text:
Talk:Mackinac Island

Porter Hanks
Lists of notable residents are, by consensus, typically limited to people with existing articles. Otherwise, an article listing people from New York City would include my aunt who, I assure you, is not notable (sorry!) along with several million other people. When editors add red linked names to these lists, the WP:CONSENSUS notice reads, "Your recent edit to (article name) appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you." In other words, if you know of a notable person who you feel should be on the list, write the article first, then add them to the list. Constructive discussion before I remove this guy again? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless the article has a notice restricting itself the notable people section to persons only with articles, notable people without an article can be listed if they have references that meet WP:RS to back up their notability. The comparison of Porter Hanks to your Aunt in New York is silly in the extreme. Hanks has had poetry written about him over 100 years after his death....William 14:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * List of people from New York City along with hundreds of other such lists are typically limited to entries with pre-existing articles. I am unsure why you feel this article is somehow different. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I placed Porter Hanks on the list because he is more notable than the majority of people already on the list. Virtually every history textbook on the War of 1812 mentions him and the key role he played while on the island. I added his name because its omission was glaringly obvious to me. Having the criteria be whether or not there is a Wikipedia page on him seems a poor one to me. Plenty of notable historical figures have no Wikipedia page. However, it's no skin off my nose to impoverish the list by removing him.DanQuigley 20:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added a redirect; Porter Hanks - > Siege of Fort Mackinac. If anyone cares to create the article, have at it. Otherwise, I'll get to a stub at some point. As this article is one of only two that link to Porter Hanks, I won't be working on that very soon. (The other, obviously, is Siege of Fort Mackinac.) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have taken a stab at writing a notable article about Lt. Hanks. Comments are welcome.  Bigturtle (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge 2019
Mackinac Island is an island. Mackinac Island, Michigan is a city whose territory comprises the island and the smaller uninhabited Round Island (Michigan). We don't need separate articles for the island and city: for analogy, Manhattan Island and Manhattan (borough) redirect to the same article, which article explains that the borough includes other smaller lands as well as (nearly all of) the eponymous island. Mackinac Island about the island is a featured article. Mackinac Island, Michigan about the city is inferior and contains mostly a repetition of information in the island article, with sentences and navboxes that aren't in the island article but could easily be. The main extra bit in the city article is the tedious demographic info generated by bots. If that tedious info can be curated into a human-friendly form and added to the island article then the city article becomes completely redundant.

Previous merge discussion in 2004–2005 at Talk:Mackinac Island/archive and Talk:Mackinac Island, Michigan was instigated by ; nobody supported a merger but the four commenters' arguments were IMHO weak: and  seemed worried that the bot info would look bad in the other article (I agree, see above);  and  said the two island and municipality were different concepts (I agree, cf. Manhattan). jnestorius(talk) 01:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Disagree: The island and the city are two distinct entities and shouldn't follow suit just because other island jurisdictions may be merged into one article. The article Mackinac Island, Michigan should focus on the city's history, as well as demographics, notable residents, structures, and human elements.  The Mackinac Island article itself can focus on the geography, geology, and natural elements.  The city's article could use a good cleanup and restructuring (to remove redundant information and an overly tourist tone), but combining the two would overload a single article with too much information.  I would be hesitant to edit the island's article since it's a featured article, but some of that information there might be removed to the city's article since it pertains to the city itself and not the island.  —Notorious4life (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

 * Comment: Having spent some time looking at the articles (including Mackinac Island State Park, which may need to be considered in the merger), I am completely undecided. I can see merging all three together in appropriate sections, but also leaving them separate.  It should be noted, over 80% of the island is State Park property and not part of the City.  Based on the map, it looks like many of the points of historical interest are within the Park (upon the Island) but not within the City, although state park locations seem to have City addresses.  Also, the city no longer encompasses Round Island, so the city may technically comprise only a small portion of the Island.  But the history of all three articles are so hugely intertwined, it is difficult to draw distinction between the topics.  --Mindfrieze (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What does whether or not a property is owned by the state have to do with city boundaries? John from Idegon (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * From the City's website, I am under the impression the state-owned property (which is 80% of the island) is not merely state property within the city but is actually not part of the city and thus outside the city boundary. I would love to see some clarification of this one way or the other. --Mindfrieze (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Area
The article lists Mackinac Island as being 4.35 sqmi in area, but that figure appears to be inaccurate. The city article (Mackinac Island, Michigan) also lists the entire city as being 4.35 sqmi, which is listed as the city's land area in the 2010 census (Page 61). However, the city's boundaries in that figure also include neighboring Round Island, which that article lists (without a reference) as 0.59 sqmi. How can Mackinac Island—the island and the jurisdiction—be the same size, when they are not conterminous? Are there any documents that list the actual size of Mackinac Island (the island only), because the 4.35 sqmi area listed in the island article cannot be accurate since it also includes the area of the separate Round Island. If the Round Island area of 0.59 sqmi is accurate, shouldn't Mackinac Island (the island) be listed as 3.76 sqmi (if a reliable source for Round Island's area can be located)? —Notorious4life (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Anyone? Come on, this is a featured article, and there are no citations to support the area information.  The duplicate link provided in both instances where the 4.35 sqmi number is used in the article is a permanent dead link.  Additionally (and unrelated), there seems to be too many pictures wedged into the article.  I don't want to make bold edits on the featured article, but a little spring cleaning might be appropriate.  —Notorious4life (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't find any good sources, but here's one that says 3.8 square miles: GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

FA in need of review
This older Featured Article does not meet the current FA criteria. There are several unsourced paragraphs, the "notable people" section is almost completely unsourced, and I could find trivia in the article. Virtually all links are from 2007/8. The sourcing seems weak for a Featured Article; for instance mightymac.org and grandhotel.com seem promotional and not high-quality. Article needs work and I see similar concerns directly above. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Where was Somewhere In Time shot?
Where was Somewhere In Time shot? In the "Points of interest" section we say at the Grand Hotel, but in the "Film" section we say Mission Point. Which was it? GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Location shooting was done at the Grand Hotel, with Mission Point Resort used for soundstage work.Bigturtle (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mackinac Island


text: User talk:68.55.24.29

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

title: User talk:68.55.24.29


text:
Talk:Mackinac Island, Michigan

Merge
Same question, different place. Is there any reason this article shouldn't be merged with Mackinac Island? older ≠ wiser 00:10, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Good question. Are they basically coterminous with each other? That is, does one have a history, etc. distinct from the other, and vice versa? If the town were called something else, such as "Laketown", etc., would the article still be worth merging? -- Decumanus | Talk 00:28, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I wish I knew. It looks to me as though the entire island coextensive with the municipality, although much of the island is unimproved, and there may be state land in it. But I'm not all that familiar with it, so I thought I'd get some opinions before I did something rash. older ≠ wiser 00:54, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't know what the boundaries of the municipality are, but this map is illustrative . Based on it, I would lean towards separate articles, but I am not really deeply knowledgeable about it, to say the least. Anyway, it seems the island article could be plenty long with historical and geographical description without adding in all the Rambot-generated demographics. But like I said, I'm not really the person to decide. -- Decumanus | Talk 03:10, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Oddly the area listed by the census data for the "city" are the same as those for the entire island while two-thirds of the island area is state park which surely shouldn't count as part of the city. I say keep separate if only because the Ram-bot stuff will make the nice pretty article at Mackinac Island look ugly. Rmhermen 16:32, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * I grew up on Mackinac Island and worked there since I was 22. My family has lived there for generations and owns many businesses.  It's as Decumanus said, they are different.  The Village of Mackinac Island happens to exist on an island named Mackinac Island.  Most of the island is a state park, and the State of Michgian has jurisdiction over that.  The rest of the island is part of the village, and has it's own Mayor, court house, police station and everything else. The village is the only community so I imagine the census lists them the same more like a summary.  I don't know of any islands with more then one city though, so I can't say for sure.

