text:
Talk:Ernst Krenek

Cigarettes
Are the cigarettes relevant, and is it known that they were named after the opera? - Ar 18:28, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

I think the cigarettes are relevant- it's an interesting tidbit of information that demonstrates his popularity. Could we get a picture? (Of him, not the cigarettes) Splat 02:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture
I added a picture. Splat 06:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ordering of operas
I've undone a reversion by kleinzach, who informs me there is an established practice of ordering works by date of premiere instead of composition and opus number. If this is so, he may reorder them without removing the composition dates. Sparafucil (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Could you clarify whether this practice is established (1) for this article in particular, (2) for Krenek's work in general (i.e., on the Krenek website, etc.), or (3) for opera in general? New Grove, for example, lists Krenek's operas by date of composition, and adds dates of premières where available. Thus, Kehraus um St Stephan, op.66 (composed 1930) is listed before Karl V (composed 1932–33), though the latter was first staged in 1938, long before the former, which only received its first performance in 1990.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

 * In answer to (1): You would need to go through the long history of this article, however most of the list was probably taken from the German WP article, which is by premiere (though numbered works are obviously by number). On the German page Kehraus um St Stephan comes before Karl V as a published, and therefore finished (rather than composed) work.

 * In answer to (3): Establishing the date of composition is (in general) more difficult than the date of a first performance. For that reason the Opera Project uses premiere dates for navigation boxes, categories and lists. (Of course this is not done rigidly in the case of (juvenile etc.) works unperformed in the composer's time.) Grove - and indeed opera articles in WP - will obviously try to give both as far as the records allow. (In their lists, Grove take a case by case approach, for example Wagner is listed by WWV (Wagner Werk-Verzeichnis catalogue number while the operas of an 18th century composer like Salieri are simply listed by premiere. -- Kleinzach (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I am an agnostic with respect to (3); we were only recently discussing the merits of chronological versus alphabetic ordering (and why not the latter for a special case like Donizetti?).  Opera, more than other forms, tends to be written to order for a specific performance, but if dates of completion are known it is less informative to order by belated premieres, as indeed you argue for juvenilia.   I dont see how not to deal with this except on a case by case basis: for some early works we know neither the composition nor the premiere dates and have only publication to go by, and things get messy when there are ongoing revisions.   In Krenek's case the scores are inscribed with a date of completion as well as an opus number.   I note however that Stewart lists by publication, giving 1951 for Dark Waters, which premiered the year before. Sparafucil (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we try and refocus on the problem here?

Entries like: Karl V, op. 73 (1933, Prague 1938; revised 1954) are unintelligible. What does 1933 signify? No-one will know. On the other hand a standard listing e.g. Die Juxheirat, 21 December 1904, Theater an der Wien, Vienna is clear and unambiguous. (Having composition dates is of course useful if the information is added in a clearly understood way). -- Kleinzach (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Kleinzach, if the waters are muddied it is because your edit summary said: "we have a well established practice of ordering by date of premiere." Are you refering to this?

 * No, I was not. -- Kleinzach (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Karl V, op. 73 (commissioned 1929, completed 1933, premiered Prague 1938; revised 1954) seem a bit fussy to me, and for the shortened version to be unambiguous the theatre would have to be specified (remember that Krenek usually inscribes the city as well as date of completion on the last page).  Your reverted version of the Template:Krenek operas is far from unambiguous and imo downright misleading. Sparafucil (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

 * We are here to serve the readers. You may consider something fussy but that is not the point - we have responsibility to make things easier for them. If you have comments about the Template:Krenek operas please put them the relevant page or raise the matter on the Opera Project. -- Kleinzach (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"one day after the Nazis gained control of the Reichstag"
Hello, the following bit is problematic. Since it has been restored after my removal, I am raising it here:

On March 6, one day after the Nazis gained control of the Reichstag, Krenek's incidental music to Goethe's Triumph der Empsindsamkeit had to be withdrawn

What is "gained control of the Reichstag" supposed to mean?

