text:
Talk:Teddy Atlas

Untitled
"Tyson had molested his little sister" is this his opinion or is this documented fact (e.g. legal procedings, an admission by Tyson, etc.)? Can you provide a reference for your writeup in general? Thanks. Wolfman 17:04, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reference is Fox Sports Net Behind the Glory profile of Mike Tyson

 * I have heard about the incident several times before..now whether Tyson actally molested his little sister or not, thats another thing. Antonio Little Girls are Not to be played with!! Martin

I took out the reference to that incident for now, as finding hard evidence that it happened is difficult, and I wanted to remove the NPOV tag. Grackle 18:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

In the Beyond the Glory Documentary on Tyson, Atlas says that a member of his wife's family who was under age was with Tyson and Tyson made sexual advances towards her, he didn't molest her per se. Tyson said that he "touched her butt." 4/25/06

Can we get something on the threat that Atlas supposedly made? I haven't found anything on it. Anyone else? 12/16/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.224.229.7 (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Charitable Works
I think it's iportant to note that Teddy also created the Teddy Atlas Foundation, in memeory of his late father, Dr. Teddy Atlas.

Had one fight?
"Atlas had one amateur fight as a youth but quit due to his scoliosis"

What the hell is this guy talking about? Atlas was a Golden Gloves winner.

You don't end up looking like this after one amateur fight:

http://www.dratlasfoundation.com/images/teddybiopic.jpg

Fixed.

Atlas was not a New York City Golden Gloves Champ, he never even entered New York City Gloves. He had one fight only. His recent friends claim he won a Golden Gloves trophey in Upstate New York, but he never says so himself. Kevin Rooney, who worked with D'Amato much more than Atlas, was New York City Gloves champ.

He won the Adirondack Golden Gloves title according to this. user:71.255.56.243 obviously has a grudge against Atlas and keeps editing the article to show him in a worse light.

Atlas never had the amateur carreer he claims. If you choose to believe his friend, Jack Newfiield, who had Atlas himself as a source!! Well, go ahead. All the legend of Atlas --from ESPN documentary, to anything else using him as source, is ridiculous. He also never won Golden Gloves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.200.247 (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So apart from what you say its all lies!! They're all lying about Atlas to put him in a better light. Do you think the lizard people may be involved in this sinister cover up ? lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.177.3 (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Any boxing person knows Atlas was never any sort of amateur star, as does Atlas himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.222.5 (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Atlas was never a amateur star thats correct, but he did by all reports i can find win the 1976 Adirondack Golden Gloves Light Welterweight Championship....the current writer says that he had "9 fights, most of which he lost..." the link that is used as a sitation says nothing about fights Atlas may or may not have had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.164.83.181 (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Protection
Something needs to be done about this page. A user with several 71.XXX.XXX.XXX IP addresses keeps adding false information about Teddy Atlas to show him in a worse light. I shall request protection and action to be take against this user.

Atlas has given several versions of stories about himself over the years, including one regarding pulling gun on Tyson, and firing off round against the teenager's head. The girl in alleged incident was in school with Tyson, not several years younger.

Atlas always said he put gun to Tyson's head over disipline problems, like not listening to him in gym, and fights with other teens in D'Amato's care. Atlas changed story to incident with girl after he became more high profile.

Article by Jack Newfield is biased, Newfield was very close friend of Atlas when article was written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.106.226 (talk) 05:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The story about the gun incident and the girl was mentioned in beyond the glory which featured Tyson and Atlas. Your biased too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.232.211 (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.211.218 (talk)

Atlas was gone from Cus D'Amato's training camp by time Tyson was 15, he was not around when Mike was 16. Anyone in media, or not in media, is either misinformed, or lying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.206.62 (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

and maybe you're misinformed or lying. it's clear you have a grudge against Atlas. You're the one who keeps changing the story. You don't seem to know whether he had 1 amatuer fight or a few. the Atlas story was covered on beyond the glory which featured Tyson and Atlas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.234.66 (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I am very well informed. You keep taking out whole paragrphs of things on site that portray Atlas bad side, and Atlas was, without any question, out when Tyson was 15. Atlas did hang out with gravano, which you for some reason keep delating, he did say in his book that he planned to murder La Londe, which you keep delating, and he did attend trial of drug dealing gangster, which you keep delating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.59.91 (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you know? Nothing you've added has a source. You're trying to undermine his amateur career despite not even knowing if he had one fight or a few fights. You keep trying to add your own opinion of him as a trainer into the article, Your claim that Atlas changed the story about the girl years later is your own opinion and several sources state differently. Your obviously some1 who doesnt like Atlas and wants to show him in the worst light possible. Also see Biographies of living persons for why all negative material about a living person should by removed immediately and without discussion if it is not reliably sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.210.163 (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Atlas said he wanted and planned to murder La Londe in his book. Not a good enough source? Every account but two you mention, and every person in New York who folowwed boxing in 80's knows Atlas was out when Tyson was 15, and that Atlas himself told people it was over disipline problems, and that Atlas changed story in later rears.

Atlas hanging out with Gravano was widly reported, and his showing up at trial of drug dealer/murderer Anthony Spero was reported in papers--but you don't want that on site, so you erase it. No problem, I will continue to put it up. Have fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.116.99 (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You're deleting details about his amateur career for no reason. You keep adding your own opinion of him. and you still haven't provided a single source. Meaningless statements like "widly reported" and "every person in New York" does not count. I will continue to remove your vandalism and if you continue to violate wikipedias Biographies of living persons the page will be locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.71.66 (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In his book, Atlas tells of planning to murder Donny La Londe over something as petty as being fired by La Londe. Atlas portrays self as a man, and tough, but he needed a gun and a friend, according to his own book. He also, at age 26, needed a gun to confront a 15 year old Mike Tyson.

atlas said he was trying to scare tyson after d'amato continually overlooked tyson's indiscretions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.125.161 (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Everything you'er adding is without a source and your own opinion. Sources say he did have an amateur career. only you say he didn't. The incident with tyson and the girl is sourced., only you say its a lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.125.161 (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And the source??? Teddy Atlas! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.222.5 (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

and what's your source??? nothing!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.125.161 (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, my source is folowing this since 1970's.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.222.5 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Go and tell that to the wiki editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.236.227 (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Atlas not only won a Golden Gloves title at 139 lbs., he knocked out every opponent he faced. http://www.maxboxing.com/News/scotto111903.asp You can look it up in the Golden Glove archives, too. Guess "everyone in New York" isn't a reliable source, after all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.74.132.41 (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Atlas never even entered the New York City Golden Gloves. He did take part in a small upstate new York tournement, which is NOT the Golden Gloves. There is no record of Atlas knocking everyone out, exept himself telling that to reporters who don't check facts.

Atlas ha sgiven several versions to media regarding scar, also gave several versions of why he put gun to Tyson's head and fired off that bullet. Atlas was 26 year old man, Tyson was 15 year old teen. Some tough guy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.119.149 (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Trivia section
I know it's something of a platitude now, but Wikipedia frowns upon "Trivia" sections and this one is just embarrassing. I'd remove it if I were meaner. SirGrotius 15:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

put a gun to tyson's head
didnt he threaten tyson after tyson allegedly made a sexual advance against atlas's 12 year old sister? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.61.254 (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In different stories given by Atlas, it was: His sister in law, his cousin, his cousin in law. Atlas always says girl was much younger than Tyson. Problem with that, incident took place outside class in a school where the two teens (Tyson and girl) were classmates, making tham same age, or close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.119.149 (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In beyond the glory it was his niece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.239.148 (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

i know for a fact i saw an interview where Atlas admits to putting a gun to Tyson's head. i will search for a link. 72.45.61.254 (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

User:71
The user with the IP address starting 71.... has a personal grudge against Atlas & keeps changing the page to show him in the worst light. His grammar is also terrible! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.176.101 (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Atlas had relationships with Sammy Gravano, up until time gravano turne dinformer. Also aother mobsters. A user keeps erasing this info, and other info, in order to cover for Atlas.

Atlas has been fired by: Tyrone Trice (after 3 days) Simon Brown (after 2 fights)  Donny La Londe, and many others. That keeps getting erased also.

Atlas predicted Mike Tyson would lose to Michael Spinks, and just about everyone he faced. Atlas claimed after Holyfield disqualification that he predicted it---but he did so afterwards, so how is that a prediction? A user keeps erasing that. So it's here, where it can't be erased ( I hope) and can be read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.53.88 (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Atlas predicted Tyson would disqualify himself. It was Ron Borges who recounted the story and if you read the source you'd know that.

None of the users claims are referenced & are highly dubious. They should be kept out of the article until a source is provided.

User also keeps deleting information about Atlas's amateur career. (reference also provided) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.125.137 (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Atlas did not win New York Golden gloves, an incorrect source is not a source worth using. Ron Borges is a friend of Atlas, and also had a brawl with Atlas's former amateur featerweight Ricky Salazar, as did Atlas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.115.86 (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Roughly translated, a source which disagrees with your negative view of Atlas is not worth using. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.154.88 (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a negetive view of him, and reasons are obvious. But that does not make the fact that he never entered NYC Golden Gloves an opinion. Go to the New York Daily News archives, or NY Times, and look at golden gloves finals for years Atlas claims he won--unlesss he was named Hernandez, he was not in finals. Look at earlier bouts in tourney, in daily news---no Teddy Atlas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.198.14 (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have a negative view of him you shouldn`t be editing his article. None of your claims are referenced & mine are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.154.88 (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Claims is key word. Anyone who wants to bother can: Check Golden Glove results for year Atlas lies about being in them. Check New York Post story archive for Anthony Spiro trail, check boxrec.com to see who managed Elvir Murqi (Tori Locacio)       You do it, thene admit you were wrong about Atlas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.107.149 (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Go find a source which backs up your claims about Atlas then you can put it in. If you can't then it stays out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.233.95 (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I gave you---and anyone reading this--your source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.127.103 (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You didn't give any source! You told me to go look for myself.If you have one go find it & add it to the article.

