text:
No free lunch in search and optimization

In computational complexity and optimization the no free lunch theorem is a result that states that for certain types of mathematical problems, the computational cost of finding a solution, averaged over all problems in the class, is the same for any solution method. The name alludes to the saying "no such thing as a free lunch", that is, no method offers a "short cut". This is under the assumption that the search space is a probability density function. It does not apply to the case where the search space has underlying structure (e.g., is a differentiable function) that can be exploited more efficiently (e.g., Newton's method in optimization) than random search or even has closed-form solutions (e.g., the extrema of a quadratic polynomial) that can be determined without search at all. For such probabilistic assumptions, the outputs of all procedures solving a particular type of problem are statistically identical. A colourful way of describing such a circumstance, introduced by David Wolpert and William G. Macready in connection with the problems of search and optimization, is to say that there is no free lunch. Wolpert had previously derived no free lunch theorems for machine learning (statistical inference). Before Wolpert's article was published, Cullen Schaffer independently proved a restricted version of one of Wolpert's theorems and used it to critique the current state of machine learning research on the problem of induction.

In the "no free lunch" metaphor, each "restaurant" (problem-solving procedure) has a "menu" associating each "lunch plate" (problem) with a "price" (the performance of the procedure in solving the problem). The menus of restaurants are identical except in one regard – the prices are shuffled from one restaurant to the next. For an omnivore who is as likely to order each plate as any other, the average cost of lunch does not depend on the choice of restaurant. But a vegan who goes to lunch regularly with a carnivore who seeks economy might pay a high average cost for lunch. To methodically reduce the average cost, one must use advance knowledge of a) what one will order and b) what the order will cost at various restaurants. That is, improvement of performance in problem-solving hinges on using prior information to match procedures to problems.

In formal terms, there is no free lunch when the probability distribution on problem instances is such that all problem solvers have identically distributed results. In the case of search, a problem instance in this context is a particular objective function, and a result is a sequence of values obtained in evaluation of candidate solutions in the domain of the function. For typical interpretations of results, search is an optimization process. There is no free lunch in search if and only if the distribution on objective functions is invariant under permutation of the space of candidate solutions. This condition does not hold precisely in practice, but an "(almost) no free lunch" theorem suggests that it holds approximately.

Overview
Some computational problems are solved by searching for good solutions in a space of candidate solutions. A description of how to repeatedly select candidate solutions for evaluation is called a search algorithm. On a particular problem, different search algorithms may obtain different results, but over all problems, they are indistinguishable. It follows that if an algorithm achieves superior results on some problems, it must pay with inferiority on other problems. In this sense there is no free lunch in search. Alternatively, following Schaffer, search performance is conserved. Usually search is interpreted as optimization, and this leads to the observation that there is no free lunch in optimization.

"The 'no free lunch' theorem of Wolpert and Macready," as stated in plain language by Wolpert and Macready themselves, is that "any two algorithms are equivalent when their performance is averaged across all possible problems." The "no free lunch" results indicate that matching algorithms to problems gives higher average performance than does applying a fixed algorithm to all. Igel and Toussaint and English have established a general condition under which there is no free lunch. While it is physically possible, it does not hold precisely. Droste, Jansen, and Wegener have proved a theorem they interpret as indicating that there is "(almost) no free lunch" in practice.

To make matters more concrete, consider an optimization practitioner confronted with a problem. Given some knowledge of how the problem arose, the practitioner may be able to exploit the knowledge in selection of an algorithm that will perform well in solving the problem. If the practitioner does not understand how to exploit the knowledge, or simply has no knowledge, then he or she faces the question of whether some algorithm generally outperforms others on real-world problems. The authors of the "(almost) no free lunch" theorem say that the answer is essentially no, but admit some reservations as to whether the theorem addresses practice.

Theorems
A "problem" is, more formally, an objective function that associates candidate solutions with goodness values. A search algorithm takes an objective function as input and evaluates candidate solutions one-by-one. The output of the algorithm is the sequence of observed goodness values.

Wolpert and Macready stipulate that an algorithm never reevaluates a candidate solution, and that algorithm performance is measured on outputs. For simplicity, we disallow randomness in algorithms. Under these conditions, when a search algorithm is run on every possible input, it generates each possible output exactly once. Because performance is measured on the outputs, the algorithms are indistinguishable in how often they achieve particular levels of performance.

Some measures of performance indicate how well search algorithms do at optimization of the objective function. Indeed, there seems to be no interesting application of search algorithms in the class under consideration but to optimization problems. A common performance measure is the least index of the least value in the output sequence. This is the number of evaluations required to minimize the objective function. For some algorithms, the time required to find the minimum is proportional to the number of evaluations.

The original no free lunch (NFL) theorems assume that all objective functions are equally likely to be input to search algorithms. It has since been established that there is NFL if and only if, loosely speaking, "shuffling" objective functions has no impact on their probabilities. Although this condition for NFL is physically possible, it has been argued that it certainly does not hold precisely.

The obvious interpretation of "not NFL" is "free lunch," but this is misleading. NFL is a matter of degree, not an all-or-nothing proposition. If the condition for NFL holds approximately, then all algorithms yield approximately the same results over all objective functions. "Not NFL" implies only that algorithms are inequivalent overall by some measure of performance. For a performance measure of interest, algorithms may remain equivalent, or nearly so.

Kolmogorov randomness
Almost all elements of the set of all possible functions (in the set-theoretic sense of "function") are Kolmogorov random, and hence the NFL theorems apply to a set of functions almost all of which cannot be expressed more compactly than as a lookup table that contains a distinct (and random) entry for each point in the search space. Functions that can be expressed more compactly (for example, by a mathematical expression of reasonable size) are by definition not Kolmogorov random.

Further, within the set of all possible objective functions, levels of goodness are equally represented among candidate solutions, hence good solutions are scattered throughout the space of candidates. Accordingly, a search algorithm will rarely evaluate more than a small fraction of the candidates before locating a very good solution.

Almost all objective functions are of such high Kolmogorov complexity that they cannot be stored in a particular computer. More precisely, if we model a given physical computer as a register machine with a given size memory on the order of the memories of modern computers, then most objective functions cannot be stored in their memories. There is more information in the typical objective function or algorithm than Seth Lloyd estimates the observable universe is capable of registering. For instance, if each candidate solution is encoded as a sequence of 300 0's and 1's, and the goodness values are 0 and 1, then most objective functions have Kolmogorov complexity of at least 2300 bits, and this is greater than Lloyd's bound of 1090 ≈ 2299 bits. It follows that the original "no free lunch" theorem does not apply to what can be stored in a physical computer; instead the so-called "tightened" no free lunch theorems need to be applied. It has also been shown that NFL results apply to incomputable functions.

Formal synopsis
$$Y^X$$ is the set of all objective functions f:X→Y, where $$X$$ is a finite solution space and $$Y$$ is a finite poset. The set of all permutations of X is J. A random variable F is distributed on $$Y^X$$. For all j in J, F o j is a random variable distributed on $$Y^X$$, with P(F o j = f) = P(F = f o j−1) for all f in $$Y^X$$.

Let a(f) denote the output of search algorithm a on input f. If a(F) and b(F) are identically distributed for all search algorithms a and b, then F has an NFL distribution. This condition holds if and only if F and F o j are identically distributed for all j in J. In other words, there is no free lunch for search algorithms if and only if the distribution of objective functions is invariant under permutation of the solution space. Set-theoretic NFL theorems have recently been generalized to arbitrary cardinality $$X$$ and $$Y$$.

Origin
Wolpert and Macready give two principal NFL theorems, the first regarding objective functions that do not change while search is in progress, and the second regarding objective functions that may change.

 * Theorem 1: For any pair of algorithms a1 and a2
 * $$\sum_f P(d_m^y | f, m, a_1) = \sum_f P(d_m^y | f, m, a_2),$$ where $$d_m^y$$ denotes the ordered set of size $$m$$ of the cost values $$y \in Y$$ associated to input values $$x \in X$$, $$f:X \rightarrow Y $$ is the function being optimized and $$P(d_m^y | f, m, a)$$ is the conditional probability of obtaining a given sequence of cost values from algorithm $$a$$ run $$m$$ times on function $$f$$.

In essence, this says that when all functions f are equally likely, the probability of observing an arbitrary sequence of m values in the course of search does not depend upon the search algorithm.

The second theorem establishes a "more subtle" NFL result for time-varying objective functions.

