text:
Frenulum of labia minora

The frenulum of labia minora (fourchette or posterior commissure of the labia minora) is a frenulum where the labia minora meet posteriorly.

Pathology
The fourchette may be torn during delivery due to the sudden stretching of the vulval orifice, or during copulation. To prevent this tearing in a haphazard manner, obstetricians and, less frequently, midwives may perform an episiotomy, which is a deliberate cut made in the perineum starting from the fourchette and continuing back along the perineum toward the anus. Sometimes this surgical cut may extend to involve the perineal body and thus reduce anal sphincter function. Thus some obstetricians have opted to perform a posterior-lateral cut in the perineum to prevent this potential complication from occurring.

The fourchette may also be torn in acts of violence wherein forced entry occurs such as rape. When the fourchette is torn, the bleeding which ensues sometimes requires surgical suturing for containment.

Etymology
The fourchette is named with the French word for "fork" or "wishbone", owing to its shape. (See frenulum for its etymology.)

title: Frenulum of labia minora


text: Template:The Lord of the Rings

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

title: Template:The Lord of the Rings


text:
User:Samrose

About Me
My name is Sam Rose.

Socialsynergyweb.com is the enterprise that I have created to help people deal with the complexities of knowledge, understanding, change, human systems, evolution, foresight, cooperation and collaboration, and technology.

I have always been interested in effective knowledge synthesis, and I am interested in exploring and developing the concepts of open knowledge, open design, and open business.

I also love music, and writing, graphic arts, and inventing/tinkering/personal fabrication, (although I never seem to have the time lately :)

Here's a growing list of blogs, wikis, social software experiments and developings, and ongoing reearch projects that I am involved in:

http://forwardfound.org
 * CoummunityWiki
 * Meatball Wiki
 * Cooperation Commons Weblog
 * Smartmobs Weblog
 * P2P Foundation wiki
 * P2P Foundation Weblog

title: User:Samrose


text:
Boston Latin School

The Boston Latin School is a public exam school in Boston, Massachusetts. It was established on April 23, 1635, making it both the oldest public school in colonial-era British America and the oldest existing school in the United States. The school's admission policies and demographics have been controversial.

History
Boston Latin School was founded on April 23, 1635, by the Town of Boston. The school was modeled after the Free Grammar School of Boston in England under the influence of Reverend John Cotton. The first classes were held in the home of the Master, Philemon Pormort. John Hull was the first student to graduate (1637). It was intended to educate young men of all social classes in the classics. The school was initially funded by donations and land rentals rather than by taxes. A school established in nearby Dedham was the first tax-supported public school.

Latin is the mother of modern Romance languages and was an educational priority in the 17th century. The ability to read at least Cicero and Virgil was a requirement of all colonial colleges, and to write and speak Latin in verse and prose was the first of the “Harvard College Laws” of 1642. Boston Latin prepared many students for admission to Harvard, with a total of seven years devoted to the classics. However, most graduates of Boston Latin did not go on to college, since business and professions did not require college training.

A cadet corps was founded during the American Civil War and was disbanded in the early 1960s.

Boston Latin has produced four Harvard University presidents, four Massachusetts governors, and five signers of the United States Declaration of Independence. Benjamin Franklin and Louis Farrakhan are among its well-known dropouts.

Until the 19th century, the Latin School admitted only male students and hired only male teachers. Helen Magill White was the school's first female graduate and the first American woman to earn a doctorate. Magill White was the only female pupil at the school when she attended. Later, the Girls' Latin School was founded in 1877. Boston Latin admitted its first co-educational class in 1972.

The school appointed Marie Frisardi Cleary and Juanita Ponte as the first two women in its academic faculty in 1967. Cornelia Kelley was the school's first female headmaster, serving from 1998 until her retirement in 2007, after which Lynne Mooney Teta became headmaster. In 2016, Mooney Teta resigned amid a federal probe into racially charged incidents at the school. In 2017, Rachel Skerritt became the first person of color to serve as headmaster. Skerritt resigned at the conclusion of the 2021-22 school school year and was succeeded in the retitled position of Head of School by elementary principal and fellow Latin School alumnus Jason Gallagher.

Academics
Boston Latin's motto is Sumus Primi, Latin for we are first. This is a double entendre, referring both to the school's date of founding and its academic stature. Boston Latin has a history of pursuing the same standards as elite New England prep schools while adopting the egalitarian attitude of a public school. Academically, the school regularly outperforms public schools in affluent Boston suburbs, particularly as measured by the yearly MCAS assessment required of all Massachusetts public schools. In 2006, Brooklyn Latin School was founded in New York City, explicitly modeled on Boston Latin, borrowing much from its traditions and curriculum. In 2006, Washington Latin School was founded in Washington DC, also modeled on Boston Latin.

Admissions
Admission to Boston Latin School is limited to residents of the city of Boston. Until 2020, admission was determined by a combination of a student's score on the Independent School Entrance Examination (ISEE) and recent grades. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the entrance exam was suspended, and admission was based on grades and Boston residency. In 2021, a new exam, the MAP Growth test, was designated for students applying for entrance to the 2023-24 school year and beyond. Students must have a grade point average from their current and previous school years of at least a B to be eligible to apply. In addition to GPA and test scores, students may be eligible to receive additional points if they meet specific criteria, such as living in housing owned by the Boston Housing Authority, in the care of the Department of Children and Families, or experiencing homelessness. They also receive additional points if they attended a school in the year prior to application that has, on average over the past five years, an enrollment of 40% or more economically disadvantaged students.

Although Boston Latin runs from the 7th through the 12th grade, it admits students only into the 7th and 9th grades.

The school has been the subject of controversy concerning its admissions process. Before the 1997 school year, Boston Latin set aside a 35% quota of places in the incoming class for under-represented minorities. The school was forced to drop this policy after a series of lawsuits were brought by white females who were not admitted despite ranking higher (based on test scores and GPA) than admitted minorities.

After the lawsuits, the percentage of under-represented minorities at Boston Latin fell from 35% in 1997 to under 19% in 2005, despite efforts by Boston Latin, the Boston Public Schools, and the Boston Latin School Association to recruit more minority applicants and retain more minority students.

Boston Latin later defeated a legal effort to end its admissions process entirely in favor of admissions by blind lottery.

In recent years, the admissions exam has continued to cause controversy due to the lack of diversity among admitted students. In 2017, Lawyers for Civil Rights published the demographics of the incoming class, highlighting that Black students are invited to attend Boston Latin at a rate that is more than two and a half times lower than their enrollment rates in Boston Public Schools overall.

The following year in 2018, Harvard Kennedy School released a brief explaining possible reasons for the racial gap in Boston Latin School’s admissions. Among the reasons are the lower rates of participation in the ISEE by Black and Hispanic students, lower ISEE scores due to inequitable curriculum and resources in the schools from which these students come, reported GPA differences, and less likelihood of Black and Hispanic students to list Boston Latin School as their top choice in school placement forms.

In 2019, Lawyers for Civil Rights, alongside the Boston chapter of the NAACP, sent a letter to Mayor Walsh, the Boston School Committee, and the superintendent, seeking to redo the admissions policies for Boston Latin School. The organizations cited the disproportionate admission rates of Black and Hispanic students versus white students as a failure of the exam system, and asked for a process that would diversify the school and take into account a student's personal achievements.

The Educational Records Bureau (ERB), the organization responsible for creating and updating the ISEE, reportedly decided to end its yearly contract with the Boston Public Schools (BPS) in April 2019. In an email sent to the school district and other clients, ERB claimed that the test’s scoring metric had been incorrectly applied by BPS, resulting in underrepresented race groups failing to be admitted. BPS, however, denied that ERB cut business ties with the school district. BPS claimed instead that it had ended the contract in search of a test enabling “more equitable access” to the exam schools.

In October 2020, the Boston School Committee voted to cancel entrance exams for the city’s three exam schools in 2021, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The School Committee opted for an admissions procedure under which 20% of the incoming class would be accepted based on top grades, and the other 80% based on grades and zip codes. Students coming from zip codes with lower-income communities would receive preferential treatment.

Boston Latin School has received backlash from some parents because of this decision. Opponents of the proposed admissions system created a Change.org petition, garnering almost 6,000 signatures. The petition, directed to Boston City Council, argued that cancelling the test would increase disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A protest was held prior to the vote on the steps of Boston Latin School. One common concern surrounded Chinatown students potentially being excluded based on Chinatown’s surrounding area being rapidly gentrified, thus increasing the median income.

Curriculum
Declamation is one of the school's time-honored traditions. Students in the 7th through 10th grades are required to give an oration, known as declamation, in their English class three times during the year. The school also holds Public Declamation, in which students from all grades are welcomed to try out for the chance to declaim a memorized piece in front of an assembly. During Public Declamation, declaimers are scored on categories including "Memorization," "Presentation," and "Voice and Delivery," and those who score well in three of the first four public declamations are given the chance to declaim in front of alumni judges for awards in "Prize Declamation.”

In addition to declamation in English classes, the Modern Languages department holds an annual "World Language Declamation" competition. Once a year, during National Foreign Language Week (usually the first week of March), students in grades 8 through 12 perform orations in languages other than English. Entrants are categorized by level, rather than language. So all students declaiming at the first-year level of various languages are competing against each other, all students declaiming at the second-year level compete against each other, and so on.

