text:
Talk:Rod McKuen

Believed dead
I was convinced Rod McKuen had died some years ago, but apparently not. Deb 21:37, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank God he hasn't, simply the best singer/songwriter ever try his haunting Adaggio for harps and strings, awesome! saw him some time ago in Bristol UK wonderful evening. Steve Addy Bristol UK User:82.45.21.103 05:00, 30 October 2005

F Ronald Gross, ghostwriter for McKuen
I notice that the article states that Rod McKuen "has proven to be a prolific songwriter, penning over 1500 songs"; however, I learned last night, that McKuen actually used many uncredited ghostwriters of which my cousin was one. Not only were my cousin's songs performed by McKuen but by many others...yet only McKuen has received the credit. No wonder my cousin was never able to get his songwriting career off the ground back in the 70's. I am not too familiar with McKuen's work but now have to wonder...which songs are actually his??? EAE, California User:204.109.29.5 19:23, 25 January 2006
 * This would be interesting to follow up on...post a message on his flight blog on the external links on his page Doc 14:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Edits 8/14/09
Rod McKuen deserves a better fate than this hagiographic article allows him. His achievements are significant but are not well served by a uniformly adulatory article, much of which is cribbed from his own website and none of which deals with the very real and very permanent rejection of his published books as serious poetry. Try to find him in the Norton Anthology, for example.

Was he popular? Absolutely - but provide sourcing for the sales figures that is not derived from his website. RM's musical work has earned him even critical recognition, which is supportable. I also believe that Frank Sinatra recorded an entire album of exclusively RM's songs, which should probably be mentioned.Much work to be done on this article. Sensei48 (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

76.115.123.46 (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Ok I give who was he.?? There is no personal history on this dude.

 * You're right, 76 - at least the lede is one sentence and so small that you could miss it. McKuen sold millions of books of poetry in the 1960s and 70s (selling any kind of book in the millions is remarkable, but poetry....), and the songs he has written have sold millions of records, albums, and CDs. He was a slightly under-the-radar media force of the time because he wasn't much of a performer - more of a writer/composer. Plus there are plenty of people who regard his output as banal trash, popular though it was. Maybe I'll try to rewrite the opening paragraph to expand it and give him his proper due. Sensei48 (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing, 9/11
While some of the edits done recently here have amplified this underdeveloped article, the sourcing and overall "positive" slant are problematic. The Country Music Channel is NOT a WP:RS for a writer with literary pretensions, and the author's own self-promotional website cannot be used to establish matters of statistics and fact. In addition and troublingly - many of the additions appear to be plagiarized - paraphrases from the CMT article, which are in turn largely cribbed (again) from the author's own website.Sensei48 (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I rearranged the material so that poetry and songwriting are separated, removed the more obvious irrelevancies and POV, and added quotations from major academics regarding the poetry. The problem with sourcing from McKuen's own site and from a country music television network remains.Sensei48 (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I have taken a critical paragraph out of the Poetry section, added some sources, and created a new Criticism section. I too have done nothing about the CMT and McKuen-site sourcing... yet.--Jim10701 (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I have looked high and low for a reliable source of information on Mr McKuen, and I have found nothing that did not originate with the man himself. Criticism of his work is widely documented and reliably sourced, but facts about his life and career seem to come only from him. I suppose this situation is not too surprising, since no one seems to take him seriously except himself and his legions of fans, none of whom is likely to have produced a scholarly, well-researched and documented biography of him.

 * No one denies that he was very popular and very successful, or that he significantly influenced popular culture from the mid-1960s through the mid-70s. The problem is that no reliable sources have bothered to examine him with any diligence. His fans are content with idolizing him and his critics are content with ridiculing him; nobody has bothered to study his life.

 * So... what should we do? Having added to and enhanced the visibility of his critics in this article, I don't feel right in then removing all of the positive stuff that made the article so unbalanced to begin with, even if it does come directly and indirectly from McKuen himself. That would leave the article unbalanced in the opposite direction.

 * The only thing I can think of to do is to edit the article and remove anything that is not simple, biographical fact. I will leave things like his leaving home at 11, but I will remove things like the claim that he then went to work as a lumberjack, rodeo cowboy, etc, while always sending money home to his mother. Sorry, but that sounds to me more like the fantasy of an 11-year-old boy than objective biographical fact. In the absence of any contrary evidence, I am willing to believe that he did leave home at the age of 11 and over the course of the following years worked at a variety of jobs; but those specific jobs are just too exotic to accept unattested, particularly for a child.

 * I genuinely feel for Mr McKuen and his fans. I wish there were at least one good biography out there that we could use as a source of objective but positive information about him. Maybe someday someone will write one. Then all the good stuff about him can be reinserted into this article with proper attestation.--Jim10701 (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I reread this source, which I used in the Criticism section, and it actually has more positive and neutral information about him than negative. Although it is not exactly a work of heavyweight, peer-reviewed scholarship, and it is very short (2½ printed pages about McKuen, including bibliography), its viewpoint is decidedly more objective and neutral than anything else I can find; it does contain references of its own to relatively reliable sources; and it was written by an apparently reputable PhD and professor of library science and published by an independent publisher; so it is lightyears ahead of CMT and www.mckuen.com as a reliable source. I am going to use it as much as possible to replace the stuff from those sites that no matter how it's edited still reads more like a hagiography than a biography.--Jim10701 (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I appreciate the work you've done here and agree substantially, but I think you're piling on a bit. I framed the poetry section into a balanced, 2 paragraph, factual presentation - using the Hoffman article to source positive info (the 1968 fact and the comparison to Sandburg) balancing it off with (in addition to the vituperative quotation I brought in a long time ago from St. James Enc) passages from Nora Ephron and Karl Shapiro.

 * I think that's enough, plenty. We have Solomon calling him kitschy - do we need to add middle-brow and definitely non-academic Newsweek as well? That's what I mean by piling on. Hoffman, as you note, is not a critic of any weight whatsoever - so why extend his remarks beyond the one positive thing he said and that I used into another fully negative passage? What purpose is served by quoting a really huge amount of stuff from Keller, whose Pulitzer was for a news feature, not culture criticism? And in any case, that last sentence absolutely has to go...ticket sales for a concert tour have nothing to do with McK's quality as a poet.

 * When I did some initial work on this a year or two ago, I removed much of the nonsense and unverified claims from the McK site about the popularity of his books of poetry and brought in the Baers passage, as succinct a summary as you'll find of critical reaction to McK. What you've added makes it seem as if you have an agenda to discredit him as thoroughly as possible. I'd be interested to see how a real encyclopedia like Britannica handles this.

 * Moreover - I think all this should be re-integrated back into the Poetry section. Note that much of the article and much of McK's career as been as a songwriter and composer, at both of which he has been hugely successful in pop culture with the songs, movie scores, and albums. "Criticism" as a section suggests an analysis of the man's complete oeuvre, whereas the section discusses - only his poetry. His discography is about 3 times longer than his list of published works, and his music has been received generally very well, in stark contrast to his poetry.

 * Again, I salute your efforts but question whether all the negative stuff is necessary beyond what I had already added. regardsSensei48 (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I see your point. I don't have an agenda beyond achieving a balanced article, but I can see that my first stab at it may have gone too far. When I get into something, I get as deep into it as I can as fast as I can, and that will certainly lead to some over-doing. I doubt that's the first time a well-intentioned editor has made that mistake, and I'm pretty sure I didn't violate the cautions against reckless statements about a living person. This article and my involvement in it are a work in progress; the end result, I trust, will be a more balanced article.

 * I am in the process of making an extensive rework, replacing many of the unreliable sources with more reliable sources, including positive and neutral information from both Hoffmann and Keller, among others. (I came here to say some more about the changes I'm making when I saw your comments, for which I thank you.) I have tried as much as possible not to remove any important information but to find more reliable sources for it.

 * Assuming you haven't made changes in the several hours that I've been working on this second stab at the article, you may want to hold off until you see those changes. I will prune the criticism section of some of its excess, but I strongly think it should stand as its own section. Although you're right that it's mainly his poetry that has been lambasted, integrating criticism of him into that section camouflages it too much, in my opinion.

 * A not insignificant part of his fame is a result of the very widespread criticism of him as an poet, so I think "Criticism" is as significant a subject with regard to him as the other section headers that appear in the TOC. I will, however, make it a subsection of the Poetry section, so it will still appear in the TOC but in that specific context. Thanks very much for pointing that out.

 * Although Hoffmann may not be an expert on anything except possibly library science, his (as I said before) is one of the very few independent sources I could find of any information at all on McKuen and his career. And his work is published, and there's nothing I've found to indicate that it is noticeably biased or inaccurate. Let me know if you know of other reasons not to use him.