Interpretations of results
A conventional, but not entirely accurate, interpretation of the NFL results is that "a general-purpose universal optimization strategy is theoretically impossible, and the only way one strategy can outperform another is if it is specialized to the specific problem under consideration". Several comments are in order:

 * A general-purpose almost-universal optimizer exists theoretically. Each search algorithm performs well on almost all objective functions. So if one is not concerned with the "relatively small" differences between search algorithms, e.g., because computer time is cheap, then you shouldn't worry about no free lunch.
 * An algorithm may outperform another on a problem when neither is specialized to the problem. Indeed, it may be that both algorithms are among the worst for the problem. More generally, Wolpert and Macready have developed a measure of the degree of "alignment" between an algorithm and a distribution over problems (strictly speaking, an inner product). To say that one algorithm matches a distribution better than another is not to say that either has been consciously specialized to the distribution; an algorithm may have good alignment just by luck.
 * In practice, some algorithms reevaluate candidate solutions. The reason to only consider performance on never-before-evaluated candidates is to make sure that in comparing algorithms one is comparing apples to apples. Moreover, any superiority of an algorithm that never reevaluates candidates over another algorithm that does on a particular problem may have nothing to do with specialization to the problem.
 * For almost all objective functions, specialization is essentially accidental. Incompressible, or Kolmogorov random, objective functions have no regularity for an algorithm to exploit, as far as the universal Turing machining used to define Kolmogorov randomness is concerned. So presume that there is one, clearly superior choice of universal Turing machine. Then given an objective function that is incompressible for that Turing machine, there is no basis for choosing between two algorithms if both are compressible, as measured using that Turing machine. If a chosen algorithm performs better than most, the result is happenstance. A Kolmogorov random function has no representation smaller than a lookup table that contains a (random) value corresponding to each point in the search space; any function that can be expressed more compactly is, by definition, not Kolmogorov random.

In practice, only highly compressible (far from random) objective functions fit in the storage of computers, and it is not the case that each algorithm performs well on almost all compressible functions. There is generally a performance advantage in incorporating prior knowledge of the problem into the algorithm. While the NFL results constitute, in a strict sense, full employment theorems for optimization professionals, it is important to bear the larger context in mind. For one thing, humans often have little prior knowledge to work with. For another, incorporating prior knowledge does not give much of a performance gain on some problems. Finally, human time is very expensive relative to computer time. There are many cases in which a company would choose to optimize a function slowly with an unmodified computer program rather than rapidly with a human-modified program.

The NFL results do not indicate that it is futile to take "pot shots" at problems with unspecialized algorithms. No one has determined the fraction of practical problems for which an algorithm yields good results rapidly. And there is a practical free lunch, not at all in conflict with theory. Running an implementation of an algorithm on a computer costs very little relative to the cost of human time and the benefit of a good solution. If an algorithm succeeds in finding a satisfactory solution in an acceptable amount of time, a small investment has yielded a big payoff. If the algorithm fails, then little is lost.

Recently some philosophers of science have argued that there are ways to circumvent the no free lunch theorems, by using "meta-induction". Wolpert addresses these arguments in.

Coevolution
Wolpert and Macready have proved that there are free lunches in coevolutionary optimization. Their analysis "covers 'self-play' problems. In these problems, the set of players work together to produce a champion, who then engages one or more antagonists in a subsequent multiplayer game." That is, the objective is to obtain a good player, but without an objective function. The goodness of each player (candidate solution) is assessed by observing how well it plays against others. An algorithm attempts to use players and their quality of play to obtain better players. The player deemed best of all by the algorithm is the champion. Wolpert and Macready have demonstrated that some coevolutionary algorithms are generally superior to other algorithms in quality of champions obtained. Generating a champion through self-play is of interest in evolutionary computation and game theory. The results are inapplicable to coevolution of biological species, which does not yield champions.


text:
Live (Erykah Badu album)

Live is a live concert album by American singer Erykah Badu, released in 1997. Released in the fall of 1997, with her debut album Baduizm released earlier that year, Live quickly went double platinum with the radio hit "Tyrone".

Live includes cover versions of songs by Rufus featuring Chaka Khan ("Stay"), Roy Ayers ("Searchin'") and a medley of Heatwave's "Boogie Nights", The Mary Jane Girls' "All Night Long", and "Funkin' for Jamaica (N.Y.)" by Tom Browne.

The album was nominated for Best R&B Album at the 1999 Grammy Awards, while the track "Tyrone" was nominated for Best Female R&B Vocal Performance.

Background
After she signed to Universal Records, Badu released her debut studio album Baduizm, in early 1997. The album was met with critical and commercial success, debuting at number two on the Billboard charts and number one on the US Billboard Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums. Baduizm's commercial and critical success helped establish Badu as one of the emerging neo soul genre's leading artists. Her particular style of singing drew many comparisons to Billie Holiday. Baduizm was certified three times platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America, Gold by the British Phonographic Industry and the Canadian Recording Industry Association. Badu recorded the live album while pregnant with son Seven, and the release of the recording coincided with his birth.

Reception
Upon release Live was met with acclaim from music critics. Leo Stanley of Allmusic praised Badu's decision to release a live album so shortly after releasing her debut. "Not only does it illustrate the depths of Badu's talents, but Live is as strong and captivating as Baduizm, Stanley wrote. A reviewer of Entertainment Weekly praised the album's jazz influenced sounds, calling the album "sassy" and "relaxed".

The album was released on November 18, 1997, and reached number four on the US Billboard 200 and number one on the US Billboard Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums. The album was certified two times platinum by RIAA for shipments of over two million copies.

Track listing

 * 1) "Rimshot (Intro)" (Erykah Badu, Madukwu Chinwah, Miles Davis) – 3:48
 * 2) "Otherside of the Game" (Badu, Bro.Questlove, Richard Nichols, James Poyser, The Roots) – 8:21
 * 3) "On & On" (Badu, Jaborn Jamal) – 5:25
 * 4) "Reprise" – 2:13
 * 5) "Appletree" (Badu, Robert Bradford) – 2:54
 * 6) "Ye Yo" (Badu) – 6:07
 * 7) "Searching" (Roy Ayers) – 4:26
 * 8) "Boogie Nights/All Night" (James A. Johnson, Rodney L. Temperton) – 6:03
 * 9) "Certainly" (Badu, Chinwah) – 7:06
 * 10) "Stay" (Rufus, Richard Calhoun, Chaka Khan) – 4:58
 * 11) "Next Lifetime (Interlude)" (Badu, Tone The Backbone [Anthony Scott]) – 1:30
 * 12) "Tyrone" (Badu, Norman "Keys" Hurt) – 3:56
 * 13) "Next Lifetime" (Badu, Tone the Backbone [Anthony Scott]) – 12:05
 * 14) "Tyrone" [Extended Version] (Badu, Hurt) – 5:40

Personnel

 * Erykah Badu – vocals
 * Charles "Poogie" Bell Jr. – drums
 * Karen Bernod – background vocals
 * Hubert Eaves IV – bass
 * Norman "Keys" Hurt – keyboard
 * N'dambi – background vocals
 * Joyce M. Strong – background vocals

Production

 * Producers: Erykah Badu, Norman "Keys" Hurt
 * Executive producers: Erykah Badu, Kedar Massenburg
 * Engineers: Erykah Badu, Norman "Keys" Hurt, Gorden Mack, Kenny Ortíz
 * Mixing: Erykah Badu, Norman "Keys" Hurt, Gorden Mack, Kenny Ortíz
 * Mastering: Tom Coyne
 * Art direction: D. Simmons, M. Warlow
 * Cover art concept: Erykah Badu, Clymenza Hawkins
 * Design: P. Geczik, Lance Ong
 * Layout design: P. Geczik
 * Photography: Imari Dusauzay, Imari Dusauzay
 * Artwork: P. Geczik, Lance Ong

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

title: Live (Erykah Badu album)


text:
Talk:Live (Erykah Badu album)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Live (Erykah Badu album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130115055129/http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110527202401/http://2005.sxsw.com/music/showcases/band/20741.html to http://2005.sxsw.com/music/showcases/band/20741.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Live (Erykah Badu album). 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/20130225031458/http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS to http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090412000000/http://www.cria.ca/cert_db_search.php to http://www.cria.ca/cert_db_search.php

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) 14:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Live (Erykah Badu album)


text: Category:Absurdist fiction

title: Category:Absurdist fiction


text: User talk:68.23.45.156

title: User talk:68.23.45.156


text:
Emerson (electoral district)

Emerson is a former provincial electoral division in the Canadian province of Manitoba. It was created by redistribution in 1879 and eliminated prior the 2019 general election. Most of its territory was redistributed to the newly created Borderland riding. The eastern part of the former riding was transferred to the La Verendrye riding.

