text:
Talk:Camel (cigarette)

I just googled this to see why kamel red originals are different than the new Kamle red blend. All i wanted was information, not an anti smoking ad. I made my choice, let me smoke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.160.34 (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Clever Troll
Someone has added a picture of Mexican "Dromedary" cigarettes and passed it off as an old picture of Camels. These were a knock-off brand that capitalized on the iconic packaging of Camels. Interestingly, the Dromedary package shows a Bactrian Camel whereas genuine Camel Cigarettes have a picture of a Dromedary. This is the type of thing you would expect to see in the background of an old Merrie Melodies cartoon. It seems the picture has remained for a long time and I will not touch it myself as it stands as a testament to the reliability and accuracy of Wikipedia. 70.169.14.56 (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

POV
I removed some POV stuff (eg. "Known among cigarette enthusiasts for its high quality and smoothness, Camels contain a unique blend of..."). Please cite something that proves this - otherwise its an unabashed advertisement. 66.75.49.213

Bad link?
The link in the first paragraph of the 'History' section takes one not to any image, but to what I think is a 404 page (it's in German) featuring an elderly woman flipping the viewer the bird. Is this a prank, or what?168.215.249.176 (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

urinating man wtf?
WTF indeedI grew up in Winston-Salem, the "Camel City", went to RJ Reynolds High School and numerous members of my family worked at RJR way back in the begining---back then MOST folks in town did. But never ever had I heard about a guy with an erection in the Camel's foreleg (his name is Old Joe btw)on the package. I do not now nor have I ever smoked. But just to verify this really weird story I went to a store and asked to see a package of Camel cigarettes. I looked and looked. I can only say that a person would have to be really really eager to see a man with an erection to see one on the Camel package. Only by the wildest stretch of the imagination can one see a guy period, much less one with an erection. It's the daftest thing I've ever heard. I thik this is just wishful thinking on some fool's part. 69.154.219.220 20:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Jim H

I never heard of him urinating, all I heard is he's got a huge dick. ReverendG 16:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've smoked camels for quite a while now and never noticed this so-called urinating man. But I suppose it fits well with the theory that the late Joseph Camel's snout looks like cock'n'balls. Seriously though, shouldn't we maybe refrain from any air of certainty when speaking about unflattering image resemblances? At least until we have a credible source stating it was, in fact, intentional. Maybe something like "some observers have noted that .... bears an uncanny resemblance to ...." —  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  18:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Everyone in my army unit saw a naked woman in the leg. This tends to bear out the person who said you see what you want to see (g). Is there some documentation for this? 24.4.136.172 (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 * My father smoked Camel and poited this little guy out to me when I was a kid. He didn't say anything about the guy urinating, hough. Maybe that's something the Belgians saw in it. :) DirkvdM 09:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's there all right. Someone showed me when I was like 10 years old. The left foreleg of the Camel is his thigh. The area where it's "armpit" is would be his penis (I always knew it as "the guy taking a leak", but I guess "erection" works too). The rear curve of the Camel's flank muscle is the man's chest, the slightly triangular shape in the muscles on the front of the flank form his crooked arm: he's standing in profile to you, facing the (Camel's) rear, right leg slightly to the rear, left leg slightly to the front, his right arm crooked behind him, hand resting on his hip, left hand presumably holding his...equipment. Above the flank there is a smaller, roundish light patch which is his head. It's really quite clear if you know what you're looking for, assuming the package is the same all over the world (interesting they've changed other parts of the package, but not that Camel). Of course, I'm pretty sure people have pointed out other things they "saw" in the pack, but I can't even remember what they're supposed to be let alone find them. The Pissing Man is always easy to see, although I doubt I would have ever noticed it if it hadn't been pointed out to me. AnnaGoFast (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Image of little guy
Why was the photograph highlighting the image of the little guy removed (be he urinating or not)? Many words are needed to describe this and people may till not notice it. But an image shows it instantly and is therefore preferable. Admittedly, it was a lousy image, but it was still better than none. DirkvdM 08:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Assorted, ehm..... something
I haven't smoked for a while, but distinctly remember different text on the back of the soft-packs. Perhaps someone knows it? Something about the cost of the tobacco prohibiting special offers or discounts. Maybe I can find someone who smokes them and read the back.

> "To say that Camels were "known" for their "high quality" is to say that the concept of high quality is even applicable to a product that kills when used as directed and that furthermore the product is of high quality" Then why do we apply quality judgements to alchoholic beverages, which can have just as deadly an effect?

The article about Bogart states that Bogart had cancer of the esophagus; not lung cancer. Something is wrong.

Chip Says...

Hey I added the bit about the Blue ball, any know what the hell that it is used for???

Original pack
This should be used for the article illustration. The front has the one-hump dromedary camel with palm trees and a couple of pyramids, the back has a minaret-bearing city, and this slogan:

“Don't look for premiums or coupons, as the cost of the tobaccos blended in CAMEL Cigarettes prohibits the use of them”

This is the single most familiar face of Camel cigarettes. Anyway, it shows the camel that so many say they can see something in, in the article. The reader might like to look himself.2601:647:5800:3B60:9091:B4DD:6155:D2CC (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

"for all you smokers"
for all you smokers i bet that they dont tell you that the cigarette that you are are puffing, that if you set the all those ingredience in a bucket and combine them in the closed space would kill you. that is just a little imput and for those who quite after reading this you are smart you who dont quit are really dumbfounded and need your but kicked. thats it............ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.113.244 (talk • contribs)

 * Please do not turn Wikipedia into a forum for your own agenda. I myself do not smoke but do not go around trolling pages telling people not to smoke. Normally I would consider such an edit vandalism but since this statement was made in March it doesn't matter. In short, please do not add off-topic rants.  Philip   Gronowski  Contribs  03:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think this article needs more information about how bad Camel cigarettes are for you. Because they're allegedly one of the cigarette brands with the highest content of tobacco. Crazy Eddy 22:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Whats all this??? Cigarettes are bad?????  I've NEVER heard that before.  Ever.  Ever...everever.  Seriously tho, we all know cigarettes are bad.  Its a choice I make, none of ur damn buisness.  And if they help me get off this world with some of you a bit quicker, all the better.Duluoz
 * God, someone get this guy a chill pill. Crazy Eddy 20:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes! Don't smoke cigarettes, take drugs instead!--76.31.51.119 09:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first reply to this section. You're narrow-minded, and you did not in anyway contribute any valid arguement. Hell, I'd bet an arm and a leg you're a religious, pre-adolescent 13-year old who never so much as smelled a cigarette. Impressionable and irrational nonsense.
 * Now that was UNCALLED for! --Austinsimcox 02:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Allegedly one of the cigarette brands with the highest content of tobacco"? I certainly hope that was mean to be some sort of sarcastic joke. I should certainly HOPE Camels are sold with a "high tobacco content", since they're supposed to be "high quality" and what I am trying to buy is tobacco rolled in paper, not a bunch of shitty filler and reprocessed scraps swept off the floor like you get in cheapo brands. What do you propose as a "Safe alternative" for people to smoke in their cigarettes, pray tell? All I know is that if I get drunk or high and chain smoke a whole pack of cigarettes in a night, if they are cheap ones, the next day my throat is sore and I'm coughing. If they are Camels, the effect is not nearly so bad. Same is true of other "premium" brands. People can take out all the "POV" stuff they want, but Camels and other more expensive smokes DO taste better and are smoother, and I'm sure that person knows damn well you're not going to find a "published source" that says that, other than Camel's own promotional literature. Remember, Wikipedia isn't about TRUTH, it's about what you can find references for in a published source. Or whatever you can get away with without anyone noticing, that works pretty well too. I like the above complaint about the knockoff "Dromedary cigarettes" pack that was made almost FOUR YEARS ago, and the picture is still here: if Camels were sold as "Dromedary Cigarettes", then why the hell is the article talking about their viral and campaign for CAMEL cigarettes when they first came out? "The Camels are Coming" was talking about "Dromedary" cigarettes? Which just happened to use a very similar, but-not-quite-the-same TWIN humped Dromedary instead of the well-known Camel logo? Sure. I buy that. AnnaGoFast (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Art Packs
Camel has lots of art packs, and those seem to be a tradition. If that's unique, maybe there should be a section on it. I'm not the person to write it, but I'm sure there's something interesting to know. http://stores.ebay.com/Romanini-Collectibles_Camel-Cigarette-Packs_W0QQcolZ4QQdirZ1QQfsubZ3QQftidZ2QQtZkm

Removal of "Cigarette brands" category
I have removed Category:Cigarette brands from this article because Category:R.J. Reynolds brands is a sub-category of the former. It defeats the purpose of having this subcategory if we're going to list the articles in both. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Images
The photographs of ALL tobacco products should be removed from Wikipedia because it is letting a deadly product be advertised for free, which is morally and ethically wrong. Tobacco kills millions of people each year. It is not necessary at all to have pictures of these products on Wikipedia, and if people are searching for pictures of tobacco products, then they can use a search engine or the tobacco companies website, not Wikipedia. Please do not let photos/pictures of tobacco products be placed on Wikipedia. I am removing the photographs from this page. Thanks, Gillies corner 00:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Although it may be viewed as advertising in some opinions, it can also be looked on as a reflection of American art through the ages. Mechroneal 08:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

 * "Morally and ethically wrong" is an entirely invalid statement when refering to the context of a Encyclopedic database. The description and purpose of Wikipedia.org is to provide solid, verifable and reliable information on ANY given topic. I suppose you would also like every page describing bands to be removed for "Free advertising", along with every religious page removed for "Moral and ethnic controversy". It would be also rational to assume you would also prefer that the words "Homosexual", "Vagina", and "Terrorist" be removed because they're just supporting gay hate crimes; teen pregnancy; and suicide bombings. It is in my opinion that an online Encylopedia shouldn't have to refrain from offensive images or descriptions considering that- to be considered an information source- it should provide ALL the information possible on a given subject. I, not being a smoker, find more offensive to the narrow-minded oppresive opinions expressed in this section more than I've seen on any tobacco pages.

id think the memory of wiki should be more of an issue seeing as they are free with no adds however THE PRODUCT SHOULDNT MATTER i dont care if you go through the brands of some sort of legalised heroin or if you list brands of paint that are commonly huffed with pictures morals realy dont matter in an encyclopedia maybe a single picture with all the packages but if they are already being used and are on wiki i dont see why you shouldnt be able to put them there--Ggohtrin 14:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Put the photos back. Some one took it on himself to remove them because he thinks they are immoral? What do I do if I want the information?

