text:
RAF West Raynham

Royal Air Force West Raynham, or more simply RAF West Raynham, is a former Royal Air Force station located 2 mi west of West Raynham, Norfolk and 5.5 mi southwest of Fakenham, Norfolk, England.

The airfield opened during May 1939 and was used by RAF Bomber Command during the Second World War with the loss of 86 aircraft.

The station closed in 1994, though the Ministry of Defence (MoD) retained it as a strategic reserve. Having lain derelict since closure, the station was deemed surplus to requirements by the MoD in 2004 and two years later was sold to the Welbeck Estate Group who resold the entire site in October 2007. It is now managed by FW Properties of Norwich, acting for administrators Moore Stephens. The technical area now operates as a business park with many buildings now reused. The former married quarter areas are now all occupied with a pub and nursery on site.

Planning permission was granted for the installation of a 49.9 MW solar farm, together with plant housing and a perimeter fence, operated by Good Energy. The solar farm is now fully operational.

Second World War
Built between 1938 and 1939, RAF West Raynham was an expansion scheme airfield. The grass landing area was aligned roughly north-east to south-west. The main camp, with housing and headquarters, was located immediately west of the landing area. To the south-east were bomb stores. The airfield was originally equipped with a Watch Office with Tower (Fort Type), of pattern 207/36 (made from concrete), although the original control room was later removed and new larger control room built to pattern 4698/43. The newer VHB type control tower was a post war addition.

101 Squadron – a detachment of Bristol Blenheim which was part of 2 Group – were moved to West Raynham in May 1939. The only squadron based at RAF West Raynham, 101 Squadron were held in reserve by 2 Group until they were used as target tugs in February 1940. In 1940, RAF West Raynham also acted as a temporary base for 18 and 139 squadrons after they suffered losses in the Blitzkrieg.

RAF Great Massingham was founded in 1940, just 2 mi from RAF West Raynham to act as a satellite base. It was originally intended to support West Raynham and provide it with extra space for its Blenheims, but eventually expanded to accommodate a squadron of its own. A second support airfield, RAF Sculthorpe, was built to the north.

On 4 July 1940, 101 Squadron saw action for the first time. Individual aircraft attacked oil tanks in German ports. This went on for over a year, and during this time the squadron lost 15 Blenheims across 610 missions. No. 101 Squadron was transferred to 3 Group and consequently left West Raynham. They were replaced at West Raynham by 114 Squadron, another detachment of Blenheims. They were stationed at West Rayham for over a year before they were despatched to North Africa as part of "Operation Torch". The squadron converted to Blenheim Mk Vs in August 1942, in preparation for combat in Africa. No. 18 Squadron also went to RAF West Raynham to be refitted with Mk Vs. At this time, squadrons 180 and 342 were formed at West Raynham. 180 Squadron was equipped with North American B-25 Mitchells and based at RAF Great Massingham which was associated with RAF West Raynham. 342 Squadron was provided with Douglas Bostons crewed by Frenchmen in early 1943, and was later relocated to RAF Sculthorpe.

Between May and November 1943, the grass landing area was replaced with two concrete runways, one 04-22 and 2000 yd long and the other 10–28 1400 yd. At the same time, the existing housing on the site was expanded to provide accommodation for 2,456 men and 658 women.

In December 1943, the station was taken over by 100 Group, who brought 141 and 239 squadrons to RAF West Raynham. They were equipped with de Havilland Mosquito, fighter aircraft which provided support to bomber sorties in enemy air space. They were based at West Raynham until the end of the war; their duties involved flying Serrate patrols and "Ranger sorties" (seek and destroy enemy fighters in the air and on the ground). During the war, squadrons stationed at RAF West Raynham lost 56 Blenheims, 29 Mosquitos, and a Bristol Beaufighter.

Postwar
From 1945 to 1962, RAF West Raynham was Central Fighter Establishment of the Royal Air Force. In 1946, the station underwent improvements, including new range facilities at Setchey, North Wooton and Holbeach, extra Officers accommodation, new technical facilities, a new cinema at Great Massingham and finally, provision of a new Flying Control and Crash Rescue Building for Very Heavy Bomber Stations to a drawing number 294/45. This was opened on 20 May 1948 following problems with the VCR glazing.

The station still had at least two operational Gloster Meteor jet fighters, a squadron of twin tail-boomed de Havilland Venoms and de Havilland Vampire trainer jets. The very latest arrival in 1957 was a flight of Gloster Javelins, which also appeared at the Farnborough Airshow the same year.

The 1956 Hawker Hunter multiple aircraft accident happened on the morning of Wednesday 8 February 1956. Eight Hawker Hunter aircraft from the Central Fighter Establishment took off on an exercise. The weather closed in, causing them to be diverted to RAF Marham. Two aircraft landed safely, a third ran off the runway, and the fourth crashed into a field killing the pilot. The remaining four pilots ejected, with the aircraft crashing in open country. This incident was raised in the House of Commons.

In 1964 a tripartite squadron, comprising members of the British, American and German armed forces, was formed at West Raynham to evaluate the Hawker P.1127 Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) strike fighter aircraft.

In 1964, the East side of the airfield was developed as a SAM site, equipped with the Bristol Bloodhound Mk2 and its associated radars. The resident unit was No. 41 Squadron RAF. Some of the radars, launch control units, and launchers were air portable for deployment elsewhere if required.

Between 28 and 31 March 1967 Hawker Hunters from West Raynham were involved in Operation Mop Up. This operation saw repeated attacks by Hunters from Raynham and RAF Chivenor, along with aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm, dropping aviation fuel and napalm on an oil slick being released from the wreck of the supertanker SS Torrey Canyon which had run aground on Seven Stones reef, near Lands End. On 9 June 1967 a Handley Page Hastings C2, registration WD491, was written off at Raynham when a tyre burst during landing.

In 1968 a Hunter from RAF West Raynham was used by Flight Lieutenant Alan Pollock, a flight commander in No. 1 Squadron RAF, to unofficially mark the 50th Anniversary of the Royal Air Force. This event is commonly referred to as the Hawker Hunter Tower Bridge incident.

On 19 December 1975, 85 Squadron, which had been stationed at the base flying the Gloster Javelin and Gloster Meteor in the early 1960s, made their headquarters at West Raynham after being reformed as a Bristol Bloodhound Mark II surface-to-air missile unit. 85 Squadron remained at West Raynham until it was disbanded on 10 July 1991, with the Standard bearing the squadrons battle honours placed in the safe keeping of Ely Cathedral.

In 1963, 1971, 1980, 1981 and 1982, RAF West Raynham was the location of the Royal Observer Corps annual summer training camps for eight weeks when up to 500 observers attended each week for technical training sessions. Other ranks were accommodated in spare barrack blocks and officers in the officers' mess. In 1980 the start of the camps coincided with a no notice station three-day Tactical Evaluation (TACEVAL) inspection by RAF Strike Command and much consternation was caused when a full-time ROC officer arrived at the main gate in a car loaded with radioactive sources needed for an ROC training session. With the arrival obviously not expected by the TACEVAL directing staff the vehicle was placed under armed guard and the ROC officer bundled into the station guardroom where he remained locked up for several hours until the senior ROC officer was located to vouch for him.

Closure and redevelopment
In 1994, RAF West Raynham was shut down by the Ministry of Defence. The airfield and technical site remained the property of the MoD but the site was disused and its houses left empty and falling into disrepair. In 2002 Norman Lamb, Member of Parliament for North Norfolk, labelled the situation a "scandal" as at the time there was a shortage of affordable housing in the region. Though empty, the MoD had retained RAF West Raynham as a strategic reserve, however in 2004 it was decided that the base would play no future role in the defence of the country. Lamb campaigned for the houses to be turned over for civilian use, and it was announced in October 2004 that 170 homes at RAF West Raynham would be sold. In December 2005 it was announced that the whole site would be sold by tender.

The site was purchased from Defence Estates by Roger Byron-Collins' company the Welbeck Estate Group on 7th April 2006, then resold it on 25th July 2008, as they had been unable to install the necessary infrastructure as was standard procedure with their previous MOD acquisitions including nearby RAF Sculthorpe. It was sold to Tamarix Investments; they planned to build new homes on the site and a hotel, as well as renovate the standing houses. The plans included turning the site into an eco-village, with a biomass generator to supply power. The 170 houses at RAF West Raynham will be repaired and 40 more homes added to the site. In 2008, planning permission was granted for the construction of 58 properties and for the conversion of the hangars into twenty loft style holiday apartments.

A Large part of the remaining hard standing and hangars 3 and 4 have been purchased by Norfolk Oak, previously from Anmer Hall.

Heritage
A proposal to afford Grade II listed status to the Type C Hangars, Control Tower, Parachute Store, Workshops, Station Sick Quarters & Annex, Station Armoury, Works Dept. and Water Tower, Central Heating Station, Station Headquarters and Operations Block, Guard House, main entrance gates and railings, Officer's Mess, Felbrigg Walk (two NCO married quarters), Nos 3–8 Airmen's Married Quarters, and five blocks of Airmen's Married Quarters under a Thematic Listing Programme was withdrawn by English Heritage.