Jerome says they became the "controlling force of government" but that isn't actually true.

What actually happened on March 5 is that there were elections to the Reichstag. The NSDAP won 44% of the seats - hence they did not win a majority. Hitler had been already appointed Chancellor on January 30 and the Fire Decree had suspended civic rights on February 28. Also, the Reichstag elected on March 5 first met on March 21 so actually the 44% went effective only then.

The other question is how this is relevant to Ernst Krenek? Did the Nazi government or someone else wait until after the elections before withdrawing the musich? Who actually was responsible for that? What is the actual link to the election?

If you cannot answer these, you shouldn't say it is "very relevant"! Right now it is just hot air. Str1977 (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not suggesting the timing was a coincidence? I've replaced "gained control" with "gains in the election", although I suspect that the NSDASP had coalition partners to form a majority. Replacing "from 1945" with "later" seems unnecessarily vague. Sparafucil (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I underestimated Str1977. I took his characterizaton of "not relevant" to suggest he either did not know what the Reichstag was, or that he did not see a link between the rise of Naziism and the cancellation of Krenek's performances. I see now that his grasp of events in 1933 is far more detailed than my own. Sparafucil's edit goes some way toward correcting the situation, but there is still a big gap in events, as Str1977 says. The cancellation of Krenek's Karl V took place not in Germany but in Austria, which did not come under Nazi control until the Anschluss in 1938. There were to be sure various Nazi-allied factions active in Austria long before this time, and one of these, according to the liner notes by Matthias Schmidt in the D&G recording of Karl V, the österreichisches Heimwehr was the body actually responsible. It is plausible that their decision to move when they did was emboldened by the Nazi political gain in Germany the previous day, but Schmidt does not mention this, coincidence or no. So the problem of a verifiable source remains, but it should not be an insuperable problem in the long run, since there are a number of good sources out there that I have not yet consulted.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