 * There are actually 3 entities being discussed.
 * 1. The island named Mackinac Island, the physical land, etc
 * 2. The Village of Mackinac Island, where people vote, get arrested, etc ;)
 * 3. The Mackinac Island State Park run by the state

 * 2 and 3 are located on number 1. I don't know if they should be one article or three, but they are very separate things in my mind.

 * Well, right now we have two out of three articles. We only need one about the State Park now. older ≠ wiser 12:22, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Just to jump in on this discussion... a year later. There should be three distinct articles, as there are at present, as the three entities are definately NOT the same. Some of the previous comments aren't quite correct, however. Mackinac Island, the landform, is rather distinct and requires no explanation. Mackinac Island State Park only occupies a portion of Mackinac Island (the lanform) and reflects land ownership and a historical/recreational entity. The City of Mackinac Island, on the other hand, not only occupies all of Mackinac Island (the landform), but also all of neighboring Round Island as well. Trust me, I thought that was an error too the first time I saw it. However, further research using a variety of official sources from the State of Michigan, including the State Boundary Commission, the Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the Center for Geographic Information (CGI) all confirm that the City also encompasses all of Round Island as well, and has done so since at least 1899, when the City was created by the State Legislature as a "special charter city." Thus, NONE of three entities are coincident in geographic terms and are very different in terms of function/purpose. At least as I see it... I have revised the articles for the island (the landform) as well as the City of Mackinac Island. CBessert 08:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

History
Mackinac Island hasn't changed much since the 19th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.9.63 (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Interesting... Most people comparing photographs of many parts of the Island from the late-19th Century to present-day views would say the Island has changed quite a bit since then. I guess it's a matter of degrees. CBessert (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mackinac Island, Michigan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/docs/gazetteer/2010_place_list_26.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060420072053/http://www.mackinacislandlilacfestival.com/ to http://www.mackinacislandlilacfestival.com/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mackinac Island, Michigan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/64vfLAeJ2?url=http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt to https://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060420072053/http://www.mackinacislandlilacfestival.com/ to http://www.mackinacislandlilacfestival.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110108042656/http://www.marshallsfudge.com/mackinac-island-fudge-facts to http://www.marshallsfudge.com/mackinac-island-fudge-facts

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Establishment date
Is this city considered to have been established in 1670 when the mission was founded, or 1780 when Fort Mackinac was built? What is considered the founding year of Mackinac Island's settlement? 50.107.106.227 (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

 * The simple answer is: yes. You can make a case for 1670/71 and 1780/81 and 1817 and 1847 and 1899... it all depends on what your definition of "establishment" is and what you're specifically referring to. Hence, when referring to the establishment of a settlement versus the date of a specific legal entity being created, it important to be clear. Some early settlements were "established" only to be abandoned temporarily (sometimes for quite a length of time) due to any number of reasons, only to be repopulated later, so such "establishments" aren't always clearcut, black-and-white, unlike the establishment dates for the incorporation of a village or city, which is a very specific date. I believe the 1671 date is firmly supported in numerous historical documents for the general "settlement" on the Island. CBessert (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Flag of Mackinac Island.png

Incorporation date
What should the "date of incorporation" be for the City of Mackinac Island? It was long held that June 9, 1899 was the date the city was incorporated by the State Legislature, which, when you read the actual text, says "Approved June 9, 1899." Does this mean this is the date of incorporation? In the actual language of the legislation, Section 1 states "from and after March twentieth, A.D. nineteen hundred, the township of Holmes and the village of Mackinac... shall be hereby vacated, and all the territory now comprising the said township of Holmes and village of Mackinac, the same being all of Mackinac Island and Round Island... shall be and the same is hereby constituted and declared thereafter to be a city corporate by the name of the City of Mackinac Island...". Is this the date of incorporation or simply the effective date of the incorporation as referenced above on June 9, 1899? Is this splitting a very, very small hair? Maybe... but with two dates not only in different years but different centuries (the 1900 vs 1901 debate notwithstanding), it's a bit more important than it may have been otherwise. If both dates were in the same year, maybe it wouldn't appear to make so much of a difference, but with one in 1899 and the other in 1900, I think there may need to be some consensus as to whether it was incorporated in 1899 (with an effective date of 3/20/1900) or it was incorporated on 3/20/1900? Most other sources seem to use the 1899 date, including the State Park Commission ("Mackinac Island was incorporated as a city in 1899." https://www.mackinacparks.com/the-city-of-mackinac-island ) Since the act of incorporating a city implies some sort of action, I would submit the City of Mackinac Island was incorporated by the Legislature on June 9, 1899 with the effective date being March 20 1900, but I'm interested in hearing others' thoughts. CBessert (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mackinac Island, Michigan


text:
User:Gandalfe

Been a Wikipedia reader for a while now, just barely started editing/creating content. Be gentle. . ..

title: User:Gandalfe


text:
E ticket

An E ticket (officially an E coupon) was a type of admission ticket used at the Disneyland and Magic Kingdom theme parks before 1982, where it admitted the bearer to the newest, most advanced, or popular rides and attractions.

It is now commonly used to describe a category of top tier and cutting edge theme park attractions. The term is especially common in describing Disney attractions of such a tier.

Origin
When Disneyland opened in 1955, visitors purchased an admission ticket to the park at the main gate booths and then purchased separate admission inside for each attraction. Less than three months after opening, Disney began selling "Value Books", each of which contained several of each coupon labeled "A" through "C", to supplement the pay-per-ride system. Attractions were then designated as "A", "B", or "C" attractions, and visitors needed to either purchase a specified coupon from a nearby booth or present the discount coupon book with the correct coupon attached. As determined by Disney, "A" attractions were the smallest or least popular, "B" attractions were more popular and/or more advanced, and "C" attractions were the most popular and/or most advanced. In 1956, Disney introduced the "D" designation for the most popular attractions and upgraded several former "C" attractions including Jungle Cruise to "D".

In June 1959, amid the completion of Disneyland's first major expansion, Disney introduced the "E" designation for the park's most popular attractions and made the new Submarine Voyage, Matterhorn Bobsleds, and Disneyland–Alweg Monorail "E" coupon attractions. Additionally, the Santa Fe & Disneyland Railroad, Rocket to the Moon, Rainbow Ridge Pack Mules, Rainbow Mountain Stage Coaches, Mark Twain Riverboat, Sailing Ship Columbia, Rafts to Tom Sawyer Island, and Jungle Cruise – all previously "D" rides – were upgraded to "E". "E" remained the highest attraction/coupon designation for over 20 years. Several "E" attractions were added throughout the 1960s and 1970s. In 1971 the coupon system was duplicated at the Magic Kingdom when it opened.

