text:
Daniel Manning

Daniel Manning (May 16, 1831 – December 24, 1887) was an American journalist, banker, and politician. A Democrat, he was most notable for his service as the 37th United States Secretary of the Treasury from 1885 to 1887 under President Grover Cleveland.

A native of Albany, New York, Manning began a newspaper career at age 11 and worked his way through the ranks of the Albany Argus to become president and publisher. Manning also undertook self-study to compensate for his lack of formal education and became recognized for his expertise in topics as varied as finance and fine art. Manning was also involved in banking and business, and became president of Albany's National Commercial Bank.

Manning was active in politics as a Democrat, and attended numerous state and national conventions as a delegate. As chair of the New York Democratic Party, Manning was a key supporter of Grover Cleveland's successful campaign for president in 1884. Cleveland appointed Manning Secretary of the Treasury, and he served from 1885 to 1887. As head of the Treasury Department, Manning advised Cleveland on fiscal and economic policy matters. As a trusted advisor, he provided input to Cleveland on political appointments and topics not directly related to his cabinet portfolio.

Manning left the cabinet because of ill health. He served briefly as president of the Western National Bank of New York. He died in Albany on December 24, 1887. Manning was buried at Albany Rural Cemetery in Menands, New York.

Early life
Daniel Manning was born in Albany, New York on May 16, 1831, the son of John and Eleanor (Oley) Manning. Manning's siblings included John B. Manning, who served as mayor of Buffalo, New York. He was educated in the local schools, and at age 11 he began working to help support his family, initially as a page for the New York State Assembly. He subsequently accepted a position as an errand boy for the Albany Atlas newspaper, which was later renamed the Albany Argus.

Career
Manning worked his way through the ranks at the Argus, including positions as stenographer, reporter, associate editor, editor, publisher, and owner and president. Manning devoted significant time to self-study to make up for his lack of formal education, and developed expertise in political science, banking and finance, and fine art.

In addition to his newspaper interests, Manning was involved in banking and business. He was a trustee of Albany's National Savings Bank, and a director of Albany's National Commercial Bank. He became vice president of the National Commercial Bank in 1881, and he ascended to the presidency after the 1882 death of Robert H. Pruyn. Manning was also interested in railroads, including serving on the Albany & Susquehanna Railroad's board of directors. In addition, after the invention of the incandescent light bulb, Manning served on the board of directors of the Electric Light Company of Albany. Manning was also a director of the Albany Railway Company, the city's street railroad.

Political career
A Democrat, for many years Manning was recognized as the leader of the party in Albany. He was a delegate to all the state Democratic conventions from 1874 to 1884. He served as a member of the state Democratic committee from 1874 to 1885, and secretary from 1879 to 1881. From 1881 to 1885, Manning was chair of the New York Democratic Party. He was a delegate to the Democratic National Conventions of 1876, 1880, and 1884. He was chair of the 1880 convention, and head of New York state's 1884 delegation. Manning was a friend and political ally of Samuel J. Tilden, and worked with him to oppose the political corruption of Tammany Hall and the Tweed Ring.

During the 1884 United States presidential election, Manning was a leader of Grover Cleveland's campaign. At the national convention, he played a key role in obtaining the nomination for Cleveland, and his efforts on Cleveland's behalf were credited with aiding Cleveland's narrow victory in the general election.

Secretary of the Treasury
After Cleveland won the presidency, Tilden advocated Manning's appointment as Secretary of the Treasury. Cleveland concurred, and Manning served from March 8, 1885, until resigning because of ill health on March 31, 1887. A fiscal conservative and advocate of the gold standard, as was Cleveland, Manning worked to preserve the Treasury's cash surplus and increase its gold reserve. In addition, Manning advocated tariff reduction.

As a cabinet secretary who enjoyed Cleveland's confidence, Manning provided advice to Cleveland on fiscal and economic policy. As a trusted political advisor, Manning also provided input to Cleveland on appointees and issues that were not within Treasury's usual purview.

Later life
After leaving the Treasury Department, Manning accepted appointment as president of the Western National Bank of New York. He died of Bright's disease at his home in Albany on December 24, 1887. Manning's funeral took place at St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Albany, and was attended by President Cleveland and all but one member of the cabinet. He was buried at Albany Rural Cemetery in Menands.

Personal life
In 1853, Manning married Mary Little, who died in 1882. They were the parents of four children:

 * James Hilton Manning (1854–1925), who was editor and manager of the Albany Argus and served as mayor of Albany.
 * Frederick Clinton Manning (1859–1928), a prominent engraver of Albany.
 * Anastasia "Anna" Manning (1861–1933), who married John A. Delehanty.
 * Mary Elizabeth Manning (1867–1906), who married Jules C. Van der Oudermeulen.

In 1884, Manning married Mary Margaretta Fryer (1844–1928), the daughter of William John and Margaret Livingston ( Crofts) Fryer, and a descendant of Robert Livingston, the first lord of Livingston Manor. She died at her home in Albany in July 1928.

Legacy
An engraved portrait of Manning appears on U.S. paper money, the series 1886 $20 silver certificate. These collectible notes are referred to as "Mannings" or "diamondbacks" due to their unusual reverse design, and because of their rarity they often sell for between $1,000 and $5,000.

In 1898, engraver George T. Morgan created for the United States Mint a commemorative medal depicting Manning. 160 medals were struck and offered for sale. Many are still in circulation, and sell for between $100 and $200 at auction.

In 1898, the Treasury Department's United States Revenue Cutter Service commissioned two new ships named for previous Treasury secretaries, one of which was USRC Daniel Manning. During her service, Manning performed patrol duty off New England and in the Bering Sea. Manning was assigned to the United States Navy during the Spanish–American War and took part in an engagement off Cabañas, Cuba. During World War I, Manning was based at Gibraltar and escorted trade convoys to England and conducted anti-submarine patrols in the Mediterranean. Manning was decommissioned and sold in 1930.

In 1887, Manning received the honorary degree of LL.D. from Columbia University. There is a memorial pillar to Manning at the Cathedral of All Saints in Albany. Albany's South Manning Boulevard, Manning Boulevard, and North Manning Boulevard, an extended street that is one of the city's main thoroughfares, was named for Manning.

title: Daniel Manning


text:
Talk:Comparison of American and British English/Spelled v Spelt

Spelled v Spelt
I reverted the change from "spelled" to "spelt" as:
 * "The forms with -ed are also common in Commonwealth usage."
 * "spelled" is the most common spelling globally (453,000 v 99,500)
 * "spelled" (45,000) is more common in the UK than "spelt" (35,200)
 * "spelled" (14,000) is as common in Australia as "spelt" (14,500)
 * "spelled" (2,980) is as common in New Zealand as "spelt" (2,790)
 * "spelled" (3,320) is more common in Ireland than "spelt" (2,470)
 * "spelled" (39,200) is more common in Canada than "spelt" (2,470)
 * "spelled" is the de facto standard on Wikipedia (261 v 45)

 * the only "Commonwealth" country listed in the article that significantly favours "spelt" (1,500) over "spelled" (851) is South Africa

chocolateboy 13:50, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, if we're going by a silly Google search, using merely a simpler criterion, in the UK:
 * spelled (48 400) vs spelt (58 700) ==> the winner is spelt

 * A Google search, however, is NOT evidence about usage, since it does not cover published and unpublished written works not available on the Internet; furthermore, many companies in Great Britain are American, and merely copy their American English content to their British websites. Dictionaries state that spelt is a valid preterite and past participle of to spell (except when speaking about alternating, but then that meaning is usually American English anyway); as such, you have no right to change other people's preferred spelling, especially in an article that is not written in American English, and less so in an article dealing with this exact issue. —Sinuhe 14:06, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Heh heh. While I agree with you about the limitations of Google searches in validating usage, I have one quibble and a basic disagreement. 1) your google search incorrectly included usages such as "spelt flour" and other related agricultural usages unrelated to spelling, so choclateboy's, results are more suggestive; 2) using a similar argument that you used for alternate/alternative: spelt is simply wrong in the U.S., while it is acceptable as an alternative in the U.K., hence spelt should not be used in an article that is equally applicable to both U.K. and U.S. older ≠ wiser 14:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * It also includes usages such as 'the two sentries spelled each other' alongside spelt flour; Chocolateboy's search does not include many other usages of the word – even a basic 'How is this spelt?' is not included in that search. As said, either way, the result is inconclusive and ought not to be borne in mind when deciding upon such issues.
 * Could you kindly elaborate on why spelt is wrong in the USA? It is given in both WordNet and Webster's dictionary. To quote this very article, As with the "tre" words, the t endings are occasionally found in American texts. This suggests that there is nothing wrong with spelt in an American text; the word alternate to mean alternative, on the other hand, is considered incorrect by Commonwealth English speakers. Besides, spelled looks very much jarring to the eyes.
 * In addition, it should also be noted that in the first occurrence in the article, the very point of the word spelt is to demonstrate what the sentence is saying: Some words /.../ are spelled one way by Americans but are spelt differently in other English speaking countries. To change even this instance causes a degradation in the intended meaning the sentence conveys.
 * —Sinuhe 14:53, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * While Google is not definitive, it can be suggestive and is very much worth consideration--and in this case it clearly indicates that "spelled" is commonly used on UK websites. While "spelt" may "occasionally" appear in American texts, it is very uncommon, and I daresay that most American speakers would view it as either incorrect or possibly as quaintly archaic. The only definition given for spelt at www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn is "hardy wheat grown mostly in Europe for livestock feed". Spelt is very uncommon usage in American English (and besides looks "very much jarring to the eyes"), while "spelled" is evidently at least not uncommon in the U.K. and other commonwealth countries, despite your protestations. However, I really don't care about this enough to bother engaging in an edit war over it. older ≠ wiser 15:20, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The web interface to WordNet is somewhat confusing; however, you must have noticed that the keyword 'spelt' gives you the definitions for the verb to spell. In fact, the DICT database gives you the following:
 * spelt
 * See spell

 * Under spell, it ends in a note "[also: spelt]". See (and also  if you are there already).