In 2001, the school decided to decrease the Latin requirement by one year, starting with the class of 2006. For students admitted for 7th grade, the minimum number of years of Latin required decreased from five years to four years, and for students admitted for 9th grade, from four years to three years. Students, however, can still take Latin (and Greek) electives after their fourth year.

Publications
There are currently three main publications of the Boston Latin School: The Register is the school's literary magazine, The Argo the school newspaper, and Catapulta is the school science magazine. George Santayana founded The Register in 1881 to serve as the school newspaper. Over the years, however, it evolved into a purely literary magazine, publishing prose and poetry written by members of the student body, as well as artwork. There are generally three editors-in-chief, and it is published twice per year. The Argo, the school's newspaper, is far younger, having been founded in 1970 after it was clear that the Register had become a purely literary magazine. As of the 2006–2007 school year, it is published seven times a year. Catapulta, the science magazine, highlights popular and recent science and technology and is generally published four times a year. The Register, the Argo, and Catapulta are entirely student-produced, and the "Argo" and the "Register" have won awards from the New England Scholastic Press Association, while Catapulta has won awards from the American Scholastic Press Association.

Another Boston Latin publication is "BLSA Bulletin", published by the Boston Latin School Association, whose president is Peter G. Kelly, '83.

Athletics
Boston Latin's teams are known as the Boston Latin Wolfpack; their colors are purple and white. Boston Latin has played rival Boston English in football every Thanksgiving since 1887, the oldest continuous high school rivalry in the United States.

In popular culture

 * April 5, 2000: In "Six Meetings Before Lunch", a first-season episode of The West Wing, Rob Lowe's character Sam Seaborn mentioned Boston Latin School in a discussion of public school reform and school vouchers in American public education. He said, “Boston Latin, the oldest public school in America, is still the best secondary school in New England.” Mallory O'Brien replies "They all can't be Boston Latin and Bronx Science."
 * January 8, 2002: President George W. Bush visited the Boston Latin School after signing the No Child Left Behind Act earlier that day.
 * January 22, 2007: In Season 1, Episode 12 of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, Matthew Perry's character Matt Albie mentioned that his nephew had a 3.8 GPA at Boston Latin.

Rankings and awards
In 2007, the school was named one of the top 20 high schools in the United States by U.S. News & World Report magazine. It was named a 2011 "Blue Ribbon School of Excellence", the Department of Education's highest award. As of 2018, it is listed under the "gold medal" list, ranking 48 out of the top 100 high schools in the United States by U.S. News & World Report.

In 2019, the school was rated as the top high school in the Boston area by U.S. News & World Report and number 33 in national rankings.

Alumni
Boston Latin has graduated notable Americans in the fields of politics (both local and national), religion, science, journalism, philosophy, and music. Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, five were educated at Latin: Adams, Franklin, Hancock, Hooper, and Paine. Graduates and students fought in the Revolutionary War, American Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korean War, and the Vietnam War, and plaques and statues in the school building honor those who died.

Hall of Fame
The Hall of Fame, known casually as "The Wall," refers to the upper frieze in the school's auditorium, where the last names of famous alumni are painted. These names include Adams, Bernstein, Fitzgerald, Franklin, Hancock, Hooper, John Hull, Kennedy, Mather, Paine, Quincy, Santayana, Winthrop and others. The most recent name, Wade McCree Jr., was added to the frieze in 1999, and the selection of the name involved a conscious effort to choose a graduate of color. There are no names of female graduates, mostly because women have attended the school for just 46 years and the honor is only bestowed posthumously. There is also a lower frieze with the names of many other distinguished graduates, and a place on the lower frieze can be awarded while the person is still alive.

title: Boston Latin School


text:
User:Wolf530

 For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Awardby Pedia-I  Project J e s u s(Explanation and Disclaimer) Hi.

My name is Jordan. I live in Los Angeles, California. I have a dog named Baxter.

Who am I?
I’m a gemini, so I’m always of two minds about everything. It’s hard to make generalizations about me. Most people would call me a radical liberal, with my ideals falling somewhere in the realm of utopian or democratic socialism. Though, I have some strange ideas about right-ish government ideals.

I am the creator and "chairperson" of a Star Trek RPG that is celebrated it's 15th anniversary of creation in 2009. The name of the RPG is "UFOP: StarBase 118" and our homepage is at http://www.starbase118.net.

I have an entrepreneurial spirit, but a career in the corporate world. I couldn’t live without my TiVo. I eat way too much junk food. I never work out (anymore). People who chew with their mouth open or make any kind of noise while eating make me homicidal. I will always tell you when you have something stuck to your face or hanging out of your nose.

How did I get here?
I don't remember! I think I read about Wikipedia somewhere on the net sometime in 2003, and have been using it for general reference ever since. In March of 2004, I started getting heavily into the process of editing/creation.

Interests
transhumanism, humanism, atheism, Pastafarianism, space, sustainability, parapsychology, wikis, evolution, community, barn raising, writing, reading, naps, music, travel, truth, freedom, direct experience, change, democracy, open source movement, idealism, tech, computers, singularity, web 2.0, internet, gadgets

Heroes

 * Winston Churchill, Thomas Jefferson, Douglas Adams, Bill Clinton, Janelle Pierzina

What am I doing here?
Usually I'm wasting time.

I enjoy maintenance-type work, like adopting pages, merging pages, and un-deadending pages.

I'm also starting a write-up about a possible project to educate people in Academia about Wikipedia.

Pages I've Created
I tend to not create pages (as I enjoy maintaining more), but every now and again the fancy strikes me. Here's the list of pages I've created, with the newest at the top:

 * The Dream is Alive: About the IMAX movie. A pretty good start, in my opinion.
 * Actual cash value: Hey, I work in insurance!
 * Nuvell Financial Services
 * Jonathan Murray: Very basic stub.
 * Pedro and Me: Very basic stub.
 * Personal Egress Air Packs: Quite proud of this one. It's all technical and stuff.
 * Shawn Colvin: It was on the list of "most linked to but missing" pages, so I created it :) Just a stub.

Categories I've created

 * Category:Schools in Canada
 * Category:Employment law
 * Category:Real World Cast Members
 * Changed to: Category:The Real World cast members
 * Category:Madonna movies
 * Changed to: Category:Madonna_films
 * Subsequently deleted.
 * Category:Canadian car race tracks - apparently not too useful.
 * Category:Schools of Sioux Falls

My Favorite Quotes

 * "As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities." ~ Voltaire
 * "It is never too late to give up your prejudices." ~ from Walden by Henry David Thoreau
 * "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms." ~ Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955.
 * "Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things." ~ Peter Drucker
 * "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." ~ Mahatma Gandhi
 * "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." ~ J. R. R. Tolkien
 * "Someday I want to be rich. Some people get so rich they lose all respect for humanity. That's how rich I want to be." ~ Rita Rudner
 * "Reminds me of my safari in Africa. Somebody forgot the corkscrew and for several days we had to live on nothing but food and water." ~ W. C. Fields

Useful Links

 * Wikifriends
 * Vandalism in progress
 * Dealing with vandalism
 * Votes for deletion
 * Template_messages
 * Welcome messages
 * Alternative welcome message -- more colorful and in-depth.
 * Copyright violations:
 * Copyright_problems - Instructions, and place to post violations in progress.
 * Welcome message w/copyvio info - I use this for new users who've copied/pasted.

Credits and End-notes

 * I "borrowed" this template for a userpage from user:Isomorphic -- the person who warmly welcomed me, even though I've been here for a little while :)
 * Thanks to Titoxd for the userbox template.

That's all for now. --Wolf530 (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

title: User:Wolf530


text:
Michael Edwards

Michael or Mike Edwards may refer to:

American football

 * Mike Edwards (linebacker) (born 1957), American football player
 * Mike Edwards (cornerback) (born 1991), American NFL football player formerly of the New York Jets
 * Mike Edwards (safety) (born 1996), American NFL football player for the Buffalo Bills

Association football (soccer)

 * Mike Edwards (footballer, born 1974), English footballer for Tranmere Rovers
 * Mike Edwards (footballer, born 1980), English footballer for Notts County F.C.
 * Michael Edwards (soccer) (born 2000), American soccer player
 * Michael Edwards (football executive), English sporting director of Liverpool FC

Other sports

 * Mike Edwards (basketball) (born early 1950s), American basketball player
 * Mike Edwards (cricketer) (born 1940), English cricketer
 * Mike Edwards (second baseman) (born 1952), American Major League Baseball player
 * Mike Edwards (motorcyclist) (born 1962), British motorcycle racer
 * Eddie the Eagle (Michael Edwards, born 1963), British ski-jumper
 * Mike Edwards (pole vaulter) (born 1968), British pole vaulter
 * Mike Edwards (rugby league) (born 1974), Welsh rugby league footballer
 * Mike Edwards (third baseman) (born 1976), American Major League Baseball player
 * Mike Edwards (high jumper) (born 1990), British-Nigerian champion at the 2018 British Indoor Athletics Championships

Musicians

 * Michael Edwards (American composer) (1893–1962), American composer and musician
 * Michael Edwards (Australian composer) (born 1974), Australian composer
 * Michael Edwards (British composer) (born 1968), British composer
 * Mike Edwards (musician) (1948–2010), cellist of the band Electric Light Orchestra

Academics

 * Michael Edwards (international development specialist) (born 1957), British academic
 * Michael Edwards (literary scholar) (born 1938), British professor of English at the Collège de France