The coupons had a face value for use on rides, with an "A" ticket worth $0.10, "B" $0.15, "C" $0.25, "D" $0.50, and "E", $0.85. This meant one could ride any ride if the ticket or a combination of tickets met or exceeded the value of that ride, so one could overpay an "A" ticket ride with a "B" ticket or higher, or present an "A", "C", and "D" ticket together instead of an "E" ticket.

The coupon system was gradually phased out with the introduction of "passports" (unlimited use tickets) beginning in the late 1970s. This was largely due to competition from Six Flags Magic Mountain, which, when it opened in 1971, allowed its visitors unlimited use of its attractions after paying the admission fee. By June 1982 coupons vanished entirely and were replaced by the present-day system where main gate admission entitles visitors to all rides and attractions, excluding coin-operated arcades.

Modern usage
From 1997 to 2004, Walt Disney World's Magic Kingdom hosted "hard ticket" special events called E-Ride Nights, where a limited number of resort room guests (usually 5,000) were allowed to purchase special tickets that allowed them to stay in the park and ride some of the rides (typically those that had been, or would have been, E ticket rides) for an extra three hours after the park had closed to other guests.

The term "E ticket" was for some time used to describe cutting edge or top tier amusement park attractions, especially Disney attractions of this caliber, and “E-ticket ride” is a colloquial term for an exhilarating experience. For example, a ride in the back of a fighter jet is an E-ticket ride. When Sally Ride flew on the Challenger space shuttle in 1983, she said to Mission Control, "Have you ever been to Disneyland? ... Well, this is definitely an E ticket." However, the term has become less common over the years since Disney stopped using lettered tickets for its rides.

In her 1984 song, "The Homecoming Queen's Got a Gun", singer-songwriter Julie Brown compares the titular homecoming queen to Disneyland's [fictional] Cinderella ride, describing both as "definitely an e-ticket". In his 1993 song "Jurassic Park", "Weird Al" Yankovic complains, "well, this sure ain't no e-ticket".

In the 1984 movie "Night of The Comet" during the department store hostage scene, Willy, the gang's leader, refers to the E Ticket as he has the gun against Samantha's head.

title: E ticket


text:
Copenhagen Consensus

Copenhagen Consensus is a project that seeks to establish priorities for advancing global welfare using methodologies based on the theory of welfare economics, using cost–benefit analysis. It was conceived and organized around 2004 by Bjørn Lomborg, the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and the then director of the Danish government's Environmental Assessment Institute.

The project is run by the Copenhagen Consensus Center, which is directed by Lomborg and was part of the Copenhagen Business School, but it is now an independent 501(c)(3) non-profit organisation registered in the USA. The project considers possible solutions to a wide range of problems, presented by experts in each field. These are evaluated and ranked by a panel of economists. The emphasis is on rational prioritization by economic analysis. The panel is given an arbitrary budget constraint and instructed to use cost–benefit analysis to focus on a bottom line approach in solving/ranking presented problems. The approach is justified as a corrective to standard practice in international development, where, it is alleged, media attention and the "court of public opinion" results in priorities that are often far from optimal.

History
The project has held conferences in 2004, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2012. The 2012 conference ranked bundled micronutrient interventions the highest priority, and the 2008 report identified supplementing vitamins for undernourished children as the world’s best investment. The 2009 conference, dealing specifically with global warming, proposed research into marine cloud whitening (ships spraying seawater into clouds to make them reflect more sunlight and thereby reduce temperature) as the top climate change priority, though climate change itself is ranked well below other world problems. In 2011 the Copenhagen Consensus Center carried out the Rethink HIV project together with the RUSH Foundation, to find smart solutions to the problem of HIV/AIDS. In 2007 looked into which projects would contribute most to welfare in Copenhagen Consensus for Latin America in cooperation with the Inter-American Development Bank.

The initial project was co-sponsored by the Danish government and The Economist. A book summarizing the Copenhagen Consensus 2004 conclusions, Global Crises, Global Solutions, edited by Lomborg, was published in October 2004 by Cambridge University Press, followed by the second edition published in 2009 based on the 2008 conclusions.

Copenhagen Consensus 2012
In May 2012, the third global Copenhagen Consensus was held, gathering economists to analyze the costs and benefits of different approaches to tackling the world‘s biggest problems. The aim was to provide an answer to the question: If you had $75bn for worthwhile causes, where should you start? A panel including four Nobel laureates met in Copenhagen, Denmark, in May 2012. The panel’s deliberations were informed by thirty new economic research papers that were written just for the project by scholars from around the world.

Economists
The panel members were the following, four of whom are Nobel Laureate economists.
 * Robert Mundell
 * Nancy Stokey
 * Thomas Schelling
 * Vernon Smith
 * Finn Kydland

Challenges
In addition, the Center commissioned research on Corruption and trade barriers, but the Expert Panel did not rank these for Copenhagen Consensus 2012, because the solutions to these challenges are political rather than investment-related.
 * Armed conflict
 * Biodiversity
 * Chronic disease
 * Climate Change
 * Education
 * Hunger and malnutrition
 * Infectious disease
 * Natural disasters
 * Population growth
 * Water and sanitation

Outcome
Given the budget restraints, they found 16 investments worthy of investment (in descending order of desirability):

 * 1) Bundled micronutrient interventions to fight hunger and improve education
 * 2) Expanding the subsidy for malaria combination treatment
 * 3) Expanded childhood immunization coverage
 * 4) Deworming of schoolchildren, to improve educational and health outcomes
 * 5) Expanding tuberculosis treatment
 * 6) R&D to Increase yield enhancements, to decrease hunger, fight biodiversity destruction, and lessen the effects of climate change
 * 7) Investing in effective early warning systems to protect populations against natural disaster
 * 8) Strengthening surgical capacity
 * 9) Hepatitis B immunization
 * 10) Using low‐Cost drugs in the case of acute heart attacks in poorer nations (these are already available in developed countries)
 * 11) Salt reduction campaign to reduce chronic disease
 * 12) Geo‐engineering R&D into the feasibility of solar radiation management
 * 13) Conditional cash transfer for school attendance
 * 14) Accelerated HIV vaccine R&D
 * 15) Extended field trial of information campaigns on the benefits from schooling
 * 16) Borehole and public hand pump intervention

Slate ranking
During the days of the Copenhagen Consensus 2012 conference, a series of articles was published in Slate Magazine each about a challenge that was discussed, and Slate readers could make their own ranking, voting for the solutions which they thought were best. Slate readers' ranking corresponded with that of the Expert Panel on many points, including the desirability of bundled micronutrient intervention; however, the most striking difference was in connection with the problem of overpopulation. Family planning ranked highest on the Slate priority list, whereas it didn't feature in the top 16 of the Expert Panel's prioritisation.