 * As for the negative quotation from him in my first edit, your Sandburg quote was taken out of context to make it sound positive rather than negative, and I just filled in the context around it. But I agree that his is not the best source for criticism, so I have no objection to taking that out altogether. But I do not think the out-of-context comparison to Sandburg should be left in either.

 * While Keller's Pulitzer is not specifically for cultural criticism, it is for her work as a feature (as opposed to breaking news) journalist, and her article on McK qualifies as feature journalism just as much as does the work for which she won it. That plus the fact that she is on the staff of a major newspaper specifically as a cultural critic (and it was in that newspaper that her article about him was published) gives her enough credibility to replace the more unreliable sources of information.

 * I think I should, though, clarify in the article that she is not giving her own opinions of McK's work but describing what many of the general public think of him. That, in fact, makes her statements more valuable, I think, because they give not just the "highbrow" view but the view of regular people who could be his fans but are not. But I will take the medicine I just tried to give you and add the positive side of what she says and not pick out just the negatives.

 * As to the statement about ticket sales, I agree that it is irrelevant to his poetry, but I'm not so sure it's irrelevant to him as an artist. What I'm starting to think is that the Keller article maybe should be used in some other way.

 * What I think she does that is valuable is give a view of both the positive and negative sides of the popular reaction to McK, as opposed to the academic reaction of people like Solomon, Efron and Shapiro. She really isn't writing her own opinion of him in that article, as a critic would, but giving a broad summary of popular reaction to him by all sorts of people.

 * I think giving a more global view like that would help this article a lot. It would be a mistake to say that the critics all hated him and the common people all loved him, but that's how the article starts to look, and the only reliable source we have for information about that is Keller's article.

 * What I'm thinking now is that the article needs not a Criticism section but a Popular reaction section, or something like that. Something that gives a realistic view of what people in general liked and disliked about his work. It could include praise of the works that were praised, like his music primarily, and criticism of his poetry. It would include some of the vituperative critic comments as well as the valuable and concise summary Keller gives of the remarkably polarized popular reactions to him.

 * What do you think about that? I think we'd agree that the important thing is to make this an article that helps people who come here wondering "Rod who?" get a balanced and realistic idea of who he is and what he did and how it impacted the world. It shouldn't be a place for people who like him to promote him or people who don't to tear him down. It should give as much reliable information as it can in as balanced a way as possible.

 * What I came here to comment on is that I am removing reference to a Pulitzer Prize nomination in Music. I found evidence on the AMPAS and Grammy sites of his win and nominations for those awards, but the Pulitzer doesn't list non-winning nominees before 1980. Although I am leaving in a few things from CMT/mckuen.com, something as significant as a nomination for a major award needs a reliable source. If you can find one, please post it.

 * Thanks.
 * --Jim10701 (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I neglected to respond to your objection to the Newsweek reference. I'm not convinced that it is overkill to say that a highbrow (Solomon) and a lowbrow (Newsweek) both referred to his poetry as kitsch. The fact that Newsweek is not a source of learned criticism, but a reflection of un-learned popular sentiment, means that there were common people as well as academics who thought his poetry was kitsch. Why is it not legitimate for this article to present popular opinion (as long as it is reliably sourced) as well as expert opinion, when the subject of the article is a popular entertainer?
 * --Jim10701 (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm too tired to work on this any more tonight. Sometime in the next few days I'll I'll sandbox the changes I'm making and let you take a look before I make them in the article. If you think the article should be reverted in the meantime to a version you're comfortable with, please do so. Thanks.
 * --Jim10701 (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 * PS- I just noted that I was posting what is below you added a note. As I say here - no reversion at all from me. Let's both see what we can find.
 * Well, that's even more extensive than my somewhat discursive comment. First, I should have pointed out that I was not going to change anything unilaterally, assuming that we would have a collaborative discussion (as we are) to improve the article. If you are willing to undertake the major revision that this needs, as I noted it needed in the 8/14/09 section above, more power to you.

 * The most annoying thing about writing about McK, as you note, is the lack of RS material. His site claims sales of 60 million books of poetry or something like that. I wish we could get authoritative figures - because even though I believe that to be greatly exaggerated, the actual number is in fact in the many millions of volumes sold - a million in under 2 years by 1968, according to Hoffman and Bailey, with his biggest years still ahead of him - 40 million, according to Keller. But Keller's article is still problematic as a source for anything except the random figures that she quotes. Her piece is a newspaper feature, neither an academic article nor a serious study of any kind. It is precisely and explicitly her reaction to McK - discernable in the snide tone - and I would cringe (to use one of her favorite words) to see this offered as a reliable source for anything other than what Keller thinks.

 * There is less of an issue with McK's stuff than she makes out. 40 million units - BOOKS, in a world in which, even then, 100,000 units hardcover sold would make you a pop culture phenomenon - that is self-evidently phenomenal popularity, and McK deserves recognition for that fact, as he does for the possibly even greater popularity of his songs and records ("Seasons in the Sun" as recorded by Terry Jacks is one of the dozen or so records anywhere in the world with certified sales of over 10 million units).

 * The academy, critics, people who know poetry, people of taste - all tend not merely to dislike but to despise McK's poetry, as we both have noted. But that 40 million books sold means something - at the very least that there was less or no controversy about his quality as a poet in pop culture at the time, a time 20 years before Keller is writing.

 * That is why I want to see a strictly objective article here, with a sampling of vituperation balanced with legitimately stunning pop culture popularity. 40 million books, and even if you halve his claim of his songs appearing on recordings with total sales of 100 million units - you have to look at the Lennon/McCartneys and Bacharachs of pop music for comparable figures. I am also concerned because it fascinates me that a guy whose songs were so good in a pop way could be so bad at writing poetry. I knew his music as early as '63 because I was a Kingston Trio and Limeliters (Yarborough was in that group) fan, and both groups (and many other folk artists) did his songs and sold lots of albums with his stuff.

 * Hoffman and Bailey's bibliography will not be of much help - Time, Life, Newsweek, Seventeen - this is pop culture criticism nearly as lightweight as McKuen's poetry itself. I'd offer that we need sales figures for books and records that are factual. These should be presented without qualification or comment. A small and highly selective collection of vituperative comments would allow for balance. But even a statement like "critics hated him" has limited value. Baers and Keller both say so, if we use them, and beyond a couple examples supporting that, I see no need to amplify the criticism beyond that - or given the unavailability of really qualified critical sources, no possibility. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 * In the six or seven (or maybe eight, but no more than that) years that I have been reading (primarily) and editing (sporadically and reluctantly) Wikipedia, this is the first time I believe I have actually encountered the collaboration it lauds itself for. Maybe true collaboration does happen somewhere in the inner/higher circles of this Byzantine, Kafkaesque bureaucracy, but all I have ever encountered is manic bullies and (even worse) gangs of bullies, intent on enforcing their pet positions on everybody else and calling it consensus.

 * To be honest, I hate being a Wikipedia editor. I am a Wikipedia user. I am the guy who reads the encyclopedia, not one who writes it. I edit only when I come across errors so disturbing that I simply cannot leave them unaddressed.

 * I am an encyclopedia user because the format is perfect for the way my mind works. I am not deeply interested in anything, not in any subject or activity, not in any person or type of person, not interested enough in anything to want to be an authority on it, or to gather around me similarly focused people so that we can stake our claim and make sure nobody else tries to fuck with our territory.

 * So, regardless of how much I may edit, I will always be a Wikipedia user first and foremost, and I never lose the outsider's point of view. I don't give a shit about the Wikimedia Community, but I care very much about the hundreds of millions of people who come here for information, and I care even more about the billions who ought to come here and maybe would come here if Wikipedia ever got its act together and stopped feeding itself instead of the hungry, ignorant world.

 * My mind is like a puppy. Insatiably curious about everything, it follows its eager, innocent, ignorant nose through the world, chasing off madly after one tantalizing scent and then another. The world of the encyclopedia, with a little bit of information about a whole lot of different things, is like heaven for me.

 * Wikipedia in particular is nearly perfect, in theory. Unlike any print encyclopedia, there is no limit to the number of subjects that can be addressed. And linking between articles means I can start on one subject that happens to pop into my mind and end up several hours later on the other side of the universe, having visited dozens of different delightful planets along the way.

 * I suspect you can see signs of that rash, puppylike exuberance in my edits to this article and this talk page. I get caught up in something relatively trivial and run with it like it's the only thing in the universe that matters, like a puppy with a stick. Then – just as quickly – I get distracted by some new scent and go tearing off after it, forgetting the one I was so enthusiastic about just a few minutes before.