 * In any case, it does not really matter whether a given word is often used in the USA – or the UK for the matter –; it is deemed correct by authoritative dictionaries such as the OED and COD (whereas alternate is not). There is simply no reason to change the form from what it was originally, since it was not only correct, but also pertinent (as shown above).
 * —Sinuhe 15:44, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, it does really matter whether a word is often used--that is the basis of WP's naming convention. An appeal to authority is not decisive in this case (as often noted, there is no official arbiter for usage of the English language)--it is only more evidence to be balanced with other arguments. In this context it is less important, but the reasons that you cite for preferring spelt or alternative are just as applicable in support of spelled or alternate. The words are used differently and apparently are just as jarring to those preferring the other usage. We'll just have to live with that. I very much disagree that alternate is incorrect--every dictionary that I have looked at lists something like "constituting an alternative" as one of the definitions, sometimes marked as a specifically U.S. usage. It is not at all unlike dictionaries listing "spelt" as a variant for spelled. older ≠ wiser 16:04, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * There is usually no note next to spelt that says it is considered incorrect by many; there is such a note in more than one Oxford dictionary next to alternate. And spelt is not the name of the article, so the naming convention does not apply. —Sinuhe 17:11, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * "Spelt" would be "corrected" in nearly every case in American writing (except for deliberately archaic or U.K references). And the usage recommendations by traditionalists for alternative is more complex than has been conveyed so far. Many traditionalists also feel that alternative should ONLY be used in cases where there are exactly two alternatives. So in contexts such as "alternative meanings", the usage is contrary to traditional usage. Alternative is also undesirable in this context because in AmEng it also has the strong connotation of "non-traditional" or "out-of-the-maintstream", which is certainly not what is meant in most cases. Because both alternate and alternative are problematic, perhaps the MoS should recommend using "other meanings" instead. older ≠ wiser 18:05, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have protected this page. Please sort it out peacefully; resorting to edit wars is a Bad Thing. James F. (talk) 15:16, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, if we're going by a silly Google search

Google searches are always silly when they refute your argument :-)

using merely a simpler criterion, in the UK

Hmm, suddenly Google is not so silly! You might like to consider why I used more restrictive search terms than you. Here are a couple of clues:
 * spelt wheat | bread (58,400)
 * Spelt English College (704)
 * spelt.com (823)
 * Spelt (surname) (at least 737)
 * &c.

A Google search, however, is NOT evidence about usage, since it does not cover published and unpublished written works not available on the Internet

And that is supposed to prove that it is "not evidence"? Please cite the corpus of dead tree scholarship that proves Internet usage is irrelevant and that all usage prescriptions must be based on materials that are a) not searchable through Amazon b) not searchable through Google Print  c) not in the public domain or available on Project Gutenberg and d) never quoted anywhere online in accordance with the principle of fair use.

furthermore, many companies in Great Britain are American, and merely copy their American English content to their British websites

A minority   of British sites use American words such as "color" or "gasoline" just as a minority    of American sites use British words such as "colour" or "petrol". So what?

you have no right to change other people's preferred spelling, especially in an article that is not written in American English, and less so in an article dealing with this exact issue.

I have every right as a Wikipedian to correct what I regard as an infelicity in the article - particularly in the interests of both internal and global consistency (you seem to have not noticed that prior to my edit the article used both "spelled" and "spelt" in the same sentence: "Some words shared by all English speakers are spelled one way by Americans but are spelt differently in other English speaking countries" ). Arrogant frothing about "unsolicited" edits is a convenient way of drawing attention away from the lack of any de jure or de facto support for an archaic usage that has fallen out of favour among the vast majority of English speakers. An article about the differences between British and American usage should steer clear of explicitly advocating an obsolescent regional (South African) spelling when there is a neutral alternative to hand that avoids the appearance of partisanship.

chocolateboy 16:09, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Google searches are always silly when they refute your argument :-)

 * Google searches are always silly.

Hmm, suddenly Google is not so silly! You might like to consider why I used more restrictive search terms than you. Here are a couple of clues:

 * It is still silly, I was merely showing that a different selection of criteria can yield substantially different results. As mentioned, your search does not take into account the unqualified use of spelt ('How is this spelt?', 'This oughtn't to be spelt thus.' or 'The word cat is spelt as C-A-T.'). Therefore, your search restricts the meaning too much and is rendered irrelevant.

And that is supposed to prove that it is "not evidence"? Please cite the corpus of dead tree scholarship that proves Internet usage is irrelevant and that all usage prescriptions must be based on materials that are a) not searchable through Amazon b) not searchable through Google Print  c) not in the public domain or available on Project Gutenberg and d) never quoted anywhere online in accordance with the principle of fair use.

 * To simply ignore material not available on the Internet makes your 'evidence' very dubious. Stating that spelt is less often used than spelled in the UK based on such a non-scientific approach as a search on Google is nothing short of absurd: this is perhaps a tiny bit of real use, but in no way does it cover enough to qualify you to make such a statement.

I have every right as a Wikipedian to correct what I regard as an infelicity in the article

 * Then you will agree that I have every right to correct what I regard as an infelicity in the article as well. Yet this will only result in endless and counter-productive edit wars.

- particularly in the interests of both internal and global consistency (you seem to have not noticed that prior to my edit the article used both "spelled" and "spelt" in the same sentence: "Some words shared by all English speakers are spelled one way by Americans but are spelt differently in other English speaking countries" ).

 * You seem not to have read my replies here, as I have specifically quoted that very sentence to which you object as being conducive with its style to its meaning as expressed in words. This suggests that I have noticed that usage, doesn't it?

Arrogant frothing about "unsolicited" edits is a convenient way of drawing attention away from the lack of any de jure or de facto support for an archaic usage that has fallen out of favour among the vast majority of English speakers. An article about the differences between British and American usage should steer clear of explicitly advocating an obsolescent regional (South African) spelling when there is a neutral alternative to hand that avoids the appearance of partisanship.

 * The spelling spelled is scarcely neutral! Nor is it a regional spelling in the way you suggest – certainly you do not expect your Google search to be conclusive demonstration of usage? Spelt is the proper preterite as dictated by years of use. It is as much archaic as 'burnt', 'learnt', 'leapt' or 'dealt', all of which are often used forms. To use the relatively new simplification to a regular suffix is certainly less neutral than using the traditional version of the preterite and past participle forms. An encyclopaedia should, I believe, strive to be reasonably conservative as regards language.
 * It is impossible to make this article consistent, since it applies to both US and Commonwealth topics, which make the style guide rules not applicable. Unless, of course, we are going to standardise on the first person to have used a specific form, which means that all spellings should be converted to American English (see the first version of the article). I imagine, however, that quite a few people would be less than pleased about that. As for global consistency: do you intend to say that Wikipedia ought to be written in American English? Sinuhe 17:11, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Sinuhe writes: "It is impossible to make this article consistent...." It's not impossible, just undesirable.  The style manual calls for consistency within each particular article.  This article should be the exception.  The article's accuracy depends on the participation of speakers of American English and speakers of Commonwealth English.  Each contributor should write in the style he or she prefers.  Resulting inconsistencies will help illuminate the subject of the article.  No one's edits should be changed solely to switch from one form to another.  JamesMLane 18:36, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Google searches are always silly.

In that case, you might want to try removing the following appeals to Google's authority from your argument:

 * spelled (48 400) vs spelt (58 700) ==> the winner is spelt ...
 * I was merely showing that a different selection of criteria can yield substantially different results ...
 * your search does not take into account ...

Also you'll want to snip the following inconsistency:
 * Therefore, your search restricts the meaning too much and is rendered irrelevant ...
 * this is perhaps a tiny bit of real use ...

You're right to point out that it's possible to craft Google queries that scrape together a few more votes for "spelt" in the UK (and vice versa). That doesn't change the fact that "spelled" is common in the UK and that "spelt" is uncommon outside of the UK and South Africa.

 * To simply ignore material not available on the Internet makes your 'evidence' very dubious.

Who ignored it? You invoked it, and I asked you to provide evidence for your theory that Internet usage is "irrelevant" given the overlap between dead tree usage and Internet citation. You've provided no such evidence.

 * Stating that spelt is less often used than spelled in the UK based on such a non-scientific approach as a search on Google is nothing short of absurd: this is perhaps a tiny bit of real use, but in no way does it cover enough to qualify you to make such a statement.

In contrast, the transition from shrill posturing ("absurd") to concession ("this is perhaps a tiny bit of real use") within the space of a colon is, I take it, perfectly "scientific"?

 * Then you will agree that I have every right to correct what I regard as an infelicity in the article as well.

Of course I agree. I never patronizingly referred to your edits as "unsolicited" (it's hard to imagine a word that bespeaks a smaller grasp of the principles of Wikipedia than that). However, it is not your article; it is our article. I've provided copious evidence for the neutrality of "spelled". You have, so far, provided no evidence for the neutrality of "spelt", which is hardly surprising as it would contradict the clear import of the article: "The forms with -ed are also common in Commonwealth usage."

 * Yet this will only result in endless and counter-productive edit wars.

Or we could simply vote on it. This isn't the first time your partisan orthography has been corrected. As always, I'm quite happy to acquiesce to consensus. Or would you dismiss democracy as "silly" as well?