Economists
Nobel Prize winners marked with (¤)
 * Jagdish Bhagwati
 * François Bourguignon
 * Finn E. Kydland (¤)
 * Robert Mundell (¤)
 * Douglass North (¤)
 * Vernon L. Smith (¤)
 * Thomas Schelling (¤)
 * Nancy Stokey

Results
In the Copenhagen Consensus 2008, the solutions for global problems have been ranked in the following order:

 * 1) Micronutrient supplements for children (vitamin A and zinc)
 * 2) The Doha development agenda
 * 3) Micronutrient fortification (iron and salt iodization)
 * 4) Expanded immunization coverage for children
 * 5) Biofortification
 * 6) Deworming and other nutrition programs at school
 * 7) Lowering the price of schooling
 * 8) Increase and improve girls’ schooling
 * 9) Community-based nutrition promotion
 * 10) Provide support for women’s reproductive role
 * 11) Heart attack acute management
 * 12) Malaria prevention and treatment
 * 13) Tuberculosis case finding and treatment
 * 14) R&D in low-carbon energy technologies
 * 15) Bio-sand filters for household water treatment
 * 16) Rural water supply
 * 17) Conditional cash transfer
 * 18) Peace-keeping in post-conflict situations
 * 19) HIV combination prevention
 * 20) Total sanitation campaign
 * 21) Improving surgical capacity at district hospital level
 * 22) Microfinance
 * 23) Improved stove intervention to combat Air Pollution
 * 24) Large, multipurpose dam in Africa
 * 25) Inspection and maintenance of diesel vehicles
 * 26) Low sulfur diesel for urban road vehicles
 * 27) Diesel vehicle particulate control technology
 * 28) Tobacco tax
 * 29) R&D and carbon dioxide emissions reduction
 * 30) Carbon dioxide emissions reduction

Unlike the 2004 results, these were not grouped into qualitative bands such as Good, Poor, etc.

Gary Yohe, one of the authors of the global warming paper, subsequently accused Lomborg of "deliberate distortion of our conclusions", adding that "as one of the authors of the Copenhagen Consensus Project's principal climate paper, I can say with certainty that Lomborg is misrepresenting our findings thanks to a highly selective memory". Kåre Fog further pointed out that the future benefits of emissions reduction were discounted at a higher rate than for any of the other 27 proposals, stating "so there is an obvious reason why the climate issue always is ranked last" in Lomborg's environmental studies.

In a subsequent joint statement settling their differences, Lomborg and Yohe agreed that the "failure" of Lomborg's emissions reduction plan "could be traced to faulty design".

Climate Change Project
In 2009, the Copenhagen convened an expert panel specifically to examine solutions to climate change. The process was similar to the 2004 and 2008 Copenhagen Consensus, involving papers by specialists considered by a panel of economists. The panel ranked 15 solutions, of which the top 5 were:
 * 1) Research into marine cloud whitening (involving ships spraying sea-water into clouds so as to reflect more sunlight and thereby reduce temperatures)
 * 2) Technology-led policy response
 * 3) Research into stratospheric aerosol injection (involving injected ?sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere to reduce sunlight)
 * 4) Research into carbon storage
 * 5) Planning for adaptation

The benefits of the number 1 solution are that if the research proved successful this solution could be deployed relatively cheaply and quickly. Potential problems include environmental impacts e.g. from changing rainfall patterns.

Measures to cut carbon and methane emissions, such as carbon taxes, came bottom of the results list, partly because they would take a long time to have much effect on temperatures.

Process
Eight economists met May 24–28, 2004 at a roundtable in Copenhagen. A series of background papers had been prepared in advance to summarize the current knowledge about the welfare economics of 32 proposals ("opportunities") from 10 categories ("challenges"). For each category, one assessment article and two critiques were produced. After a closed-door review of the background papers, each of the participants gave economic priority rankings to 17 of the proposals (the rest were deemed inconclusive).

Economists

 * Jagdish Bhagwati
 * Robert Fogel
 * Bruno Frey
 * Justin Yifu Lin
 * Douglass North
 * Thomas Schelling
 * Vernon L. Smith
 * Nancy Stokey

Challenges
Below is a list of the 10 challenge areas and the author of the paper on each. Within each challenge, 3–4 opportunities (proposals) were analyzed:
 * Communicable diseases (Anne Mills)
 * Conflicts (Paul Collier)
 * Education (Lant Pritchett)
 * Financial instability (Barry Eichengreen)
 * Global Warming sometimes also called Climate change (William R. Cline)
 * Government and corruption (Susan Rose-Ackerman)
 * Malnutrition and hunger (Jere Behrman)
 * Population: migration (Phillip L. Martin)
 * Sanitation and water (Frank Rijsberman)
 * Subsidies and trade barriers (Kym Anderson)

Results
The panel agreed to rate seventeen of the thirty-two opportunities within seven of the ten challenges. The rated opportunities were further classified into four groups: Very Good, Good, Fair and Bad; all results are based using cost–benefit analysis.

Very good
The highest priority was assigned to implementing certain new measures to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS. The economists estimated that an investment of $27 billion could avert nearly 30 million new infections by 2010.

Policies to reduce malnutrition and hunger were chosen as the second priority. Increasing the availability of micronutrients, particularly reducing iron deficiency anemia through dietary supplements, was judged to have an exceptionally high ratio of benefits to costs, which were estimated at $12 billion.

Third on the list was trade liberalization; the experts agreed that modest costs could yield large benefits for the world as a whole and for developing nations.

The fourth priority identified was controlling and treating malaria; $13 billion costs were judged to produce very good benefits, particularly if applied toward chemically-treated mosquito netting for beds.

Good
The fifth priority identified was increased spending on research into new agricultural technologies appropriate for developing nations. Three proposals for improving sanitation and water quality for a billion of the world’s poorest followed in priority (ranked sixth to eighth: small-scale water technology for livelihoods, community-managed water supply and sanitation, and research on water productivity in food production). Completing this group was the 'government' project concerned with lowering the cost of starting new businesses.

Fair
Ranked tenth was the project on lowering barriers to migration for skilled workers. Eleventh and twelfth on the list were malnutrition projects – improving infant and child nutrition and reducing the prevalence of low birth weight. Ranked thirteenth was the plan for scaled-up basic health services to fight diseases.

Poor
Ranked fourteenth to seventeenth were: a migration project (guest-worker programmes for the unskilled), which was deemed to discourage integration; and three projects addressing climate change (optimal carbon tax, the Kyoto Protocol and value-at-risk carbon tax), which the panel judged to be least cost-efficient of the proposals.

Global warming
The panel found that all three climate policies presented have "costs that were likely to exceed the benefits". It further stated "global warming must be addressed, but agreed that approaches based on too abrupt a shift toward lower emissions of carbon are needlessly expensive."

In regard to the science of global warming, the paper presented by Cline relied primarily on the framework set by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and accepted the consensus view on global warming that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the primary cause of the global warming. Cline relies on various research studies published in the field of economics and attempted to compare the estimated cost of mitigation policies against the expected reduction in the damage of the global warming.

Cline used a discount rate of 1.5%. (Cline's summary is on the project webpage ) He justified his choice of discount rate on the ground of "utility-based discounting", that is there is zero bias in terms of preference between the present and the future generation (see time preference). Moreover, Cline extended the time frame of the analysis to three hundred years in the future. Because the expected net damage of the global warming becomes more apparent beyond the present generation(s), this choice had the effect of increasing the present-value cost of the damage of global warming as well as the benefit of abatement policies.

Criticism
Members of the panel including Thomas Schelling and one of the two perspective paper writers Robert O. Mendelsohn (both opponents of the Kyoto protocol) criticised Cline, mainly on the issue of discount rates. (See "The opponent notes to the paper on Climate Change" ) Mendelsohn, in particular, characterizing Cline's position, said that "[i]f we use a large discount rate, they will be judged to be small effects" and called it "circular reasoning, not a justification". Cline responded to this by arguing that there is no obvious reason to use a large discount rate just because this is what is usually done in economic analysis. In other words, climate change ought to be treated differently from other, more imminent problems. The Economist quoted Mendelsohn as worrying that "climate change was set up to fail".

