text:
Talk:West End theatre

Longest running W.E. Musical still on stage
I searched this on Google and each of the top ten results said it was 'Les Miserables', however, having seen the article on 'The Mousetrap' it's obvious this was written first. However, is it certain that the mousetrap has been showing non-stop in London's West End for all those years? That would explain why many websites list Les Mis and Phantom as being longer running. Grunners 00:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Les Mis and Phantom are the longest running Musicals I believe. The longest continuously running play in the world is The Mousetrap. It opened at the Ambassador's Theatre on Nov 25th 1952 and transferred to the St. Martin's Theatre in 1974 - It's now in it's 53rd year! History Martin TB 18:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have updated the longest running shows on the West-end and added opening dates of the first showing - not the first showing of the current theatre it is in. Opening dates have been sourced so there is no ambiguity in the numbers years and it can be updated easily on a yearly basis. I have also added Cats in the list - which despite running for 20 years was not in it... BenyG 13:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

List of musicals to be added in the list but exact details/references not yet sourced

 * Oh! Calcutta! - ran for 5-6 years, started in 1969
 * The Rocky Horror Show (original 1973 production) ran for 6 years ish, reprised many times since.--BenyG 15:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Avenue Q - Ran for 5 years over two stages. Started 2006.

List of current Musicals
Would it not be nice to put a list of current running west end productions in this article? Check out Broadway to see what i mean. Basreuwer 20:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Shouldn't be too difficult to do, either.  Russell Brown 13:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The list of current/coming West End productions can get quite long, see example on [UKTW], this could be made more meaningful by restricting it to shows running for, say, 1 month or more ... shouldn't just be musicals as implied by the title of this thread though Robertiles 08:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

List in "Theatreland" paragraph
What's the common factor in the rather disparate list at the end of this paragraph, please? --Old Moonraker 18:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * None at all as far as I can see. An anonymous editor put it in ages back,I've removed it. -Dhodges 19:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Great. WP:BOLD! --Old Moonraker 19:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Big names
The West End has attracted "big names" for decades - so why are only the last few years of "big names" listed? Moreover, why are they listed at all - it makes the introduction to the article read like an advertisement. While it may be interesting to present a List of West End performers by year, I suggest that it is moved to such an article - it's out of place here. Waggers 11:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, in the meantime, it could be moved downpage to an appendix. The How to ... section is just a second attempt to add wikispam, this time embedded in text. I'd suggest remove it completely. Kbthompson 11:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

References for the first paragraph
Can I see references for the first paragraph? It's probably right, but it should be referenced with inline citations. Dr. Submillimeter 16:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

citation needed tag for Toronto
I've been wondering what would count as an acceptable citation for the controversial mention of Toronto in the lead alongside New York. There are plenty of sources that agree that Toronto is the third biggest theatre city, such as Britannica Online; there are also many other (non-academic) sites that mention London, New York, and Toronto in one breath, such as here. Nevertheless, it would be hard to find something that would conclusively prove that any city can "represent the highest level of commercial theatre in the English-speaking world". It is commonly accepted that this status is true for London and New York, but how can we prove (or disprove) whether it is true for another city like Toronto? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with Britannica Online. As the guilty editor who added the tag without starting a discussion, I will replace it accordingly. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks to User: Arctic Gnome.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Theatrical Schools
Today, I restored a list of theatrical schools that are noted for training artists for West End Theatre.

This list had recently been cut down to include only those schools on the Conference of Drama Schools, however this is NOT representative of the vast range of skills present in the West End.

For example, musicals are amongst the West End's most profitable shows and a huge proportion of artists appearing in musicals actually do not come from drama schools, but are actualy trained in DANCE or specifically MUSICAL THEATRE where drama is often the secondary skill.

Also, the Royal Opera House is officially reognised as a West End theatre, however there are no drama schools that supply artists for the ROYAL BALLET. I very much doubt if the Royal Ballet School will be joining the CoDS any time in the near future, yet it is one of the 'big six' most famous ballet schools in the world and is somewhat more prestigious than say the Drama Studio London or Rose Bruford.

In short, I have restored the original list of THEATREICAL schools, which offers a FAIR representation of notable schools in all the key skills of dance, music and drama. If anyone would like to debate this, feel free, but you will not convince me that only drama schools are notable for inclusion in this article and if necessary I will refer the matter to a more experienced editor for their opinion.

 * Firstly, "theatrical school" is an extremely marginal, to say the least, phrase that has no place in an encyclopedia; I've amended the section to "Training". When I trimmed the list, as I have again, I did so on the basis of notability; I used membership of the Conference as a criterion of notability (as established for the drama school article). This remains an appropriate criterion for this article. Your suggestion that the English National Ballet School, Royal Academy of Music and Royal Ballet School also train performers who work in West End theatre is, of course, right. Your suggestion that in musical theatre a performer's abilities in drama are secondary, though, is both alarming and out of step with high-quality professional practice in the West End; when it's good, it's not secondary. Many of the drama schools listed also train performers in musical theatre. What is needed for the article is an objective criterion to determine notability for non-drama school training institutions. That those just mentioned are notable is indisputable (I assume). I've excluded the others on the list in lieu of a demonstration of their notability in the training of West End theatre performers. (you also need to sign your posts - four of these:~ in a row). DionysosProteus (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have again reverted the list. You may find my opinion that drama can be considered a secondary skill alarming, but the reality is that it is often the case. Drama is not the be all and end all of a West End artist. For example, a person playing a character in Cats or Chicago would first be selected based upon their dance ability and then vocal, or for a technically demanding vocal production such as Wicked, the vocal ability would take prescedence. And just as a reminder if you've ever been to a West End audition, some actually ask you to fill in a card putting your skills in order of what you think is your stength and some audition notices will actually state, "dancers who sing well" for example.

Also it is still only an opinion, however valid, that membership of the CoDS is an objective criterion for notability. Looking at the 'Drama Schools' article, there is actually no reference or source on there supporting the statement which says "The Conference of Drama Schools comprises Britain’s 22 leading Drama Schools", so that in its-self can easily be viewed as a biased opinion. I could easily suggest that there is an equally objective criterion for many of the others, such as Bird College, Laine Theatre Arts and the Royal Ballet School that they are all supported on the Government's Dance & Drama Awards Scheme, which is specifically targeted at offering funded places in 'the leading' institutions for theatrical training. Many of them are also accredited to the Council for Dance Education and Training.

Also, the content of a schools individual article can also be taken as notability. The fact that the article for the Royal Ballet School contains an extensive and correctly referenced list of students who have gone on to work with the Royal Ballet and indeed in West End musicals etc, is surely proof enough of its notability in training West End artists. The Bird College article also has a referenced list of ex-students who have gone on to West End careers, as does the article for Laine Theatre Arts and so on.

I might also point out that you are blatantly exercising a bias for drama schools considering that in your list, you have altered the name of ArtsEd to 'ArtsEd London School Of Acting', which is not its name. It is either known as ArtsEd or Arts Educational Schools, London, it is not called a 'school of acting', it is a theatre college that happens to have an acting course.

You might find my opinions on drama alarming, but your narrow minded attitude to schools whose notability is unquestionable is slightly more so. On a personal note and if you take offence to it I do not apologise, but I get the impression that you are a typical drama snob who probably sees singing and dancing as second rate tat and not serious high-brow entertainment. Crazy-dancing (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Well you can certainly keep your fantasies about me to yourself. The names are those used in the drama school article, from which they were cut and pasted; the logic of your accusation of bias is flawed. The notability criterion was established through consensus discussion among editors at the time; membership of the Conference indicates the quality of their training; that's how it is, like any other professional body in its field. It appears disingenuous of you to argue about the Royal Ballet, since I addressed that one explicitly above; perhaps you didn't read it properly? As for the rest, until notability for training West End theatre performers is demonstrated, they'll be removed. DionysosProteus (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the two schools recently added, and now undone Crazydancing's undoing of that. You need to establish that these institutions are notable for the training of West End theatre performers. Your edit history note claims that the articles do that, but on examination no such notability is there. No doubt you feel these schools are terribly important, just as everyone who has studied at any of the many, many other institutions in London at which one can learn to act or dance or sing or whatever... that doesn't make them notable. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To follow the guideline in WP:TOPIC, the article would "contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information". A pretty narrow definition which, if strictly applied, would do away with the whole section altogether. Any support for this? --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I originally included certain schools in the list based on the fact that they are on the Government's list of schools offering the dance and drama awards, which I think is a legitimate criteria for notability. You earlier claimed that the notability of the Conference of Drama Schools was established "through consensus discussion among editors", but if that is true, the fact still remains that it is only the point of view of that particular group of editors that lead to that conclusion. In vast comparison, the Dance & Drama Awards exist specifically to highlight the standards of those 20 odd dance and drama schools, based on their track record in producing professional artists and the standard of their training. In that respect, there is a criteria for notability that doesn't really need 'concensus discussion', because it is already established. So, in reply to your typically arrogant comment, the schools I have been adding to the list are not just any old institution in London at which one can learn to act or dance or sing, but they are the ones whos notability is recognised beyond the realms of just the students that train there and indeed, beyond the theatrical profession itself. Crazy-dancing (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think part of the problem here is that there's no Theatre in the United Kingdom.Amo (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm with Old Moonraker on this, we can't agree and it's only very loosely relevant, so we might as well get rid. Crazy-dancing (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's gone: thanks Crazy-dancing for this WP:BOLD edit. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Listing current productions in this article
This discussion has been moved to this page from