You--go to New York Times archives, look up golden glove results from year you think he won. Find the article in playboy from a few months ago, and read it. Check people magazine for article on d'amato right after he died, where Atlas said he was homo. Do your homework, I did mine. I think it's January or February issue of this year. Funny thing is, if you google 'teddy atlas: + homo    a link to a boxing site comes up discussing it. (The playboy piece)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.108.226 (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Fight Night
Teddy Atlas is a commentator on EA Sports' Fight Night Round 4 with Joe Tessitore. I believe he's been on a few previous versions of the game with Tessitore as well. On Tessitore's entry it says he's been the voice of Fight Night since 2004. This should be included in the Teddy Atlas entry as well, but I don't have all the details on it, so hopefully someone else can add it? Thanks :) --98.242.13.59 (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Teddy Atlas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140125192335/http://www.dratlasfoundation.com/scholarships.html to http://www.dratlasfoundation.com/scholarships.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070811073630/http://ringsidereport.com/Sean072704.htm to http://www.ringsidereport.com/Sean072704.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051228082415/http://www.ibhof.com/ibhfbwaa.htm to http://www.ibhof.com/ibhfbwaa.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209131946/http://www.njboxinghof.org/cgi-bin/henryseehof.pl?510 to http://www.njboxinghof.org/cgi-bin/henryseehof.pl?510

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2019
Teddy Atlas created and hosts a podcast at Gotham Podcast Studio in New York City. Produced by Rob Mohr with Co-Host Ken Rideout. Teddy talks about fight sports and interviews boxing legends and the new class of fighters today including a recent interview with UFC Champion Dustin Poirier.

https://shows.pippa.io/the-fight-with-teddy-atlas

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-fight-with-teddy-atlas/id1450847408 Mxp6732 (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Gangster8192 01:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2019
In second paragraph under "Boxing trainer": Change end of the paragraph...

From: Moorer went on to defeat Holyfield by a majority decision.

To: Moorer went on to defeat Holyfield by a majority decision, a win that many credit to Teddy Atlas's motivation in the corner, including Moorer's manager John Davimos. After the fight Davimos stated: "I don't know if Michael could have done this without Teddy Atlas."

Source: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-04-24-sp-49843-story.html

The paragraph is a bit negative as it currently stands. To make neutral, I think it needs to add in the fact that Atlas's actions in the corner are widely seen as having given Moorer the motivation needed to win the fight. Chris.mackie02 (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done NiciVampireHeart 06:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

While we're doing edit requests, perhaps one that mentions Mr Atlas was Michael Moorer's trainer, and the one giving him advice from his corner, on the night George Foreman knocked out Michael Moorer ? :) 203.160.80.161 (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2019
Under "Sportscasting"

Change: "In December 2017, Atlas parted ways with ESPN after 21 years following his criticism of the judging in the Manny Pacquiao–Jeff Horn fight."

To: "In December 2017, Atlas was removed from live fights at ESPN after 21 years of ringside commentating following his criticism of the judging in the Manny Pacquiao–Jeff Horn fight. While removed from live fight analysis on the network, Atlas remains with ESPN as a boxing analysis and is in contract through the end of 2020."

Source: https://www.latimes.com/sports/boxing/la-sp-sn-boxing-teddy-atlas-20171213-story.html

This needs to be updated since Atlas is clearly still with ESPN. He's on all the time prior to the big fights. Here he is just a couple weeks ago on the network: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEEaJdgXz1Y Chris.mackie02 (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done NiciVampireHeart 07:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2022
In the career>other section, Willem Dafoe is referenced as William Dafoe. The link has the correct page.

Change William Dafoe to Willem Dafoe on Career>Other section 2601:192:8602:D400:ADD6:F8FA:F3C0:FDB5 (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Teddy Atlas


text:
Charles Mackay (author)

Charles Mackay (27 March 1814 – 24 December 1889) was a Scottish poet, journalist, author, anthologist, novelist, and songwriter, remembered mainly for his book Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.

Early life
Charles Mackay was born in Perth. His father, George Mackay, was a bombardier in the Royal Artillery, and his mother Amelia Cargill died shortly after his birth.

Mackay was educated at the Caledonian Asylum, in London. In 1828 he was placed by his father at a school in Brussels, on the Boulevard de Namur, shortly taken over by William James Joseph Drury; and studied languages.

In 1830 he was engaged as a private secretary to William Cockerill, the ironmaster, near Liège, began writing in French in the Courrier Belge, and sent English poems to a local newspaper called The Telegraph. In the summer of 1830 he visited Paris, and he spent 1831 with Cockerill at Aix-la-Chapelle. In May 1832 his father brought him back to London, where he first found employment in teaching Italian to the future opera manager Benjamin Lumley.

Family
Mackay was twice married—first, during his Glasgow editorship, to Rosa Henrietta Vale, by whom he had three sons and a daughter; and secondly to Mary Elizabeth Mills, who was likely a servant in the household previously. His first wife died on 28 December 1859, and his second wife in 1875. The novelist Marie Corelli was an illegitimate daughter, presumably conceived while her mother was working in the household.

Journalist
Mackay engaged in journalism in London: in 1834 he was an occasional contributor to The Sun. From the spring of 1835 till 1844 he was assistant sub-editor of The Morning Chronicle. In the autumn of 1839 he spent a month's holiday in Scotland, witnessing the Eglintoun Tournament, which he described in the Chronicle, and making acquaintances in Edinburgh. In the autumn of 1844, he moved back to Scotland, and became editor of the Glasgow Argus, resigning in 1847. He worked for The Illustrated London News in 1848, becoming editor in 1852.

Later life
Mackay visited North America in the 1850s, publishing his observations as Life and Liberty in America: or Sketches of a Tour of the United States and Canada in 1857–58 (1859). During the American Civil War he returned there as a correspondent for The Times, in which he was the first to publish the news of the Fenian conspiracy.

Mackay had the degree of LL.D. from the University of Glasgow in 1846. He was a member of the Percy Society. He died in London.

Works
Mackay published Songs and Poems (1834), a History of London, The Thames and its Tributaries or, Rambles Among the Rivers (1840), Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841).

Mackay wrote a historical romance titled Longbeard, about the medieval rebel, William Fitz Osbert. He is also remembered for his Gaelic Etymology of the Languages of Western Europe and the later Dictionary of Lowland Scotch in which he presented his "fanciful conjectures" that "thousands of English words go back to Scottish Gaelic". The linguist Anatoly Liberman has described MacKay as an "etymological monomaniac" commenting that "He was hauled over the coals by his contemporaries and never taken seriously during his lifetime". In 1877, Mackay published his two-volume Forty Years' Recollections of Life, Literature, and Public Affairs. From 1830 to 1870 (London: Chapman & Hall). In volume 2, Mackay describes a journey he made to Famine Ireland in 1849 (pp. 2:76–148).

His fame chiefly rested upon his songs, some of which, including "Cheer Boys Cheer", were set to music by Henry Russell in 1846, and had an astonishing popularity. Some popular poems include "You have no enemies, you say?" and "Who shall be fairest?"

Mackay also authored a book in 1885 on the Founding Fathers of the United States titled The Founders of the American Republic: A History and Biography that included profiles on George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison.

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

title: Charles Mackay (author)


text:
Wikipedia:VfD decisions not backed by current policies/poll

There are several dozen criteria under which a page can be deleted, these include those listed at Deletion policy, What Wikipedia is not, and some pages on specific issues like Verifiability. There is no obligation on VfD voters to have their votes conform to policy, nor should there be. However the question arises: should some mechanism be introduced to ensure that only pages that are listed as being eligible for deletion under current policy are deleted.

 * Note: this poll is still just a proposal and is not yet active

Main question
Should some new mechanism exist for blocking or limiting the deletion of pages when the decision to delete is not based in any current Wikipedia policy? Or are current pages mechanisms such as the need for a consensus on VfD, and review by Votes for Undeletion, sufficient?
 * The problem is that policy has become a great baggy monster, if, as you noted, there are several dozen reasons for deleting an article. Given that there's a page named Deletion policy, this page should be the one and only place where users should go to find reasons for deletion, and administrators should go to evaluate them. The starting point has to be a good policy. Without one, it's not reasonable to decide whether decisions are agains policy, or to determine whether a new mechanism is necessary. Fg2 01:45, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Something new is needed
 * this poll is not open yet.

Current mechanisms are enough
 * this poll is not open yet.

 * 1) Postdlf 21:47, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Radiant_* 14:55, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) - there's no need for this instruction creep; Wikipedia should not become codified law.