Moreover, Mendelsohn argued that Cline's damage estimates were excessive. Citing various recent articles, including some of his own, he stated that "[a] series of studies on the impacts of climate change have systematically shown that the older literature overestimated climate damages by failing to allow for adaptation and for climate benefits."

The 2004 Copenhagen Consensus attracted various criticisms:

Approach and alleged bias
The 2004 report, especially its conclusion regarding climate change, was subsequently criticised from a variety of perspectives. The general approach adopted to set priorities was criticised by Jeffrey Sachs, an American economist and advocate of both the Kyoto protocol and increased development aid, who argued that the analytical framework was inappropriate and biased and that the project "failed to mobilize an expert group that could credibly identify and communicate a true consensus of expert knowledge on the range of issues under consideration.".

Tom Burke, a former director of Friends of the Earth, repudiated the entire approach of the project, arguing that applying cost–benefit analysis in the way the Copenhagen panel did was "junk economics".

John Quiggin, an Australian economics professor, commented that the project is a mix of "a substantial contribution to our understanding of important issues facing the world" and an "exercises in political propaganda" and argued that the selection of the panel members was slanted towards the conclusions previously supported by Lomborg. Quiggin observed that Lomborg had argued in his controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist that resources allocated to mitigating global warming would be better spent on improving water quality and sanitation, and was therefore seen as having prejudged the issues.

Under the heading "Wrong Question", Sachs further argued that: "The panel that drew up the Copenhagen Consensus was asked to allocate an additional US$50 billion in spending by wealthy countries, distributed over five years, to address the world’s biggest problems. This was a poor basis for decision-making and for informing the public. By choosing such a low sum — a tiny fraction of global income — the project inherently favoured specific low-cost schemes over bolder, larger projects. It is therefore no surprise that the huge and complex challenge of long-term climate change was ranked last, and that scaling up health services in poor countries was ranked lower than interventions against specific diseases, despite warnings in the background papers that such interventions require broader improvements in health services."

In response Lomborg argued that $50 billion was "an optimistic but realistic example of actual spending." "Experience shows that pledges and actual spending are two different things. In 1970 the UN set itself the task of doubling development assistance. Since then the percentage has actually been dropping". "But even if Sachs or others could gather much more than $50 billion over the next 4 years, the Copenhagen Consensus priority list would still show us where it should be invested first."

Thomas Schelling, one of the Copenhagen Consensus panel experts, later distanced himself from the way in which the Consensus results have been interpreted in the wider debate, arguing that it was misleading to put climate change at the bottom of the priority list. The Consensus panel members were presented with a dramatic proposal for handling climate change. If given the opportunity, Schelling would have put a more modest proposal higher on the list. The Yale economist Robert O. Mendelsohn was the official critic of the proposal for climate change during the Consensus. He thought the proposal was way out of the mainstream and could only be rejected. Mendelsohn worries that climate change was set up to fail.

Michael Grubb, an economist and lead author for several IPCC reports, commented on the Copenhagen Consensus, writing: "To try and define climate policy as a trade-off against foreign aid is thus a forced choice that bears no relationship to reality. No government is proposing that the marginal costs associated with, for example, an emissions trading system, should be deducted from its foreign aid budget. This way of posing the question is both morally inappropriate and irrelevant to the determination of real climate mitigation policy."

Panel membership
Quiggin argued that the members of the 2004 panel, selected by Lomborg, were "generally towards the right and, to the extent that they had stated views, to be opponents of Kyoto." Sachs also noted that the panel members had not previously been much involved in issues of development economics and were unlikely to reach useful conclusions in the time available to them. Commenting on the 2004 Copenhagen Consensus, climatologist and IPCC author Stephen Schneider criticised Lomborg for only inviting economists to participate: "In order to achieve a true consensus, I think Lomborg would've had to invite ecologists, social scientists concerned with justice and how climate change impacts and policies are often inequitably distributed, philosophers who could challenge the economic paradigm of 'one dollar, one vote' implicit in cost–benefit analyses promoted by economists, and climate scientists who could easily show that Lomborg's claim that climate change will have only minimal effects is not sound science."

Lomborg countered criticism of the panel membership by stating that "Sachs disparaged the Consensus 'dream team' because it only consisted of economists. But that was the very point of the project. Economists have expertise in economic prioritization. It is they and not climatologists or malaria experts who can prioritize between battling global warming or communicable disease".

title: Copenhagen Consensus


text:
Amberley

Amberley may refer to:

Australia

 * Amberley, Queensland, near Ipswich, Australia
 * RAAF Base Amberley, a Royal Australian Air Force military airbase

United Kingdom

 * Amberley, Gloucestershire, England
 * Amberley, Herefordshire, England
 * Amberley, West Sussex, England
 * Amberley railway station, in West Sussex, England

Elsewhere

 * Amberley, New Zealand, in north Canterbury
 * Amberley, Ohio, US, a village in the Cincinnati metropolitan area
 * Amberley, Ontario, Canada

People

 * Amberley (given name)
 * John Russell, Viscount Amberley (1842–1876), British politician and writer
 * Viscount Amberley, a courtesy title attached to that of Earl Russell

Other

 * Josiah Amberley, the title character in The Adventure of the Retired Colourman by Arthur Conan Doyle
 * Amberley Publishing, a British publishing house

title: Amberley


text:
User:LJP~enwiki

Hey luke, what's up. Put info about yourself here. --Esrogs 00:15, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

you can add the fancy signature by typing "--" and then "~" --Esrogs 00:16, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

don't do that in article pages... but you can use it in talk pages and user pages --Esrogs 00:17, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

title: User:LJP~enwiki


text:
Susan Lucci

Susan Victoria Lucci (born December 23, 1946) is an American actress and television host. She is known for portraying Erica Kane on the ABC daytime drama All My Children during that show's entire network run from 1970 to 2011. The character is considered an icon,   and she was called "Daytime's Leading Lady" by TV Guide, with The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times citing her as the highest-paid actor in daytime television. As early as 1991, her salary had been reported as over $1 million a year. During her run on All My Children, Lucci was nominated 21 times for the Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series. She won only once, in 1999, after the 19th nomination; her status as a perpetual nominee for the award had attracted significant media attention since the late 1980s.

Lucci has also acted in other TV series, as well as occasionally in film and on stage. She had multi-episode guest appearances on the series Dallas, Hot in Cleveland and Army Wives. Lucci hosted Saturday Night Live in 1990. After the cancellation of All My Children, she hosted the 2012-2014 true crime series Deadly Affairs and starred (as Genevieve Delatour) in the 2013–2016 Lifetime series Devious Maids.

In 1996, TV Guide ranked her number 37 on its 50 Greatest TV Stars of All Time list. She was named one of VH1's 200 Top Icons of All Time and one of Barbara Walters's Ten Most Fascinating People.

Early life
Susan Lucci was born in Scarsdale, New York, to parents Jeanette (1917-2021) and Victor Lucci (1919-2002). Her father was of Italian ancestry, and her mother was of Swedish descent. She lived in Yonkers, New York, before moving with her family at age 2 to Elmont, New York, and then at age 5 to another Long Island town, Garden City, New York. Lucci graduated from Garden City High School in 1964 and from Marymount College, Tarrytown in 1968, with a BA degree in drama.

Career
Susan Lucci began her television career with bit parts on the daytime dramas Love Is a Many Splendored Thing and The Doctors. She also appeared in an uncredited role in the 1969 film Goodbye, Columbus.