It was located in the southeastern corner of the province. It is bordered to the north by Carman, Morris, Steinbach and La Verendrye, to the west by Pembina, to the east by the province of Ontario and to the south by the American state of North Dakota. The riding included the communities/municipalities of Emerson, Altona, Dominion City, Rhineland, Gretna, Woodridge and St. Jean Baptiste.

The riding's population in 2008 was 20,370. In 2011, the average family income was $61,951, and the unemployment rate was 2.9%. Agriculture accounted for 24% of the riding's industry, followed by manufacturing at 16%. Over 27% of Emerson's residents had less than a Grade Nine education. Emerson was an ethnically diverse riding, with only 51% of its residents listing English as their mother tongue. 26% of the riding's residents listed themselves as either German, French, Ukrainian, Polish or Mennonite, while a further 5% were aboriginal.

title: Emerson (electoral district)


text:
Adam Hyzdu

Adam Davis Hyzdu (born December 6, 1971) is an American former professional baseball outfielder who played in Major League Baseball (MLB) and Nippon Professional Baseball (NPB). He batted and threw right-handed.

In Major League Baseball, he played for the Pittsburgh Pirates, Boston Red Sox ( and ), San Diego Padres (2005), and Texas Rangers.

Biography
Hyzdu attended Moeller High School in Cincinnati, where he broke Ken Griffey Jr.'s home run record (22) and led his team to win the state championship in 1989.

Hyzdu was drafted by the San Francisco Giants in the first round of the 1990 Major League Baseball Draft, but never reached the major leagues as a Giant. Hyzdu is well known for his accomplishments in the minor leagues. During his two seasons with the Altoona Curve, he broke many franchise records, many of which still stand today. He was an Eastern League All-Star both seasons and had his number 16 retired by the club.

Hyzdu was named "NL Player of the Week" the Week for July 15–21, 2002 while playing outfield for the Pittsburgh Pirates. He batted .588 with three homers and a league-leading 11 RBI. In fives games during the week, Hyzdu was 10-for-17, scored six runs, and compiled a slugging percentage of 1.118 and an on-base percentage of .611.

On July 19 versus St. Louis, he hit his first career grand slam. The following day, Hyzdu established career-highs with four hits, including a pair of three-run homers, and seven runs batted in.

In a seven-season major league career, Hyzdu was a .229 hitter with 19 home runs and 61 RBI in 221 games.

With the Red Sox in 2004, Hyzdu batted .300 (3 for 10) with a home run, two RBI, and 2 doubles in 17 games. In 129 games with Pawtucket, he batted .301 with 29 home runs, 79 RBI, and led the team in walks with 84.

After the 2006 season, he joined the Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks of the Japanese Pacific League with a one-year contract. He batted .272 with 7 home runs in 47 games. After one season in Japan, he failed to get a contract extension and left the Hawks to be a free agent.

Personal life
Hyzdu is married with three children and an active member in his local Christian church, Red Mountain Community Church. His brother Mike Hyzdu played football for Miami University of Ohio from 1985–89 and his brother Marshall Hyzdu played football for Dartmouth College from 1996–99.

title: Adam Hyzdu


text:
Category talk:Irish painters

I have temporariliy moved the painters here into the larger irish artists category with a view to recategorizing the irish artists later on when the list is more complete.

title: Category talk:Irish painters


text:
File:Erykah Badu - Mama's Gun.jpg

Cover for album Mama's Gun by Erykah Badu.

Fair use rationale for

 * It is believed that the use of this image on the English-language Wikipedia to illustrate an article on the audio recording in question falls under the "Non-profit educational" clause of the Fair Use doctrine currently upheld by United States law. (17 U.S.C. § 107)
 * The image is irreplaceable; a free analogue is impossible to produce as the original will be covered by copyright for the foreseeable future
 * Owing to the limited web-resolution of the image, only a small portion of a copyrighted work is used
 * For the same reasons, the portion of the copyrighted work used is of inherently lower quality than the original, reducing the risk of competitiveness and therefore the effects of this copy on the market for or value of versions held by the owner of the copyright

title: File:Erykah Badu - Mama's Gun.jpg


text:
Talk:Clandon Park House

Untitled
''...a Maori meeting house. This was originally situated near Ritorna in New Zealand and... '' There is no "Ritorna" in new Zealand. Further more it is an impossible name in the maori language (-rn- is an invalid combination of letters). Given the reference to Mount Tarawera, I'm changing it to "Rotorua" - if anyone thinks otherwise, feel free to change it back 9or to something more likely). 01:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * That's interesting. The National Trust's own website makes this claim, and if you search for Clandon and Ritorna on Google, you will find several other references. Could it be a name that has fallen into misuse? Or perhaps a single distortion of fact has been repeated many times! - Jon C

 * Could be either, I suppose. But The area around Tarawera was full of Maori names, with a few British names, and virtually nothing else. It's not a British name, and it can't be a Maori name (the only paired consonants ever found in Maori are -ng- and -wh-, so -rn- is not possible. Rotorua is the nearest city to Tarawera today, and was the nearest town to it at the time of the eruption. And it would be easy to see how a poorly handwritten Rotorua could be read as Ritorna. My guess is that it was a misreading of someone's letter or notes that has become accepted fact and spread from there.

 * Actually, I think I've found mention of the actual Maori building - at . If it is the same one, it was at Rotomahana, which makes sense, as the village was largely buried in ash. Still no explanation for why it's referred to as Ritorna, though. [[User:Grutness|Grutness hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|30px|]]]]

 * Sounds like you may be right. I only live a 20 minute drive from Clandon, so will visit at some point soon and see what information might be recorded there. - Jon C

 * Here's the answer. I found this among the press releases at www.newzealand.com, referring to the Chelsea Flower Show. This is an extract:

"There is a strong link between the Rotorua area, home of the Te Awara people who have inspired the design team, and the London based Maori group, Ngati Ranana. The scenic backdrop in the garden depicts Mount Tarawera, the volcano that erupted in 1886 and the famed pink and white terraces which were buried in the eruption. These terraces have been recreated in the New Zealand garden at Chelsea.  The eruption buried the terraces and destroyed a nearby Maori village. The only building left standing was Hinemihi. The building was taken back to London by the British Governor General of the time and it now stands at Clandon Park, a National Trust property near Guilford. The London group of Maori people known as Ngati Ranana use Hinemihi as their special meeting house."

 * Mystery solved! - Jon C

Small clarification: Hinemihi had been abandoned by the Te Arawa when they moved to Rotorua, where they continued to use their skills as tourist guides amongst the mud-pools and geysers there. The timbers of the meeting house were SOLD to Lord Onslow for 50 guineas. The bill of sale is on display at Clandon. Just in case anyone was thinking that it had been removed forcibly or without consent. Ngaire L. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.149.222 (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Gifted by Gwendolyn
An anon user added this: "Onslow's daughter Gwendolen gifted the house to the National Trust. " at a position where it appears to refer only to the meeting house. I think surely it refers to Clandon Park as a whole rather than just Hinemihi? I will shift it in a day or two if no one has any other views Kahuroa (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The national trust site confirms this so I will change the entry Kahuroa (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Clandon Park has never been donated to anyone. It was only Clandon House and seven acres that was donated to the Nation. Clandon Park is an approximately 1000 acre privately owned Parkland Estate that has been owned by the onslow family for more than three centuries. There are errors being made consistently in the description of these two separate properties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clandon Park Historian (talk • contribs) 21:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Restoration of Clandon Park
I've been trying to do a bit of thinking outside the box and waited some time before writing to make sure I got this right. You can't restore Clandon Park to anything except a 21st century replica of the original. You can bring in real antique furniture and the like but if you do you repeat the old problem. Any fire or other disaster will destroy a great deal.

