text:
Talk:Copenhagen Consensus

[Untitled]
Someone might add content to this page from

Criticism on climate change
Re climate change measures being rated 'poor', I've deleted the words 'however this is only a relative measure; it still had a net positive benefit over costs' - if I recall rightly from reading the conference papers I don't think this is correct - at most discount rates there was no net benefit. Ben Finn 16:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The Clime paper gets a B/C ratio of 2:1 for optimal carbon; 1.7:1 for Kyoto & 3+:1 for value-at-risk.: see http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=165, first link William M. Connolley 17:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

we shall block the ip adress that modifies this article all the time

 * POV Statements like "This is seen by the green that, they are anti environment, though the economics as a dicipline, never take such stance" belong, if anywhere, in a criticisms section for an article such as Green Economics. It's not appropriate to include your own arguments as a response to criticisms reported in the article. If you can find published responses, by all means include them.JQ 06:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism on discount rates
I've deleted a criticism on discount rates, moved from the Lomborg article because it's invalid (the discount rate is not equal to the rate of growth of income) and also appears to be Original Research. There is probably room, though, for more discussion of the dispute between Cline (propponent for the GW measures) and the panel members over discount rates, which was a major factor in the negative evaluation of GW measures and contributed to suspicions of a setup by Lomborg. JQ 22:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"In addition, the members of the panel, selected by Lomborg, were seen as a likeminded group of free-market economists, not likely to be supportive of government intervention to protect the environment. To deflect this likely criticism, the organizers convened a parallel panel of young people to hear the arguments presented in the challenge papers and by the discussants, and to give their own list of recommendations (which was largely aligned with the experts' ranking)."

Any information on the sample of these young people? I hope they weren't all similar as well. In other cases this has been just US college/university students. That is a limited group. There are still many poor youth who do not attend college/university, considering the US's unusually high poverty and dropout rates for many groups within the population as a whole.

I looked for it in the linked readings and could not find mention. Does anyone know?

 * I read in Lomborg's book Global Crises, Global Solutions about the conference, that the students were (deliberately) drawn from many countries, particularly developing countries. I don't recall if they were economics students or from multiple disciplines. Ben Finn 17:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Who said what
I deleted all unsourced criticism. Use of weasle words, "some criticised" or peakok word "widely criticised" are against the guideline. Plus "Sachs 2004" is not an acceptable level of reference. Need full name and proper title name of the reference source. Vapour

 * This is bad practice. Unsourced claims should be noted with a cite tag, not deleted. To delete a sourced criticism because the reference is inadequate is very poor, particularly when the cited reference is given in full at the bottom of the article. In any case, I've now added several cites, so the article has been improved. JQ 23:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"The Copenhagen Consensus project has been widely criticised. " Typical use of peacock terms. Likely effect is to discredit the project in the eyes of the readers. Vapour

I don't have objection about referencing Jeffery Sach. Problem is that his reference is used to include what appear to be personal and unsourced criticism of the project. Please limit the reference to Jeffery Sach's opinion. "So some economist criticised, including Sach" is not kosher. Please restore it with "Jeffery Sach criticised the project for such and such reason". That assume that you read his writing. Lastly, you cannot complain if someone delete unsourced claim. Please read verification policy. Vapour

"Lomborg had argued in his controversial book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, that resources allocated to mitigating global warming would be better spent on improving water quality and sanitation, and was therefore seen as having prejudged the issues." Original article do not make direct allegation that that the project is prejudged because of Lomborg. Rather it implied. However, it contain claim by the guy that CBA is a junk science. So I restore it in this context. Vapour

I'm very sceptical of J Sachs reference. Though the uncertaintity of economic modelling is voiced by all economist, it is highly unlikely that any economist would disown CBA. Similar analogy can be seen by the climatologist and the climate modelling. Both economists and climatologists accept that model contain uncertaintity. But neither would claim that attempt at estimation is pointless. After all, the economics is about modeling and analysis. I highly suspect that the J Sachs's opinion is taken out of context. Please provide actual quote from Sachs. I leave Sachs for a while. Vapour

 * I've added direct quotes from Sachs. The article is readily available in libraries, so statements like "I highly suspect that the J Sachs's opinion is taken out of context" are pointless as well as unhelpful. Also, your edits are ungrammatical and badly spelt. Please take the trouble to put your text through a spelling/grammar checker before making edits to text that is currently in good shape. It's unfair to expect other editors to fix your errors. JQ 13:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The article before i edited it made it looks like Sachs, an economist himself, is disowning CBA. I simply find it hard to believe that a professiona economist would do something like that. Now the edit make it clear that Sachs criticisms are centered around the speclaities of the panellist as well as the context of the question which the panellists are asked (50 billion fund issue). This I can understand.  It is a green activist (and non economist), Tim Burke, who is claiming that CBA is a junk economics. Well, it is quite funny that members of the right calling climate modelling a "junk science" while one member from the left is calling economic modelling a "junk economics".  I delted the claim attributed to Q that the panell consisted of free marketieer are unlikely to support government intervention to the environmental issue. I run "find" function but could not find quote from the reference. Q does claim that these panellist are unlikely to support Kyoto. This is not same as blaket rejection to government intervention. I would say almost all economist who specialise in the public choise theory, in which the cost benefit analysis is a branch of, would support the energy tax because it is such an efficient government intervention. The entire premiss of the cost benefit analysis is that different government intervention have different overall benefit/cost. To claim that economist who advocate free trade are against the government intervention is being ignorance of the subject.  Vapour

Trade Liberalisation
I think most people agree that the project view on the climate policies is the main focus of the controversy. While the benefit of the trade liberalisation is contested, this is done elsewhere. I edited the section to reflect this relevance. Vapour

O.K. I deleted the mention of trade liberalisation. Though I agree that the issue of trade liberalisation is highly contested, this happened outsid of this project. The controversy of the project was solely about it's ranking of climate change. So far, no specific criticism of the project in regard to the trade liberalisation is cited. Moreover, given the size of the Climate controversy, the trade liberalisation is somewhat out of place. I propose that the section of the title should be changed to "Climate Change". If someone want to set up the separate section titled "Trade liberalisation", fine. Just that, at this point, there isn't a (sourced) content in this topic. Vapour

"climate change was set up to fail"
This paragraph has bit of doggy spining. Firstly, Mendelsohn say "climate change was set up to fail". Then Lomborg follow this by accepting that "more modest proposals (such as a small carbon tax or investments in research) would have ranked higher on the list." Firstly, investment in research is not part of the project. So what the research investment doing. Secondly,if Lomborg responded to the panellist critcism, the reference is clealy about high requirement (either stopping or reversing the climate change). In such case, the discount rate has very little to do with this. The requirement aspect would produce the policy's cost/benefit for each year while discount rate deal with how each year's result should be calculated (discounted) for the present value. I will separate the part about discount rate unless someone give better reference to explain this confusion. Vapour

I've read mendelsohn's paper. His critics of the project is based on premise that project's model adopt ridiculously low (in fact, one actually assume zero discount rate). And this actually inflate the expected damage caused from global warming. Moreover, he argue that the project's literature survey is based on slightly dated studies and newer studies, according to Mendelsohn, indicate significantly lower damge from the global warming. His argument is that the damage from the global warming is lower, hence the policy to conbat it can be less sever. This in turn make the cost of implimenting carbon tax to be significantly less, which in turn raise the ranking of the policy. The current state of this article is highly misleading. Vapour

 * I've reverted the last lot of changes, which contained the claim that little attention had been paid to cost-benefit analysis of climate change before Lomborg. This claim is unsourced, incorrect and out of place in a section on criticism. eqally importantly, your edits remain ungrammatical and badly spelt, greatly detracting from the quality standards of Wikipedia.
 * The para above, beginning "This paragraph has bit of doggy spining." is an extreme example of the problem I'm complaining about. How is anyone supposed to respond to this, or to the rest of the para? I repeat, please check everything you submit to this article or talk page for grammar and spelling.I'm going to revert anything that contains such errors from now on. I'll go back later and clean up the errors that are still there from your recent edits.JQ 05:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The wikipedia policy/guideline spelt out that English written by non native speaker should be corrected rather than deleted unless it is incomprehensible. There is no difference, as far as wikipedia is concerned, between people with imperfect grammar and people with imperfect (i.e. non neutral) POV. Please do not use my Engrish as an excuse for delete given that this is somewhat of POV edit dispute as well. Oh, another one of my background is that I haven't got a wordprocessor with spelling check on my computer. Why don't you give me money so I can buy one. (^^)

 * Secondly, I have checked some related links. Large portion of criticism appear to originate from you. Someone of public figure getting involved in related articles is a wikipedia policy minefileld. Just by inserting/deleting your own quote, it may be consider as the violation of soapbox ban as well as NPOV. You deleted your own quote which somewhat put the project in a good light. Whatever the intent of such delete, I can't see how this is justified. I'm not saying you can't get involved in editing for being who you are. However, could you be bit more careful? If you want to know, I do "try" to write in proper English.

 * Thirdly, I have never claimed that "little attention had been paid to cost-benefit analysis of climate change before Lomborg." It certainly has in the academia. I said it has not received much public attention. Not the same thing. Switch "BL's book" with, say, "Carson's Silent Spring". If verification is invoked for every sentence or phrase, it's just damb. For example, I could also invoke verification for the sentence "(combating AIDS and malnutrition) were widely agreed to be of critical importance". I'm not saying you can't invoke verification. But are you really not sure that the book was the first to popularise the idea of CBA of global warming and related policies? Anyway, why not change this section's title to "Climate Change".