All My Children
Lucci is best known for appearing as Erica Kane on the ABC soap opera All My Children, from January 16, 1970, to September 23, 2011.

Lucci was nominated for the Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series Emmy for her work on All My Children almost every year beginning in 1978. When Lucci did not win the award after several consecutive nominations, her image in the media began to be lampooned, as she became notoriously synonymous with never winning an Emmy. NBC's Saturday Night Live exploited this by asking her to host an episode; during her monologue, the show's cast, crew, and even stagehands nonchalantly carried (and utilized; for example, as hammers and doorjambs) Emmys of their own in her presence. In addition, she appeared in a 1989 television commercial for the sugar substitute Sweet One, intended to portray her as the opposite of her villainess character, yet throwing one of Erica Kane's characteristic tantrums, shouting, "Eleven years without an Emmy! What does a person have to do around here to get an Emmy?" Her name eventually became part of the language, used as an avatar for artists who receive numerous award nominations without a win (e.g., "Peter O'Toole was the Susan Lucci of the Oscars.").

After 18 nominations, she finally won in 1999; Lucci received a standing ovation upon receiving the award, which was presented by Shemar Moore.

When ABC cancelled All My Children on April 14, 2011, after 41 years on the air, Lucci said in an interview: "It's been a fantastic journey. I've loved playing Erica Kane and working with Agnes Nixon and all the incredible people involved with All My Children. I'm looking forward to all kinds of new and exciting opportunities." Lucci publicly criticized ABC Daytime president Brian Frons over the cancellation of All My Children in the epilogue of her autobiography All My Life.

Primetime television, stage, hosting and film
Lucci has appeared in a number of television series and television movies. In 1982, she appeared in a cameo appearance in the comedy film Young Doctors in Love. In 1986, she played the role of Darya Romanoff in the Golden Globe– and Emmy Award–winning TV movie Anastasia: The Mystery of Anna. In 1990–1991, she began a series of guest spots on the nighttime soap opera Dallas. She hosted NBC's Saturday Night Live in October of that year; in one skit, she appeared as Erica Kane competing on a game show.

In 1995, Lucci appeared in the Lifetime television film Ebbie. This film was an updated version of A Christmas Carol. Lucci played a Scrooge-like department store owner visited by Marley and the three ghosts on Christmas. In 2004, she appeared as a guest star in two episodes of the ABC comedy series Hope & Faith.

In 1999, she played the title role of Annie Oakley in the revival of Irving Berlin's musical Annie Get Your Gun. Michael Logan of TV Guide said, "Susan Lucci didn't just take Great White Way by storm: she took it by tornado, hurricane and tsunami, too."

Lucci made several appearances as herself, the arch rival of Wendie Malick's character, Victoria Chase, on the TV Land sitcom Hot in Cleveland, including the February 1, 2012 episode entitled "Life with Lucci".

She appeared in Gloria Estefan's music video "Hotel Nacional" in February 2012. She guest starred in multi-episodes of the sixth season of Lifetime drama series Army Wives. Lucci hosted and narrated Deadly Affairs, a prime-time series airing on Investigation Discovery as of 2012. On November 15, 2012, Lucci appeared on The Colbert Report in a segment reflecting the soap-opera-like nature of the Petraeus scandal.

Lucci had a starring role as Geneviève Delatour in the Lifetime comedy-drama series Devious Maids created by Marc Cherry.

In 2017, Lucci played one of Kristen Bell and Dax Shepard's grandparents (with Henry Winkler) in Sia's music video, "Santa's Coming for Us". She also appeared in television ads for Progressive Insurance that were styled as a soap opera.

Dancing with the Stars
Lucci competed in Season 7 of Dancing with the Stars with dance partner Tony Dovolani. Lucci said that Dancing had asked her to appear before, but she had turned it down, in part, because of the travel it would have required of her (at the time Dancing taped in Los Angeles while All My Children taped in New York). Lucci later changed her mind, in part, because of the experience of fellow All My Children star Cameron Mathison, who finished fifth in season 5. She was voted off the show on November 5, 2008, rather than November 4 due to election night, finishing sixth in the competition.

 * Performances :

Business ventures
Lucci also has her own line of hair care products, perfumes, lingerie and skin care, called The Susan Lucci Collection.

Personal life
Lucci married Austrian-born chef and food-service manager Helmut Huber on September 13, 1969. They are the parents of two children: actress Liza Huber and a son, Andreas Huber. The couple were married 52 years until Helmut's death on March 28, 2022; he was 84 years old.

Lucci's autobiography, All My Life: A Memoir, was published in 2011. She is a registered Republican and has hosted fundraising events for Rudy Giuliani. She is a supporter of LGBT rights and equality, her support spurred by an All My Children storyline in 2000 in which her character Erica's daughter, Bianca Montgomery, came out as a lesbian.

In late 2018, Lucci had an emergency procedure to place two arterial stents in her heart after blocked arteries were discovered due to chest pain. Lucci postponed making her experience public until shortly before the American Heart Association's annual Go Red for Women fashion event in February 2019.

Awards and nominations
Other awards and honors include:
 * Golden Plate Award of the American Academy of Achievement presented by Awards Council member Henry Kravis, 1991
 * Favorite Female Performer in a Daytime Serial, People's Choice Awards, 1992
 * Women in Film Lucy Award, 1994
 * New York Women in Film & Television Muse Award, 2004
 * Outstanding Female Lead in a Daytime Drama, Gracie Allen Awards, 2005
 * Hollywood Walk of Fame, 2005
 * NAB Broadcasting Hall of Fame, 2006
 * Ride of Fame inductee, 2013
 * Disney Legend, 2015

title: Susan Lucci


text:
Su Pollard

Susan Georgina "Su" Pollard (born 7 November 1949) is a British actress and singer. Her career has spanned over 45 years; she is most famous for her role in the sitcom Hi-de-Hi! She also appeared in You Rang, M'Lord? and Oh, Doctor Beeching!

Pollard has appeared in over 35 stage plays and musicals, as well as over 40 pantomimes. As a singer, she scored a UK number-two hit with the song "Starting Together" in 1986 and also released an album. She has also written two books, Hearts and Showers and Sensible Slimming.

Early life and education
Pollard was born in Nottingham, the eldest daughter of Don and Hilda Pollard. Her interest in acting began at the age of six when she played an angel in a school nativity play. She attended Berridge Road School (Hyson Green) and Peveril Bilateral School, Robin's Wood Road (now Nottingham Girls' Academy). After leaving school at the age of 16, she got a job at the Tennant Rubber Company in Carlton as a shorthand typist and began singing in working men's clubs and charity shows.

Career
Following an apprenticeship at the Arts Theatre in Nottingham, Pollard appeared on Opportunity Knocks in 1974, singing "I Cain't Say No" from Oklahoma!, and came second to a singing Jack Russell.

She went on to play in the musicals The Desert Song and Rose-Marie with John Hanson, starred in the Cameron Mackintosh West End production of Godspell, played opposite Jack Wild in Big Sin City at the Roundhouse, toured in the musical Grease in a company that also included Tracey Ullman, appeared with Tim Brooke-Taylor and Hugh Paddick in the farce Not Now, Darling, won a role in Andrew Sachs's play Philately Will Get You Nowhere and appeared at the Mermaid Theatre in a celebration of the music of Cole Porter, titled Oh Mr. Porter!