Question One
A larger than usual consensus (e.g. three-quarters) should be needed to delete articles when such a deletion would be counter to standing policy.
 * Articles should already be getting something like 3/4 support in order to be deleted; a simple majority is hardly enough. +sj +
 * But they don't. Admins commonly delete articles with as little as a 60% vote in favor of deletion, and admins refuse to undelete such articles when they are listed on votes for undeletion. anthony (see warning) 17:58, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * When I clear out VfD I generally use two/thirds majority as being necessary for deletion. If I keep anything that is more then two third in favour of deletion I get complaints. - SimonP 18:35, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * The problem is with the terminology "rough consensus". We should set a firm threshold.  RickK 19:48, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Rough consensus means that people have to do some work and research. A firm threshold encourages cheating.  Mozzerati 21:39, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
 * Ideally, the administrator reviewing the discussion would read through the comments. Maybe a 60% delete vote with excellent reasons for deletion should be deleted, and an 80% delete with a few excellent reasons for keepign should be kept.  I don't think there should be a hard limit, rather the reasoning should be the main thing looked at.  This would completely discourage cheap voting methods, as it would come down to what actually made more sense.  I'd be willing to review discussions I didn't vote in, in this manner, However I have taken up a bit of more active voting stance on VfD the past month or so, as I noticed more and more good articles being deleted. Also--I think that the longer the discussion, the more likey it should be kept.  Why? Because if there is enough to have such an argument its more likely that the article at question  is or is very near to being encyclopedic.  — siro  χ  o  22:24, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * A hard threshold should be set only if we want to admit that we are not requiring consensus. The only way to set a hard threshold and require consensus would be set the threshold at 100%.  But that is not to say that 100% agreement is needed to have consensus.  Consensus is not a percentage.  It's not important who votes for what.  What's important is that an effort is being made to take everyone's concerns into consideration.  One person might want to delete, because the article clutters up random page.  But another person might offer to code up a random page feature which excludes the article.  Another person might want to keep, because the article is a stub and that user plans to expand it.  But another person might suggest that the article be moved to a User subpage until the article is completed.  Consensus is an attempt to satify everyone's concerns.  VfD does not work like this at all, and setting a hard vote limit would make things even worse. anthony (see warning) 01:38, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * In theory I think a hard threshold is bad, and would encourage vote garnering and copy/paste voting - but in practice, it doesn't really matter for short VfDs, and for long VfDs admins aren't likely to read the entire piece anyway.

So how would it be determined that a deletion would be counter to standing policy? Would all VfDs be submitted to this secondary review automatically, or only by active listing? Would this then just trigger a second vote, but with a higher standard of consensus? How would it not merely turn into the ability of a minority to arbitrarily make it more difficult for a majority to get an article deleted? Without a sense of the procedures involved, I can't judge this proposal. Postdlf 21:43, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Should deletions ever be contrary to policy? If there's enough consensus to delete an article that's not covered by policy, then we should change the policy. For articles that are clearly detrimental to Wikipedia, we should have a means of hiding them from search engines (including the internal search engine) while the debate goes on. So I would not favor a higher ratio such as 3:1.

However, maybe all is not lost. Setting a higher ratio such as 3:1 is not by itself particularly effective, since it could be met with as few as three votes to delete. But if coupled with a minimum number of votes (e.g. 24), and reasoned dialog, it could become a viable alternative. Let me expand on that a bit. Let's imagine that Wikipedia:Deletion policy lists all the valid reasons for deleting an article, and none of them applies to the article in question. If 18 people can give a non-policy cause for deleting an article, and six or fewer (subject to a minimum of 24 votes) oppose, perhaps the article can be deleted without changing policy. Simple votes that say "delete" but give no support should not be counted. I'm not wedded to these numbers; they're only for illustration. Fg2 02:00, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * If a VfD has a clear consensus either way, this policy would be irrelevant. If it does not, then it is already a contentious and heavily-debated issue, and this policy would add an additional contentious issue on whether everything is going according to policy. The essential problem is that rules can be interpreted in several ways. For instance, many articles that can be construed as vanity or nonverifiable can also be construed as not so. Thus they could be construed as running counter to policy, leading to a meta-debate that is essentially pointless. Radiant_* 14:55, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * this poll is not open yet.

Oppose
 * this poll is not open yet.

Question Two
When an article is proposed for deletion which doesn't fall under any of the current reasons for deletion [as established by consensus and listed on Candidates for deletion], the discussion period should be extended to at least two weeks to allow additional discussion.
 * Not a bad idea, in most cases the problems arise because certain people don't show up to vote in any given week. For example neither Mark nor Anthony nor Intrigue voted much last week, while Improv, George, and RickK continued their normal habits.  This pushed VfD to make far more deletions than usual.  Giving two weeks for votes where there is no set policy would help alleviate this concern. - SimonP 18:35, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * I object to this only on the grounds that there will be constant debate as to whether or not an article falls under any of the current reasons. We already have the argument concerning schools.  Also, there are people who are trying to get the length of time article are on VfD cut short because of the large size of the VfD page.  I personally don't have a problem with extending the voting time for all articles to say, 10 days, but I'm sure many would.  RickK 19:45, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, there is no actual reason to delete anything nonnotable, aside from outright vanity, the only reason corresponding to that is no potential to become encyclopedic. Perhaps we can make this rule hard and fast.... if people vote to delete because of lack of notability, the discussion would be extended as research was done, and more people gave input.  — siro  χ  o  22:24, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit of clarification. Presumably we'd start off candidates for deletion as a more clearly defined version of What Wikipedia is not.  Any category getting 80% support for deletion would be added, and the category would only be removed if 50% of people support its removal.  In fact, for articles which fall under these categories, we could shorten the time spent on VfD, say to three days.  These three days could be used solely to determine whether or not the article falls under this category.  An example category could be "Movies which have grossed less than $100,000 and are not otherwise exceptionally notable."  A vote of "Keep, all movies are notable" could be thown out, because consensus has already been reached that not all movies are notable.  On the other hand, a vote of "Keep, this movie grossed $102,000" which wasn't disproven, or a vote of "Keep, this movie is exceptionally notable because it was listed on IMDB's bottom 100 movies of all time" would be a valid vote for keeping.  Any reason for deletion not on the list would require a two week period, where objections to the reason itself were valid.  If one wanted, ey could simultaneously start a vote on whether or not to include the reason in future reasons for deletion.  These two types of deletion could even be listed on two separate pages, which might be enough to convince some of those concerned with the size of VfD to accept it.  In fact, we could have two separate vote sections, one for the reason and one for the article.  Presumably the votes for the articles themselves would be obvious, and wouldn't get very long.  It's also likely that the majority of the discussion would be over the reason, which would be grouped for all the articles falling under that category instead of repeating the same arguments over and over again.  This would greatly cut down on the size of VfD.  None of this should be set in stone, though.  If people support the general idea, the details can then be worked out. anthony (see warning) 02:05, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think 'notablity' is a good criteria for deletion, and there is no consensus to include it as a reason. Any movie that can be shown to have really been made should be included. Intrigue 20:25, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I could not disagree more. Any movies that can be shown to have really been made? Should we encourage people to dig out their camcorders and make short films of their pets, and call the result suitable for wikipedia? I should hope not. Notability is an important way to make sure that the encyclopedia is not filled with banal trivia, excessively local information, and other things that don't belong in an encyclopedia. The potential to be encyclopedic, to me, comes in two parts -- firstly, that the article itself is in a form such as one would expect in an encyclopedia. Secondly, that the topic is something that belongs in an encyclopedia. While I feel that the first is important, I tend to base my VfD votes more on the second, and "not notable" typically means to me, directly, that the second criteria is false. It's true that VfD is an important policy area on Wikipedia for me, as I think that the encyclopedia is made progressively worse by the inclusion of bad articles. I feel very threatened by your efforts to denote nonnotability as not being part of encyclopedicness and as thus not being a valid reason to delete. --Improv 13:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support
 * this poll is not open yet.

Oppose
 * this poll is not open yet.

Question Three
Any VfD vote where no standing policy is given as a reason for deletion can be moved from VfD/Old to a separate page. There it will await either an explanation of what policy it falls under, or the introduction of a new policy that will allow for its deletion.
 * Too complicated. Allow removal, as below.
 * Rick's argumet, that there will be constant disagreement, applies here too.Mozzerati 21:39, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

Support
 * this poll is not open yet.

Oppose
 * this poll is not open yet.

Question Four
Articles placed on VfD that meet no existing criteria for deletion can be immediately removed by anyone from VfD.
 * Better; simple. Likewise, "Articles that can be effectively merged instead of going through the deletion process can be removed as soon as this happens."
 * This used to be policy. "If another solution has been found for some of these pages than deletion, leave them listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion for a short while, so the original poster can see why it wasn't deleted, and what did happen to it. This will prevent reposting of the same item. After the original poster has seen the explanation, or in any case after about a day, the page can be delisted from VfD."  It was changed by Benc, who claims such a change was requested on the talk page, but I see no evidence that there was consensus for this change. anthony (see warning) 18:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tracking down the change, anth! I always wondered why that changed.  We should institute a different change instead, something like this: (+sj + )
 * If you fix a VfD problem by some softer means, as in a redirect, merge, or drastic rewrite, please comment out the previous comments (with < !-- ... -- >) and add in their place a note of the form "Fixed via redirect" or "Unlisted by submitter".
 * I agree that any such policy would have to allow some time for the nominator or others to respond. Pages that are currently nominated as non-notable may very well also be unverifiable or vanity articles, which are both accepted reasons for deletion.  - SimonP 18:35, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * The whole point of VfD is to decide, by consensus, if the criteria for deletion are met, when some people say they are and others say they aren't. The only way to make this decision would be to let the VfD complete.  Then, if the vote is keep, we know we can delete it immediately from VfD :-) Mozzerati 21:39, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
 * Part of our notion of due process is not to remove things from VfD until they're done, except possibly in cases of mass-adds. I am even bothered when the submitter, even if convinced as part of discussion, removes the VfD nomination themselves (as sometimes happens) --Improv 13:47, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It's fine to leave a bare link showing readers how the article was fixed. But the discussion itself can be left out of the burgeoning page.  The active users of VfD should be more strongly aware of the fact that the system works better, the easier it is to browse. +sj +

 * That would be sufficient. --Improv 17:32, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support
 * this poll is not open yet.