Since the house has to be a replica how about getting good furniture restorers, carpet restorers and the like to make good replicas of what was there before. You can give visitors a unique experience, furniture that looks and feels like 18th century or 19th century furniture but where visitors can sit. Visitors can compare the soft chairs, divans the aristocrats enjoyed with the harder chairs in the servants’ quarters. Children can go into a replica 18th century or 19th century nursery, sit where children would have sat then and play with replica toys. (big toys that are not easily stolen). How about a replica school room where children can find out how children used to learn their lessons? Perhaps there could be two schoolrooms since 18th century and 19th century education methods were different.

All this would be cheaper than bringing in real antiques (there could of course be real antiques in a few rooms) and could work with visitors. I suggest at the very least market research to find out the potential appeal of such a restoration. Veronica Roberts (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

A replica Victorian dining room could have discriptions of the type dishes the Victorian upper classes would have eaten with menues while the replica kitchen and servants' quarters could describe the food eaten and living conditions of servants. Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management could be useful here. Veronica Roberts (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

 * It's not a new idea. The National Trust have already done it in partnership with the BBC.  Although in this case the house is original but the dressing is new.  86.153.135.110 (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Not only have you been "thinking outside the box," but you've been thinking outside Wikipedia. Unless we have a reliable source that the National Trust (or anyone else) is considering doing such a thing, all this is just WP:FORUM. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC) The nearest support I can see is e.g. here. But still too soon for any speculation.

Edit request
Although not marked as such this article appears to be semi protected as I cannot edit it.

In the article lead, the last sentence reads:

 * 'The house was substantially damaged in a fire in April 2015, which left it "essentially a shell". '

This should be changed to:

 * 'The house was substantially damaged in a fire in April 2015, which left it "essentially a shell".' (i.e. delete redundant references.)

Reason: The references supporting the statement are already included in the main body of the article. Since the lead is meant to be a summary of points made in the made part of the article, the repeated referencing is entirely redundant. 86.153.135.110 (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

 * ✅. There is no rule that citations have to be removed from the lede, but they are certainly not necessary if already in the main body. I agree that in this case they are redundant and so I have removed them. Not sure why this article is still protected. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Clandon Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110629101422/http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/cymraeg/w-vh/w-visits/w-findaplace/w-clandonpark/w-clandonpark-maori-house/w-clandonpark-maori-house-4.htm to http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/cymraeg/w-vh/w-visits/w-findaplace/w-clandonpark/w-clandonpark-maori-house/w-clandonpark-maori-house-4.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Name of house
An editor is edit warring to change the name from Clandon Park to Clandon House, the house's own website calls it Clandon Park as does if the house is indeed called "Clandon House" then we need a good source and a change of article title. Theroadislong (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

As a historian, you should know that George Onslow became the first Earl of Onslow in 1801 — 216 years ago. Therefore, it is impossible for the park, as you claimed in this edit, to have been "the seat of the Earls of Onslow for over three centuries". Firebrace (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Clandon House is clearly differentiated from Clandon Park in the Deed: H.M. Land Registry. Title Number SY157333 dated 18-4-56. This Deed is the original document that transferred the ownership of Clandon House (only) to the National Trust. It is signed by the 6th Earl of Onslow and his Aunt Gwendolyn, Countess of Iveagh. It appears from letters archived at the Surrey History Centre (G97/21/1-11) and at the Clandon Park Estate Office archive, Clandon House could not have been donated to the National Trust as the Trustees were not permitted under the law to donate Clandon House directly themselves. So, as the 6th Earl wished the Nation to be gifted Clandon House with seven acres, he arranged for the Earls Trustees to sell Clandon House to his Aunt. She purchased Clandon House for £1,500.00 (one thousand five hundred pounds as a token consideration) from the Trustees of the Earls of Onslow's Estate. The Onslow family then provided an endowment of £40,500 (forty thousand five hundred pounds) to the National Trust with the aim that the National Trust should maintain Clandon House in perpetuity for the Nation. The Deed that explains this in detail is H.M. Land Registry Title Number SY157333 dated 18th April 1956. There are other documents that led up to this transaction, namely, a Vesting Deed dated 29th April 1926, Probate dated 10th July 1946, Vesting Assent dated 12th December 1946 and a Deed of Declaration dated 11th January 1953 for Clandon House where the house is not referred to as Clandon Park. The term Clandon Park was used either as the address or when referring to the land mass or the Estate including Clandon House. All maps available to the public on the internet or at Surrey History Centre (320/577) & (320/576/1-21) or at the Clandon Park Estate Office archives refer to Clandon House as the house and Clandon Park as the Parkland. I am inexperienced in editing here but it is fundamental that the House is not the Park. This error has been published without challenge for some time but it is clearly wrong. I believe this misinformation had circulated due to incorrect information being copied from pamphlets that already have misinformation in them. Such here-say, having been published about Clandon House, makes it impossible to clearly differentiate Clandon Park as the historic Parkland that it is. Clandon Park is not owned or managed by the National Trust. Clandon Park has been owned and managed by the Baronets Onslow originally from 1688, then Barons Onslow from 1716 and then the Earls of Onslow from 1801 to date. (See Peerage entry for 8th Earl of Onslow, 1st Baronet Onslow, 1st Baron Onslow) or Burkes Peerage 2016. This means Clandon Park has been the Seat of (in the hands of) the Baronet, Baron and Earls of Onslow for 340 years which makes Clandon Park a very important Estate in its own right (separate to Clandon House which the Onslow's built well after acquiring Clandon Park. I would really welcome help as it is a large body of research and having now realised the error in Wikipedia under Clandon Park and Clandon House I cannot seem to alter one without the other for some reason. I do not understand how they are linked in this protective fashion. Clandon Park Historian (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

 * I support moving the bulk of this article to Clandon House as plenty of sources call it "Clandon House" or even "Clandon Park House". I have found lots of information about the historic grade-II listed park, which is obviously notable in its own right. By the way, did you know the park is only c. 540 acres in size? It was 1,000 acres in the 16th century, but all land north of the railway was sold in the 19th century, and some land to the east was sold for housing in the 20th century. Firebrace (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Clandon Park Deeds held by the 8th Earl of Onslow show 937 acres currently is the holding. This includes the Clandon Park Forests and a Golf Course. Clandon Park Historian (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

 * The problem here is that deeds are hard and costly to access, and they are contradicted by freely available information. Firebrace (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Clandon House is the house that was gifted to the Nation by the Onslows. Clandon Park is a Grade II Listed agricultural Parkland has never been gifted to anyone and is still owned by the Onslows. The maps, Estate charts and Deeds that substantiate this are freely available through the Surrey History Centre and the National Archives. Also see clandonpark.com. The contradictions are being perpetuated by those that do not have any substantiated knowledge of these properties or perhaps they are being promoted by third parties who have other motives. Perhaps the National Trust wishes for Clandon House to appear to own Clandon Park so as to draw in more visitors ? Perhaps they use the Clandon Park as the address of Clandon House. Surely it is not our job as editors to surmise the reason for others "passing off" one property as belonging to another. As editors we should merely edit according to the law or facts that can be substantiated and referenced wherever possible. I am still at a loss as to how to edit this one correctly without appearing to be over zealous. Clandon Park Historian (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

 * I appreciate that Wikipedia can be mysterious and frustrating. The issue is being dealt with by a formal procedure called a Request For Comment, and it will eventually produce a consensus either for or against moving the article to Clandon House. Firebrace (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Please can somebody advise why, on Wikipedia Clandon Park (Grade 11 Listed Park), is bundled with Clandon House (Grade 1 Listed Park which sits on Clandon Park). Clandon Park was in existence at least 100 years before the house even existed ! The descriptions are really muddled yet they are two completely separate properties and owned by different owners. I dare not correct the errors although there are many. I can supply full references from public documents if it helps. I have several edits noted to this and other country house descriptions. Anyone feel they are able to tell me where to start. How about 'Clandon House on Clandon Park' and ' Clandon Park, Historic Parkland' Clandon Park Historian (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Would it help if the conveyance documents of Clandon House were published and referenced ? They are available to view by anyone at the Surrey Archives. Clandon Park Historian (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Per WP:RELIABLE, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". Definition of published: "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online." Hope this helps. Firebrace (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 * The article has been split into Clandon House and Clandon Park. Firebrace (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

This is quite ridiculous. The house is called Clandon Park in every reliable source back to the 19th century at least Burke's Peerage, 1865, including its own website National Trust Clandon Park, and that of the National Heritage List for England Historic England list entry. Clandon House is a block of student flats in Finchley occupied by the University of London University of London, Clandon House. If the estate surrounding Clandon Park is notable enough to have an independent article, then the title for that should be Clandon Park Estate. The opinion of a couple of Wikipedia users should not be permitted to override the facts. Ghughesarch (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