Pollard's first comedy role was in a BBC series screened in 1979 entitled Two Up, Two Down, in which she played a hippy named Flo. Paul Nicholas played her partner, Jimmy, both of whom were squatting in the house of a nice middle-class couple. It only lasted for one series, but then later that year came the pilot programme for a new BBC comedy written by Jimmy Perry and David Croft set in a holiday camp. Pollard landed the role of chalet maid Peggy Ollerenshaw in Hi-de-Hi! She continued in this role until the programme's end in 1988. During the run of Hi-de-Hi! Pollard also had a singing career, and in 1986, she reached No. 2 in the UK Singles Chart with the song "Starting Together", the theme song from the BBC Television 'fly-on-the-wall' documentary series The Marriage. It was her only Top 40 hit; her first single, "Come To Me (I Am Woman)", had reached No. 71 in 1985 and her only charting album, Su, peaked at No. 86 in the UK Albums Chart in November 1986. In 1987, she toured the UK with The Su Pollard Show and co-hosted It's a Royal Knockout.

She starred in the stage production of ''Hi De Hi! - The Holiday Musical'', along with almost all of the cast from the television series, played sell out seasons in Bournemouth, London and Blackpool. In 1985 she played Sally in the West End production of Me And My Girl at the Adelphi Theatre which she appeared in for over a year. Then came roles in a national tour of Rodgers and Hart's Babes In Arms playing Bunny Byron opposite Matthew Kelly, and the title role in Sweet Charity at the Connaught Theatre, Worthing.

Shortly after Hi-de-Hi! had ended, the writers David Croft and Jimmy Perry chose Pollard to star as Ivy Teasdale in their new sitcom You Rang, M'Lord?, which starred her Hi-de-Hi! co-stars Paul Shane and Jeffrey Holland. This period sitcom ran from 1988 to 1993. In 1988, she won the "Rear of the Year" award. In 1989, she hosted the short-lived ITV game show Take the Plunge, which was cancelled after one season. From 1993 until 1996, Pollard starred opposite Gorden Kaye in For Better or for Worse, a BBC Radio 2 sitcom about an engaged-to-be-married couple.

In 1995, she took over as the face of the National Egg Awareness Campaign. From 1995 to 1997 she played Ethel Schumann in another David Croft sitcom Oh, Doctor Beeching! From 1989 to 1990, her distinctive voice voiced the lead character in the BBC children's television series Penny Crayon.

More recently, Pollard made a guest appearance in Gimme Gimme Gimme in 2001 and voiced Noisy in Little Robots. In 2001, she presented Songs of Praise three times. She has made four appearances on Just a Minute, and also regularly appears in pantomimes and other stage shows, including Annie and The Pirates of Penzance. In 2008, Pollard starred in the musical Shout! alongside Claire Sweeney. From April 2009, Pollard appeared in the London transfer of Shout! at the Arts Theatre. In December 2010, Pollard had a guest role in the Christmas special of ITV's hit show Benidorm, playing herself. In December 2011, Pollard appeared as a guest on BBC One's Strictly Come Dancing.

In the 2012 movie Run For Your Wife she had a cameo role as the newsagent. She starred in Who's Doing the Dishes? in September 2016. In 2018 she appeared in ITV's Last Laugh in Vegas.

In pantomime, Pollard appears mainly as the Wicked Queen in Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs, appearing in recent years at Sunderland, Blackpool, Tunbridge Wells, Aylesbury and Malvern.

In 2019, Pollard starred as Queen Rat in Dick Whittington in Wolverhampton, alongside her Hi-de-Hi! co star Jeffrey Holland.

Pollard was one of a group of seven celebrities that entered in , a BBC Two series on a pilgrimage to Fátima, Portugal.

Personal life
Pollard was married to Peter Keogh from 1984 to 1992. In 2014, Keogh published his memoir, My Hi-de-High Life: Before, During and After Su Pollard.

Pollard is a supporter of Nottingham Forest football club.

Theatre

 * 1974/75: Godspell National Tour
 * 1975: The Desert Song National Tour
 * 1976: Rose-Marie National Tour
 * 1977: Oh Mr Porter! Mermaid Theatre
 * 1978: Big Sin City National Tour
 * 1979: Grease Astoria Theatre, as Cha-Cha
 * 1979: Grease National Tour, as Cha-Cha
 * 1981: Philately Will Get You Nowhere
 * 1981: Not Now Darling Plymouth Hoe Theatre, as Janie
 * 1983: Hi-de-Hi! The Holiday Musical Bournemouth, as Peggy
 * 1983/84: Hi-de-Hi! The Holiday Musical Victoria Palace, London, as Peggy
 * 1984: Hi-de-Hi! The Holiday Musical Opera House, Blackpool, as Peggy
 * 1985: Babes in Arms National Tour, as Bunny Byron
 * 1985/86: Me and My Girl Adelphi Theatre, as Sally Smith
 * 1986: Sweet Charity Connaught Theatre Season, as Charity Hope
 * 1986: Sweet Charity National Tour, as Charity Hope
 * 1987: The Su Pollard Show National Tour
 * 1987: A Song, A Frock and A Tinkle Donmar Warehouse
 * 1987: A Song, A Frock and A Tinkle National Tour
 * 1991: Don't Dress For Dinner National Tour, as Suzette
 * 1991: Don't Dress For Dinner New Zealand Tour, as Suzette
 * 1992: The Good Sex Guide Revue New Zealand Tour
 * 1993: Harbeas Corpus Far East Tour
 * 1994: Little Shop Of Horrors National Tour, as Audrey
 * 1995: Blackpool's Biggest Show North Pier Blackpool
 * 1997: That's Showbiz Wimbledon Theatre, as Pam
 * 1998: See How They Run Bournemouth Summer Season, as Miss Skillon
 * 1998: See How They Run National Tour, as Miss Skillon
 * 2000: Abigail's Party National Tour, as Angela
 * 2001: The Pirates Of Penzance National Tour, as Pirate Maid Ruth
 * 2002/03: Annie National Tour, as Miss Hannigan
 * 2003: The Vagina Monologues National Tour
 * 2004: A Happy Medium National Tour, as Ellen Small
 * 2004: Annie National Tour, as Miss Hannigan
 * 2005: The Vagina Monologues National Tour
 * 2006: Romeo and Juliet National Tour, as The Nurse
 * 2006: The Vagina Monologues National Tour
 * 2007: Menopause The Musical Shaw Theatre, as
 * 2008: Shout! The Swinging 60s Musical National Tour, as Aunt Yvonne
 * 2009: Shout! The Swinging 60s Musical Arts Theatre, as Aunt Yvonne
 * 2009: Annie National Tour, as Miss Hannigan
 * 2010: Annie National Tour, as Miss Hannigan
 * 2011: Annie National Tour, as Miss Hannigan
 * 2012: Annie Hong Kong/Singapore, as Miss Hannigan
 * 2014: Annie New Zealand Tour, as Miss Hannigan
 * 2014: Ha Ha Hood! And The Prince Of Leaves National Tour, as Maid Marian
 * 2015: In Conversation With Tim Macarthur
 * 2017: La Voi Meets Su Pollard
 * 2018: Harpy Edinburgh Fringe, as Birdie
 * 2019 “Dick Whittington” Wolverhampton Grand Theatre as Queen Rat
 * 2020: Harpy National Tour, as Birdie