Others

 * Michael Edwards (actor) (born 1944), American actor
 * Michael Edwards (art therapist) (1930–2010), painter and art therapist
 * Michael Edwards (fragrance expert) (born 1943), developer of the fragrance wheel and publisher of Fragrances of the World
 * Mike Edwards (Scottish journalist), with Scotland Today
 * Mike Edwards (American journalist) editor with National Geographic
 * Mickey Edwards (born 1937), former Republican congressman

title: Michael Edwards


text:
User talk:Marnanel/CivicHeraldry pages

One problem is that "fair use" is a US concept. I'm also concerned that the site you have got permission from may not have that permission to give. Are you sure they are all photographs? Secretlondon 20:02, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Only a very few of them appear to be photographs. Most seem to be drawn from the blazon. I took the copyright information I was given in good faith-- you could maybe mail Robert Young and ask for some sort of audit trail if you like. Marnanel 20:35, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * The problem is not copyright of photographs but of displaying the arms themselves. Also many councils, mine (City of Sunderland) included grant permission only to the original requestor and only for one specific purpose.  By approaching the relevant council directly it might be possible to get a high quality version – most will keep such a copy for their printing sections.  ---garryq 15:41, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I know that strictly speaking permission to show the arms is a matter for the armiger to decide, but as I understand it the law on this point is kind of murky. This is what I said on my user talk page on cy: (in English) on this point:

 * Hi. Do you know the copyright status of the arms you are uploading?  I think they might be nice on en - but en is far stricter about that sort of thing.  Morwen

 * Well, it's an interesting story. The images I'm using come from civicheraldry.co.uk ; I mailed the webmaster and asked his permission. He said, fine, as long as the images link back to the site. He also pointed out that copyright is only half the problem: strictly speaking, the owner of a coat of arms can sue for false assumption of arms if someone uses the coat without permission, a bit like the way a company can sue you if you start using their trademark: in a similar way to the usual policy on company logos, I think our use here is fair use.

 * I say "strictly speaking" because this law has been used once in two hundred years (the case was Manchester Corporation v Manchester Palace of Varieties (1954) if you want to look it up). So I think we should be pretty safe, at least with English and Welsh heraldry. (Heraldic law really does have teeth in Scotland, on the other hand, and if I had any Scottish heraldry I would think many times before putting it up.)

 * However, the webmaster of civicheraldry.co.uk says that councils occasionally do get sniffy about his cataloguing of their arms. When I mentioned this on the Village Pump and IRC, the consensus seemed to be that it seemed reasonable to go ahead with what we had and deal with any complaints ad hoc.

 * I've put a few up in en:-- the ones for Hertfordshire, my county of birth. (I'm asking permission to use a bot to help with adding the rest on en:, since there are a few hundred.) I thought it would be good to give cy: first bash at the Welsh ones, though :) . Does all this seem sensible to you? Marnanel

 * I thought, given this, it would be sensible to use the images and deal with any requests from the armigers ad hoc. What do you think? Marnanel 16:12, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Looking at the images, they appear to be in a range of styles, which suggests that they were not drawn by the civic heraldry website but rather merely assembled there. If that's the case then I don't see that that site's permission means anything! Doops | talk 03:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Purely from a copyright point of view the owner of that site cannot give permission. The heraldic laws probably dont concern wikipedia (in Florida) that much. However we should not claim that these images are "with permission" and they should have a real fair use justification (or be deleted). Justinc 13:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Marnanel/CivicHeraldry pages


text:
Meadow Soprano

Meadow Mariangela Soprano, portrayed by Jamie-Lynn Sigler is a fictional character on the HBO TV series The Sopranos. In the early seasons, Meadow is introduced as a smart but spoiled partygoer, whose over-dramatic personality and state of being in denial reveal a somewhat troubled upbringing. In the later seasons, her character developed with her understanding of the reality of life, money, politics, and relationships. The stark contrast to her brother A.J., she is an achiever in the family and the source of pride for her parents. Her growth would foreshadow that of her younger brother, A.J played by Robert Iler.

In 1997, Sigler was cast as Meadow Soprano. When her manager first told her about the audition for The Sopranos, Sigler thought she would have to sing as a soprano.

Fictional biography
Born on September 13, 1982, Meadow is the first-born child of Tony, played by James Gandolfini, and Carmela Soprano, played by Edie Falco. She was active in extracurricular activities in high school, playing on the championship girls' soccer team, and singing in the chorus and school pageants. She became a member of the National Honor Society and attended Columbia University. Due to all these accomplishments and extracurriculars, she is praised by both Tony and Carmela which causes tension between her and her brother A.J since she is clearly the favorite child of Tony and Carmela.

After struggling through her first year at Columbia University, she volunteered regularly at the South Bronx Law Center.

Her employment there added to the friction between Meadow and her father relating to race relations, specifically with regard to Tony's racist attitude towards Black people. After graduating, Meadow, who was interested in being a pediatrician, studied for medical school. She had second thoughts and later considered a career in the legal profession.

Meadow was often resentful of her lineage, stemming from a string of failed relationships, beginning with a fellow Columbia student named Noah Tannenbaum. Due to his mixed racial parentage from an African American mother and a Jewish father, Noah was met with Tony's racist disapproval and broke up with Meadow after his own father seemed disconcerted with Tony's occupation.

This was followed by a romance with Jackie Aprile Jr., the son of Tony's deceased friend and fellow mobster, Jackie Aprile Sr. Meadow fell in love with Jackie Jr., but their temporary happiness together ended when he cheated on her and became increasingly involved in organized crime. Jackie ultimately organized a robbery involving a card game in which one man was killed and two others wounded.

After this incident, and following Tony's instructions to make a timely resolution to the matter, Ralph Cifaretto decided to kill Jackie Jr. As Jackie was exiting his hiding place, Vito Spatafore came up behind him and shot him in the back of the head, killing him instantly. The hit was publicized as a drug deal with African Americans gone bad, a story which Meadow publicly accepted, though she privately surmised that Jackie was killed by the mob. Her acceptance of his murder spiraled into problems elsewhere, as she struggled with depression and used alcohol and drugs while a college freshman.

Just before Jackie Jr.'s death, Meadow came to realize that he was unfaithful, but his death was nevertheless distressing. She initially blamed Tony for Jackie's involvement with crime and Carmela for standing by and supporting Tony. Unbeknownst to Meadow, it was Tony that had attempted to discourage Jackie's mafia aspirations, having promised Jackie Sr. on his deathbed to see that Jackie Jr. stayed away from the mob life.

During her teens, Meadow was both very aware and resentful of her father's criminal enterprise and her family's complicity therein. Meadow reconciled herself with these facts and her attitude strongly mirrored Tony's own. Publicly, she cited her father's position as a "waste management consultant," but in closer circles, she rationalized the Mafia as a cultural tradition borne out of discrimination against her ancestors' social and ethnic origins. Her life seemed further stabilized by her engagement to a Columbia dental student, Finn DeTrolio, of which her father approved. It was later revealed that Finn and Meadow broke off the engagement.

At the film premiere for Cleaver, Meadow reunited with Patrick Parisi, the son of Patsy Parisi, one of Tony's soldiers. Meadow and Patrick began seriously dating. Inspired by Patrick's passion for the law, Meadow decided to not apply to medical school and go to law school instead. She began to plan her wedding with Patrick.

In the series' final scene, she is shown outside the diner where she arrived late for meeting her family for dinner. She makes a number of efforts to parallel park before she succeeds and heads toward the diner. In the final shot of the series, Tony looks up after hearing the restaurant door open.

In Tony's coma, she is voiced by Morgan Saylor.

title: Meadow Soprano


text:
Talk:Preston, Lancashire/Archive 1

Red Rose Badge of Lancaster.svg
NEW WIKIPEDIA:WIKIPROJECT LANCASHIRE A new WikiProject about Lancashire has just opened. We are a WikiProject dedicated to improving and expanding Wikipedia's coverage of articles related to Lancashire, England. We cover the city of Preston and the boroughs of Blackpool, Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley, Chorley, Fylde, Hyndburn, Lancaster, Pendle, the Ribble Valley, Rossendale, South Ribble, West Lancashire, and Wyre., as well as all articles relevant and important to the areas, such as Blackpool Airport.

If you plan to be active in editing the articles above, or articles related to them, please add your name to the participants on the WikiProject. We discuss the project on our talk page and you are most welcome to join in the discussion there.

Follow this link to the WikiProject Lancashire page and get editing. --93gregsonl2 (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Link: WikiProject Lancashire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93gregsonl2 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

West Preston motorway
There is key evidence that there was going to be a motorway called the M59 running from Liverpool M58 and Coming up to Preston following roughly the A59. Herein, there would be a link from the M65 and the M59 would run to the Missing junction 2 at the M55.

Is there any evidence for the 1980s motorway around western Preston? Was any of it built and where is it? Longwayround 17:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The only two motorways we have at Preston are the M6 motorway, the first stretch of motorway ever built (In 1958, junctions 31-32 I think) and the M55, which does run west of Preston, to Blackpool.

The motorway you are probably thinking of is the (controversial at the time) M65 motorway. Have a look there for more info. --Skoorb 15:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've not got any evidence to hand, but there was a plan for a western bypass of the city, starting from the M6 around where the M61 joins, up to the missing junction on the M55 C2r 18:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

 * try (cbrd.co.uk) for info on it. Not sure if it's reliable enough to be quoted though. --RedHillian 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Watling Street
The article states:

''During the Roman period the road called Watling Street from the Setantian port of Neb of the Nese passed one mile north of Preston. The Roman road from Languavallium in Cumberland to Condate in Cheshire intersected in Preston at Tulketh-hall.''