Hey, im a member of wiki project musical theatre. I was just looking at this article and it is plagued by an awful awful list of aparently "Notable" performers. The list is just far too long, and for me just doesn't achieve anything. Can anyone think of another way? I mean some people are on the list 3 and 4 times and some repeated each year for the same show. I'll make an attempt at it, lemme know what you think Mark E (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the list of West End theatres should not include the most recent production with its opening and closing dates. This information belongs in the articles about the specific theaters, not in a general article about the West End. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm i sort of disagree on that one. It matches the format of the Broadway Theatre article and I think its useful to have an overview of what is on in the west end at this moment in time. I've taken out the list of performers though, was just no way to justify it being there.Mark E (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact it matches the Broadway theatre article doesn't make it right. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and listing productions currently playing in the West End makes it a theatre guide and, inadvertently, an advertisement. I would prefer to see this list include the theatre's opening date and capacity and leave the production data to the specific theatre articles themselves. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is important to have the show currently playing at the theatre listed, although maybe not the opening/closing date of the production. I've just been adding stuff to the already existing template. I think the idea of having the opening date of the theatre is a good one, but this is probably not the sort of information people looking at a general article will want, so the production information is more important.Mark E (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I'm not explaining myself well or you're not grasping or simply ignoring the point I'm trying to make. I see nothing wrong with listing a current production in an article about a specific theatre, but in a general article about West End theatre, I don't think this information is pertinent or appropriate. The emphasis of the article is not supposed to be on the individual theatres themselves, but rather the history of West End theatre. How and when did it become the center of theatrical productions in London? (Amazingly, this very important issue isn't addressed at all!) What playwrights and performers began their careers there? What noteworthy productions premiered there? A list of theatres considered to be West End venues makes sense, but additional information about them should be in their own articles, which is the purpose of a Wikilink . . . if people want to know more about the history of XYZ Theatre, they can click on its link. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that all the history is important, I would put it in myself but I don't have enough knowledge on that subject but i still think the current productions is important, otherwise it would just be an endless list.Mark E (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You have said, "I think it is important to have the show currently playing at the theatre listed," but without explaining why, other than because it matches the format of the Broadway Theatre article, whereas I have offered several valid reasons to support my opinion. Clearly we never will agree on this issue. I wish other people involved in this project would comment, but this discussion page doesn't seem to draw the attention the one for the film project does. In any event, I have added some historical details to the article, since it had an overload of contemporary information and nothing about the past. It's not much, but it's a start. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's Great! And I agree its a shame that the projects arn't more active. Theatre is such an important aspect of the entertainment industry that seems to be often forgotten. And for having the list at the moment I think it is useful to 1) Give an overview of the current shows that are on. I'll be the first to agree the history is important, but the present it also important, and if we are going to have a list of theatres in the West End why not provide this information. I don't think the opening/closing dates of the production are important at all but I wouldn't know how to change the table 2) General for people who want to decide what to see. I would often check to see what was playing before it became so out of date that it wasn't a viable source anymore. Im happy to keep updating the article when new shows open/close. Mark E (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and listing productions currently playing in the West End makes it a theatre guide and, inadvertently, an advertisement. Please refer to, where it very specifically states, "Wikipedia articles are not directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera." Similary, an article about West End theatre should not list current productions. If people want to decide what to see, there are numerous websites where that information is available, but they shouldn't be looking for a list of current events in an encyclopedia. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

MarkE asked for my thoughts on this subject. On first reading, it appears that the guidelines that LiteraryMaven cited (Wikipedia is not a directory) govern here. Showing the production for the theater would seem to be prohibited under those guidelines. I think that this issue should be raised in several places to get some discussion going and to help reach a consensus. I suggest raisng this on the talk pages of the 2 articles involved--West End theatre and Broadway theatre. You might also want to drop a note at the Musical theatre project talk page. I want to note that I have no strong feeling about either keeping the list of shows, deleting them, or some variation. However, the guidelines --that I see so far-- are on the side of deleting. This is not a matter of what is "nice to have", or "it's convenient", it's what makes an article readable and informative within the guidelines. (As a final thought, everyone should read: WP:IGNORE just for fun!) JeanColumbia (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

 * There is an obvious contradiction in the argument presented by LiteraryMaven above: how is including the current production in a theatre an advertisement in this article but not in the individual theatres' articles? Neither inclusion constitutes an advertisement--it is clearly factual information, and as such, appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. Nothing in Wikipedia policy or guidelines indicates that such factual information is prohibited.

 * This article is an overview of theatre in the West End. As such, it is entirely appropriate that a casual browser would be able to see an overview of the range of productions being performed currently. I agree that giving individual performers for each entry is too much detail, but the production, genre, playwright and director for each gives an appropriate overview of the current state of theatrical production in the West End. Regardless of whether it is "nice" or "convenient", it is also factual information appropriate to the scope of the article, and as such ought to appear here. It is presumptuous to suggest that the only reason anyone would want such information here is in order to decide what show to see; there are perfectly valid and scholarly reasons to want that information from an encyclopedia - obtaining an assessment of the current range and quality of West End theatrical production, for example. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles should have "...regard to long-term historical perspective": see WP:RECENTISM. An ever-changing directory of West End shows seems to defeat this objective. Read, however, in the context of the few instances, suggested lower down the page, when topical information is useful.--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * There is no contradiction in my maintaining that including the current production of a theatre in this article constitutes an advertisement, but it is appropriate to list it in the individual theatres' articles. In the individual theatres' articles, the current production usually is last in a list of notable productions the venue has housed, which is information one would expect to find there. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * So kindly explain how that does not constitute, according to your logic as expressed above in previous posts, an advertisement. If that information constitutes an advertisement, then it does not belong in any article in Wikipedia. If that information does not constitute an advertisement on the article page of the individual theatres, then it cannot constitute one in this article. The context of a particular article in no way determines its nature as an advertisement or not. If it is appropriate information in the individual articles, then a summary of that information for each theatre is appropriate (in terms of the prohibition against advertising) here. You can't have it both ways (at least, and claim your argument is coherent, anyway). DionysosProteus (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand LiteraryMaven's rationale. If you list a theater's current production as part of a list of notable productions that were staged in that theater in an article about a specific theater, you're including it as part of the theater's history and not promoting it as the current production playing there. You're not saying "Daisies for Daphne is now playing here, it opened on June 30, 1972 and will be closing on December 10, 2025", you're just listing Daisies for Daphne after Marogolds for Myrtle, Tempest in the Teapot, and No Sex Please, We're Nuns under "Notable productions". I agree that the table in this article looks like an ad for "This Week in the West End". As LiteraryMaven pointed out, What Wikipedia is not definitely discourages a list of current promotions and current schedules, which this table is. How can anyone say it isn't? LargoLarry (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

 * It clearly isn't since it offers neither promotional material of any kind nor is it a "current schedule". The table offers factual information on the topic at hand, namely the theatre of the West End. What constitutes the theatre of the West End currently is an appropriate part of that subject. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

 * How can you say it's not a current schedule when the column heading says "Current show"? 63.3.15.129 (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Because West End theatre is not merely a group of buildings. West End theatre is the set of productions being performed at the moment. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

 * This could go on for ever. Is it wrong to list current movies because its promoting them? Is it wrong to list current attractions at theme parks because its promoting them? Is having an article on anything and everything promoting that thing? YES! But who cares?!?! Some people need to take a chill pill to be honest.Mark E (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree with everyone who thinks a table listing current productions is out of place in this article. A lot of time and effort has gone into creating Wikipedia guidelines. You're not supposed to ignore them just because you don't like them and then tell other editors to "take a chill pill" when they disagree with you, especially when their arguments make sense. This website is intended to be an encyclopedia and it should be treated like one. If you disagree with What Wikipedia is not and Recentism, then you should explain why you do on their discussion pages. But when more than one editor refers to them to explain why a table of current productions doesn't belong in this article, "who cares?!?!" isn't an intelligent or mature response.