 * "Every reliable source" ...except for the hundreds of reliable sources which call it Clandon House or Clandon Park House. Firebrace (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Which are these mysterious sources? There really aren't any that come close, that have actually been put forward here or elsewhere. Clearly Clandon Park Historian has a bee in his or her bonnet about it, and probably some sort of personal interest, but they really haven't made a case, and it's mystifying why it should be getting any credence on the evidence they've given. Ghughesarch (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 * The park and house have been separate entities since the house was jettisoned by the Onslow family in 1956. The house belongs to the National Trust and is no longer the seat of the Earl of Onslow. Based on available evidence it is clear that Clandon Park is notable in its own right, dating back to the 1500s, designed by Capability Brown, and being Grade II listed. Currently, the article is only a stub, but there is more to say about the park and it will be given substance in due course.
 * Per WP:NCDAB, "Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation", hence Clandon Park and Clandon House are preferable to, for example, Clandon Park (house) and Clandon Park (estate). While User:Clandon Park Historian may or may not be close to the subject, we should keep in mind that the National Trust is also close to the subject, and they are not beyond reproach either. Now a list of reliable sources:

 * Clandon House
 * Just search for "Clandon House" (with quotation marks) on Google Books. Here are some notable examples in chronological order:
 * "The church is a small low building at the south east corner of Clandon park … As we proceed through the park we shall pass Clandon House" – W. C. Smith, Rambles round Guildford, with a Topographical and Historical Description of the Town, 1828, p. 206
 * "The Earl of Onslow appealed by his agent against a charge made upon him for window duty and inhabited house duty, in respect of the principal mansion-house attached to his Lordship's estate in Surrey, called Clandon House. The appellant claimed to be exempted from all duty in respect of the said mansion, on the ground of its being unoccupied and unfurnished" – Accounts and Papers, ordered to be published by the House of Commons, 1830, vol. 25, Assessed Taxes: Cases Determined on Appeal, p. 3
 * "Clandon House was erected about the year 1731" - Edward Wedlake Brayley; John Britton, A Topographical History of Surrey, 1841, p. 59–60
 * "… Clandon House, Surrey …" – The Manuscripts of the House of Lords, 1887, p. 259
 * "… Clandon House, Surrey …" – Chamber's Encyclopaedia, 1968, vol. 12, p. 180
 * "… withdrew with his grandparents to Clandon Park where the contrived informality of the landscape was unlike anything George had grown accustomed to in France. As recently as 1776–1777, the lush gardens around Clandon House were redesigned …" – Richard Nelson Franks, George Onslow (1784–1853): A Study of His Life, Family and Works - 1981, vol. 1, p. 167
 * "Chattels at Clandon House" – Works of Art (Taxation), Hansard, House of Commons, 6 July 1984, vol. 63, col. 341W

 * Clandon Place
 * The house has often been referred to as Clandon Place.
 * "… Clandon-place, the seat of the Lord Onslow, descended from the Onslow-hall in Shropshire" – William Camden; Edmund Gibson, Britannia: Or a Chorographical Description of Great Britain and Ireland, 1722, ed. 2, vol. 1, p. 360
 * "… Clandon Place and Park, the seat of Lord Onslow" – Thomas Kitchin, The Traveller's Guide Through England and Wales, 1783, p. 5
 * "… Clandon Place, a noble edifice, the seat of Earl Onslow" – Edward Wedlake Brayley; John Britton, The Beauties of England and Wales, 1813, p. 274
 * "… Clandon Place, the splendid seat of Earl Onslow" – James Norris Brewer, The Picture of England, 1820, vol. 2 p. 266
 * "… Clandon Place, the seat of Lord Onslow, a noble edifice, erected in 1731" – Samuel Leigh, Leigh's New Pocket Road-book of England and Wales, 1835, ed. 5, p. 189
 * "Clandon Place, Earl of Onslow" – Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1860, ed. 8, vol. 20, p. 838

 * Clandon Park House
 * It has also been referred to as Clandon Park House.
 * "Clandon Park House was described by …" – Surrey Archaeological Society, Surrey Archaeological Collections: Relating to the History and Antiquities of the County, 1955, vol. 54, p. 168
 * "Lodges and gates to Clandon Park House, Clandon Park (Epsom Road)" – List entry Number: 1188805, Historic England
 * "The village of West Clandon has 470 houses and a total population of approximately 1,100. It has no commercial enterprise apart from two public houses, a garden centre, a nursing home and the National Trust Clandon Park House" – Robyn Cormack, Memorandum by West Clandon Parish Council (SHC 37), 20 February 2003
 * "Address: Clandon Park House, Guildford, GU4 7RQ" – Planning application 14/P/01186, submitted to Guildford Borough Council, 24 June 2014
 * "Clandon Park House" – Neil Linford; Paul Linford; Andrew. W. Payne, Clandon Park House, West Clandon, Surrey: Report on Geophysical Surveys, published by Historic England, 2015
 * "Clandon Park House in Surrey has been gutted by a fire" – The Guardian, 30 April 2015
 * "Clandon Park House near Guildford" – BBC News, 26 November 2015
 * "At 16:08 hours, Surrey Fire and Rescue Service’s Joint Emergency Communication Centre (JECC) received the first emergency call to a fire in the basement electrical fuse board at Clandon Park House" – Bryn Strudwick, Surrey Fire & Rescue Service Report of Fire Incident No: 007905/2015, 2015
 * "Clandon Park House, near Guildford, in Surrey" – BBC News, 10 September 2016
 * "Clandon Park House in Surrey" – BBC News, 9 March 2017
 * "The Onslow family allowed Clandon Park House to be used as a military hospital in World War I" – The Telegraph, 9 March 2017
 * "The Queen's Royal Surrey Regiment Museum, Clandon Park House, Clandon Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU4 7RQ" – Entry for museum at 192.com

 * "Clandon Park", "Clandon House", "Clandon Park House", and "Clandon Place" all appear in the sources, some of which have made a clear distinction between Clandon Park and Clandon House or Place. We are informed by User:Clandon Park Historian that "Clandon House" is the name on the deeds (H.M. Land Registry. Title Number SY157333, dated 18 April 1956). If that is the case, titling this article by the house’s definitive name is appropriate in order to disambiguate it from Clandon Park, the association between park and house now being entirely historical. Firebrace (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 * OK. a few comments
 * The Clandon Park article needs a disambiguation link to redirect to the article on the house (we can be pretty confident that the majority of users who end up on the "Park" article will actually be looking for the "House".
 * What User:Clandon Park Historian says the title deeds say - whether true or not - is undoubtedly WP:OR and should not form the basis for this sort of decision. As your sample above of various different names for the place shows, "Clandon House" is not 'the definitive name' by any stretch of the imagination.
 * Sentences like this, in the article: "Until 1956 the house was set in Clandon Park with landscaped gardens designed by Lancelot 'Capability' Brown in 1781" really are nonsense. Regardless of the ownership since 1956, the house is still set in the park, in any normal English language usage - it hasn't been physically moved elsewhere. Ghughesarch (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Per WP:OR, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages". If the house is named as Clandon House on the deeds, I would say that is pretty definitive. Until just now you seemed to believe that "Clandon Park" was the definitive name, based on nothing more than Burke's Peerage and the National Trust. Surely, the deeds carry more weight? The house and a mere seven acres of land were parceled off to the National Trust in 1956. The other hundreds of acres belong to the Earl of Onslow. Firebrace (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 * who has a bee in their bonnet now? Firebrace (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 * "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages" - correct, one can discuss material that is OR to one's heart's content on talk pages. But the point is that the Original Research in question has been used as the principle justification for a significant change to the article itself.
 * A bit more original research might show whether the house was called "Clandon House" on the deeds before it was separated from the rest of the estate in 1956 - either way, the results of such research would not be allowable as part of the article.
 * As for bees in their bonnet, well, I've been immensely irritated by various WP rules and procedures in the past, but making sweeping changes to an article on the say-so of someone who, at the very least, appears to have a conflict of interest in the matter, does seem to fly in the face of established convention.
 * see also WP:UCRN Ghughesarch (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There was a Request for Comment (see below). Why didn't you take part in the discussion? Did you think it wasn't a serious proposal, or something? Feel free to start another RFC arguing the case for reverting the article to its original name and state. Firebrace (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Really, because I tend to use Wikipedia far less than I once did, and seem to have missed this until this week. Still, it always astonishes me that two one-line comments in the obscurity of a talk page, and the summing-up, "The proposal though somewhat vague, is supported" should be all it takes. No reasoning, no putting forward of a case, no notice paid of the issues of policies on original research and not using the most common name and so on. Maybe I will, maybe I won't. Ghughesarch (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 * The discussion has been ongoing since 14 July 2017, nearly eight weeks ago. By the way, I'm not sure that making a decision on what to name the article based on deeds published by HM Land Registry is original research. However, it is a primary source. Original research would be if I did a scientific experiment and then used my results in a Wikipedia article. Or interpreted a primary source in a novel way that is uncorroborated by a secondary source. Firebrace (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Riiiight. But - the new article on Clandon Park basically covers the Capability Brown parkland in the ownership of the Onslows, and (quite rightly, since they're within the boundary of the Brown park) the gardens of the house which now belong to the National Trust and are the only part that give a degree of encyclopaedic notability - otherwise that article would be, and would remain, a small stub of dubious value.
 * The Onslow estate in the area, we've been told above by [Clandon Park Historian], covers considerably more land than the historic park, so the [Clandon Park] article, as it would be even if a counsel of perfection could be achieved, would not cover either the contiguous landholdings of the Onslows ("the Onslow Estate centred on Clandon in Surrey", for want of a better description), or the entirety of the Brown parkland including the house for which it was designed and the later gardens immediately round the house ("Clandon Park"), thus reducing it to some meaningless thing describing an entity that does not, and never has, existed as a single unit.
 * The park was laid out for the house (which from at least a substantial number of reliable sources, shared the name Clandon Park). The two may be in split ownership now, but splitting the articles is splitting hairs to nobody's benefit. It should be perfectly possible to merge the limited information in the Clandon Park article back into this one and have a single article. Ghughesarch (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