 * You seem not to have read my replies here, as I have specifically quoted that very sentence to which you object as being conducive with its style to its meaning as expressed in words. This suggests that I have noticed that usage, doesn't it?

I replied to your initial response before reading your second reply. Perhaps you're familiar with the concept of a threaded discussion? As for the "spelled"/"spelt" joke (which is what that deliberately inconsistent usage is), I like it, and could easily be persuaded to lobby for it to be kept in that sentence. You should expect others to remove the joke, however, in accordance with the customary Wikipedia policies of consistency and humourlessness.

 * The spelling spelled is scarcely neutral!

An exclamation mark is not a citation. Nor is it an argument.

 * Spelt is the proper preterite as dictated by years of use.

There is no proper preterite according to you: "Dictionaries state that spelt is a valid preterite and past participle of to spell". It is a valid form, not the valid form. "spelt" is not "proper"; it is merely your personal preference. You seem to have forgotten your original objection - i.e. that my edit infringed your personal taste: "preferred spelling" - in your rush to denounce the de facto standard.

 * To use the relatively new simplification to a regular suffix is certainly less neutral than using the traditional version of the preterite and past participle forms.

"Neutral" refers to what is done, not what was done. There are any number of racist, sexist, homophobic &c. terms that are deprecated on Wikipedia despite having the pseudo-authority of "tradition" on their side. The majority of the English-speaking world favours "spelled". Among the minority who don't, "spelled" is still considered to be an acceptable alternative whose usage is comparable to that of the obsolescent spelling.

 * An encyclopaedia should, I believe, strive to be reasonably conservative as regards language.

Which is precisely why it shouldn't impose a minority usage, particularly when that minority, as the article itself points out, is quite comfortable with the dominant spelling.

 * As for global consistency: do you intend to say that Wikipedia ought to be written in American English?

No. I mean that I prefer title case to sentence case, but Wikipedia prefers sentence case and therefore I and others strive to abide by this de facto standard. The de facto standard on Wikipedia, even for UK-centric articles, is "spelled". See Scotch whisky, List of words having different meanings in British and American English, Literacy, William Davenant, Prime Minister of Australia, Celtic mythology &c.

 * Unless, of course, we are going to standardise on the first person to have used a specific form, which means that all spellings should be converted to American English [ ... ] I imagine, however, that quite a few people would be less than pleased about that.

Blindly converting the article to "British English" and reverting alleged "Americanisms" (something you've confessed to repeatedly in your edit summaries   ) is equally displeasing to quite a few people, which is why "spelled" has been reinstated by a number of contributors to the article over the past few months. The "neutrality" of "spelt" would be a little more convincing if you'd taken the trouble to hide your agenda ("traditional" British English is correct; "new" American English is incorrect).

chocolateboy 20:37, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In that case, you might want to try removing the following appeals to Google's authority from your argument:

 * spelled (48 400) vs spelt (58 700) ==> the winner is spelt ...
 * I was merely showing that a different selection of criteria can yield substantially different results ...
 * your search does not take into account ...

 * If I had not pointed these out, it would be acceding to your use of a search on the Internet as pertinent.

Also you'll want to snip the following inconsistency:
 * Therefore, your search restricts the meaning too much and is rendered irrelevant ...
 * this is perhaps a tiny bit of real use ...

You're right to point out that it's possible to craft Google queries that scrape together a few more votes for "spelt" in the UK (and vice versa). That doesn't change the fact that "spelled" is common in the UK and that "spelt" is uncommon outside of the UK and South Africa.

 * It is common in Australia, New Zealand and Ireland as well at the least. And I never have claimed that spelled is not common in the UK. It has no bearing on the issue we are discussing; namely, whether you should change a correct spelling that the original author prefers to another correct spelling that you yourself prefer.

Who ignored it? You invoked it, and I asked you to provide evidence for your theory that Internet usage is "irrelevant" given the overlap between dead tree usage and Internet citation. You've provided no such evidence.

 * I did not claim Internet usage to be irrelevant; Internet usage alone, that is, without taking into account the usage as appearing in printed and personal communication, however, is quite.

 * Stating that spelt is less often used than spelled in the UK based on such a non-scientific approach as a search on Google is nothing short of absurd: this is perhaps a tiny bit of real use, but in no way does it cover enough to qualify you to make such a statement.

In contrast, the transition from shrill posturing ("absurd") to concession ("this is perhaps a tiny bit of real use") within the space of a colon is, I take it, perfectly "scientific"?

 * Using a colon or any other punctuation mark has no bearing on the method used, which may or may not be scientific.
 * It appears that you do not understand the sentence. Allow me to rephrase it:
 * A search on Google shows only a small portion of how a word is used, and to support your entire argument on such grounds is absurd.

 * Then you will agree that I have every right to correct what I regard as an infelicity in the article as well.

Of course I agree. I never patronizingly referred to your edits as "unsolicited" (it's hard to imagine a word that bespeaks a smaller grasp of the principles of Wikipedia than that). However, it is not your article; it is our article. I've provided copious evidence for the neutrality of "spelled". You have, so far, provided no evidence for the neutrality of "spelt", which is hardly surprising as it would contradict the clear import of the article: "The forms with -ed are also common in Commonwealth usage."

 * Of course edits are welcome; reverts such as the one you made, however, are not, not least because they break the Manual of Style's suggestion that the original spellings should be used if consensus hasn't been reached (which you will agree is the case).
 * Exactly what do you consider to be 'copious evidence'? Again, a Google search?
 * To quote Eric Partridge (Usage and Abusage: A Guide to Good English, 1999): ' Spelt is on the whole the preferred British form /.../'.
 * I should believe this is evidence of at least the calibre of a Google search to show that the -t spelling is favoured – and is, therefore, also more neutral – in British English. British English spelling is perfectly permissible in this article.

Or we could simply vote on it. This isn't the first time your partisan orthography has been corrected. As always, I'm quite happy to acqueisce to consensus. Or would you dismiss democracy as "silly" as well?

 * I do not reckon a debate concerning political philosophy is appropriate at this point. How shall we organise the voting?

 * You seem not to have read my replies here, as I have specifically quoted that very sentence to which you object as being conducive with its style to its meaning as expressed in words. This suggests that I have noticed that usage, doesn't it?

I replied to your initial response before reading your second reply. Perhaps you're familiar with the concept of a threaded discussion? As for the "spelled"/"spelt" joke (which is what that deliberately inconsistent usage is), I like it, and could easily be persuaded to lobby for it to be kept in that sentence. You should expect others to remove the joke, however, in accordance with the customary Wikipedia policies of consistency and humourlessness.

 * Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of acquainting yourself with the subject (particularly if it is in the same thread) before posting?
 * I do not believe the sentence to have been meant as a joke; good prose requires not only clarity, coherence and organisation, but also an appropriate style, thereby, hopefully, attracting the reader to assume a more active part in reading. The sentence introduces in itself the topic it hopes to address.

 * The spelling spelled is scarcely neutral!

An exclamation mark is not a citation. Nor is it an argument.

 * It would indeed be difficult for a punctuation mark to bear all this burden that you apparently wish upon it. Other sentences surrounding this one should have illuminated why it is only just neutral.

 * Spelt is the proper preterite as dictated by years of use.

There is no proper preterite according to you: "Dictionaries state that spelt is a valid preterite and past participle of to spell". It is a valid form, not the valid form. "spelt" is not "proper"; it is merely your personal preference. You seem to have forgotten your original objection - i.e. that my edit infringed your personal taste: "preferred spelling" - in your rush to denounce the de facto standard.

 * Spelt is the traditional, if you will, spelling. And while both spelt and spelled are permissible variants, I believe spelt is the older one. And yes, everyone has his or her preferred spelling, considering that he or she can choose from the two forms.

 * To use the relatively new simplification to a regular suffix is certainly less neutral than using the traditional version of the preterite and past participle forms.

"Neutral" refers to what is done, not what was done. There are any number of racist, sexist, homophobic &c. terms that are deprecated on Wikipedia despite having the pseudo-authority of "tradition" on their side. The majority of the English-speaking world favours "spelled". Among the minority who don't, "spelled" is still considered to be an acceptable alternative whose usage is comparable to that of the obsolescent spelling.

 * What exactly has this spelling to do with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc? There are more powerful arguments against the use of such laden terms; there is no such argument against the spelling of spelt. Because tradition is used in some cases for an ignoble cause, how does it disqualify it from being an argument in an entirely unconnected case?
 * How can you tell whether this is an obsolescent spelling or not? It seems to be used very often, and many terms co-exist without any one disappearing from usage (while and whilst, for example).
 * Even if it is (now) a minority spelling, it is a spelling that is correct, and as such, it should not be changed into another spelling. The reason being exactly the same as to why Wikipedia allows both Commonwealth and American English in its articles.

 * Unless, of course, we are going to standardise on the first person to have used a specific form, which means that all spellings should be converted to American English [ ... ] I imagine, however, that quite a few people would be less than pleased about that.

Blindly converting the article to "British English" and reverting alleged "Americanisms" (something you've confessed to repeatedly in your edit summaries   ) is equally displeasing to quite a few people, which is why "spelled" has been reinstated by a number of contributors to the article over the past few months. The "neutrality" of "spelt" would be a little more convincing if you'd taken the trouble to hide your agenda ("traditional" British English is correct; "new" American English is incorrect).

 * I have done no such thing as convert the article to British English. These were all reverts; I do not oppose, nor have changed (to the best of my knowledge), any of the spellings that are originally American or Commonwealth in the article. Reverts in the other direction happen just the same. See, for example, . However, this is entirely beside the point: if I have edited the article in the past so as to keep spellings as they originally were, it certainly has no bearing on neutrality. I have personally nothing to do with neutrality; the concept per se implies disconnectedness from any one person. —Sinuhe 22:08, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * If I had not pointed these out, it would be acceding to your use of a search on the Internet as pertinent.