 * Lastly, "dodgey spining" is merely an another way of saying it is not NPOV. I can't see how this is problematic. I have read the M's criticism. He is arguing that the latest economic litaratures (including his) indicate significantly less damage from the global warming. Moreover, he is arguing that low discount rate for the sake of long forsight is a circular logic, not to mention the fact that this adjustment increase the present discounted cost of global warming. His view is far more unfavouralbe to the green POV than the project is. Given the content of the controversy, the current state of this article is very misleading about M's criticism and Lombarg's response to it. Neutralising one side of debate would be considered as "dodgey spining".

 * I will revert my edit. Feel flee to collect my Engrish (or POV). V(^^) Vapour

Criticism reinstated
I've reinstated the criticism section, and distinguished it from the discussion of climate change, since the criticism covered a range of issues. As you say, neutralising one side of the debate is not a good thing, so I suggest that you continue to work on a section explaining how climate change was treated in the CC process, and don't attempt to include rebuttals within the criticism section. JQ 20:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Hmm, I don't think there is nothing non-NPOV about including rebuttals within the criticism section as long as approriate attributions are made. In fact, it is bit counter productive if there are two section, one dealing with the criticisms while other dealing with rebuttals to such criticism. These two should be in the same section. I would say the title "Criticism" should be changed to "Controversy".

 * Because the content of controversy is dominated by the issue of the climate change, the current arrangement is not ideal. I would shift M's criticism to the controversy section. The Climate Change section is now strictly about the methodology of C. Because his original paper is avialable, we should be able to put enough content in the Climate Change section.  I think clear understanding of C's paper would help put the criticism in a better content, Vapour

The members of the panel anti government intervention
"Quiggin argued that the members of the panel, selected by Lomborg, were seen as a likeminded group of free-market economists, not likely to support government intervention to protect the environment. ."

I have read the reference. I could not find such claim. (correct me if I'm wrong here). Only thing which come close to such claim in the blog is.
 * "Comparing the two lists, the omissions are, broadly speaking, towards the left of the economics profession and those who have commented on climate change have supported policy initiatives such as Kyoto. Conversely, the members of the Copenhagen panel were generally towards the right and, to the extent that they had stated views, to be opponents of Kyoto."

Unless, someone can show a quote which say otherwise, "the government interpention to protect the environment" should be changed to "Kyoto protocoal". Vapour

 * Vapour, it's clear that you are not a native English speaker and from your comments I doubt that you are an economist. So I think you may be missing implications that are evident to native speakers familiar with economic discussion. For example, in discussion of economists, those "towards the right" are generally supposed to be "free-market economists, not likely to support government intervention to protect the environment".
 * Once again, I urge you not to insert rebuttals into the criticism section. The result is to make the whole thing unreadable. I've added a subsection for Lomborg's response JQ 04:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Can I infer from your "toward right" statement that you think the panelists are tilted toward anti abortion, anti poor, anti immigration, pro God, anti-gay, anti gambling, anti drug, anti U.N., pro gun and anti foreign aid as well as anti environment? Hey, they must hate hippie too and must be closet racists. Where can I draw a line in your stereotype of right wing? The meaning of the word and the intent behind the word is not exactly the same thing. I or anyone else has no idea what you consider as typtical right especially right wing economist. It's just not NPOV in wikipedia to second guess the true intention of someone' else's statement, then present it as such. Of course, you are in an unique position to second guess what JQ implied. But that means you are using this page as your own soapbox. That would be an another policy violation.

 * As of your snip at my background in economic, are you baiting me to engage in my-CV-is-better-than-your-CV-argument? That what felit like being implied but hey, I'm not you so I don't know. Previous edit had very obvious attribution problems. So when you took the opposing side in this edit dispute, I, too, thought you don't know much about economics. Silly me.

 * Lastly, what you are doing amount to a form of POV content forking, not to mention the fact that you deleted significant portion of BL's response outright. The readers of this page should be allowed to read the corresponding arguments according to its relevance. Moreover, M's criticism appear to be forked out from the ciriticism section for not being coming from the green perspective. It appear that your ideal criticism section consist only of pro green criticism of the project. That is not NPOV. Vapour

On "right wing", in economics this does not carry any implication of the kind you mention - you are making it even clearer here that you are not an economist. Lots of economists who would be classed by themselves and their colleagues as being "on the right" are libertarians. Obviously, I haven't seen your CV, but you're welcome to look at [mine|http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/johnquiggin/CV.html]. If you feel you're better qualified than I am to comment on the topic, feel free to waive anonymity privately and point this out. Since my work on this topic is published, there is no policy problem in citing it: in fact, the guideline on Original_research specifically encourages this. If I cut any of Lomborg's response, it was unintentional. Feel free to add it back in. This is the kind of problem that arises when you attempt to include rebuttals in a criticism section. Again, I suggest that you leave the criticism section alone, and concentrate on the sections where you have a JQ 08:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

 * My list of right wing stereotypes are suppose to be irrelevant and out of context. It is to demonstrate that the meaning of the term "right" depends on different POV. You appear to hold a belief that economist who tilt toward right are against government intervention to protect the environment. You might hold such understanding to be self evident and some economist may share your understanding. But I do hope that the majority of economists do not share this kind of partisan bias. And I would say most of economist who you consider to belong to the right would not share your stereotype. Economist who may be informally described as tilting toward right tend to favour government invervention/regulation which they consider to be in accordance with the principle of utilitarianism. That is, they tend to have much stronger adherence to neo classical framework. In policy term, this means that they tend to favour such policies like internal markets within public services (eg. school voucher), or supervision of market, or global carbon tax instead of global carbon quota (which Kyoto is an example).  I highly doubt there is any academic economist who is against the government regulation/intervention per se. Modern (neo classical) economics is a study of choise both private and collective. It is more appropriate to understand the academic debate of economics policy in term of type of, or quality of government intervention. Your failiure to show the grasp of the nuiance of the debate is one reason, I mitakenly thought you may not have a background in economics. Of course, my characterisation of "economist who tilt toward right" is also a POV. Just that I can appreciate that other people hold different POVs. To second guess the true intention of someone else's writing would amount to covert violation of no original research policy. In this instance, you are expressing your personal stereotype of right wing economist (which is not universally shared) using the writing which you published in your own blog. So you are also in violation of no soapbox policy. Please understand that what you are doing is very much frawned upon in wikipedia. It is just not o.k. for someone to clarify his or her own statement or opinion in wikipedia article. Vapour

Please correct me if I'm wrong but this statement "the members of the Copenhagen panel were generally towards the right and, to the extent that they had stated views, to be opponents of Kyoto." appear to be the source of your edit that "Quiggin argued that the members of the panel, selected by Lomborg, were seen as a likeminded group of free-market economists, not likely to support government intervention to protect the environment, and in particular initiatives on climate change such as the Kyoto Protocol." In the first sentence, it is you who is claiming that the panel is tilted toward right and that their stated view is in opposition to Kyoto. In the second sentence you are now claiming that the members of the panel are seen to be toward right. Moreover, instead of being in opposition to Kyoto, they are now "perceived" to be in opposition to environmental policy in general. You are in unique position to state what yourself meant. So help me out here because I find it hard to see the process in which this reinterpretation has occured. You appear to express a belief in this talk page that these members are toward right and this would automatically mean that they are anti government regulation/intervention and in particular anti green. But I thought these panelists are participating in the project in which almost all the policy options are about supporting collective regulation/intervention with price tag of 50 billions dollars. And giving back 50 billions dollars to hard working tax payer is not an opition here. So It looks like they are setting themselves up to support government intervention almost by default. Moreover, please explain to me why being right wing economist would compell someone to rank environmental policy lower than public education, public health, conflict resolution, financial market regulation, anti corruption drive, fight against hunger and unclean water. I thought right-wing economists are supposed to be equally against these things. I found your logic very hard to grasp. Moreover, in this edit, you are now claiming that other unspecified people share your POV. Who are these people? The Green? Other economists? Public? Me? It appear to me that only way your reinterpretation of your own statement works is to presume that your peculiar POV is universally shared by everyone else. This assumption seems to be in direct opposition to the philosophy of this site. And please explain to me why the reinterpretation of the quote is prefered over the quote itself especially when the quote itself is shorter? Vapour

 * I think all this is moot, in view of the changes that have been made. If you want, I can point to papers where Mendelsohn, Schelling and others have written in opposition to Kyoto, and we can have a lengthy summary of their political views, and those of other CC members. But, as you say, I'm pretty well placed to summarise my own published work, and I think what is in the article as it now stands is a good summary. JQ 07:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Your edit interpreting your own statement, which equate someone's opposition to Kyoto to the blaket opposition to the government intervention to protect environment is in violation of number of core wikipedia policies (verification, NPOV, no original research and no soapbox). I personally find it distastefull for an academic economist to make this kind of argument. But if you hold this kind of POV and express it in your own blog, that is your business. However, it is not fine to use wikipedia to clarify your statement made in your personal blog. What you believe such statement supposed to means is still your POV. Others may not find such clarification to be justified in term of logic or their understanding of economics. Please do not add edit which is based on unsourced, unverified personal POV even if it it is about the statement you, yourself, have made. Make a clarification in your new blog entry. Then someone who is not JQ may be justified in referencing this new blog entry in this article. Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox. Vapour

As of the position of the panel members' opinion in regard to economic efficiency of collective action including Kyoto, if you can cite their papers, please do so. That would be a welcoming addition to this page. What is not justified is for you to spin the presentation to support your personal POV about them. It may be the case that many of them are indeed anti environnment, right wing economst as you descirbe it. But I highly doubt that such partisan characterisation is sustainable. Vapour