Where on earth did this come from? the Watling Street didnt go anywhere near Preston. It went from Dover to Shropshire. G-Man 18:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

- I agree and have removed the reference to Watling Street. Does it make sense now? - PT 20 Sept 2005

We do have a "Watling Street Road". But this does not go anywhere near the Watling Street in Dover. --Skoorb 15:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

- My understanding is that the "Watling Street Road" that we have in Preston follows the old Roman road which ran from the Roman fortress at Ribchester on the River Ribble to the coast. Certainly it is a ruler-straight stretch, or was until it was diverted in the 19th Century to allow for the building of Fulwood Barracks. Why can it not be called Watling St? Who said there could be only one road with that name? - RIG 21 Nov 2006

Moving this article
Why don't we move this article to Preston, Lancashire, and make Preston the disambiguation page.--coblin 22:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Map reference
I am wondering what exactly the very precise info-box grid ref is supposed to be for. The railway station is at.

Odd
While reverting vandalism I saw and removed

 * Miscellaneous
 * The boy who ate his dog, David lowry
 * Wooden Man erected

If they were supposed to be in there then please replace. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

We do have a 15ft wooden man on a new strech of Canal. (Naked, and urinating into the canal). That's all I can think of though. See   --Skoorb 22:13, == 19 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Heh, the "Piddler in the River" does exist but we'll need his real name before he can have a place here =) doktorb wordsdeeds 14:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * IIRC it's called "Gauging the Ribble" and it's refenced on one of the pictures at Ribble Link. --RedHillian 23:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't it "Gauging the Ripple"? Apparently there are plans to replace thewooden one with a cast iron version. Can this be verified? Nick 3216 (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Guys
I don't know if somebody can confirm this rumour I heard. You know the church with the hge steeple that can be seen from the university library (if looking away from entrance & look = directly right), I heard that that steeple was the largest in both the UK & Europe. Can anybody confirm the name of this church or the rumour? - Charlie Marrow 20:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

 * That would be Saint Walburge's Longwayround

Lune Street 1842
Please could someone include the full factual story to the above event; thanks! joshthetree

SpunkFluff radio
took this line out *SpunkFluff FM - student radio 1350am/mw as it doesn't seem credible, there no source, no google hits for it and it's not listed in the student union or uni websites. If it is the new am station, it can go back in, but not before it's got sources. --RedHillian 07:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The radio station at University of Central Lancashire is Frequency 1350. -- Luzdanoite (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

City vs. District
While most of this article is about the city of Preston, parts of it are about Preston District, a much larger area (and shown in the map at the top). It's not clear whether some of the facts quoted are about the city or the district. I suggest there should be a separate Preston district article, but I don't know for sure what would go in it.--Dr Greg 12:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I second that. I do not believe it is useful to anyone to suggest, as some have, that Garstang, Leyland and even Chorley are actually in Preston. Longwayround 08:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I live in Leyland and i can vouch that Leyland is classed as Preston. Although not in the city we are infact in the district of Preston. Not many of the older generation in Leyland class it as Preston but I can definetly say that the younger generation class themselves as Prestonions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.88.80 (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 * It makes sense to have separate articles for the city and the local authority. For starters, quite a lot of material from this article could be transferred to a new local authority article. ---- Eric 19:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to complicate things, strictly speaking the phrase "City of Preston" refers to the whole of Preston District (see City status in the United Kingdom.) I would prefer to use the phrase "Preston Distict" rather than "City of Preston" (to avoid confusion); however this goes against Wikipedia convention for other cities (see e.g. Lancaster, Lancashire and City of Lancaster. This is something to be argued and resolved at a national level.

(By the way, neither Garstang, Leyland or Chorley are in Preston District. (See List of civil parishes in Lancashire.) --Dr Greg 11:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I was surprised just now to find that Preston and City of Preston are not seperate articles. Whilst it works well for some articles (Manchester, Warrington, Bristol), I do think this is an article that would certainly benefit from a split. Jhamez84 02:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Tithebarn project
Would it make sense for details of the Tithebarn project to be included elsewhere? I fear that there may be some duplication on the Preston bus station page. At the very least, I suspect the project is worthy of its own section within this page. Longwayround 15:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Bus Station
I have removed the information about the Bus Station which is duplicated elsewhere, particularly the oft-repeated myth that it is the largest bus station in Europe. Longwayround 18:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Fishergate
I think the section on the Fishergate Centre needs updating, epecially as the given website www.fg2.co.uk seems to link to some company manufacturing roof trusses! MrPloppy2 (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Landmarks
Is the recently added section about Preston's tallest buildings really appropriate for inclusion? I don't think Preston is a city which contains a significant number of unusually tall buildings. Admittedly, St. Walburge's church spire is exceptionally tall on a national scale (and perhaps even on an international scale) but the other buildings listed are mainly tower blocks of the type I would imagine are found in many towns and cities across the country, and therefore unremarkable. Perhaps the 'Tall Buldings ...' section should be removed; one or two of the other high buildings could instead be mentioned in the section text, as St Walburges is. Beejaypii (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I think I agree, unless someone can give a compelling counterargument. --Dr Greg (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Ok, we've waited 10 days and nobody has defended the inclusion of the table of tallest buildings. I've just removed it from the article for the reasons given above. Beejaypii (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

During the Roman period...
I have tried to make sense of the paragraph on the Roman period, but on reflection, what is the point of describing roads from centuries before Preston was founded? It adds nothing to the story of Preston's development, and unless anyone objects in the next few days, I shall delete it. Grafen (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would urge caution. Even if this paragraph gets turned around to be an explanation of why Preston was (apparently) NOT a Roman town - curious with it lying so conveniently between Ribchester and Kirkham. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember reading, somewhere, there was a small Roman fort at Walton-le-Dale where the Roman road crossed the river. --Dr Greg (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me. If you think the paragraph might be developed into something useful, I shall leave it alone. Grafen (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Electoral arrangements
"Preston City councillors serve a four-year term.... one councillor from each of the three-member wards is elected every year for three years, and those representing 2-member wards being elected in alternate years. Every fourth year there are no Preston City Council elections.."

For 3-member wards, a fourth fallow year makes arithmetic sense. But, presumably, 2-member ward councillors can be elected only in alternate years of the first two in any four year cycle, with years three and four also being fallow? "Electing in thirds" thus seems a bit of a mis-nomer, as all wards are not 3-seaters. But how are resigations, deaths in office, and so on, handled? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

 * As a candidate in local elections recently, I hope to be able to explain this one. The term is "elected in thirds" but it is a bit misleading. Whilst each three member ward has elections each year for one councillor, the two member wards elected every other year on a kind of rota basis (to give one example, the two-member University ward elected in 2003 for one member, 2006 for its second member, 2007 to re-elect its 2003 member. As it goes 2009 is a fallow year (as was 2005),so the next election will be 2010). Another two-member example is Cadley, with elections in 2004, and 2006, the member elected in 2004 was re-elected this year. It would help - imo - to have all 3- or all 2- member wards to stop any confusion, but such is life...doktorb wordsdeeds 04:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As a sitting PCC councillor, and a winner of three elections, I made this change. Preston does indeed elect by thirds. One third of the 57 members of council, i.e. 19 Council seats, are elected every year for three years and in the fourth year PCC has no elections. By-elections take place whenever they are required but the by-election winner only sits until the next time time that seat is due for election and not a full four year term. The last by-election in Preston was in the Tulketh ward in February 2008 following the sad death of Councillor Jean Al-Serraj in October 2007. Councillor Peter Rankin, who won the by-election, is due to retire and seek re-election in May 2010. Prestonmag (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of prestonlancs.com in the external links
For well over two years the website www.prestonlancs.com has been linked to here at wiki-preston.

For some reason someone recently removed the link and regarded it as spam.

The website in question is a community website. I started it, but I consider it owned by the members. No monies is exchanged on the website, there are no adverts on the website and it costs me money from my own pocket.

I was asked if wiki-preston could use some of my photos, to which I agreed, again, for no money.

There is material on prestonlancs that would benefit wiki-preston and I would allow it to be used for free. But I would expect that the website that gave permission for the use of the material, to be allowed to stay in the flippin external sites section.

I mean it's not like we're a commerciel venture like the other websites that spammed this page, is it?

So I pose the question. Is www.prestonlancs.com suitable enough to be linked to as a PRESTON COMMUNITY website, with related content to this page???Prestonlancs.com (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I'll try and answer your question for you. You state that you started the website and it "...costs me money from my own pocket." In other words, it's your website. Here's an extract from wp:el (a Wikipedia style guideline):

 * "Due to the rising prominence of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked."

