railroad construction, the shovel manufacturing business boomed. During the Civil War, the firm prospered with contracts for swords, shovels, and other tools and implements. Ames made a large fortune.

He was influential in the establishment of the Republican Party in Massachusetts. In 1860, he became a member of the executive council of Massachusetts, and from 1863 to 1873 he served as a U.S. Congressman from the Second District of Massachusetts. In Congress, he became a member of the Committee on Railroads during the early building of the transcontinental railroad. In 1865, President Abraham Lincoln appealed to him to take control of the Union Pacific (UP) portion of the project, which had become mired down because of the war, and had built only 12 mi of track.

Through his influence he obtained contracts for his family firm in the construction of the Union Pacific and staked nearly all the family's holdings as capitalization for the project. The contracts were later transferred to the Credit Mobilier Company of America after Ames ousted its founder Thomas Durant. His brother Oliver was appointed president of the UP in 1866. The railroad was completed in 1869.

In 1872, it was disclosed Ames sold shares in Credit Mobilier to fellow congressmen at a price greatly below the market value of the stock. The subsequent public scandal led to a House investigation, which formally recommended expulsion. On February 28, 1873, the House passed a resolution formally censuring Ames "in seeking to secure congressional attention to the affairs of a corporation in which he was interested, and whose interest directly depended upon the legislation of Congress, by inducing members of Congress to invest in the stocks of said corporation." Detractors referred to him as "Hoax Ames". Ames died soon afterward at North Easton, Massachusetts, May 5, 1873, due to a stroke.

On May 10, 1883, the 14th anniversary of the completion of the railroad, the state legislature of Massachusetts passed a resolution exonerating Ames. His son Oliver Ames served as Governor from 1887 to 1890.

Honors
The contributions of Ames and his brother Oliver in the building of the Union Pacific are commemorated in the Oliver and Oakes Ames Monument at Sherman Summit, near Laramie, Wyoming, along the original route. The pyramidal monument was designed by famous architect Henry Hobson Richardson (who designed a number of projects for the Ames family) with sculpted plaques of the Ames brothers by Augustus Saint-Gaudens. At the time of its construction, the monument was located at the highest point attained by the UP's transcontinental route. With a change in the route of the railroad, the monument today is not on any major transportation route.

The city of Ames, Iowa is named for Oakes, as is likely the community of Ames, Nebraska.

title: Oakes Ames


text:
The Mystery of the Yellow Room

The Mystery of the Yellow Room (in French Le mystère de la chambre jaune) is a mystery novel written by French author Gaston Leroux. One of the first locked-room mystery novels, it was first published serially in France in the periodical L'Illustration from September 1907 to November 1907, then in its own right in 1908.

It is the first novel starring fictional reporter Joseph Rouletabille and concerns a complex, and seemingly impossible, crime in which the criminal appears to disappear from a locked room. Leroux provides the reader with detailed, precise diagrams and floorplans illustrating the crime scene. The story provides an intellectual challenge to the reader.

The novel finds its continuation in the 1908 novel The Perfume of the Lady in Black, wherein a number of the characters familiar from this story reappear.

Plot summary
Reporter and amateur sleuth Joseph Rouletabille is sent to investigate a criminal case at the Château du Glandier and takes along his friend the lawyer Sainclair, who narrates. Mathilde Stangerson, the 30-something daughter of the castle's owner, Professor Joseph Stangerson, was found near-critically battered in a room adjacent to his laboratory on the castle grounds, with the door still locked from the inside. She recovers slowly but can give no useful testimony. Rouletabille meets and interrogates several characters: the castle's concierges Mr & Mrs Bernier, the old servant Jacques, an unfriendly inn landlord and a womanising gamekeeper, and begins a friendly rivalry with France's top police detective Frédéric Larsan, who has been assigned the case. Larsan suspects Ms Stangerson's fiancé, another scientist called Robert Darzac, to Rouletabille's dismay.

More attempts are made on Ms Stangerson's life despite Rouletabille and Larsan's protection, and the perpetrator appears to vanish on two occasions when they are closing in on him, echoing Professor Stangerson's research into "matter dissociation". The gamekeeper is murdered during the second attempt. Ultimately, Larsan arrests Darzac who is charged with murder attempts. Rouletabille suspects that Darzac has secret reasons not to defend himself and he disappears to make further investigations.

Two-and-a-half months later, as Darzac's trial opens, Rouletabille reappears sensationally and tells the court that the culprit is Frédéric Larsan himself, whom he accuses of being an alter-ego of a master criminal called Ballmeyer. Larsan appeared to vanish on the two occasions he was nearly collared as he was one of the pursuers. Darzac is released when it emerges that Larsan has vanished after Rouletabille warned him he would accuse him in court. The mystery of the locked Yellow Room is explained thus: Larsan assaulted Ms Stangerson earlier in the day than originally thought, but she hid the traces of the attack and locked herself away. During the night, traumatised by the event, she fell off her bed and inflicted the gravest of the wounds by hitting her temple on the corner of her bed-side table.