 * The reason blue links exists is to direct readers to articles where they can find additional information that doesn't belong in the article they're reading. If someone is reading West End theatre and wants to know more about the Adelphi Theatre, he can click on the link for it. In that article, he'll learn that The Rat Pack: Live From Las Vegas opened there on September 24, 2009. It belongs in that article because it is part of the history of the theatre, and mentioning it is not an advertisement for the show. Likewise, if you want to know who wrote, directed, and starred in The Rat Pack, you go to that article, because those details don't belong anywhere else. MovieMadness (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

 * MovieMadness, simply ignoring the arguments presented above isn't an appropriate response either. If a current production isn't advertising in the theatre's article, neither is it such here. West End theatre is the set of productions currently performed--that multiplicity is its essence, and as such, belongs here. It is entirely appropriate factual information for an encyclopedic entry. So much for the objections based on What Wikipedia is not. Furthermore, you cite Recentism without acknowledging that this in no way forms part of wikipedia's policy. Which aspect of Recentism is relevant to the discussion here, exactly? DionysosProteus (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Longest running shows section outdated?
After just reading through the list I was wondering why the show Avenue Q was not on this list, running for over five years in the west end (according to it's sourced wikipedia page), any particular reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.120.176 (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Main image
Perhaps there should be a picture at the beginning, like the Broadway Wiki page has? Might make the page look a bit better s'all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.240.224 (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

St. James Theatre
Any evidence to the contrary that this isn't a West End Theatre. Its located within London's West End sourced as new theatre in London's West End and I am not finding evidence that it isn't. Blethering  Scot  13:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * While the venue has been removed from the list of theatres for some time, to fairly answer the question, when their own "About us" page describes the St James as "the first stop for ambitious productions with designs on the West End", then it's clear even they acknowledge that they aren't actually a West End theatre as the term is understood, even if they are close to the traditional West End Theatreland, and on the site of a former West End theatre. oknazevad (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Bridge Theatre
So now that the Bridge Theatre has opened for business, I'm wondering if and where we should include it in this article. On one hand, it's a large commercial theatre, not a grant-supported one, so including it in the section "London's non-commercial theatres" seems inappropriate, being commercial. On the other hand, it's being programmed much like one (a year of shows in limited runs produced by the owners of the theatre), and like many of the non-commercial houses it's located well outside the traditional West End Theatreland. Should it go into the chart like the other commercial theatres? To do such would probably require fairly frequent updating as the limited runs come and go, but 's yeoman work on keeping that updated (as at the Broadway article) is as always much appreciated. What say you all? oknazevad (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * An interesting question, but i'd go with because it's a "producing" house rather than a "receiving" house then it is not a West End theatre.Mark E (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about that, but the same can be said for the Theatre Royal Haymarket. (And to a certain extent the same is true for any theatre that's owned by Lloyd Webber or Mackintosh that are home to productions where they're also producers, but that's somewhat different as they're open-ended runs, not a programmed seasons like Haymarket or the Bridge.) So I don't know if that's necessarily a deal breaker. oknazevad (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe a location thing. No West End theatres south of the river from what I can tell, I guess that would include the Old Vic and National if there were. Also where does that leave Charing Cross Theatre? Mark E (talk)
 * Well, the Old Vic and National are covered in the non-commercial section. And Charing Cross, like the Young Vic and Donmar Warehouse falls into the Off West End category despite the location (Donmar is also in Theatreland), indicating that location isn't defining even if it's the etymology of the name. The Bridge is definitely a different bird. It's a producing house outside Theatreland, but it's a large, for-profit commercial venture. None of those are unique factors, but it is a unique combination. I'm inclined to include it personally, because it's a large commercial theatre. oknazevad (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a West End theatre by location, nor a receiving theatre. For now I wouldn't include. Blethering  Scot  22:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on West End theatre. 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/20081203204912/http://www.timeout.com/london/features/2367/6.html to http://www.timeout.com/london/features/2367/6.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090827083501/http://www.storyoflondon.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=442 to http://www.storyoflondon.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=442
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130612002510/http://www.solt.co.uk/downloads/pdfs/pressroom/2013-01-29-SOLT%202012-box-office-figures.pdf to http://www.solt.co.uk/downloads/pdfs/pressroom/2013-01-29-SOLT%202012-box-office-figures.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201192824/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/187033-West-End-Has-Another-Record-Year-With-Increases-in-Both-Attendance-and-Revenue?tsrc=rnn to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/187033-West-End-Has-Another-Record-Year-With-Increases-in-Both-Attendance-and-Revenue?tsrc=rnn

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) 11:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge of West End theatre producer into West End theatre
West End theatre producer is perenial stub lacking appropriate sourcing. Closest analog in Broadway may be the redirect Broadway production. Ost (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Heck, I don't think there is anything really salvageable from that article and would just as soon propose deletion. There is no reason for it to ever be linked to; someone who want to include a relevant link should just link here directly in the first place. oknazevad (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC) PS, Broadway production is just a redirect to Broadway theatre.

I decided to say "to heck with it" and boldly just redirected it. There is zero need for that article, and it contained nothing beyond a dictionary definition. If I knew it existed I would have redirected it years ago. oknazevad (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the second opinion and for addressing it! —Ost (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:West End theatre


text:
Chin Peng

Chin Peng (21 October 1924 – 16 September 2013), born Ong Boon Hua,  was a Malayan communist politician, guerrilla leader, and revolutionary, who was the leader and commander of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) and the Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA). A Maoist, he led the CPM as secretary general from 1947 until the party's dissolution in 1989.

Chin was born into a middle-class family in Sitiawan, now a part of Perak. In 1939, at the age of 15, he became a revolutionary and fled to Kuala Lumpur in 1940. He joined the CPM in 1941, and quickly involved himself in local party committees and labour unions in Perak. Throughout the Second World War, Chin fought as an anti-colonialist guerrilla in the Malayan Peoples' Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA) against the Japanese occupation of Malaya, allying with Force 136, a British-funded covert resistance movement in Asia. He was subsequently awarded the Order of the British Empire (OBE).

As the most senior surviving member of the CPM to emerge from the war, he founded the MNLA and engaged in a guerrilla war known as the Malayan Emergency against the British Empire and Commonwealth forces between 1948 to 1960, in an failed attempt to establish an independent Marxist–Leninist state in Malaya. His actions led to the revocation of his OBE. After the British–led independence of Malaya and the defeat of the CPM, Chin went into exile in China, then Thailand, and waged a second guerrilla campaign between 1968 to 1989 against the now independent Malaysian government. This campaign did not succeed, and ended with a final peace agreement in 1989, which dissolved the CPM permanently. He was however not permitted to return, and Chin died in exile in Bangkok, Thailand in 2013; he was 88.

Chin is considered one of the most controversial political figures in Malayan history. His detractors condemned him and the MNLA for committing numerous atrocities during the Emergency, and characterised him as an ideological fanatic and terrorist. However, he was also credited for contributing towards the Malayan independence process, and was seen as a prominent rebel leader and anti-imperialist against colonialism in Malaya. He was the last surviving postwar revolutionary leader to have successfully fought for independence from colonialism in Asia.

Youth years
Chin Peng was born Ong Boon Hua on 21 October 1924 into a middle-class family in the small seaside town of Sitiawan, Dindings, which was at the time a part of the Straits Settlements. His ancestral home was in Fuqing, Fujian, China. His father went to live in Sitiawan in 1920, and set up a bicycle, tire, and spare motor parts business with the help of a relative from Singapore, known as Ong Lock Cho.

Chin Peng attended a Chinese language school in Sitiawan. In 1937 he joined the Chinese Anti Enemy Backing Up Society (AEBUS), formed that year to send aid to China in response to Japan's aggression. According to Chin and Hack, he was not a communist then. He was in charge of anti-Japanese activities at his school, and was reportedly a supporter of Sun Yat-sen.

First participation in communism
By early 1939, Chin had embraced Communism. He planned to go to Yan'an, the renowned communist base in China but was persuaded to remain in Malaya and take on heavier responsibilities in the newly formed Malayan Communist Party.

In late 1939, when Chin Peng was in the 4th year of his secondary school education (known as senior middle-level one), his school announced that the senior middle section was to be closed due to lack of funds. He decided to continue his education in the Methodist-run Anglo-Chinese Continuation School, which operated in English, because it provided a good cover for his underground activities. He did not want to have to move to Singapore to continue with his education in Chinese. He left the school "for fear of British harassment" after just 6 months. He was now focused fully on his political activities and became, from that point on, a full-time revolutionary. In January 1940 he was put in charge of three anti-Japanese organisations that were targeting students, teachers, members of cultural activities, and general labourers. At the end of January 1940, he was admitted to the Malayan Communist Party as a member.

Early revolutionary activity
Harassment by the authorities led him to leave his home town for Kuala Kangsar in July 1940. (This may be at the time when he left his school, refer to above). Later he spent a month in Taiping. In September 1940 the party posted him to Ipoh as a Standing committee member for Perak. In December he attained full Party membership.

In early 1941 AEBUS was dissolved. Chin Peng became Ipoh District committee member of the Party. "He led student underground cells of three Chinese secondary schools and the Party's organisations of the shop assistants, domestic servants of European families, workers at brick kilns and barbers."

In June 1941 he became a member of the Perak State Committee.