Oppose
 * this poll is not open yet.

Question Five
Anyone opposing a particular reason for deletion can sign a page which allows any third party to add that person's vote of "Keep" to any page discussing deletion based on that reason.
 * Not a bad idea, but there would have to be a similar one for deleters as well. This would also address the uneven turnout idea. This idea also has the added benefit that no policy change would be necessary. There is no rule against "bloc voting" and if a group of Wikipedians decided to support such an initiative they could do so immediately. - SimonP 18:35, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * This is not necessarily true - voting in the name of another has led to arbcom action in the past. Snowspinner 20:05, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of this, could you point me to where this discussion is archived. I do quite like this option. It doesn't force anyone to do anything they do not want to, but at the same time it can be used to give some heft to any policy decision.  - SimonP 20:49, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * In fact there is something very similar going on already. With the list of seventeen schools added just recently many users are saying "delete schools are not notable" and those votes are being added as a block by Mandel. - SimonP 21:04, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * This is kind of true but he's being open about it and should be simply told that the votes aren't valid.  He can only speak for himself.
 * I don't like this at all. I think that vote counting is the wrong way to go in consensus issues.  Its a good basic starting block, but the reasoning and discussion are what should determine the final action.   — siro  χ  o  22:28, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

This would be completely unfair if an option was not also given to allow people to vote "delete" for every article. I'd much rather decide each one on individual merits, but if people are going to pull this garbage, then I guess this would be needed. Ambi 03:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * It would be helpful so such peoples votes could simply be ignored. People who always vote delete or always vote keep are showing a lack of judgement. --Improv 13:47, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I oppose delegating votes either for or against deletion. That turns Wikipedia into a battle between two political parties. If people care enough to watch VFD and to vote, then their vote deserves to be counted. If they don't, then let's not count their vote.

Support
 * this poll is not open yet.

Oppose
 * this poll is not open yet.

Meta-Question
This poll is based on the fundamentally flawed premise that there is any sort of restrictive list of valid reasons for listing a page on VfD. Since no such list exists, any attempt to declare a policy to deal with such violations is an impossible policy that cannot meaningfully be passed.

 * I agree with this meta-question to a certain degree -- I feel that notability tests follow from encyclopedic requirements. --Improv 13:47, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Radiant_* 14:57, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Deleted articles may instead moved to user sub pages

 * A related policy proposal is under discussion at Countdown_deletion.

Where someone objects to the deletion of an article, typically because others claim it is non-notable but the first person claims it could be worthy of a place in Wikipedia, they may volunteer to mentor the page. If the VfD ends with a "delete" vote, the page will be moved to their user space. The page should then be edited and improved with the aim of eventual re-inclusion. Only after a successful undelete vote may the page be moved back to the main space. If no information is added to the page for more than six months, it may be speedy deleted by anyone (even though it is in the user's space) provide more than one weeks warning is given, either to the article's talk page or the user's talk page (suitable for warning about multiple pages which will be deleted together). This process may be blocked only if the majority of the votes explicitly state a belief that storing the material anywhere would be harmful to wikipedia.

Candidates for this treatment must
 * be articles (not images or other multimedia objects)
 * have been edited by at least two users prior to listing on VfD. Edits marked as minor do not count.
 * not be subject to deletion through other processes such as copyright violation
 * not be about the mentor or an organisation controlled, even partially, by the mentor.

 * I want to propose this as a mechanism which will make less controversy about losing people's hard work whilst encouraging those who oppose deletion to improve articles. I think that the schools debate has got to the extent that stupid useless stubs are being defended to the death whilst articles which, to me, seemed to be close to encyclopaedic and could probably be saved with just a couple of days of research, have been deleted.  Mozzerati 09:23, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)

 * My only concern about this is that it will be abused to keep vanity pages intact and turn userspace into personal webspace. Snowspinner 15:46, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

 * Personally, I think that to some limited degree that's not such a problem (that's what people's own user page is for; subpages are available for similar reasons);
 * the pages are clearly primarily responsibility of that user, not wikipedia
 * people won't normally link to the pages
 * the pages don't show up in the random page list
 * but I do see the concern: if it got to be too much garbage it may become irritating. I've made some changes to the proposal to address them.  To improve this we could also set a limit (50? / 20 + number of articles mentored back to undeletion?) on the number of pages someone could mentor at a time.
 * Mozzerati 20:36, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

 * What if there were a clause specifying that an article's creator couldn't be the one to host it? Or, better yet, that the volunteer to mentor it can't have edited the article prior to its VfD listing? Snowspinner 21:19, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * I thought about that myself, but I decided that it might rule out the person best qualified to improve the article (since they have access to the material).  On second thoughts, if the person has the material but failed to get the article going then probably the mentor is more needed to help direct their work.  If others don't see a problem then I can support this change to the vote.  What about articles edited by many people?  Isn't there a risk of difficulty finding an appropriate mentor?? Mozzerati 21:51, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

 * Note that deleted articles are already moved to user pages of whomever cares enough to adopt it (see WP:AN). There's no problem with that, as long as it's done in good faith and not to circumvent VfD. Having them watched and then deleted for a period of time (e.g. six months as suggested) is only viable if done by bot. Radiant_* 15:12, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Support

 * this poll is not open yet.

Oppose

 * this poll is not open yet.

Rules
This poll will last two weeks from its start. Anyone may vote for any many or as few options as they like. Anyone may add additional options if they so desire.
 * Please advertise this vote on the Recent Changes page. RickK 19:48, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * If and when such a poll goes ahead it will be announed. - SimonP 20:44, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion
Well here is my proposal for a poll on this matter, please raise any objections you might have with the questions or format.- SimonP 17:05, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any actual examples of deletions contrary to current policy. I contend that your likely purported example, that of nonnotability, is in fact a clear part of current policy, falling naturally under nonencyclopedic grounds. --Improv 17:38, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I do, however, wish to thank you for leaving a note on my user page to take a look at your poll. While I feel that you've gone grossly over the bounds with regards to the VfD issue, it speaks well of you that you make sure to gather the attention of people you know disagree with you (Postdlf being another) for your proposal. --Improv 17:42, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This poll fails to get at my problem with the page, which is not that I object to removing listings from VfD that violate policy. Rather, it is that the only policy to my knowledge that exists for listing of pages on VfD is the vandalism policy and "Don't Disrupt Wikipedia to Prove a Point." That is to say, there are no deletion criteria for VfD, and thus any question of how to enforce them is premature. Snowspinner 19:54, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * But should there be? Why do we have polls and debates on inclusion policy if they are essentially meningless? - SimonP 20:44, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * We might argue that they're efforts to help build consensus. --Improv 21:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Quite. "Consensus B doesn't agree with earlier consensus A" doesn't invalidate consensus A or consensus B, although they can both inform a future consensus C (yes this is a grossly simplified analogy).  -Sean Curtin 01:42, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

SimonP, is this poll open or not? If it's not open, I suggest you make it clearer so people will stop voting in it, and delete or move their comments elsewhere. At least, it seems to me that people are confused. --Improv 22:41, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Fine, I guess I'll assume it's open for consensus-building, absent your response, and start to comment. --Improv 13:31, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

SimonP - I would like to see a reasonable estimate (and some examples) as to whether this would actually reduce the amount of work on VfD. Radiant_* 15:14, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:William Ros, 2nd Baron Ros

Untitled
this reads like it was cut and paste from another source. if so, what is the original reference? is it under copyright? Wolfman 17:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Suggested Move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. A technical move. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

William de Ros, 3rd Baron de Ros → William de Ros, 2nd Baron de Ros – The page Baron de Ros lists all the Barons, but began erroneously with Robert de Ros as the 1st Baron. On the Talk page for Baron de Ros I've set out the reasons for renaming, beginning with William de Ros as the 1st Baron. I've moved most of the pages, but was unable to move this one, presumably because there is already an existing page with that name. NinaGreen (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment this is a malformed multimove request, there is a related request at Talk:William de Ros, 4th Baron de Ros that is dependent on this one. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Comment Sorry, I'm new to this. I considered attempting a multimove request, but wasn't quite sure how to do it so I submitted the three requests separately. In addition to the two move requests mentioned by 70.24.248.246 above, there a third one earlier in the queue requesting that Thomas de Ros, 10th Baron de Ros, be moved to Thomas de Ros, 9th Baron de Ros. See the Talk page at . NinaGreen (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment you might ask at WT:RM for someone to fix the situation so that the two linked moves are discussed together (or that all three are discussed together, as I gather, they are related) -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for the suggestion. I've now done that. See . NinaGreen (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

title: Talk:William Ros, 2nd Baron Ros


text:
Charles Macklin

Charles Macklin (26 September 1699 – 11 July 1797), (Gaelic: Cathal MacLochlainn, English: Charles McLaughlin), was an Irish actor and dramatist who performed extensively at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. Macklin revolutionised theatre in the 18th century by introducing a "natural style" of acting. He is also famous for accidentally killing a man during a fight over a wig at the same theatre.