'Musical style' section - 6 fact tags!
I see the 'Musical style' section now has 6 fact tags added by User:Jerome Kohl including one on the (apparently straightforward and well-documented) sentence "His opera Jonny spielt auf (Johnny Strikes Up, 1926), which is influenced by jazz, was a great success in his lifetime, playing all over Europe.". I wonder if Jerome Kohl can explain his concerns? I can understand challenging some of these facts - but six tags? -- Klein zach  08:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Leaving aside the issue of whether the number of tags is excessive, as the culprit who likely spurred the tagging by noting the Schubert completion yesterday, I've added rudiments of references for the completion and its champions (and added a champion over whom I stumbled in the process). I also took the opportunity to fix a slip of the keyboard that I made yesterday, as I know Lev's recording only on 78s and don't know whether it made it to LP.  More detailed information about the recordings, in particular the catalogue designation of Lev's set on the long-defunct limited issue Concert Hall label (which will be something not terribly useful like "Series B Release 3" or some such), and better formatting will have to wait until I have a bit more time and my copies of the records in front of me.Drhoehl (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I am happy to explain my concerns. To take the case of Jonny, I think the interested reader ought to be able to follow up this "apparently straightforward and well-documented" sentence, not only to verify its accuracy but, more specifically, to determine whether "all over Europe" means mainly the German-speaking areas, or if, for example, performances were given in Portugal, Italy, and Scotland, and whether this was a short-lived success, or an enduring one. Scrolling down to the "Sources" section, I find but a single entry, the New Grove Dictionary of Opera article by Charlotte Purkis, with a link to the Wikipedia article on this book, stating it is available online. Clicking on that link produces a message: "This site will be back online shortly". An unfortunate mishap, perhaps, and the print copy is over in the library, after all. But next, I turn to the Bibliography section (containing, one supposes, items not actually used as references in this article). The first item is the New Grove article by Garrett Bowles. Consulting that article, I am dismayed to find that the sentence is not corroborated there. All that Bowles says about Jonny is "The completion of Jonny spielt auf (1925) marked a return to tonality and the beginning of what Krenek called his neo-Romantic period, influenced in part by his study of Schubert. The opera’s première in early 1927 soon had Krenek riding a wave of success." This does not confirm (1) that it is influenced by jazz, (2) that it was a success (only that soon afterward Krenek found himself successful—though I will concede that the implication is that Jonny was responsible for initiating this "wave of success"), nor (3) that it was "playing all over Europe" in his lifetime. This leaves two books, by Stewart and by Taylor-Jay. I suppose in the fullness of time I will be able to answer my questions, but it would be so much easier if there is a note pointing me to the right page in the right book or article where the information can be consulted. The much less straightforward but charming reference to the brand of cigarettes might well be covered by the identical source, in which case only one citation would be required.
 * This leaves four calls for citations: the Schubert completions are not likely covered by Purkis, and are not mentioned by Bowles—so where did this information come from? There is no discography listing the LPs by Ray Lev and Friedrich Wührer, and the linked Wikipedia articles tell me who these people were, but do not mention Krenek, so how do I find these recordings? (Again, the information for both the completions and the recordings may well come from a single source, but I don't know that, so two flags needed to be inserted where perhaps a single citation will serve.)
 * The claim about twelve-tone technique being used in "most of his later pieces" is perhaps true, though of the sampling of works familiar to me (only three or four dozen out of hundreds—Krenek was a prolific composer), this sounds like an exaggeration. I would like to see a reliable source where at least rough statistics are given. I know the Lamentations rather well myself, and am perfectly aware of the truth of the claim, but others may want to know how on earth this might be done. The sole source for this article, Purkis, is not likely to explain this, so where are they to turn? If you believe this level of citation is excessive, I would suggest you consult the Wikipedia articles on, for example, Igor Stravinsky, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Pierre Boulez, or Frans Geysen, which are annotated to a much higher standard than is the case with this article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Actually, both the Ray Lev and Friedrich Wührer articles make rather a big deal about their performances' being the sole known representations of the Krenek completion on records. I know that, because I wrote 'em!  If you scroll down in the Wührer article, you'll find that it even includes an extensive discography that I assembled from my own collection, indeed just updated with my discovery, in pursuing documentation for this article, that unofficial copies of all Wührer's Vox Schubert sta. recordings, including the D. 840, have surfaced on private issue CDs. Drhoehl (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I am happy to see your annotations. You were right, by the way, that it was your addition of the Schubert completions that drew my attention to the need for citations in this paragraph. You made your welcome addition of the Schubert citations while I was composing my reply to Kleinzach. Thank you for that. Now let's see about the rest.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Jerome Kohl: If you had looked at the Jonny spielt auf you would have seen that (1) it was about a jazz player, and that (2) it was "a tremendous success in Germany, providing Krenek with the financial security to be able to devote all his time to composing". I'm not aware of any New Grove article by Bowles. The ones I've seen are by Purkis. I've now added some information from her article on the opera to the WP one. This explains that the work was performed 421 times in Germany alone during its first season - staged in 42 opera houses - and translated into 14 languages.