 * There are only two exceptions to my lack of consistent interest in things, only two things I care enough about to try to fight for them despite the nasty playing field I find here at WP. One is the English language, and the other is fairness.

 * I am in love with this language. I love language in general, but I love this particular language so much, so deeply and with such devotion, that I have not yet found time or energy or motivation to learn any other. I studied a lot of Greek and Latin and a very little bit of Italian in school a lifetime ago, and I have picked up more Italian and some French and a little Spanish and Portuguese and Romanian just from watching hundreds of movies in those languages. But English is so rich and so powerful and so delightful that the more I use it the more fascinated by it I become, so I have given up the notion of branching out into other languages in what's left of this lifetime.

 * But very, very, very few speakers of this language are as obsessed with it as I am, so the majority of my edits on Wikipedia involve correcting the language, or the formatting of the text, or the punctuation, or other language-related errors that more creative editors consider trivial but that matter greatly to me.

 * The second most frequent edits for me involve fairness. In life, my obsession with fairness informs my politics, which tends strongly toward socialism. Here, it leads me to try to make articles – and even more the words used in the articles – objective and neutral. NPOV is the single WP foundation I most admire.

 * I remove lots and lots of puffery and manipulative language, because I have a nearly visceral reaction to even hints of them. (I happen to be pretty cynical and misanthropic for a puppy, though, so I am not anywhere near so sensitive to derogatory language, as you saw in my readiness to add it to this article.)

 * It was my obsession with fairness that got me involved in this article on Rod McKuen. To be fully truthful, bits of "Seasons in the Sun" (which I have always hated) started bouncing around annoyingly in my head a few days ago, and I looked to see who wrote it, and here I am.

 * I had never paid much attention to McKuen before. Although I did hate that song, I didn't associate it with him, and so when I got here I was mostly ignorant about him, neither a fan nor a detractor (discovering that he also wrote "If You Go Away" and "Jean", a song I don't hate from a movie I love, were points in his favor). But as soon as I got past the lead section of the article, the folksy, fawning tone in most of the rest of it made me feel sick. I came to this talk page, saw your posts expressing similar sentiments (although much more civilly than I would have), and so here we are.

 * Now that I've got all that out of the way, and now that I see for the first time the possibility or even probability of a real collaboration at last, I must be honest and tell you that I think I've burned myself out as far as Rod McKuen goes. I learned what I came here to learn, and lots more; I made enough of an effort to bring fairness to the article to satisfy that need; and I discover now that I'm just not much interested in going any farther with it.

 * I see now that McKuen, although certainly notable enough to have an article here, really is not a terribly important person, not really worth the kind of intensive treatment I was aiming for in my earlier posts in this section. I understand now why there is practically no reliable source of information on him: if he were significant enough, there would be. It's appropriate to have a relatively short article telling who he is, with less-than-ideal sources; and although his career is in some ways curious, there's nothing about him that requires much study or in-depth analysis.

 * He is remarkable in being a best-selling poet because that is oxymoronic, but he succeeded in it because his poetry is sentimental, unambiguous, unchallenging, easy for a child to grasp in one reading, and wholly unappealing to a lover of real poetry. It is no more poetic than the lyrics of a popular song, and even less poetic than the best songs by other writers.

 * I don't despise him as Keller and many others do, but I see somebody like Danielle Steel as his peer, not somebody like Bob Dylan or even John Lennon or Bruce Springsteen or Carl Sandburg. Writing a lot about how people respond to him and why makes no more sense than treating Steel that way would. Some people like him a lot; many more don't. That's enough.

 * I will give you the link to what I did so far – User:Jim10701/sandbox/Rod McKuen – but it is nowhere near where I thought it would be the last time I wrote about it here. (I don't think I even touched the Criticism section, for example, which I now agree should go back to the way you had it, possibly making your second paragraph a subsection with that heading.) You can check it out and see if any of it looks useful, and then I'll wipe it out in a week or so if I remember to.

 * I will be glad – even eager – to work with you on the article (or any other) in any way you want me to; but I will be doing it more to explore this enticing prospect of collaboration, not because I any longer care about McKuen or this article. It would be for me neither a labor of love nor the acting through of an obsession, but an exercise in collaboration with another person on something he may care more about than I do.
 * --Jim10701 (talk) 06:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Wow - that's a wonderful exposition; I believe I hear in it many of my own frustrations about working on Wikipedia. I really only work on a small number of articles, mostly related to music, film, sports, and history. I've often had to deal with the POV bullies, especially on politically charged issues like folk music and the 19th century Indian wars. I take a certain satisfaction in forcing collaboration through relentless and justified reversions, calls for sources, and constant vigilance on the articles I care about. But I always collaborate - which is fairly easy because I, clearly like you, write better than most of the bullies.

 * I have no especial interest in McKuen either, but if you thought the article was fawning when you came by it - you should have seen it a year or two ago. For folks of my age (61), he was a prominent figure for a while, and I think Keller points that out. There's no rush on fixing this up - as the article stands, someone happening by would get the gist of the man's notability and the disputes surrounding him. I'll take a look at your sandbox tomorrow or soon after, ad when I can I'll see what I can dig up for RS. But I won't do any wholesale reversion of anything other than vandalism, and over time I'm sure we can make this thing presentable. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC) - whose given name is also Jim.

 * How interesting. If your last name is Martin we really do have a lot in common, and if your middle name is Alvin and you were born and raised in Tennessee but escaped, God help us both! Your ability and willingness to duke it out with the illiterate thugs who run Wikipedia amaze me, though. I could not do that, nor would I want to.

 * I'm 63, but for some reason McKuen just sort of flitted around the periphery of my consciousness like a dry leaf on a windy day. I certainly heard of him, but he had no effect on me at all.

 * My interest in music is and always was oddly limited. I loved The Who and Judy Garland and practically nobody else who ever made popular music. I loved Bob Dylan and practically nobody else who ever made folk music or country music or anything like it. I love everything Beethoven ever did but practically no other classical music.

 * I normally think of myself as having no interest in music at all, and I suppose that is true in general. One of the oddest sights in the world for me is people with earphones in their ears all the time. I can't imagine wanting music of any kind pouring in my ears all day – even Judy, who lavishes her extraordinary and selfless gifts directly on me every time I hear her voice and takes me closer to pure joy than anything else in this world, asking nothing in return but that I enjoy myself. The world and particularly her fans badly underestimated her strength and sanity.

 * With the very few people I love who have made music, it seems as if the music is almost incidental to something else I respond to very strongly, something in that person that gets expressed through music but might in somebody else be expressed just as well through some other medium. There's probably a good argument that Dylan isn't really a musician at all but some other kind of artist: not even a poet in the ordinary sense of the word, but something else, something he just is that nobody else is.

 * I have a feeling he would agree with that. His strangely obstinate humility, his inability to define himself, his insistence that he just is who he is and he just does what he does, his refusal to identify with the obnoxious peacock labels like legend and icon that people throw at him all the time and Wikipedians love so dearly, labels that actually would apply to him if they ever applied to anybody, unlike the thousands of mediocrities who get them every day here – in other words, his being the polar opposite of Rod McKuen – appeals to me a lot.

 * I'm supremely comfortable with just letting this McKuen article go and wish it well in its slow and erratic progress toward perfection. I have enjoyed our conversation, and I really do hope you will let me know if you ever want my input on anything. I think it'll be best to go offline, though, since it's pretty clear at this point that WP is irrelevant. Send me an e-mail if you want to sometime and we'll wrestle with whatever we wrestle with outside where the thugs and bullies are afraid to go.
 * --Jim10701 (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Seasons in the Sun
The Terry Jacks article says that Seasons in the Sun was released in 1973, not the late 1960s as stated herein. I'm not changing it because this article's author may know something I don't -- maybe Jacks was performing the song live for several years before recording it, and those performances started in the late 1960s? But it's worth looking into. Gms3591 (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No mention of acting?
There doesn't seem to be any mention of the subject being an actor. Was he? Here is a link to an appearance he made in--of all things!--the mid-fifties TV series The West Point Story. Did he have other acting credits? If so, should they be mentioned/listed? Thanks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFMSmd-uEyM

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rod McKuen. 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/20050914214159/http://wiredforbooks.org/rodmckuen/ to http://wiredforbooks.org/rodmckuen/

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) 17:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Rod1970AM.jpg

Biographical edits
Although there *may* be source for him running away from home at 11, no reference is cited. In addition to that, he is clearly living with his mother Clarice, in Oakland, in the 1950 census at age 16. So I've removed this phrase.Wjhonson (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Slate article
In case anyone wants to use this in the article. Not my department so I'll just leave it here. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Greta Keller, Rod McKuen in Vienna.png

title: Talk:Rod McKuen


text:
Talk:Knight Bachelor

Post nominals
Post nominals: "It is doubtful whether this enjoys official sanction"? So it's not official then... and this assertion should not be here. "Kt" is wrong. The reference is to the order of wear list which summarises which honours may or may not have post nominals. Knights bachelor are not entitled to do so.