Macklin was born in County Donegal in the Irish region of Ulster in the north of Ireland. He was raised in Dublin, where he attended school in Islandbridge after his father's death and his mother's remarriage. Macklin became known for his many performances in the tragedy and comedy genre of plays. He gained his greatest fame in the role of Shylock in The Merchant of Venice. Macklin enjoyed a long career which was often steeped in controversy before dying aged 97.

Early life
It is thought that Macklin was born near Culdaff, a village in Inishowen in the north of County Donegal in the province of Ulster, Ireland, in 1690, and moved to Great Britain in either 1725 or 1726; the dates in his early life are not entirely clear. According to William Archer in Eminent Actors, "at his death, Macklin was believed to be 97, but his biographers have endeavoured to show that he was at least 107. The main lines of controversy are to be found in the 3 biographies of Congreve, Kirkman, and Cook". Thomas Kirkman and William Cooke, in Eminent Actors, assert that "William MacLochlainn, father of Charles Macklin, had a daughter and a son, who were born two months prior to the Battle of the Boyne, which took place in 1690". Given this information, this would make Macklin 107 years old at his death. However, in his own words, he was born 'in the last year of the last century', making the year 1699 the year of his birth. In fact, The Monthly Mirror of February 1796, a year before his death, stated that: "Macklin, according to this statement, must be in his hundred and sixth year, or thereabouts, whereas he is in fact no more than ninety-seven". According to William Archer, author of Eminent Actors, there “were no registers of births, deaths, and marriages kept in Ireland in 1690”.

Given this information, we must once again go with the very words of Macklin himself who quoted “that he was born in the last year of the last century”. His early life may remain a mystery, but we can be certain of his age at death. His family's surname was McLaughlin, but "seeming somewhat uncouth to the pronunciation of an English tongue,” he changed it for the English stage. He found various jobs as an actor in London, but, apparently, his Ulster accent was an obstacle to success and he could not find a steady theatre home until he was noticed in a small character role in Henry Fielding's Coffee-House Politician at Lincoln's Inn Fields in 1725. It was after that fine performance, that would go unnoticed by a lesser actor, that he was snatched up by the Theatre Royal on Drury Lane as an actor and a resident acting manager, serving with James Quin. Their relationship was professional, but full of plenty of animosity. Macklin devotes a lengthy section of his memoirs to Quin, giving examples of their disagreements. Macklin admits that "nothing but the necessity of business could ever make them associate together". Even the necessity of business sometimes dissolved; however, after some contract and pay disagreements in the 1741–42 season, Macklin and nearly the entire Drury Lane resident company left and attempted to find work elsewhere.

Shylock and other roles
Macklin's most important role, the one that catapulted him to stardom in eighteenth-century London, was Shylock in The Merchant of Venice on 14 February 1741. For several decades, the popular version of the play was a "fixed" text by George Granville, titled The Jew of Venice. In it, many roles were expanded, while Shylock and others were dramatically shortened. The eighteenth-century audiences were used to seeing a comic Shylock. Macklin wanted a different path to playing this character. While Macklin did not return to Shakespeare's script exactly as it was written, he did make his own edits to his script that were much closer than Granville's text. Instead of portraying Shylock as the usual comic pantolone, he played him as darkly villainous, serious, and highly satirical. Next, rather than dress Shylock as a clown, Macklin researched his role. He studied Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, and in the old testament. He learned that Italian Jews, especially from Venice, were known to wear red hats, so he took that as a basis for his costume. In seeking to portray Jews exactly how they looked, Macklin emphasised the notion of historical accuracy in costuming, which would later become an inherent feature of realism in the 19th century. Macklin did not merely "study" the Jews. According to Appleton, "he actually interacted with them in marketplaces and learned to gradually adapt their way of speech".

Finally, opening night came. This faithfulness to Shakespeare's original intent for the character, combined with Macklin's revolutionary method of attempting some semblance of realism in his performance, resulted in uproarious applause. Macklin himself confesses, "On my return to the green-room, after the play was over, it was crowded with nobility and critics, who all complimented me in the warmest and most unbounded manner". King George II saw the production and was so moved he could not fall asleep that night. "This is the Jew/ That Shakespeare drew" is a phrase attributed to Pope.

Many tried to replicate Macklin's performance of Shylock, but none of the six actors that attempted the role at the rival Covent Garden theatre from 1744 to 1746 were able to match nearly the acclaim that Macklin had received for his Shylock. Even Macklin was unable to match his performance. He did have a varied career, filled with at least 490 roles, but none of them were anywhere near the uproar his Shylock caused. Even his two closest in hype, roles from The Confederacy and Love for Love, were roles designed to emulate Shylock. He played Shylock for nearly the next fifty years, as well as Iago in Othello and the Ghost in Hamlet. In Ben Jonson's Volpone, he played the part of Mosca. He was the creator of Sir Pertinax Macsycophant, a famous burlesque character, and he was Macbeth at Covent Garden in 1772, in a production with authentic Scottish costumes.

Together with David Garrick, his student, friend, and partner, Macklin revolutionised acting in the 18th century. Garrick and Macklin eventually had a falling out in the mid-1740s, which derailed Macklin's rise whilst propelling Garrick's own career. Macklin, then the stage manager at Drury Lane, participated in an actor walkout. When the actors, led by Garrick, were forced to accept the owner's terms, they had to abandon Macklin, who, as the stage manager, could have quelled the actors' strike, rather than participated in it. Macklin felt betrayed by Garrick and the other actors and he refused the £3 a week that Garrick offered him.

He also acted regularly in Dublin, in the Aunger Street and Smock Alley Theatres and in the Crow Street Theatre, which he founded in 1758.

Macklin was replaced by Samuel Foote at Drury Lane when he was appearing in An Englishman in Paris. It was written by Foote and he took Macklin's role. Maria Macklin remained in the cast and Macklin opened his own establishment in 1753. He opened a tavern at which he gave a nightly lecture followed by a debate, which Macklin called the British Inquisition. According to some histories, Macklin claimed at one of these shows to have such a good memory that he could recite any speech after reading through it once. As a challenge, Samuel Foote allegedly wrote The Great Panjandrum, a nonsense poem designed to be particularly difficult to memorise. The word Panjandrum has since passed into the English language. In about 1768 Johan Zoffany created a painting of Macklin's renowned role of Shylock. Maria Macklin was included in the painting in the role of Portia and Jane Lessingham is at the foot of the dias. The painting is unusual in that it includes the lawyer Lord Mansfield to the left who may have commissioned the painting. The painting is now in The Tate in London.

Macklin returned to the stage, but finally retired in 1789, when he found he was no longer able to recall the entire part of Shylock. He lived another eight years, supported by the income from a subscription edition of two of his best plays, The Man of the World and Love in a Maze.

Playwright
He wrote many plays, including Love a la Mode (1759), The School for Husbands, or The Married Libertine (1761), and The Man of the World (1781). The True-Born Irishman (1763), renamed The Irish Fine Lady for its English production, was a hit in Ireland, but a flop in England. Macklin observed: "I believe the audience are right. There's a geography in humour as well as in morals, which I had not previously considered." Brian Friel used the play as the basis for his one-act The London Vertigo produced in Dublin in 1992.

Introduction of naturalistic acting
Macklin revolutionised acting in the 18th century by introducing a natural style of acting, being the first actor of his generation to break away from the old declamatory style. According to Wilson Goldfarb, "the predominant approach to acting in the 18th century is usually described as bombastic or declamatory, terms that suggest its emphasis on oratorical skills". Due to this emphasis on speaking, rehearsal time was short, stage movement was standardised, and actors often spoke directly to the audience rather than characters onstage. Wilson and Goldfarb go on to say that there were a few innovators who were "opposed to the emphasis on declamation, stereotypical positions of performers onstage, and singsong delivery of verse; they wanted to create individual characters, and they wanted to have more careful rehearsal procedures". As a performer, Macklin was confined to the mainstream practices of 18th-century theatre companies but, through training young actors, he was able to put his ideas into practice.

How Macklin trained his students
Appleton states that "Macklin believed acting a science, founded upon nature. He stressed the importance of a thorough knowledge of one's role, of propriety of dress, and of attention the business of the scene; the necessity of avoiding monotony of tone". It was not uncommon for Macklin to advise a student to unlearn all they had learned about acting. According to Appleton "Macklin made this the preliminary condition for all of his pupils. To hesitate was to be instantly dismissed. But once the condition had been agreed to, Macklin proved a dedicated teacher, willing to take infinite pains and often willing to instruct them for nothing". Most importantly, Macklin wanted his students to speak as they would in everyday life; basically transferring reality to the stage. Appleton portrays how Macklin trained his students to do this: “In the garden of his Drumcondra, Dublin house, two of his pupils would stroll down two parallel walks while Macklin walked in the middle. They would walk for ten paces, and then exchange bits of conversation. They would repeat this many times until Macklin was satisfied in every particular”. In this way, Macklin drilled his students until they acquired an ease of speech and manner. To cope with projection in the theatres, Macklin would often recite from Milton's Paradise Lost or soliloquies from Macbeth or Othello, having his students to imitate him in clarity, speech, and volume. Appleton adds that "while he concentrated primarily on achieving clear and natural diction, he stressed as well the importance of mastering variety of tone and pause to indicate transitions of thought and associations of ideas". Macklin taught his students three fundamental pauses: moderate, longer, and grand. Each type of pause served an important function depending on the scene.