 * The house is labeled on Ordnance Survey maps as "Clandon Park House", and the parkland as "Clandon Park".
 * I would also point out that Historic England in their listing on the Register of Historic Parks and Gardens names Clandon House as the "PRINCIPAL BUILDING", and its immediate grounds are headed "GARDENS AND PLEASURE GROUNDS", while the park proper comes under the heading of "PARK". Moreover, we are informed by Historic England: "The House and garden were given to the National Trust in 1956 in whose ownership they remain (2000). The park continues in private ownership." A clear distinction is made between the house and its gardens and pleasure grounds, owned by the National Trust, and the privately owned park. Firebrace (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Well, Historic England in their list entry for the house name the house "Clandon Park" and give the address as "Clandon Park, Clandon Park" (so good they named it twice?). They do the same |1 in the record photographs taken in the 1950s and 60s and now in the archive of Historic England. The present owners of the house and pleasure gardens call it "Clandon Park", and as you say, the Ordnance Survey call it "Clandon Park House", though that does depend on the scale of map you're looking at, at smaller scales it's "Clandon Park", labelled adjacent to the house as a tourist attraction and therefore referring to the house, not Rupert Onslow's estate. So all you've done is show that there's no reason to accept "Clandon House" as the correct name for Wikipedia purposes, and every reason to take "Clandon Park" as complying with WP:UCRN for this article - two "Clandon Parks" to one "Clandon House" and one "Clandon Park House", both of the latter being undermined in other formats by the very organisations you think support the non-"Clandon Park" usage. Really the two articles need to be merged back together under the name Clandon Park. Ghughesarch (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Per WP:UCRN: "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources", and "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others".
 * It is a complex and probably unique situation. In my view, the only acceptable alternative to Clandon House is Clandon Park House. Whether or not you believe the grounds which are appended to the HE listing for Clandon Park are actually a bit of the park themselves, the house's name is not Clandon Park. The National Trust are an involved party and may or may not have an agenda, just like our historian friend. Maybe they use "Clandon Park" as an abbreviation of "Clandon Park House". The media, fire service, Historic England, West Clandon Parish Council, Surrey Archaeological Society, and whoever submitted that application (one of many) to Guildford Borough Council all seem to think so... Firebrace (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * One further comment: This application form submitted to GBC in 2014 by "National Trust, Polesden Lacey, Great Bookham, Dorking, Surrey, RH5 6BD" gives the address of the house as "Clandon Park House, Clandon Park, West Clandon, Guildford, Surrey, GU4 7RQ". Incontrovertible proof that in the National Trust context, "Clandon Park" is an abbreviation of "Clandon Park House". Firebrace (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Not really "incontrovertible proof", though I'd accept that it is further proof that "Clandon House" comes a very poor third or fourth in the list of contenders for the "right" name. As for the National Trust being an "involved party", with an "agenda", which you've alluded to a couple of times as if it somehow balances the actions and arguments here of User:Clandon Park Historian, I don't see the National Trust or its representatives coming in and edit warring over the content of this page, and then forcing a title change on highly dubious grounds. Ghughesarch (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 * By the Trust's own admission, Clandon Park House is the building's actual name, which is supported by the widespread use of that name by media, local authorities, and official maps. Clandon Park (when referring to the house) is an abbreviation of Clandon Park House. Firebrace (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Er, no. Find a reliable source that says, specifically, "Clandon Park (when referring to the house) is an abbreviation of Clandon Park House". Otherwise, both are used, though "Clandon Park" - for the house - is the most commonly used name, and "Clandon House", the name of this article, comes well down the list of acceptable names. Ghughesarch (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Indeed, both names are used, but one is short for the other. Or maybe you can explain why organisations bother typing five extra letters after "Clandon Park" if that is the building's name. Have you seen my note above regarding exceptions to the common name policy? Firebrace (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See also: Castle Park House, Causey Park House, Cowden Park House, Denne Park House, Fetcham Park House, Hotham Park House, Rudding Park House (before it was a hotel), and Worcester Park House. All names are shortened to omit "House" in reliable sources. Firebrace (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Indeed, but irrelevant, as for this specific case there needs to be a reliable source that explicitly states that "Clandon Park" is an abbreviation for "Clandon Park House". And it doesn't get round either the fact that "Clandon House" is not in common use, whereas "Clandon Park" (for the house) is, or that the article on "Clandon Park" really should be merged back with whatever this article ends up being called, as it's not otherwise notable enough to stand alone.
 * Might I suggest a single article titled "Clandon Park", the bulk of which - after the lead, (which should basically be "Clandon Park is an agricultural and parkland estate at West Clandon, near Guildford in Surrey. It has been the seat of the Earls of Onslow for over two centuries. Within the estate sits Clandon ((Park) (House)), owned separately by the National Trust since 1956.") - would be the content of this article, under the heading "House", giving the three alternative names, then the material that's presently in the "Clandon Park" article, under the heading "Park" Ghughesarch (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

 * No there doesn't have to be a reliable source which says "Clandon Park" is an abbreviation for "Clandon Park House" because I'm not suggesting we state that in the article. We're deciding what to name the article, and it's perfectly ok to make reasonable assumptions for that purpose in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. I agree on merging Clandon Park back into Clandon Park House. Firebrace (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

 * My suggestion was effectively the opposite - merge Clandon House into Clandon Park. The idea of an article titled Clandon Park House which deals with the grounds (and the wider estate) - which are not a house - seems a byzantine way to go about things, whereas an article called Clandon Park which deals with the house of the same name, and the grounds of the same name, and the wider estate of the same name, makes sense. Provided there's a mention within the article of the distinction between the National Trust owned area and the Onslow owned area, I can't see that even Clandon Park Historian would have reasonable grounds to complain. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Quite the opposite: An article titled Clandon Park that deals with the park first and house (which is not a park) second is unacceptable. The house is the primary topic, its gardens are secondary, and the privately owned parkland estate is tertiary. It is fine to cover a nearby but less notable point of interest within an article. See, for example, Blenheim_Palace and Chatsworth_House. Firebrace (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Well. We're really going round in circles now. The house is, and has been, called, by a significant number of reliable sources, "Clandon Park", albeit not to the exclusion of at least three other names (Clandon Park House, Clandon House and Clandon Place). "Clandon Park" is the name used in probably the majority of recent sources, certainly in those intended for wide public consumption. To insist that "Clandon Park" is used only as an abbreviation of "Clandon Park House" flies in the face of the facts.
 * There's no reason - beyond the objections of "Clandon Park Historian" why an article titled "Clandon Park" should not describe the house, the gardens, and the surrounding land, in that order. That is, pretty much, what the article did - before it was split and renamed and otherwise messed about with.
 * Make it clear, by all means, that the house and garden is now in separate ownership to most of the park, but to go on supporting the tortured logic that is displayed by the current situation with two articles, one destined always to be a stub that doesn't "do what it says on the tin", and one named in such a way that anyone searching for the name that is in general popular use won;t find it, is absurd.Ghughesarch (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