 * It doesn't say it's not wrong, it say it's often used, which is correct. Proteus (Talk) 21:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Indeed. I've clarified that and the bit about what women get instead. Also added in an example of someone who is - exceptionally - allowed to use the "Kt" because he got his Knight Bachelor before succeeding to the Baronetcy. I'll see if I can find a picture of the badge and perhaps add to this page a bit - it seems a shame it's not quite as informative as the articles covering the orders. Wiki-Ed 12:59, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The UK College of Arms appears to use Kt. for Knight on all occasions and in all documents under the Earl marshal's and Queen's Warrants. That doesn't change the fact it's not used in any other contextAlci12

 * It's much better now. (I'm glad you removed the nonsense about female Knights Bachelor, or Dames Bachelor, or Dames Spinster, or whatever silly name they'd be called.) There seem to be very few pictures of the Knight Bachelor's badge online, and those there are seem to be copyrighted, which is a problem, but I'm sure there'll be one somewhere if we look hard enough. Proteus (Talk) 15:10, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Picture
The picture added by ESQ24 appears to be the same as the one on www.medals.org.uk. The copyright status needs to be determined or it will have to go... which would be a shame because it's a nice one. Wiki-Ed 13:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

A question
Is it possible that a Knight Bachelor been awarded a KBE or vice versa ? Siyac 18:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No & yes. I can't think of any circumstances or any historic examples where someone with a knighthood has been made a Knight Bachelor. However giving a Knight Bachelor a KBE (or another order) is fairly common as the former is the lowest rung on the ladder and promotions are normal. As a general rule of thumb your get promoted through the various orders both in terms of the ranks in each orders and within the ranking of an order.[All assuming whatever you do qualifies you for multiple orders in terms of their awarding guidelines - ie KCMG is for 'diplomats'] As an example Sir Mike Jackson was awarded the MBE in 1979, the CBE in 1992, the CB in 1996, the KCB in 1998 and more recently was awarded the GCB. The only obvious exceptions are when they run out of things to give! Various wartime generals picked up anything going and in recent times you have had Lord [Seb] Coe getting KBE after already being a peer which is very much a backwards step ;) Assuming a successful 2012 Olympics and old age and he'll probably get his KG. As to your specific example, David Phillips was Knight Batchelor in 1979, Knight Commander, Order of the British Empire (KBE) in 1989 and appointed in 1994 to a Life Peerage as Baron Phillips of Ellesmere. Alci12 15:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Re: Seb Coe - Not exactly a 'backwards step' getting a KBE after being made a peer; the latter was a political appointment (at the time he was chief of staff to the then Leader of the Opposition William Hague), while the former was in recognition for services to sport. He was not made a KG after the v. successful 2012 Olympics but was made a CH instead, somewhat less exclusive but not by a long way. See this list of post-nominal letters if needed. Mattstan (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Can only Britians be Knights?

 * As I understand it any subject of the monarch can be knighted. But for subjects in Commonwealth countries the British government have to get approval of the Commonwealth government before an award can be made and several of the Commonwealth governments (particularly Canada and Australia, not sure about others) now have standing policy to refuse recomendations for honours. A couple of Australians have been knighted in recent years - David Smith, but as KCVO, which is entirely the monarch's personal award and so doesn't go through the government - and Robert May, who probably had British citizenship as well. Timrollpickering 11:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Official list
What is the most reliable source we have for a list of verified Knights Bachelor so we know who to include or exclude at Category:Knights Bachelor?

For example at Paul McCartney the only reference I can see next to "1997: Knighted by Queen Elizabeth II for services to music" is Harry 2002, pp. 226–227, referring to:

Actually I'll need to bring that up because I notice that page 38 says this was 1996.

Bill Harry is certainly a notable person but... is he a neutral source? He has a pretty close relationship with them. I'd rather here it from an uninvolved party. Surely there is an official website affiliated with the royal family which we can rely on to say who is or isn't a knight.

If merely footage of a knighting ceremony qualifies then Michael Coulthard should probably be listed as one according to http://www.wwe.com/videos/michael-cole-talks-about-being-knighted-by-the-queen-of-england-on-raw-raw-s-1-000th-episode-airs-on-july-23

I'm not good with faces... it looks like it could be the queen, not 100% sure though. Michael is a respected journalist and says it is her, so I would go with that interpretation unless we can find a more reliable source saying it wasn't the Queen who knighted him. Ranze (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Knight Bachelor. 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/20140405120144/http://www.debretts.com/forms-address/titles/knight/knight-and-clergy to http://www.debretts.com/forms-address/titles/knight/knight-and-clergy

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Sir Mick Jagger
Jagger is a knight bachelor. I remember reading that, around the time he was elevated that (1) most knights, nowadays, are created within one of the orders of knights, like from the Order of the British Empire; (2) Jagger, however, was made a knight bachelor, because he was too controversial, and being enrolled in one of the knightly orders, would annoy the earlier members, some of whom are quite traditional.

If this could be documented, does it merit coverage, here? Geo Swan (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's rubbish (although it would never surprise me if it was perpetuated by some ignorant journalists in the tabloids). Knight Bachelor is still by far the commonest type of knighthood. The alternative (for those who do not merit another order due to their post), Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire, is actually a fairly unusual honour. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Knight Bachelor. 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/20070819024713/http://www.honours.gov.uk/honours/chivalry.aspx to http://www.honours.gov.uk/honours/chivalry.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050711013704/http://www.debretts.co.uk/ to http://www.debretts.co.uk/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Dupe Ribbon Image as of July 2020
Which of these two should be used? As of 2020-07-17, both are on the article, one in the infobox and one in the Insignia section.

— MrDolomite • Talk 20:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

How many ?
How many gentlemen may call themselves Sir ?51.174.17.218 (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * According to Debrett's, there are today ca. 3,000 living knights and dames in the UK. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Knight Bachelor


text: Category:Government agencies of New Zealand


text:
Chilia branch

The Chilia branch (Brațul Chilia; Кілійське гирло) is one of three main distributary channels of the river Danube that contribute to forming the Danube Delta. Lying at the northernmost area of the delta, the distributary creates a natural border between Romania and Ukraine (see Romania-Ukraine border) and is named after the two towns carrying the same name, located across from one another on both banks: Kiliya, on the northern, Ukrainian bank and Chilia Veche (Old Chilia) on the southern, Romanian bank.

The other two main branches of the Danube are the Sulina branch and the Sfântu Gheorghe branch.

The Chilia branch begins at the Ismail Islet where Danube splits on Chilia branch and Sulina branch and ends near the town of Vylkove where Chilia branch splits further into Ochakove distributary (eastward) and Old Istambul distributary (southward). Chilia branch is 104 km long. The flow at the entrance into the delta is of 6,350 m3/s; the Chilia branch carries between 58 and 60 percent of this flow.

Along the Chilia branch is located the former Ottoman fortress in today's Ukrainian city of Izmail. The fall of Izmail in 1789 led the Ottomans' loss of complete control over the northern Pontic shores (today southern Ukraine) and to the expansion the Russian Empire to this part of the Black Sea, with the continuation of struggles and warring between the Ottoman and Russian Empires.

title: Chilia branch


text:
User talk:Pdb

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

 * First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
 * When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
 * Remember to use a neutral point of view!
 * If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Brilliant prose
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Village pump
 * Boilerplate text

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

ClockworkTroll 21:40, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pdb


text:
Denny

Denny or Dennie may refer to:

People

 * Denny (given name), a list of people named Denny or Dennie
 * Denny (surname), a list of people surnamed Denny or Dennie
 * Denny (hybrid hominin)

Denny

 * Denny, California, a ghost town
 * Denny, Falkirk, a town in Scotland
 * Dennyloanhead, an adjoining village
 * Denny Island, in the Severn Estuary, between England and Wales
 * Denny Island (Canada), British Columbia
 * Denny Triangle, Seattle, a neighborhood in the United States
 * Denny Run, a stream in the U.S. state of Missouri
 * 23257 Denny, an asteroid named after Bob Denny