Second World War
Chin Peng rose to prominence during World War II when many Chinese Malayans took to the jungle to fight a guerrilla war against the Japanese. These fighters, inspired by the example of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), became known as the Malayan People's Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA). Chin Peng became the liaison officer between the MPAJA and the British military in South-East Asia.

The Japanese invasion of Malaya began in December 1941. In 1942 Chin was the youngest of three members of the Secretariat of the Perak State Committee: Su Yew Meng was secretary and Chang Meng Ching was the other member. In early 1943 the two senior members were captured by the Japanese, which left Chin Peng in charge. Contact with the Party's Central Committee had been lost; he attempted to re-establish it, travelling to Kuala Lumpur and meeting Chai Ker Meng. Later, party leader Lai Tek sent another Central Committee member, Lee Siow Peng (Siao Ping), to replace Chin as State Secretary. However, Lee Siow Peng was captured not long after while travelling to a meeting that was to be held in Singapore.

Thus the job of establishing contact with the British commando Force 136 fell to Chin Peng. The first party of that force, consisting of Capt. John Davis and five Chinese agents had landed in Malaya on 24 May 1943, by submarine. Chin Peng made contact with this armed group on 30 September 1943. He was active in his support for the British stay-behind troops but had no illusions about their failure to protect Malaya against the Japanese. In the course of this activity, he came into contact with Freddie Spencer Chapman, who called him a 'true friend' in his Malayan jungle memoir, 'The Jungle Is Neutral'.

In recognition of his service during the war, Chin was awarded an Order of the British Empire (OBE) (though it was subsequently withdrawn later by the British government), a mention in despatches and two campaign medals by Britain. He was elected the Secretary-General of the Communist Party of Malaya after the betrayal of previous leader Lai Tek, who had turned out to be an agent for both the British and the Japanese and had denounced the leadership of the Party to the Japanese secret police. Chin Peng was the most senior surviving member.

Before the Emergency
In 1948, the Federation of Malaya Plan replaced the Malayan Union plan, frustrating the CPM as they felt the plan was undemocratic and biased towards the Malay elites. They accused the British of forcing the Federation idea on the people by portraying it as a constitutional solution to Malaya's crisis. According to Chin, the central committee still adhered to Lai Teck's peace struggle strategy in facing the Federation, as they thought that the people of Malaya were still recovering from the horrors of the Japanese Occupation. To launch an armed rebellion so soon would not only cause them to lose the mass support they had been enjoying but, at the same time, also drive the already wary Malays to openly resist them.

Some scholars allege that the CPM received secret directives from Moscow agents on the methods and timing for a near-simultaneous uprising against colonial authorities during the Southeast Asian Youth Conference held in Calcutta on 19 February 1948 which eventually caused the CPM's insurrection. Chin denied it, stating that the conference argued against such a move. Laurence Sharkey, party secretary of the Australian Communist Party, informed Chin and the central committee of the conference's decision while stopping over in Singapore on his way home. In March 1948, the central committees were discussing new policies as the labour strikes were not bringing the results that they hoped for. Chin Peng estimated it would be a year or two before the British took actions against the CPM, leaving them ample time to prepare for a guerrilla war.

On 12 June 1948, the colonial government outlawed the burgeoning trade union federations amid a rising atmosphere of tension. Since then, there was no reduction in the level of violent activities, other than the neutralisation of trade unions. Political murders of informers, anyone found to be working against the labour movement or the CPM, non-Europeans considered enemies to the communist cause or strike-breakers who used thugs and gangsters to harass protesters rose. The murder of three Kuomintang leaders in Johor on 12 June had convinced the British that the communists were escalating the conflict in retaliation for outlawing the trade unions, while in the CPM's eyes these murders were just purely acts of intimidation. Chin again claimed that he was not aware of the murders at the time, although he approved of the later killing of the plantation managers who he claimed were harsh and cruel towards farmworkers.

The Emergency (1948–1989)

On 16 June 1948, three European plantation managers were murdered in Sungai Siput, which has generally been identified as the incident contributing to the Malayan colonial administration declaration of a state of emergency. Rather, Sze-Chieh Ng argued these murders were merely the final catalyst for a long-brewing crisis that had been going on since the trade unions began agitating in 1945. Historian Anthony Short feels that this was more of a panic reaction than a carefully considered move. According to him, the government had been powerless to deal with the unrest plaguing Malaya since 1945. According to Purcell's viewpoint, the Emergency was declared in response to increasing incidents of violence and lawlessness.

Many Singaporean historians and anti-communists allege that Chin Peng ordered the killings. Chin claimed he had no prior knowledge of the plot. He added that he barely escaped arrest, losing his passport in the process, and he lost touch with the Party for a couple of days. Chin became the most wanted man of the British government, with the government offering a reward of $250,000 for his capture. On 17 July 1948, CPM offices in Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh, Singapore, and other major cities were raided, followed by mass arrests of suspected communists and anti-government individuals on 21 July. The CPM was banned in July 1948.

In response to the Emergency and the mass arrests of its members, the CPM issued a call to its members to revive its disbanded wartime resistance army, the MPAJA, to take up arms again and escape to the jungles. In fact, since late May and early June the communists had been secretly setting up platoons in several states in preparation for an expected British crackdown in September. The sudden declaration of the Emergency in June, however, forced the MCP to hasten its plan, and they appealed to comrades and volunteers to join them in the struggle. The new guerrilla army, now known as the Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA), spent the first year of the Emergency reconsolidating and rearming.

At that time, the CPM was in chaos. Its members were dispersed in the jungle and operated without any command structure or central leadership. According to Chin, attacks were being carried out without his approval or knowledge and there was no coordination among units. The guerrillas endured heavy casualties were but made few or no strategic gains in those early months. Chin was desperate to assert control over the MNLA, which had been operating independently since June. It was not until August that some form of central authority was finally set up in the Cameron Highlands, with Chin ordering the guerrillas to adopt Mao Zedong's strategy of establishing liberated zones whenever they drove British forces from an area. However, this strategy failed. British forces continued to hound the guerrillas, who were often forced to retreat deeper into the jungles and disperse into smaller units. This was due to difficulties in resupply. Moreover large units risked being detected and annihilated by British patrols.

Furthermore, the CPM was losing civilian support, and lacking material assistance and intelligence, the party suffered. Chin admitted they had wrongly assumed that the people would be willing support his men, as they had done during World War II. When that failed to happen, they resorted to force to satisfy their needs.

The CPM and MNLA also suffered under British propaganda, which labelled them "bandits" and "communist terrorists". Old suspicions and assumptions that the CPM had clandestine support from either the CCP or the Soviet Union had, over time, hardened into certainty. Records disclosed after the Cold War ended have finally disproved the convenient lie the British propagated more than half a century ago, revealing not only that the CPM had not sought external support but also that no agents from either China or Russia had even made contact with them. The only ‘support’ Chin recalled obtaining was the encouraging news that Mao's guerrillas had defeated Chiang Kai-shek's well-equipped and numerically superior KMT army in 1949.

Briggs Plan
In 1950, a series of strategies were introduced by the Director of Operations for the anti-communist war in Malaya, Lt. General Sir Harold Briggs, that later became known as the Briggs Plan. The plan, which aimed to defeat the guerrillas by cutting off their sources of civilian support, was a success. The creation of ‘New Villages’ under this plan restricted intelligence and food supplies for the CPM, and thus had a devastating effect on the guerrillas. Chin was well aware of this fact, since several times he nearly starved during those twelve years.

After several reviews and amendments, the CPM ordered the guerrillas to cease sabotage and terror operations and to develop closer ties with the middle-class to preserve their organizational strength. Chin would later admit in an interview in 1999 that this directive was a mistake as it allowed the British to press on with their attacks on the MNLA, whom they correctly assessed to be quite demoralised by then.

After Sir Harold Briggs died, Lt. General Sir Gerald Templer was appointed as the new commander, introducing aggressive strategies which differed from the Briggs Plan. These included interrogations, food rationing, large monetary rewards for captured or killed communists coupled with intense military operations, and the mobilisation of a large number of troops to hound the guerrillas. In 1953, the CPM relocated their headquarters to Betong, in southern Thailand. They reestablished its networks to connect the scattered units and review its strategy.

In late 1953 and early 1954, the war was at a semi-stalemate due to both the MNLA and the British being unable to decisively defeat one another. In early 1954, Siao Chang, a top CPM leader who had been sent to Beijing in late 1952 to deepen his Marxist–Leninist education while also serving as liaison to the CCP, announced a new direction for the party, which was to abandon the establishment of the People's Democratic Republic of Malaya and join with other Malayan political parties in a legal fight for Malaya independence. Chin described Siao as the CPM's ‘insurance policy’ in the event the central committee was eliminated.

Although this was not their decision, Chin and the other central committees decided to join the other Malayan parties, reasoning that the Malay politicians had achieved more for the independence movement within the last few years than the MNLA had since 1948. The Beijing announcement also revealed to the CPM that both the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China had viewed the armed struggle in Malaya as untenable.