Content Forking
Please stop forking out the contents according to your partisanship. Mendelsohn's criticism was originally in criticism section. Why is that when more detailed clarification of his position are made, which turn out to be something which green lobby probably won't like, then M's criticism are to be qurantined elsewhere? If the title of the section is "Criticism", then Mendelsohn, Mann and Schelling's criticism of the low ranking of climate policy belong to the 'criticism' section. Afterall, the ranking of the climate change is the focus of the controversy. Why is it difficult for you to accept that critics from different perspective have their say without being forked out to other section by none other than John Quiggin. Why not change the title of the criticism section to "Criticism from the left wing economist and the green lobbies" instead. Vapour

And can you stop forking out BL's rebuttal as well. You may not like the idea of BL's opinion sharing section space with you and your commrades' opinions. But may I point out that Clien has his own counter rebuttal to Mendelsohn and Mann's criticism. So does Clien counter rebuttal deserve it's own subsection? In that case, Sachs criticis should also be forked out to a separate subsection titled "Sachs criticism". And what if others from conservative or right wing or libetarian sources wrote their counter rebuttal of the critics? Partisan content forking is no different from what dog do to mark its territory. We know the topic is controvercial. Good way to present the controversy is to identify different issues involved. If there is a perceived bias of the composition of the members of the panel, then we should present summary of for and against opinions for that issue. If there is a percieved bias in regard to the project framework (such as 50 billions issue, discount rate, or wholesale objection to the cost benefit anaysis), the we should present for and aganst opinions of such issues. That is why "Controversy" is more appropriate title than "Criticism" for this section. Vapour

 * We need to distinguish between debates within the process and criticism of the process as a whole. It's perfectly appropriate to have a section stating the views of critics. Attempts to mix in rebuttals, as you've done, are inevitably disastrous. Also, you've ignored my repeated requests to pay attention to quality. You haven't even bothered to spell Cline's name correctly. I'm not going to try and fix your contributions, but I don't want you messing up sections I've worked on, which is why I'm "forking" JQ 01:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Your effort=ownership argument has some sentimental logic (as well as Lockean credential) but wikipedia is very communist about this thing. If you don't want anyone "messing" with your writing, then wikipedia is not for you. Openness to diverse background {POV as well as mother tongue) is main strenght of Wikipedia. I didn't deliberately misspelt Clien just so I can force you to correct it. I've told you I make effort to correct my Engrish. And to be honest, I'm bit tired of your irritation about my Engrish. What about my repeated request to "quality" in term of NPOV? Did I POV fork your edit simply because of your left wing economics (or social democrat, or liberal or pro green or whatever you like to refer yourself)? I objected to your RightWingEconomist=AntiEnvironmentalIntervention edit primaly on the basis of wikipedia policy violations. I'm currently suspending editing only because revert war is unnecessaly hussle.

 * As of pro/anti sectioning, in fact, it is your arrangement which is "inevibably" disastarous. You are failing to take account of the fact that the controversy is dynamic. For example, where do you put Cline's counter rebuttals to Mendelsohn with your arrangement?  And what happen if Mendelsohn counter that?  Are we going to make separate criticism section and counter-criticism sub section and counter-counter-critcism sub-sub section? It is far more appropriate to tag each corresponding response so people can identify the corresponding debate. Mixing criticism and rebuttals is inevitably disastrous only if it lack clear POV attribution. And when we have more inputs from various POV, then it may become more appropriate to section different POVs according to the issues such as discount rate, 50 billions budget, estimated damage from global warming and so on. Moreover, have you ever consider that pro/anti sectioning prejudice the whole presentation to us-against-them perspective, and hence it is inherently NPOV? Have you consider that some people might have more nuanced view? As I said, partisan sectioning is same as what dog do to mark its territory. Vapour

O.K. I guess it is important to see how the project arrived at its conclusion. So the exchange between panellists and experts should be dealt separately from the controversies the project has generated. I will integrate Mendelsohn and Mann's criticism in the project section. On the other hand, I do believe that exchange among the participants of the controversy should be in the same section with appropriate POV attribution. I have already explained why pro/anti split arrangement is untenable. I will restore BL's rebuttal and tag it to Sachs criticism. Vapour

 * I don't think this is a good idea, but if you want to go ahead and do it, we will need more subsection headings. The worst thing in these criticism/controversy sections is to have criticisms and responses run together in the same para, with no clear division between statements and editorial endorsements JQ 02:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I cannot see the validity of your argument. What is so wrong with a pra which say "X asserted 'brabrabra'", "Y responded by saying 'brabrabra'", "X countered Y with "BBB"", "Z countred X's rebuttal with "BBB"" while "Q produced view supporting part of both X and Y's arguments saying "BBB""? When a controversy involve multiple participants, partisan sectioning is untennable. It is far more reader-friendly to categorise multiple POV under clearly identified issues and present it in a bundle (section, subsection, paragraph). The worst thing is to have no POV attribution. Vapour

 * I find the kind of article that has a sequence of "he said, she said" statements to be unreadable. I don't think I'm alone in this. JQ 07:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I could see how that could be the case. For example Sachs make multiple criticism of CP, in which BL respond to each criticism. I'm quite sure the Economist have some defence to Sachs criticism. If this "he said, she said" goes on, it will become unreadable. As I have stated, the best way to section the controversy is according to the issues involved rather than pro/anti sectioning or "he said, she said" sectioning.  Vapour

JQ, you have stop debating the issue of POV sectioning while somewhat silently reverting the edit. Moreover, you are making multiple violations of wikipedia policies when you content forking BL's opinion(s) which you oppose publically, not to mention the fact that your POVs are part of the section. I can't see how you can justify this kind of POV forking. Please stop this idiocy.
 * PS. This is where you are heading. Vapour

 * Your description of WP:Content forking is inaccurate. This refers to the creation of new articles, not to the presentation of alternative points of view within the same article. But my main reason for separating your contributions is the fact that, as you write them, they detract from the readability of the sections in which they are included. I just spent a fair bit of time fixing errors in the section on Climate Change. If you put a bit more effort into writing your contributions grammatically and with correct spelling and less into this kind of argument, things would go a lot better. JQ 22:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * When someone invoke a policy or a guideline, it is the argument/principle behind such policy/guideline which is invoked, not the letters of policy/guideline. Afterall, Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy. My reference to Content fork has no legal authority to begin with. And the fact that the guideline refers only to creation of new article does not mean you are now free to partition criticism section into for and against. I have repeatedly stressed that partitioning the article according to "For and Against" is inferior to partitioning the article according to the issues (neutrality of panel, fairness of 50 billion framework, validity of applying CBA in environmental policy and so on). The debates are often dynamic (i.e. one counter argument lead to another counter argument(s)), and diverse (one POV can be countered by different perspectives). Moreover, not all POV takes "With-us or Against-us" stance. Moreover, subsectioning tend to have an effect of sidelining opposing argument. It is in this context that I have refered to "Content Forking". Additionally, this essay may be more appopriate to our debate. Ideally, the content of criticism section should be shifted to each relevant section, so each issues are summarised concisely according to its relevance. Creating "criticism of criticism" subsection is to move further away from what is ideal. Btw, it is true that my grammar and spelling is less than desirable (though my experience generally indicate that my Engrish is just about readable). But given that you are a partisan in this debate, your POV grammar is bound to be less than desirable too. :-) Vapour

Climate policy net benefit/cost positive or negative?
O.K. I'm bit confused here. Clien clearly state that all three climate policies has net benefit in his paper. But then the summary state that all three climate policy to have "costs that were likely to exceed the benefits".  What is going on? Vapour

 * The panel disagreed with Cline (note spelling). As noted by Mendelsohn and Schelling later, Lomborg selected Cline as someone whose views on discounting were known to be extreme, relative to the profession as a whole, and very likely to be rejected. By the way, I fixed up a heap of grammatical errors in this section.JQ 22:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Yeah, I noticed my mistake after reading the process of the CC. Btw, Cline's view/assumption on discount rate is exactly what green movement would advocate. To be honest, I thought Cline might have took such minority stance on discount rate just to placate green argument. I'm rather suprised that you described such perspective to be "extrem". Vapour

 * You're right that Cline's position is the same as that of the green movement. It's not extreme relative to society at large - lots of people like low or zero discount rates in lots of contexts. But it is extreme relative to the economics profession, where nearly all economists favour positive discount rates, and certainly relative to the views of the people on Lomborg's panel. There's some evidence that views closer to Cline's are gaining some ground, but still very much a minority within the economics profession. JQ 23:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, after all, the study of economics is about the efficient allocation of scarce resources. It makes little sense to assign different discount rates to different options in the cost benefit analysis. In a way, one is asserting from the outset that particular choise is more worthwhile/damaging than the others. Then, what is the point of doing the analysis in the first place? Given that Clien was assesing global warming policy options in comparison to other options, his decision to adopt different discount rate just for his options was plain wrong IMO.
 * Obiviously, the choise of discount rate for the whole policy options is a different matter. If the discount rate is zero for all the policy options, it is consistent at least from the modeling point of view. But this still won't resolve the question about why public investment project should have built in advantage over market/private investment project. Personally, I would advocate the (hypothetical) market rate for a loan which is guranteed by the whole International community (which would be pretty low but not zero). In practical policy term, that would probably be the interest rate which the World Bank have to pay to raise 50 billion dollar. Afterall, the framework of Copenhargen Consensus presupose the collective action of the international community. Vapour

Issues Not Considered
"The Copenhagen Consensus did not consider some issues, such as a cost-benefit analysis of the War on Terrorism. The direct financial spending on this issue dwarfs the money that the panels were allocated." - It seems to me that this is sort of a useless anti-war plug. Why not use examples from other issues not considered?