Following the Grade II Listing of the post-war VHB Control Tower in June 2021, ten other structures on the former airfield were nationally designated as Grade II Listed buildings in March 2023. These were the original Watch Office (Building 72), all four C-type hangars, Station HQ/Operations Block, Parachute Store, Armoury & blast walls and two Ready Use Pyrotechnic Stores (Buildings 64 & 77). Historic England's descriptions of these designated heritage assets refer to RAF West Raynham as one of the best preserved RAF expansion scheme bomber bases.

Gloster Meteor F.8, number WK654, is preserved at the City of Norwich Aviation Museum. This aircraft served with the ‘All Weather Flying Squadron’ and Central Fighter Establishment at RAF West Raynham. Gloster Javelin FAW8 XH992 has been preserved in 85 Squadron markings at the Newark Air Museum. The Bloodhound missile that formerly served as gate guardian outside the station HQ is preserved at RAF Cosford.

On 13 May 2008 Air Commodore Clive Bairsto presented Wing Commander Seb Kendall of No 6 RAF Force Protection Wing HQ with its recently approved badge. This badge includes the sword from the badge of RAF West Raynham, the former home of 6 Wing RAF Regiment.

Funds were raised to erect a permanent memorial to all who served at RAF West Raynham between 1939 and 1994. It depicts the station badge and the badge of the Central Fighter Establishment (1944–1966) It was sited on an existing plinth which once held a Norfolk village type sign of the station badge. This plinth was donated by Investec, the site owners and repaired by FW Properties of Norwich, who manage the site.

It also has a representation of aircraft which flew from WR and associated squadrons. The aircraft represented are: the Bristol Blenheim, the first operational aircraft to fly from RAF West Raynham with No 101 Squadron; the Bristol Bloodhound and BAe Dynamics Rapier missiles to represent air defence roles; the English Electric Canberra, the last operational aircraft to fly from RAF West Raynham. Finally, the Hawker Siddeley Kestrel, later developed as the famous Harrier jump-jet, was evaluated at WR in 1965, with a Tri-partite Squadron consisting of military test pilots from Great Britain, the United States and West Germany. One of the Kestrels (XS695) can be viewed at the RAFM Cosford.

The aircraft which flew with the Central Fighter Establishment and RAF West Raynham are represented by the de Havilland Mosquito; the de Havilland Vampire; the Gloster Meteor; the Hawker Hunter and the Gloster Javelin. In addition, Fleet Air Arm Squadrons 746 and 787 served alongside CFE. Between them they flew over 35 types of aircraft.

The Memorial was unveiled by Air Vice Marshal Les Phipps, Wing Commander Don Webb DFM and Mr Kenny Freeman on 27 September 2014.

Television and film
Following closure RAF West Raynham was used as the location venue for the two part miniseries, Over Here. The series was filmed at the station in 1996, starring Martin Clunes and Samuel West.

In 2009, Channel 4 used the former base as a location for a documentary on the contribution of Polish fighter pilots in the Second World War. West Raynham stood in for both RAF Northolt and RAF Uxbridge, with Air Cadets from Watton being employed in the filming.

Between 9–15 January 2010, RAF West Raynham featured on the LivingTV series Most Haunted Live in a series called "The Silent Town". Shooting took place at a variety of locations on the base, including Hangars 3 and 4, the control towers, Guard Room, Station Headquarters, Sergeant's Mess, Officer's Mess, hospital and chapel, employing a crew of 120 people at the closed base. North American Harvard trainer aircraft 1747, from Duxford, was displayed in the Hangar 4 studio set for the duration of the shoot, becoming the first aircraft to officially use the airfield since closure.

The 2023 short film The Shepherd starring John Travolta used the airfield as a setting.

Units
Units based at RAF West Raynham included:

title: RAF West Raynham


text:
Talk:Sunraysia Television

Callsign origins
I removed the reference to the callsign STW9 standing for Swan Television Western Australia as I think it is merely apocryphal and largely irrelevant. The W is mandated by the Australian Broadcasting Authority (similarly, in WA 6 is mandated for radio stations), and the licence holder gets to nominate the other letters. --Kjd 13:01, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Sunraysia Television


text:
User talk:Jpk

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dmn / Դմն 13:01, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Glider aircraft category
Hi, please note that Category:Glider aircraft is the parent category of the sailplane categories. Project consensus and the general categorisation guideline is to remove the category. There was discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft, it will be in the archive if not on the current talk page. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  09:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

 * Archive link. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  09:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thanks for noting this. I won't add more gliders to that category. Jpk (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nasdaq Helsinki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oriola. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jpk


text:
Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman (born July 12, 1947) is an American cryptozoologist, author and television personality who has written over 40 books on a number of topics, including cryptozoology. He is also the President, Founder and leading Director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.

Early life
Coleman was born in Norfolk, Virginia, and grew up in Decatur, Illinois. He was the oldest of four children. His father was a firefighter and his mother a homemaker. He graduated in 1965 from MacArthur High School. He studied anthropology and zoology at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

Cryptozoology
Coleman writes on popular culture, animal mysteries, folklore, and cryptozoology. An editor of the Skeptical Inquirer said, "among monster hunters, Loren's one of the more reputable, but I'm not convinced that what cryptozoologists seek is actually out there." He has appeared on television and radio interviews about cryptids. He has written articles and books on cryptozoology and other Fortean topics.''

Coleman has carried out fieldwork throughout North America regarding sightings, trace evidence, and Native peoples' traditions of Sasquatch and other possible cryptids. He has written on Yeti and Bigfoot expedition sponsor Tom Slick and appeared on NPR discussing the death of Grover Krantz.

Paraview Press introduced a series of books, "Loren Coleman Presents" in 2004. Coleman wrote introductions to volumes in the series.

Coleman contributed to the exhibition "Cryptozoology: Out of Time Place Scale," shown at Bates College Museum of Art (June 24 - October 8, 2006) and at the H & R Block Artspace at the Kansas City Art Institute (October 28 - December 20, 2006). Coleman is also a contributor/coauthor of the 2006 Bates exhibition catalogue and book, Cryptozoology: Out of Time Place Scale. He also wrote the essay "Cryptids" for Alexis Rockman.

International Cryptozoology Museum
Coleman established a Cryptozoology Museum in 2003 in Portland, Maine. The first downtown location for the museum opened in November 2009, occupying the rear of The Green Hand Bookshop, a Portland general used bookshop specializing in science fiction, fantasy, and other forms of Gothic fiction. On October 30, 2011, two years after moving onto Congress Street, it re-opened in a much larger space around the corner at 11 Avon Street, although it was still located in the Trelawny Building. The museum then moved again in the summer of 2016, opening in July on Thompson's Point, where it resides now.

Artwork by University of Southern Maine students, Coleman's former workplace, were installed in 2019.

Criticism
Justin Mullis criticized Coleman's assumption about a 1955 incident in which an Indiana woman was pulled underwater by something she did not see. Coleman claimed it was caused by a half human, half fish creature called a "merbeing". Mullis pointed to Coleman's reference to The Creature from the Black Lagoon as an example of "how cryptozoologists think about science fiction and its relationship to the natural world". "'Coleman has clearly used a scene from the film to prematurely solve an unexplained event, ignoring more plausible explanations, such as the possibility that Mrs. Johnson was attacked by a large fish or turtle or caught her leg on a submerged log. He also ignores the fact that Johnson’s story appeared at the same time the Black Lagoon trilogy of films was being released in theaters.'"Science writer Sharon A. Hill disagrees with Coleman's assertions that cryptozoology is "scientific and skeptically minded". Hill criticized Coleman's Cryptomundo website, saying that members "show blatant disdain for scientists and investigators critical of their claims".

In reviewing a book by Grover Krantz, Skeptical Inquirer editor Robert Boston said of Coleman and Jerome Clark's book Creatures of the Outer Edge, "Clark and Coleman are every bit as gullible as Krantz, but at least they know how to spin a monster yarn so that the reader gets an occasional chill".

The Copycat Effect
Coleman has a master's degree in psychiatric social work and was a consultant for the Maine Youth Suicide Program for nearly a decade. A specific concern continues to be cases of murder-suicide among the young as well as the possibility of clusters (e.g., teen suicides, school shootings, workplace violence, and domestic terrorism) and the influence of media coverage, leading to his writing the books Suicide Clusters and The Copycat Effect. He has been called on for statements in the aftermath of school shootings and how best to respond to the problem, mostly by the Canadian media.

title: Loren Coleman


text:
Postmodern theatre

Postmodern theatre is a recent phenomenon in world theatre, coming as it does out of the postmodern philosophy that originated in Europe in the middle of the twentieth century. Postmodern theatre emerged as a reaction against modernist theatre. Most postmodern productions are centered on highlighting the fallibility of definite truth, instead encouraging the audience to reach their own individual understanding. Essentially, thus, postmodern theatre raises questions rather than attempting to supply answers.