 * We're going around in circles because you're feigning ignorance of exceptions to the common name policy. Per WP:UCRN, "Clandon Park" is ambiguous and inaccurate, and such terms "are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used". It refers to two different things, and when a common name has problems, "it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others". The park and gardens have been separated (and are physically separated by fences and hedgerows) since 1956. Historically, everything was the park, which is why Historic England appends the National Trust land to the park, while making it clear that the park, as it stands today, is privately owned. English Heritage in their 2013 At Risk Register also make a distinction: "The house and garden are now owned by the National Trust but the park is privately owned. It is currently unsympathetically managed thus affecting the overall integrity of the design and the setting of the house." House and park share an unnamed access road, which is probably the reason why Clandon Park House is said to be at Clandon Park. Firebrace (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment about moving the article
Should the bulk of this article be moved to Clandon House? Firebrace (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes! I would support this. Theroadislong (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems to make sense. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Mildly, yes.- Adam37 Talk  17:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

In the park
While I'm pleased to see the article redirected to a more accurate compromise name, I see we still have the problem of denial that the house (whatever name you choose to give it) is in the park. It is. For example: Historic England list entry for Clandon Park "Gardens and pleasure grounds within a landscaped park" "Clandon House and its surrounding parkland, c 220ha" "PRINCIPAL BUILDING Clandon House (listed grade I) stands in the south-east corner of the park". A substantial number of reliable sources will be needed if the article is going to claim that the house is not in the park. Current ownership has nothing to do with the physical location of the house. The modern Onslow-owned estate extends beyond the park boundaries, and this is not an article about the modern Onslow-owned part of the estate, but about the park and the house standing within it, in split ownership. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Zzzzz. I don't care for the opinion of a user who has been blocked four times in one year, including once for abusing multiple accounts. Such a user is not in a position to lay down the law, especially when they have already failed to be convinced by "a substantial number of reliable sources". Firebrace (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Shame to have got to the stage where I have to remind you of WP:CIVIL and WP:GF. I'm not sure why you find it necessary to go out of your way to ignore an incontrovertible fact that's well-supported, that - regardless of ownership - the house is in the park, and instead support the unreferenced assertions of an editor who has an apparent conflict of interest in the matter. Incidentally, more than half of the National Trust's 14 acre landholding at Clandon came to them in 1973, not 1956 Ghughesarch (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

English Heritage At Risk Register
re, If you have a problem with the assessment made by English Heritage, take it up with them. Firebrace (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

National Trust pilot
Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Clandon Park House


text:
Mama's Gun

Mama's Gun is the second studio album by American singer Erykah Badu. It was recorded between 1999 and 2000 at Electric Lady Studios in New York and released on November 21, 2000, by Motown Records. A neo soul album, Mama's Gun incorporates elements of funk, soul, and jazz styles. It has confessional lyrics by Badu, which cover themes of insecurity, personal relationships, and social issues. The album has been viewed by critics as a female companion to neo soul artist D'Angelo's second album Voodoo (2000), which features a similar musical style and direction. Critics have also noted that while Badu's first album Baduizm contained its share of cryptic lyricism, Mama's Gun is much more direct in its approach, and places the artist in a subjective position more than its predecessor.

The album contains the single "Bag Lady", Badu's first top 10 Billboard hit, which was also nominated for the Grammy Award for Best Female R&B Vocal Performance and for Best R&B Song. The song "Didn't Cha Know?" was also nominated for Best R&B Song. The album features substantial contributions from several members of the Soulquarians outfit, of which Badu was a member. It also features guests such as soul singer Betty Wright and trumpeter Roy Hargrove. Mama's Gun was met with generally positive reviews from critics. It was less commercially successful than Baduizm, receiving Platinum certification in the US. Rolling Stone magazine named it one of the Top 10 Albums of 2000.

Background
Following Badu signing to Universal Records, she released her debut studio album Baduizm, in early 1997. The album was met with critical and commercial success, debuting at number two on the Billboard charts and number one on the US Billboard Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums. Baduizm's commercial and critical success helped establish Badu as one of the emerging neo soul genre's leading artists. Her particular style of singing drew many comparisons to Billie Holiday. Baduizm was certified three times platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America, Gold by the British Phonographic Industry and the Canadian Recording Industry Association. Badu recorded her first live album, while pregnant with Seven, and the release of the recording coincided with his birth.

Recording
After the success of Baduizm and Live, Badu took a short break to tend to her role as a mother to her newborn child, Seven, whom she had with her partner at the time, André Benjamin. She returned to collaborating with Questlove of The Roots. The frequency of their collaborations led to her becoming a member of the Soulquarians - a collective formed of like-minded musicians, singers and rappers including Questlove, D'Angelo, Jay Dee, and Common (with whom she had previously worked in 1997). Unfortunately, by the time the songs for her follow-up album had begun to materialize, her spousal relationship with Benjamin had already broken down. Badu used the experience as inspiration for several of the songs that she would write, most notably "Green Eyes". Another event, the murder of Amadou Diallo by New York City Police, serves as the basis for the song "A.D. 2000".

As with other Soulquarian collaborations, the majority of the album was recorded at Electric Lady, Jimi Hendrix's personal recording studio, which was also used to create several landmark albums by David Bowie, Stevie Wonder, and John Lennon. Other studios include Dallas Sound Lab and Palmyra Studios in her hometown of Dallas, TX. The sessions were informal, and took place simultaneously with D'Angelo's Voodoo, Common's Like Water for Chocolate, and Bilal's 1st Born Second, resulting in impromptu collaborations and a distinctive sound that can be found among the three albums. Renowned recording engineer, Russell Elevado, who was responsible for the mixing of all four albums, has stated that he used older techniques and vintage mixing gear in order to achieve the warmth found in older recordings. While most current recording techniques involve the use of hi-tech digital equipment, Elevado employed the use of analog equipment including vintage microphones and recording to tape.

Release and reception
Mama's Gun was released by Motown Records on November 21, 2000, and received generally positive reviews from critics. At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream publications, the album received an average score of 80, based on 16 reviews. Rolling Stone magazine's Touré said Badu abandoned the pretensions of Baduizm in favor of equally profound but more comprehensible lyrics. In The Village Voice, Robert Christgau wrote that she improved her ability as a composer on Mama's Gun and also took note of her lyrics: "Maybe her sources are autobiographical, but she’s here to inspire all black-identified women and the men who admire them." The A.V. Club's Keith Phipps praised her lyrical themes and the album's "deceptively simple arrangements, a lovely breakup suite ('Green Eyes'), and near-infinite replay value". PopMatters critic Wayne Franklin found the record compelling in its personal scope of Badu's psyche, calling it "a definite work of art, destined to remain in heavy rotation for some time to come".

Although most reviews were favorable, Mama's Gun was not as successful with consumers and critics as Baduizm had been; Q wrote that Badu's debut had raised expectations she did not meet on Mama's Gun, while Entertainment Weekly said it was plagued by "a reactionary pseudo-sophistication that too often substitutes good taste for good tunes." According to Badu in an interview a few months after the album's release, "it has sold 1.4 million in the US. So no, it didn't sell as much ... although creatively I feel like this is a better piece of work." She felt disappointed at first about its commercial performance, but was encouraged by the response from listeners at her concerts: "When I started to tour again and saw all the people show up who knew the words, it was confirmation that the work is not always for commercial success. It's also for spiritual upliftment."

At the end of 2000, Mama's Gun was voted the 15th best album of the year in the Pazz & Jop, an annual poll of American critics published by The Village Voice. Christgau, the poll's supervisor, ranked it ninth best on his own year-end list. The Times named it the ninth best record of the year. It was also ranked ninth by Rolling Stone, while Jon Pareles named it the year's fifth best album in his list for The New York Times. The newspaper's Ben Ratliff later said Mama's Gun and D'Angelo's Voodoo were "the great neo-soul records of 2000". The album was also included in the book 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die. In the 2020 reboot of their list of 'The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time', Rolling Stone ranked Mama's Gun at number 158.