 * What other issues would you like? TWOT is the most obvious really expensive and really useless thing going on right now. Why do you think Lomborg omitted it? William M. Connolley 19:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Technocracy?
The idea of having economists directing disposal of other people's wealth sounds very much like technocracy to me. - MSTCrow 03:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

POV tag on "Approach and Alleged Bias" section
I just added this tag, and here's why: In the 4th and 5th paragraphs (beginning with "One should not overestimate...", there is a sudden shift in tone where the article is no longer presenting the alleged biases as if coming from other sources, but instead the article now seems to be alleging the biases itself.  There is even a sentence in the 5th paragraph in which the reader ("you") is addressed directly, a big Wikipedia no-no.

I don't want to delete these paragraphs, though, because I think it contains some good info about the perils of discounting analysis. It just needs a re-write. And I'm not particularly well-informed enough to do it myself...

I know it was a little presumptuous to add the pov tag without any consensus first, but I think the shift in tone will be very clear to most editors. --Jaysweet 20:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

 * This text seems to be gone now, so I removed the tag.JQ (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism and 2008 Consensus
The Criticism section seems out of date as it seems to relate to the 2004 conference, rather than the 2008 one (which drew somewhat different conclusions). I've made this slightly clearer.

I have also begun a section on the Copenhagen Consensus's recent work specifically on global warming. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Intro
I've updated the intro, as part of which I've cut the following chunk which is somewhat misleading:
 * The project is based on the contention that, in spite of the billions of dollars spent on global challenges by the United Nations, the governments of wealthy nations, foundations, charities, and non-governmental organizations, the money spent on problems such as malnutrition and climate change is not sufficient to meet many internationally-agreed targets. This argument is supported by evidence from the World Bank, which estimates that the UN's Millennium Development Goals would cost an additional annual $40–$70 billion on top of the $57 billion already spent ; this increased expenditure would have to continue each year until 2015 in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

It's misleading because the central claim of the Copenhagen Consensus is not that not enough money is spent, it's that it's not spent in the right ways. The project is all about prioritized spending, not increased (but unprioritized) spending. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Added history section
Hello, new Wikipedia editor here. Moved a large chunk of the top section into a "history" bullet. I find this article very strange--44% of its citations are too itself, essentially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edjamesking (talk • contribs) 16:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Copenhagen Consensus. 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/20081117201736/http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/sitefiles/File/about/director/documents/nature081204.pdf to http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/sitefiles/File/about/director/documents/nature081204.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927143829/http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/5090.html to http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/5090.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Copenhagen Accord and Scientific consensus on climate change
Some people may confuse this with Copenhagen Accord or Scientific consensus on climate change, since all three are about climate change but this one is less legitimate, coming from non-scientists and climate change deniers like Lomborg. Is there a template we could add to the top to link to those two? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Background
I noticed one sentence:"In 2007 looked into which projects would contribute most to welfare in Copenhagen Consensus for Latin America in cooperation with the Inter-American Development Bank."in this article, that seems to have some shortcomings.

I initially read that sentence in the "Latest revision as of 00:31, 14 June 2024" version of this article.

At first I suspected that this sentence -- which was added to this article in 2013 -- had been accidentally damaged during some later edit. Now that does not appear to have happened. I did some checking, and it seems that this sentence has not changed since it was originally added (inserted) into this article, as part of this edit -- (dating from "04:07, 22 July 2013") -- which also included many other changes, including updates to some URLs (mostly in " " tags; ... and, in fact, all or "almost all" of them pointing to web pages within the << Copenhagen consensus dot com >> website.)

What is wrong with this sentence?
For one thing, there seems to be a missing noun (or "noun phrase" ... or "subject") between the first pair of words ("In 2007") at the beginning of this sentence, and the second pair of words ("looked into"), right after that. Actually, the missing "noun phrase" might well be the words "Copenhagen Consensus", which do appear -- (perhaps out of place? so it seems!) -- floating somewhere near the middle of this sentence. In order to fix that part (the middle) of this sentence, it would probably be necessary -- also -- to delete one of the two prepositions ("in" or "for") which currently appear just before and just after the noun phrase "Copenhagen Consensus", in its current [incorrect] place in the middle of this sentence.

What was intended?
Changing the sentence by and would result in the sentence"In 2007 Copenhagen Consensus looked into which projects would contribute most to welfare in Latin America in cooperation with the Inter-American Development Bank."which would be an improvement "grammatically", but this sentence -- even though improved grammatically -- would still be suspiciously unique, since neither Latin America nor the Inter-American Development Bank gets mentioned anywhere else in this article.
 * moving the 'noun phrase' "Copenhagen Consensus" from its current position, in the middle of this sentence, to just after "In 2007" and right before "looked into"
 * deleting one of the two prepositions ("in" or "for") then remaining between "contribute most to welfare" and "Latin America" -- probably keeping "in" and deleting "for" -- [right?]

Determining 'what was intended' (originally) might be difficult. This sentence -- which has survived unchanged for over a decade -- was added during an edit from an IP user with no [extant] 'Talk:' page, and the "Contributions" page for that 'IP' user -- "95.209.181.71" -- also offers limited help, since it includes only two edits, both in 2013 (and less than 10 minutes apart). It might be hard to find that person, in order to try to ask questions about what was intended 'originally'.

Thanks for listening. Mike Schwartz (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Copenhagen Consensus


text:
Talk:First Growth

Important information on first growths

 * Château Lafite-Rothschild (See Ottawa Wine Tasting of 1981; Berlin Wine Tasting of 2004)
 * Château Margaux (See Ottawa Wine Tasting of 1981; Berlin Wine Tasting of 2004)
 * Château Latour (See San Diego Wine Tasting of 1975; Ottawa Wine Tasting of 1981)
 * Château Haut-Brion (See Paris Wine Tasting of 1976; Ottawa Wine Tasting of 1981; Wine Spectator Wine Tasting of 1986,: French Culinary Institute Wine Tasting of 1986; The Judgment of Paris 30th Anniversary)
 * Château Mouton-Rothschild (added in 1973) (See Paris Wine Tasting of 1976; Ottawa Wine Tasting of 1981; Wine Spectator Wine Tasting of 1986; French Culinary Institute Wine Tasting of 1986; San Diego Wine Tasting of 1975; The Judgment of Paris 30th Anniversary)

In all of the above wine competitions,(1) all tasting was done blind and (2) the results were listed in rank order from highest to lowest. There were no multiple winners except in the case of multiple categories (for example one red wine winner and one white wine winner).PhilippeLeClair 22:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, some have an emotional or economic interest in minimising or even denying the importance of these consumer-oriented blind tasting competitions:

The Emperor Has No Clothes

The owners of 30 of the best wines in the world, in the judgment of a Champagne company president, were invited to a party in 1997. The event was organized by Jean-Claude Rouzaud to celebrate the 30th anniversary of his presidency of Champagne Louis Roederer. Half of his selections were from France. "I’m a chauvinist and a nationalist" he explained.

"Before agreeing to participate, the Bordeaux first growths set some conditions, the foremost being that no comparative tasting with their international competition would be held." They didn’t even want to be included in a group photo with their colleagues from other wine regions, although they finally reluctantly agreed. "But getting the Bordelais to have their wines served with the others', that was out of the question," said a Roederer spokesperson.

So the event took place in two separate parts: first, a dinner featuring the Bordeaux wines; then a tasting the next day with all the other wines, but no Bordeaux.

"They are cowards," said a non-Bordeaux producer. But the host said "I understand them." He explained that "They feel that when you are first growths you are untouchable." Their problem is that they actually know better.

They and the other named growth vineyards have a carefully cultivated image of  superiority. This is a marketing advantage worth an incredibly enormous sum of money every year. However, they frequently fail to perform well in blind comparisons and realize how vulnerable they are to exposure and the destruction of their vaulted and very valuable reputations.

Because of this the named growths (1) want to avoid  comparisons  and (2) try to discredit  the results of such comparisons. Who can blame them? Those results can cost them a fortune in lost revenue. But the consumer benefits immensely.

Party in Paris. Wine Spectator, 15-11-97 Vinifera 02:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)PhilippeLeClair 15:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This shouldnt have a capital 'G'. Should fix sometime Justinc 11:41, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 05:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:First Growth


text:
The Red Skelton Show

The Red Skelton Show is an American television comedy/variety show that aired from 1951 to 1971. In the decade prior to hosting the show, Richard "Red" Skelton had a successful career as a radio and motion pictures star. Although his television series is largely associated with CBS, where it appeared for more than sixteen years, it actually began and ended on NBC. During its run, the program received three Emmy Awards, for Skelton as best comedian and the program as best comedy show during its initial season, and an award for comedy writing in 1961. In 1959 Skelton also received a Golden Globe for Best TV Show.

Origins: 1950s
Red Skelton's network television program began at the start of the 1951 fall season on NBC (for sponsor Procter & Gamble). The MGM agreement with Skelton for television performances did not allow him to go on the air before September 30, 1951. After two seasons on Sunday nights, the program was picked up by CBS in the fall of 1953 and moved to Tuesday night, the time slot with which it would become primarily associated during most of its run. After his first CBS season the program was moved to Wednesday night and expanded to an hour for the summer of 1954 only; it was then reduced back to a half-hour for a time, later expanded again, returning to Tuesday night, where it would remain for the next sixteen years (co-sponsored by Johnson's Wax and Pet Milk between 1955 and 1962).