 * So, including "both commercial and non-commercial sites" you should "avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent.." and that's "even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." You've already stated that you started the website and it costs you money from your own pocket: so you "own" it and no doubt "maintain" it. Also, your username is Prestonlancs.com, i.e. the name of the site in question: so you "represent" the website via your user name on Wikipedia. Given that you should "avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent", don't you think that you should avoid linking to the site in question?
 * Furthermore, you state that "There is material on prestonlancs that would benefit wiki-preston and I would allow it to be used for free. But I would expect that the website that gave permission for the use of the material, to be allowed to stay in the flippin external sites section." You seem to be implying that because you would give permission for material on your site to be used on Wikipedia for free, a link to your site should be maintained in the Preston article. I do not believe that there is a Wikipedia policy or guideline which states that the generosity of a contributor to an external website, who allows their contributions to that website to be used on Wikipedia for free, is a factor to be considered when deciding whether a link to that external website should be maintained in an article. Beejaypii (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Beejaypii, you're doing it again. Dancing around rules and guidlines. Would it make you feel better if someone other than myself added the site to the external links section?

Just put aside my involvement with prestonlancs.com for a moment, and answer the question I asked. Which was..

Is www.prestonlancs.com suitable enough to be linked to as a PRESTON COMMUNITY website, with related content to this page???Prestonlancs.com (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I'm trying to follow a Wikipedia guideline here, not "dancing around rules and guidlines[sic]".
 * The fact that your site has been linked to for two years is irrelevant. Material included in an article does not acquire a greater right to be there with the passage of time.
 * You asked me to look at the forums on your website, but this extract from the Links normally to be avoided (WP:ELNO) section of Wikipedia's external links guideline recommends not linking to, amongst other things, discussion forums:
 * Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists.
 * Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
 * So what would be the point of looking at the forums on your site? And your site also features a blog, which, considering the second part of the extract from WP:ELNO above, adds weight to the argument that it should not be linked to.
 * Looking at your edit history, pretty much all your contributions to Wikipedia under the username you're currently using, outside of your contributions to this discussion, consist of adding your website to the external links section of several Preston-related articles, or posting comments on the talk pages of editors who have reverted such edits. You seem to be contributing to Wikipedia solely to ensure that your website is linked to from Preston-related articles. Perhaps you'd like to review the advice found at wp:spam Beejaypii (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are dancing around rules and guidlines! If you had bothered to look through the website, you would have noticed there is no blog, there has been no blog for two years now. IF you had bothered to look through the forums you would have seen just how useful they are for people seeking Preston related info. The website used to recieve around 20 hits per month from WIki, hardly worth the trouble I'm going to here, but then I didn't re-post the link for the sites benefit, I did it for the benefit of net-surfers looking for info on Preston. You're are right in saying my only contributions to wiki are posting links to 'my' site, maybe when I start suffering from a personality disorder I'll become a self appointed 'editor'. Yes I'm resorting to insults, so therefor I have lost the argument, but I was never going to win was I? The rules say NO FORUMS.. But then Beejay, there are hundreds of forums linked to from wiki, you just took exception to me re-posting the link, didn't you? In my opinion, you are depriving this wiki page from a very good Preston source of information. Oh and can I ask, do you have anything to do with Preston in any way shape or form? (awaits links to references and rules and guidlines)Prestonlancs.com (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So does anyone else have any objections to http://www.prestonlancs.com/forum being linked to from here?Prestonlancs.com (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Having looked through the website in question, and the wikipedia guidelines, I'm also not keen to see the link there, specifically on points 1, 4, 10 & 11 therein. --RedHillian (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I hope you are consistant with your editing. I'll join you and seek other links to sites with forums and have them removed also. Oh and Redhillian, point 4? Prestonlancs.com (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, point 4. Links mainly intended to promote a website. prestonlancs.com is an external website, and your linking is intended to promote it. --RedHillian (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, like I've tried to point out, a poxy handful of hits from here is hardly promotion. I re-posted the link because it's a very useful site for people seeking info on Preston. Now get to deleting all the links to websites with forums on them, Reddy..Prestonlancs.com (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tram system
I removed some comments related to a proposed tram system because it seems highly premature to include them at the moment. There is no proposed route, no proposed funding and no planning application has been made. Despite this there is supposed to be a tram system "very soon". Within ten years would seem ambitious even if the council and other relevant authorities were to press full steam ahead with such a scheme immediately. But regardless of timescales, a few remarks by a couple of councillors both here and in Blackpool do not establish credibility. Nor does a single meeting with a tram company - there hasn't even been a feasibility study done. If we are going to include this then we can just as easily assert that Preston may well soon become an independent socialist republic based on those famous Valerie Wise comments of a few years ago. CrispMuncher (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

RPH?
Call me a pedant but what does RPH mean? This occurs in the main article "Preston College - Based in Fulwood with 2 campuses near the RPH and Moor Park". I thought I knew a bit of Preston but this means nothing.
 * Yeah, that's pretty lazy article writing. RPH is an acronym for the Royal Preston Hospital. Whether it's near Moor Park is questionable too, since it's relative. I reckon the college is at least a 15 minute walk away from Moor Park, in my experience of walking there. GW  ( talk )  10:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, I got confused because of the poor way in which that sentence is structured. If I got confused, having lived here for 16 years, God knows what a total stranger would have thought! There's a campus on Moor Park for the arts, and a campus near RPH for A-Levels and vocational courses. I'll edit the sentence to remove this ambiguity. GW  ( talk )  10:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Areas and estates
Am I alone in believing that this section adds nothing to the article? Longwayround (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is hardly Wikipedia at its best. I think at least it needs some serious weeding since many of the areas (e.g. Barton, Whitechapel) aren't even in Preston.  Others are troublesome in that they are not distinct, well recognised areas, e.g. Adelphi.  Yes, I know where they mean but does it amount to an area?  The fact that it does not have a single name lends credence to it not being - most people I know still refer to that area as the "Poly roundabout".  Similarly, if Adelphi is an area then Withy Trees certainly is, but that is absent from this list.  I'm not saying that it should be present but it does show the list is inconsistent.  I think I'm going to go through that list and remove any entries that are clearly not within the city limits now.  That is for starters, it will still need cleaning up after that. CrispMuncher (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just starting checking which of them are actually in Preston and I see a problem in that many of these areas are actually covered by Preston council. We need to separate them up into two classes in my view: areas of the city itself and and outlying areas. CrispMuncher (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have moved this section to List of places in Preston, Lancashire Longwayround (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Butch Cassidy
The suggestion that he may have had a thick Lancashire accent seems dubious at best. The only references I can find are in local newspapers and appear in articles containing weasel words. Longwayround (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and not sure what would count as "proof" of what can only ever be historical hearsay. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2009

(UTC)
 * As the chap was born in Utah 10 years after his father's emigration to New York, I've deleted this. Longwayround (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Fylde?
May I question as to why the article cites Fylde as part of Preston? I live in Blackpool and I have never heard of Fylde being in Preston it belongs to the Fylde Coast. Warton is also not in Preston it is in Fylde which is a totally separate area. Christian1985 (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it can be a bit of a grey area but despite being in the actual district of Fylde, Warton for example is part of the POSTAL town of Preston, has  a Preston postcode and uses the Preston dialling code, the Fylde postcode on the other hand only covers the Fylde coast as far inland as Lytham St Annes. Politically speaking, some constituencies overlap so Fylde includes some western sparsely populated areas of Preston as well as the more densely populated areas such as Kirkham and Freckleton. The same story applies to the eastern side of Preston, some eastern suburbs are part of the Ribble Valley constituency, despite being wholly part of Preston. So in short, the article refers to some parts of Preston being in the Fylde constituency, politically speaking as opposed to geographically speaking.

Population
Hello, The population is quoted as 131,000 and references the 2001 Census. In the census I can only find 129,000. Can you advise where this higher figure comes from and where the district figures are from. Ta Pete CoUk (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

 * 131,000 is the mid-2007 estimate. The estimates can be found in the external link at the end of this article (it's a Rar file). Nev1 (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Rural district arms
Arms of the former Preston RDC: Probably not enough content in this page to justify including them. (moved down from top).--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Preston Rural District has a separate page, it could be used there (although it would probably have to be uploaded again as the image was deleted). snigbrook (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Change on religion and ethnicity in late February
I would like to arise the problem that in history I have noticed that someone with the IP address '91.85.224.76' changed the ethnicity section of this page. He had changed the religion subsection from saying that '8.2% as Muslim' to '8.2% as shoebomb carrying muslims'. Soon after he deleted that, but I was wondering whether we should report this person for even using the privilege of being able to edit pages to put something extremely racist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJLRGS (talk • contribs) 21:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because you remove your own vandlism, doesn't make it acceptable in the first place. It's just the editor in question has been a bit more sneaky about it (Wikipedia:Vandalism). GW  (talk)  15:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

So should we do anything about this then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJLRGS (talk • contribs) 20:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

 * That IP address hasn't made any edits since then, and we can't be sure any future edits from that address have been made by the same person. So all we can do is wait and see if they do something similar in the future. If they do, slap a warning template on their talk page. If they repeatedly ignore the warnings they can be blocked. (P.S. don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages!) --  Dr Greg   talk  22:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Places outside Preston
I've just noticed that the Education subsection lists several schools and colleges that lie outside the City of Preston district boundaries, such as Alston Hall (Ribble Valley), Runshaw College (South Ribble), Myerscough College (Wyre), Hutton Grammar (South Ribble), Penwortham Girls (South Ribble). Are they justified in being in this article? --  Dr Greg   talk  12:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree but then I would - it was me that added that comment about the city boundaries in the schools section, which someone has chosen to ignore when re-adding Penwortham Girls. You have to draw the line somewhere and the boundaries of the borough seem the natural place to do it.  The idea that a school or college "serves" Preston is very difficult to define - for instance I know a Preston boy attending Eton.  Surely that means Eton serves Preston and should be on the list?  When it comes to HE institutions you could probably list every institution in the country. CrispMuncher (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Similarly I think we can safely snip the temple image from the infobox. Its in Chorley.  The fact that it is named "Preston" does not alter that. Those images could do with weeding anyway IMHO.  I notice the panorama has just been added there and in my view that is the only image we need instead of multiple images that are both too small to see and still clutter up the infobox.CrispMuncher (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Preston, Lancashire/Archive 1


text: User talk:61.218.217.246

title: User talk:61.218.217.246


text:
Talk:The Republic of Ireland Act 1948

Dates
What is the actual date that the Republic of Ireland Act was signed? Wikipedia states two dates, April 1, 1949 and April 18, 1949. Which one is correct? —This unsigned comment was added by 24.242.184.226 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 2004 March 9 (UTC).
 * I would like to ask the same question. -- PFHLai 17:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Section 4 (Commencement.) of the act states:

 * This Act shall come into operation on such day as the Government may by order appoint.