Let’s remove all the liquor pix too. Now I think of it, let’s also remove all the information about [your least favorite political movement here]. That’s a *real* killer! 2A01:4C8:1163:7CDB:E40C:3BEC:96E0:A239 (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

NPOV?
I don't want to start a flame war here, so please don't take this as that. I'm not even a smoker, but including "Chemicals in a cigarette" and "List of additives in cigarettes" in the See Also section seems completely non-NPOV. What do these articles have to do -specifically- with the Camel brand of cigarettes? It just seems like a political statement. Again, I'm not a fan of smoking. But I can't imagine tolerating a See Also link to "Vicitims of Drunk Driving" on an article about red wine, either. Thoughts? SlapAyoda 08:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How about linking to "Chemicals in wine"? The links are not to "Victims of a cigarette in the eye".--In1984 09:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hah Hah, I am not allowed to comment on the NPOV thing - everyone knows I used to work for these guys and I'll get a lot of flack...   You must beleive that I and certain other posters really do worry about the NPOV thing but certain facts must be corrected when they are outright wrong. --Mrtobacco 14:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

maybe the see also is justified but a list in the middle of this artical i realy dont think so --Ggohtrin 14:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

167.106.255.101 (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)== signature blends? Blue Bead inside filters ==

as a person who hangs out at gas stations (looking at dirty magazines and joking with the cashier) ive noticed signs for the Signature Blend cigarettes i was hoping to find out if they even exist seeing as no one has them the signs just apeared at the beggining of the month anyone know anything about them? --Ggohtrin 14:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ggohtrin (talk • contribs) 14:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC). forgot to sign--Ggohtrin 14:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

signature blends come in 6 flavors, you can read all about them on the camel website. They are priced the same but have "fruity flavoring". The question I have is what is the little blue beads in the filters? The beads can be found in all signature blends. If you tear the filter apart you'll find them in the middle; 1 in each smoke, little tiny thing. I looked around on google, no answer. Current working theory, nano-distribution system for tracking camel cigarette smokers. Any better ideas?

Yeah, here's one. They are for flavoring. The Signature brands do not have a 'fruity flavoring'; they are normal tobacco flavors i.e. menthol, full flavor, robust, etc... The diferentiation on Signatures is that actual smokers design the packs. Thay are sublitted to the website and voted on, the chosen design then goes on x nnumber of packs until another rotates in. The beads are not used to track anyone. In the interest of full disclosure I work for RJR. 167.106.255.101 (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Angelus67

Fair use rationale for Image:LST-266 Camel ad.jpg
Image:LST-266 Camel ad.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the wrong place to post this. The image is an integral part of this article and should not be unfairly deleted. I will try to correct it myself - do not delete it please and don't nominate!  --Put that in your pipe and smoke it 15:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LST-266 Camel ad.jpg
Image:LST-266 Camel ad.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"Browner smell"?
"It generally has a darker, browner smell to the smoke."

I thought brown was a color... 67.180.15.227 (talk) 07:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This cigarette was also used, as kind of money
After the World War II, this american cigarette was used as a form of money, in Germany and in many other parts of Europe.Only in late 1948, the use of cigarettes as a money, was over in Europe.Agre22 (talk) 04:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)agre22

Endangering children
Yeah, well you people are endangering children. Each and every article on tobacco in wikipedia needs a "Surgeon General's Warning" concerning the known and scientific facts: tobacco causes sickness and death and is addictive. Children are accessing wikipedia to do their homework, exploring this content, and being reassured by the absence of any indication to the contrary that "tobacco is safe".

Murderers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.82.33.202 (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

 * But Wikipedia is neutral, and to put a message like that is anything but neutral. 83.67.39.175 (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because when I read this article I TOTALLY come away with the idea that "smoking is safe", and not "Jesus, don't they know that saying the same thing over and over and over again is more likely to just make people tune out and ignore them?". I'm curious about what your opinions are on the freely accessible photographs of penis, vaginas, anuses, erections, diagrams on anal sex, different sexual positions, etc, which can be found on the suitable articles here on Wikipedia? Do this not worry you, but photographs of cigarette packages are somehow "Evil"? Also curious where you got the idea that ANY kid, EVER, started smoking because of some picture he/she saw of a pack of cigarettes, on the internet, off of it, whatever. Kids start smoking because people they know, or people they look up to, smoke cigarettes. I've seen hundreds of pictures of caviar, but I'm not particularly interested in trying it. Kids aren't going to smoke because they saw photos of cigarettes on Wikipedia, and i hate to say it, but it's pretty stupid to even think that. You can do a Google search and come up with thousands of images of cigarette packs and cigarettes. Good luck censoring your kids safe. It's not going to work. AnnaGoFast (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The comment is almost 10 years old, I really doubt that the anon editor is going to see this.  Grey joy talk 06:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

C-note
Embarrassingly Basic Error ("C-NOTE")- The article says: "(C-Note = 5 US cents)"

That's ridiculous. Any American over the age of 8 knows a "c note" is a $100 bill. C, like the Roman numeral for 100... like the English prefix "centi-" (also from the Latin/Roman). So the claim in the article is off by 2000%.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.237.250.33 (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure what's up with that; each "C-note" (Camel Cash) had a "Cash Value" listed on the back, but it was something like 1/100th of a cent. If it had been .05 each, I would have gladly saved them up and cashed them in. It's possible the person meant that if you did the math, when purchasing a typical item with Camel Cash, it works out to each one being worth about .05 (100 CC will buy you a $5 item, for example), which is a shitty return for the amount you spent on the pack of smokes to get that pack. But that misses the point that people were going to buy that pack anyway, and this was just a technique to keep them from switching to other brands while saving up their tickets. If that's what the person was trying to say, it was a bad way to put it, and I think I'll remove it after all. Along with the counterfeit Camel pack that's been up for years now). AnnaGoFast (talk) 06:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The "C-note" still points to the $100 bill. Also, when I was a kid (now 67) the joke was that people were saving up their Camel Coupons for an Iron Lung. Alas, no independent source to back that up. Stargzer (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Camel Crush should be merged or deleted
Camel Crush should be... uh, merged or deleted. Right? Belasted (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Mark Shaw (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently the article only has one source, which is an external wiki—most wikis don't meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources. The article would need more sourcing to satisfy Wikipedia's guideline for notability. Generally merging allows less notable topics to stay on Wikipedia, and strengthens the quality of both topics.
 * However, if more reliable sources are found in regard to the topic's notability, then it should stay where it is. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Oh, sorry - I was under the impression that Belasted's comment was referring to the "Camel Crush" entry in this article, rather than to the separate WP article Camel Crush. (I hadn't had enough coffee, I suppose.)  Yes, I agree that it should be merged into this article, but with a short note about the menthol capsule and a ref to, for example, this: .  (Note also that "Camel Crush" is listed twice in the "Varieties" section; I'll fix that now.) Mark Shaw (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree (see discussion above). Mark Shaw (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree. BGinOC (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC) It is possible using neutral research to categorize and describe each brand and style of cigarette. The way things are going in the United States, this may become history. Secondly, if most flavors of Coca-Cola can be broken out and accurately described, so should cigarettes.

Turkish and Egyptian Theme
The article needs to cite a bit more about the Turkish theme. Tobacco came from the US, however, cigarettes came from Turkey. Around the later half of C19 so-called Turkish cigarettes, mostly exported from Egypt, were marketed in many European countries. Turks had invented cigarettes during the Crimean War, as way to use old cigar butts, and to economize on scarce tobacco. The British took the invention back home. In 1913 cigarettes still had a middle-Eastern image, and that is probably the reason for the Camel name.

Having articles about cigarette brands is fine by me, provided that they contain useful historical information. For example, Rothmans brand, and the aprtheid controversy during the 70s and 80s deserves its own article.

One must guard against the self-righteous and the self-appointed from parasiting their ideas into genuinely written articles. This is Sh*tipedias greatest weakness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.29.140.197 (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong wrong wrong. Cf http://www.tobacco.org/resources/history/Tobacco_History20-1.html

Turkish cigarettes never contained cigar scraps (Spanish did). 87.122.138.220 (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Camel Reds
on the list tof brands it leaves out Camel Reds and Camel Red Lights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.111.211 (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does. They we're removed for some reason, no telling why, a lot of anti-tobacco nut jobs troll this page becuase they apperantly have no life. I atte,pted to add them back to the list, but for some reason they won't appear in the list right. I believe the page is protected, so I would appreciate it if someone would add Kamel Red and Kamel Red Lights back to the list of "current" us brands, as I myself smoke them on occasion.