Dennie

 * W. Dennie Spry Soccer Stadium, a soccer-specific stadium

Denny

 * Denny Abbey, a former abbey in Cambridgeshire, England
 * Denny baronets, three baronetcies
 * Denny Party, American pioneer group
 * Denny's, a large restaurant chain
 * Denny Field (Alabama), former home stadium for the University of Alabama football team
 * Denny Field (Washington), former home grounds for the University of Washington football team
 * William Denny and Brothers, often referred to as "Denny", Scottish shipbuilding firm in business from 1840 to 1963

Dennie

 * Dennie–Morgan fold, a fold in the skin below the lower eyelid
 * Dennie–Marfan syndrome, a syndrome with association to spastic paraplegia of the lower limbs and mental retardation in children with congenital syphilis

title: Denny


text: Category:Polish neurologists

title: Category:Polish neurologists


text:
Top-down cosmology

In theoretical physics, top-down cosmology is a proposal to regard the many possible histories of a given event as having real existence. This idea of multiple histories has been applied to cosmology, in a theoretical interpretation in which the universe has multiple possible cosmologies, and in which reasoning backwards from the current state of the universe to a quantum superposition of possible cosmic histories makes sense. Stephen Hawking has argued that the principles of quantum mechanics forbid a single cosmic history, and has proposed cosmological theories in which the lack of a past boundary condition naturally leads to multiple histories, called the 'no-boundary proposal', the proposed Hartle–Hawking state.

According to Hawking and Thomas Hertog, "The top-down approach we have described leads to a profoundly different view of cosmology, and the relation between cause and effect. Top down cosmology is a framework in which one essentially traces the histories backwards, from a spacelike surface at the present time. The noboundary histories of the universe thus depend on what is being observed, contrary to the usual idea that the universe has a unique, observer independent history."

title: Top-down cosmology


text:
Talk:David Bawden

Comments
H.H. Pope Michael was ordained and consecrated by a bishop with valid orders from the Duarte Costa lineage, and so the quote attributed by "John L. Allen Jr." is fatheaded and nonsensical, besides being incompetent as Allen is no authority at all.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.249.115.244 (talk) 08:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be great if you could give His apostolic lineage, or a link, and the date of His consecration. Perhaps Mr Allen wrote before H.H. was ordained.  The Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church does not recognize most ordinations of the Duarte Costa lineage.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardson mcphillips (talk • contribs) 21:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The information was provided on the page before it was butchered into its present caricature first by a miscreant than by Wikipedians who have locked this page. H.H. Pope Michael was ordained and consecrated by Robert Biarnessen who was consecrated by John Parnell. Whether the "Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church" recognizes or not the ordinations and consecrations of the Duarte Costa lineage is not relevant. 115.249.115.244 (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First, you are replying to a 10 year old comment. Second, the article states, in its current form, "...he had been ordained a priest and then consecrated a bishop on December 11, 2011, by an Independent Catholic episcopus vagans, Bishop Robert Biarnesen of the Duarte-Costa and Old Catholic episcopal lineages." It appears what you want is a dissertation on the actual claim to papacy, like you did in [| This edit] 10 years ago. Your addition to that edit regarding ordination, "He was ordained December 9th, 2011, and consecrated the following day by Bishop Robert Biarnesen, a bishop in the lineage of the Brazilian Duarte Costa" is in the current article, with citations. P37307 (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I feel silly now. I got this edit notification for a photograph request and missed that all together and plowed through to reply to a 10-year-old reply myself. P37307 (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

'antipope'?
the article states that Mr Bawden is considered an antipope, but the definition of antipope at the (Wikipedia) link provided denies it: "An antipope ... is a person who makes a widely accepted claim to be the lawful pope, in opposition to the pope recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. In the past antipopes were typically those supported by a fairly significant faction of cardinals .... Persons who claim to be the pope but have few followers, such as the modern sedevacantist antipopes, are not generally counted as antipopes, and therefore are ignored for regnal numbering." I presume Mr Bawden does not consider himself to be an antipope. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * H.H. Pope Michael I is not an antipope anymore than Innocent II was one. 115.249.115.244 (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In view of this, should David Bawden be listed as a 'modern sedevacantist antipope'? (ArnoldTrotter (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC))

Edit request on 15 June 2012
Would like to update page as David Bawdens website now claims that he has been ordained and consecrated

Rkretowi (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Padlock-dash2.svg Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Requests for page protection.  Mdann52 (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Title change to "Pope Michael"

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

David Bawden → Pope Michael – Please put your reason for moving here. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 03:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC) should the title be "Pope Michael"? clearly this is his most popular name. i don't think many people know him as "David Bawden", and per Article titles. For example, on the page it says to use "Lady Gaga" and not "Stefani Germanotta". it seems to be the same situation here. David Bawden is notable because he claims to be pope with the name Michael. i think the article title should reflect the most common name, which is certainly not David Bawden. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 09:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Difficult question. The comparison with Lady Gaga is not exact, because "Lady Gaga", "Mark Twain", "Elton John", "Marilyn Monroe", etc. are stage names.  Nobody could say to Elton John, "You're not really Elton John!", because he is.  On the other hand, the title "Pope Michael" (as you say) is a title that by its very nature includes a claim to an office that is not recognized by 99.999+% of the planet.

 * It would be different if he took the title "Pope" to signify that he was the leader of a church of twenty people, but he claims to be the rightful pope of a billion Catholics.

 * On the other hand, Wikipedia does list Joshua Abraham Norton, self-proclaimed "Emperor of the United States", under the title Emperor Norton. That's a very close analogy.  And many, many people recognize the name "Emperor Norton", even if they can only identify it as referring to "that crazy guy from San Francisco".

 * So I would support a move of this page to Pope Michael if you can substantiate your claim that more people (or, if you prefer, more Americans, or if you prefer, more reliable non-Wiki sources) recognize the name "Pope Michael" than those who recognize the name "David Bawden". I myself am familiar with both names, but as you pointed out, we need to follow the WP:COMMONNAME policy, which says we should "use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". — Lawrence King ( talk ) 15:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