Macklin was one of the forerunners to stress the need to regularise rehearsals. Appleton states that "actors, compelled by the repertory system to know scores of parts, generally relied on conventional attitudes, gestures, and tones to carry them through a performance and felt little enthusiasm for this discipline. Sometimes they were absent from rehearsals. Often they arrived late, stumbled through their lines and drifted away". Macklin was not only concerned about his individual actors, but with the whole production, and so everyone had to come prepared and on time. This led to a relentless discipline unmatched in other students at the time. For the rest of his life, Macklin would continue to train his students with such intensity and passion and through them, make an important contribution to the English Theatre.

Marriages
During the 1730s Macklin was involved in a relationship with an Irish actress. Her name was thought to be Ann Grace or Ann Grace Purvor. She was a noted actress and she assumed the name of Macklin although it is likely the pair never married. Their daughter, Maria Macklin (1733–1781), became a popular actress. Ann died on 28 December 1758 and he began an affair with his servant Elizabeth Jones, whose age was matched to that of his daughter. They had a long relationship before they were married on 13 February 1778.

Legal problems
Macklin lived a tempestuous life, often involved in lawsuits, sometimes acting as his own lawyer. In 1735 he quarrelled with a fellow actor named Thomas Hallam, whom he accidentally killed by thrusting his cane through Hallam's eye. The pair had argued over a wig whilst performing a new farce, Trick for Trick. The incident occurred in the Scene Room of the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, in front of many witnesses, and Macklin, after the sudden fit of temper, was sorry and arranged for a physician to attend to Hallam. The cane had pierced through Hallam's eye into his brain and he died one day later. Macklin was tried for murder, conducted his own defence and, though not acquitted, escaped with manslaughter. The punishment for manslaughter was the branding of a letter 'M' upon the hand, by this period not with a hot but with a cold iron, although there is no evidence that this was actually carried out on Macklin. In 1772 he sued the organizers of a riot among the theatregoers who had demanded that he be fired. He recovered £600, but chose to accept instead the defendants' purchase of £100 in tickets at three benefits for himself, his daughter and the management.

Death and legacy
He lived a long life and may have died a centenarian, although that is not without doubt. While his second wife gave his birth year as 1690 on the memorial tablet installed in St. Paul's Church, Covent Garden, making him 107 at his death; others have suggested that he was born in 1699 or 1710. His memorial shows a dagger piercing the eye of a theatrical mask, a contrite reference to his altercation with Thomas Hallam.

Macklin's famous role as Shylock and introduction of naturalistic acting would later influence realism in the 19th century. Macklin's drive and discipline to perfect himself as an actor and teacher still inspires theatre practitioners today. Macklin is remembered today in his native Inishowen, where the Charles Macklin Autumn School is held each October in the village of Culdaff.

title: Charles Macklin


text:
Norman Macleod (Caraid nan Gaidheal)

Norman MacLeod, known in Gaelic as Caraid nan Gàidheal ("friend of the Gael"), was a Church of Scotland minister, poet, and writer. He was Chaplain to Queen Victoria and Dean of the Chapel Royal in Scotland.

Life
He was the son of the Rev. Norman Macleod, D.D. (1745 – 1824), and father of the Rev. Norman Macleod (1812 – 1872).

MacLeod was a distinguished minister of the Scottish Church, and studied at Edinburgh. He was licensed to preach by the Presbytery of Mull in 1806. He became one of the most distinguished ministers, and most popular preachers of his Church, becoming Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1836. He was Dean of the Chapel Royal and a trusted friend of Queen Victoria. He preached to Queen Victoria and Prince Albert during their second visit to Scotland in 1844.

He was an enormously influential writer of Gaelic prose, founding and editing two of the earliest Gaelic periodicals, An Teachdaire Gaelach (The Highland Messenger) (1829–32) and Cuairtear nan Gleann (The Traveller of the Glens) (1840–43), as well as later contributing to Fear-Tathaich nam Beann (The Mountaineer) (1848) edited by his son in law, the Rev. Archibald Clerk. He was an enthusiastic proponent of Gaelic education and the welfare of Highlanders. As a smooth operator in church politics he secured the support of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland for a Highland education scheme in 1824, with the purpose of teaching the people of the Highlands and Islands to read the Bible, catechism and other material in their native Gaelic. Within a few years these schools had an attendance in excess of 22,000, while other Gaelic Schools Societies and the Society in Scotland for Propagating Christian Knowledge (SSPCK) were similarly bringing literacy in Gaelic to many more.

MacLeod published a 'reader' for the General Assembly Schools in 1828. This, the periodicals, and a further collection of writings published in 1834 as Leabhar nan Cnoc (The Book of the Hills subtitled 'things old and new for the education and improvement of the Gael') covered a very wide range of material, from discussion of Chartists, Luddites and electoral reform to volcanoes and the natural world, encompassing subjects as diverse as politics, religion, current affairs, popular science, emigration, animal husbandry, technological developments and city life. Much of it was humorous, and written in the form of soap opera-like sketches and letters 'home'.

He conducted a preaching tour in Ireland in the 1830s - not in English, but to Irish-speaking districts using his own Gaelic. In conjunction with Ppresbyterians in Belfast he made a translation into Irish of the metrical psalms, although it has to be said the text is an odd hybrid of Scottish Gaelic and Irish.

Along with the Rev Prof Daniel Dewar he produced a Gaelic-English/English-Gaelic dictionary in 1831, reprinted 13 times between then and 1910.

Shortly after his death, a collection of his Gaelic prose writings was edited by his son in law, Archibald Clerk, with a biographical sketch by Norman MacLeod jnr., first published as Caraid nan Gaidheal in 1867, reprinted in 1899 and 1910. A second collection was issued in 1901. Other writings include two Gaelic sermons, one on the outbreak of cholera in Glasgow in 1832.

MacLeod used his influence to secure Government aid for the Gaels during the potato famines of 1836-37 and 1847, earning the soubriquet, 'Caraid nan Gàidheal' (Friend of the Gael). A speech delivered in the Egyptian Room of the Mansion House, London, resulted in John Dunmore Lang, a Presbyterian minister in Australia, putting in place opportunities for Gaels to emigrate to Australia.

Family
He married Agnes Maxwell of Aros; they had five sons and six daughters. The two elder sons, Norman Macleod (1812–1872) and Donald became ministers of the Church of Scotland. Their third son, Sir George Husband Baird MacLeod was a surgeon.

MacLeod is sometimes confused with his son, also Rev. Dr. Norman MacLeod, 1812–72, also a Moderator of the General Assembly (in 1869), and author of Morvern, a Highland Parish (first published 1867) and of the song "Farewell to Fiunary".

A statue was erected to Norman jnr. Cathedral Square, Glasgow showing him in the court dress of Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, over which he wears the Geneva gown of a Minister of that Church, with the hood of a Doctor of Divinity. He sports the badge of Dean of the Thistle. He is brandishing a Bible and raising his hand in preaching. He can also be seen, this time greeting Queen Victoria, in a relief on her statue in George Square on the occasion of her visit to the Cathedral. The location is significant as it is next to the old Barony Church, of which his son, also Norman was minister from 1851. His greatest renown is for his tireless work on behalf of the huge population of what was then perhaps the poorest slum parish in the city, promoting education and welfare schemes, building schools and mission churches, a penny savings bank, and temperance refreshment rooms.

title: Norman Macleod (Caraid nan Gaidheal)


text:
Hector Macneill

Hector Macneill (22 October 1746 – 15 March 1818) was a Scottish poet born near Roslin, Midlothian, Scotland. Macneill had been the son of a poor army captain and went to work as a clerk in 1760 at the age of fourteen. Soon, he was sent to the West Indies and served as assistant secretary from 1780 to 1786.

After he returned to Scotland, he wrote various political pamphlets, two novels, and several poems, The Harp (1789), The Carse of Forth, and Scotland's Skaith, the last against drunkenness, but is best known for his songs, such as My Love's in Germany (My Luve's in Germanie) My Boy Tammy, I lo'ed ne'er a Laddie but ane, and Come under my Plaidie.

Hector Macneill died in Edinburgh in 1818.

Hector's Profile
Hector's Profile from "The Modern Scottish Minstrel" (1855) by Charles Rogers.

Early life
Hector Macneill was born on 22 October 1746, in the villa of Rosebank, near Roslin. His father had obtained a company in the 42nd Regiment, with which he served in Flanders. Retiring with his wife and two children to Rosebank, a few years after the birth of his son Hector, he moved to a farm on the banks of Loch Lomond.

In his eleventh year Hector wrote a drama, after the manner of John Gay; and David Doig of the grammar-school of Stirling, advised his father to educate him for a liberal profession. But the family could not afford this.

West Indies
A rich relative, a West India trader of Bristol, paid the captain a visit; and offered to retain Macneill in his employment. After two years' preparatory education, he was sent to Bristol at age 13. He sailed to island of Saint Kitts, provided with recommendatory letters, if he preferred employment on land. With a son of the Bristol trader he remained for a year; and then sailed for Guadeloupe, where he continued in the employment of a merchant for three years, till 1763, when the island was ceded to the French.