(And yes, the Kamel Red's and Kamel Red Lights are actually spelled with a "K". For those who don't know, Kamel Red's are a classic cigarette the company introduced shortly after it created the original Camel. I believe they we're made in 1914, but don't quote me on that. Anyway, for unknown reasons, they decided to render it "Kamel Red" with the "K", most likely for stylistic purposes. Anyway, they no longer make the original Kamel Red, as it was a VERY strong non-filter cigarette, but they do produce two filtered varieties that are very similiar: a full flavor and light version. Any help from someone would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added green cigaretteby 24.98.250.155 (talk) 08:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"Why do more doctors smoke Camels?"

I vaguely remembered that back in the 1940's I heard this slogan on radio. I did a search and found confirmation. I am sure the slogan got adverse public reaction and was withdrawn. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tried to include that in the article. --Laber□T 21:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Radio adverts
Lots of info on radio sponsorships for Chesterfield and Lucky Strike here, but not Camel, which sponsored Benny Goodman and Bob Crosby, as well as, numerous comedy shows in the 30s. The adverts stressed smoother, slower-burning, finer tobaccos, and frequently mentioned they were good for soothing nerves and relaxation. Slower-burning meant longer-lasting and hence less expensive, which, it was pointed out, also meant paying less in taxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.26.8 (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed the product list
please see WP:NOADS and WP:NOTDIR Smallbones( smalltalk ) 17:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

 * How is a listing of product names advertising? Personally, I think the list is overly long and distracting from the article, but I don't see how it's promotional. and WP:NOTDIR doesn't seem to apply at all.

 * Mark Shaw (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

 * From WP:NOTDIR "5. Sales catalogues. An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is a source and a justified reason for the mention." A product list is simply a statement of what products are available.  Here it was taken to 2 further degrees, what products are available in the US, and in other countries, and what used to be available.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

 * Well... I disagree that a listing of product names amounts to "pricing or availability information." But as I wrote the list was also (in my opinion) distracting, so I won't kick. Cheers!

 * Mark Shaw (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Winston-Salem nickname part of Camel cigarette's history?
I'm a little confused about why this line: "Winston-Salem, North Carolina, the city where R.J. Reynolds was founded, is nicknamed "Camel City" because of the brand's popularity", is in the middle of this page's history section. It doesn't really seem to fit in the flow of the section, since no point in time is given for its occurrence (certainly it wasn't between 2005 and 2012, the two dates the statement lies between in the article). It seems to me that this statement should be moved to a new section (Cultural References?), or removed from the article. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

 * I moved the nickname comment to the opening paragraph.GiovanniSidwell (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge from Camel Crush
I don't think that Camel Crush meets WP:GNG, and in any case its a tiny, unreferenced stub. Still, it probably warrants some mention here (,, and there is a bit more on the Bold subbrand like ). Also Articles for deletion/Camel Crush was closed as keep few years back. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, it should be merged. A 524-character stub does not need its own page. Otherwise, there might as well be a separate page for every variety of Marlboro. Just my 2¢.

17.255.233.9 (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Darwin
 * I looked at the history of it to see if this is some sort of attempt to delete an article by removing the contents then asking for a merge, but no, it appears to have always been a stub. I suspect that it's not impossible that enough material to justify a full article could be found, but given the number of years, that seems unlikely.  Merge.  XeroxKleenex (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Camel cigarette pack ~ reverse side 2019.jpg

T-zone
T-zone redirects here, but there is no reference to it in the article. Koro Neil (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

First packaged cigarette?
The History section says that Reynolds "innovated the packaged cigarette. Prior cigarette smokers had rolled their own". Really?

There are tons of earlier ads for rolled cigarettes, mentions in books and newspapers etc. The 19th century saw several cigarette rolling machines invented and used (I can't find an article about the machines but they are mentioned in eg James Albert Bonsack who developed his machine in 1880). I haven't been able to check the source given, but you could certainly buy rolled cigarette well before 1913. -- Hexmaster.se (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Camel (cigarette)


text:
Carlos Martínez (actor)

Carlos Martínez (born 30 September 1955) is a Spanish mime actor. He has participated in the formation of various theatre groups and has taught mime and theatre in public schools, at the University of Zaragoza and at numerous international art seminars. He has published two manuals on mime, In Silence and Word of Mime.

Early life
Carlos Martínez was born 30 September 1955 in Pravia (Asturias), Spain. At the age of 12, he moved to Barcelona, where he discovered his love for acting. He entered the pantomime school "Taller de Mimo y Teatro Contemporáneo" (1980), the performing arts school "El Timbal" (1981) and studied under professors such as Manuel Carlos Lillo and Jorge Vera (1982–1987).

Carlos Martínez worked throughout Europe and in countries as diverse as Brazil, Canada, Chile, Philippines, Russia, South Africa, and the USA. He toured extensively in Europe with the Zahorí theatre company (1996-1998) presenting "The Golden Rule/Learning by Doing—A Celebration of our Differences in an Open Europe". The project involved the use of drama in adult education and was sponsored by the Socrates Fund of the EU.

Over the years, seven feature-length programs emerged: humorous solo shows like "Hand Made" and "Books without Words", thematic concept programs like "My Bible" and "Human Rights". and his 25th, 30th and 40th stage anniversary shows "Time to Celebrate" (2007), "Mirage" (2012) and "Vitamimo" (2022). His collaborative programs include "Silent Night" (performed in ensemble with some of his advanced students), Pianomime (with the German pianist-composer, Johannes Nitsch), "Still & Stark" (with Andreas Malessa) and "Klassisch!" with French pianist Shani Diluka Shani Diluka.

Prizes and distinctions

 * Performed at the arts festivals Mime Champagne (1993, 1994) and Mim D’Or in France (1996) and Switzerland (1997).
 * Television for BBC (UK), TVE, TV3 (ES), SWR, WDR, ZDF (DE), LTV (LV), SRF (CH)
 * 2002 Carlos Martínez named artist of the year by the German foundation Bibel und Kultur.
 * 2004 "Hand Made" received the prize of honour, voted by the audience as the best show of the XXI Almada Theatre Festival.
 * 2006 The DVD "Human Rights" nominated for the Adam Award of the International Sabaoth Filmfestival of Milan (category: feature documentary)
 * 2009 "Books without Words" chosen by the audience as the winner of the 5th edition of the TeatroAgosto festival held in Fundão, Portugal.
 * 2014 Carlos Martínez received the Plaque of City of Amman presented by HRH Princess Muna al-Hussein, Jordan
 * 2015 Carlos Martínez received the Golden Medal, granted by the European Forum Cum Laude in Oviedo, Spain
 * 2018 Carlos Martínez received the WMO Award, granted by the World Mime Organisation in Belgrade, Serbia

Releases

 * Book: In Silence (1992; published in Spanish, German and French, German title: Stille Kunst)
 * Book: Word of Mime (1995, published in German and French, German title: Pantomimenwort)
 * Book: Ungeschminkte Weisheiten (2009, published in German, by Aussaat, ISBN 978-3-7615-5729-7)
 * Book: From the Dressing Room (2011, published in English, ISBN 978-84-614-8359-4)
 * Book: Desde el camerino (2011, published in Spanish, ISBN 978-84-614-8360-0)
 * Book: Der Poet der Stille (2020, published in German, by Brunnen Verlag, ISBN 978-3-7655-0737-3)
 * DVD: My Bible (2003)
 * DVD: Human Rights (2005)
 * DVD: Hand Made (2007)
 * DVD: Books without Words (2012)
 * DVD: Still My Bible (2016)

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

title: Carlos Martínez (actor)


text:
The Paper Chase (band)

The Paper Chase (stylized as "the pAper chAse") was an American alternative rock band formed in 1998 by producer/engineer John Congleton in Dallas, Texas, who were signed to Kill Rock Stars and Southern Records. Their albums God Bless Your Black Heart and Now You Are One of Us have been released on vinyl by the Austrian label Trost Records. The Paper Chase produced a combination of discordant melody and jagged noise pop, described by Allmusic as "a jagged structure of avant-garde jazz, noise, indie, and punk".

History
Congleton wrote and produced all of the material, with a few exceptions: Bobby Weaver co-wrote "A Face That Could Launch a Thousand Ships" and "Off with Their Heads" from the album Young Bodies Heal Quickly, You Know. Mike Sanger co-wrote "Throw Your Body on the Apparatus", and Elliot Figg co-wrote "When You Least Expect It," both from the aforementioned album.

Their next project would have been a two-part album centered on natural disasters. The first half, entitled Someday This Could All Be Yours (vol. 1 The Calamities) was released on May 26, 2009 through Kill Rock Stars Records, though the second part has remained unreleased since the band's dissolution.