The program was produced at Desilu Productions and CBS Television City in Hollywood, and over five years, from 1955 through 1960, was telecast in color approximately 100 times. In 1960, Skelton purchased the Chaplin studios, with plans to continue using the facility for his television show and for making films. It was the most colorcast of the few programs CBS aired in color during this period. By 1960, CBS no longer manufactured television sets (unlike its rival NBC's parent company, RCA) and pulled the plug on colorcasts. With the exception of a few specials and some yearly broadcasts of The Wizard of Oz, CBS would not colorcast again on a regular basis until the 1965–66 fall season, when the network could no longer avoid public demand amidst rising sales in color television sets.

Skelton was infatuated with his appearance on color television, and he cajoled CBS to colorcast the program (In 1961, Skelton also invested in three rental remote vans which had full live, film, and color videotape capability). Although visionary, the venture in color was premature and, when it failed, CBS bought Skelton's facilities (formerly Charlie Chaplin Studios) as part of renewing Skelton's contract.

From 1956 to 1962, Sherwood Schwartz (later widely known for creating the popular sitcoms Gilligan's Island and The Brady Bunch, among others) was head writer of Skelton's show, for which Schwartz won an Emmy Award in 1961.

Format during the 1960s
In September 1962, the program was again expanded to a full hour (becoming The Red Skelton Hour) and remained in this longer format for the balance of its CBS run. The format of the program itself during this period was quite simple.

Pre-opening
This pre-opening format was changed slightly each year during the rest of the show's CBS run, but followed this basic format.

Instead of a traditional opening title card, announcer Art Gilmore would intone, “From Television City in Hollywood,” and Skelton would perform a brief comedic blackout sketch, ending with the show's resident vocal group (the Skeltones) singing the words "The Red Skelton Hour" (beginning in the 1964–65 season, Skelton would simply stand alone, smiling and waving at the camera, spotlighted on a darkened stage as the shot zoomed in (dressed in some seasons as one of his various characters), as Gilmore would announce the title, and (in later seasons) the singers sang the title), leading into a brief musical "song and dance" number (about 90 seconds long) performed in lyrical song by several smiling male and female dancers as they danced and moved cheerfully across the large stage. This introductory number would have a certain visual theme, such as gardening, college football, the signs of the zodiac, etc., and the set, the dancers’ costumes, and the lyrics of the dancers’ song would reflect the theme. After the dancers sang the first two stanzas, they continued the song, singing “our guest star…” followed by the guest's name, matched with a camera shot of the guest (most evenings there was at least one major celebrity guest as well as a musical guest); “David Rose and his orchestra,” with a shot of Rose; the singers (originally the Modernaires; the Skel-tones by 1963; by the fall of 1964 as the Alan Copeland Singers (Copeland, the credited vocal arranger of the show, was originally a member of the Modernaires); and by the 1969–70 season as The Jimmy Joyce Singers and the dancers (introduced after 1964 as the Tom Hansen Dancers, after the show's credited choreographer); and finally introducing Skelton as the star of the show; the assembled dancers looking "stage left" anticipating Skelton's entrance on stage to begin his opening monologue.

For the final CBS season (1969–70), a cold open blackout sketch was added, featuring the antics of two alien moon men, green in color, performing comedic antics on the moon, as the song "Mah Nà Mah Nà" was playing. This led immediately into the dancers' routine.

Opening monologue
After the opening song-and-dance routine, Skelton opened with a monologue. The monologue often lapsed into character humor, including "Gertrude and Heathcliff, the Two Seagulls", which he performed by crossing his eyes and sticking his thumbs into his armpits for "wings". (Johnny Carson, who was a writer on this program for a period, reminisced about writing for this spot.) Skelton performed the "Doughnut Dunkers," one of his earliest signature routines, in a 1964 episode during this monologue.

Guest stars
This was followed by a guest-star performance, often a singer. Musical accompaniment was generally provided by the show's orchestra and led by its well-known bandleader, David Rose. He was also the composer of the show's familiar signature tune, "Holiday for Strings" (U.S. Copyright Registration Date 26-3-1942). The guest then appeared with Skelton in a comedy sketch. In other episodes, the Tom Hansen Dancers would perform another song-and-dance number, sometimes joined by the guest star.

Among the notable guest stars on the program were western film stars Amanda Blake and Roscoe Ates, who played a sheriff in the 1961 episode "Candid Clem". John Wayne, Jack Benny, Phyllis Diller, George Raft, Martha Raye, Robert Vaughn, Audrey Meadows, Carol Lawrence, Shirley Bassey, Godfrey Cambridge and Carol Channing also made appearances. Popular television actress Phyllis Avery appeared twice in "Clem's Watermelons" (1961) and "Nothing But the Tooth" (1962). Billy Gray, who played Bud Anderson Jr. on "Father Knows Best", guest starred after the former show ended its six-year run.

Musical guests
The Beach Boys made their network television debut as musical guests on a 1963 episode. The Rolling Stones videotaped three songs in London for a 1964 Skelton show. Another British Invasion band, The Kinks, appeared in early 1965 (shortly before the American Federation of Musicians banned them from touring in the US for the next four years). The Supremes and the Motown Sound visited the Skelton hour in 1965. Other musical guests included Bobby Rydell, the Lettermen, Vikki Carr, Horst Jankowski, Gloria Loring, the New Christy Minstrels, the Doodletown Pipers, Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass, the Association, Lulu, Johnny Mathis, Tom Jones, Matt Monro, Lou Rawls and Dionne Warwick.

Comedy sketches
The sketches were usually built around one of Red's many characters, including "Deadeye", an incredibly inept sheriff in the Old West; "San Fernando Red", a shady real estate agent (named for the San Fernando Valley, which was still a largely rural area when the show began); "Cauliflower McPugg", a punchdrunk boxer; "George Appleby", a hen-pecked husband; "Junior, the Mean Widdle Kid" (whose trademark line was, "If l dood it, l get a whippin'.........l DOOD IT!"), "Clem Kadiddlehopper", a hick who was identified in at least one sketch as being from Cornpone County, Tennessee; and "Freddie the Freeloader". Freddie, regarded by many as Skelton's signature character, was a bum with a heart of gold, who was played by Skelton (and in one episode in 1961, by Ed Sullivan) in clown makeup reminiscent of Emmett Kelly but somehow not as sad. Freddie could be either a speaking character or totally pantomimed. While many of Skelton's other characters originated on his radio shows, Freddie was created for television in 1952. Skelton's father, Joseph, who died two months before his youngest son, Richard, was born, was once a clown for the Hagenbeck-Wallace Circus. Skelton, who had spent some time working for the same circus as a youth, copied his father's clown makeup for Freddie. During the sketches, Skelton and the celebrity guest star would sometimes break character and make good-natured wisecracks at one another.

In its later years, the show generally finished with "The Silent Spot", with Skelton pantomiming Freddie or another silent character. (It was hard for some younger viewers to accept that such an overwhelmingly visual, physical performer had once been a staple of radio.) After "The Silent Spot", the show closed with Red looking into the camera and saying sincerely, "Good night and may God bless."

The Tom Hansen Dancers would return in their costumes from the pre-opening song-and-dance number and invite the audience to join the show the following week, singing to the tune of "Holiday for Strings" as the closing credits appeared.

While the vast majority of Skelton's skits were comedy, there were a few serious segments. One memorable segment came in 1969, when Skelton performed a self-written monologue about the Pledge of Allegiance, providing commentary on the meaning of each phrase of the Pledge. CBS received 200,000 requests for copies; the company subsequently released the monologue as a single recording by Columbia Records.

Final years: 1970–1971
CBS ended its association with the program in early 1970. This apparently marked the beginning of one of several attempts by CBS to downplay programming (even shows gaining relatively strong Nielsen ratings) whose primary appeal was to "Middle America", an audience more rural and also somewhat older than that generally desired by network television advertisers. Marketers were moving towards a younger, "hipper" and more urban audience (see the Rural Purge). Skelton was reportedly heartbroken at the cancellation.

The move to NBC: 1970
At least in part due to Skelton's iconic status, the program was picked up by NBC in late 1970. However, the program that aired was quite different from the one that Skelton's CBS audience was used to seeing. The new set was dark, devoid of the bright and colorful backdrops that viewers had seen on CBS. The show was cut back to its original half-hour length and it was moved from Tuesday to Monday nights.

But perhaps the biggest change was that the show began to incorporate "regulars" for the first time along with Skelton, Rose, and Rose's orchestra. A repertory company of young, comic actors and actresses was added as well as veteran performers such as Eve McVeagh and The Burgundy Street Singers (previously seen after an abortive comeback on network television by 1950s folk singing star Jimmie Rodgers on ABC two years earlier.)

The new format never really worked; the audience sensed that there was little chemistry between Skelton and his repertory company. The program ended in March 1971, although selected programs from this final season were rerun on NBC on Sunday nights during mid-1971 by Procter & Gamble, so it could be said that Skelton's network television career had ended exactly where it had begun.

Skelton's later TV career
Skelton continued to make appearances for many years afterwards, increasingly as a nostalgic figure, but was never again a regular feature of network television programming. He was awarded the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Governors Award, a lifetime achievement award, in 1986. Skelton was inducted into the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences' Television Hall of Fame in 1989.

title: The Red Skelton Show


text:
Bernard Pearson

Bernard Stanley Pearson (born 13 September, 1946) is a British potter, sculptor, and author. In 1981, Pearson helped to establish Clare Craft, a pottery company based in the Suffolk town of Clare. Clare Craft produced a variety of figurines, mostly centering around fantasy. Clare Craft designed multiple figurines based on characters from Terry Pratchett’s Discworld novels.