Dismissed by his employer, Macneill made his way to Antigua; and became assistant to his relative, who had come to the town of St John's. He knew some French language; and became assistant to the Provost-Marshal of Grenada. This appointment he held for three years, when, hearing of the death of his mother and sister, he returned to Britain. On the death of his father, eighteen months after his arrival, he succeeded to a small patrimony, which he proceeded to invest in the purchase of an annuity of £80 per annum. With this limited income, he seems to have planned a permanent settlement in his native country; but the unexpected embarrassment of the party from whom he had purchased the annuity, and an attachment of an unfortunate nature, compelled him to re-embark on the ocean of adventure. He accepted the office of assistant-secretary on board Admiral Geary's flagship, and made two cruises with the grand fleet. Proposing again to return to Scotland, he afterwards resigned his appointment; but he was induced, by the remonstrances of his friends, Dr Currie, and Mr Roscoe, of Liverpool, to accept a similar situation on board the flagship of Sir Richard Bickerton, who had been appointed to take the chief command of the naval power in India. In this post, many of the hardships incident to a seafaring life fell to his share; and being present at the last indecisive action with "Suffrein," he had likewise to encounter the perils of war. His present connexion subsisted three years; but Macneill sickened in the discharge of duties wholly unsuitable for him, and longed for the comforts of home. His resources were still limited, but he flattered himself in the expectation that he might earn a subsistence as a man of letters. He fixed his residence at a farm-house in the vicinity of Stirling; and, amidst the pursuits of literature, the composition of verses, and the cultivation of friendship, he contrived, for a time, to enjoy a considerable share of happiness. But he speedily discovered the delusion of supposing that an individual, entirely unknown in the literary world, could at once be able to establish his reputation, and inspire confidence in the bookselling trade, whose favour is so essential to men of letters. Discouraged in longer persevering in the attempt of procuring a livelihood at home, Macneill, for the fourth time, took his departure from Britain. Provided with letters of introduction to influential and wealthy persons in Jamaica, he sailed for that island on a voyage of adventure; being now in his thirty-eighth year, and nearly as unprovided for as when he had first left his native shores, twenty-four years before. On his arrival at Kingston, he was employed by the collector of customs, whose acquaintance he had formed on the voyage; but this official soon found he could dispense with his services, which he did, without aiding him in obtaining another situation. The individuals to whom he had brought letters were unable or unwilling to render him assistance, and the unfortunate adventurer was constrained, in his emergency, to accept the kind invitation of a medical friend, to make his quarters with him till some satisfactory employment might occur. He now discovered two intimate companions of his boyhood settled in the island, in very prosperous circumstances, and from these he received both pecuniary aid and the promise of future support. Through their friendly offices, his two sons, who had been sent out by a generous friend, were placed in situations of respectability and emolument. But the thoughts of the poet himself were directed towards Britain. He sailed from Jamaica, with a thousand plans and schemes hovering in his mind, equally vague and indefinite as had been his aims and designs during the past chapter of his history. A small sum given him as the pay of an inland ensigncy, now conferred on him, but antedated, sufficed to defray the expenses of the voyage.

Jamaica
Before leaving Scotland for Jamaica, Macneill had commenced a poem, founded on a Highland tradition; and to the completion of this production he assiduously devoted himself during his homeward voyage. It was published at Edinburgh in 1789, under the title of "The Harp, a Legendary Tale." In the previous year, he published a pamphlet in vindication of slavery, entitled, "On the Treatment of the Negroes in Jamaica." This pamphlet, written to gratify the wishes of an interested friend, rather than as the result of his own convictions, he subsequently endeavoured to suppress. For several years, Macneill persevered in his unsettled mode of life. On his return from Jamaica, he resided in the mansion of his friend, Mr Graham of Gartmore, himself a writer of verses, as well as a patron of letters; but a difference with the family caused him to quit this hospitable residence. After passing some time with his relatives in Argyllshire, he entertained a proposal of establishing himself in Glasgow, as partner of a mercantile house, but this was terminated by the dissolution of the firm; and a second attempt to succeed in the republic of letters had an equally unsuccessful issue. In Edinburgh, whither he had removed, he was seized with a severe nervous illness, which, during the six following years, rendered him incapable of sustained physical exertion. With a little money, which he contrived to raise on his annuity, he retired to a small cottage at St Ninians; but his finances again becoming reduced, he accepted of the hospitable invitation of his friends, Major Spark and his lady, to become the inmate of their residence of Viewforth House, Stirling. At this period, Macneill composed the greater number of his best songs, and produced his poem of "Scotland's Skaith, or the History of Will and Jean," which was published in 1795, and speedily gained him a wide reputation. Before the close of twelvemonths, it passed through no fewer than fourteen editions. A sequel, entitled "The Waes o' War," which appeared in 1796, attained nearly an equal popularity. The original ballad was composed during the author's solitary walks along the promenades of the King's Park, Stirling, while he was still suffering mental depression. It was completed in his own mind before any of the stanzas were committed to paper.

The hope of benefiting his enfeebled constitution in a warm climate induced him to revisit Jamaica. As a parting tribute to his friends at Stirling, he published, in 1799, immediately before his departure, a descriptive poem, entitled "The Links of Forth, or a Parting Peep at the Carse of Stirling," which, regarded as the last effort of a dying poet, obtained a reception fully equal to its merits.

On the oft-disappointed and long unfortunate poet the sun of prosperity at length arose. On his arrival in Jamaica, one of his early friends, Mr John Graham, of Three-Mile-River, settled on him an annuity of £100 a-year; and, in a few months afterwards, they sailed together for Britain, the poet's health being essentially improved. Macneill now fixed his permanent residence in Edinburgh, and, with the proceeds of several legacies bequeathed to him, together with his annuity, was enabled to live in comparative affluence. The narrative of his early adventures and hardships is supposed to form the basis of a novel, entitled "The Memoirs of Charles Macpherson, Esq.," which proceeded from his pen in 1800. In the following year, he published a complete edition of his poetical works, in two duodecimo volumes. In 1809, he published "The Pastoral, or Lyric Muse of Scotland," in a thin quarto volume; and about the same time, anonymously, two other works in verse, entitled "Town Fashions, or Modern Manners Delineated," and "Bygone Times and Late-come Changes." His last work, "The Scottish Adventurers," a novel, appeared in 1812, in two octavo volumes.

Later works
Macneill wrote songs, "Mary of Castlecary," "My boy, Tammie," "Come under my plaidie," "I lo'ed ne'er a laddie but ane," "Donald and Flora," and "Dinna think, bonnie lassie," that were popular. The ballad of "Scotland's Skaith" aimed at realism on rural life, and a temperance message.

Later life and death
During his latter years, Macneill was known in fashionable company in Edinburgh, as a conversationalist. He died on 15 March 1818, at age 71.

title: Hector Macneill


text:
William Maginn

William Maginn (10 July 1794 – 21 August 1842) was an Irish journalist and writer.

About
Born at Cork he became a contributor to Blackwood's Magazine, and after moving to London in 1824 became for a few months in 1826 the Paris correspondent to The Representative, a paper started by John Murray, the publisher. When its short career was run, he helped to found in 1827 the ultra Tory Standard, a newspaper that he edited along with a fellow graduate of Trinity College, Dublin, Stanley Lees Giffard; he also wrote for the more scandalous Sunday paper, The Age. In 1830 he instigated and became one of the leading supporters of Fraser's Magazine. His Homeric Ballads, much praised by contemporary critics, were published in Fraser's between 1839 and 1842. In 1837, Bentley's Miscellany was launched, with Charles Dickens as editor, and Maginn wrote the prologue and contributed over the next several years a series of "Shakespeare Papers" that examined characters in counter-intuitive fashion (e.g., the key to Falstaff is his melancholy). From "The Man in the Bell" (Blackwood's, 1821) through "Welch Rabbits" (Bentley's, 1842) he was an occasional though skilful writer of short fiction and tales. His only novel, Whitehall (1827) pretends to be an historical novel set in 1820s England written in the year 2227; it is a droll spoof of the vogue for historical novels as well as the contemporary political scene. He also wrote The Military Sketch-Book: Reminiscences of Seventeen Years Service Abroad and At Home, "By An Officer of the Line" (anonymously) published in two volumes by Henry Colburn in 1827. Partly set in Australia and involving the capture of a notorious gang of Bushrangers. In 1836, he fought a duel with Grantley Berkeley, a member of Parliament. Three rounds of shots were fired, but no one was struck. Berkeley had brutally assaulted magazine publisher James Fraser over a review Maginn wrote of Berkeley's novel Berkeley Castle, and Maginn had called him out.