 * Thus inaccordance with the act the commencement order states that the date is April 18th, 1949. I do not know what the significance of April 1st is.

 * Djegan 19:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Oath of Allegiance

 * The Statement The Irish Civil War had been fought in 1922–23 on the issue of whether independence without immediately becoming a Republic was acceptable is totaly incorrect, the Irish Civil War was fought over the issue of the oath of Allegience to the British Crown and nothing else.--Padraig3uk 14:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * It wasn't that simple, Padraig. The Oath of Allegiance was a symbol used to epitomise divergent views on the Republic versus the Free State. It was also a phoney symbol. As the wording of the Oath showed it there was no "Oath of Allegiance to the British Crown". The Oath was actually "to the Irish Free State". The only mention of the King was a minor declaration of fidelity and even that was not by virtue of the British Crown but the King's role in the Treaty settlement. Republican leaders themselves admitted it was a sham argument. The real issue was not the oath. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)  00:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * There was no such Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. That is complete fiction.  Read Anglo-Irish Treaty. --Red King (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The Statement "Though technically only a description, the term Republic of Ireland is now treated in most instances as the Irish state's official name. However, for some governmental, legal, and diplomatic purposes the official name "Ireland" is sometimes used." is incorrect. The term "Ireland" is used colloquially as the name of the state in the English language.{unsigned}
 * It is 100% correct. Ireland is used as a diplomatic name. That is what is being dicussed in the paragraph. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)  00:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What it's saying is that "Republic of Ireland" is used colloquially as a name, "Ireland", only used for official purposes, this is patently incorrect. Dermo345

 * Explain how it is "patently incorrect". Djegan 18:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Poll: Ireland article titles
A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Éire merge
I've added a block that was previously in Éire. It clearly bvelongs here rather than there; but other problems of citations and style have been imported. I've done a bit of tidying, but there's plenty more to do. jnestorius(talk) 18:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I'm proposing that Republic of Ireland Act 1948 and Ireland Act 1949 be merged. Both articles deal with the same topic, just one deals with the reaction of the events described in the other. It's annoying for a reader to have to flip from one article to the other to get the full picture. Maybe an alternative title would have to be used for a combined article. --sony-youth pléigh 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree as they are two different Acts from two different countries. JAJ (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article Act of Union 1800 deals with two different acts from two different countries also:
 * Act of Union (Ireland) 1800 from the Kingdom of Ireland
 * Union with Ireland Act 1800 from the Kingdom of Great Britain
 * Likewise, the article Act of Union 1707 also deals with two different acts from two different countries
 * Union with Scotland Act 1706 from the Kingdom of England,
 * Union with England Act 1707 from the Kingdom of Scotland.
 * However, for the purposes of an encyclopedia it would be entirely unhelpful for a reader to divide discussion of these topics across two different articles just because "they are two different Acts from two different countries". Articles on Wikipedia are based on subjects. Guidance for merging is that if "[t]here are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap" then they should be merged, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe." Just as the Act of Union 1800 and Act of Union 1707 deal with "two different acts from two different countries", they deal with the same subject and thus form single article, and the same applies here. In the case here, the subject is the declaration of Ireland as a republic in 1949 and the UK's response to it. --sony-youth pléigh 19:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

But in this case you have Acts from two different Parliaments in two different countries, and issued at different times, the British Act was only to bring its legisation in line with the position decided by Dáil Éireann.--Padraig (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

 * "But in this case you have Acts from two different Parliaments in two different countries, and issued at different times ..." - the Union with Scotland Act 1706 issued by the Kingdom of England in 1706 and the Union with England Act 1707 issued by a different country, the Kingdom of Scotland, the following year? Or the Union with Ireland Act 1800 issued by the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Act of Union (Ireland) 1800 issued by the Kingdom of Ireland six months later?
 * "... the British Act was only to bring its legisation in line with the position decided by Dáil Éireann." - this is the essence of the reason for merging the two articles: they deal with the same subject - Dáil Éireann declaring Ireland a republic and the Parliament of the United Kingdom reacting to that. You cannot talk about one without talking about the other as the two articles demonstrate in their current form. Just make one article of it and the whole thing will be easier to read and more informative for the reader. This really is not big deal, what's surprising really is that they developed independently at all. No more than a common sense clean up. --sony-youth pléigh 19:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

 * If any merger was to take place then the British article would have to be merged into the one on the Irish Legisation, as the british legisation would be minor to the decision of Dáil Éireann in this case.--Padraig (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the proposal that is on the table (i.e. "It has been suggested that Ireland Act 1949 be merged into this article or section.") I'd also be open for an alternative title if there is a common name for the "event" - though in my experience the "event" is always called the Republic of Ireland Act, including the response to it. --sony-youth pléigh 20:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't agree with any change of the name of the article, but would accept the merger of the relevent details of the other article into this as long as it didn't swamp this article and the other article is made a redirect to here. An editor is currently heavly editing this article, I haven't had a chance to check his changes yet have you.--Padraig (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Strong disagree. It is natural that Irish history books describe the UK Act in the course of the Republic of Ireland act; that merely reflects Point of View, in a sense which is not to be condemned in the context of Irish history, but would be WP:POV in the context of Wikipedia.
 * The overlap is not excessive. There is more to be said in the UK article.  For example, Irish citizens remained liable for national service in the UK; that's irrelevant to this Irish article. WP:SUMMARY and main will suffice.  There is of course work to be done in tidying this article -- I've just done a little more now.
 * In the two pairs of Acts of Unions referred to above, there was a coordinated move within both polities such that the resulting Acts would be compatible. In the case of these two Acts, that is obviously not the case: the Irish Act was passed without reference to the UK; the UK Act was passed as a response.  For a counter-analogy, we have separate articles Third Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, Danish European Communities membership referendum, 1972, European Communities Act 1972, and United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975 dealing with (different aspects of) essentially the same political event: do you advocate merging them into History of the European Communities (1958-1972)? jnestorius(talk) 21:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

 * In this case we have to articles. One deals with Ireland declaring itself a republic and the other deals with the UK reaction to Ireland declaring itself a republic. These two events are so intimately tied that it is impossible to discuss the second without discussing the first. Of the examples you give concerning Ireland, the UK and Denmark joining the EEC, it is entirely possible to discuss each without mentioning the others, as those articles currently do. They are each independent events. The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 and the Ireland Act 1949 are intimately connected events. One is responsible for the other, and you cannot in seriousness separate the two? --sony-youth pléigh 02:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

 * We also have British nationality law and the Republic of Ireland; should we merge Ireland Act 1949 with that?   "Overlap" in the guideline means a two-way overlap, not a one-way overlap; while Ireland Act 1949 is in a sense a subsidiary topic to Republic of Ireland Act 1948, that's true of zillions of Wikipedia articles.  The solution is not merge, but rather WP:SUMMARY which is what is there at #United Kingdom response.  Are you seriously saying you have to flip back and forth between the two articles?  Each reads fairly clearly to me; of course both need improvement, especially the bloated "Earlier events" section here.  But if someone is focussed on UK law/history, and only incidentally interested in Ireland, the existing separate article is more user-friendly than coming to a subsection of a much longer article.  jnestorius(talk) 05:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

 * At a certain level every article on Wikipedia could be merged until we end up with just one called "The Extent of Human Knowledge" or something. That's not the point. Here we have two articles. Part 1 and Part 2 of the same subject. Part 2 makes no sense without Part 1; and Part 1 without Part 2 is only half the story. The two are inextricable. It's a simple matter. Merge them. --sony-youth pléigh 12:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I think they should be merged.--Padraig (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

 * It is simply not true that "Part 2 makes no sense without Part 1"; the 1949 Act's article can be read without reading any of the 1948 Act's article; it only needs one or two sentences to summarize the parts of the 1948 Act which impelled the 1949 Act. Nor is it true that "Part 1 without Part 2 is only half the story" it's more like 90%, and the existing summary is sufficient for the remaining 10%.
 * It is grossly inaccurate to view the UK act as "Part II" of the Irish Act. It was not that Westminster simply said "we take note of the 1948 Act"; it is a more multifaceted piece of legislation.  The 1949 Act has 7 sections of which only §1.1 and §1.3 are directly related to the 1948 Act.  §2 ( Republic of Ireland not a foreign country ) was far from being an inevitable consequence.  §1.3 and §3 (Northern Ireland) were manifestly not inevitable, as the consequent dismay and  controversy in Ireland WRT to these sections shows; which issues ought to be elaborated in the 1949 Act's article rather than the 1948 Act's.  The 1949 Act is a significant milestone in British nationality law, part of the legal structure developed to cope with the postwar end of the Empire. It is not a mere footnote to something that had happened in another country. jnestorius(talk) 10:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sony-youth -- good luck to your single article ""The Extent of Human Knowledge" or something" -- I am sure it will be an impressive project in 20 years or so. Djegan (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree no need for merger here. Two very distinct acts, from two distinct legal and political systems. Djegan (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