Former members

 * John Congleton – vocals, guitar, programming
 * Sean Kirkpatrick – synthesizer, piano
 * Bobby Weaver – bass guitar
 * Jason Garner – drums

Session musicians

 * Kris Youmans – cello
 * Becki Phares – violin
 * Elliot Figg – piano
 * Danna Berger – viola
 * Tony Scholl – horns

Previous members

 * Aryn Dalton – drums
 * Matt Armstrong – piano

Albums

 * Young Bodies Heal Quickly, You Know (2000)
 * Cntrl-Alt-Delete-U (2001)
 * Hide the Kitchen Knives (2002)
 * God Bless Your Black Heart (2004)
 * Now You Are One of Us (2006)
 * Someday This Could All Be Yours, Vol. 1 (2009)

Singles and EPs

 * Essays on Frantic Desperation (split with E-Class and Lugsole) (1999)
 * ...And the Machines Are Winning (1999)

 * What Big Teeth You Have (2004)
 * Split with Red Worms Farm (2004)
 * Split with Will Johnson (2004)
 * Split with Xiu Xiu (2005)

Interviews

 * Welcome to Flavor Country interview with John Congleton from 2002
 * SHZine interview with John Congleton (April 2002)
 * Joe Wallace interviews John Congleton for Gearwire.com
 * McMahan, Tim (2001) "don't be afraid of the paper chase", Lazy-I

Reviews

 * Johnson, Zac "[ Young Bodies Heal Quickly, You Know Review]", Allmusic, Macrovision Corporation
 * Morris, Kurt "[ Hide the Kitchen Knives Review]", Allmusic, Macrovision Corporation
 * Brown Marisa "[ Now You Are One of Us Review]", Allmusic, Macrovision Corporation
 * Marshalek, Russ (2006) "The Paper Chase Now You Are One of Us", Stylus Magazine

title: The Paper Chase (band)


text:
Talk:Grief

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 28 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kpaon1. Peer reviewers: Alope13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Article Rewritten Substantially 2-21-11 by academic grief expert
I am a grief expert and rewrote the article substantially based on research published in RECENT peer-reviewed high-level psychology journals as well as articles summarizing similar research from the popular press. Much of what existed before was either so old as to be useless or just plain wrong or unsubstantiated. I kept as much as I could.

The bottom of the article "types of grief" is such a mess, though, that I think it should be deleted entirely. It is opinion from someone with much feeling but little knowledge of the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustynyfeathers (talk • contribs) 21:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Professional Support
I'm wondering what the point of the first two sentences are. First of all, the link does not work for the first assertion. Also, I'm not sure if that statement is even valid. The wording makes it seem as if seeking professional support due to grief is not "normal" Making sweeping generalizations about who seeks professional support does is not relevant to describing grief and it is not necessary for wikipedia to state this in an article about grief. Again just those first two sentences. I do think this section is necessary. I have left the two statements in question as to not upset any frequent editors or contributors though I am concerned they are bait lines. I would appreciate any insight from experienced editors or those experienced with wikipedia's quality standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.153.150 (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Human-centric
This article seems to talk about grief only as it pertains to humans. I think there should at least be some talk about whether and to what extent it can occur in the more intelligent animal species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.226.70 (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This was added, focusing on mammals, birds, and monogamous animals, but could be expanded on and could use citations as well. Mkearsley (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Some
"Some researchers such as Dr. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross and others have posited sequential stages including shock and numbness, denial, anger, depression and resolution." - I thought Kübler-Ross's stages were denial, anger, bargaining, depression and accceptance? Just off the top of my head... -Unregistered Anon. user

Aside from concurring with the previous commenter, wouldn't it be helpful to mention Viktor_Frankl and especially his Man's_Search_for_Meaning?

Maybe, and maybe one should read this excerpt of the book, too. It shows how willful imagination can overcome reality.

I read that loss of ideals can cause grief too in the scholarly (or scientific, I dunno the exact difference) book the Emotions by professor Nico Frijda of the Universiteit van Amsterdam. Andries 14:39, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"aphrodisiac"
I deleted the sentence "Grief is one of nature's most powerful aphrodisiac." Such a provocative statement should be credibly cited. IMDB's page for the movie "Wedding Crashers" is far from an appropriate citation.

"dabda"
I too am wondering how DABDA plays into this and from whom it originated. (A wikipedia search for "DABDA" found nothing) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.48.6.9 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 24 Jun 2005.

Elsabeth Kubler-Ross creating DABDA as the 5 stages of grief is included as common myth about the 5 stages in an article by Counseling for Loss (whoever they are). Smylers

Clarity of stages section
Kubler-Ross spoke of sequential stages, and that is made clear from the text. However, the information about the newer model omits whether the items listed are considered sequential, overlapping, or may occur in any order or even not at all. Could someone who knows please add that information. Mapping the Kubler-Ross stages, which may be more familiar to some people (such as me) onto the newer model might be helpful as well.

5 stages
This article should include the 5 stages of grief. Denial Anger Bargaining Depression Acceptance.

I think it would be quite helpful

192.153.23.100 22:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 * These were included, under "stages". They have been criticized, but they're 'common knowledge', so I'll try and make them a little more prominent.  NcLean 14th September 2006

Unlikely
"The most common loss in our society of a loved one is that of the death of a spouse" Seems highly unlikely, given that each human will have two parents, who are likely to die within the individual's lifetime, whereas only one person per couple would have a chance of experiencing death-of-a-spouse. So I've removed this statement. NcLean 14th September 2006

Hello Grief Editors:
I'm requesting that you consider this ebook as a possible link from this page.

Grieving the loss of a child - ebook Evolving Through Grief: A Mother’s Guide to Healing After the Loss of Her Child. http://www.soundfeelings.com/products/ebooks/grief_loss.htm

Thank you, Howard Richman

Thank you, Grief Editors
This is a very beautiful work you have done on Grief (grieving processes). thanks. Austerlitz 88.72.4.77 13:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

3rd paragraph looks like a copy paste
3rd paragraph looks like a copy paste from grief.net, sentences like "At The Grief Recovery Institute [www.grief.net] we have been working with grieving people for 27 years." are pretty unencyclopedic. I also dont agree about not being a single thing in common between grieving people, because they are all unique... Sure they are all unique, and they would experience things differently, but there is a lot in common too... (looks to me more like advertisement for that site, convincing people that they focus on each person specificially, and dont try any "silver bullet" solution) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.55.195.217 (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Gentlemen; I do not wish to edit your page. I merely wish for you to re-examine your original document. People have been experiencing the normal and natural feelings called grief since the beginning of time. It is only in the past 60+ years that any concept of stages have been published. The two main authors are John Bowlby and Elizabeth Kubler-Ross. Bowlby's work on attachment and loss dealt mainly with children's reactions and in no way ever professed that the stages were clear cut enough to be applied to all. Kubler-Ross's work never pertained to grieving people follow a loss. In both case the research focused primarily on death as the causitive event. This ignores the 40+ other losses that are common to the human experience. With your assistance;

Hopefully we can put to rest the stage theory for grief once and for all. For accurate information please see An Empirical Examination of the Stage Theory of Grief - JAMA Feb. 23, 2007. See Results Section: RESULTS “Counter to stage theory, disbelief (denial) was not the initial dominant grief indicator.” From the Comments Section of the Yale Bereavement Study we find, "the temporal course of the absolute levels of the 5 grief indicators did not follow that proposed by the stage theory of grief" For more accurate information for your articles please see "Mortality after Bereavement: – A Prospective Study of 95,647 Widowed Persons. It appeared in the March, 1987, Vol. 77, No. 3, edition of The American Journal of Public Health. The 95,647 widowed persons were observed for 225,251 person-years. In this, most extesnxive study ever done, there is not a single mention of any stages of grief.

Claiming to be a source for valid information requires that your information be valid. It is not enough to have an opinion and the ability to publish it.

A truly careful reading of Bowlby's work will show that his stages were not experienced by all nor were they experienced in the same manner by any of subjects studied. After 30 years of working with the breaved I can tell you that only "numbness," seems to be consistent with the majority of grievers. Even then the period of numbness is unique to each person.

I would further like to share comments from personal conversations with Elizabeth Kubler-Ross. At the International Convention of The Compassionate Friends in Philadelphia, Elizabeth said, “If I’d known the problems that would arise from people misinterpreting and misusing the stages a dying person goes through [by applying it to the survivors], I wouldn’t have published the book in the first place.”

During a later and humorous conversation Elizabeth shared that she believed that her first stage, “Denial has become the most misused word in the English language.”

Finally, as it relates to all stage theory ideas I would ask each of you to simply do a test. Take a person who is 6'4" tall and who weighs 250 pounds. Sit them down next ot someone who is 5'2" tall and who weighs 100 pounds. Then read the directins on the back of an aspirin bottle. If you truly believe that both should take 2 aspirins to relieve the same headache then you will continue to believe in stage theory. And no amount of truth will change your mind.