Track listing
Notes
 * undefined indicates a co-producer.

Musicians
Horns arranged by Roy Hargrove: Strings on tracks 3 and 13, arranged by Larry Gold:
 * Erykah Badu – vocals, acoustic guitar (track 9), MPC2000 drum machine (12)
 * James Poyser – piano, Rhodes electric piano, Minimoog, organ, clavinet, Arp String Ensemble (tracks 1–5, 7–9, 14)
 * Pino Palladino – bass (1, 5, 9, 13, 14)
 * Jay Dee – programming (2), drum programming (3), bass (7, 8)
 * Ahmir "Questlove" Thompson – drums (1, 4, 5, 7–9, 14)
 * Leonard "Doc" Gibbs – percussion (5, 7, 8)
 * Shaun Martin – keyboards (6, 10, 12, 13)
 * Braylon Lacy – bass (6, 10, 12, 13)
 * Gino Lock Johnson Iglehart – drums (6, 10, 12, 13)
 * Yahzarah – background vocals (1, 2, 6, 10–12)
 * N'dambi and Geno "Junebugg" Young – background vocals (6, 10, 12)
 * Chinah Blac – background vocals (1)
 * Jef Lee Johnson – guitar (1), additional acoustic guitar (9)
 * Roy Ayers – vibraphone (5)
 * Russell Elevado – guitar (8)
 * Betty Wright – background vocals (8), additional vocals (9)
 * Stephen Marley – vocals (11)
 * Dready – bass, acoustic guitar (11)
 * Ramone Gonzalez – percussion (12)
 * R.C. Williams – keyboards (13)
 * Carlos Henderson – acoustic bass (14)
 * Flute – D'Wayne Kerr (6, 8, 10, 12, 14)
 * Saxophone – Jacques Swarzbart (7, 14)
 * Trumpet – Roy Hargrove (7, 14)
 * Trombone – Frank Lacy (7, 14)
 * Violins: Charlie Parker Jr., Emma Kummrow, Gregory Teperman, Igor Szwec, Olgo Konopelsky, Charles Kwas (13 only)
 * Violas: Davis Barnet, Peter Nocella
 * Cello: Larry Gold (13 only)

Production

 * Executive producers: Erykah Badu, Kedar Massenburg
 * Recording engineers: Tom Soares (1–5, 8–20, 14), Chris Bell (4, 6, 7, 12), Russell Elevado (1, 7, 8), Leslie Brathwaite (2, 3, 5, 10), Vernon J. Mungo (2, 8, 10), Jon Smeltz and Mark Goodchild (3, 13), Errol Brown (11)
 * Mixing Engineers: Tom Soares (4, 6, 9, 11), Russell Elevado (1, 7, 8, 12, 14), Leslie Brathwaite (2, 3, 5, 10, 13)
 * Assistant engineers: Jon Adler (1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 14), Steve Mandel (1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14), Shinobu Mitsuoka (2–5, 8, 9, 11), Mike Turner (3, 8, 9, 13), Michael Verdes (4, 6, 7, 12), Vincent Alexander (5, 10, 13), Mitch Getz and William Jackson (2), Krystof Zizka (3), Jason Dale (4), Brian Geten and Paul Gregory (6), Rob Smith (10)
 * Erik Steiner – Pro-Tools (3, 4)
 * Mastering: Chris Gehringer, Tom Coyne
 * Vernon Mungo – production facilitator
 * Erykah Badu and Michael Whitfield – art direction
 * Simone/Whitfield – design
 * Robert Maxwell – cover art
 * Don Thompson – photography
 * Kierstan Tucker – A&R
 * Kelly Abraham - Marketing

title: Mama's Gun


text:
Talk:Mama's Gun

The Washington Post review
Transcription using Google News Advanced News Archive Search. The Washington Post (Klein, Joshua. C.05. December 6, 2000) review of Mama's Gun (2000):

"As hip-hop grew in popularity over the past two decades, many believed the classic soul music of the '60s and '70s would be buried by tradition-flouting new jacks interested more in making big bucks than in making songs that stand the test of time. But a fresh generation of neo-traditionalists arrived to shift the focus from cookie-cutter marketing and youth-culture pandering back to musicianship and songwriting. Artists such as Tony Toni Tone, Lauryn Hill, D'Angelo and Erykah Badu didn't simply hark back to the days of such standard bearers as Sly Stone, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye and Roberta Flack. Rather, they fused the past with the present, making dusty soul sounds new again with a mixture of old-school grit and streetwise savvy.

Badu has spent the better part of the three years since her auspicious debut, "Baduizm," popping up here and there on a friend's album but otherwise relatively silent. The new "Mama's Gun" should have been a blazing return to the scene. Instead, while the disc shows the singer ever mindful of the need for moderation in this age of "bling-bling" excess, the music is never quite as potent as it could have been. After the energetic "Penitentiary Philosophy," "Mama's Gun" comfortably settles into quiet-storm mode, the subdued groove ruling all. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. D'Angelo's "Voodoo," for instance, similarly invited the listener to succumb to its stoned sonic utopia, and for better or worse "Mama's Gun" sounds like that album's soul sister. "Kiss Me on My Neck" drums up some impressive voodoo magic of its own, while "Bag Lady" works surprisingly well, considering its odd jazz/reggae/march structure. "Bag Lady" and "Orange Moon" also enlist some effectively enigmatic metaphors, the latter conjuring evocative images to match the empowering lyrics, with Badu quietly declaring, "He rules the day, I'll rule the night."

After the hypnotic haze is lifted, though, the songs often disappear into the ether as well, despite some assured performances. On that end, Badu's team never falters. Recorded (as was "Baduizm") with the help of members of Philadelphia's ambitious hip- hop collective the Roots, "Mama's Gun" slinks, swings and swaggers, in love with its own backroom cool. Roots drummer Ahmir "?uestlove" Thompson and famed horn man Roy Hargrove are both potent collaborators who have also worked with D'Angelo and rapper Common, helping the disc to hover somewhere between jazz, R&B and hip-hop. Throughout, the sparse bass of guests such as fellow D'Angelo vet Pino Palladino thumps mightily, capably carrying the bulk of the minimalist melodies of ". . . & On" and "Didn't Cha Know.""

- Joshua Klein

Dan56 (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Boston Herald review
Transcription using Google News Advanced News Archive Search. Boston Herald (Rodman, Sarah. 061. December 17, 2000) review of Mama's Gun (2000):

"ERYKAH BADU. Mama's Gun (Motown). Three and a half stars. Three years after turning the world on to the smooth soul tenets of "Baduizm," Texas songstress Erykah Badu returns packing "Mama's Gun." That "Gun" is loaded with even more dynamic tunes, proving her debut was no fluke. It starts with a shot, the big, Rufus-worthy explosion of "Penitentiary Philosophy." The scratch guitar and bass rumble are just a hint of what's to come. From there, it's all the joy, pain, sunshine and rain of Badu's life story laid out in lively r & b grooves padded with jazzy piano riffs, ethereal flute and funky scat singing. "AD 2000" recalls Minnie Riperton, with its sparse acoustic guitar and willowy vocal. Stephen Marley proves a gruffly romantic sparring partner on "In Love With You" and Roy Ayers and Roy Hargrove contribute fizzy vibes and frothy trumpet sounds to "Cleva" and "Booty" respectively. Although Badu goes on a little too long, the music is enough to make even the staunchest NRA opponent want to pick up this "Gun.""

- Sarah Rodman

Dan56 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Mama's Gun
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mama's Gun's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA": From Baduizm:  From Jazz fusion: Available online at:  From Jazz: Manuel, Peter (2009: 69). Creolizing Contradance in the Caribbean. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. From Billie Holiday: Lady Sings the Blues, p. 95.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Mama's Gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130115055129/http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110527202401/http://2005.sxsw.com/music/showcases/band/20741.html to http://2005.sxsw.com/music/showcases/band/20741.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mama's Gun. 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/20160301002442/http://music.cbc.ca/ to http://music.cbc.ca/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130225031458/http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS to http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100331121149/http://www.cria.ca/cert_db_search.php to http://www.cria.ca/cert_db_search.php

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) 11:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mama's Gun


text: File:Erykah Badu - Wordwide Underground.jpg