 * DJ, eventually it will all converge on just one article: 42. (If you're a Hitchhiker's fan.)
 * Jnestorious, as the 1949 article currently says: "The Ireland Act 1949 is a British Act of Parliament which was intended to deal with the consequences of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 as passed by the Irish parliament." This is the common understanding of it history, the two are never dealt with separately as they cannot be separated. The two are topically one and the same, and certainly not "part of the legal structure developed to cope with the postwar end of the Empire". Cause and effect - just because the effect with regard to Northern Ireland was unexpected doesn't make it any less of an effect. If you don't mind, I'll post to Third opinion on this? --sony-youth pléigh 12:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

 * By all means. BTW Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything alerady has an article. jnestorius(talk) 14:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Added at Third opinion. (Good to see a start has been made on the The Extent of Human Knowledge or something article. Would you object to a merge of Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything and 42 to really get the ball rolling?). --sony-youth pléigh 14:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I too Strongly disagree with the proposed merger. I fully agree with jnestorius's comments on 14 January 2008 and cannot add anything over and above those. I would also mention that the ROI Act article is in really poor shape and rambles.Redking7 (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

 * BTW It was removed from 3O as there were more than 2 opinions already. You can try WP:RFM if you really think it's worth it, but that seems a bit melodramatic to me.
 * As regards "the two are never dealt with separately as they cannot be separated", a quick Google-books reveals British Government and the Constitution: Text and Materials By Colin Turpin, Adam Tomkins, pg 229, which not only mentions the 1949 act and not the 1948 act, it erroneously claims Ireland became a republic in 1937. Plenty of books about the Troubles refer to the 1949 Act in relation to proroguing Stormont, with no need to mention the 1948 Act.
 * As regards the pre-eminence of the 1948 Act, "State of the Union: Unionism and the Alternatives in the United Kingdom" Iain McLean, Alistair McMillan attaches no importance to it other than as a spur for the 1949 act.
 * While there is overlap between the two articles, this is a sign of their imperfection rather than a spur to merge them altogether. The Ireland Act 1949 section gives too much detail about the 1948 Act, and not enough about the British reaction between the 1948 act leading up to the 1949 act. The Ireland Act 1949 section has little more text than the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, but the former can and should be expanded, while the latter should not (insofar as it relates to the 1949 Act; George VI's message of goodwill belongs in the 1948 article and not the 1949 article. jnestorius(talk) 17:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Jnestorious, your missing one major point, without the passing of the Republic of Ireland Act there never would have been a Ireland Act 1949, the British government was only responding to what was the reality in Ireland.--Padraig (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Jnestorious, you truly are missing the point. The Turpin book you mention above, and all other's that deal with the constitution of Northern Ireland, do not need to explicitly refer to the Republic of Ireland Act because the topic that they are discussing is not the Ireland Act, but the constitution of Northern Ireland. They don't need to explain the hows or whys of the Ireland Act, just that it says this or that. For the purpose of this encyclopedia, we need to explain the hows and whys. That intimately necessitates discussion of the Republic of Ireland Act, as any discussion of the Ireland Act alone does. The McLean book you mention is a good example. He wants to discuss the Ireland Act, but cannot without first discussing the Republic of Ireland Act:
 * "By 1948, Éire had a less subtle leader than De Valera, and the UK a less poetic one than Churchill. The Inter-Party Government elected in 1948 declared Ireland a republic in the Republic of Ireland Act. This was merely to clarify what had all along been implied by the External Relations Act and the 1937 Constitution. But it provoked the British Labour Government of Clement Attlee to the closest approach to primordial Unionism of any UK Government since 1921 - and the only UK policy towards (Northern) Ireland that was discussed ahead of time with the Government of Northern Ireland. Drafts of what became the Ireland Act 1949 were shared with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland before it was laid before the UK Parliament and tthe other government remained in close contact throughout its Parliamentary passage. The Second World Ware surely influenced this warmth." - McLean, I, et al., 2005, State of the Union: Unionism and the Alternatives in the United Kingdom, Oxford University Press: Oxford, p.149
 * Likewise, from a completely different view point, Hachey emphasises how one is the immediate consequence of the other:
 * "London's response to the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act was initially hostile. Realizing that it was no longer possible to perpetuate the fiction that Éire had not left the Commonwealth in 1937, the British suggested to Dublin that there would be serious implications involving nationality questions and trade preferences if Ireland were to become a foreign country in relation to the Commonwealth. The Dominions, however, already worried about the negative impact that punitive measures of any kind might have on their own constituents of Irish descent, demanded that London find some way of protecting the Irish from the consequences of their own action. Even members of Prime Minister Attlee's own Labour party who represented urban constituencies with large a Irish vote spoke open of the need for Britain to do something. Londond's response was decidedly innovative. Under the terms of teh Ireland Act of 1949, the Westminster Parliament accorded the Republic of Ireland a "nonforeign" status that insulated the Iris in the two areas where they were most vulnerable - citizenship and trade." - Hachey, T.E., et al., 1996, The Irish Experience: A Concise History, M.E. Sharpe: Armonk, N.Y, p.217
 * The above is the usual way of dealing with the topic of discussing either act i.e. they are discussed together, inseparably, as cause and effect.
 * Your suggestion that the current state of the articles are imperfect reveals the artificiality of your position. You say that the discussion of the Ireland Act in the Republic of Ireland Act article is too long, so long in fact that it is as long as the meat of the Ireland Act article (that is once you get beyond explaining the Republic of Ireland Act in that article, which you would like to remove also!). You say that this section of the Republic of Ireland Act article should be frozen so as to not become longer or more detailed than the Ireland Act article. This is not to the benefit of our readers. The only purpose that this can serve it to artificially maintain a seperate Ireland Act article. If such a time comes that that section of the Republic of Ireland Act article becomes long enough to merit spinning off as a separate article then so be it. Guidance exists for this already. It's clear from your description that that point has not come. Until it does, a separate article on the Ireland Act is an artificial duplication of material that is better dealt with in one article along with discussion of the Republic of Ireland Act. Having two article, Part 1 and Part 2 does not serve the interests of our readers. That should be our priority. --sony-youth pléigh 23:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Do you honestly believe readers reading Ireland Act 1949 as it currently reads will be unable to make sense of it without clicking through to Republic of Ireland Act 1948? If that is your point, then I am not missing it, I just don't believe it.
 * If by "inseparably" you mean you have to mention one when discussing the other, then yes of course, that's already the case. The two passages you quote provide one sentence each about the 1948 Act. That is sufficient context for those books; likewise, a summary-section is enough in our 1949-Act article.
 * WP:SIZE discusses the upper limit above which an article must be split. It says almost nothing about the lower limit below which it must not be split. (Apart from "If an article or list has remained [< 1 KB] for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page.") Nobody's opposition to the merger is on the basis that the merged article will be too long; merely that it combines two distinct topics.
 * Where before you were claiming the two topics are "inseparable", you are now admitting that they may be split, but not until they become bigger. How much bigger?  Are you claiming the two topics are so tightly intertwined that we should hold out until they blow the 60KB limit of WP:SIZE? Or can you imagine splitting out the 1949 Act at some earlier point?
 * I am not saying the Republic of Ireland Act article's Ireland Act section should be "frozen so as to not become longer or more detailed" than the Ireland Act article; I am saying that the section already provides an adequate summary and that additional material (such as the background about Unionism and other Dominions you have cited) should be added to the main article and not the summary section.
 * Have you any proposal for a new title for your proposed combined article? How do you propose to merge the categories and series boxes?
 * jnestorius(talk) 10:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I've created a draft of a "unified" article here. See if you think if it any better. Current articles could redirect to points "within" that article. (There's a proper name for this but I can't remember it. What I mean are redirect with this effect: Republic of Ireland Act 1948 and Ireland Act 1949. --sony-youth pléigh 12:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your efforts. I honestly don't find that convincing; it's pretty untidy and muddled. In fairness, a lot of the problem is the ragged nature of the current text of the 1948 article.  Maybe we should try tidying the current articles up first and then reconsider whether a merge is worthwhile.  Trying to fix several problems at once is a recipe for trouble. jnestorius(talk) 12:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As things stand their is no consensus here for a merger. Djegan (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Clearly, but while I accept that I still see it as an uninformed, artificial, unhelpful, non-sensical and sectarian way to treat a fairly matter-of-fact subject matter. And I'm sorry, Jnestorius, but there is no justification for putting a freeze (however you want to phrase it) on the development of any section of any article just to maintain a pretense for the existence of another. --sony-youth pléigh 13:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't advocate a freeze, but I do note the qualification "if appropriate" in this from SUMMARY:
 * To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the main article, and if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary article.
 * I have no problem leaving the merge tags in place for the moment. Hopefully we can improve the content in the meantime regardless. jnestorius(talk) 13:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Jnestorius, which article do you regard as the main article, because I regard this one as being so.--Padraig (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Sync them?? Merge them. ("... two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap." "... a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.") The section isn't long enough to merit a main article, SUMMARY doesn't apply. When that time comes, I'll be happy to sync the summary with a main article.
 * Indeed, to re-iterate the problem suggested by Padraig, the issue is that both articles are "main" articles for each other. That's not how things are supposed to be, but is a consequence of the artificial "Part 1" and "Part 2" set-up that is being insisted on. --sony-youth pléigh 14:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I believe this article is the main article in this case as this deals with an event that brought about the second, so the second article can only be a sub-article of this.--Padraig (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think no merger. As for User:Sony-youth ’s sandbox “merged article”, I agree with User:Jnestorius again: it is muddled. The second para: “sudden and unexpected declaration” [Hardly: The Act was itself passed over three months after it was first announced in Ottawa; Dev had said publicly that Ireland was a republic years beforehand; and Ireland had stopped participating in the Commonwealth in the 1930s]... “caused outrage among politicians United Kingdom” [Really?]... "The UK's response was the Ireland Act 1949" [What about: the King’s message of goodwill and the UK’s warnings re the implications of leaving the Commonwealth, all before the 1949 Act itself]... “without the consent of a majority in Northern Ireland” [No: the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland was required]. Overall, its a pity more time and effort isn’t put into the (deficient) Articles themselves rather than discussions like this (though I guess thats hypocritical!) Redking7 (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Redking, it was a quick cut and paste from the current articles with a "top-of-the-head" rewrite of the lead. Don't read it too literally, the idea was to get an idea for what the two articles looked like together, nothing more. As for much of your criticisms, they two are contradicted by the sources quoted above e.g.
 * “caused outrage among politicians United Kingdom" - Hachey: "Lodon's response ... was initially hostile"; McLean: "... provoked ... the closest approach to primordial Unionism of any UK Government"
 * "The UK's response was the Ireland Act 1949" - Hachey: "London's response was decidedly innovative. ... the Ireland Act of 1949 ..." McLean: "... it provoked ... the only UK policy towards (Northern) Ireland that was discussed ahead of time with the Government of Northern Ireland. ... the Ireland Act 1949"
 * Another doesn't take much searching to find a quote e.g.
 * “without the consent of a majority in Northern Ireland” - see the second paragraph on page 229 here. The Ireland Act contained assurances that a poll would be necessary. This differed from the Government of Ireland Act where the UK parliament held "the supreme authority" on matters relating to Northern Ireland (and could in theory just tell the Northern Ireland parliament that it was to join with the Republic, though that was unlikely). Now for a poll of the people of Northern Ireland would be the "supreme authority" regarding Northern Ireland's position within the UK.
 * Finally, your last criticism is simply a matter of poor phrasing:
 * “sudden and unexpected declaration” - Your response was that "Hardly: The Act was itself passed over three months after it was first announced in Ottawa; ..." The sentence was intended to refers to the declaration in Ottawa, not the passing of the act (it reads: "The sudden and unexpected declaration of the republic ..."), though I can see where the problem in that phrasing would be. Regarding your other criticisms of the sentence ("Dev had said publicly that Ireland was a republic years beforehand; and Ireland had stopped participating in the Commonwealth in the 1930s"), fair enough, but still no-one, not even Dev, expected the declaration of the Republic in 1948. --sony-youth pléigh 22:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