For your consideration,

John W. James Founder The Grief Recovery Institute

Normal vs. Complicated paragraph
This paragraph seems to put suicide as a positive solution to emotional pain and/or suffering. Whether Wikipedia thinks the whole world should go kill themselves or not, It should be put in a more Neutral light. LIMEY 22:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Grief and bereavement counseling
I am propsoing to start a new article with that title, rather than add a section to this one. What do you think?-- Ziji  ( talk   email ) 21:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Opinion?
This line:

Many forms of what we term 'mental illness' have loss as their root, but are covered by many years and circumstances this often goes unnoticed.

requires citation and I believe is an opinion, not fact. Cached 10:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Compassionate Friends quote in Sibling Section
I question the use of Compassionate Freinds quote in the Sibling Loss section. The quote makes it seem like Compassionate Freinds thinks Sibling loss is the worst type of loss. I find it even more questionable since Compassionate Freinds is a group devoted primarily to the loss of one's child, not sibling. -- Joseph Harper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.94.119 (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting source
The work at http://www.cloc.isr.umich.edu/ might be an interesting source. It reports that acute grief typically subsides within six months, and identifies several situations in which it frequently doesn't, including pre-existing depression. There's a partial description here WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can not see why this source would not be important. I see your suggestion didn't generate any interest. I removed the reference tag as there are several references so the tag is vague. The source you pointed out is a different view than the one presented in the "Death of a spouse" section so certainly important to the article for NPOV. I didn't look at the reference history but there are still section reference issues so I will add relevant section reference tags. Otr500 (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"Professional Support"
The paragraph is written in a manner to suggest that psychological support isnt necessary. People dont "choose" to seek therapy, they need it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.198.224.75 (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Actually, it's probably not as useful as the paid professionals would like their customers to believe. This source says, "To date, the research has consistently shown that grief counseling and medications do not alleviate grief; they seem most helpful in the cases of people who had pre-existing mental health issues."  It would be interesting to see if we could find a particularly strong medical source that confirms this.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

complicated grief section & questionable quote applicability
The Allen Frances article, cited three times in this section, makes no mention of the term "complicated grief". That seems a little problematic to me.

 * The existence of "complicated grief" is a current debate in the field... [citation: A.Frances article]|undefined An attempt is being made to create a diagnosis category for complicated grief in the DSM-V. [2nd citation] Critics of including the diagnosis of complicated grief in the DSM-V say that doing so will make a natural response a pathology and will result in wholesale medicating of people who are essentially normal. [3rd citation]

 *  TyrS  make my day  23:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Grammar, sentence structure, general vagueness
I have made a few edits to try to clean up the grammar, subject verb agreement, weird sentence structure, and over all vagueness of the article. Some of the material appears to be copied from psychology texts, which (I contend) are not generally known for expressive lucidity. Take this example from the article:

 * "The symptoms seen in complicated grief are specific because the symptoms seem to be a combination of the symptoms found in separation as well as traumatic distress. They are also considered to be complicated because unlike normal grief these symptoms will continue regardless of the amount of time that has passed and despite treatment given from tricyclic antidepressants”

I am not sure exactly what the author was trying to say. Maybe it was something like this:

 * The symptoms seen in cases of complicated grief seem to be a combination of the kinds of reactions found in cases of separation and in cases of traumatic distress. The symptoms are considered to be complicated because, unlike those associated with normal grief, these symptoms will continue regardless of the amount of time that has passed, and will persist despite the fact that the individual may have been treated with tricyclic antidepressants....”

The article seems to be "trying too hard" to sound like a psychology text, or to sound "technical." That's generally not a good thing, in my view. Famspear (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Two stages missing?
anger stage and bargaining stage.... a fivre stage process? Qazwiz (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Which section do you mean? In "Five stages theory" the text clearly says: "The five stages are denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance." I count to five.  Lova Falk     talk   17:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Different authors count a different number of stages anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Politically biased/propaganda content
The thumbnail image on the head of this article shows a family that mourns over a victim of a recent armed conflict. In this case it contains a link to Siege of Sarajevo article and its obvious that the uploading authority has an intent to promote their side's cause in the armed conflict - in this case its Bosnian War, which is a clear abuse of this article. I recommend replacing this image with a similar scene following a horrific event that is NOT related to the politics, armed conflict, or any other event involving human intention - at least not from the recent history. It may be replaced with a picture of people grieving over victims of a natural disaster or industrial accident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.221.87.116 (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Grief. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110618022921/http://www.time.com:80/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2042372.html to http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2042372.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090507104808/http://www.tlcinst.org:80/Moving.html to http://www.tlcinst.org/Moving.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150929170937/http://www.theswansanctuary.org.uk:80/faq.php to http://www.theswansanctuary.org.uk/faq.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding to the section on grief

 * I would like to add to the section of the article on grief. The two-track model of bereavement is introduced in this article. I would like to include how the model can be of therapeutical and clinical use to individuals following loss. It outlines how the model can be used to understand how grief and loss has affected an individuals life and possible ways to adapting to this post-loss life.Marisaolson5 (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Subject Controversy + Instructional Venturing
I find parts of the article to be inconsistent in using traditional vs. modern perspectives on grief.

Compare "[The] absence of grief or trauma symptoms is a healthy outcome, rather than something to be feared" with "[Mourning] is an essential part of healing". The former represents the modern perspective, namely those citing George Bonanno. The latter represents the traditional perspective, and is an example of the article getting instructional with "what's important for an individual" (no offense to any of his fans, but Alan Wolfelt definitely does not strike me as NPOV). How the article can sensibly go from providing skepticism of traditional grief ideas to supporting them (and without really refuting said skepticism) is beyond me.

One thing that I think would be of major help this article is a section about the controversy between the traditional and modern perspectives. Another would be the history of ideas about grief, particularly those based on (and later, those challenging) what is called the grief work hypothesis. Either or both of those topics may even be worthy of having their own pages, but I'll let others decide on that.

I know this is a controversial topic, but hopefully we can set aside how grief "should" be handled to make the article more NPOV and less instructional.

Examples of articles covering the controversy (both almost 20 years ago, but they should still be relevant):

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,24462-1,00.html

http://www.westword.com/news/the-wide-world-of-grief-5064303

GVO8891 (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Support Groups
Only one scholarly source is cited in this section. I propose removing the apparent advert reference to GriefShare, a sectarian group not generally thought by bereavement scholars to be in the mainstream. UnivProfWiki (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

 * It does appear written as advertising. Gzuufy (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

ICD-10: F43.2
Can an expert please check the medical resource info and links just added? Unsure about ICD-10 F43.2 Notgain (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Normative and normal
The two words do not mean the same thing. I get the impression that someone was afraid to write "normal" because that term tends to a host of criticisms. These worries are understandable but cannot be alleviated by writing a longer, fancier word that begins with the same letters - it has a meaning of its own that looks bizarre in this context. Just say normal or something more apposite such as "generally expected" "generally accepted" "oft-occurring" and so on. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:14F5:DA2A:39C5:8E3E (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

First Paragraph
The first and literal defining paragraph seems to be missing any sort of reference or citation. Any ideas on where this information was procured? DorianKarenina (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Greif in Corvids
I noticed that while the section on animal grief discussed birds, it did not make mention of corvids, which are very notable for possessing some similar behaviours to Elephants, Chimpanzees and Gorillas. Notably Crows and Magpies gather around the bodies of deceased members of their species and cry out. This footage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60Zg9sGnQf8&ab_channel=GuyOdishaw is a good example of this behaviour. The description reads: "In July of 2013 a Magpie died on our front street in Saskatoon and we witnessed what we believe is a Magpie death ritual. It lasted about 10 minutes as a large number of Magpies came down and seemed to express their grief over their lost comrade. Magpie rituals have been written about by Dr. Marc Bekoff of the University of Colorado."

While this initial source may not necessarily be reliable, I would suggest further investigation.

--L.H. (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Death of a child>Suicide section written like essay
i noticed this marker was removed recently by an IP user (see revision history) and decided to reintroduce it because it hasn't been imrproved from that state. maybe i could try to rewrite it an encyclopedic way but for now i can't find the time

Wintermintleaf (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Youngstown State University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Opening Infobox
In the first infobox, there should be a caption for the image; something to link this woman's demeanor to grief, or how grief is displayed in humans. Also, is a pronounciation for the word "grief" really necessary? A very small percentage of people who would not already know the pronounciation of the word "grief" would understand how to read IPA notation. If putting the pronunciation in infoboxes for pages of a similar vain is a Wikipedian convention, then please correct me. I'm only putting this topic here just so if you oppose my decision then you can reply to this. SpaiceyWarrior (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

 * I think the trend towards putting pronunciations into the infobox is so that we can get them out of the first sentence.
 * Although IPA is not normally taught in American schools (unless maybe you take a class on how to sing opera or something like that), it is commonly taught in other parts of the world, including a lot of people who don't speak English natively. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be misinformation on this page
This paragraph seems to be wrong..

"This model found limited empirical support in a study by Maciejewski et al. That is that the sequence was correct although Acceptance was highest at all points throughout the persons experience. The research of George Bonanno, however, is acknowledged as debunking the five stages of grief because his large body of peer-reviewed studies show that the vast majority of people who have experienced a loss are resilient and that there are multiple trajectories following loss."

The words "This model found limited empirical support [...] the sequence was correct although" imply that the model is a sequence, which according to doctor Kübler-Ross herself is not correct. From the page Elisabeth Kübler-Ross.. "Kübler-Ross later noted that the stages are not a linear and predictable progression and that she regretted writing them in a way that was misunderstood". Instead of "the sequence was correct" could be written "the stages were correct". The latter part of the sentence "although Acceptance was highest at all points throughout the persons experience" does not seem to add any value.