The background to these events is kept secret in court but finally explained by Sainclair. Ballmeyer, in a different guise, had seduced Ms Stangerson in her youth and married her secretly in the United States. They had a child before he was arrested and his identity revealed to her. Ms Stangerson had arranged for her son's care and education and hidden the whole saga from her father; her silence and Robert Darzac's behaviour were motivated by her desperation to keep him from finding out. Ballmeyer however, hearing that she was engaged, had decided to reappear in her life and claim her as his wife once more, by force if necessary.

Characters

 * Joseph Rouletabille – the young journalist and amateur detective, protagonist
 * Jean Sainclair – Rouletabille's friend and lawyer, the narrator
 * Frédéric Larsan – the police detective
 * Professor Stangerson – the scientist, owner of "Chateau du Glandier"
 * Mlle. Mathilde Stangerson – daughter of a famous scientist, the victim
 * "Father" Jacques – an old servant in the Stangerson family
 * Robert Darzac - a scientist and Mlle. Stangerson's fiancé
 * The Green Man - the gamekeeper, disliked by all.

Reception
John Dickson Carr, a writer of locked-room mysteries, has his detective Dr. Gideon Fell declare this the "best detective tale ever written", in his novel The Hollow Man (1935).

Agatha Christie praised The Mystery of the Yellow Room through the mouthpiece of her detective Hercule Poirot in her 1963 novel The Clocks:

"And here is The Mystery of the Yellow Room. That - ah, that is really a classic! I approve of it from start to finish. Such a logical approach! There were criticisms of it, I remember, which said it was unfair. But it is not unfair, my dear Colin. No, no. Very nearly so, perhaps, but no not quite. There is the hair's breadth of difference. No. All through there is truth, concealed with a careful and cunning use of words. Everything should be clear at that supreme moment when the men meet at the angle of the three corridors.' He laid it down reverently. 'Definitely a masterpiece, and, I gather, almost forgotten nowadays."

In a 1981 poll by Edward D. Hoch of 17 mystery writers and reviewers, this novel was voted the third-best locked-room mystery of all time, behind Hake Talbot's Rim of the Pit (1944) and John Dickson Carr's The Hollow Man (1935).

The popular 1946 Japanese detective novel The Honjin Murders (本陣殺人事件, Honjin satsujin jiken) by Seishi Yokomizo refers to The Mystery of the Yellow Room numerous times, the narrator quipping that Leroux's novel "bears the closest resemblance" to the story recounted in the novel.

Adaptations
Stage:

 * The Mystery of the Yellow Room by Leroux opened 14 February 1912 in Paris, and a translation by Hannaford Bennett played 93 performances at the St James Theatre in London in 1920. Sybil Thorndike played Mathilde.

Film and TV:
 * The Mystery of the Yellow Room (1913)
 * The Mystery of the Yellow Room (1919)
 * The Mystery of the Yellow Room (1930)
 * The Mystery of the Yellow Room (1949)
 * The Mystery of the Yellow Room (2003)
 * An episode of Jonathan Creek features a stage adaptation of the novel and centres around a similar event happening to one of its actors.
 * The Mystery of the Yellow Room (2003)
 * An episode of Jonathan Creek features a stage adaptation of the novel and centres around a similar event happening to one of its actors.

Radio:
 * Gaston Leroux – The Mystery of the Yellow Room, BBC Radio 4, 1998, starring Nicholas Boulton and Geoffrey Whitehead

Release details

 * 1907, France, L'illustration, Pub September–November 1907, magazine serial
 * 1908, France, Editions Jacques Lafitte (ISBN NA), (First edition)
 * 1934, UK, Oxford University Press ISBN 0-19-832345-X,
 * 1977, UK, Dover Publications ISBN 0-486-23460-6
 * 1978, UK, Remploy ISBN 0-7066-0759-7
 * 1996, US, Books on Tape ISBN 5-557-12771-2
 * 1996, US, Buccaneer Books ISBN 0-89966-141-6
 * 1997, UK, Dedalus Ltd ISBN 1-873982-38-0
 * 2002, US, Indypublish.com ISBN 1-4043-2003-2
 * 2002, US, Indypublish.com ISBN 1-4043-2002-4
 * 2004, UK, Thorndike Press ISBN 0-7862-6991-X
 * 2005, US, Kessinger Publishing ISBN 0-7661-9366-7
 * 2006, UK, Blackstone Audiobooks ISBN 0-7861-7523-0, audio book (MP3 CD)
 * 2006, UK, Dover Publications ISBN 0-486-44928-9
 * 2009, US, Black Coat Press ISBN 1-934543-60-8

title: The Mystery of the Yellow Room


text:
Group 8 element

! colspan=2 style="text-align:left;" | ↓ Period ! 4 ! 5 ! 6 ! 7
 * colspan="2"|
 * colspan="2"|
 * colspan="2"|