Baling talks, 1955
On 24 September 1955, Chin wrote to Tunku Abdul Rahman offering to negotiate peace. On 17 October, talks between two government representatives and Chin Peng and another central committee of the CPM were held at Klian Intan. A new ‘Eight Point Program’ was introduced by the CPM to call for an end to the Emergency and a cessation of hostilities, a reform of Malaya's political system, expand democratic rights, support for world peace, and attention to other matters including education, health, welfare, and industrial production.

On 28 and 29 December 1955, the negotiations reached their peak at the small northern town of Baling in Kedah. Representatives from the Government were Tunku Abdul Rahman, David Marshall, the Chief Minister of Singapore, and Sir Tan Cheng Lock, the leader of the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA). The CPM was represented by Chin Peng, Chen Tian, and Abdul Rashid bin Maidin. The first day of the talks did not go well, as Chin wanted the CPM to be recognised as a legal party again, or for the leaders and members of the MNLA to at least be allowed to regain their freedom of movement and not face any legal persecution or imprisonment. Tunku Abdul Rahman rejected this request and demanded at the beginning of the meeting that the CPM fully surrender as the only way to peace, but then promised that those who surrendered would undergo a period of rehabilitation before being allowed to become free citizens again.

Chin again argued freedom of thought and choice must be recognised by the Malayan government if the new nation was to survive past its independence, as the people should have the right to decide which political path the nation should take rather than having that choice be decided by a select few in the government. Tunku Abdul Rahman rejected this as well and only promised freedom for the CPM members to join any existing political party after being cleared by the authorities.

On the second day of the talks, Chin promised that the CPM would stop fighting and lay down its arms if the Alliance government persuaded the British government to grant it authority over internal security and defence. Tunku Abdul Rahman accepted it as a challenge and promised that he would push for it on his upcoming trip to London. Great publicity was given in the media to this dramatic challenge from Chin Peng. The challenge, indeed, served to strengthen the Alliance government's bargaining position at the London talks. Anxious to end the Emergency, the British government agreed to concede those powers of internal security and defence and to accede to the demand for independence for Malaya by 31 August 1957, if possible. Chin claimed it was his challenge to Tunku Abdul Rahman that hastened the independence of Malaya. Tunku Abdul Rahman had acknowledged the importance of the Baling talks, writing in 1974 that "Baling had led straight to Merdeka (Independence)."

Regardless, the talks themselves ended without a consensus between the two sides. The talks finally collapsed but were regarded as both a success and failure for Tunku Abdul Rahman, as the talks made the British regard him as a strong leader who was tough on communism. His performance had also impressed the Colonial Office enough to grant Malaya independence. For the CPM, it was a very demoralising affair that nearly destroyed their already ailing struggle. The failure of the Baling Talks was a great blow for the CPM, since they now lost hope both of ending the war and of propagating their ideology. Due to the mounting combat casualties and the insecurity of food supplies, the members began surrendering to the government in exchange for monetary rewards and pardons.

In 1956, Chin wrote to Tunku Abdul Rahman offering to resume negotiations. This was rejected by Rahman in a broadcast on 2 April. By late 1958, the MNLA had lost almost 88% of its men, declining from an approximately 3000-strong army when they first rebelled in mid-1948 to no more than 350 men, as a result of casualties and surrenders.

In 1959, the central committees of CPM decided to demobilise their activities and to have the guerrillas reintegrate into society while continuing to promote their communist ideals until such a time when they could once again rise up in revolt. Chin then moved to south Thailand with the remnants of his forces during the latter part of the Emergency due to pressure from the Malayan security forces, which by 1952 totalled over 32,000 regular troops in Malaya, about three-fifths of whom were Europeans from the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia.

The Second Insurgency (1968-1989)
In 1961, members of the CPM central committee such as Chin Peng, Chen Tien, and Lee An Tung moved to Beijing to seek political advice and guidance from the more experienced Chinese Communist Party. Chin would, however, remain in Beijing for the next 29 years and the party would not lay down its arms until 1989. The reasons for this reversal of the party's decision to disband, according to Chin, was the advice given to him by the Vietnamese communist leaders in Hanoi, the opening of the second ‘Vietnam War’, which was followed by China's Cultural Revolution, all of which stressed a strong militant line to be taken by Asian communist parties.

While in Beijing, Chin Peng was also advised by Deng Xiaoping, to continue the armed struggle in Malaya as Deng felt the time was ripe for revolutions to take place in Southeast Asia. Deng insisted that the military struggle should not only be maintained but stepped up. Deng even promised financial support to the CPM if they should take up arms once again. Deng offered for this to remain a secret as the CCP did not wish to let it be known that they had been actively supporting Southeast Asia's communist movements. Chin reluctantly decided to acquiesce to Deng's suggestion. This was also the first time that the CPM had accepted foreign assistance in its struggle and it was with this financial backing that the second armed struggle in Malaya would be launched in 1968.

Meanwhile, back in Malaya, the Malayan government had declared the Emergency over on 31 July 1960 once they became confident the MNLA had ceased to be a credible threat, with the surviving guerrillas retreating to their sanctuary in southern Thailand. However, the insurgency continued with the insurgents increasing their attacks, ambushing military convoys, bombing national monuments, and assassinations of marked police officers and political ‘enemy targets’. The insurgency, which began as a war against the British colonialists, was now transformed into a war against ‘federalists, compressors capitalists and lackeys of British imperialism’. The Malayan government maintained a high-security alert by devoting one-third of its national budget to defence and internal security needs and requested British, Australian and New Zealand troops to remain in the country until its internal security and national armed forces could be built up and the foreign troops gradually phased out.

In 1970, the CPM's guerrilla bases in Thailand were hard hit by the trials and executions of supposed spies. Two breakaway factions were formed which condemned the purge. Chin, who was then based in China, denied involvement and later rehabilitated his accused comrades. During the 1970s and 1980s, the CPM intensified its activities and clashes with the security forces. These activities were due to a rivalry among three factions in the CPM over party purges and strategies, with each faction trying to outdo the other in militancy and violence.

However, in 1980, Deng Xiaoping refocused his priorities back on the Chinese bureaucracy after his return to power in 1978. He welcomed Lee Kuan Yew, the then-Prime Minister of Singapore and its leading political figure since independence from Malaysia, in a visit to Beijing. Chin recalled that Deng had not bothered to meet him since then. Finally, in December 1980, Deng summoned Chin. In the meeting, Deng demanded Chin to immediately close down all the CPM's radio stations which were broadcasting from China to Malaysia. When Chin asked Deng when he would like him to cease the broadcasting, Deng replied, "The sooner the better ... Lee (Lee Kuan Yew) asked me to stop the broadcasts immediately." Moreover, during his official visit to China, the second Prime Minister of Malaysia Tun Abdul Razak held talks with Chinese communist leader Chairman Mao Zedong and urged him to stop giving aid to the CPM. The fourth Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad further succeeded in persuading China to downgrade its ties with the CPM. This was an important factor that contributed to the CPM's decision to end its armed struggle.

Peace process, 1989
The CPM finally laid down its arms in 1989. The death toll during the armed conflict totalled thousands. Those sympathetic to Chin Peng tend to portray the violence perpetrated by the CPM as defensive, while right-wing opponents tend to portray it as aggressive and unethical. Some have claimed a large number of civilian casualties was in contrast to the stance adopted by Mao Zedong and his policy of the Eight Points of Attention.

On 2 December 1989, at the town of Hat Yai in Southern Thailand, Chin, Rashid Maidin, and Abdullah CD met with representatives of the Malaysian and Thai governments. Separate peace agreements were signed between the MCP and both governments. One of the terms of the agreement was that MCP members of Malayan origin be allowed to return to live in Malaysia.

When all hostilities ceased, the total number of CPM members was 1,188; 694 were Thai-born and 494 claimed origins in Peninsular Malaysia. They were given a temporary grant and promised integration into Malaysia.

In Chin's opinion, peace could have been achieved as early as 1955 during the Baling Talks, if the British, Tunku Abdul Rahman and David Marshall had not demanded that the communist fighters capitulate and surrender but, rather, had allowed them to hand over or destroy their weapons in a mutually agreed way and then resume normal life with full political freedom, which was the broad outcome of the 1989 accords.

Application to return to Malaysia
Chin was not permitted to return to Malaysia after the 1989 Hat Yai Peace Accords and continued his exile in Thailand. He did visit neighbouring Singapore, where he gave lectures at the National University of Singapore (NUS) in 2004, using purposes of academic research as his reason to gain visitation permission from the Singaporean government. At the beginning of 2000, he applied for permission to return to Malaysia. His application was rejected by the High Court on 25 July 2005.

In June 2008, Chin again lost his bid to return to Malaysia when the Court of Appeal upheld an earlier ruling that compelled him to show identification papers to prove his citizenship. Chin maintained that his birth certificate was seized by the police during a raid in 1948. His counsel Raja Aziz Addruse had submitted before the Court of Appeal that it was wrong for the Malaysian government to compel him to produce the documents because he was entitled to enter and live in Malaysia under the peace agreement.