Postmodern techniques
A postmodern theatrical production might make use of some or all of the following techniques:

 * 1) The accepted norms of seeing and representing the world are challenged and disregarded, while experimental theatrical perceptions and representations are created.
 * 2) A pastiche of different textualities and media forms are used, including the simultaneous use of multiple art or media forms, and there is the 'theft' of a heterogeneous group of artistic forms.
 * 3) The narrative needs not be complete but can be broken, paradoxical and imagistic. There is a movement away from linearity to multiplicity (to inter-related webs of stories), where acts and scenes give way to a series of peripatetic dramatic moments.
 * 4) Characters are fragmented, forming a collection of contrasting and parallel shards stemming from a central idea, theme or traditional character.
 * 5) Each new performance of a theatrical pieces is a new Gestalt, a unique spectacle, with no intent on methodically repeating a play.
 * 6) The audience is integral to the shared meaning-making of the performance process and its members are included in the dialogue of the play.
 * 7) There is a rejection of the notions of "High" and "Low" art. The production exists only in the viewer's mind as what the viewer interprets - nothing more and nothing less.
 * 8) The rehearsal process in a theatrical production is driven more by shared meaning-making and improvisation, rather than the scripted text.
 * 9) The play steps back from reality to create its own self-conscious atmosphere. This is sometimes referred to as metatheatre.

While these techniques are often found in postmodern productions they are never part of a centralised movement or style. Rather, they are tools for authentic introspection, questioning and representation of human experience.

Notable examples of postmodern theatre

 * Griselda Gambaro's Information For Foreigners
 * Ozono Production's Fuerzabruta
 * Heiner Müller's Hamletmachine
 * Magda Romanska's "Opheliamachine"
 * Dimitris Lyacos's With the People from the Bridge
 * Reza Abdoh's "Quotations from a Ruined City"
 * Dummies Theatre

title: Postmodern theatre


text:
Arctocephalus

The genus Arctocephalus consists of the southern fur seals. Arctocephalus translates to "bear head."

Taxonomy
The number of species within the genus has been questioned, primarily based on limited molecular data. The issue is complicated because some of the species are able to produce fertile hybrids. A recent review recommended the retention of seven species, deprecating the New Zealand fur seals to a subspecies of the South American fur seal, while also questioning the status of the Guadalupe fur seal. Other recent studies have indicated the genus may be paraphyletic, and some taxonomic reshuffling was previously done to account for this; however, more recent studies support it being monophyletic, with the alleged paraphyly being a consequence of incomplete lineage sorting.

title: Arctocephalus


text:
Cultural pessimism

Cultural pessimism arises with the conviction that the culture of a nation, a civilization, or humanity itself is in a process of irreversible decline. It is a variety of pessimism formulated by a cultural critic.

Traditional versions
It has been significant presence in the general outlook of many historical cultures: things are "going to the dogs", the Golden age is in the past, and the current generation is fit only for dumbing down and cultural careerism. Some significant formulations have gone beyond this, proposing a universally-applicable cyclic model of history—notably in the writings of Giambattista Vico.

Nineteenth century
The pessimistic element was available in Arthur Schopenhauer's philosophy and Matthew Arnold's cultural criticism. The tide of Whiggish optimism (exemplified by Macaulay) receded somewhat in the middle of the reign of Queen Victoria.

Classical culture, based on traditional classical scholarship in Latin and Greek literature, had itself been under attack externally for two generations or more by 1900, and had produced, in Friedrich Nietzsche, a model pessimistic thinker.

Early twentieth century
Cultural pessimism of the Oswald Spengler epoch might be seen as a refusal of the rather intellectual and secular choice between nihilism and modernism. Politically this tended to squeeze liberal thought.

Specific criticism of the West, in the first years of the twentieth century, is usually taken as of the Old World of Europe, excluding therefore North America in particular. The classic source for this is Spengler's The Decline of the West (1918–1923), often cited in the years following its publication. The tone of much of the critical writing, for example, of T. S. Eliot, and the historical writing of Arnold J. Toynbee from the 1920s onwards, is identifiable. It was fashionable to say that Spengler had at least formulated some truths about the cultural situation of Europe after World War I. Eliot's major early work The Waste Land (1922) was commonly and directly interpreted in those terms.

Contemporary proponents
Towards the end of the 20th century, cultural pessimism surfaced in a prominent way. The very title of Jacques Barzun's From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, 1500 to the Present (2000) challenges the reader to be hopeful. On Matthew Arnold, a major cultural critic of the Victorian era, Barzun writes:

"According to Arnold, the behaviour of the English social classes was touched neither by spiritual nor by intellectual forces; the upper orders were barbarians, the middle classes philistines. (op. cit. p.573)"

The end of the millennium saw in the United States concerns rather specific to the conservative view on the culture wars and university education. Western Europe, on the other hand, struggled towards self-definition in the face of limiting demography, and postmodernism as at least journalistically predominant—the difference primarily lying in the political prominence of the issues.

title: Cultural pessimism


text:
Government of Ireland Act 1914

The Government of Ireland Act 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 90), also known as the Home Rule Act, and before enactment as the Third Home Rule Bill, was an Act passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom intended to provide home rule (self-government within the United Kingdom) for Ireland. It was the third such bill introduced by a Liberal government during a 28-year period in response to agitation for Irish Home Rule.

The Act was the first law ever approved by the Parliament of the United Kingdom that provided for a devolved government in any part of the UK proper (as opposed to colonial territories). However, the implementation of both it and the equally controversial Welsh Church Act 1914 was formally postponed for a minimum of twelve months with the beginning of the First World War. The continuation of the war beyond 1915 and subsequent developments in Ireland resulted in further postponements, meaning that the Act never became effective; it was finally superseded by a fourth home rule bill, enacted as the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which partitioned Ireland, creating Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, both intended to have Home Rule.

Background
During 1909, a constitutional crisis began when the House of Lords rejected David Lloyd George's Finance Bill. Two general elections occurred in January and December 1910, both of which left the Liberals and Conservatives equally matched, with John Redmond's Irish Parliamentary Party having the balance of power in the House of Commons. The Irish Parliamentary Party, which had campaigned for home rule for Ireland since the 1870s, pledged to assist the Liberals in return for the introduction of a home rule bill. The Parliament Act 1911 then replaced the unlimited veto of the Lords with one lasting only 2 years, ensuring that a bill passed by the Commons could not be blocked for more than two years.

The Bill
The Prime Minister, H. H. Asquith, introduced the Bill on 11 April 1912. Allowing more autonomy than its two predecessors, the bill provided that:
 * A bicameral Irish Parliament would be established in Dublin (a 40-member Senate and a 164-member House of Commons) with powers to deal with most national affairs. Each of the four provinces of Ireland would be represented by ten senators elected by proportional representation.
 * A reduced number of members of parliament representing Ireland would continue to attend the Parliament of the United Kingdom (42 MPs, rather than 103).
 * The Dublin Castle administration would be eliminated, although with the retention of the Lord Lieutenant.

The financial situation was a concern. Irish taxes had yielded a surplus of £2 million in 1893, but by 1910 that had become a current spending net deficit of £1.5m, which had to be raised by London. An annual "Transferred Sum" mechanism was proposed, so that public spending in Ireland could be continued at the same level.

The Bill was passed by the Commons by a majority of 10 votes in 1912, but in January 1913 the House of Lords rejected it by 326 votes to 69. Later in 1913, it was reintroduced and again passed by the Commons and rejected by the Lords, this time by 302 votes to 64. In 1914, after the third reading, the Bill was passed by the Commons on 25 May 1914 by a majority of 77. Having been defeated a third time in the Lords, the Government used the provisions of the Parliament Act 1911 to override the Lords and send the bill for royal assent.

Ulster crisis
Unionists in Ulster were opposed to a home-rule Ireland governed from Dublin. Hostility to the Home Rule Bill was increasing in the counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, and Londonderry. Early in 1912, some of the residents of that area began forming small local militias. By April 1912, the Irish Unionist Alliance's managing politician, Sir Edward Carson, could review 100,000 marching Ulster Volunteers. On 28 September 1912, more than 500,000 Unionists signed the Ulster Covenant pledging to defy Home Rule by all means possible. The Covenant was developed by Carson and organised by Sir James Craig. This Covenant specifically pledged not to acknowledge any Parliament out of Dublin, nor to obey its laws, nor pay any taxes levied by its government. This would be problematic especially since Ulster was the wealthiest and most prosperous part of Ireland.

In January 1913, the Unionist Council reorganised their volunteers into a paramilitary Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), whose members threatened to resist by physical force the implementation of the Act and the authority of any restored Dublin Parliament by force of arms. On 28 November 1913, Irish Nationalists responded by forming the Irish Volunteers "to secure the rights and liberties common to all the people of Ireland". The government's willingness to effectively oppose the Unionist threat was rendered highly questionable by the Curragh Mutiny of 20 March 1914, when many British Army officers at Curragh in County Kildare, the main Army camp in Ireland, threatened to resign or accept dismissal rather than deploy against the Ulster Volunteers, forcing the government to cancel planned troop movements.

Partition
At the Bill's third reading in the Commons on 21 May 1914 several members asked about a proposal to exclude the whole of Ulster for six years. Asquith was seeking any solution that would avoid a civil war. During the emotional debate which lasted until 25 May 1914, Sir Edward Carson made the statement: "'I say this to my Nationalist fellow-countrymen, and indeed also to the Government, you have never tried to win over Ulster. You have never tried to understand her position. You have never alleged, and you cannot allege, that this Bill gives her one atom of advantage.'"