In 1997, at Pratchett’s suggestion, Pearson began crafting ‘The Unreal Estate’; a series of highly detailed architectural models based on Discworld locations, most notably the Unseen University. During this time, Pearson and his wife, Isobel, also created a wide range of studio pottery based on landscape and fantasy imagery under the back stamp of ‘Bernard Pearson Ceramics’.

In 2000, Pearson moved to the town of Wincanton in Somerset, England, where he established a Discworld centre and retail outlet called ‘The Cunning Artificer’, a name given to him by Terry Pratchett. Pearson his wife launched additional Discworld merchandise, including the ‘Discworld Stamps’. This collaboration with Terry Pratchett resulted in the creation of thousands of ‘Cinderella’ stamps that are held in private collections and even in the British Library. Pearson co-authored The Complete Discworld Almanack with Terry Pratchett in 2004. ‘The Cunning Artificer’ was renamed ‘The Discworld Emporium’ in 2011 when Ian Mitchell and Reb Voyce joined the partnership, setting up a successful online business shipping books and Discworld merchandise worldwide. Following the death of Terry Pratchett in 2015, Pearson assumed a more subsidiary role in the design and running of the Emporium.

In 2018, Pearson published his first novel, Dovetail, and has since continued to focus on writing. He published his second book, A Glastonbury Tale, in 2021.

title: Bernard Pearson


text: User talk:Olivier Mengué

title: User talk:Olivier Mengué


text:
User:Olivier Mengué

fr:Utilisateur:Olivier Mengué I'm a french contributor to Wikipedia. I sometimes come here to fix minor things. You'll find more about myself on my Wikipédia user page.

title: User:Olivier Mengué


text:
List of Philadelphia Flyers players

The Philadelphia Flyers are a professional ice hockey team based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. They are members of the Metropolitan Division of the National Hockey League's (NHL) Eastern Conference. The Flyers were founded in 1967 as one of six expansion teams, increasing the size of the NHL at that time to 12 teams.

Since the franchise was established, the team has had 20 captains, including Bobby Clarke, who captained the Flyers to two Stanley Cups in 1973–74 and 1974–75, and is the only player to have scored over 1,000 points for the Flyers. Clarke was awarded the Hart Memorial Trophy as the NHL's most valuable player three times, and was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in 1987. Thirteen other players who have appeared for the Flyers have been inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame: Bill Barber, Paul Coffey, Peter Forsberg, Dale Hawerchuk, Mark Howe, Eric Lindros, Adam Oates, Bernie Parent, Chris Pronger, Mark Recchi, Jeremy Roenick, Darryl Sittler and Allan Stanley. Six players have been honored by having their number retired by the Flyers: Barber, Clarke, Howe, Lindros, Parent and Barry Ashbee. Twenty-eight people have been inducted into the Flyers Hall of Fame since its establishment in 1988, of which twenty-three have been players.

In addition to leading the team in points both in the regular season and playoffs, Clarke also holds the records for the most appearances and most assists for the Flyers in both regular season and playoffs. Fellow Stanley Cup winner Barber has scored the most goals for the team with his 420 regular season and 53 playoff goals. Rick Tocchet spent the most time in the penalty box during the regular season for the Flyers, accruing 1,817 minutes in total, while Dave Schultz's 363 penalty minutes are the most by a Flyer in the playoffs. Among goaltenders, Roman Cechmanek boasts the best goals against average and save percentage in the regular season (excluding Marc D'Amour and Robbie Moore, neither of whom made more than five appearances).

As of the completion of the 2023–24 NHL season, 65 goaltenders and 623 skaters (forwards and defensemen) have appeared in at least one regular season and/or playoff game with the Philadelphia Flyers since the team joined the league in the 1967–68 NHL season. The Flyers won the Stanley Cup in 1974 and 1975 with a total of 26 players. Seventeen of them were part of both Stanley Cup winning rosters. The 688 all-time members of the Flyers are listed below, with statistics complete through the end of the 2023–24 season.

Key

 * Won a Stanley Cup with the Flyers
 * Appeared in a Flyers game during the most recently completed season

Statistics are complete to the end of the 2023–24 NHL season.

Goaltenders
Goaltenders who played for the team

Skaters
Skaters who played for the team in previous seasons

title: List of Philadelphia Flyers players


text:
Vin jaune

Vin jaune (French for "yellow wine") is a special and characteristic type of white wine made in the Jura region in eastern France. It is similar to dry fino Sherry and gets its character from being matured in a barrel under a film of yeast, known as the voile, on the wine's surface. Vin jaune shares many similarities with Sherry, including some aromas, but unlike Sherry, it is not a fortified wine. The wine is made from the Savagnin grape, with some of the most premium examples coming from the marl based vineyards in the Château-Chalon AOC. In other French wine regions, there has been experimentation in producing similar style wines from Chardonnay and other local grape varieties using cultured yeast such as the vin de voile wine produced in the Gaillac.

Production
Vin jaune is made from late harvest Savagnin grapes, a white variety in the Traminer family which is less aromatic than the better-known Gewürztraminer. The grapes are usually harvested in late October when the sugars have developed enough to have a potential alcohol level of 13–15% for the finished wine. The grapes are fermented slowly and then kept in small old oak casks that hold 228 liters (60 gallons). The casks are not topped up, as they are with most wines, so evaporation creates an air gap above the wine. A film of yeast grows over the wine, protecting it partially (but not totally) from oxidation. In Jura, this film is called the voile (veil), but it is similar to the more familiar "flor" in Sherry production. The voile yeast has many similar properties to "flor" but thrives better in a lower alcohol environment and develops less heavily and thickly than "flor" does.

The voile typically takes two to three years to develop fully. During this time the wine is exposed to slight levels of oxidation that provoke chemical changes that produce acetaldehyde (as well as ethanol, standard alcohol) and the aroma compound of sotolon. These compounds contribute to the unique flavors and aromas associated with vin jaune. Winemakers must carefully observe the wine throughout the aging process as there is a risk of it developing the wine fault of volatile acidity.

The wine acquires its characteristic yellow color and nutty flavors as it ages for the requisite time of six years and three months, the time that must elapse between harvest and bottling, although at certain points during this time the wine is not necessarily in the cask. After the allotted time, only about 62% of the original wine remains. The vin jaune is then bottled in special squat bottles that hold 62 cl (21 ounces), called clavelins. Historically the bottle size alludes to the amount of wine left over after six years of aging and evaporation.

Wine regions
The Appellation d'origine contrôlée regions permitted to produce vin jaune include Château-Chalon AOC, Arbois Vin Jaune AOC, Cotes du Jura vin Jaune AOC and Vin Jaune de L'Etoile. Those protected "appellations" have existed since 1936. There are also a few other vin jaune-style wines made in France outside the Jura region, such as Gaillac. The term vin de voile referring to the yeast film, thus indicates this style of wine.

Wine style and serving
Vin jaune is often served at cellar temperature 13–15 °C (55–60 °F) and the wine is sometimes decanted, exposing it to more oxygen prior to serving in order to stimulate the wine's unique aromas. The wine can be paired with savory food dishes with local Jura cuisine often including chicken recipes where the wine is cooked with the chicken itself and as a sauce component. Another common pairing is the local Comté cheese that is produced in the Franche-Comté region.

La Percée du Vin Jaune
A festival called La Percée du Vin Jaune (Opening of the Yellow Wine) is held in the last week of January or the first week of February each year to celebrate release of the newly released vintage, which due to the legal requirements for aging will be the one harvested in the autumn seven years earlier. Recent events, including tasting sessions, have attracted over 30,000 visitors. Each year, a different venue is chosen. They are as follows:

 * 1997 : Poligny
 * 1998 : Arbois
 * 1999 : Château-Chalon and Voiteur
 * 2000 : L'Étoile
 * 2001 : Gevingey
 * 2002 : Montigny-lès-Arsures
 * 2003 : Arlay
 * 2004 : Cramans
 * 2005 : Saint-Lothain
 * 2006 : Lons-le-Saunier
 * 2007 : Salins-les-Bains
 * 2008 : Vincelles
 * 2009 : Passenans and Frontenay
 * 2010 : Poligny
 * 2011 : Arbois
 * 2012 : Ruffey-sur-Seille
 * 2013 : Voiteur
 * 2014 : Perrigny and Conliège
 * 2015 : Montigny-lès-Arsures
 * 2016 : Lons-le-Saunier
 * 2017 : Not held
 * 2018 : L'Étoile
 * 2019 : Poligny
 * 2020 : Ruffey-sur-Seille
 * 2021 : Not held (Covid-19)
 * 2022 : Cramans
 * 2023 : Voiteur
 * 2024 : Arbois

Chemical composition
Vin jaune is marked by the formation of sotolon from alpha-ketobutyric acid.

Connection with Medieval Wines
Vin jaune has been found to be produced from grapes that possess identical DNA to grape seeds unearthed in archaeological digs of medieval sites.

title: Vin jaune


text:
Løkken

Løkken may refer to the following locations:

 * Løkken-Vrå, a former municipality in Denmark, Now part of Hjørring.
 * Løkken, Denmark, a small sea side town.
 * Løkken Verk, a village in Norway.

title: Løkken


text:
Frank Darabont

Frank Árpád Darabont (born Ferenc Árpád Darabont, January 28, 1959) is an American screenwriter, director and producer. He has been nominated for three Academy Awards and a Golden Globe Award. In his early career, he was primarily a screenwriter for such horror films as A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987), The Blob (1988) and The Fly II (1989). As a director, he is known for his film adaptations of Stephen King novellas and novels, such as The Shawshank Redemption (1994), The Green Mile (1999), and The Mist (2007).