On April 2009, Chin's application to return to Malaysia was once again rejected by the High Court for the same reason as his previous attempt. The Malaysian government insisted that his possible return would cause people who lost their loved ones during the Emergency to relive their pain again.

In November 2009, Chin issued an apology to the victims and their family members for the atrocities committed by the CPM. However, the then-Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, Muhyiddin Yassin, replied that despite Chin's apology, he would still not be allowed to return to Malaysia due to his treason.

Death
Chin died of cancer at the age of 88 at a private hospital in Bangkok, with only his 50-year-old niece by his side, on the morning of 16 September 2013, the 50th anniversary of Malaysia Day, and the 90th birthday of Singaporean statesman Lee Kuan Yew, who was hostile to the CPM.

While Chin had previously voiced wishes to be buried in Sitiawan, his remains continued to be denied entry for burial in Malaysia by the Malaysian government, as it was claimed that the one-year window after the agreement to reapply for citizenship had long lapsed and Chin was assumed to have relinquished his rights to return. In November 2019, his remains were announced to have been returned in secrecy by a small action committee on 16 September 2019; his ashes were ceremoniously transported through Sitiawan before scattering at a hillside near Chemor and at sea.

Publications
Chin Peng co-authored his story with Singapore-based writers and publishers Ian Ward, who was formerly the Southeast Asia correspondent for the London conservative newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, and Ward's wife Norma Miraflor. The book named Alias Chin Peng: My Side of History, was published in 2003.

Another book, Dialogues with Chin Peng: New Light on the Malayan Communist Party by editors C. C. Chin and Karl Hack, was published by the Singapore University Press in 2004. This book details a series of meetings held in Australia that Chin Peng had attended with historians and military experts.

Media portrayal
In 2006, a documentary film about Chin Peng was made called The Last Communist. It was banned by the Ministry of Home Affairs of Malaysia. In 2015, another documentary film about him called I Love Malaya was released.

Chronology

 * 21 October 1924: Birth.
 * January 1940: Accepted as probationary member of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM); put in charge of Communist members in Sitiawan.
 * 4 July 1940: Leaves home.
 * December 1941: Communists' offer of help accepted; joins the fight against the Japanese.
 * 10 January 1942: The first batch of the Malayan Peoples Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA).
 * 1942: Meets future wife, Lee Khoon Wah.
 * 1945: World War II ends.
 * January 1946: Awarded 2 war medals; boycotts tour of British bases; forced to sign letter of apology.
 * Mid-October 1946: In Penang, Yeung Kuo reveals that Lai Teck has betrayed the CPM; Lai Teck subsequently absconds with most of party's money.
 * 6 March 1947: CPM Central Executive Committee meeting held to deal with Lai Teck controversy; Lai Teck fails to appear and is never seen by MCP again. Later, Chin Peng is elected secretary-general of MCP.
 * 1948: Three planters killed at Sungei Siput; Emergency declared; CPM was declared illegal.
 * Late 1950: Harold Briggs arrives in Malaya and implements the Briggs plan – resettling people into "New Villages". If the people refused to move, the British would forcibly remove them and sometimes burn down their houses. This made it difficult for the Communists to gain food supplies from the "Min Yuen", their supporters in the villages.
 * 6 October 1951: Sir Henry Gurney, British High Commissioner in Malaya, is assassinated on Gap road to Fraser's Hill by Siew Ma. It was a "chance" ambush by Siew Ma and his party and not a plan to assassinate Gurney.
 * 7 February 1952: Sir Gerald Templer, arrives to take the place of Gurney, and implements harsh measures against the Communists.
 * 28 - 29 December 1955: The Baling Talks was held with Chin Peng representing the Malayan Communist Party, Tunku Abdul Rahman representing the government of the Federation of Malaya and David Marshall representing the government of the Crown Colony of Singapore. The talks was unsuccessful due to surrender terms, which was unacceptable for the Malayan Communist Party.
 * 1960: The Emergency is officially declared over and Chin Peng went to China. However, fighting still continues. Ah Cheng @ Shan Ruhong replaces him as acting Secretary-General in Malaya. Special Malaysian government troops going by the name "Senoi Praaq" prove to be a thorn in Chin Peng's side.
 * 2 December 1989: The Peace Agreement of Hat Yai was signed between the Malayan Communist Party and the governments of Malaysia and Thailand. The long, hard war the British had preferred to term an Emergency was over.
 * 6–8 October 2004: Chin Peng visits Singapore for 3 days to speak at the Institute of South-east Asian Studies (ISEAS).
 * 2005: Chin Peng is pending to return to Malaysia. His hearing was scheduled for 25 May 2005, and the High Court postponed it to 25 July 2005. This application was subsequently rejected.
 * June 2008: Chin Peng's lost his bid to return to Malaysia when the Court of Appeal demanded he showed identification papers to prove his Malayan citizenship.
 * 16 September 2013: Chin Peng died at Bumrungrad International Hospital in Bangkok. He was 88. According to the Bangkok Post, he was pronounced dead at 6.20am (GMT+8).

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

title: Chin Peng


text:
User talk:FrozenUmbrella/Archive1

Discussion below is from Feb 2005 to December 2005 and is kept for archival purposes. For any new discussion, see my talk page. Thanks. Brendanfox 04:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi Brendan, I see that you would like us to peer review Split Enz (an excellent band, btw). Would you be able to create the peer review page? make a 3 level heading up the top, then put a little note what you'd like to see peer reviewed and then sign using the ~ to sign the page and add a date stamp (helps with archiving). Please do note that we'd really appreciate that you action any feedback as it discourages other editors when the time is not taken to respond to them. Good luck with getting this to featured article status! I personally will be gunning for you on this article :-) Ta bu shi da yu 03:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks mate. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Shins
With Editing policy and WP:BOLD in mind, I think I did no wrong. There is a difference between delete and merge and redirect, Brendan. No information was lost since it was already covered in The Shins. Besides, "Reasons for removing bits of an article include duplication", and that's exactly what those articles were.

Why you haven't left notes on the talk pages of the other "reverters" beats me. But I won't start an edit war, and probably won't touch those articles again. Sorry for treading on your toes, Punkmorten 08:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Lateline
"restoring aust. current affairs content, as this program is much more notable than a US sitcom that was cancelled during its first season"

 * 1) "LateLine" (the sitcom) was cancelled during its second season.
 * 2) "LateLine" (the sitcom) has aired in several countries (including Canada and the UK).
 * 3) Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I assume (based upon your edit history) that you're Australian.  I'm American.  It hardly seems fair for either of us to unilaterally deem his country's "Lateline"/"LateLine" more notable than that of the other country (given that Americans are as unfamiliar with yours as you are with ours).
 * 4) Arguments of comparative notability aside, it seems absurd to me that one stub should take precedence over another.  —Lifeisunfair 09:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Revert on ID
Apologies - I was reverting a series of edits going back about 6 versions, all the way back to 06:37, 13 November 2005 FeloniousMonk version. Go History, and compare my Rv to the previous version. I thought I had checked all edits done in between, but I missed yours - Please do check the history, I don't want you thinking I rv'd your change and left a misleading comment. KillerChihuahua 22:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC) Oh and the revert which ate your edit was the earlier one, (Rv: Id is a controversial assertion, not a Theory. Please see talk page.) not the most recent (Rv "unguided evolution" please do not use neologisms) just in case you did not realize that. KillerChihuahua 22:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Religious attacks
Ben attacked me on religious grounds. That is utterly intolerable. I don't see why you feel you should re-instate his disgusting edits. Guettarda 01:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * You aren't taking sides? You post a response and then revert without letting me reply?  Nice.  Guettarda 02:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Brendan, I hope you won't be offended if I jump in here - Guettarda, you're right, Ben's attack was unjustifiable and unacceptable. May I offer a suggestion? Don't accept it - but don't pursue it. Deleting is not necessarily the best way to handle this.
 * And Brendanfox - if Ben doesn't object to the deletion of his hostile attacks, why should you? Ben may very well be just as happy those attacks are not on the page. He may not be, of course. But that's up to him.
 * One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 12:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, no I think we agree about this. I reverted Guettarda's original action which was to remove the ENTIRE thread/discussion because I personally found many elements of it useful and because it contained many productive thoughts and ideas.  When Ben offered to remove the offensive parts only, I suggested Guettarda take this option, I've no wish to have offensive attacks on the talk page, I just wanted the useful stuff to stay! --Brendanfox 13:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Don't I feel silly - here I am trying to defuse what looks like its shaping up to be a revert war, and y'all have already resolved this. Sorry for intruding. KillerChihuahua 14:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Hahah, no probs KC. --Brendanfox 14:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Obesity
I'm wondering why you chose the introduction of that article for your cite of Sorensen. It is not normally the best place to address "recent research". JFW | T@lk  08:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for following up on my talk page. I've posted an explanation on the Obesity talk page, and look forward to discussing it further.  --Brendanfox 10:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Brendanfox, you need to be aware of the Three-revert rule. Reverting the same article more than three times within a span of 24 hours will get your account blocked from editing. You seem to be over the limit on Obesity.--Srleffler 06:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

 * But those are reverts back to entirely different versions of the introduction. I may have misunderstood the policy, so I wont revert anything for the next 24 hours. Thanks for pointing that out. --Brendanfox 06:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:FrozenUmbrella/Archive1


text:
Walschaerts valve gear

The Walschaerts valve gear is a type of valve gear used to regulate the flow of steam to the pistons in steam locomotives, invented by Belgian railway engineer Egide Walschaerts in 1844. The gear is sometimes named without the final "s", since it was incorrectly patented under that name. It was extensively used in steam locomotives from the late 19th century until the end of the steam era.