Fine. Let's see how consistently you manage to avoid citing "silly" Google.

 * It is common in Australia, New Zealand and Ireland as well at the least.

Oof. That didn't take long. Apparently Google is now God when it serves your argument and "silly" when it serves mine. Didn't we cover this already ("Google searches are always silly when they refute your argument")?

 * It has no bearing on the issue we are discussing; namely, whether you should change a correct spelling that the original author prefers to another correct spelling that you yourself prefer.

You're not the "original author" any more than I am. You didn't contribute a single one of those "spelled"s or "spelt"s. You're no more empowered to protect the article than I am to tweak it.

 * I did not claim Internet usage to be irrelevant; Internet usage alone, that is, without taking into account the usage as appearing in printed and personal communication, however, is quite.

And that is supposed to prove'' that it is "not evidence"? Please cite the corpus of dead tree scholarship that proves Internet usage is irrelevant and that all usage prescriptions must be based on materials that are a) not searchable through Amazon b) not searchable through Google Print  c) not in the public domain or available on Project Gutenberg and d) never quoted anywhere online in accordance with the principle of fair use.''

As for "personal communication", if you have a better reference than Usenet (searchable, again, via Google) I'd love to see it.

 * To quote Eric Partridge (Usage and Abusage: A Guide to Good English, 1999): 'Spelt is on the whole the preferred British form /.../'.

No-one disputes that this is the prescribed British usage. It seems that we do dispute the described British usage. And clearly we dispute the relevance of exclusively British usage ("proper preterite") to an article on "American and British English differences".

 * I should believe this is evidence of at least the calibre of a Google search

Which presumably makes Partridge's recommendation "at least" "silly"...

 * How shall we organise the voting?

See below.

 * British English spelling is perfectly permissible in this article.

So is American English, Canadian English, Irish English &c: "both spelt and spelled are permissible variants".

 * I do not believe the sentence to have been meant as a joke

It's an obscure foray into self-reflexive wit, which is why it keeps getting reverted by conscientious Wikipedians wrong-footed by its inconsistency.

 * What exactly has this spelling to do with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc?

Nothing, if you choose to wilfully gambol from the discussion. Everything if you cast your mind back to your contention that a new usage is less neutral than a traditional one. Here it is again:

 * To use the relatively new simplification to a regular suffix is certainly less neutral than using the traditional version of the preterite and past participle forms.

And here's my response again:

 * "Neutral" refers to what is done, not what was done. There are any number of racist, sexist, homophobic &c. terms that are deprecated on Wikipedia despite having the pseudo-authority of "tradition" on their side.

 * How can you tell whether this is an obsolescent spelling or not?

'Tis the way of all irregular forms that are not already indelibly ingrained in the language.

 * Reverts in the other direction happen just the same. See, for example,

Hardly the best example for you to cite as a) you didn't answer his question and b) his edit (which uses "spelled" in a context in which it applies to American usage) is compliant with the Manual of Style.

 * I have done no such thing as convert the article to British English. These were all reverts; I do not oppose, nor have changed (to the best of my knowledge), any of the spellings that are originally American or Commonwealth in the article.

You have a) reverted an edit which uses "spelled" in an indisputably American context b) reverted consistency edits without advocating or expounding a bipartisan policy c) argued that "Commonwealth British English" is more "neutral" than "American British English" and d) rejected an even-handed solution (both "spelled" and "spelt") with the following edit summary: "'spelt' should not be changed into the more American 'spelled' (we're not talking about taking turns, after all)".

chocolateboy 04:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fine. Let's see how consistently you manage to avoid citing "silly" Google.

 * It is common in Australia, New Zealand and Ireland as well at the least.

Oof. That didn't take long. Apparently Google is now God when it serves your argument and "silly" when it serves mine. Didn't we cover this already ("Google searches are always silly when they refute your argument")?

 * If we compare usage, it should be done using the same method, irrespective of what it is. In addition, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland have all been members of the Commonwealth of Nations, and use Commonwealth English as a result, meaning that it is reasonable to assume they use spelt often (it does not matter if they use spelled more often, either).

 * It has no bearing on the issue we are discussing; namely, whether you should change a correct spelling that the original author prefers to another correct spelling that you yourself prefer.

You're not the "original author" any more than I am. You didn't contribute a single one of those "spelled"s or "spelt"s. You're no more empowered to protect the article than I am to tweak it.

 * I beg to differ: (and I am also the author of, which was changed later to passive because 'British' was replaced by 'international'). You should note that arguments which are not true can seriously diminish your persuasiveness. And the original authors made up their minds when they submitted their edits using one form or the other.

 * I did not claim Internet usage to be irrelevant; Internet usage alone, that is, without taking into account the usage as appearing in printed and personal communication, however, is quite.

And that is supposed to prove'' that it is "not evidence"? Please cite the corpus of dead tree scholarship that proves Internet usage is irrelevant and that all usage prescriptions must be based on materials that are a) not searchable through Amazon b) not searchable through Google Print  c) not in the public domain or available on Project Gutenberg and d) never quoted anywhere online in accordance with the principle of fair use.''

 * Most publications are no available on the Internet. Perhaps some excerpts are, but for the most part, to assess usage in printed work requires a different approach.
 * Oxford University Press does have a very large corpus of material: considering that they base their dictionaries on it, and that their dictionaries say spelt is often used, I am inclined to say that they are right. Or have you any sensible reservations as to why this isn't so?

As for "personal communication", if you have a better reference than Usenet (searchable, again, via Google) I'd love to see it.

 * Communication in an electronic medium is different from that written for other purposes. Again, we could refer to Oxford dictionaries. Perhaps you would be interested to read this, since it states that, in addition to learn, other verbs are irregular, including spell, and are either -t or -ed. Spelt is mostly used on the rest of the website, too.

 * To quote Eric Partridge (Usage and Abusage: A Guide to Good English, 1999): 'Spelt is on the whole the preferred British form /.../'.

No-one disputes that this is the prescribed British usage. It seems that we do dispute the described British usage. And clearly we dispute the relevance of exclusively British usage ("proper preterite") to an article on "American and British English differences".

 * Is it not you who claimed to wish to base your usage prescription ('Please cite the corpus of dead tree scholarship that proves Internet usage is irrelevant and that all usage prescriptions must be based on materials that are') on a Google search?
 * A British spelling is ENTIRELY relevant in this article, since it demonstrates use first-hand.

 * I should believe this is evidence of at least the calibre of a Google search

Which presumably makes Partridge's recommendation "at least" "silly"...

 * No, at least (but in fact I am tempted to say much more so) as useful to the discussion, considering that it is something generally recognised.

 * British English spelling is perfectly permissible in this article.

So is American English, Canadian English, Irish English &c: "both spelt and spelled are permissible variants".

 * Exactly. This means that you oughtn't to change a spelling that is perfectly normal in British English simply because your preference is another (also common) spelling.

 * What exactly has this spelling to do with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc?

Nothing, if you choose to wilfully gambol from the discussion. Everything if you cast your mind back to your contention that a new usage is less neutral than a traditional one. Here it is again:

 * To use the relatively new simplification to a regular suffix is certainly less neutral than using the traditional version of the preterite and past participle forms.

And here's my response again:

 * "Neutral" refers to what is done, not what was done. There are any number of racist, sexist, homophobic &c. terms that are deprecated on Wikipedia despite having the pseudo-authority of "tradition" on their side.

 * Neutral formal writing relies heavily on the traditional rules of spelling and grammar. Would you be so kind as to explicitely state which terms are deprecated? Certainly those terms are not neutral any more. Perceptions and society change, and certain traditional rules of language (we are not talking about tradition per se) may not be socially acceptable at a later time. This, however, is not the case with spelt. The inflexion has no additional connotations, and is at the same time the form long favoured by dignified writers. It is hard to believe that one would take offence upon seeing it. And since there is nothing in the way of its use, and it is the traditional form, it can only be concluded that it is a neutral form.
 * Spelled is a simplification of the traditional preterite, and using it implies one's acceptance of some sort of spelling reform. (Come to think about it, however, spelt implies one's rejection of it, so neither is neutral.)

 * How can you tell whether this is an obsolescent spelling or not?

'Tis the way of all irregular forms that are not already indelibly ingrained in the language.

 * The article – an interesting read, by the way: thank you for the link – states even in the last paragraph that sneak - snuck came about only a century ago. This would imply that irregular verbs are all but disappearing! The article can well be read in a way to support spelt ...

 * Reverts in the other direction happen just the same. See, for example,

Hardly the best example for you to cite as a) you didn't answer his question and b) his edit (which uses "spelled" in a context in which it applies to American usage) is compliant with the Manual of Style.

 * It was not I who changed spelled to spelt then, so why should I have answered the question (which was, I thought, rather rhetorical anyway)?
 * And in what way is spelt not compliant with the style guide?

 * I have done no such thing as convert the article to British English. These were all reverts; I do not oppose, nor have changed (to the best of my knowledge), any of the spellings that are originally American or Commonwealth in the article.

You have a) reverted an edit which uses "spelled" in an indisputably American context b) reverted consistency edits without advocating or expounding a bipartisan policy c) argued that "Commonwealth British" is more "neutral" than "American British" and d) rejected an even-handed solution (both "spelled" and "spelt") with the following edit summary: "'spelt' should not be changed into the more American 'spelled' (we're not talking about taking turns, after all)".