Feature films

 * 2012: Run For Your Wife, Cameo

Television roles

 * 1979: Two Up, Two Down, as Flo
 * 1980 - 1988: Hi-de-Hi!, as Peggy Ollerenshaw
 * 1988, 1990 - 1993: You Rang, M'Lord?, as Ivy Teasdale
 * 1989: According To Daisy (Unaired Pilot Episode only), as Daisy
 * 1989: Penny Crayon, as Penny (Animation, Voiceover)
 * 1993: The World of Peter Rabbit and Friends, as Jemima Puddle-Duck (Animation, Voiceover)
 * 1995 - 1997: Oh, Doctor Beeching!, as Ethel Schuman
 * 2001: Gimme Gimme Gimme, as Heidi Honeycomb
 * 2003: Little Robots, as Noisy (Animation, Voiceover)
 * 2010: Benidorm - Christmas Special, as herself
 * 2016: Hacker Time, as Mrs Cupelle
 * 2018: Last Laugh In Vegas, as herself
 * 2018: Claude, as Gloria Swoon (Animation, Voiceover)
 * 2018: Doctors, as Mary
 * 2019: Andy and The Band, as Mary
 * 2020: Celebrity Murder Mystery
 * 2021: Celebrity Masterchef
 * 2021: Celebrity Masterchef: Christmas Cook Off
 * 2023: Pilgrimage: The Road Through Portugal

Television appearances

 * 1974: Opportunity Knocks
 * 1981: The Saturday Picture Show
 * 1982: Me and My Town
 * 1982: The Russell Harty Show
 * 1982: The Grace Kennedy Show
 * 1982: No. 73
 * 1982: Give Us A Clue
 * 1982: The Royal Variety Performance
 * 1983: Wogan
 * 1983: Saturday Superstore
 * 1983: Breakfast Time
 * 1983: The Kenny Everett Show
 * 1983: Entertainment Express
 * 1984: Sunday Sunday
 * 1984: Aspel & Co
 * 1984: TV:AM/Good Morning Britain
 * 1984: Look Who's Talking
 * 1984: The Laughter Show
 * 1985: Live Aid
 * 1985: The Royal Variety Performance
 * 1985: Night of 100 Stars
 * 1985: The Val Doonican Show
 * 1985: The Bob Monkhouse Show
 * 1985: Pebble Mill At One
 * 1985: Tom O'Connor's Roadshow
 * 1986: The Royal Variety Performance
 * 1986: Top Of The Pops
 * 1986: Joan Rivers - Can We Talk?
 * 1986: TV:AM/Good Morning Britain
 * 1986: Pebble Mill At One
 * 1986: Off The Record
 * 1986: TV:AM/Good Morning Britain
 * 1987: Pebble Mill At One
 * 1987: Open Air
 * 1987: It's A Royal Knockout
 * 1987: Jackanory
 * 1988: Let's Face The Music Of
 * 1988: Give Us A Clue
 * 1988: Star Memories
 * 1988: Through The Keyhole
 * 1988: Mid-Day Show (Australia)
 * 1989: This Is Your Life
 * 1989: Take The Plunge
 * 1990: Daytime Live
 * 1991: Coast To Coast People
 * 1993: The World Of Peter Rabbits & Friends
 * 1993: Channel 4's Love Weekend
 * 1993: Noel's House Party (Gotcha!)
 * 1995: The Ant and Dec Show
 * 1995: Call Up The Stars
 * 1997: This Morning
 * 1997: The Generation Game
 * 1999: Just A Minute
 * 2001: I Love 1986
 * 2001: Songs Of Praise
 * 2002: RI:SE
 * 2003: Liquid News
 * 2003: Stars Reunited - Hi-de-Hi! Special
 * 2003: Scotland Today
 * 2003: The Weakest Link
 * 2004: Songs Of Praise
 * 2004: Comedy Connections - Hi-de-Hi!
 * 2005: Loose Women
 * 2005: Dick and Dom In Da Bungalow
 * 2006: Loose Women
 * 2006: The Best Of The Royal Variety
 * 2006: Loose Women
 * 2006: The Princes Trust 30th Birthday Live (Blankety Blank)
 * 2007: The Paul O'Grady Show
 * 2007: This Morning
 * 2007: Destination Lunch
 * 2007: Loose Women
 * 2007: Anglia Tonight
 * 2007: The Paul O'Grady Show
 * 2007: Loose Women
 * 2008: BBC News
 * 2008: Central Tonight
 * 2008: Loose Women
 * 2008: Look North
 * 2009: Loose Women
 * 2009: Richard & Judy
 * 2009: Daily Cooks Challenge
 * 2009: BBC Breakfast
 * 2009: Loose Women
 * 2009: Look North
 * 2009: Daily Cooks
 * 2010: Loose Women
 * 2010: This Morning
 * 2011: Bucks TV
 * 2011: This Morning
 * 2011: Loose Women
 * 2011: Strictly Come Dancing Christmas Special
 * 2011: ... Sings The Beatles
 * 2011: You Have Been Watching... David Croft
 * 2012: The Big Fat Quiz Of The 80s
 * 2012: Strictly Come Dancing - It Takes Two
 * 2012: Blackpool's Big Night Out
 * 2013: Les Dawson: An Audience With That Never Was
 * 2013: Piers Morgan's Life Stories: Gloria Hunniford
 * 2013: Big Brother's Bit On The Side
 * 2013: Pointless Celebrities
 * 2013: The Paul O'Grady Show
 * 2013: TVNZ Breakfast (New Zealand)
 * 2013: Good Morning (New Zealand)
 * 2013: 3 News (New Zealand)
 * 2013: All Aboard: East Coast Trains
 * 2014: Good Morning (New Zealand)
 * 2014: Pointless Celebrities
 * 2015: Lorraine
 * 2015: Pointless Celebrities
 * 2016: Big Brother's Bit On The Side
 * 2016: Celebrity Antiques Road Trip
 * 2016: Whose Doing The Dishes?
 * 2016: Lorraine
 * 2017: The Baby Boomer's Guide To Growing Old
 * 2017: 100: A Tribute To Dame Vera Lynn
 * 2017: Lorraine
 * 2017: Strictly Come Dancing - It Takes Two
 * 2017: Big Brother's Bit On The Side
 * 2018: Loose Women
 * 2018: BBC Breakfast
 * 2018: Through The Keyhole
 * 2018: Keith & Paddy's Picture Show (Gremlins)
 * 2019: Britain's Favourite Chocolate Bar
 * 2019: Strictly Come Dancing - It Takes Two
 * 2019: Pointless Celebrities
 * 2019: Britain's Favourite Crisp
 * 2019: When Talent Shows Go Horribly Wrong
 * 2020: Celebrity The Chase
 * 2022: Blankety Blank
 * 2022: Richard Osman's Festive House Of Games
 * 2023: Would I Lie to You?

Singles

 * October 1985: "Come to Me (I Am Woman)" (UK No. 71)
 * January 1986: "Starting Together" (UK No. 2)
 * July 1986: "You've Lost That Loving Feeling"
 * November 1986: "Wives Will Always Be the Last to Know"
 * March 1987: "Come to Me (I Am Woman)" (re-issue)
 * 1990: "My Miracle"

Albums

 * November 1986: Su (UK No. 86)
 * 2001: The Collection

title: Su Pollard