A government amending bill was introduced in the House of Lords on 23 June 1914 (before the Lords had considered the original Home Rule bill itself) and passed there with amendments on 8 July. Carson and the Irish Unionist Party (mostly Ulster MPs) backed the amending bill, which provided for "temporary exclusion of Ulster" from the workings of the future Act. The Lords' amendments to the amending bill were unacceptable to the government. What was still to be negotiated were the number of counties excluded (four, six or nine) and whether exclusion would be temporary or permanent. The compromise proposed by Asquith was straightforward. Six counties in northeast Ulster were to be excluded "temporarily" from the territory of the new Irish parliament and government, and continue to be governed as before from Westminster and Whitehall. The length of the exclusion remained an issue of some controversy. To save prolonged debate in parliament, George V called the Buckingham Palace Conference with two MPs each from the Liberal, Conservative, IPP and Irish Unionist parties. The conference, held between 21 and 24 July 1914, achieved very little.

Passing of the Bill
With the beginning of World War I on 4 August 1914, Asquith decided to abandon his Amending Bill, and instead rushed through a new bill, the Suspensory Act 1914, which was presented for royal assent simultaneously with both the Government of Ireland Act 1914 and the Welsh Church Act 1914. Although the two controversial Bills had now finally become statute on 18 September 1914, the Suspensory Act ensured that Home Rule would be postponed for the duration of the conflict and would not come into operation until the end of the war. (Eventually Home Rule was considered by the Irish Convention in 1917–18, and by the cabinet from September 1919; the Welsh Church Act was delayed until March 1920). The Ulster question was 'solved' in the same way: through the promise of amending legislation which was left undefined.

Dublin was a battlefield for a week during the Easter Rising of 1916. This rebellion would have a major effect on the Home Rule passage and many Home Rulers would be troubled by this event. After the Rising, two attempts were made during the First World War to implement the Act. The first attempt came in June 1916, when Prime Minister H. H. Asquith sent David Lloyd George, then Minister for Munitions, to Dublin to offer immediate implementation to the leaders of the Irish Party, Redmond and Dillon. The scheme concerned partition, officially a temporary arrangement, as understood by Redmond. Lloyd George however gave the Ulster politician, Carson, a written guarantee that Ulster would not be forced into a self-governing Ireland. His tactic was to ensure that neither side would find out before a compromise was implemented. A modified Act of 1914 had been developed by the Cabinet on 17 June. The Act had two amendments enforced by Unionists on 19 July – permanent exclusion and a reduction of Ireland's representation in the Commons. When informed by Lloyd George on 22 July 1916, Redmond accused the government of treachery. This was decisive in determining the future fortunes of the Home Rule movement. Lloyd George, now Prime Minister, made a second attempt to implement Home Rule in 1917, with the calling of the Irish Convention directed by Horace Plunkett. This consisted of Nationalist and Unionist representatives who, by April 1918, only succeeded in agreeing on a report with an 'understanding' on recommendations for the establishment of self-government.

The end of the war, in November 1918, was followed by the December 1918 general election. In the Irish part of the election, the majority of seats were won by the republican separatist Sinn Féin. In January 1919, the Irish War of Independence broke out, so that the 1914 Act was never implemented. The future of Home Rule was determined by the Government of Ireland Act 1920. It established Northern Ireland, with a functional government, and Southern Ireland, the governmental institutions of which never functioned completely. Following the Anglo-Irish Treaty, Southern Ireland became the Irish Free State.

title: Government of Ireland Act 1914


text:
Government of Ireland Bill 1893

The Government of Ireland Bill 1893 (known generally as the Second Home Rule Bill) was the second attempt made by Liberal Party leader William Ewart Gladstone, as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, to enact a system of home rule for Ireland. Unlike the first attempt, which was defeated in the House of Commons, the second Bill was passed by the Commons but vetoed by the House of Lords.

Background
Gladstone had become personally committed to the granting of Irish home rule in 1885, a fact revealed (possibly accidentally) in what became known as the Hawarden Kite. Though his 1886 Home Rule Bill had caused him to lose power after members of his party left to form the Liberal Unionist Party, once re-appointed prime minister in August 1892 Gladstone committed himself to introducing a new Home Rule Bill for Ireland.

The Irish Parliamentary Party had divided in 1891 on the leadership of Charles Stewart Parnell (who died later in 1891), with a majority leaving the Irish National League to form the Irish National Federation, remaining divided until 1900.

As with the first bill, the second bill was controversially drafted in secret by Gladstone, who excluded both Irish MPs and his own ministry from participating in the drafting. The decision led to a serious factual error in the Bill, a mistake over the calculation of how much Ireland should contribute to the British Imperial Exchequer. The error in the calculation was £360,000, a vast sum for the time. The error was discovered during the Committee Stage of the Bill's passage through the Commons and forced a major revision of the financial proposals.

Debate
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir William Harcourt, was himself alienated from the Bill having been excluded by Gladstone from its preparation, while the Chief Secretary for Ireland was engaged on other matters, and Gladstone, in the words of a historian, "increasingly disengaged". On 21 April, the Bill's second reading was approved by a majority of 347 to 304.

By the third reading on 1 September, 26 of the Bill's 37 clauses had still not been debated. A fist-fight developed on the opposition benches between Home Rule and Conservative MPs. The Bill, though passed by the Commons with a slimmer majority of 30, had lost much of its credibility. At that time all legislation could be negated by the Conservative Party–dominated House of Lords, and here it failed on a vote of 41 in favour and 419 against.

Contents
The bill proposed:

Legislature
A bicameral Irish parliament to control domestic affairs, made up of a Legislative Council and a Legislative Assembly.
 * The Legislative Council would have 48 councillors, elected for eight-year terms in two cohorts at four-year intervals. The franchise would be based on a £20 property qualification, higher than the £10 qualification of the Assembly. The constituencies would be the three largest parliamentary boroughs (Dublin, Belfast, and Cork) and the 32 counties, except that County Cork was divided into East and West Ridings, and Counties Sligo and Leitrim were combined. Most constituencies would elect one member; the more populous, two or three.
 * The Legislative Assembly would have 103 members, elected for a maximum of five years, with potential for earlier dissolution. The constituencies would be those previously used for Westminster, though the bill would reduce and redraw the Westminster constituencies. The initial franchise would be as for Westminster elections, but the parliament would have the right to alter this.
 * Disagreement between the houses would be resolved after two years by majority vote of the members of the two houses voting together.

Executive

 * An executive under the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would form the Executive Committee of the Privy Council of Ireland.
 * The new executive would not be responsible to the Irish parliament and the bill did not provide for a prime minister. This did not in practice mean that the executive would not be answerable to the assembly, nor did it mean that there would be no prime minister. Contemporary British enactments for the dominions contained exactly the same provisions. However, in reality governments became answerable almost immediately, and, as in the case of Canada's Constitution Act, 1867, a prime ministerial office evolved early on, even if not mentioned anywhere in law.

Irish MPs in Westminster
Whereas the First Home Rule Bill provided for no Irish MPs at Westminster, the 1893 Bill allowed for the eighty Irish MPs to sit in Westminster; this would have been a reduction from the 103 MPs who were then in the United Kingdom House of Commons.

Passed by the Commons, defeated in the Lords
The Bill's second reading was passed by the House of Commons on 21 April 1893 by 347 votes to 304; the final (third) reading was passed on 1 September 1893 by 301 to 267. However, in the House of Lords the second reading was defeated on 8 September 1893 by 419 votes to 41. This was a major stumbling block for the Irish MPs because the House of Lords was controlled by the Conservative Party and there would be little chance of it getting passed by them.

Gladstone retired soon afterwards. Some historians now suggest that Gladstone was the author of his own defeats on home rule, with his secretive drafting alienating supporters, and enabling serious flaws to appear in the text of his bills.