 * The hour-long documentary produced by independent filmmakers uses the term "Pope Michael". This story by Sarah Henning also uses the term "Pope Michael" as its main term, although it does mention "David Bawden". What appears to be his personal facebook does use the name "David Bawden", but that's a primary source anyway. This website refers to him as "David Bawden, better known as Pope Michael I", but I'm not sure it's a reliable source. Most of the media coverage that came up on Google mentioned both names, but used "Pope Michael" as the primary story name. I could not find any reliable sources which used the term "David Bawden", and I have not found any conclusive data that says that more people/sources use "Pope Michael", but it does seem to be the case. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 18:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems persuasive to me. If you like, we could wait a day or two to see if anyone else chimes in, but this does seem to justify an article that begins with the words Pope Michael.
 * There are, of course, two more questions to answer. First, should the page title refer to Pope Michael or Pope Michael I?  Folks have debated this question in other settings, but my impression is that the common Western convention is to omit "I" until there's a "II".  In the East, this rule might not apply.  In the West, John Paul I was the only pope to use the number "I" during his own lifetime.
 * The second question is this: Currently, both Pope Michael and Pope Michael I are disambiguation pages, since there have been several Coptic Pope Michaels.  If we were to actually give David Bawden the unadorned Pope Michael page, we would have to create a Pope Michael (disambiguation) page as well.  However, in my opinion, Bawden's fame, although real, is primarily based on the fact that most Americans find him funny (as in your Eye-of-the-Tiber link), and so I don't think it's realistic to claim he's more notable than an actual Coptic Pope who reigned for 24 years in the 8th century.  So what would you say to keeping the Pope Michael article as a disambiguoation page, and moving Bawden to, say, Pope Michael (David Bawden) or Pope Michael I (David Bawden) or Pope Michael (conclavist) or something like that? — Lawrence King ( talk ) 20:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. Good! But I do think we should wait a day, in the name of "consensus", for any last comments.
 * 2. I think that the title should be "Pope Michael", not "Pope Michael I", since he is more commonly referred to as "Pope Michael" and the whole point of the namechange is to conform to the common name policy.
 * 3. I agree that he is not, at least from a scholarly, religious, or historical point-of-view, more notable than the Coptic pope. However, as you mentioned, the Coptic pope reigned in the 700s, whereas the American conclavist is a contemporary figure. I think it's fair to say that he is more notable to the average person than the Coptic pope of the 700s (the Coptic gets about 7 pageviews per day, while the American gets about 60). Therefore, I actually do think that we should "bestow" the Pope Michael page upon David Bawden, and create a new Pope Michael (disambiguation) page. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 21:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Strong Oppose per Five pillars #1 & 2. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Pope is a very specific title that can not just be taken by anyone who wants to call themself pope. There have been others like this too, and there is no reason for an encyclopedia to pretend this. "elected by 6 people to be pope" "30 followers" Why do they even have an article? Apteva (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Unless I get my own article titled "Dalek Supreme Dominus Vobisdu, Emperor of the Known Universe etc., etc." Can you imagine what the Napoleon disambig page would look like if we mentioned every silly claimant? Nor does it belong on the Pope Michael disambig page, or mentioned in parentheses. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: There is a big difference between recognizing him under the name Pope Michael "as-that-guy-who-claims-to-be-pope", and recognizing him "as-the-same-guy-whom-a-billion-Catholics-accept-as-their-pope". Ideally, "Pope Michael" should redirect to page "David Bawden" (though I too wonder why Bawden is notable enough for a page). But we've got six legitimate Coptic Popes of that name to disambiguate already, and there's just a cognitive dissonance in attaching Bawden's name to that list. Somehow, it's in the interest of WP to separate fantasy from reality, even when we report on both. While we're at it, I'd say it's a similar mistake to have that page "Emperor Norton", which instead should automatically redirect to page "Joshua Abraham Norton". That allows WP browsers the convenience of finding what they're looking for directly, but without WP's subscription to the fantasy. Evenssteven (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: David Bawden probably fails to meet the criteria for notability and inclusion in Wikipedia (See the first of the five pillars and WP:NOTABILITY). For the purposes of this discussion, assuming he were to qualify as notable, the appeal to WP:COMMONNAME is weak in that basically this lays down guidelines as to the most suitable version of an individual's name to use for an article title (e.g. Bill Clinton rather than William Clinton)or famous "stage name" as opposed to what is found on an artist's birth-certificate.  However, "Pope Michael" is not a simple name but a title or style and in this case implies a claim which is recognised by a tiny handful of people.  Objectively (see the second of the five pillars the individual who is the subject of the article is "David Bawden" and people searching for "Pope Michael" should be redirected to that page.  This principle might complicate some disambiguation pages but neither of the two in question here should cause any difficulty. Jpacobb (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * From what everyone has said, it seems that the current disambiguation pages Pope Michael and Pope Michael I are probably acceptable to most of you? — Lawrence King ( talk ) 16:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to not nominate both for deletion at WP:RfD as misleading. If this page was deleted though, the entries there for this page could also be removed. Not all six billion people on the planet have something somewhere about them, even those with as many as thirty close friends or admirers is highly unlikely to warrant any mention anywhere. Apteva (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would strongly oppose such a deletion. Pope Michael disambiguates seven different individuals, and regardless of what you feel about David Bawden, the other six individuals are indisputably notable. — Lawrence King ( talk ) 03:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Oppose moving/renaming this page to "Pope Michael", but strong keep for the page under its current name. In my comments above I had tentatively supported the move/rename, but the arguments from the folks above have persuaded me otherwise.  However, two of the voters above raised the possibility of deleting the David Bawden page entirely.  In this case, I think a strong argument exists for keeping it.  If Dominus Vobisdu were to give himself the awesome title he proposed, and then he was mentioned in academic books and national newspapers for twenty-three years (and counting), I most certainly would support him having an article on Wikipedia -- albeit under his real name.   Of course, one can argue that press coverage alone doesn't prove notability, but Bawden is an example of conclavism, a very tiny movement within the quasi-Catholic world which nevertheless has theological and academic ramifications.  Conclavism is the most extreme version of traditionalism -- more extreme than the Society of St. Pius X, sedeprivationism, and sedevacantism -- but it's nonetheless a natural progression from one to the next.  There are always people who interpret their opponents as maximally extreme (conservatives who think all liberals are communists, people who think all environmentalists are Earth-Firsters, etc.), and in the same way there are Catholic ecclesiologists who tend to equate all traditionalists with conclavism.  (This is my explanation of why there has been so much attention given to them -- but even if this explanation is wrong, the attention they get is a fact nonetheless.) — Lawrence King ( talk ) 03:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Now I no longer wonder why the page exists. I'm afraid I still have my personal distaste for attention-getting devices, and for the fact that they get attention. Imo, "theological and academic ramifications" are basically null: too tiny a movement, no notable content. There's a difference between notability and notoriety, and no need to chase the merely notorious. Where I draw the line is just my opinion, but there you have it. Evenssteven (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose While neutral reliable sources mention the "Pope Michael" bit, usually in quotes, they end up referring to him as "Bawden" more often than "Pope Michael." First Light (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Given the existence of the Coptic pope, or is it popes?, of the same name, who are I imagine more notable than the current claimant. I can see no particular reason for the deletion of the article, and I can also see him being included in a disambiguation page. But I am far from convinced that this individual is the person most frequently referred to as "Pope Michael". John Carter (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Pope Michael is a disambiguation page, and overwriting it with this article is a bad idea -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

the name he uses
In light of Wiki policy that has appeared around Caitlyn Jenner, which seems to be that he has the right to be called Caitlyn Jenner in Wiki simply because he is alive and he chooses to be called that, what reason would we have to call David Bawden anything other than what he chooses to be called? I hope there is a good reason, because I disagree with the Wiki policy with regards to Bruce Jenner, but there it is. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You already know the answer but for other people reading this, the answer is in WP:MOS:IDENTITY: In this case we "should use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources". -- haminoon  ( talk ) 01:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

This comment on a talk page does not conflict with the Wiki policy cited by Haminoon, in particular "The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited." First, I did not "edit", I added a comment on a talk page. Second, the article that the talk page is related to is not a pge regarding transgender issues". I suggest that instead of censoring talk pages, Haminoon make his complaint here. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you use he/his for everyone? -- haminoon  ( talk ) 01:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * a) I appreciate the fact that you commented here instead of deleting my post. b) Thanks, I see that the MOS states what you quote, and then provides an exception for language regarding gender identity. I had not read that far in the MOS when I posted. c) Now that the talk page on Caitlyn Jenner clearly places the talk page under the rules of the MOS, I would of course respect those rules if I were to post there again, regardless of what I think of those rules. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

He has also used the name "Michael Hennessy" as his non-pope name, at least in his interview with Liz and Christian. ORHN (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That interview is pretty obviously a parody or hoax, as "Hennessy" sounds nothing like Bawden in voice or manner. --Finngall talk  00:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Notability zero
In what conceivable way is this guy notable? There’d be dozens, hundreds or thousands of people who firmly believe that they’re Albert Einstein, the Queen of England, the reincarnation of Napoleon, or whatever. Some of those people would undoubtedly have dozens, hundreds or thousands of followers. Should all those people get a page as well? TC 14:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.124.105.16 (talk)
 * We make no judgement on the validity of his claim to the papacy. He is notable (in Wikipedia's sense of the term) because multiple independent reliable sources have written about him and that claim.  Obviously, far fewer than the other guy in Rome, but enough to meet the standards here.  --Finngall talk  16:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox
The honorifics, papal name & the papal reign, should all be deleted from the infobox per WP:DUE & WP:WEIGHT. Come on, he's got only a tiny handful of followers. This isn't anything close to the Avignon & Pisan anti-popes of the Western Schism 1378 to 1417. PS - I can promise you, an RM to have his article renamed Pope Michael or Anti-pope Michael, would never pass. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * David Allen Bawden (Pope Michael I).jpg

Book reference by Allen
@Genericusername57: you recently added a reference to a book on papal conclaves by John L. Allen, Jr. and you specified pp. 1-3. I could not verify that Allen's book supports any statement in the article, because pp. 1-3 do not mention him. I am unable to access the full text for free; can you supply quotes, please? The statements regard Bawden's birth and the validity or liceity of Bawden's holy orders. Elizium23 (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Since I was unable to find a non-self-published source on Bawden's canonical status or validity of his ordination, I've written that into the article. The fact that I have found no sources is unsourced... but that's the point; if anyone finds a source from a Catholic canonist who weighs in, then you're welcome to update that statement and the others related to it. Elizium23 (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dcheney: is this in your orbit at all? I mean, it'd be nice if the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas put out an advisory or decree at some point? Elizium23 (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that he claimed he found someone to "consecrate" him many years after his "election". I'm not aware of it being recognized by anybody. I'll keep an eye out in the local Catholic paper to see if there is any mention of his death. Dcheney (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The Allen book covers Bawden in the preface. The information regarding holy orders is on page 3: . The 2005 Brisendine source cited in the article states:  Please note that both sources predate Bawden's 2011 claims. (It occurs to me now that "never" is misleading; I meant "not at any time before claiming the papacy".)Allen does not mention the date or location of Bawden's birth. I previously cited Allen for the names of Bawden's parents, but removed the reference when I noticed that Allen had erroneously spelled "Kennett" as "Kenneth". Several other sources confirm the proper spelling. Cheers, gnu 57  01:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Anything on a possible succession?
Is there going to be another conclave? 82.36.70.45 (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