 * a) The context is American and British English differences. I do not see any American context in any of the changes:
 * but are spelt differently in other English speaking countries
 * it is usually spelt with an -e at the end in the Commonwealth
 * whereas tire, a verb, in the sense of losing energy, is spelt so everywhere
 * the word lieutenant is spelt the same in both countries
 * Where do you see an indisputably American context?
 * b) If we're going for consistency, we might as well use spelt everywhere. But, as noted by others, inconsistency in this article is a good thing because it gives further examples of the differences.
 * c) When have I argued that? (I have, mind you, never even heard of Commonwealth and American British, but I shall assume you meant 'English')
 * d) Excuse me? I have changed spelled back into what it was originally, because there was no reason to change it into spelled in the first place. If the sentence was about taking turns (They spelled each other), then the change to spelled would have been justified; however, with that not being the case, it was not. Both spelled and spelt are used in the article, so I do believe the article in its present form (as protected) is entirely even-handed.

 * What has any of this got to do with what we are discussing, however? You are not (or should not be) attacking me, but the arguments which may resolve the dispute.

—Sinuhe 08:05, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * If we compare usage, it should be done using the same method, irrespective of what it is.

Relying on evidence you have repeatedly dismissed as "silly" discredits your argument and exposes its inconsistency.

 * In addition, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland have all been members of the Commonwealth of Nations, and use Commonwealth English as a result, meaning that it is reasonable to assume they use spelt often

So has Canada, which doesn't. Also let's please try to stick to facts rather than assumptions.

 * I beg to differ: (and I am also the author of, which was changed later to passive because 'British' was replaced by 'international').

You are right about the first one, which I overlooked. The second edit adds neither "spelled" nor "spelt" to the article, so I fail to see its relevance.

 * You should note that arguments which are not true can seriously diminish your persuasiveness.

If you are going to assume bad faith, you might want to correct your second link before flinging accusations of mendacity. Either way, this dig is irrelevant to the underlying point: "You're no more empowered to protect the article than I am to tweak it." Your appeal to the intentions of the original authors is no more authoritative than my appeal (and the appeal of numerous other editors you've reverted without discussion) to felicity or consistency.

 * Oxford University Press does have a very large corpus of material: considering that they base their dictionaries on it, and that their dictionaries say spelt is often used, I am inclined to say that they are right. Or have you any sensible reservations as to why this isn't so?

Of course not. I've made no attempt to deny that "spelt" is commonly used in the UK. In fact, I've provided evidence to support the contention that it is common. The point I've repeatedly made, and which you seem hell-bent on ignoring, is that "spelled" is also common in the UK. This is one of the three reasons I suggest it should be used in the article ("spelt" appears to be incorrect to a large number of English speakers whereas "spelled" does not). The others are consistency and felicity.

 * Communication in an electronic medium is different from that written for other purposes.

I don't deny that text messages are different to other forms of written communication. I don't see how that refutes the relevance of Usenet to a discussion of usage in personal communications. If you have evidence suggesting that Usenet is indeed "irrelevant" then please provide it.

 * Again, we could refer to Oxford dictionaries. Perhaps you would be interested to read this ...

No, since the use of "spelt" in the UK (along with "spelled") has never been in dispute. The link is totally unrelated to our discussion.

 * Is it not you who claimed to wish to base your usage prescription ('Please cite the corpus of dead tree scholarship that proves Internet usage is irrelevant and that all usage prescriptions must be based on materials that are') on a Google search?

I suggest you reread that paragraph. I was clearly asking you to justify your dismissal of the Internet as a source of "evidence", which ran as follows: "A Google search, however, is NOT evidence about usage, since it does not cover published and unpublished written works not available on the Internet."

 * A British spelling is ENTIRELY relevant in this article, since it demonstrates use first-hand.

I'll repeat the point since (again) you appear to have overlooked it:

 * ... ''clearly we dispute the relevance of exclusively British usage ("proper preterite") to an article on "American and British English differences".

And elsewhere:

 * As for the "spelled"/"spelt" joke (which is what that deliberately inconsistent usage is), I like it, and could easily be persuaded to lobby for it to be kept in that sentence.

 * This means that you oughtn't to change a spelling that is perfectly normal in British English simply because your preference is another (also common) spelling.

Again, this article belongs to all of its contributors and editors. You are not its custodian. There have been several attempts to make the article consistent in its use of "spelled" and "spelt". Those edits (which you've systematically reverted) are every bit as valid as your attempts to maintain the current mixed usage. Moreover, according to your argument, you are entitled (at best) to revert changes of your "spelt" into "spelled". You have not been elected as the spokesperson for all other contributors, many of whom were anonymous, and some of whom no longer contibute to the site.

 * Would you be so kind as to explicitely state which terms are deprecated?

See for instance here or here.

 * ... The inflexion has no additional connotations, and is at the same time the form long favoured by dignified writers.

Which I take it is a bizarre attempt to insinuate the indignity of American, Canadian &c. writers?

 * an interesting read, by the way: thank you for the link

You're welcome.

 * The article can well be read in a way to support spelt ...

How?

 * ... in what way is spelt not compliant with the style guide?

It is non-compliant if used to revert an equally valid spelling that is used by all English-speaking nations (a distinction which "spelt" does not hold).

 * Where do you see an indisputably American context?

I don't. I see an indisputably global context. If you're advocating "form follows function" then the last two should be "spelled" rather than "spelt" as they refer to "everywhere" rather than the "Commonwealth". "spelt" is specific to the "Commonwealth" and even there plays a minor role in at least one country (Canada). Whereas "spelled" is used everywhere:

 * Tyre in Commonwealth English refers to the noun, a rubber ring on a wheel of a vehicle, whereas tire, a verb, in the sense of losing energy, is spelt so everywhere.

"spelt" isn't used everywhere. Form does not follow function ("conducive with its style to its meaning as expressed in words").

 * In addition to these, the word lieutenant is spelt the same in both countries

"spelt" isn't used in both countries. Form does not follow function.

 * If we're going for consistency, we might as well use spelt everywhere.

If we're going for consistency, we should use "spelled", which is used everywhere, in contrast to "spelt", which is not.

 * But, as noted by others, inconsistency in this article is a good thing because it gives further examples of the differences.

I might agree if this policy were a) formalized (hitherto it has not extended beyond the scope of an edit summary) and b) equitable. At the moment, there are at least two places (listed above) where the regional spelling is applied to a description of global usage. This is inequitable as the opposite is not true.

 * When have I argued that? (I have, mind you, never even heard of Commonwealth and American British, but I shall assume you meant 'English'

(Yes, I meant "English"). As for your question (when have I argued that "Commonwealth English" is more "neutral" than "American English"). Here:

 * The spelling spelled is scarcely neutral [ ... ] Spelt is the proper preterite as dictated by years of use. [ ... ] To use the relatively new simplification to a regular suffix is certainly less neutral than using the traditional version of the preterite and past participle forms.

 * What has any of this got to do with what we are discussing, however? You are not (or should not be) attacking me, but the arguments which may resolve the dispute.

All four points were criticisms of your arguments, not personal attacks. As for your suggestion, I'm not convinced that "attacking" is the ultimate way to resolve anything, which is why I conceded that the mixed solution might be workable (above). I would urge you to avoid misrepresenting my motives. If your case is valid (as I'm prepared to believe it is) it should stand on its own merits.

chocolateboy 13:54, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If I can jump in here with a suggestion, how about we start an informal poll? Since language is something that occurs by itself and must be described by native speakers according to usage (and only usage, not weird ideas of what "should" be used), it would probably be constructive to get the input of as many AE and BE speakers and decide based on that. From a linguistic and statistical standpoint, relying on Google for data of this kind is not really a good idea and can prove neither viewpoint. I study linguistics, and the only way to resolve this sort of stuff is by soliciting speakers. Since it's not really an orthographic question, but a phonological one (/spɛld/ vs /spɛlt/), I think that a poll of speakers is essential. Jeeves 20:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I think this is a good idea; however, the problem we are having, is, I believe, not so much what is used commonly – though I should certainly be pleased to know that –, but rather whether spelt is in fact such a minority spelling that it should be replaced with spelled regardless of the original author's preference in an article that talks precisely about such differences in the name of consistency. Obviously, the way I've set the problem may be somewhat biased, seeing that I am involved in the argument, so it might be best for someone neutral to judge what the issue is.
 * But to answer the question, I say (and it will come as no surprise) /spɛlt/ (IPA) and write spelt. —Sinuhe 22:08, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Ah, thanks for pointing out the vagueness in my phrasing. What I meant to suggest was that we poll as many speakers of Commonwealth English as possible and see which form they use. American English always uses "spelled", I believe. However, something interesting about the comments above has occurred to me: even if "spelled" is becoming standard and "spelt" is "a minority usage", this becomes an orthographic distinction since the pronunciation by BE speakers is surely not changing. That makes this whole business a bit less interesting IMO (who cares about petty spelling distinctions?), but it would still be interesting to find out if "spelt" is really on the way out. I doubt it myself, but then again new technology has definitely been changing how some linguistic processes operate. Jeeves 22:25, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * If I can jump in here with a suggestion, how about we start an informal poll?

That's what I said diddle I? ("Or we could simply vote on it" :-)

 * ''What I meant to suggest was that we poll as many speakers of Commonwealth English as possible and see which form they use.