History

The Walschaerts valve gear was slow to gain popularity. The Stephenson valve gear remained the most commonly used valve gear on 19th-century locomotives. However, the Walschaerts valve gear had the advantage that it could be mounted entirely on the outside of the locomotives, leaving the space between the frames clear and allowing easy access for service and adjustment, which resulted in it being adopted in some articulated locomotives.

The first locomotive fitted with the Walschaerts valve gear was built at the Belgian Tubize workshops, and was awarded a gold medal at the 1873 Universal Exhibition in Vienna.

In 1874, New Zealand Railways ordered two NZR B class locomotives. They were Double Fairlie locomotives, supplied by Avonside; the first use in New Zealand of Walschaerts valve gear and probably the first time that a British manufacturer had supplied it. They were Cape gauge.

The Mason Bogie, a modified Fairlie locomotive of 1874, was the first to use the Walschaerts gear in North America.

The first application in Britain was on a Single Fairlie 0-4-4T, exhibited in Paris in 1878 and purchased by the Swindon, Marlborough and Andover Railway in March 1882. According to Ernest Ahrons, the locomotive saw very little service as nobody seems to have known how to set the valves and this led to enormous coal consumption.

In the 20th century, the Walschaerts valve gear was the most commonly used type, especially on larger locomotives. In Europe, its use was almost universal, whilst in North America, the Walschaerts gear outnumbered its closest competitor, the derived Baker valve gear, by a wide margin.

In Germany and some neighbouring countries, like Poland and Czechoslovakia, the Walschaerts gear is generally named the Heusinger valve gear after Edmund Heusinger von Waldegg, who invented the mechanism independently in 1849. Heusinger's gear was closer to the form generally adopted, but most authorities accept Walschaerts' invention as sufficiently close to the final form.

Purpose
The Walschaerts valve gear is an improvement on the earlier Stephenson valve gear in that it enables the driver to operate the steam engine in a continuous range of settings from maximum economy to maximum power. At any setting, the valve gear satisfies the following two conditions:

 * The valve opens to admit steam to the cylinder just before the start of a piston stroke. The pressure of this steam provides the driving force.
 * Soon before the space on one side of the piston starts to contract, the valve starts to release steam from that space to the atmosphere, so as not to impede the movement of the piston.

In an economical setting, steam is admitted to the expanding space for only part of the stroke; at a point set by the driver, the intake is cut off. Since the exhaust is also shut, during the rest of the stroke the steam that has entered the cylinder expands in isolation, and so its pressure decreases. Thus, the most energy available from the steam (in the absence of a condenser) is used.

The Walschaerts valve gear enables the engine driver to change the cutoff point without changing the points at which intake starts.

Economy also requires that the throttle be wide open and that the boiler pressure is at the maximum safe level to maximise thermal efficiency. For economy, a steam engine is used of a size such that the most economical settings yield the right amount of power most of the time, such as when a train is running at steady speed on level track.

When greater power is necessary, e.g. when gaining speed when pulling out of a station and when ascending a gradient, the Walschaerts valve gear enables the engine driver to set the cutoff point near the end of the stroke, so that the full pressure of the boiler is exerted on the piston for almost the entire stroke. With such a setting, when the exhaust opens, the steam in the cylinder is near full boiler pressure. The pressure in the steam at that moment serves no useful purpose; it drives a sudden pulse of pressure into the atmosphere and is wasted.

This sudden pulse of pressure causes the loud puffing sound that members of the public associate with steam engines, because they mostly encounter engines at stations, where efficiency is sacrificed as trains pull away. A steam engine well adjusted for efficiency makes a soft hissing sound that lasts throughout the exhaust stroke, with the sounds from the two cylinders overlapping to produce a nearly constant sound.

Motion
The valve gear operation combines two motions; one is the primary lead motion which is imparted at the bottom of the combination lever (12). The secondary is the directional/amplitude motion which is imparted at the top. Consider that the driver has adjusted the reversing lever such that the die block is at mid-gear. In this position the secondary motion is eliminated and the piston valve travel is shortest, giving minimal injection and exhaust of steam. The travel of the piston valve is twice the total of lap plus lead.

Contrast this to when the die block is at the bottom of the expansion link (7), giving maximum steam injection and exhaust. This is the most powerful forward setting and is used in accelerating forward from rest. Conversely when the die block is at the top of the expansion link (7), maximal power in reverse is obtained. (On some engines the die block was in the top of the link in forward gear. This type was generally used on tank engines, which worked in forward and reverse equally. )

Once the locomotive has accelerated the driver can adjust the reverser toward the mid-gear position, decreasing cut-off to give a more economical use of steam. The engine's tractive effort is then less than it was at starting, but its power is greater.

Technical details
[[File:Walschaert static.png|frame|center|The key components of Walschaerts Valve Gear: •

• Eccentric crank (UK: return crank)

• Eccentric rod

• Reach rod

• Lifting link

• Lifting arm

• Reverse arm

• Expansion link

• Radius bar

•
Crosshead arm (UK Drop link)

•
Valve stem guide

•
Union link

•
Combination lever

•
Valve stem

•
Piston valve

•
 ]]

The primary lead motion is provided by the crosshead arm (9) and the union link (11). This pivoting bar gives the in phase component of motion to the bottom of the combination lever (12).

The secondary directional/amplitude motion is derived from a mechanical linkage made up of several components.

The eccentric crank (UK: return crank) (1) is rigidly attached to the con-rod pin connected to the main drive wheel. Note that this is the only suitable attachment point on any of the drive wheels that is not fouled by the passage of the coupling rod or the connecting rod. The eccentric crank is of a length such that the pin attachment to the eccentric rod (2) is 90 degrees out of phase with the lead motion.

The eccentric rod provides motion to the expansion link (7) which is pivoted in a central location back to the body of the locomotive. The expansion link holds the radius bar (8), captive by a die block which is integral with the radius bar but is free to move vertically in a constrained curved path along the expansion link.

The vertical position of the radius bar is controlled in the cab by the driver adjusting the reverser which in turn controls the mechanical linkage; reach rod (3), lifting link (4), lifting arm (5) and reverse arm and shaft (6).

In this way the secondary, out of phase, driver controlled component of motion is imparted to the top of the combination lever (12) by the radius bar (8).

The combination lever combines these two motions with the resultant acting upon the valve stem (13), suitably restrained by the valve stem guide (10), which in turn acts upon the piston valve (14).

Inside and outside admission valves
The Walschaerts gear can be linked to inside or outside admission valves. This article has only considered inside-admission piston valves until now, but outside-admission valves (slide valves and some piston valves) can use Walschaerts valve gear. If the valves have outside admission the radius bar connects to the combination lever below the valve stem rather than above.

Layout
To lay out Walschaerts gear, the proportions of the combination lever must be chosen. A displacement of the union link end by half the piston travel must cause a valve rod displacement of the valve lead plus the valve lap. The ratio of distance from union link end to pivot with radius rod to the distance between the valve rod end to the pivot with the radius rod should be in the same proportion as half piston travel to valve lap plus lead.

When the piston is at either dead centre movement of the radius rod should not move the valve rod. Therefore the expansion link die slot should be an arc of a circle of radius equal to the length of the radius rod.

The throw of the return crank must give the required oscillation of the expansion link.

Variants
There have been many variants of Walschaerts valve gear, including:

 * Baker valve gear
 * Baguley valve gear
 * Bagnall–Price valve gear
 * J. T. Marshall valve gear
 * Kuhn slide

title: Walschaerts valve gear


text:
Talk:James P. Coleman

Date of death
While this page says he died on September 29th, the old table version of the List of Governors of Mississippi page (as seen here) says he died on September 28th. Can anyone confirm which date? --[[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682 (talk)]] 11:21, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Bot-created subpage
A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/James Plemon Coleman was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:James P. Coleman


text:
Martin Kramer

Martin Seth Kramer (מרטין קרמר; born September 9, 1954, Washington, D.C.) is an American-Israeli scholar of the Middle East at Tel Aviv University and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. His focus is on the history and politics of the Middle East, contemporary Islam, and modern Israel.