 * A conclave was held on July 29, 2023 and Rogelio Del Rosario Martinez (Michael II) was elected as his successor. Skyline2023 (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:David Bawden


text: User talk:68.43.102.183

title: User talk:68.43.102.183


text:
Talk:Conclavists

from VfD:

This seems questionable to me. conclavists antipope gets 23 google hits. It all seems to be somewhat fringe, fx the linked Pope Linus II gets 64 google hits (My name get 1550). Thue | talk 21:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * "Conclavist" redirects to Papal election; merge and redirect there. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:53, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, 1) title should be "Conclavism", 2) article talks about subset of Conclavists, 3) article does not say what conclavists are (see Sedevacantism for definition and the difference between Sedevacantism and Conclavism) Also, there needs to be a disamb between Conclavists as those who vote for the next pope, versus those who have set up alternate popes.  At best, redirect. -Vina 23:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Conclavists are any of the members of the Conclave. Note that the Conclave is not just Roman Catholic.  The Church of England also has and has had a Conclave (see Bangorian Controversy, e.g.), and this material is off by a big stretch.  Specializing such a general term for a special action group is very wrong. Geogre 01:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Harder to become admin on Wikipedia than become a pope in these circles. --Improv 04:20, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article should be merged with sedevacntism

 * Merge with Sedevacantism, then redirect to papal election.   — Gwalla | Talk 23:30, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

title: Talk:Conclavists


title: User:Walt16


text:
Rhizobiaceae

The Rhizobiaceae is a family of Pseudomonadota comprising multiple subgroups that enhance and hinder plant development. Some bacteria found in the family are used for plant nutrition and collectively make up the rhizobia. Other bacteria such as Agrobacterium tumefaciens and Rhizobium rhizogenes severely alter the development of plants in their ability to induce crown galls or hairy roots, respectively. The family has been of an interest to scientists for centuries in their ability to associate with plants and modify plant development. The Rhizobiaceae are, like all Pseudomonadota, Gram-negative. They are aerobic, and the cells are usually rod-shaped. Many species of the Rhizobiaceae are diazotrophs which are able to fix nitrogen and are symbiotic with plant roots.

Genera
Rhizobiaceae comprises the following genera:

 * Agrobacterium Conn 1942 (Approved Lists 1980)
 * Allorhizobium de Lajudie et al. 1998
 * Ciceribacter Kathiravan et al. 2013

 * Endobacterium Menéndez et al. 2021
 * Ensifer Casida 1982
 * Gellertiella Tóth et al. 2017
 * Georhizobium Cao et al. 2020
 * Hoeflea Peix et al. 2005
 * Lentilitoribacter Park et al. 2013
 * Liberibacter Fagen et al. 2014
 * Martelella Rivas et al. 2005
 * Mycoplana Gray and Thornton 1928 (Approved Lists 1980)
 * "Neopararhizobium" Hördt et al. 2020
 * Neorhizobium Mousavi et al. 2015
 * "Onobrychidicola" Ashrafi et al. 2022
 * Pararhizobium Mousavi et al. 2016
 * Peteryoungia Rahi et al. 2021
 * Pseudorhizobium Kimes et al. 2017
 * Rhizobium Frank 1889 (Approved Lists 1980)
 * Shinella An et al. 2006
 * Sinorhizobium Chen et al. 1988
 * Xaviernesmea Kuzmanović et al. 2022

Phylogeny
The currently accepted taxonomy is based on the List of Prokaryotic names with Standing in Nomenclature (LPSN). The phylogeny is based on whole-genome analysis.

title: Rhizobiaceae


text:
Talk:National parks of England and Wales

Ready for FAC nomination?
I am quite proud of how this page has expanded this week. I would like to nominate it as a Featured article candidate next week. Can anyone see any obvious holes or glaring deficiencies? -- ALoan (Talk)
 * It's pretty good. The map is a very nice touch. I would say it's a good candidate now; but if I had to think of more to put on it I'd also add a bit more on user conflicts (e.g. Windermere powerboat story); and on the private ownership of the land - most people unfamiliar with the system have much trouble understanding why UK NPs are not owned by the government. I might get down to some of that myself, actually. I also had a look at National parks of Scotland. It's thin and very POV - I changed about half of it but more work is needed. Naturenet 08:34, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps National parks of Scotland should be proposed on WP:UKCOTW. If you are going to add something soon, I'll wait until you finish before proposing on WP:FAC. -- ALoan (Talk)
 * Ok, I'm done now. Naturenet 21:39, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Excellent - thanks. Anyone else? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Just to let people know, I've also posted on Peer review. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, a further improvement could be a section on how the conflict are resolved as many will be particular to just English and Welsh NAtional parks. ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.154.205 (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

List of national parks
I think the 'List of national parks' should be promoted higher up the page, perhaps as the second section of the article. I just surfed onto this page, and was expecting to see the list more prominently (if only so I could carry on surfing) -- Nojer2 23:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree. I think that visually, the list is not the ideal thing to have in the main body of the article. Anyway, surely the contents box points you to it anyway? Naturenet 08:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I guess it depends whether someone expects to use this page as a proper article, or as a linking list to hop to other national parks. My expectation was that it would have a prominent list with links to the other national parks. Surely there's not much point going into detail about the history of national parks, before you've even mentioned which places are national parks. Anyway I can see that there's also been considerable effort to develope this as an article about National Parks in general, and I can see what you mean about the list being a bit too visually imposing for the top of the article, what with all those additional stats. -- Nojer2 11:32, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I've added an internal link to National parks of England and Wales at the end of the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead, which mentions how many there are. Given that this is not too far above the TOC anyway, the link may be superfluous - does anyone have strong views? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the list the Broads are marked with a ǂ sign but I can see no indication of what this signifies. Could someone in the know add a key to this sign, or remove it, which ever is more appropriate? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.198.250 (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wilderness Areas subhead
I note that the 'Untamed and Dangerous?' subhead has changed to 'Wilderness Areas'. I think the point is that these areas are not wilderness areas, and haven't been since prehistoric times. I preferred the previous heading, which emphasised the popular misconception about wild British landscapes. Any views? Naturenet 13:59, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * How about Untamed countryside?, which is closer to the quoted text (who from, by the way?) -- ALoan (Talk) 14:12, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, I like your subhead much better - and I've found a quote! Naturenet 11:25, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Peer review
(Comments moved from Peer review)

National parks of England and Wales
This was the WP:UKCOTW last week. I'm thinking of nominating it in WP:FAC later this week, so I'd be grateful for any comments (particularly from non-UK people, in case something is missing). -- ALoan (Talk) 20:15, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * (1) The introduction contains the sentence "Controversy over recreational activities in national parks is not unknown: for example, the proposed ban of waterskiing on Windermere" and then just stops. Don't leave the reader dangling like that: explain or omit! (2) "People have lived in the areas now designated as national parks for more than 5,000 years" is a rather weak claim. Say something significant about early habitation or cut. (3) "what is known as a national park in Britain is a very different designation to the original American concept." What is the difference (apart from one being a "designation" and the other a "concept", that is)? (4) The "conflicts" section is rather general. Can you find and discuss specific examples? (The Windermere waterskiing ban could go in here.) Gdr 01:04, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for that. I hope I have addressed your comments. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:03, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Wilderness Areas subhead: I note that the 'Untamed and Dangerous?' subhead has changed to 'Wilderness Areas' . I think the point is that these areas are not wilderness areas, and haven't been since prehistoric times. I preferred the previous heading, which emphasised the popular misconception about wild British landscapes. Any views? Naturenet 14:02, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Better? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:20, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I'd like to see a sentence added at the very start of the lead explaining roughly what a British national park is. I know that this is covered in the artilce, but currently the reader finds out how many there are before they know just what the article is talking about. Also, could the references be explicitly stated in a References section? Overall a nice read. Filiocht 14:19, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've edited the lead again.  The references were largely the external links.  I'll look at them again. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:20, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * It's pretty good. The section explaining the difference in the British park system vs. the American and others could stand to be in the intro since it seems unique, or at least not lost in the history where it is at. A few highly British colloquialisms are in the article.  Any that not all English speakers would know need to be explained or made a bit more neutral. An example would be "rich incomer's".  What is that? Also I've never heard of rights of way being used quite that way. - Taxman 22:34, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've edited the lead again.  I think the meaning of incomer is pretty clear - a someone who is not local who comes in from elsewhere - and I can't think of a synonym right now, but I'd be happy if anyone else can think of a more appropriate expression.  Right of way has two main meanings in the UK - the right to proceed at a junction rather than giving way, and a path/road/etc that you either have a private right to use, or which is open to public use - both meanings are referred to in right of way.  -- ALoan (Talk) 11:04, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I like this a lot now, the lead is good and it's a really informative read. I had to guess at 'incomer' (in Ireland we say 'blow-in') but cannot suggest a simple alternative. As for 'right of way', TINA, as Madam T used to say. Ready to go to WP:FAC, IMHO. Filiocht 11:32, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd like to leave it on Peer Review until tomorrow, if you don't mind, in case there are any other preliminary comments.  While you are reading my articles, why not look at Geography of the United Kingdom, which is not as good as this.  I'll add it at the top. -- ALoan (Talk)