title: Government of Ireland Bill 1893


text:
Talk:Victor Davis Hanson

Neoconservative?
Could Victor Davis Hanson be described as a neoconservative? GCarty 13:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * The clause "and is thus often quoted on warblogs such as Little Green Footballs" has an offensive PoV ring to it, my reason for removing it that there is no reason to suppose it is anything but gratuitous. How 'bout a reason why it matters that he is quoted one particular place -- or for that matter, anywhere that agrees with him? As it says, "thus he is quoted" by those which could just as well be "as any fool can imagine w/o WP's help, he is quoted"...! --Jerzy (t) 23:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I saw a brief book in the classics section of my university library that was critical of some of Hanson's and Kagan's views, written by a professor of classics at Berkely - I believe. I'll try to dig it up on my next trip to the library.  I didn't agree with most of what I read, but it was presented in a civil, scholarly manner, not ranting as above. --Jpbrenna 21:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting
No ongoing discussion. Unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I hadn't even realized it was protected! I was the one who nominated it.  This article does need some work.  Hopefully people will provide sourced criticisms of Hanson instead of reposting the same POV stock phrases over and over.--Jpbrenna 00:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find it --- not in a catalog search and not in a physical inspection of the classics section. I know I saw the book once.  They are expanding the library and moving parts of the collection around, so maybe it's in a box somewhere.  If anybody else can find a copy of the work, go ahead and post.  I'll keep my eye out for it as well. --Jpbrenna 18:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Western Way of War
There is too much on this page regarding Hansons political views and his stance towards recent events. More attention should be paid to his role as a scholar, particularly the publishing of The Western Way of War which was revolutionary in the study of ancient Greek warfare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.234.142.73 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 17 July 2005 UTC
 * I completely agree. This entire entry is an absolute joke.  One gets the impression from reading it that Hanson is more known for his political views than his scholarship in the field of military history, and I suspect this is deliberate on the part of those who wrote the entry on Hanson.  Singling out Carnage and Culture, and barely even mentioning "The Western Way of War" is odd, to say the least, particularly when you consider that the "Western Way of War" is one of the most influential works ever written on the history of ancient Greek warfare.  I have a distinct feeling this is a deliberate omission, employed to minimize the impact of Hanson's scholarship in the field of military history.  Reading the entry, one doesn't even get the smallest inkling that Hanson is one of the most influential classical military historians of the past 50 years.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.223 (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Opposing viewpoints
Valid opposing viewpoints of Hanson based on facts should not be censored and deleted. This censorship is a gross perversion of the spirit of Wikipedia! Valid cites have been made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.123.78 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 25 August 2005 UTC
 * No they haven't. Which C-SPAN interview? Not the one linked to below, which aired in 2005.  And who did the "accusing" in the 2003 interview (which you cite, but don't give in the sources section below).  Was it Brian Lamb, or was it an anonymous caller on a call-in show?  As for the La Raza article, which one?  What publication?   Was it from the National Council of La Raza, or an affiliated local group or community center with its own newsletter? Single author or corporately authored? Is it available online at http://www.nclr.org/? We need the info, including page numbers if applicable.  It's easiest if you select the appropriate template, copy/paste it, and then fill in the info. --Jpbrenna 05:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio
The image was removed and deleted at the request of Craig M. Eisenberg, who owns the copyright and did not give permission for its use. Please don't upload images you don't personally own. --Tony Sidaway Talk 16:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Lack of Military Service
Deleting line about criticism of VDH's lack of military service. This appears to be based on an ad hominem attack. Only substantive criticism of VDH's scholarly work (or political opinions) is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.153.241 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 7 November 2005 UTC

It is not an ad hominem attack. It is the accurate statement of a fact which may or may not reflect hypocrisy in his support of the Iraq War —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.229.205 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 28 December 2005 UTC

 * I believe the following makes inclusion of this factoid unnecessary:
 * His or his family's military service or lack thereof does not allow or disallow him from forming opinions.
 * His lack of military service is evident from his biographical information.
 * He's 56. He's hasn't been eligible for military service for two decades.  (Sorry, he appears to be 52. Mike Wilson 04:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC))
 * The statement reeks of political slant.
 * -- Mike Wilson 04:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * His namesake was killed at Okinawa. Maybe he himself never served, but his family obviously knows the human cost of war very well.--Jpbrenna 19:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

To you the statement reeks of political slant because you are embarrassed by it and want to sweep it under the rug. Many of us with family nmembers on the ground in Iraq find it significant. He is free to express his view of the Iraq War and we are free to decide what weight to give that opinion in light of his family staying out of that war. The fact that World War II was obviously an essential and well fought war is exactly what distinguishes it from the current war, along with the fact that it was waged against nations who had already declared war on us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.171.224.83 (talk • contribs) 01:31 29 December 2005 UTC

 * You seem sincere in finding it significant. I sincerely find it irrelevant.  Since you seem like someone with boundless zeal, I'd like to hope for a compromise, although I can't speak for anyone else.  First of all, you will need to find a solid reference confirming your assertion as per WP:CITE and WP:V.  Then maybe some sort of line at the end of the paragraph can acknowledge the tenacity of his critics and their view of his credibility?  I tried to think of an example, but they all sounded lame to me. Or maybe others have an alternative? -- Mike Wilson 04:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the notion that the pathetic "chicken hawk" smears have any place in an encyclopedic entry is absolute insane. Such suggestions are worthy of contempt, not serious debate.

Nice rebuttal
in response to

"...extreme rhetoric of the antiwar Left... antiwar = anti-Semitism... "lunatic Left"... "fundamentalists and censors"... "half-truths, spin, and conspiracy theories"..."

It's just hillarious -- he's like that the whole way through, with hate speech in every word. But the reason I mention it here was that he didn't rebut "Gary Brecher", he merely launched a bad (ad-hominem we call it?) counterattack, drawing peoples' attention to all the things about Brecher that he thinks are bad (e.g cheering for 9/11)

 * There was no rebuttal to the argument about Hanson's farm being welfare state socialism while publically claiming to support private enterprise
 * There was no rebuttal to the claim that Hanson's analysis of the first gulf war was uninformed
 * There was no rebuttal to the claims of inaccuracy in Hanson's coverage of the second gulf war, (eg. "no attack on the Sunni Triangle")
 * There was no rebuttal to the claim that Hanson's comparison of Iraq and Malaya was misleading
 * There's not even a rebuttal to "what Hanson and morons like him won't admit is that short of genocide, there is no military solution to urban guerrilla warfare" -- presumably as a pro-war military expert who's keen to take the US into Iraq, Hanson is claiming that he does have a solution to urban guerrilla warfare?

So it's a bit oddd to list that article as a reply or rebuttal, when it' just a load of personal attacks. "yeah, well anyone who criticizes me is a loony, nyeh!!!" Ojw 13:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the text about VDH's 26Aug2005 NRO essay from the Brecher link, and inserted a mention of Brecher in the description of that NRO essay. Now the essay is only mentioned once; much better. For more detail, see my talk page. —Chris Chittleborough 15:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Good lord, your attack on Hanson's rebuttal is as pathetic as you claim his rebuttal is. Nothing but ad hominem?  Sure thing. But I guess such is to be expected from an individual who claims Hanson's reply is full of "hate speech"(a euphemism the left seems to employ against anyone who disagrees with them), and then lauds someone who fantasized about burning down Hanson's crops. And speaking of Gary Brecher, his attack on Hanson is so laughable, one wonders why Hanson even bothers to mention it.  Pointing out Brecher's insane moral equivalencies was rebuttal enough. For crying out loud, Brecher, in the title of his hilarious "piece"(yeah, it's a piece of something allright)calls Hanson a traitor, yet you have the nerve to claim it is Hanson engaging in nothing but ad hominem attacks? I would call you a raging hypocrite, but I don't like stating the obvious.   Brecher deserved to be called out for his insane views in Hanson's  piece, and that is the only reply he deserved.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.223 (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Changes made 25-Mar-2006
I've edited the Iraq War section:
 * I say VDH is not "pro-war" re the Middle-East, just hawkish.
 * He sees bad Arab and Iranian autocracies (not the Arabs and Iranians themselves!) as the main cause of (1) fundamentalist Islamic terrorism and (2) the "backwardness" (my word) of Iran and most Arab nations
 * I phrased (2) as "retarded economic, technological and cultural progress" only because I can't think of a good way to express it. Edits welcome!

 * I've added no less that 5 tags, asking for
 * 1. link(s) to someone calling him neoconservative
 * (Update: it took a lot of googling but I found one and added it in. Chris Chittleborough 15:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC) )
 * 2. link(s) to him discussing whether he is neoconservative
 * 3. link(s) to him blaming autocratic Middle East governments for "backwardness"
 * 4. link(s) to him blaming autocratic Middle East governments for terrorism
 * 5. link(s) to critics calling him racist and islamophobic
 * #1 and #2 here should probably be moved somewhere else in the article.
 * I'll look for citations for #3 and #4.
 * I'll let someone else look for citation(s) for #5. I'll delete this sentence in a month or so if no good citations for it have been added. (Every public figure who supports the defeat of Saddam and the terrorists in Iraq has been called racist and Islamaphobic. Accusations like this only deserve inclusion in articles if made by notable people or in notable circumstances or as part of a notable public debate or in a notable manner or if notable for some other reason.)

I've also edited the intro para to say what kind of grapes he grows. We farm kids care about such details ;-)

As always, feel free to WP:BOLDly improve my work!

—Chris Chittleborough 04:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hanson is very clear about his notions that non-Western societies value "freedom" and other values less than Western society does. Culture and Carnage in particular pursues that theme. I can't grant your second point. Tom129.93.17.202 18:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Those external links
We seem to be having an "edit kerfuffle" over two external links. (It does not rise to the level of an edit war, IMO.) I thought I'd try to start a discussion of them here. Cheers, CWC (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Two essays about George Washington, one by Richard Brookhiser, the other by Bruce S. Thornton and VDH, from 1999.
 * http://www.taemag.org/issues/articleID.17004/article_detail.asp
 * I don't see why this link belongs in an article about Prof. Hanson. CWC (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"Military Technology and American Culture", an essay for the first issue of The New Altantis, published Spring 2003.
 * http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/1/hanson.htm
 * Strikes me as a useful summary of many of VDH's works. (Parts are quite prophetic.) If someone asked me for one essay to see what VDH says about modern military affairs, I'd send them to this one. (This is not the conclusion I expected to reach. Darn.) CWC (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The article from The New Atlantis can't go here as User:CNicol is affiliated with the magazine, making her addition linkspam. As for the other, I don't think we need to link to VDH's individual articles. Wikipedia is not a link directory. CRCulver 10:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The number of external links is absolutely silly. I could list  dozens of individuals who have written far more controversial things on various political issues than Hanson and not find one single "opposing viewpoint" link in the external links section.  The external links section is not designed as a forum to balance out the views of the subject of the entry.  It should be obvious to anyone with an IQ above five that an entry on Hanson would include a link to Hanson's website, but to include links from random individuals is so transparently designed to attack Hanson that the claims of doing so for the sake of objectivity are hilarious on their face.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.223 (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The lede
I've just edited the lede to say that VDH is a former classics professor, as explained just a few paragraphs below.