Education
Kramer began his undergraduate degree under Itamar Rabinovich in Middle Eastern Studies at Tel Aviv University and completed his BA in Near Eastern Studies from Princeton University. He earned his PhD at Princeton as well, under Fouad Ajami, L. Carl Brown, Charles Issawi, and Bernard Lewis, who directed his thesis. He also received a History MA from Columbia University. He gained a PhD in Near Eastern Studies from Princeton University in 1982.

Career
Kramer is a senior and past editor of the Middle East Forum's Middle East Quarterly. Primarily a scholar of twentieth century Islamist intellectual and political history, Kramer has also published columns in the National Review magazine and on the websites of the History News Network.

Political involvement
Kramer was an early advocate of attacking Saddam Hussein in the wake of 9/11, arguing in December 2001 that regardless of a possible involvement, he posed a threat to the entire Middle East. However, he was critical of the shifting rationale for the war in October 2002, questioning the United States' "tools of social engineering" needed to promote an eventual democracy process in the Arab world.

He was a senior policy adviser on the Middle East to the Rudy Giuliani Presidential Campaign in 2007.

Ivory Towers on Sand
In 2001, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy published Kramer's book Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America. In the book (as reported by the New York Times), Kramer argued that Middle East experts "failed to ask the right questions at the right time about Islam. They underestimated its impact in the 1980s; they misrepresented its role in the early 1990s; and they glossed over its growing potential for terrorism against America in the late 1990s."The book was given positive mentions in The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Washington Post

John L. Esposito accused Kramer of trying to discredit the entire Middle East establishment. Zachary Lockman, professor of modern Middle East history at New York University, admits that Kramer's criticism of Middle East scholars' general failure to anticipate the rise of Islamist movements in the 1970s is well-deserved but maintains that "[o]verall, Kramer’s approach is deeply flawed as a history of Middle East studies as a scholarly field."

HR 3077
Kramer was one of the most vocal supporters of HR 3077, a bill in the United States House of Representatives designed to reform area studies in the US. Saree Makdisi argues in a Los Angeles Times op-ed that the bill "poses a profound threat to academic freedom".

Palestinian aid controversy
At the February 2010 Herzliya Conference in Israel, Kramer caused controversy by advocating for the elimination of Western aid in what he termed "pro-natal subsidies" to Palestinian refugees in Gaza in order to discourage population growth and Islamic radicalization: "Aging populations reject radical agenda and the Middle East is no different. Now eventually, this will happen among the Palestinians, too. But it will happen faster if the West stops providing pro-natal subsidies for Palestinians with refugee status. Those subsidies are one reason why in the ten years, from 1997 to 2007, Gaza’s population grew by an astonishing 40%. At that rate, Gaza’s population will double by 2030 to three million. Israel’s present sanctions on Gaza have a political aim, undermine the Hamas regime, but they also break Gaza’s runaway population growth and there is some evidence that they have. That may begin to crack the culture of martyrdom, which demands a constant supply of superfluous young men." At the time, he was a National Security Studies Program Visiting Scholar at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, and some critics called on Harvard to distance itself from him. Deans at Harvard University's Weatherhead Center for International Affairs rejected these calls, stating, "Accusations have been made that Martin Kramer's statements are genocidal. These accusations are baseless." They found that Kramer's critics "appear not to understand the role of controversy in an academic setting" and rejected any attempts to restrict "fundamental academic freedom." Kramer later referred to the speech as "experimental" and deliberately "provocative."

Books

 * Political Islam (1980) ISBN 0-8039-1435-0
 * Islam Assembled (1985) ISBN 0-231-05994-9
 * Shi'ism, Resistance, and Revolution (1987) ISBN 0-8133-0453-9
 * Hezbollah's Vision of the West (1989) ISBN 0-944029-01-9
 * Middle Eastern Lives: The Practice of Biography and Self-Narrative (Contemporary Issues in the Middle East) (1991) ISBN 0-8156-2548-0
 * Arab Awakening and Islamic Revival: The Politics of Ideas in the Middle East (1996) ISBN 1-56000-272-7
 * The Islamism Debate (1997) ISBN 965-224-024-9
 * The Jewish Discovery of Islam (1999) ISBN 965-224-040-0
 * Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America (2001) ISBN 0-944029-49-3, download
 * The War on Error: Israel, Islam, and the Middle East (2016) ISBN 1-4128-6499-2

Journal Papers

 * "The American Interest", Azure magazine, Autumn 2006.
 * "Nation and Assassination in the Middle East", Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2004.
 * "Coming to Terms: Fundamentalists or Islamists?", Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2003.
 * "Policy and the Academy: An Illicit Relationship?", Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2003.

Kramer on interpreters of the Middle East

 * Pape-Kramer debate - a debate involving Robert Pape and Kramer
 * Suicide Terrorism in the Middle East: Origins and Response Robert Pape
 * Islam Obscured, Kramer on John Esposito
 * Stephen Walt's World, a critique of Stephen Walt
 * The Arab Nation of Shakib Arslan by Kramer, a critique of Shakib Arslan 31 October 1987
 * Albert Pasha: criticism of Albert Hourani by Kramer 15 June 2002
 * Islamist Bubbles, an assessment of Gilles Kepel.
 * Arab Pen, English Purse: John Sabunji and Wilfrid Scawen Blunt, a critique of Wilfrid Scawen Blunt by Kramer 31 December 1989
 * Ignatieff's Empire, criticism of Michael Ignatieff January 5, 2003
 * The Day the Rabbi Rescued Rashid, a critique of Arthur Hertzberg 28 February 2005

Kramer on Key Middle Eastern Figures

 * The Oracle of Hizbullah (Hezbollah): Sayyid Muhammad Husayn (Hussein) Fadlallah

Kramer on U.S. and Israeli Policy

 * What Do the Financial Crisis and US Middle East Policy Have in Common? December 2008.
 * Israel's Gaza Strategy January 2009.
 * Sanctioning "Resistance" January 2009.

Kramer on the Zionist legacy of Martin Luther King Jr.

 * The MLK Day Bundle 17 January 2021.
 * Martin Luther King Jr. and Israel, then and now January 2020, Times of Israel
 * In the Words of Martin Luther King Jr. chapter in The War on Error: Israel, Islam, and the Middle East (New Brunswick, NJ:Transaction, 2016), 253-67.
 * Where MLK really stood on Israel and the Palestinians 2019. Mosaic Magazine

title: Martin Kramer


text:
Paulette Bourgeois

Paulette Bourgeois, (born July 20, 1951) is a Canadian writer best known for creating Franklin the Turtle, the character who appears in picture books illustrated by Toronto native Brenda Clark. The books have sold more than 60 million copies worldwide and have been translated into 38 languages. An animated television series, merchandise, DVDs and full-length films are based on the character.

Education and early career
Born in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Bourgeois graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Occupational therapy from the University of Western Ontario in 1974. She was a psychiatric occupational therapist for three years before deciding to focus on her writing. She studied journalism at Carleton University then worked as a reporter for the Ottawa Citizen and CBC Television. She became a freelance journalist in Washington, D.C. contributing pieces to Chatelaine, Canadian Living, Reader's Digest and Maclean's. She returned to Toronto in 1983. Bourgeois graduated with an MFA in creative writing from the University of British Columbia in 2009.

Franklin
After the birth of her first child, Natalie, she decided to write a children's book inspired by the Season 7 episode of M*A*S*H entitled C*A*V*E, where Hawkeye Pierce admits that he is claustrophobic and refuses to go into a cave, "If I were a turtle I would be afraid of my own shell", he explained. After Franklin in the Dark was illustrated by Brenda Clark and published in 1986.

She is also the author of Changes in You and Me, books about adolescence, the Oma's Quilt was developed as a short film by the National Film Board of Canada, Big Sarah's Little Boots and more. Paulette has also written dozens of non-fiction books for children, including the Amazing series, the In My Neighbourhood series, The Sun, and The Moon. She has been a columnist for Homemaker's Magazine, written for Canadian Living, Chatelaine and Today's Parent. She provided the concept and initial research for "The Bee Talker" which aired on CBC TV's The Nature of Things. She has written three episodes of the TV documentary series, Creepy Canada, and has just finished the script for a full-length feature film, Loving Mrs. Twiggy.

The Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists asked Bourgeois to write a picture book explaining the work of occupational therapists. You, Me and My OT was published in 2009. It tells the story of Emma, a feisty young girl with cerebral palsy who participates in everyday classroom occupations.

She has two grown-up children, Natalie and Gordon and lives in Toronto, Ontario.

Honours
In 2003, she became a Member of the Order of Canada and in 2007, she received an Honorary Doctor of Laws from her alma mater, the University of Western Ontario, and an Award of Merit from the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists.

Selected works

 * On Your Mark, Get Set ...: All About the Olympics Then and Now (1987)
 * The Amazing Apple Book (1987)
 * The Amazing Paper Books (1989)
 * Starting with Space: The Sun (1995)
 * Starting with Space: The Moon (1995)
 * Oma's Quilt (2001)

title: Paulette Bourgeois