New template for National parks and AONBs in the UK
Hi

I have created this new template for National parks and AONBs in the UK and would appreciate comments/edits before it goes onto the pages. Thanks Andeggs 23:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Funnily enough I was thinking only a day or two ago that there ought to be a navigation box for AONBs. However, this all-in-one template is rather huge, and I think will be too unwieldly and confusing at the end of a short article on a minor AONB or NSA. We already have a Template:National Parks of England and Wales which does its job perfectly well, so why not create separate navigation boxes for, say, AONBs in England, AONBs in Wales (these two could possibly be combined), AONBs in Northern Ireland and National Scenic Areas? That would also eliminate the confusion of apparently applying the designation "Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty" to Scotland.

 * The one flaw in that scheme is that there aren't enough national parks in Scotland and Northern Ireland to justify their own navigation boxes (especially so in NI!), so the best thing might be to move the current NP box to Template:National Parks of the United Kingdom and add the remaining three. I prefer the design of the new box, so I suggest applying that to the NP box for consistency. --Blisco 19:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes it is rather large isn't it. I tried to get the show/hide thing going but couldn't quite figure it out. I think it's a shame to needlessly split up the UK countries - most articles cover the UK as a whole. Perhaps we should have seperate AONB and NP templates but then won't someone looking at an AONB page be interested in an NP page? Andeggs 20:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Here's a new effort for English articles. It shows English AONBs and UK-wide national parks - a good compromise? The other countries would then have their own equivalent versions. What are your thoughts? Andeggs 08:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

 * OK so here are some new versions, whatdyathink?
 * Template:Conservation_designations_in_England
 * Template:Conservation_designations_in_Wales
 * Template:Conservation_designations_in_Scotland
 * Template:Conservation_designations_in_Northern_Ireland
 * Andeggs 22:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Are Loch Lomond, the Trossachs and the Cairngorms still NSAs now that the two Scottish national parks exist? Also, is it necessary to include all the national parks on each template, rather than just those from the relevant country?  But otherwise, I like them. — ras52 14:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 * … Actually, given the number of AONBs/NSAs in each country, I think separate AONB/NSA and NP templates would be visually better than the current combined ones. Yes, it means that someone viewing a NP page won't find out about the AONBs/NSAs, and vice versa, but is that too much of a problem. — ras52 14:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 * How about a clarification that the Broads are not a National Park per se but associatd with them? GraemeLeggett 14:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that it makes sense to add the AONBs to the box for the national parks - there are so many of the former that the latter get a bit swamped. I think it would be best of have one template for all of the national parts of the UK, and separate boxes for AONBs for each nation. I also agree that it makes sense to use the same format for all of them. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 * OK, fair enough - seem to have been outvoted here. Here are the revised versions:
 * Template:National_parks_in_the_UK
 * Template:AONBs in England
 * Template:AONBs in Wales
 * Template:NSAs in Scotland
 * Template:AONBs in Northern_Ireland

Need for inline citations & various templates
I've started looking at this page as I've been editing Exmoor trying to get it up to GA & was looking for ideas. I'm amazed that this is still a FA with no inline citations to verify the information given, which may not have been required when it became an FA in 2004 but is now. The list of references given is really External links as it's not clear which bit of information comes from which source. I'm happy to do some of the work on improving this if others are willing to help - otherwise would it be best to put it up for Featured article review on the grounds that it fails 1(c) of the Featured article criteria which says "that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate." Putting it up for FAR may get a wider audience & more people to work on it.

Also can anyone advise on the "correct" National Parks Template I see this was discussed a year ago but has it moved on? - on Exmoor we have National_parks_in_the_UK but on South Downs I see National_Parks_of_England_and_Wales wouldn't it be best to be consistent? I've also noticed that the title bar in the template that is on Exmoor & most of the others points to National park rather than National parks of England and Wales - is this deliberate?— Rod talk 21:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Would it be worth having a section in the infoboxes/geoboxes of each of the UK National Parks for a National Park Authority logo? Such as Cornwall does for the Cornwall Council logo? Again, these can probably be obtained as low-res images from various park authority/governmental websites and used as within the fair use policy (WP:RAT). Zangar (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Total Square Miles
Hi, there is something wrong with the National Parks area figures in km - a wrong algorithm is being used. One mile equals 1,6km. Please double check these figures and correct. Best regards, KL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krzylig (talk • contribs) 22:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The total square miles taken up by National Parks pre-South Downs is 5,645, not 5,648. After The South Downs officially becomes a National Park, the total will be 6,279, not 6,280. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.29.238 (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you got a source for the figures? Keith D (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on National parks of England and Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090403073616/http://www.defra.gov.uk:80/news/latest/2009/country-0331.htm to http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/latest/2009/country-0331.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on National parks of England and Wales. 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/20080228002224/http://www.exmoor-nationalpark.gov.uk/filex_01.pdf to http://www.exmoor-nationalpark.gov.uk/filex_01.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070915022355/http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/learningabout/faqs.htm to http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/learningabout/faqs.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010064743/http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/learningabout/history.htm to http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/learningabout/history.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120719195120/http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/learningabout/whatisanationalpark/history.htm to http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/learningabout/whatisanationalpark/history.htm

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) 13:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National parks of England and Wales. 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/20080905082742/http://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/index/aboutus/frequently_asked_questions/faq-designation.htm to http://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/index/aboutus/frequently_asked_questions/faq-designation.htm

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) 06:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on National parks of England and Wales. 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/20080530101439/http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/tourism.pdf to http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/tourism.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041106093150/http://www.anpa.gov.uk/ to http://www.anpa.gov.uk/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060303232651/http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/issues/landscap/natparks/index.htm to http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/issues/landscap/natparks/index.htm

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) 13:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Mention of Broads in the lede
I've added a couple of lines at this point since, though it's mentioned further down in the article it's appropriate to recognise in the lede that the set up for the Broads National Park is different. Anyone just reading the start of the article would go off with an incorrect understanding.

On an unconnected note the current text states that 'recreation and tourism bring visitors and funds into the parks, to sustain their conservation efforts and support the local population through jobs and businesses'. The bit about sustaining their conservation efforts gives me cause for concern because for the most part, it is not funds from visitors that goes towards conservation work but rather it is grants direct from government and from other public and quasi-public funds that do so, though clearly the work of the NT and others is supported by visitor donations but that's true across the piece and not just in NPs. Could do with re-crafting, and referencing. cheers Geopersona (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

New map please
In common with other pages dealing with NPs in the UK, the map is out of date and does not reflect the extensions to the Lakes and Dales in recent years. In any case the boundaries of both Snowdonia and the Brecon Beacons are incorrect. Anybody able to fix this? thanks Geopersona (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Saving merge discussion
Per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Former_featured_articles&oldid=1057286678#Deleted_FAs? this discussion at FFA], noting the merge discussion here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


text:
Music of Palau

The music of Palau finds its heritage in Micronesia, but it has been supplemented with influences from the United States and Western Europe, as well as Japan.

The government department of the Republic of Palau and Director of the Bureau of Arts and Culture are in charge of developing and implementing cultural policies is the Ministry of Community and Cultural Affairs. "Belau rekid", the national anthem of Palau, was written by Ymesei O. Ezekiel, and has been the anthem since 1980.

There are no intellectual property restrictions in Palau.

The modern Palauan pop music scene began in the mid-1980s. The country recorded popular sound includes element of Japanese music, legacy of a period of Japanese domination. The American influence can be heard in a distinctly Palauan form of country music. Popular performers include IN-X-ES, whose "Mousubes" was a major commercial success in 1999.

title: Music of Palau


text: Category:Polish cardiologists

title: Category:Polish cardiologists


text:
Category:Urdu-language poets

Poets who write predominantly in the Urdu language.

title: Category:Urdu-language poets