Here's the resulting lede, with added color:
 * Victor Davis Hanson (born 1953 in Fowler, California of Swedish descent) is a military historian, political essayist and former Classics professor, best known as a scholar of ancient warfare as well as a commentator on modern warfare . He is also a farmer (growing raisin grapes) and a critic of social trends related to farming and agrarianism.

I think the text in red are superfluous and should be deleted. What do other editors think? Cheers, CWC (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Environmental factors
He also disagrees with environmental explanations, as put forth by authors such as Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel.

I don't want to step into 'Original Research' territory, but I wonder where this has come from? Did VDH himself explicitly criticise Diamond's idea? Or is it an assumption by whoever wrote that?

The reason I mention it is that - if my understanding is correct - Diamond's view is not necessarily in conflict with VDH. In Guns, Germs and Steel, Diamond acknowledges that cultural differences can have an impact on the relative development of different societies. But he argues that this doesn't explain how different peoples came to have different cultures in the first place. So he's talking about influences further back than VDH. You could reconcile the two views, I think, unless VDH has actually said somewhere that he doesn't agree with Diamond. I didn't see a reference for that. --DudeGalea 21:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

 * VDH reviewed Diamond's book "Collapse" (and also mentions "Guns, Germs and Steel") here. He definitely does not agree with Diamond. Nathanm mn 02:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I just came here to add a note that VDH's latest post contains a long argument against Diamond. And then I saw that you'd added yours a few days ago. I agree, that settles it. --DudeGalea 09:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Sorry about resurrecting this, but in Carnage and Culture, Hanson does address Diamond's work, however, I don't have my copy near.--Mtnerd 22:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

names in prose
Unless this person usually goes by or is referred to as "Victor Davis Hanson" or "VDH", it seems inappropriate to continually use all three names in reference to him in the article. Consider somebody like Lisa Marie Presley, who is frequently referred to by all three names, somebody like Michael Jackson, who is frequently referred to with the surname and first name, and Madonna, who is commonly referred to by only her first name. We don't refer to LMP as "Lisa Marie" or "presley,' nor Lisa Presley. Continuing, we don't refer to Michael Jackson as "Jackson" or "Michael", and certainly not "Michael Joseph Jackson". Lastly, we don't refer to Madonna as "Madonna Ciccone" or "Madonna Louise." I don't think I need to give additional examples (don't get me started on Alexander Siddig). Anyways, I have removed a couple instances where people had used the term "VDH" to refer to him. In American English, it is common to use somebody's last name to refer to them when it is obvious who one is referring to. So in the article, "Hanson" should be fine. I think our readers are smart enough to figure out who the name references. ... aa:talk 22:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Neoconservative revisited
It's clear from Victor Hansons blog entry regarding himself and Mark Steyn, that he is saying that they are the only two left, as in pundits. Mark Steyn is clearly not a NeoConservative and Hanson who had objected to the 1998 letter from the NeoConservatives to president is not one either, as he's said here and elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.41.12 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 17 December 2006 UTC

 * I added Hanson's own reference to himself as a neoconservative. Its been a while since I've used my wiki account and cannot remember my account name. In any case, here is the relevant part of the reference that I cited:

 * "But it is not just Leftists who are getting what they wished for, but a lot of the neoconservatives as well. It may be that true, as one pundit wrote, that Mark Steyn and myself are about the only two left that both support the war—despite the mistakes—and Rumsfeld in general."

 * His easy use of the term neoconservative contradicts the previous citation that he considered it a slur, and his applying it to himself (not contradicting the "pundit" he cites) makes it look like he is actually rather proud of the designation, or at the very least comfortable with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.41.12 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 17 December 2006 UTC

But the above quotation doesn't make him a neoconservative at all. The "pundit" he cites doesn't call him that, so there's no question of his contracting or not contradicting it. The "pundit" says hyperbolically that Steyn and Hanson are "the only two" who support the war and Rumsfeld. The "pundit" doesn't say "the only two neoconservatives", but rather "the only two." Don't assume that "two" means "two neoconservatives" just because the word neoconservatives appears in the previous sentence. After all, the word leftists occurs there too. Tom129.93.17.139 01:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

- (Much later) We now have a clear statement from VDH about this, which I added to the article a few weeks ago:
 * He is not a neoconservative, though he agrees with some neoconservative views.
 * Reference: The Neocon Slur, Victor Davis Hanson, July 12, 2008 (originally posted at Hanson's Works and Days blog) "I came to support neocon approaches first in the wars against the Taliban and Saddam, largely because I saw little alternative."

(The quote also helps people find the relevant section of a long blog post.) Cheers, CWC 16:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

 * CWC, the "clear statement" is not supported by the citation. Can you show where he states in it that he is "not a neocon"? I modified this, and included citations for the views of others. Thanks, Jgui (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

POV template
The NPOV template strongly suggested there were POV problems with this article, but none were apparent when I read it, so I looked into the article history to see what I could discover about who added it and why.

was added over two months ago (11:19, 20 November 2006 UTC) by 71.111.119.60 (talk) (contribs), who was blocked the next day for vandalism, and blocked again two days after that for evading the block as 71.111.115.155 (talk)  (contribs).

Judging the encyclopedic health of the article to be good, and the source of the tag to be spurious (in the extreme ;-D), I have removed it. — Athænara  ✉  00:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I disagree. Perhaps it's been edited a lot since the above comments, but right now this article might have been written by Hanson himself; it is simply a brief exposition of his views, with not even a cursory attempt at setting him in context or presenting the views of anyone who has disagreed with his opinions, or criticised them in any way.  I should point out that I have never read any of Hanson's books, but as a regular WP contributor and editor I can see that this article is, in its present state, a dog.  It is blatantly partisan, and I will put the template back immediately. Lexo (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

January 2009
I see nothing POV in this article; in fact, it seems to be good-but-not-great as far as Wikipedia articles go. Responding to User:Lexo: the article supplies enough context, and carries several (mostly silly) criticisms in the External links section. Remember: at Wikipedia, we need WP:Reliable Sources for negative claims in a WP:BLP. I've removed the POV tag, and made some other improvements. Cheers, CWC 12:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is not even remotely "good". In fact it is a complete joke. More time is spent discussing Hanson's political views than is spent on the undisputed fact that Hanson is one of the most influential military historians of the 20th and 21st centuries.  You would be hard pressed to find a military history class that covers the ancient world at any major univesity that doesn't have one of Hanson's books as required reading.    In fact, there is not a single sentence in this entire piece of garbage entry that even remotely indicates the scope of his influence.  Rather it would seem the author spent more time casting aspersions on Hanson because he supported the war in Iraq.  This piece, as the British would say, is rubbish.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.97 (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

He has a good point. I've been writing papers on the Peloponesian Wars and the Anabasis, and nearly every book and scholarly article I pick up about it is either by Hanson or else cites Hanson. My flamingly left-wing Ancient Warfare professor requires two of his books (out of eight total assigned texts) for his class.

Hanson is well known as a political commentator. But that's really sort of a sideline; he's a history scholar first and last, and a farmer in the middle. The article should reflect that. 74.177.13.192 (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2013
Picking this up again here again a year after the latest comment. I agree with User:Lexo above. As I look at the current page, I see 21 references but it appears that only 4-5 of them are not written by the man himself; clearly it is inappropriate for our Wikipedia articles to be largely autobiographical (and his own writings might be promotional and WP:NOTRELIABLE). To be slightly more fair, I don't think it promotionalizes the views as much as it is just entirely devoid of any third-party remarks on the views. To those who assert that this article should cover more of his academic background: the burden is to find the sources. Glancing at the literature through GScholar, I found that John Keegan wrote a favorable review in the intro to his book the Western Way of War and that Kirkus Reviews wrote a favorable review listed on the GBooks reviews, although both seem to say his book ran counter to the mainstream. On politics, I noticed "Victor Davis Hanson Goes Berserk" but it seems somewhat self-published. Hard to find a published commentary, which is surprising given his platform and how passionate he appears. II | (t - c)

Essay regarding the Cold War?
The following sentence was added to the article a few weeks ago:
 * Hanson is also noted for his historical essay regarding the Cold War, and the USA's foreign policy of the time, the 'Containment' Policy.

I requested a citation, but none has appeared, so I've moved it here for discussion. Does anyone know of a significant essay by VDH about the Cold War? If so, could you please add something (either here or in the article) with more details? The title of the essay would be a good start ...