Darabont also developed and executive-produced the first season and first half of the second season of the AMC horror drama series The Walking Dead (2010–2011).

Early life
Darabont was born in a refugee camp in 1959 in Montbéliard, France. His parents had fled Hungary for France after the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, bringing his five brothers and four sisters, and three cousins. When Darabont was still an infant, his family immigrated to the United States, settling in Chicago before moving to Los Angeles when Darabont was five.

Darabont was inspired in his youth to pursue a career in film after seeing the George Lucas film THX 1138. Darabont graduated from Hollywood High School in 1977 and did not attend college.

His first job after finishing school was working at the famed Grauman's Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood. He served at the concession stand and as an usher, and was grateful for the perk of getting to watch numerous films for free. He claims he developed his writing skills from "endless hours" of writing at a desk on a typewriter in his free time, and from his childhood friend Cody Hills.

Early works
Darabont became involved in filmmaking by becoming a production assistant on such films as Hell Night, The Seduction, and Trancers. The first film he wrote and directed was a short work adapted from Stephen King's story "The Woman in the Room". This film was one of the first "Dollar Babies" and made the semi-finalist list for Academy Award consideration in 1983. Although Darabont was not happy with how the short turned out, this effort resulted in a close association with King, who granted him the "handshake deal" rights to another of his shorter works, Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption from the collection Different Seasons.

Darabont sold his first screenplay titled Black Cat Run in 1986, but it was not produced for more than a decade, as a television film under the same name. Darabont was approached by Chuck Russell (who was a producer on Hell Night and The Seduction) with an offer to become his writing partner, as he had become interested in Darabont's writing after reading his spec script written for the television series M*A*S*H.

The two began working on a script for a remake of the film The Blob, which they had planned to shop around to studios. That was interrupted when they were both hired to rewrite the script of A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors, with Russell directing the film. The two were given only two weeks to rewrite the script and accomplished it in ten days. The success of their A Nightmare on Elm Street film allowed them to produce the first script they had originally written, The Blob. By then considered a successful writer for hire, Darabont was commissioned to write The Fly II, an early draft of The Rocketeer, and an unproduced sequel to Commando.

Darabont made his directorial debut with Buried Alive, a television movie with a $2,000,000 budget that aired on the USA Network in 1990. He followed this with an extended run as a writer for George Lucas's television series The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. He also wrote two episodes of the television series Tales from the Crypt.

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
Darabont made good on the deal with Stephen King by writing and directing the film adaptation of The Shawshank Redemption. Rob Reiner, who had previously adapted another King novella, The Body, into the movie Stand by Me, offered Darabont $2.5 million in an attempt to write and direct Shawshank. He planned to cast Tom Cruise in the part of Andy and Harrison Ford as Red. Darabont seriously considered and liked Reiner's vision, but he ultimately decided it was his "chance to do something really great" by directing the film himself.

Although the film did not fare well at the box office, it was met with acclaim by audiences and critics. The film was nominated for seven Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay for Darabont. The film attracted additional viewers after its Academy Award nominations, and became the most rented film of 1995. Today it is considered by many to be one of the greatest films ever made.

The Green Mile (1999)
Darabont's next directorial effort was another Stephen King adaptation for which he wrote the screenplay, The Green Mile, starring Tom Hanks. At first Darabont was reluctant to adapt the novel as a film, as its setting was too similar to Shawshank, but quickly changed his mind after reading the novel. Hanks and Darabont first met at an Academy Award luncheon in 1994, and the two were eager to work on a project together. Stephen King said he had envisioned Hanks in the role and was happy when Darabont mentioned his name.

The film was nominated for the Oscar for Best Picture, and Darabont was nominated for his second Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay. This was originally the highest-grossing film based on a Stephen King novel, as it made a total of $286,801,374 worldwide (before being surpassed by 2017's It when it made $603 million worldwide.)

The Majestic (2001)
In 2001 Darabont directed the film The Majestic, starring Jim Carrey, Martin Landau, and Laurie Holden. He worked with these actors frequently throughout his career. Michael Sloane, whom Darabont had known since high school, wrote the script. This film is one of the few which Darabont directed, but did not write the screenplay. Darabont wanted to direct the film as he saw it as a "love letter" to works of Frank Capra and all the other movies he has loved throughout his life. The film received mixed reviews from critics and bombed at the box-office, recouping only half of its $72 million budget internationally.

The Mist (2007)
Darabont had originally wanted to direct The Mist even before he directed The Shawshank Redemption, but kept pushing it back. It was 2004 before he began to write the screenplay for the film. Most of the crew that worked on the film had worked on the television series The Shield, as Darabont hired them after directing an episode of the series. He thought they could help give the film a "more fluid, ragged documentary kind of direction".

Darabont also helped create the designs of the creatures in the film, along with artists Jordu Schell, Bernie Wrightson, and the film's lead makeup artist Greg Nicotero. CafeFX was hired to do the film's special effects after Darabont asked fellow director Guillermo del Toro who did the effects on his film Pan's Labyrinth.

The film was a modest success at the box office, but earned positive reviews from critics. King also praised Darabont's new ending, saying, "The ending is such a jolt—wham! It's frightening. But people who go to see a horror movie don't necessarily want to be sent out with a Pollyanna ending." When a two-disc edition of the DVD was released, it included an exclusive black-and-white presentation of the film, the way Darabont had always intended it to be.

The Walking Dead (2010–2011)
Darabont developed and executive-produced the first season of The Walking Dead, the AMC series based on Robert Kirkman's comic book of the same name. Darabont recalled that he had first come across the series in 2005, in a comic book store in Burbank, California. When Darabont became interested, creator Kirkman called it "extremely flattering". He said that Darabont "definitely cares about the original source material, and you can tell that in the way he's adapting it."

Darabont first initiated a deal with NBC for The Walking Dead, but was later declined. He eventually brought it to AMC, who picked it up based on the source material and Darabont's involvement. Darabont wrote and directed the pilot and was executive producer of the first season, along with Gale Anne Hurd. The series features a number of actors who have regularly worked with Darabont in the past, including Jeffrey DeMunn, Laurie Holden and Melissa McBride. The series earned positive reviews upon release and the pilot attracted 5.3 million viewers, making it the most-watched series premiere episode of any AMC television series.

In July 2011, Darabont was fired from the position as showrunner. Initial reports suggested that he was unable to adjust to the schedule of running a television series; however, it was later confirmed that he was fired due to AMC's desire to reduce the show's budget (twice as many episodes for 20% less of a budget) and to his strained relationship with the executives of AMC. Darabont and his agents from the Creative Artists Agency filed a lawsuit against AMC, seeking more than $280 million in unpaid profits. By July 2021, AMC had settled with Darabont and the CAA, agreeing to pay US$200 million and future royalty payments.

Mob City (2013)
Not too long after leaving The Walking Dead, Darabont struck a deal with TNT to develop a pilot for a new series to air on their channel, titled L.A. Noir, based on a book by author John Buntin. Darabont discovered the book at LAX Airport and, after two days straight of reading it, decided to adapt it for television. Darabont was very passionate about the project as he had always wanted to produce a film noir.

Darabont cast Jon Bernthal, whom he had worked with on The Walking Dead, in the lead role for the series. Other Darabont regulars cast included Jeffrey DeMunn and Alexa Davalos. The series was given a full season order of six episodes in the fall of 2012 and the title of the series was changed to Mob City. The series premiered in December 2013 and was met with mixed to positive reviews. The series was cancelled after one season.

Other work
Darabont also held the rights to two other Stephen King stories, The Long Walk and The Monkey, neither of which he ever adapted.

Darabont was a script doctor for the Steven Spielberg films Saving Private Ryan and Minority Report. In 2002, he wrote an early draft of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. While Spielberg reportedly loved it, George Lucas rejected it. He also produced the 2002 film The Salton Sea, starring Val Kilmer and Vincent D'Onofrio.

Over the years Darabont has reunited with his old writing partner Chuck Russell. He did a rewrite for Russell's film Eraser, they attempted to adapt a film of the 1930s pulp character, Doc Savage, and the two wrote an early treatment and were executive producers on the film Collateral.

He has also tried to produce film adaptations of the novels Mine by Robert R. McCammon and Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. Darabont still hopes to make both films some day.

The same year Shawshank was released, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, which Darabont wrote, was also released. The film was met with mixed reviews and Darabont called it the worst experience in his career as a writer as he had considered it the best script he had ever written, but that director Kenneth Branagh ruined it "every step of the way". He went on to say that "you can't really judge the script based on what you saw on the screen. It got rephrased and messed with every inch of the way." Guillermo del Toro has shown interest in adapting Darabont's draft of the Frankenstein script when he gets around to filming his own version of the story, calling the draft a "near perfect" adaptation of the original book.

In 2004, he was hired by Tom Cruise to write Mission: Impossible III, but the script was later rewritten by J. J. Abrams, who directed the film. The same year, Darabont wrote the introduction for the Hellboy novel, Hellboy: Odder Jobs by Christopher Golden.

In 2005, Cemetery Dance Publications published Darabont's novella Walpuski's Typewriter in a limited edition. The story, originally written in his early twenties, first appeared in Jessie Horsting's magazine Midnight Graffiti.

In 2007, Darabont directed an episode of The Shield titled "Chasing Ghosts". He also directed and executive produced the pilot episode of Raines, starring Jeff Goldblum.