Legend
 * }

Group 8 is a group (column) of chemical elements in the periodic table. It consists of iron (Fe), ruthenium (Ru), osmium (Os) and hassium (Hs). "Group 8" is the modern standard designation for this group, adopted by the IUPAC in 1990. It should not be confused with "group VIIIA" in the CAS system, which is group 18 (current IUPAC), the noble gases. In the older group naming systems, this group was combined with groups 9 and 10 and called group "VIIIB" in the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) "U.S. system", or "VIII" in the old IUPAC (pre-1990) "European system" (and in Mendeleev's original table). The elements in this group are all transition metals that lie in the d-block of the periodic table.

While groups (columns) of the periodic table are usually named after their lightest member (as in "the oxygen group" for group 16), iron group has historically been used differently; most often, it means a set of adjacent elements on period (row) 4 of the table that includes iron, such as chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, and nickel, or only the last three, or some other set, depending on the context.

Like other groups, the members of this family show patterns in electron configuration, especially in the outermost shells, resulting in trends in chemical behavior.

Basic properties
The following is copied from the pages of Iron, Ruthenium, Osmium, and Hassium respectively.

Pristine and smooth pure iron surfaces are a mirror-like silvery-gray. Iron reacts readily with oxygen and water to produce brown-to-black hydrated iron oxides, commonly known as rust. Unlike the oxides of some other metals that form passivating layers, rust occupies more volume than the metal and thus flakes off, exposing more fresh surfaces for corrosion. High-purity irons (e.g. electrolytic iron) are more resistant to corrosion.

Because it hardens platinum and palladium alloys, ruthenium is used in electrical contacts, where a thin film is sufficient to achieve the desired durability. With its similar properties to and lower cost than rhodium, electric contacts are a major use of ruthenium. The ruthenium plate is applied to the electrical contact and electrode base metal by electroplating or sputtering.

Osmium is a hard but brittle metal that remains lustrous even at high temperatures. It has a very low compressibility. Correspondingly, its bulk modulus is extremely high, reported between 395 and 462 GPa, which rivals that of diamond (443 GPa). The hardness of osmium is moderately high at 4 GPa. Because of its hardness, brittleness, low vapor pressure (the lowest of the platinum-group metals), and very high melting point (the fourth highest of all elements, after carbon, tungsten, and rhenium), solid osmium is difficult to machine, form, or work.

Very few properties of hassium or its compounds have been measured; this is due to its extremely limited and expensive production and the fact that hassium (and its parents) decays very quickly. A few singular chemistry-related properties have been measured, such as enthalpy of adsorption of hassium tetroxide, but properties of hassium metal remain unknown and only predictions are available. Though despite its radioactivity, chemists have formed hassium tetroxide and sodium hassate(VII) through various means.

Occurrence and production
In terms of mass, iron is the fourth most common element within the Earth's crust. It is found in many minerals, such as hematite, magnetite, and taconite. Iron is commercially produced by heating these minerals in a blast furnace with coke and calcium carbonate.

Ruthenium is a very rare metal in Earth's crust. It is often found in minerals such as pentlandite and pyroxinite. It can be commercially obtained as a waste product from refining nickel.

Osmium is found in osmiridium. It can also be obtained as a waste product from refining nickel.

Hassium is extremely radioactive, and as such is not found naturally in the Earth's crust. It is produced via the bombardment of lead-208 atoms with iron-58 atoms.

Biological role
Iron is a mineral used in the human body that is essential for good health. It is a component in the proteins of hemoglobin and myoglobin, both of which are responsible for transporting oxygen around the body. Iron is a part of some hormones as well. A lack of iron in the body can cause iron deficiency anemia, and an excess of iron in the body can be toxic.

Some ruthenium-containing molecules may be used to fight cancer. Normally, however, ruthenium plays no role in the human body.

Both osmium and hassium have no known biological roles.

title: Group 8 element


text:
Talk:Repentigny, Quebec

Article title
The title of this entry is wrong, while the text inside is correct: the name of that city is Repentigny, not Répentigny.

Correction Needed
In the first paragraph of the article, the following sentence is obviously incorrect: "Repentigny and Charlemagne are the first towns off the island of Montreal." The original author may have meant that "Repentigny and Charlemagne are the first towns in Quebec that are off the island of Montreal," but I don't know. I'm not a Quebec historian. But I am a pretty good editor, and I do know that there were many "towns" around the world long before Montreal, Repentigny or Charlemagne were founded. At this point, it is a mystery to me what the original author did mean.74.196.127.243 (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the town's name
This article would be improved by including the origin of the name of the town. The French language Wiki page about the town mentions that Pierre LeGardeur was sieur de Repentigny.' Grandma Roses (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Repentigny, Quebec