Cheers, CWC 16:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Administrative Editor deleting RS with claims of BLP
Jayjg, you have claimed that the text you removed violated BLP. But everything you removed is cited to RS, and is mostly Victor Hanson (the subject of the article) in his own words, expressing his own point of view. Please attempt to justify your blatantly unjustified reversion, or I will add it back. In particular please specify exactly which portions of the text you deleted you believe to be a violation of BLP, and remove those portions, and only those portions, next time. Cheers, Jgui (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, as I've pointed out to you, BLP is quite clear:
 * "In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material. Before adding or restoring material, the editor committing the edit must ensure it meets all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, not just verifiability of sources."
 * In general, most of the issues with primary material authored by Hanson is covered by WP:SELFPUB. In general, you should cite reliable secondary sources on Hanson, rather than Hanson himself. In addition, blogs (e.g. "James Woolcot Blog") should be avoided. Now, in order that we get a well-rounded, neutral view of Hanson, you need to provide some reliable, reasonably neutral secondary sources to describe him. Please explain which material from which reliable secondary sources about Hanson you wish to insert. If you insist on picking specific statements he has made in his voluminous writings to include, please explain how you know that they represent a balanced view of Hanson's beliefs and writings. Jayjg (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Jayjg, as you requested I have checked all citations, and fixed where appropriate and they are all to RS such as BBC, LA Times, National Review, Jewish World Review, etc. except for a couple citations to his own speeches or writings. These give a well-rounded, neutral view of Hanson as described in all press reports I can find - if you disagree PLEASE add material that supports your alternative opinion. But PLEASE stop deleting material cited to RS suitable for BLP. And if you are sincere in wanting to improve this article, then please modify or look up citations for the large portions of text in the Writings section that you seem to approve of that are completely uncited and argumentative. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 06:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hanson in america
Hi my name is Juanita Diane Hanson I was born in Idaho in 1947 my father was Francis Leroy hanson he was born at Fort  Mc Dermott on the 8January 1898 he used many dates for the Army the other dates he uses are * January 1900 or 8 January 1906 he served in the  South Pacific. Army serial number is 20955132 his parents were

father :  John Gabriel Hanson born 1876 Califorina died in Humbolt Nevada 1920 mother: (Mary) Millicent'Millie Caryle 1800 Quincey Califorina died 1950 Winnemucca my Grand father had two more brothers I thinks one was Chisthoper and the other I am not sure about if you are my relation my email is hanson j757@gmail.com Thanks Juanita — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.134.186 (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources modified on Victor Davis Hanson
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Victor Davis Hanson. I managed to add archive links to 8 8 sources, out of the total 8 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add  to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Victor Davis Hanson. 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://web.archive.org/web/20061107094931/http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/2006/08/29/back_to_the_future.php to http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/2006/08/29/back_to_the_future.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130125054349/http://www.victorhanson.com/Author/index.html to http://www.victorhanson.com/Author/index.html
 * Added tag to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWVjYTYwZDZjZTJjNzc5MjViMzQyOWJkZmFiZmMwMjE%3D
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120713205844/http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson122304.html to http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson122304.html

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) 22:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Messed-up references
On or October 27, 2016, anonymous editor 171.66.114.11 made a series of changes that are either a clever form of vandalism or a display of gross incompetence when he/she added fake references throughout the article in the form of [nn]. Maybe they were intended to be links to the actual numbered references as they existed at the time, maybe not, but the result is a gawd-awful mess. The easy way out is to simply delete them, as I have now done, because as soon as a single reference is added or deleted earlier in the article, the static numbers in brackets become meaningless. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 00:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Victor Davis Hanson. 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://web.archive.org/web/20120213081306/http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson071208.html to http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson071208.html
 * Added tag to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2006/6/2006_6_24.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150716014022/http://pdf285.tealpdf.org/23v3jx_the-end-of-sparta-a-novel.pdf to http://pdf285.tealpdf.org/23v3jx_the-end-of-sparta-a-novel.pdf

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) 03:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Really?
Was this written by his or agent? Wikipietime (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Serious problem: Remove self-sourced text
This article has an insane amount of self-sourced text. This needs to be trimmed ASAP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 * An IP number just restored a massive amount of self-sourced text (which I deleted) and deleted a bunch of reliably sourced text (which I added). The IP number inaccurately suggests that the content which was removed was sourced to secondary sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

time to reorganize political views section?
As it stands now, the first paragraph says he is a traditional conservative, then next paragraph jumps ahead in time and says he is a trump guy (not usually what people think of when they hear 'traditional conservative') and then the next paragraph jumps back in time and talks about people describing him as a neoconservative due to his iraq war stuff.

I know this is all RS, and that it's a challenge due to the evolution, as it were, of VD Hanson's political views, but it's a bit of whiplash to to see all these apparently contradictory labels applied so close together.

Is it possible to reorganize in some way? If nothing else, maybe a chronological approach? ie intro, iraq, obama, trump? And maybe de-emphasize the use of all these labels which are so apparently contradictory? Or just say in the intro, "despite branding himself as a traditional conservative, VDH has supported neoconservatives and trump as well" (but in better wikipedia language)

Thanks to all the hardworking editors for keeping these articles going! 131.114.9.81 (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

COVID-19 material weight
, your addition here [] has been challenged by several IP editors (quite possibly a single person, multiple IPs). Regardless, at this point the edit has clearly been challenged. Based on the single Slate article I would be inclined to say this material is UNDUE. Doing a web search the first page of hits seemed to be largely about Hanson wanting to reopen the economy. This would also follow some of the interviews he has given. His theory that COVID-19 may have been in the US as early as 2019 might be wrong but Slate is probably not the best source for that information especially since the article seems to have a political bone to pick with Hanson. If this is the only article talking about Hanson's COVID-19 views then the material is almost certainly UNDUE for his BLP. Conversely, if a number of sources talk about his views then those sources should be cited to give a balanced view of his COVID-19 statements. Springee (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 * I added a WSJ piece that literally credits Hanson with sparking the theory that the coronavirus happened in the fall of 2019. Your removal of the WSJ content is tendentious behavior and part of a WP:HARASS campaign. You've never edited this page before and only decided to edit it out of spite against me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to note that I posted the question above. Rather than reply you added a second source to the disputed comments instead of engaging in a productive discussion here.  I removed the section as UNDUE after you showed that you weren't willing to discuss concerns on the talk page. Springee (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your concerns were never in good faith. Your editing on this page is solely to disrupt and harass me (you've never edited this page before). The addition of the WSJ source which makes Hanson's coronavirus misinformation the center of its piece should have made your purportedly "legitimate" concerns about sourcing null and void, yet those concerns were never in good faith, so you of course deleted the content when high-quality sourcing was added. It was done out of spite. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * First, you should know that when your edits are challenged, per BRD you take it to the talk page. That is what we are now doing.  It appears this theory was something Hanson said in a youtube interview (I've followed Hanson's interviews for a while and recall seeing this one).  When one searches for Hanson and COVID-19 material this isn't even on the first 2 pages.  What you have done is taken a minor thing and promoted it to the most significant statement of his on COVID-19 and did so with anything but IMPARTIAL tone.  If you actually made a case why that was true perhaps this would be more meaningful.  As written it comes across as yet another example of a wiki editor trying to dig up dirt to discredit a notable person on the other side of the political fence.  Springee (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If the WSJ is running an entire piece about his coronavirus misinformation and crediting him with sparking a discredited theory that would become widely shared, then it's clearly DUE. Here are other RS. So in addition to Slate, there are at least four reliable sources about this topic. Google search results are personalized, so they have no meaning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Do consider impartial tone. Hanson suggested a hypothesis.  The medical community said it doesn't fit the facts.  That is sufficient.  "pushed unsubstantiated theories" is the sort of phrasing we should never used in an impartial addition to a BLP.  Additionally, it looks like most sources that have covered this are more interested in the science.  Slate is hardly going to be a neutral source for the facts of the matter, especially when dealing with a BLP.  If you are open to a simple statement that Hanson suggested a theory that was later proven wrong based on genetic testing that would be more impartial and less problematic.  Springee (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If wording was your legitimate concern, then you should've changed the wording. But of course, it was not your legitimate concern. Rather, the intent was harass me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hanson is not proposing "hypotheses" that the medical community then put to the test. He's not a scientist and has no medical expertise. He was pushing unsubstantiated theories. "Additionally, it looks like most sources that have covered this are more interested in the science." Yes, they are debunking Hanson's unsubstantiated theory. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weight is my primary concern since the only thing added about COVID-19 was the one theory he suggested. Your phrasing here is clearly unacceptable for a BLP article.  Again, I'm trying to meet you half way.  I think the content is on the whole UNDUE but with impartial phrasing and arguably less political sourcing the UNDUE part becomes less a concern.  How about this (largely copied from here []):

 * Hanson suggested a hypothesis that COVID-19 may have been in California in the fall of 2019 resulting in a level of herd immunity. This hypothesis was suggested to at least partially explain differences in infection rates in cities such as New York City vs Los Angeles. The hypothesis was widely shared but shown to be incorrect via genetic analysis.