 * User:Sony-youth: "Don't read it too literally" [This is an encyclopedia]; "outrage and shock" [hostile and even primordial Unionist (even if true) are not "outrage and shock". Not balanced.]; "consent of a majority" [Again no. Here's a link to the Act as enacted:Ireland Act as originally enacted]. Read Section 1. Redking7 (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Red, it was in my user space, which is not a part of the encyclopedia. Get a grip and don't read it too literally. The intention was only to give an idea of what a merged article would look like as part of this discussion. RE: Parliament of Northern Ireland and not a plebiscite, correct you are. --sony-youth pléigh 14:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup - should the "Background" and "Introduction" sections remain as is?
I've decided to WP:Be bold and do a wholesale copyedit and cleanup, making a more logical presentation of the facts. Comments welcome.

The "Background" and "Introduction" sections should not have been up front - the general reader is not remotely interested in them. I have strong doubts as to whether they should stay at all. They reek of WP:original research, wp:weasel wordimg and are seriously undercited. They undermine the status of the rest of the article. My inclination is to move them here to the Talk page where maybe a future editor will clean them up. Comments particularly welcome. --Red King (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

 * The sections should definitely stay, though probably as a single section. The events surrounding the introduction of the bill are essential to understanding how Ireland became a republic in name again, without a revolution and with the assent of the British government. You are right about the OR and weasel words - the whole thing is written in a style that is fairly typical of Ireland-related articles a few years ago: "Eamon de Valera had replied, "we are a republic",[5] having refused to say so before for eight years."  I would be inclined just to go through the sections and strip off anything that isn't plain fact.  What's left would be very short indeed, and would probably need some expanding e.g. a mention of the Free State constitution and the 1937 one.  That's my tuppence-ha'penny worth.  Scolaire (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. For example, I'd lose all the conjecture about Cosgrave's alleged fit of pique and say something like It is not clear what led to the Bill being drafted.  The cabinet papers do not explain and the memoirs of the two Cabinet Ministers to have writen about it contradict each other.  As the alleged indecision of the preceding Fianna Fáil years, again the hard evidence is very limited and again it reads as so much conjecture. --Red King (talk) 08:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Sounds good. Good work on the lead, by the way.  It reads far better now.  Scolaire (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Greatbritain"?
The "The King" subsection includes the following text:
 * ''By doing so the Act abolished the last remaining functions of the King of Greatbritain, Ireland and the Domionions beyond the Seas, George VI, in relation to Ireland.

Why is "Greatbritain" spelt as one word? Was it referred to as such officially at that time? Loganberry (Talk) 19:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Missing word
It reads King George, in turn, as "" accredited all Irish diplomats. so a word has been omitted. 2NG (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Dubious claim that de Valera objected to leaving the Commonwealth and considered rejoining a few years later.
That is so unlike Dev that not only does the statement need a 'citation needed' tag but - imo - it needs a dubious too. Astonishing claims need astonishing evidence. --Red King (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ref here. And another. What do you find so astonishing about the position? RashersTierney (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

 * It's probably worth noting (if I can dig out the references) that the post-London Declaration Commonwealth and role of the monarch is remarkably similar to DeV's proposals in the lead-up to the Anglo-Irish Treaty: that the King be declared the President (or some similar non-royal title) of an close association between the UK, Ireland, and whatever other nations wished to join. --Jfruh (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nicholas Mansergh wrote extensively on the Ireland Commonwealth relationship, including de Valera's positions at different times. Plenty there to mull over, if inclined. RashersTierney (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Introduction of the bill
The "Introduction of the bill" section is the result of this edit to the Éire article by Jtdirl in July 2003. It has been tagged since 2008, and no attempt has been made since then to source it. I propose to replace the whole thing with something on the lines of "Costello announced the bill in Ottawa, and it was introduced in the Dáil on such-a-date." Scolaire (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The later comment about minute taking and whether Liam Cosgrave was up to it, is like debating if the moon is made of dusty cheese. Such a major decision would of course have been minuted! This - Given that Cosgrave had never kept minutes before, his minutes, at least early on in the government, proved to be only a limited record of government decisions. So whether the issue was never raised, was raised but undecided on, was subjected to a decision taken informally, or was subjected to a decision taken formally, remains obscure on the basis of the 1948 cabinet documentation.[14]. Noel Browne's view was obviously accurate.PatrickGuinness (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting 1937 letter
Browsing Documents on Irish Foreign Policy, I found this 21 May 1937 letter from Handwritten letter from Joseph Walshe to John W. Dulanty (Free State High Commissioner in London):
 * True he [the king] does not occupy the same formal position as in the other States of the Commonwealth, but that does not detract one iota from the essential fact that he is King of Ireland and is definitely declared so to be by Act 58 of 1936 (12th December). The law can be changed at any time if the people desire it. But the position in South Africa is juridically precisely the same. Our President, however, has special powers of holding up Bills and should the Dáil suddenly take the revolutionary step of repealing 58 of 36 the Senate and the President would undoubtedly make sure that the issue would go to the people by way of referendum. The very fact that the King's position is specifically secured by an Act of Parliament makes it infinitely more secure than if it were secured by some external agency.

Did anyone propose an ordinary referendum in 1948? jnestorius(talk) 18:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 5 September 2021
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move Iveagh Gardens (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland Act 1948 → The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 – This would arguably breach WP:THE, but I would propose it as being one of very few Irish statutes that explicitly includes the article with an initial capital in its short title, so presumably a conscious choice to reflect it being an act about "the Republic of Ireland". One other instance is The Courts of Justice Act 1924, which I might be open to moving, although as its constitutional significance isn't as great, a little less so. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC) Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support. This is an exceptional case due to the whole (admittedly rather esoteric) "name-of-state-vs-description-of-state" issue, which is very obviously tiptoeing around the status of Northern Ireland. Here the inclusion of the word The is very deliberate and meaningful (to make it a "description" not a "name"), and so is a justifiable exception to WP:THE. I think "The Courts of Justice Act" should not be an exception to WP:THE, since the use of The doesn't have the same special political significance it does here. Mr248 (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. agree with nom. ww2censor (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Republic of Ireland Act 1948