One of the most brilliant periodical writers of his time, Maginn left little permanent work behind him. In his later years, 1842, his intemperate habits landed him in debtor's prison, and when he emerged through the grace of the Insolvent Debtor's Act he was in an advanced stage of tuberculosis. He wrote until the end, including in the first volume of Punch, but he died in extreme poverty in Walton-on-Thames in August 1842, survived by his wife Ellen, and daughters Annie and Ellen, and son John. His nephew Francis Maginn, who was deaf, was a co-founder of the British Deaf and Dumb Association, now called the British Deaf Association (BDA).

title: William Maginn


text:
Talk:Electoral calendar

Hello Wilfried,

Very interesting page, but I have a remark: on several occasions, you list "parliament and senate". This isn't correct, because a senate is part of parliament. A parliament usually consists of two houses, one lower house (House of Commons (UK), House of Representatives (US), Tweede Kamer (NL), Kamer (BE)) and an upper house (House of Lords (UK), Senate (US), Eerste Kamer (NL), Senaat (BE)). So, listing "parliament" would include senate :-)
 * Thanks Gangulf 22:10, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some starting remarks
The Electoral Calendar is launched. The links are to overview articles on elections in countries. These articles will be created in the upcoming period. From these pages links to an eventual article on the specific election can be found. Gangulf 22:10, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Why exactly are we limiting the information we provide on this page by excluding referenda? I can understand the usually minor importance of by-elections warrants their exclusion, but referenda on constitutional changes or other important issues are as important as regularily scheduled elections, at least in my opinion. Any objections? Nightstallion 20:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't have a problem with adding referenda if we limit that to national referenda. But we must be aware that a referendum is someting else than an election. Gangulf 21:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Alright. I'll add the information on referenda I've got. I assume, though, that by 'national referenda' you mean that you want to exclude referenda on the European Constitution, for instance? Nightstallion 22:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * No, that is not a problem for me, but I wouldn't like to see regional or local referenda in the list. Gangulf 19:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Alright, got you. I wasn't going to add local elections or referenda, anyway, with maybe an exception for referenda that could result in the independence of part of a country. Nightstallion 20:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree again with you. I would prefer to link the country to the elections page, not to the politics page with the exception of the EU Constitution referenda. Gangulf 20:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * When I considered this point, I was not quite sure whether linking to the 'elections' page after explicitly stating that referenda are not elections wouldn't confuse people or at least seem inconsistent... But I've got nothing against the idea in general, same to me either way. Nightstallion 21:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Local and regional election information is welcome on Campaigns.wikia. Chadlupkes 20:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Links
Why are the links to the overview page and not to the specific election page. ie Elections in New Zealand not New Zealand general election 2005? Evil Monkey → Talk 23:40, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Because that page gives general information and has a link to that specific page. What I added today was a separate link next to the general link. Gangulf 18:17, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

General remarks
List of election results has been restuctured and moved to Elections by country. For each de jure and de facto soverign state and dependent territories an article on elections in that entity has been included and - when available - an article on the last elections in that entity. Previous election results - when available - can be found at the main article on elections in that entity. These pages include also links to information on politics in general and political parties in that entity. An Electoral calendar has been added. You are friendly requested to add information on elections when logical also to Elections by country and the Electoral calendar. Please add new elections also in the template Politics .. (only showing the year). The List of political parties has been restructured too. The parties are now listed in the individual country pages and a complete list is listed in the Index of political parties. You are friendly requested to list new parties you add both in the list of that country as well in the index of political parties. I hope this helps Wikipedia to be a more complete encyclopedia on politics. -Gangulf 10:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Links to election pages
At the moment (slowly) results are added to the pages "Elections in .." (the main article). I would prefer that if a result is included in that article, there is only a link to the main article. From that page there are links to eventual specific pages. For future elections, the specific link is relevant. I will delete the specific links from the moment results are placed in the main article.

Brazil - 2006 elections
Please, stop removing the elections to State Legislatures from the upcoming 2006 general elections in Brazil. The elections to all State Legislative unicameral Assemblies are part of the national political calendar.

 * They might be part of the national political calendar, but they are not elections for a national legislature or presidency. So they don't belong in. Otherwise it would become a very long list adding all elections on non-national level. Electionworld 20:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Coverage
The list claims to cover the "national/federal" elections. I assume that means the elections of national or federal governments, as appropriate. Therefore, should South Australia, an Australian state and therefore neither a national or federal government (the South Australian National Football League notwithstanding), really be included? Also, should municipal government elections really be included, when not held in conjunction with some other national/federal government election? —Felix the Cassowary 14:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't be included. Electionworld 20:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

more referendums
There will be a New Caledonia referendum in 201x (I think it was 2012). Also, most of the US "dependencies", that are listed as "non-self-governing" by the UN also hold regular independence referendums, as is Tokelau... Alinor 18:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, New Caledonia will be allowed to hold up to three referenda in the time period between 2014 and 2018, or something like that; Tokelau *is* indeed likely to hold another referendum on self-determination some time in the close future, since it almost passed the first time; however, I haven't heard anything as regards the U.S. dependencies.
 * AFAIK, Puerto Rico will most likely be asked again some time in the future whether it wants to become a state, independent, or remain a commonwealth; the U.S. Virgin Islands once were called to a similar referendum in 1993, but interest was extremely low, so there hasn't been another one since; and I haven't heard anything at all as regards the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa and Guam, apart from the fact that Guam would *like* to have Commonwealth status like Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands.
 * Have you got any sources for referenda in American Samao, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands, Alinor? Thanks! — Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 21:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

International Elections
I added "international elections" to the description, as the European Parliament had been listed for 2009. samwaltz 16:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Flexible Dates
Often, the Head of State or Head of Government has to call the election within a certain timeframe. For example, Austria has to have one this year, at latest in the Fall. Could we mark up possible election dates (e.g. At latest, 30 November 2006), too, at least until such point as the election has been declared? samwaltz 16:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Electoral Geography"
Hello, can you please add "Electoral Geography" website to the external links section? I really think this website will be useful for everybody interested in elections.

http://www.electoralgeography.com/en/index.html

Devolved British Assembles
How come the elections to the devolved British Assemblies have been removed? I can't find the Northern Irish Assembly, Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly elections here. --CTerry 17:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Electoral calendar


text:
Talk:1936 United States presidential election

Roosevelt vs. Reagan electoral vote tallies
When comparing Roosevelt and Reagan in electoral vote tallies (523 to 525, respectively) it should be noted that Alaska and Hawaii were not yet states so the total electoral votes available to Roosevelt and Reagan are different (531 to 538, respectively). Placing things on an even playing field, so to speak, and looking at the percentages of the total number of electoral votes won by Roosevelt and Reagan (98.5% to 97.6%, repectively) we note that Roosevelt does come out on top of Reagan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.163.24 (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2004 (UTC)

Electoral picture peculiarity
Why is the graphic depiction of electoral votes skewed? Rarely nowadays does one see democratic votes colored red and and republican votes blue. --maru (talk) Contribs 20:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

 * This post has been copied to Wikipedia talk:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy. Please direct your responses there.
 * — DLJessup (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't understand why red-vs.-blue color schemes are considered significant. In 1992, the television networks arbitrarily reversed the color schemes. In 1988 and previous elections, red=Democratic, and blue=Republican.  I think for many people over the age of 30 or so, certainly in my case, both color schemes are seen as equally arbitrary and meaningless. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarification under "Other Nominations" ?
I think this section needs some clean-up. I read it twice, and it appears to say that Long was assassinated in 1935, and then ran for president (presumably from the after life) in 1940. Is that section describing two different politicians with the last name of Long, or are the dates wrong, or did someone else run on Long's platform after his death?

24.58.37.208 (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Most lopsided win?
I would think that would go to the 1789 and 1792 elections, where George Washington got 100% of the vote. By definition no one can win by a greater margin than that. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

 * In percentage terms this is the fourth most lop-sided (after 1788-9, 1792 and 1820); in absolute terms, the second (after 1984). It was the most lop-sided for Vice-President in percentage terms ever, though - Adams only just got a majority in his two VP elections, and 1820 had tickets that endorsed Monroe for President but not Tompkins for VP win in Massachusetts and Delaware, so Garner holds a record that Roosevelt doesn't. Richard Gadsden (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Text on Maine and Vermont
I suggest to delete the following text from the lede:
 * Even as of 2008, Vermont has voted for more Republican presidential nominees than any other state. During the 1850's, Vermont began a voting record unequaled by any other state. From 1856 through 1960, Vermont gave the state's electoral votes to the Republican Party nominee in every presidential election; and the National Union Party in 1864 when Lincoln ran for re-election not on the Republican ticket which did not nominate any official candidates that year. No other state has voted so many times in a row for major candidates of the same political party. Maine also held a similar political record. From 1856 through 1960, Maine voted for the Republican candidate in every presidential election but one. In 1912, the state gave Democrat Woodrow Wilson a plurality of 39.43%.

In my view, this text interrupts the flow of the article. The lede is supposed to be a brief summary of the main points of this article; in contrast, we are treated to 100 years of voting history of two states. Given that the result of this election was 523 to 8, I think every reader will see that this was a landslide. If we must have this text in the article, then certainly not in the lede. KarlFrei (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree this information would be better placed elsewhere. It seems to fit naturally in the "Results" section.  There's already a paragraph there referring to Maine and Vermont.  Immediatlely following this seems to be the perfect place for this recap of the electoral history of those states. LarryJeff (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Landon and Knox Campaign Slogan
I have found a Landon and Knox campaign button with the slogan "I bought a certificate" and see many images online of such buttons, sometimes with the slogan "I bought a dollar certificate." However, I have been unable to find any explanation of the origins and meaning of this slogan. Perhaps if one of the contributors to this page knows this information it would be worthwhile to add it to the page? Thank you. OldJuan (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The file on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Unreferenced addition
your recent additions to this page are almost completely unreferenced. Should they be reverted in whole until references can be provided? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)