The "that there are multiple trajectories following loss" seems to then not make sense anymore, as "multiple trajectories" are possible in the Kübler-Ross model as well. Wallby (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Grief


text: User talk:62.244.222.7

title: User talk:62.244.222.7


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early modern history

Early modern history
Rather incoherent, has nothing at all to do with the article title. I don't think there is anything here that can be salvaged. -- Ferkelparade π 09:21, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. Make it a part of late-modern history. --Feedle 17:32, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Now it's a redirect. Just a comment:  there is no standardization for what "early modern" means.  I find the term rather awful, myself.  I have heard people working on Roman de la Rose say they were working on "early modern" literature.  I've heard people who were working on Anglo-Saxon say their field was "early modern."  I've heard people use it for Renaissance.  To me, it's all weasle stuff, because no one wants to admit that they study anything old or seem like they might accept a value judgment from a prior age.  Well, get over it.  Divide history in any way, and you make a value judgment.  Don't divide it, and you can't teach a class or structure your doctoral exams.  As bad as the old terms were, at least they were already done and settled. Geogre 18:46, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is a term of convenience, nothing more. For example, I use "early modern" to describe literary English after Malory (ca. 1460 or so) up to Shakespeare and the KJV Bible, because that is about as far back as I can read with little difficulty. Others' mileage may vary. Fire Star
 * Delete. Not encyclopedic -- what does "early modern" mean? --Improv 20:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Was speedied and then set as a redirect, case closed. — siro  χ  o  03:54, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)


text:
User:Gordy

blank

title: User:Gordy


text:
User talk:Pakaran/Kingdom of Wikipedia

Great, You've got to try to make this a featured article on April Fools Day 2006, don't know if it'd be widely appreciated though. AllanHainey 14:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't. Don't do it. Melchoir 01:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Where do I apply for a passport? Suriel1981 06:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OMG this page is EPIC!!! FA immediately. Don't care what King Jimbo says, but you have to do it! Although I think that His Majesty would support this as well. Zheliel 11:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Todo&oldid=30764997

Flag
I would be glad to design a better flag for the Kingdom of Wikipedia. May I do so? -ANNAfoxlover 21:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pakaran/Kingdom of Wikipedia


text:
First English Civil War

The First English Civil War took place in England and Wales from 1642 to 1646, and forms part of the 1639 to 1653 Wars of the Three Kingdoms. An estimated 15% to 20% of adult males in England and Wales served in the military at some point between 1639 and 1653, while around 4% of the total population died from war-related causes. These figures illustrate the widespread impact of the conflict on society, and the bitterness it engendered as a result.

Conflict over the role of Parliament and religious practice dated from the accession of James VI and I in 1603. These tensions culminated in the imposition of Personal Rule in 1629 by his son, Charles I, who recalled Parliament in April and November 1640. He hoped by doing so to obtain funding that would enable him to reverse his defeat by Scots Covenanters in the Bishops' Wars, but in return Parliament demanded a greater share in government than he was willing to concede.

In its early stages, the vast majority on both sides supported the institution of monarchy, but disagreed on who held ultimate authority. Royalists generally argued both Parliament and the Church of England were subordinate to the king, while most of their Parliamentarian opponents claimed his supremacy did not extend to religion, and wanted a form of constitutional monarchy. When it came to choosing sides, however, individual choices were heavily influenced by religious belief or personal loyalty. Horrified at the devastation inflicted on Europe by the Thirty Years War, many tried to remain neutral, or took up arms with great reluctance.

When fighting began in August 1642, both sides believed it would be settled by a single battle, but it soon became clear this was not the case. Royalist successes in 1643 led to an alliance between Parliament and the Scots, who won a series of battles in 1644, the most significant being the Battle of Marston Moor. Alleged failures to exploit these successes led Parliament in February 1645 to set up the New Model Army, the first centrally-funded and professional military force in England, whose success at Naseby in June 1645 proved decisive. The war ended with victory for the Parliamentarian alliance in June 1646 and Charles in custody. However, his refusal to agree concessions, combined with divisions among his opponents, led to the Second English Civil War in 1648, followed by his execution in January 1649.

Overview
The 1642 to 1646 First English Civil War is one of a series of civil wars fought between 1639 and 1653 in England and Wales, along with the separate kingdoms of Scotland and Ireland. Known collectively as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, others include the 1639 and 1640 Bishops' Wars, 1641 to 1653 Irish Confederate Wars, 1648 Second English Civil War, 1649 to 1653 Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, and 1650 to 1652 Anglo-Scottish War, previously known as the Third English Civil War. The First and Second English Civil Wars are sometimes grouped together as the 1642 to 1648 English Civil War.

The underlying cause of the war in England was a long-running struggle for political and religious control between the monarchy and Parliament that began when James VI and I became king in 1603. The issues arising re-surfaced after the 1660 Stuart Restoration, and were arguably only resolved by the 1688 Glorious Revolution. American historians like Kevin Phillips have identified many similarities between the principles at stake in 1642, and those which led to the American Revolution in 1776.

Royalist or Parliamentarian
A simple division of the opposing parties into Royalist Cavaliers and Parliamentarian Roundheads is a perspective that is now accepted as outdated, but which still informs modern perceptions. These are also influenced by the complex historical reputation of Oliver Cromwell, particularly in Ireland. The installation of his statue outside the Houses of Parliament was approved in 1856, but not carried out until 1895, with most of the funds supplied by Prime Minister Lord Rosebery. In 2004, a group of MPs unsuccessfully proposed a motion to have it melted down, and the debate continues.

However, individual motives for choosing a side were complex, and there were wide areas of alignment between Royalists and Parliamentarians. Many tried to remain neutral, or participated with extreme reluctance, while others fought on both sides at different points. Historian Tim Harris suggests that by 1640, most agreed attempts by Charles to govern without Parliament had gone too far. After the Grand Remonstrance was submitted in late 1641, moderates like Edward Hyde created a Royalist political faction, arguing Parliament was trying to alter the balance too much the other way.

Both sides claimed they were seeking to restore the "ancient constitution". For many supporters of Parliament, Stuart concepts of the divine right of kings and absolutism brought in by James VI and I in 1603 were "innovations" that had undermined "traditional" English freedoms and rights. However, there were different views on the nature of these "rights". This caused divisions within Parliament as the war progressed, since not everyone agreed on what they were seeking to restore, or even if it were desirable.

Most Parliamentarians went to war in 1642 not to depose the king but regulate his powers, while only a tiny minority sought to abolish the monarchy altogether. John Pym, Parliamentarian leader in the Commons, was one of the few who believed forcing Charles to abdicate might be the only option, since past experience showed he would not keep commitments he considered forced on him. Examples included his annulment of the 1628 Petition of Right, and the recent Bishops Wars, when he agreed peace terms with the Scots in 1639 only to provide time to plan another military campaign in 1640. These doubts were confirmed when he and his wife Henrietta Maria repeatedly told foreign ambassadors any concessions made to Parliament were temporary, and would be retrieved by force.

Charles' credibility mattered because regardless of religion or political belief, the vast majority in all three kingdoms believed a 'well-ordered' monarchy was divinely mandated. His opponents argued that if Charles would not obey his own laws or keep his promises, this presented a threat to the state which required either forcing him to do so, or deposing him in favour of his eldest son. Where they disagreed was what 'well-ordered' meant, particularly in terms of the role of Parliament, and control of the church. Both issues were linked, because in the 17th century 'true religion' and 'good government' were seen as mutually dependent. In general, Royalists supported a Church of England governed by bishops, appointed by, and answerable to, the king, while most Parliamentarians believed he was answerable to the leaders of the church, appointed by their congregations.

Another common misperception is that "Roundhead" was interchangeable with "Puritan". In reality, this term applied to anyone who wanted to "purify" the Church of England of "Papist" practices, and covered a wide range of views. Although the majority supported Parliament, some prominent Puritans like Sir William Savile backed Charles out of personal loyalty. Conversely, many Royalists objected to Laudianism, and opposed the appointment of Catholics to senior positions, while attempts to integrate Irish Catholic troops in 1643 caused some regiments to mutiny. Parliamentarians were divided between Presbyterians like Pym who wanted to reform the Church of England, and religious Independents who rejected any form of established church and wanted it abolished. They included Congregationalists like Cromwell and Baptists, who were especially well represented in the New Model Army.

Later in the war, conflicting religious and political aims resulted in the emergence within Parliament of a middle party of "Independent Royalists". These were generally religious radicals but social conservatives, led by William Fiennes, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele, his son Nathaniel Fiennes, and Nathaniel Rich. They were distinguished from Royalists in believing Charles had to be defeated militarily, and from moderate Presbyterians by their fervent opposition to state-mandated religion. After Parliament's victory in 1646, this group supported the Treaty of Newport, and a "balanced" political solution that would leave Charles on the throne. Its members avoided participation in his trial and execution, although they did not speak against it.

While Puritans were the most visible in opposing Laudian reforms and demanding the removal of bishops from the Church of England, their objections were shared by many Royalists, such as George Morley and Sir Edmund Verney. One reason was that bishops held a variety of non-religious roles which impacted all levels of society; they acted as state censors, who were able to ban sermons and writings, while ordinary people could be tried by church courts for crimes including blasphemy, heresy, fornication and other 'sins of the flesh', as well as matrimonial or inheritance disputes. As members of the House of Lords, bishops often blocked legislation opposed by the Crown; their ousting from Parliament by the Clergy Act 1640 was a major step on the road to war, since it meant Charles could no longer prevent passage of legislation that he opposed.

Their removal temporarily ended censorship, and especially in London led to an explosion in the printing of pamphlets, books and sermons, many advocating radical religious and political ideas. Even before 1642, such radicalism concerned conservative Parliamentarians like Denzil Holles. As the war progressed, both they and their Scottish Covenanter allies came to see the Independents and New Model Army as more dangerous than the Royalists and formed the "Peace Party", seeking a negotiated end to the fighting. An alliance between Royalists and these two groups led to the Second English Civil War in 1648.