Let's poll American English speakers/writers as well - given the subject of the article. And I don't think it would hurt to expand this beyond the readership of this talk page...

chocolateboy 04:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The issue is not whether "spelt" is the spelling used most, it is whether it is the normal British spelling or a mistake. If it is the normal British spelling then even if a much larger number of US readers use another form, because the policy is that the spelling used by the original author should be used. BTW I am British and use "spelt". -- Chris Q 06:31, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What a surprise after being gone for a week to find all this discussion! Sheesh! I liked the original text with "spelled" and "spelt" in the same sentence but in reference to the different language styles. As a writer & editor in the U.S., we correct all "spelt" to be "spelled." But I have noticed that in British publications, "spelt" seems to be acceptable. I don't see why we can't just leave the whole page as it originally was, with its mixture, since some British English cultures seem to accept spelt and some don't, and this is an article about the differences, so it's not primarily British or primarily American, and get on to something more important. IMHO. Elf | Talk 16:12, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I concur. I think the original text with the mixed spellings is amusing and makes its point.  Quill 23:29, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree as well. This article should be the mixmaster of variant spellings! = ) Jeeves 00:10, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't just leave the whole page as it originally was, with its mixture [ ... ] ''and get on to something more important. IMHO.''

''I concur. I think the original text with the mixed spellings is amusing and makes its point.''

''I agree as well. This article should be the mixmaster of variant spellings!''

---

Fair enough. Please lift the protection and restore the mixed usage. I still think this article and the equally embattled World War II article ("theater" v "theatre") should (somehow - a template?) make it clear that their usage is deliberately mixed, otherwise they invite consistency edits and usage wars.

Perhaps a HTML comment would be a good start e.g.

''The mixture of Commonwealth and American usage on this page is deliberate. Please see Be consistent for further details.''

chocolateboy 00:35, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you, chocolateboy, this is a very constructive response. While I'm thanking you, I'll add that one of your comments in this dicussion led me to learn about "title case" and "sentence case," terms I hadn't heard before. JamesMLane 01:45, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unprotected, as requested. James F. (talk) 14:56, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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


text:
Moses Kiptanui

Moses Kiptanui (born 1 October 1970) is a Kenyan middle and long distance athlete mostly famous for 3,000 m steeplechase in which he was the number one ranked athlete from 1991 to 1995 and three time IAAF World Champion. Kiptanui was the first man to ever run the 3000m steeplechase in under eight minutes. He is also known for his coaching role in his later years with Tarbert GAA.

Career
Kiptanui emerged in 1991 as a relatively unknown athlete. He won several IAAF Grand Prix races that season. He celebrated an especially spectacular victory in Zürich where he fell on the track on the last lap but still won easily. He was known as a highly confident and somewhat cocky athlete, who was self-coached and driven by his own self belief.

His victory at the 1991 World Championships in Athletics in Tokyo therefore came as no surprise. To the great disappointment of many observers he was not included in the Kenyan team at the 1992 Summer Olympics in Barcelona. Kiptanui had failed to qualify at the Kenyan trials in Nairobi.

However, shortly after the Olympics he set a new world record over 3000m in Cologne with a time of 7:28.96 min. Only three days later he also broke the 3000m steeplechase world record in 8:02.08 in Zürich. The following year, he defended the World Championship title easily in Stuttgart. He won the steeplechase at the 1994 IAAF World Cup.

In 1995 he broke the 5000m world record in Rome in a time of 12:55.30 min (8 June). After collecting his third World Championship gold medal in Gothenburg he also set the new 3000m steeplechase record in Zürich in a time of 7:59.18 min (16 August), the first man in history to ever dip under eight minutes for the 3000m steeplechase.

A year later, he missed out on an Olympic gold medal again when he came second in the final in Atlanta. He was defeated by fellow Kenyan Joseph Keter. The next year, at the 1997 World Championships in Athletics in Athens, Greece, Kiptanui failed to win his fourth consecutive gold medal, but took silver. The winner was Wilson Boit Kipketer, also from Kenya.

He was still active in 2001 sighting the 2002 Commonwealth Games, but did not compete there. After retirement, he has been a running coach. In 2008 he coached the 2004 Olympic gold medalist, Ezekiel Kemboi. He has also been the chairman of the Marakwet District branch of Athletics Kenya.

His younger brother, Philemon Tanui, runs for University of Wyoming.

A school was built by Shoe4Africa to honor the lifetime achievements of Kiptanui. The Shoe4Africa Moses Kiptanui School was opened in 2012 at Kamoi district, Marakwet and has eight primary classes with 320 students. Two ancillary early childhood development classes were added in 2015.

Major achievements
 * 1990
 * 1990 African Championships in Athletics – Cairo, Egypt
 * 1500m gold medal
 * 1990 IAAF World Junior Championships – Plovdiv, Bulgaria
 * 1500m gold medal
 * 1991
 * 1991 World Championships in Athletics – Tokyo, Japan
 * 3000m steeplechase gold medal
 * 1991 All-Africa Games – Cairo, Egypt
 * 3000m steeplechase gold medal
 * 1993
 * 1993 World Championships in Athletics – Stuttgart, Germany
 * 3000m steeplechase gold medal
 * 1994
 * 1994 Goodwill Games – Saint Petersburg, Russia
 * 5000m gold medal
 * 1995
 * 1995 World Championships in Athletics – Gothenburg, Sweden
 * 3000m steeplechase gold medal
 * 1996
 * 1996 Summer Olympics – Atlanta, United States
 * 3000 m steeplechase silver medal
 * 1997
 * 1997 World Championships in Athletics – Athens, Greece
 * 3000m steeplechase silver medal

title: Moses Kiptanui


text:
Capitol Hill, Oklahoma City

Capitol Hill is a neighborhood of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. It was originally a separate city that was established in 1905, merging with its larger neighbor in 1911. The neighborhood is located just south of downtown Oklahoma City and borders to the north by the North Canadian River. The North Canadian River is now known as the Oklahoma River for its seven mile course while in Oklahoma City.

The Capitol Hill Urban Design District is an area designated in 1996 by Oklahoma City to maintain the existing historic, architectural and visual character of the area, while at the same time encouraging compatible, quality, new development. Capitol Hill became an official Main Street community in 1997 and today the district enjoys a rich multi-cultural quality

Despite its name, Capitol Hill is a historic business and entertainment district in south Oklahoma City and should not be confused with the capitol campus, which is centered at N. Lincoln Blvd and E. 23rd Street where the state capitol building (of Oklahoma) and other government agencies reside.

Geography
The Capitol Hill neighborhood is south of downtown Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and borders the North Canadian River. Popular use of the name "Capitol Hill" extends far beyond the traditionally designated area.

History
Capitol Hill was platted in 1900 by Benoni Harrington. The district soon became a center of commerce that boasted of major department stores such as John A. Brown and J.C. Penney. With the introduction of malls, particularly Crossroads Mall, many stores left Capitol Hill. Capitol Hill continued to decay until Capitol Hill Main Street, established in 1997, provided a foundation of economic development, promotion, design and organization that is restoring Capitol Hill to its former glory. Since 1997, the district has garnered $14.8 million in public and private reinvestment.

Art and culture
The area is now the center of Hispanic oriented commerce, culture, and nightlife, including the Knob Hill Theater, formally home to the Oklahoma Opry, award winning 250 seat Latino owned experimental and indie rock venue Resonant Head restaurants, bakeries, graphic designers, churches, and service businesses. One of the major employers in the area is the Community Action Agency of Oklahoma and Canadian Counties.

Though the area was annexed by Oklahoma City, it has retained its own chamber of commerce, community newspaper and even its own downtown along Commerce Street.

Education
Schools in the Capitol Hill neighborhood are part of the Oklahoma City school district and include Capitol Hill High School and Capitol Hill Middle School School. Capitol Hill High School was established in 1928 and draws students from a number of middle schools. Nearby Adelaide Lee Elementary School serves Kindergarten through 6th grade students.

title: Capitol Hill, Oklahoma City


text:
Charles S. Fairchild

Charles Stebbins Fairchild (April 30, 1842 – November 24, 1924) was an American businessman and politician who served as United States Secretary of the Treasury from 1887 to 1889 and Attorney General of New York from 1876 to 1877. He was a notable anti-suffragist, challenging the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1920 and serving as president of the American Constitutional League.

Biography
Charles Stebbins Fairchild was born on April 30, 1842, in Cazenovia, New York, to Helen Childs and Sidney Thompson Fairchild. He attended a local seminary and graduated from Harvard College in 1863, then Harvard Law School in 1865. He then began practicing law in Albany with the firm of Hand, Hale & Swartz; and soon became active in the Democratic Party of New York. He was married to Helen Lincklaen in 1871, and began serving in minor governmental capacities until 1874 when he became Deputy Attorney General of New York. He was involved in the prosecution and eventual conviction of New York City Police Commissioners Oliver Charlick and Hugh Gardner for removing elected inspectors without notice. When Samuel J. Tilden was elected Governor of New York, he directed Fairchild to lead the prosecution of the Canal Ring.

Tilden then backed Fairchild to be Attorney General of New York, first at the Democratic party convention in Syracuse in 1875. He was elected in 1875 and was in office from 1876 to 1877. Fairchild was not reelected and failed to defeat the Canal Ring. In January 1878, he was nominated to be Superintendent of Public Works by Gov. Lucius Robinson, but was rejected by the New York State Senate. He resumed the practice of law until 1885, when he was appointed Assistant U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. Fairchild led a commission that overhauled the department, resulting in the firing of hundreds of clerks, changes in methods of bookkeeping and cuts in expenses attributed to the United States Customs House. When Secretary Daniel Manning's health forced him to resign in 1887, Fairchild was appointed to succeed, and served in Grover Cleveland's administration from 1887 to 1889.