Darabont appeared in "First Class Jerk", the October 26, 2008, episode of Entourage in which he propositions Vincent Chase to star in a TV show he is executive producing. He appeared in a September 12, 2009, episode where he is now the director of the film about Enzo Ferrari, who Vince is portraying.

According to the Battlestar Galactica: The Official Companion series by Titan Books, Darabont—a huge fan of the re-imagined series—was slated to direct "Islanded in a Stream of Stars", the penultimate episode of the show's final season. Due to scheduling conflicts, he was unable to take the job, which fell to series star (and previous helmer) Edward James Olmos.

Darabont was slated to direct the 2009 film Law Abiding Citizen, but left production due to creative differences with the producers.

At the 2012 Austin Film Festival, Darabont was awarded the Extraordinary Contribution to Filmmaking Award for his contribution to cinema.

In 2013, he lent his voice to a lengthier version of the World War Z audio book. In November of the same year Bob Weinstein revealed that he and Darabont were developing a ten part television series based on Darabont's 2007 film The Mist.

Darabont was hired to rewrite the script for the 2014 Godzilla reboot. Darabont stated that he would like to bring the monster back to his origins as a "terrifying force of nature." The director of the film Gareth Edwards stated in an interview that Darabont wrote the most moving scene of the film and that particular scene helped convince cast members Bryan Cranston and Juliette Binoche to sign onto the film.

In June 2014, it was reported that Darabont was on the shortlist to direct The Huntsman: Winter's War, a sequel to the fantasy film Snow White and the Huntsman. A month later it was confirmed that Darabont would direct the film, but it would not be a sequel, but a prequel focusing on Chris Hemsworth's character Eric, the Huntsman. However, Darabont left the project in January 2015, citing creative differences as the cause.

Darabont revealed in a 2021 interview with Mick Garris that he had recently written a script for a film centred around the American Civil War, based on an unproduced screenplay by filmmaker Stanley Kubrick and historian Shelby Foote that Ridley Scott was attached to produce. Darabont considers the script to be the best thing he's ever written and was dismayed when the film was unable to find financing.

Recurring collaborators
In addition to collaborating with actors on films and television projects, Darabont has collaborated with writers, producers, composers, and others. These include Chuck Russell, Mark Isham, Stephen King, Gregory Nicotero, Rohn Schmidt, David Tattersall, and others. Jeffrey DeMunn appeared in The Blob and Black Cat Run, both of which Darabont wrote, Alexa Davalos appeared in the pilot episode of Raines that he directed and Amin Joseph first worked with Darabont on an episode of The Shield titled "Chasing Ghosts".

The Woman in the Room (1983 film) and Buried Alive (1990) are not listed due to lack of collaborations (although Brian Libby appears in both).

Film
Uncredited writing works

Technical credits

Cameos

Television
TV movies
 * Buried Alive (1990)
 * Black Cat Run (1998)

Cameos

title: Frank Darabont


text:
Robert de Herle

Sir Robert de Herle was an English military commander who was Admiral of all the Fleets about England and Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports during the mid-14th century.

Personal
He was the son of William de Herle (Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas intermittently between 1327–37 and one of the king's council until his death in 1364).

Early career
Robert de Herle became an important official in the earl of Warwick's administration of the West Midlands, becoming his most senior official for at least the decade beginning after 1339.

Robert was overlord at the Leicestershire village of Kirby Muxloe, but more significantly became one of Thomas, the earl of Warwick's most prominent retainers and was granted a life indenture at Wadborough.

During the 1340–50s all legal settlements in Warwickshire were subject to the goodwill of Thomas, earl of Warwick, who has been called 'the most powerful lay figure in the West Midlands', at the time. The earl's absolute control over Warwickshire's administration caused a large number of people to depart the county, not 'willing to be judged by' the earl, or his officials, chief amongst, them being de Herle. In February 1345, de Herle was required by the king, along with others in the administration 'to provide a list of those who were refusing to be judged by him'.

Shortly thereafter, in the July 1345 he was in the group Warwick had entrusted some of his lands to, as marriage settlements for his daughters. In 1355 and 1357 Sir Robert Herle fought in the Scottish Campaign where he received substantial rewards for the return of a number of prisoners.

Herle was one of the ‘bachelors’ of Warwick's household during times of peace, and was required to attend the earl at tournaments and in the event of war.

Warwick granted Herle the wardenship of Barnard Castle along with its forests and lands, this, it has been stated made Herle a pivotal figure in the running of the earl's estates. Herle's was further granted a lifetime lease on several lands and rents in the vicinity of the Castle.

"In September 1343, Herle obtained a pardon of the king's suit for homicides, felonies, robberies and larcenies perpetrated by him and any consequent outlawries, and it is noted that the pardon was sealed personally in front of Edward III and Thomas, earl of Warwick."

Robert Herle was associated with the Bassett family of Drayton in 1339 as retainer to the Bassett manors of Moulton, Buckby, Olney and Walsall.

Constable of Dover Castle and Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports
Until now all lists state that the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports for the year 1361 was Sir Richard de Herle, this was however not the case and in fact the appointment was granted to Sir Robert Herle. No evidence has been found in this short study for the existence of a Richard, and I conclude this to be an age old error now rectified.

"By November of 1360 he is described as the ‘king's lieutenant in Brittany’, whilst a year later he was referred to as the ‘king's admiral’, and was Constable of Dover Castle and Lord Warden of the Cinque ports." (see ref. below).

In addition from November 1354, Robert Herle acted for the king as the steward of the lands and castles of the king's sons, Edmund and John.

In addition to his long service to the earl of Warwick, during the later years of the 1340s Herle also became an important agent of the Crown and an officer of the king's household. He continued his service for, and close association with the earl of Warwick, who was instrumental in Herle's career, and is found named on a number of Warwick's most important charters between 1350–60.

Senior naval command
He was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the English Navy from 2 December 1360 - 7 July 1364 with the title of Admiral of the Kings Southern, Northern and Western Fleets.

title: Robert de Herle


text:
Jo Benkow

Jo Benkow (born Josef Elias Benkowitz; 15 August 1924 – 18 May 2013) was a Norwegian politician and writer, notable for being an important person in the Conservative Party of Norway, and the President of the Parliament 1985–1993. He was also President of the Nordic Council in 1983.

Private life
Jo Benkow was born in Trondheim, Norway to Jewish parents, Ivan Benkow (1885–1955) and Annie Louise Florence (1895–1942). The family moved to the municipality of Bærum outside Oslo when Jo was a child. Jo Benkow married Bjørg Gerda Folkestad (1930–2012) in 1952, but the marriage dissolved in 1983. From 1985 he was married to fellow politician Annelise Høegh (1948–2015), former parliamentary representative for the Conservative Party, and daughter of war aviator Anders Høegh (1920– 1989). He was the uncle of journalistic fraudster Bjørn Benkow (1940–2010).

As a member of the tiny Jewish minority of Norway, he experienced first-hand prejudice while growing up. In 1942, he fled persecution by the Nazis occupying Norway, to Sweden. His mother and sister were deported by the Nazi regime from Norway and murdered in Auschwitz. Jo reached the United Kingdom where he served in the Royal Norwegian Air Force. He returned after the war and took up photography as a trade, his father's profession.

Political career
In 1965 he was elected to the Parliament of Norway, representing the Conservative Party. In parliament he soon became a leading figure, as party leader 1980–84, group leader of the Conservative Party in parliament 1981–85 and most notably becoming President of the Storting (Speaker) on 9 October 1985, a position he held until his retirement on 30 September 1993, after 28 years in parliament.

Benkow served as president of the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, taught international relations at Boston University, and has written books on human rights, modern monarchy in Norway, and other issues. His autobiography Fra Synagogen til Løvebakken (From the synagogue to Løvebakken; Løvebakken refers to a place outside the Parliament) published in 1985 sold 250,000 copies in Norway and earned him the Norwegian Booksellers' Prize. His book Olav – menneske og monark ("Olav – Man and Monarch"), a product of several conversations with his friend King Olav V, was a huge bestseller as well.

He was also a much sought-after lecturer on issues concerning the Middle East and Anti-Semitism. In recent years he managed to create some controversy when he criticized former prime minister and party colleague Kåre Willoch, calling him "the most biased person in the country," on account of Willoch's views on the Middle East and his criticism of Israeli politics.

Benkow died on 18 May 2013, at a hospital in Oslo, aged 88.

Awards

 * Defence Medal 1940–1945
 * Norwegian Booksellers' Prize, 1985
 * Grand Cross of the Order of the White Rose of Finland, 1990
 * Grand Decoration of Honour in Gold for Services to the Republic of Austria, 1996
 * Knights of the Order of St. Olav, 1998

Books

 * Fra synagogen til Løvebakken (1985); From Synagogue to Parliament
 * Folkevalgt (1988); Elected by the People
 * Haakon, Maud og Olav. Et minnealbum i tekst og bilder (1989); Haakon, Maud and Olav. A Memorial Album of Text and Images
 * Hundre år med konge og folk (1990); A Hundred Years with King and Nation
 * Olav – menneske og monark (1991); Olav – Man and Monarch
 * Det ellevte bud (1994, with afterword by Elie Wiesel); The Eleventh Commandment

title: Jo Benkow


text:
User:לערי ריינהארט/to do lists

Iceland

 * Category:Icelandic writers direct links to bokmenntir.is

Expected answers related to

 * User talk:Patrick
 * w:ja:利用者‐会話:Michey.M#サーガ

title: User:לערי ריינהארט/to do lists