Lastly, in 1642 England and Wales were part of a highly structured, socially conservative and peaceful society, while the devastation caused by the Thirty Years War in Europe meant many wanted to avoid conflict at any cost. Choice of sides was often driven by personal relationships or loyalties, and in the early stages there were numerous examples of armed neutrality, or local truces, designed to force the two sides to negotiate.

1642
Over the winter of 1641 to 1642, many towns strengthened their defences, and purchased weapons, although not necessarily due to fears of civil war. Lurid details of the Irish Rebellion of 1641 meant many were more concerned by reports of a planned Catholic invasion. Both sides supported raising troops to suppress the rising, but alleged Royalist conspiracies to use them against Parliament meant neither trusted the other with their control. When Charles left London after failing to arrest the Five Members in January 1642, he handed Parliament control of the largest city, port and commercial centre in England, its biggest weapons store in the Tower of London, and best equipped local militia, or trained bands.

Founded in 1572, these were organised by county, controlled by lord-lieutenants appointed by the king, and constituted the only permanent military force in the country. The muster roll of February 1638 shows wide variations in size, equipment and training; Yorkshire had the largest, with 12,000 men, followed by London with 8,000, later increased to 20,000. 'Royalist' counties like Shropshire or Glamorgan had fewer than 500 men.

In March 1642, Parliament approved the Militia Ordinance, claiming control of the trained bands; Charles responded with his own Commissions of Array. More important than the men were the local arsenals, with Parliament holding the two largest in London, and Hull. These belonged to the local community, who often resisted attempts to remove them, by either side. In Royalist Cheshire, the towns of Nantwich, Knutsford and Chester declared a state of armed neutrality, and excluded both parties.

Ports were vital for access to internal and external waterways, the primary method of importing and transporting bulk supplies until the advent of railways in the 19th century. Most of the Royal Navy declared for Parliament, allowing them to protect the trade routes vital to the London merchant community, block Royalist imports and resupply isolated Parliamentarian garrisons. It also made other countries wary of antagonising one of the strongest navies in Europe by providing support to their opponents. By September, forces loyal to Parliament held every major port in England apart from Newcastle, which prevented Royalist areas in Wales and South West and North East England from supporting each other. In February 1642, Charles sent his wife, Henrietta Maria, to the Hague to raise money and purchase weapons; lack of a secure port delayed her return until February 1643, and even then, she narrowly escaped capture.

On 1 June 1642, Parliament approved a list of proposals known as the Nineteen Propositions, which would give them control over ministerial appointments, the army and management of the Royal household, including the education and marriage of his children. These were presented to Charles at Newmarket, who angrily rejected them without further discussion. He was later persuaded to issue a more conciliatory answer, whose objective was primarily to appeal to moderates by placing blame for what now seemed an inevitable military conflict on Pym and his followers. Drafted by Hyde, this response has been seen as the origin of "mixed" or constitutional monarchy, although whether Charles himself genuinely believed in it is debatable.

Both sides expected a single battle and quick victory; for the Royalists, this meant capturing London, for Parliament, 'rescuing' the king from his 'evil counsellors'. After failing to capture Hull in July, Charles left York for Nottingham, chosen for its proximity to Royalist areas in the Midlands and Northern Wales. Particularly in the early stages of the conflict, locally raised troops were reluctant to serve outside their own county, and most of those recruited in Yorkshire refused to accompany him. On 22 August, Charles formally declared war on Parliamentarian 'rebels', but by early September his army still numbered less than 2,500, with much of England hoping to remain neutral.

In contrast, financing from the London mercantile community and weapons from the Tower enabled Parliament to recruit and equip an army of 20,000, commanded by the Presbyterian Earl of Essex, who left London on 3 September for Northampton. Charles relocated to Shrewsbury, further away from London but a key Royalist recruitment centre throughout the war. When Essex learned of this, he marched on Worcester, where the first major encounter of the war took place at Powick Bridge on 23 September. A relatively minor Royalist victory, it established the reputation of Prince Rupert, whose cavalry gained a psychological edge over their Parliamentarian opponents.

The Royalist army now numbered around 15,000, although much of the infantry were armed with clubs or scythes; while better equipped, the forces of Parliament were half-trained, poorly disciplined, and their logistics inadequate. When Charles headed for London, Essex tried to block his route, and on 23 October, the two armies fought a bloody, chaotic, and indecisive battle at Edgehill. Essex continued retreating towards London; after an inconclusive encounter on 16 November at Turnham Green, west of London, operations ended for the winter. The Royalists withdrew to Oxford, which became their capital for the rest of the war. Elsewhere, Sir William Waller secured the south-east for Parliament; in December, Lord Wilmot captured Marlborough, opening communications between Oxford, and Royalist forces based at Launceston, in Cornwall.

1643
The events of 1642 showed the need to plan for a lengthy conflict. For the Royalists, this meant fortifying their new capital in Oxford, and connecting areas of support in England and Wales; Parliament focused on consolidating control of the areas they already held. Although peace talks were held, both parties continued to negotiate for Scottish and Irish support. Charles sought to end the war in Ireland, which would enable him to transfer troops from the Royal Irish Army to England.

Fighting continued during the winter in Yorkshire, where the Royalist Duke of Newcastle tried to secure a landing place for an arms shipment from the Dutch Republic. With insufficient troops to hold the entire area, his task was further complicated by Parliamentarian forces under Lord Fairfax and his son Thomas, which retained key towns like Hull and Leeds. Along with Henrietta Maria, the weapons convoy finally managed to land at Bridlington in late February; on 4 June she left York escorted by 5,000 cavalry, arriving in Oxford in mid-July.

In the south-west, Royalist commander Sir Ralph Hopton secured Cornwall with victory at Braddock Down in January. In June, he advanced into Wiltshire, inflicting a serious defeat on Waller's 'Army of the Southern Association' at Roundway Down on 13 July. Arguably the most comprehensive Royalist victory of the war, it isolated Parliament's garrisons in the west and Prince Rupert stormed Bristol on 26 July. This gave the Royalists control of the second largest city in Britain and landing point for reinforcements from Ireland.

By late August, the Parliamentarian cause was close to collapse but was saved by Pym's leadership and determination, which resulted in important reforms. Both sides struggled to properly supply troops fighting outside their home regions and Parliament agreed steps to mitigate the problem. Seeing an opportunity to force Parliamentary moderates into a negotiated peace, in September the Royalists agreed a new three-part offensive. After taking Gloucester, Prince Rupert would advance on London, while Newcastle would tie down the Eastern Association army by advancing into East Anglia and Lincolnshire. Finally, Hopton would march into Hampshire and Sussex, threatening London from the south, and closing the iron foundries that were Parliament's main source of armaments.

However, Essex forced Prince Rupert to retreat from Gloucester, then checked his advance on London at Newbury on 20 September. Although Hopton reached Winchester, Waller prevented him making further progress; in October, Newcastle abandoned the second siege of Hull, while victory at Winceby secured eastern England for Parliament. Royalist failure ended any chance of concluding the war in the near future, leading both sides to step up the search for allies.

In September, the Marquess of Ormond, Royalist Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, agreed a truce with the Catholic Confederation. The "Cessation" meant troops could be sent to England, but it cost Charles the support of many Irish Protestants, especially in Munster. At the same time, details emerged of the "Antrim scheme", an alleged plan to use 20,000 Irish troops to recapture southern Scotland for Charles. Although highly impractical, the Covenanter government now broke off negotiations with the Royalists. Shortly thereafter, they signed the Solemn League and Covenant with Parliament, which provided Scottish military support in return for subsidies. Parliament also agreed to create the Westminster Assembly, whose purpose was to set up a single, Presbyterian church for England and Scotland. This in turn caused divisions with those Parliamentarians who preferred a separate Church of England, as well as religious Independents who opposed any state religion.

1644
The Solemn League created a Committee of Both Kingdoms to co-ordinate strategy in all three war zones, England, Scotland and Ireland, although Pym's death in December 1643 deprived Parliament of their most important leader. The Scots under Leven were ordered to take Newcastle, securing coal supplies for London, and closing the major import point for Royalist war supplies. He besieged the town in early February, but made little progress, observed by the Earl of Newcastle from his base in Durham.

On 29 March, Waller ended the offensive in Southern England by defeating Hopton at Cheriton, then joined Essex to threaten Oxford. Two weeks later, the Earl of Manchester defeated a Royalist force at Selby, forcing Newcastle to leave Durham and garrison York. The city was besieged by the Scots, Sir Thomas Fairfax, and Manchester's Army of the Eastern Association.

In May, Prince Rupert left Shrewsbury, and marched north, capturing Liverpool and Bolton en route. To avoid being shut up in Oxford, a field army nominally commanded by Charles retreated to Worcester; Essex ordered Waller to remain there, while he went west to relieve the siege of Lyme Regis. On 29 June, Waller clashed with Charles at Cropredy Bridge; although losses were minimal, his men were demoralised, and the army disintegrated, allowing Charles to pursue Essex into the West Country.

On the same day, Prince Rupert arrived at Knaresborough, 30 kilometres from York, to find himself facing a superior force. In the largest battle of the war on 2 July, the two armies met at Marston Moor, a decisive Royalist defeat that lost them the North. York surrendered on 16 July, and the Earl of Newcastle went into exile.