In 1886, the United States Treasury had a surplus of approximately $94 million due to high taxes and custom collections. In an attempt to prevent money from accumulating, Fairchild asked the United States Congress to reduce taxes and allow money to be deposited in banks. After Congress refused both requests, Fairchild began buying back government bonds to dispose of surplus revenue. His action is seen by some as averting a financial crisis. He was removed from office when Grover Cleveland lost reelection in 1888, and refused to return after Cleveland won again in 1892. As a Gold Democrat, he opposed the nomination of William Jennings Bryan for president.

Fairchild then moved to New York City and was a prominent figure in business and philanthropy. He was involved with the Charity Organization Society. He was President of the New York Security and Trust Company from 1889 to 1904. He was on the board of the American Mechanical Cashier Company (a competitor of NCR) with investment banker Henry L. Horton and Judge Hiram Bond. He was President of the Atlanta and Charlotte Air Line Railroad and a director of the Erie and Pittsburgh Railroad. He was a prominent figure in the opposition to a 'snap convention' held by David B. Hill in 1892. Fairchild also served as president of the American Constitutional League (formerly the Men's Anti-Suffrage Association).

Fairchild v Hughes
Fairchild v. Hughes was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided whether a citizen, in a state that already had women's suffrage, had standing to challenge the validity of the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment. On July 7, 1920, Fairchild challenged the validity of the ratification process for the Nineteenth Amendment in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. The district court dismissed the case on July 20, and Fairchild appealed. On August 26, Hughes acknowledged Tennessee's ratification, and the Nineteenth Amendment became law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court decision. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments in November 1922. In February, the Court unanimously decided that Fairchild, as a private citizen, lacked standing to challenge the amendment's ratification under the limitations of the Case or Controversy Clause of Article III.

Later life and death
Fairchild died on November 24, 1924, at the age of 82, and was buried at the Evergreen Cemetery in Cazenovia, New York. At the time of his death, he was the last living member of the first Cleveland Administration. Fairchild and his wife lived in the Lorenzo House. He was a brother of the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity (Alpha chapter).

title: Charles S. Fairchild


text:
Talk:Psychoaktiv

Note: this page refers to Psychoactive drug Ianb 23:11, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Psychoaktiv


text:
Talk:German census of 1895

I can live with most of this as I don't have any contradicting material and the wording is already pretty NPOV. I would question the wisdom of the several links to some of the pages. How about a link to the Prussia article with a reference to "descendant articles for provinces, administrative districts, Kreise, and Standesämter"? Since the Kingdom article doesn't use the 1895 data (yet), perhaps just the provinces.

 * Great idea. Halibutt 06:47, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

So Germany had how many people in 1895? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.79.166 (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Census in Germany
As this stub is rather old, but still unsourced, I'd like to redirect it to Census in Germany. -- Matthead Discuß   02:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Kulterkampf
The Kulturkampf lasted mainly until 1878, as both the English and German articles state. How could it have peaked at the time of the census? The fact that no sources are given with the accused bias in the census, seems to be an additional problem.--Beliar (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move
I have made a proposal to move the name of this article to Census of Germany, 1895, to discuss this please go to Talk:2001 Bangladesh census where a full debate is taking place. Any comments or discussion on this page about the proposed move will not be counted. Shatter Resistance (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2001 Bangladesh census which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 16:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:German census of 1895


text:
List of Norwegian ministries

This is a list of Norwegian government ministries as of March 2024.

title: List of Norwegian ministries


text:
Carole Stone

Carole Stone, CBE (born 30 May 1942) is a British author and freelance radio and television broadcaster. Stone spent 27 years at the BBC beginning as a newsroom secretary and eventually becoming the producer of Radio 4's flagship discussion programme Any Questions? In 2018, Stone established The Carole Stone Foundation to support her belief that connecting people, exchanging ideas and building friendships around the world is essential to help make a fairer society.

BBC
Stone spent 27 years at the BBC starting as a newsroom secretary, and went on to become producer of Radio 4's flagship discussion programme Any Questions? between 1977 and 1990.

YouGovStone Ltd
In April 2007, Stone became managing director of YouGovStone Ltd, a joint venture with online opinion polling organisation YouGov plc. She established the YouGovStone Think Tank, a global panel of 4,000 industry leaders and "influentials" used for opinion research and drawn from her database of more than 50,000 people.

The Carole Stone Foundation
Stone established The Carole Stone Foundation in 2018 to support her belief that connecting people, exchanging ideas and building friendships around the world is essential to help make a fairer society. The Carole Stone Foundation awarded its first One Young World Scholarships in 2018.

YouGov-Cambridge Centre
Stone is the former Chair of the External Advisory Board of the YouGov-Cambridge Centre, a joint centre for polling research at Cambridge University, run byYouGov and the Cambridge POLIS Department.

One Young World
Stone is a Counsellor for the UK-based charity One Young World that gathers together the brightest young leaders from around the world, enabling them to make lasting connections to create positive change. She has set up her own scholarship within the charity.

The Hippocratic Post
Stone is a founding director of the recently launched website The Hippocratic Post, the first global blogging site for medics and other health professionals.

Tutu Foundation UK
Stone is Chairman of the Ambassadors of the Tutu Foundation UK.

Centre for Peaceful Solutions
Stone is Patron of the Centre for Peaceful Solutions, which works to change our attitudes to conflict and better manage the disputes in our lives to improve our communities, families and workplaces.

The Global Foundation to Eliminate Domestic Violence (EDV)
In 2016 Stone was elected to succeed Baroness Scotland (who has now become the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth) as Patron of The Global Foundation to Eliminate Domestic Violence (EDV).

Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust
Stone is a former elected Governor of the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust.

SANE
Stone is Vice-Patron of mental health charity SANE.

Saving Faces
Stone is Patron of Saving Faces, a facial surgery research foundation.

TOP UK The OCD and Phobia Charity
Stone is a Patron of TOP UK, the OCD and phobia charity.

Publications
Stone is the author of Networking: The Art of Making Friends (ISBN 0-09-185711-2) and The Ultimate Guide to Successful Networking (ISBN 0-09-190025-5).

Personal life
Stone married television journalist Richard Lindley in 1999; he died in early November 2019.

Honours and awards
In November 2011, Stone was awarded "Britain's Best Connected Woman" by the Institute of Directors and O2.

In June 2014, Stone was made a Senior Fellow of the Regent's University London.

In June 2015, Stone was appointed CBE, for her services to market research and charities.

title: Carole Stone


text:
Talk:MetLife Building

Untitled
Shouldn't this article be moved to Metlife Building if that's its proper name now? Pan Am Building would then redirect. Postdlf 23:17, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I took this out, since many buildings that are hated are in the grid plan, and many beloved buildings are NOT in the grid plan. "Contributing to its unpopularity may be the fact that it is one of the few major buildings in New York which does not conform to the city's orderly grid plan. Its footprint, along with Grand Central Terminal, is directly in the path of Park Avenue, causing it to interrupt both views and continous travel down the length of that thoroughfare." Grand Central Terminal breaks the grid plan, in front of the building. I think it's hated because it is seen as so ugly. Donbas 12:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I am wondering if anyone else
finds this claim to be questionable. " the Pan Am Building is an example of a Brutalist or International style skyscraper" I am trying to break the wikipedia habit, but just can't walk away from this sort of statement. Carptrash 05:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * International style sure, but I don't see it as a strong example of Brutalism - I'm removing that Kinou (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Pop cultural references
I'd heard that the escalator scenes in Koyaanisqaatsi were shot in the Pan Am Building, but I cannot corroborate.LorenzoB 15:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Pan Am Building versus Met Life Building
I take issue with calling this building the Met Life Building. Major buildings should be called by their original name. If Wal-Mart buys the Chrysler building and slaps their logo on it, are we going to start calling it the Wal-Mart building? The re-direct should be from Met Life to Pan Am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.205.227.254 (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The building isn't called the Pan Am Building. Why would the article use the original name? Yes, if the Chrysler Building was renamed after Wal-Mart, the article would most likely follow suit. Kinou (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it should be Pan Am Building because Met Life should be punished for being assholes for going as far as to file a lawsuit in their quest to persecute a youtuber for daring to include the Met Life Building in his world record (DMCAed by Met Life) biggest Minecraft city.
 * In conclusion it should be called the Pan Am Building because Met Life is evil.
 * Fuck Met Life! 96.227.230.168 (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This is rediculous! Why would I ever call the Chrysler Building the Wal-Mart Building, even if they did decide to re-name it. Why would I call the Sears Tower the "Willis Tower"? No one would know which building I was referring to. The same principles can be applied with this building. Most know this building as the PanAm Building, not the MetLife Building, so this article should follow suit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.213.229 (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Most know this building as the PanAm Building"? On what do you base that assertion?  Regardless, which should be the guiding principle here of the two you've asserted?  Should the article be titled by how most people refer to it at present, or by their original names?  If the latter, we should move GE Building to RCA Building, and Istanbul would be Constantinople...even old New York was once New Amsterdam.  postdlf (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why they changed it I can't say. 173.52.75.219 (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me add my voice to the party who votes for using original names. I guess it has something to do with age. If you always used to call the thing PanAm then it's hard to see that changed. I guess there are reasonable arguments for both sides. I just wonder how many people would feel one way and how many would feel the other way. Of course the owners would probably like to get the public reception switched ... I wonder if one could count Wikipedia access - how many come here through PanAm and how many through the Met. JB. --92.195.122.115 (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Grand Central Station
I have read that the MetLife Building was originally to be built atop Grand Central Station, however due to the public outcry over the demolition of the station, the building was constructed next door or over the road. Perhaps something about this could be in the article. CybergothiChé (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

first paragraph
"The world's largest commercial office space by square footage at its opening, it remains one of the hundred tallest buildings in the United States."