 * The tone is impartial as are the cited sources. Again, in the scope of Hanson's biography I don't think this is needed but this would be a compromise that perhaps we both can live with.  Springee (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Your wording suggests he's somehow involved in a scientific enterprise, that there were well-founded reasons for his theory, and that his theory was put to the test by the scientific community (and only then found to be incorrect) – all of which misleads readers. He's a non-expert who has no clue what he's talking about and who proposed a baseless theory that went viral. The text should plainly say he "pushed unsubstantiated theories". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree but you are welcome to offer suggested changes. Springee (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The version which you removed from the article (first out of baseless WP:DUE concerns, then for purported concerns over wording) was perfectly fine. The version you removed after stalking me to this page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * DUE isn't a baseless concern and it also had issues with IMPARTIAL. Please FOC. Springee (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on the Fringe theory noticeboard. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Pushing a lie about the Covid-19 virus on Cspan's After Words
While interviewing Lou Dobbs on Cspan's After Words, Hansen said referring to the Covid-19 virus that "There is a consensus that it came out of a lab." Lou Dobbs didn't even agree to this. Please keep this for the record of his beliefs and willingness to lie.

125.25.137.153 (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Why No "Personal Life" Section?
I have been looking for info on Hanson's "current wife" to whom he has made reference in his podcasts.

Why is this bio lacking any "Personal Life" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:30c0:6e50:4068:c8a6:74c7:24ed (talk • contribs) 10:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Good question! He DOES have a wife and 2 children.  What's the deal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigMac31 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I corrected your indentation and added signatures. Please read WP:SIGN and WP:INDENT.
 * That info is probably missing because nobody has added it yet. If you want to add it, you need to find reliable sources for it first. See WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Keynote speaker
, please note that you have added new content to the article which has been challenged. It shouldn't be restored until there is a consensus for inclusion. The problem with this is the guilt by association aspect and more critically WEIGHT. I think this is especially true given the American Freedom Alliance appears to be too minor a group to even have a Wiki article. The SLPC is the only source in the article trying to associate Hanson with anti-islam views. It does this by saying he was a keynote speaker for a groupt the SLPC claims is something. That means Hanson is once removed from the group. Second, this is something that happened in 2017. It doesn't appear to have had any staying power thus we have a weight issue. The SLPC is an activist organization so we need to be careful when they are the only source for an entire type of claim in a BLP article. Certainly the SPLC has proven to be biased and less than reliable. If they are the only source then we shouldn't include it. Springee (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

What Is Considered Notable?
My addition on August 13, 2022, was removed by Springee with the comment "nothing indicates this article is notable." Victor Davis Hanson wrote that the FBI has "become dangerous to Americans and an existential threat to their democracy and rule of law."

This seems quite "notable" to me. What I added is below -

Hanson wrote an article for the "Daily Signal" Heritage Foundation publication on August 12, 2022, titled, "The FBI Has Become Dangerous to Americans", which states that, "The agency has become dangerous to Americans and an existential threat to their democracy and rule of law." This article was in response to the FBI executing a search warrant at ex-President Donald Trump's Mar Largo Club on August 8, 2022, where the FBI found, "four sets of top-secret documents and seven other sets of classified information." "One set of documents is listed in the FBI receipt as “Various classified TS/SCI documents,” a reference to top secret/sensitive compartmented information, a highly classified category of government secrets." Jackcrossen (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Jackcrossen, first, you shouldn't restore a challenged edit until there is CONSENSUS to include the content. That said, opening a talk page here is the right thing to do.  For that article to be notable (often referred to as DUE), we need sources other than the original source to discuss that article.  What you are doing is creating original research (wp:OR).  You are taking something Hanson wrote and then contrasting it with another work.  However, in my skim of the WP article I don't see that it mentions Hanson's work at all.  Absent a 3rd party article saying "Hanson wrote this, the WP wrote that" we can't put the two together in the article to suggest a comparison.  Then the question is, why mention Hanson's article.  We as editor might like it or dislike it but we need 3rd party sources to say something about it.  We don't have that thus we have no weight for inclusion. Springee (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I get your point.
 * Why mention Hanson's article? People learning about Hanson and conservatism would benefit by knowing that being a "conservative" of the Hanson variety in the U.S. now includes promoting the idea that the FBI is dangerous to Americans and an existential threat to democracy and the rule of law. Jackcrossen (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

hanson connection to epoch times newspaper?
V.D. Hanson and writings for The Epoch Times where i first discovered him, no mention? why ?. 98.22.98.102 (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

“ideologically-oriented institutions”
This label intends to paint Hanson as not towing the line or an enemy of the new left. It’s subtle but it’s there and a dangerous trend in labeling the institutions. That he is affiliated with Conservative institutions is enough, new-speak is not needed to signal those who are opposed. There is such a broad misunderstanding of conservatives that such labels intend to imply, “ you know, the extremists”. This is wrong and diminishes Wikipedia. 98.207.223.17 (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If the institutions specialize in spreading misinformation motivated by their ideology, then it is a correct term. know Hanson from his anti-scientific bullshit about COVID-19, which was obviously motivated by free-market ideology. For some reason, it is not mentioned in this article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Too many primary sources
Hey everyone, I just made a couple of bold edits taking out the Democratic Criticism section. Knowing what I do about the article subject it could likely be rebuilt, but as it existed, it was basically just a bunch of his opinion columns summarized in less flattering ways. I think we should probably do the same with the "Obama Criticism" section. Perhaps some will disagree with me, but just because an writer or talking head said something does not make it notable. We really should look for some recognition in other reliable sources that people took notice. As ever, happy for others to disagree. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Early retirement
It is particularly unusual to retire from an academic career at the age of 51. Some background context needs to be added. What happened that precipitated his early retirement from CSU Fresno?Dogru144 (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Victor Davis Hanson


text:
Template:Rlc

Special:Recentchangeslinked/

Links to Recentchangeslinked for the page it's upon, requires unnamed parameter as the link's anchor/piped text.

title: Template:Rlc


text:
Sydkraft

Sydkraft AB is a power company headquartered in Malmö, Sweden. It is a subsidiary of the international energy group Uniper for operations in Sweden. The company is engaged in the generation of thermal, nuclear, and hydro power. The history of Sydkraft reaches back to 1906; however, the current company was created as a result of the split of Uniper from another international energy group E.ON.

History
Sydkraft was founded in 1906 as Sydsvenska Kraftaktiebolaget with August Schmitz as CEO. Originally, the company was producer of hydroelectricity. In 1915, in cooperation with the Swedish and Danish electricity grids, Sydsvenska Kraftaktiebolaget participated in the construction of Öresundskabeln, the first electricity interconnection between Sweden and Denmark.

In the 1970s, the company moved into production of nuclear power. In 1971, the Oskarshamn Nuclear Power Plant was commissioned, with Sydsvenska Kraftaktiebolaget as major shareholder. In 1977, the company changed its changed name to Sydkraft.

The majority shareholding in Sydkraft AB was acquired in 2001 by E.ON in a deal valued at US$6.5 billion. In 2004, Sydkraft bought the Swedish energy company Graninge. On 16 September 2005, Sydkraft AB changed its corporate name to E.ON Sverige. In 2006, E.ON Sverige sold its broadband network to Tele2.

On 24 July 2008, Statkraft AS and E.ON AG signed a final agreement on asset swap, according to which E.ON acquired Statkraft's 44.6% of shares in E.ON Sverige by exchange of assets worth of €4.5 billion. After split of Uniper from E.ON, E.ON Sverige's thermal, nuclear and hydro power generation was given to Uniper while renewable energy (except hydro), services, distribution, and retail sale remained in E.ON Sverige. Uniper readopted the name Sydkraft for its operations in Sweden.

Operations
Sydkraft AB is involved in the generation of thermal, nuclear and hydro power through its subsidiaries. Its wholly owned subsidiaries are Sydkraft Nuclear Power AB, Sydkraft Hydro Power AB, Sydkraft Thermal Power AB, and Barsebäck Kraft AB. It also owns majority stake in OKG AB.

title: Sydkraft


text:
User talk:Dols

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dmn / Դմն 13:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Dols


text:
User:Kaszeta

Personal Info
Rich Kaszeta is an engineer living and working in New Hampshire.

Rich's Personal Web Page

The Very Rough To-do List

 * Radioactive frogs should have a page
 * Lithuanian Junkman Syndrome, however, shouldn't.

Licensing
I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

title: User:Kaszeta


text:
Talk:African Reference Alphabet

Nasalization on Wikipedia
I'm working on articles around the Gbe languages. These languages all have phonemic nasalized vowels, and the standard orthography for writing these is adding a tilde above the vowel. I can't find the e+tilde in Wikipedia:Special Characters, however. A workaround or solution might be the one already used at, for example Fon: that is, indicate nasalization on the vowel by writing a nasal after the vowel. Anyone suggestions? strangeloop 13:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Never mind. Use ẽ, thank Lee. strangeloop 19:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Miscellany
"in quite some orthographies" : the meaning of this is obscure. Someone who knows the topic should rephrase. Matt Whyndham 12:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Links with IPA
One still hears reference to African language orthographies that use characters present in IPA as "IPA orthographies" in apparent ignorance of the process of developing the African reference alphabet. The links should be made more clear - that the latter (and predecessors) in effect borrowed selected IPA characters, and that in turn is reflected in various African language alphabets.--A12n (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok
Ghys, "ɴ" isn'o a tiide. Thanks. (Guys, "ɴ" isn't a tilde. Thanks.) UniformMilk192 (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a tilde and designed as such, see Mann/Dalby p. 210 (included as a reference in the article). -- Karl432 (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:African Reference Alphabet


text: Template:RefAudubonMarineMammals

title: Template:RefAudubonMarineMammals