Essex forced the Royalists to abandon Lyme Regis, then continued into Cornwall, ignoring orders to return to London. In September, his army was trapped at Lostwithiel; 5,000 infantry were forced to surrender, although Essex and the cavalry escaped. At Second Newbury on 27 October, the Royalists lifted the siege of Donnington Castle, and Charles re-entered Oxford.

In military terms, by the end of 1644 the Royalists had recovered from the disaster at Marston Moor; of greater concern was their ability to finance the war. Unlike Parliament, which could levy taxes on imports and exports through London and other commercial centres, the Royalists simply took supplies from the areas they controlled. This led to the creation of Clubmen, or local self-defence associations; they opposed confiscations by either party, but were a bigger issue in Royalist areas like Cornwall and Hertfordshire.

The deaths of John Pym and John Hampden in 1643 removed a unifying force within Parliament, and deepened divisions. Supported by the Scots, the 'Peace Party' were concerned by political radicals like the Levellers, and wanted an immediate, negotiated settlement. The 'War Party' fundamentally mistrusted Charles, and saw military victory as the only way to secure their objectives. Many were religious Independents who opposed any state church, and strongly objected to Scottish demands for a unified, Presbyterian church of England and Scotland; Oliver Cromwell claimed he would fight, rather than accept such an outcome.

Failure to exploit Marston Moor, Essex' capitulation at Lostwithiel, and Manchester's alleged unwillingness to fight at Newbury led to claims some senior commanders were not committed to victory. Accusations against Manchester and Essex in particular were not confined to Cromwell, but shared by some Presbyterians, including Waller. In December, Sir Henry Vane introduced the Self-denying Ordinance, requiring any military officers who also sat in Parliament to resign one office or the other. Manchester and Essex were automatically removed, since they could not resign their titles, although they could be re-appointed, 'if Parliament approved.'

It also led to the creation of the New Model Army, a centralised, professional force, able and willing to operate wherever needed. Many of its recruits had served with Cromwell in the Eastern Association, or shared his views, and opponents viewed the New Model with suspicion from the outset. To offset this, they appointed the moderates Fairfax and Philip Skippon as Commander-in-Chief and head of the infantry respectively, as well as retaining some regional forces. These included the Northern and Western Associations, plus those serving in Cheshire and South Wales, all commanded by supporters of the Presbyterian faction in Parliament. Although he remained an MP, Cromwell was given command of the cavalry, under a 'temporary' three-month commission, constantly renewed.

1645
In January, representatives of both sides met at Uxbridge to discuss peace terms, but talks ended without agreement in February. Failure strengthened the pro-war parties, since it was clear Charles would never make concessions voluntarily, while divisions among their opponents encouraged the Royalists to continue fighting. In early 1645, the Royalists still controlled most of the West Country, Wales, and counties along the English border, despite losing their key supply base at Shrewsbury in February. Lord Goring's Western Army made another attempt on Portsmouth and Farnham; although he was forced to retreat, it showed Parliament could not assume this area was secure, while Montrose's Highland Campaign opened another front in the war.

On 31 May, Prince Rupert stormed Leicester; in response, Fairfax and the New Model Army abandoned their blockade of Oxford, and on 14 June, won a decisive victory at Naseby. Defeat cost the Royalists their most formidable field army, along with their artillery train, stores, and Charles' personal baggage. This included his private correspondence, detailing efforts to gain support from the Irish Catholic Confederation, the Papacy and France. Published by Parliament in a pamphlet entitled The King's Cabinet Opened, it seriously damaged his reputation.

After Naseby, Royalist strategy was to preserve their positions in Western England and Wales, while their cavalry went north to link up with Montrose in Scotland. Charles also hoped the Irish Catholic Confederation would supply him with an army of 10,000, that would land in Bristol and combine with Lord Goring to smash the New Model. Such hopes were illusory, and the only result was to deepen divisions among the Royalist leadership, many of whom viewed the proposed use of Catholic Irish troops in England with as much horror as their Parliamentarian opponents. Concerned by the wider implications of Royalist defeat and urged on by Henrietta Maria, French chief minister Cardinal Mazarin looked for ways to restore Charles with minimal French intervention. Talks were held between his representative, Jean de Montereul, and Lord Lothian, a senior Covenanter who was deeply suspicious of Cromwell and the Independents, but these discussions ultimately went nowhere.

Prince Rupert was sent to supervise the defence of Bristol and the West, while Charles made his way to Raglan Castle, then headed for the Scottish border. He reached as far north as Doncaster in Yorkshire, before retreating to Oxford in the face of superior Parliamentarian forces. In July, Fairfax lifted the siege of Taunton; a few days later at Langport, he destroyed Lord Goring's Western Army, the last significant Royalist field force. At the end of August, Charles left Oxford to relieve Hereford, which was besieged by the Covenanter army; as he approached, Leven was ordered to return to Scotland, following Montrose's victory at Kilsyth. The king moved onto Chester, where he learned Prince Rupert had surrendered Bristol on 10 September. Shocked by the loss, Charles dismissed his nephew.

While one detachment from the New Model under Colonel Rainsborough secured Berkeley Castle, another under Cromwell captured Royalist strongholds at Basing House and Winchester. Having secured his rear, Fairfax began reducing remaining positions in the west; by now, Clubmen militia in Hampshire and Dorset were as big an issue as the Royalist army. When his remaining cavalry were scattered at Rowton Heath on 24 September, Charles abandoned attempts to reach Scotland and returned to Newark. On 13 October, he learned of Montrose's defeat at Philiphaugh a month earlier, ending plans for taking the war into Scotland. The loss of Carmarthen and Chepstow in South Wales cut connections with Royalist supporters in Ireland (see Map) and Charles made his way back to Oxford, where he spent the winter besieged by the New Model.

1646
Following the fall of Hereford in December 1645, the Royalists held only Devon, Cornwall, North Wales, and isolated garrisons in Exeter, Oxford, Newark, and Scarborough Castle. Chester surrendered in February, after which the Northern Association Army joined the Covenanters besieging Newark. Hopton replaced Lord Goring as commander of the Western Army, and attempted to relieve Exeter. Defeated by the New Model at Torrington on 16 February, he surrendered at Truro on 12 March.

The last pitched battle of the war took place at Stow-on-the-Wold on 21 March, when 3,000 Royalists were dispersed by Parliamentary forces. With the end of the war in sight, Parliament issued a proclamation, allowing favourable terms for any Royalists who 'compounded' prior to 1 May. Those whose estates had been confiscated could regain them on payment of a fine, which was calculated on the value of their lands, and level of support; many took advantage of this.

After capturing Exeter and Barnstaple in April, the New Model marched on Oxford; on 27 April, Charles left the city in disguise, accompanied by two others. Parliament learned of his escape on the 29th, but for over a week had no idea where he was. On 6 May, they received a letter from David Leslie, the Scottish commander at Newark, announcing he had Charles in custody. Newark surrendered the same day, and the Scots went north to Newcastle, taking the king with them. This led to furious objections from Parliament, who approved a resolution ordering the Scots to leave England immediately.

After lengthy negotiations, Oxford capitulated on 24 June; the garrison received passes to return home, and Prince Rupert and his brother, Prince Maurice, were ordered to leave England. Wallingford Castle surrendered on 27 July, then the remaining Royalist strongholds, although Harlech Castle in Wales held out until 13 March 1647.

Aftermath
In 1642, many Parliamentarians assumed military defeat would force Charles to agree to terms, which proved a fundamental misunderstanding of his character. When Prince Rupert told him in August 1645 that the war could no longer be won, Charles responded that while this may have been an accurate assessment of the military situation, 'God will not suffer rebels and traitors to prosper'. This deeply-held conviction meant he refused to agree to any substantial concessions, frustrating both allies and opponents.

Although Charles correctly assumed widespread support for the institution of monarchy made his position extremely strong, he failed to appreciate the impact of his constant prevarications, both before and during the war. He made peace with the Scots in 1639, then raised an army against them in 1640, while his actions prior to March 1642 convinced Parliament he would not keep his promises, and that any money they supplied to him would be employed against them. At various points in the period following Royalist defeat in 1646, he was negotiating separately with the Irish Confederation, the English Independents, the Covenanters, English Presbyterians, France, and the Papacy.

The result was the creation of a powerful faction who believed Charles would never voluntarily agree to a suitable political settlement, and whose control of the New Model Army gave them the ability to impose one. Often grouped together as 'Independents', the reality was far more fluid; Sir Thomas Fairfax was a Presbyterian, who fought for Charles in 1639, and refused to participate in his execution, while even Cromwell initially viewed him with great respect. William Fiennes, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele, and his sons Nathaniel and John, are examples of those supported the Independents out of religious conviction, but wanted Charles to retain his throne.

Charles continued to stall, to the increasing frustration of all parties, especially members of the New Model, many of whom had not been paid for over a year and wanted to go home. By March 1647, these arrears amounted to some £2.5 million, an enormous sum for the period, and moderates in Parliament led by Denzil Holles decided to remove the threat by sending the army to Ireland. Importantly, only those who agreed to go would receive their arrears, and when regimental representatives, or Agitators, demanded full payment for all in advance, Parliament disbanded the New Model, which refused to be dissolved. Although both Cromwell and Fairfax were disturbed by the radicalism displayed by parts of the army in the Putney Debates, they supported them against Parliament over the issue of pay. These tensions contributed to the outbreak of the Second English Civil War in 1648.

title: First English Civil War