This sentence in the first paragraph of the article doesn't sound right. I would maybe say:

"It was the world's largest commercial office space by square footage at its opening and it remains one of the hundred tallest buildings in the United States." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.224.230 (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MetLife Building. 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/20070930023757/http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR77-09.pdf to http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR77-09.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930023757/http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR77-09.pdf to http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR77-09.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) 23:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Repetitious phrasing?
"Developer Erwin S. Wolfson proposed a 65-story tower called Grand Central City to replace the six-story baggage structure (which had by then become an office building) north of the terminal."

Whatever a "baggage structure" is—but is that referring to the same building as in the later sentence "In order to make way for Grand Central City, a six-story baggage handling building was demolished in mid-1960"? If so, we don't need both sentences—certainly not in the form they currently take. Harfarhs (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization nitpick
A quick nitpick—International Style has some inconsistent capitalization, where sometimes it's fully capitalized and sometimes it's written as "International style". Based on the style's article, I think fully capitalizing it might be best. {{u| Sdkb  }}  talk 06:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:MetLife Building


text:
Argyropelecus

Argyropelecus is an oceanic ray-finned fish genus in the deep sea hatchetfish family Sternoptychidae. A collective name is "silver hatchetfishes", but this can also refer to a species of the freshwater hatchetfishes which are not particularly closely related to this. The large pupils of these marine hatchetfishes enable them to see dim objects in the deep sea, where light barely penetrates.

Species
There are currently seven recognized extant species in this genus:
 * Argyropelecus aculeatus Valenciennes, 1850 (lovely hatchetfish, Atlantic silver hatchetfish)
 * Argyropelecus affinis Garman, 1899 (Pacific hatchetfish)
 * Argyropelecus gigas Norman, 1930 (giant hatchetfish, greater silver hatchetfish)
 * Argyropelecus hemigymnus Cocco, 1829 (half-naked hatchetfish, short silver hatchetfish, spurred hatchetfish)
 * Argyropelecus lychnus Garman, 1899 (tropical hatchetfish)
 * Argyropelecus olfersii (G. Cuvier, 1829)
 * Argyropelecus sladeni Regan, 1908 (Sladen's hatchetfish, silvery hatchetfish)

The earliest unequivocal fossils of Argyropelecus date from the start of the Chattian stage of the Late Oligocene The original assessment of Eocene-aged otoliths from Austria assigned to this genus is now questioned.

title: Argyropelecus


text:
Ashton Court Festival

The Ashton Court Festival was an outdoor music festival held annually in mid-July on the grounds of Ashton Court, just outside Bristol, England. The festival was a weekend event which featured a variety of local bands and national headliners. Mainly aimed at local residents, the festival did not have overnight camping facilities and was financed by donations and benefit gigs.

Starting as a small one-day festival in 1974, the festival grew during succeeding years and was said to be Britain's largest free festival until changes brought on by government legislation resulted in compulsory fees and security fencing being introduced. After problems were caused by a temporary move to Hengrove Park in 2001, due to the foot and mouth crisis, and a washout in 2007, the organisers declared bankruptcy in 2007.

Origins
The first festival was held in 1974, organised by Royce Creasey and friends, as a small event, for the local musicians to entertain the local community. The first festival took place over four successive weekends with bands playing from a stage improvised from a flat bed truck. Bristol City Council donated £50. The following year the festival took place over one weekend and was located near to Ashton Court mansion. After this, new organisers came on board and fund-raising gigs were held enabling the event to grow steadily through the 1970s.

1980
In 1980, large numbers of people from far afield attended, trees were damaged and burnt and there was illegal camping and lurid press reports of drugs and nudity. It was not until 1983 that the festival recommenced. when it was a one-day event; in 1984 a de facto two-day event was created by staging it back-to-back with a one-day WOMAD event. The festival took place in a large sloped clearing surrounded on three sides by New Barn Wood and Clarken Coombe. The main stage was placed at the bottom of the slope and the second stage in a natural amphitheatre near the entrance to the clearing. There were many other performance spaces, varying from year to year, including a dance tent, marquees for world music, acoustic acts and performing arts, and the "Blackout" tent for experimental music and video, as well as a children's area and funfair rides. Camping on the festival site was not allowed.

21st century
In 2001 the Bristol Community Festival temporarily relocated to Hengrove Park in the south of the city. Ashton Court Estate, which includes a deer park, was closed as a quarantine measure due to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease that affected the United Kingdom that year. The move caused a massive drop in attendance and a heavy financial loss, leading to debts which hung over the organisation. This, along with changes to licensing laws and tightening health and safety requirements, led to a more commercial style of organisation, with a compulsory entrance fee and a strict security presence around the perimeter fence. This attracted criticism from some locals who felt that the "community" nature of the festival had been lost. Even so, the festival continued to be run by volunteers on a not-for-profit basis.

In 2003 the weight and vibrations of crowds returning from the Ashton Court Festival and the Bristol International Balloon Fiesta put such a great strain on the Clifton Suspension Bridge that the Bridge Trustees decided to close the bridge to all traffic, including pedestrians, for the entirety of the festival and most of the Balloon Fiesta in 2004 and 2005.

Crisis
In December 2006 it was announced that the festival was in financial crisis and there was uncertainty over whether the 2007 event would take place. The festival planning went ahead with support and donations from a number of Bristol businesses. In June 2007 it was announced that alcohol would not be allowed to be taken on site, but would be available to purchase from official bars within the arena. Also, that everyone attending the festival would be searched on the way in. This announcement caused much controversy.

Although locals have long referred to the festival as the "Ashton Court Festival", before 2004 it was officially called the Bristol Community Festival. Since then it became increasingly popular, and for several years it was claimed to be Britain's biggest free festival; however, the "suggested minimum donation" for entry become a gradually increasing compulsory entry fee. From 2007, children (aged 10–16) also had to pay an entry fee, while under 10s remained free (previously all children got in free), and a new discounted weekend ticket became available. The festival was typically attended by over 60,000 people annually.

In the festival's last year, 2007, the site was moved to Smythe's field in front of Ashton Court Mansion. On the second day, the event was cancelled due to torrential rain, which made the site inaccessible to emergency vehicles. "The health and safety of our audience is what is important," said organiser Steve Hunt. Over 80 bands were due to perform that day, including Damon Albarn's The Good, the Bad & the Queen. The cancellation increased the pressure on the already strained finances of the festival. On Friday 20 July 2007 Bristol Community Festival Ltd, the not-for-profit company which organised the event, announced that it had started the process of winding up the company due to unsustainable financial losses.

Notable performers
The festival's music policy always focused on local acts, but since the late 1990s there was a move towards attracting national acts to headline the festival. Major acts at Ashton Court in recent years include:
 * Steve Hillage in 1978
 * The Only Ones in 1978
 * DJ's Ben Hudson & Andy Fisher in 1997
 * Portishead in 1998.
 * Feeder and Rae & Christian in 1999.
 * Mad Professor, Kosheen and Stereo MC's in 2001.
 * Reef and Kosheen and Dirty Drugs in 2002.
 * Robert Plant, McKay and The Electric Soft Parade in 2003.
 * The Stranglers, Goldie Lookin' Chain and Glenn Tilbrook in 2004.
 * Super Furry Animals, Lemon Jelly, Roni Size and Steve Harley & Cockney Rebel in 2005.
 * Simple Minds, The Go! Team, Plan B in 2006.
 * The Good, the Bad & the Queen, The Fall, Gravenhurst in 2007.

Legacy
Following the end of Bristol Community Festival, other groups emerged hoping to continue with some sort of summer festival in Bristol. Bristol Music Festival became the Bristol Festival (now BrisFest) and has so far successfully put on four summer festivals, albeit in the city centre. 2011 saw the most successful even yet, with over 25,000 people attending over three days.

BrisFest returned to Ashton Court in 2012 and 2013, however announced in December 2013 that they would not be continuing the festival into 2014.

The event returned in 2015 and 2016 as part of the "Let's Rock Bristol" retro festival.

title: Ashton Court Festival


text:
NEB

Neb may refer to:
 * Neb, transcription of an ancient Egyptian hieroglyph of a basket, Gardiner sign V30
 * Neb, the pen name of British political cartoonist Ronald Niebour (1903–1972)

NEB may refer to:
 * Nose in Everyone's Business, a busybody or gossip
 * National Enterprise Board, a UK government body from 1975 to 1981
 * National Energy Board, a Canadian independent federal agency from 1959 to 2018
 * National Examination Board (Nepal), organizes the Higher Secondary examination in Nepal
 * Nebulin, a large protein found in muscles
 * New England Biolabs, U.S. corporation, produces and supplies reagents for the life science industry
 * New English Bible, a translation of the Bible, first published as a complete edition in 1970
 * Niederbarnimer Eisenbahn, a train company in Germany
 * North Equatorial belt, a Cloud pattern on Jupiter
 * Nuclear Energy Board, an Irish government agency from 1973 to 1992
 * Noise Equivalent Bandwidth, a measure of the bandwidth of an electrical filter
 * Nudged Elastic Band, a way of exploring reaction paths in computational chemistry.
 * N-Ethylbuphedrone, a stimulant

Entertainment

 * Neb (or Nebuchadnezzar), a character in the novel Castaways of the Flying Dutchman by Brian Jacques
 * Neb (or Nebuchadnezzar), a character in English translations of the novel Mysterious Island by Jules Verne (in the original French the names are Nab and Nabuchadnasar)
 * Neb (or Nebuchadnezzar), the name of the ship the main character pilot through Zion, in the film trilogy 'The Matrix'.

Places

 * River Neb, one of the principal rivers on the Isle of Man

title: NEB


text: User talk:64.40.54.209

title: User talk:64.40.54.209