 * I'll remove the tag myself. My own policy is to only use fact tags where I think there is a fair chance that the information is wrong. Tagging information that is probably correct is a kind of 'benevolent' trolling - albeit aimed at the improvement of articles. P.S. I would be interested to know how many operas, generally regarded as 'successful' throughout Europe, have been actually staged in Scotland. Do you have any figures? Perhaps this would be a good opportunity for some reciprocal research? Regards. -- Klein zach  00:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining your personal policy. I shall try to remember this in future. In the meantime, I will continue to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines when editing Wikipedia articles. As to the New Grove, the article on Krenek in that publication is by Bowles. Purkis wrote the article in Grove Opera. Your reference to the Wikipedia article Jonny spielt auf is not relevant here, because another Wikipedia article cannot be invoked as a reliable source. If the data there is adequately referenced, what is wrong with transferring those references here? You now say "the work was performed 421 times in Germany alone during its first season", but this still does not translate into "across Europe". Sources, please, instead of rhetoric. I have reverted your edit.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You've been given the source - Charlotte Purkis. This is what I wrote above:
 * "The work was performed 421 times in Germany alone during its first season - staged in 42 opera houses - and translated into 14 languages."
 * Whoever wrote 'playing all over Europe' - it wasn't me - was obviously justified. The phrase doesn't mean every opera house, every country, every language as you appear to be suggesting.
 * As for' New Grove', the opera volumes are called that - see New Grove Dictionary of Opera. -- Klein zach  10:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be true in the world of opera that the New Grove Dictionary of Opera is referred to simply as the New Grove (though the Wikipedia article you point to does not say this), but in the larger world of music New Grove means the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Since there seems to be some ambiguity in what I have said previously, let me just try to clarify: I am not trying to argue about what may or may not constitute "all across Europe". I was simply giving as an example a level of detail (probably inappropriate to a Wikipedia article) that a reader might be interested in following up in a cited source which, at the same time, verifies this claim.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A fact tag functions as a warning to the reader that the sentence (or part of it) is incorrect. It's a disservice to the reader to mark every passages which might be better referenced. If you doubt some facts, you should check them yourself using (1) the net, and if possible (2) standard reference books. This was easy enough to do in this case. (I've now added two more references and made sure the other ones display properly.) -- Klein  zach  23:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * A fact tag can function in this way (or better said: a warning that something may be incorrect there), but its purpose is to mark a place where a citation is needed (not might be needed), pure and simple. I always try to find needed references myself first—I do not always succeed, and sometimes do not have the time to undertake a long search at the moment I see the need for a citation (and trust me, I do not require instruction in how to search for references). Thank you for finding the two references that were in books I could not get at, due to our library being closed in the late-summer interim. In the meantime, I am trying to run down some other references that do not require the library.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The Schubert Completion
Just as a heads up, in adding more detailed sourcing about the Ray Lev recording, I discovered that the album contains a nice little essay by Krenek himself about the sonata and his completion. I'll try to incorporate some extracts or a summary into the Wikipedia article about the sonata, which strikes me as the appropriate place for them/it. Should this article incorporate some of that material as well? Drhoehl (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering that Krenek not only completed the "Reliquie" but also had an invitation to complete Mahler's 10th, I decided that his discussion of such things in the Ray Lev album notes merited inclusion; as other mentions of the completions were split between "life" and "style," however, I further decided to consolidate all into a new section. I also moved some material not really pertinent to "style" from that section into the "life" section and broke the "style" section down into bullet format to ease the reader's tracing out this fecund stylist's changes of direction. In doing so, I came up with a couple of questions. First, as the article stood, it indicated that Krenek started as a late romatic, later adopted atonality, did the Paris thing, then the neo-Romantic thing, then 12-tone. I know that "atonality" is not truly a synonym for "12-tone," but popular usage loosely treats it as one, and I'm guessing that it was originally inserted out of order as a reference to the later 12-tone period; hence, I've moved the reference to the bullet on 12-tone. If that's in error (i.e., if the order really *was* late romantic-atonal-Paris-Schubertish-12 tone), then somebody please correct me and, more importantly, the bullets. Second, the bullet on neo-Romanticism indicates that Krenek began his flirtation with that style in the early '30s and points to a "prime example" that, according to the works list, was a product of 1929. Should the bullet substitute "late '20s" for "early '30s"? Drhoehl (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I believe your concern about "atonality" vs "12-tone" is justified, though it depends a bit on where we are drawing the lines, chronologically. Even if "popular usage" tends to confuse these two terms, experienced writers usually make a sharp distinction, and encyclopedia articles ought to help readers understand these things, not amplify their confusion. I'm not familiar with Krenek's earliest compositions (prior to op. 6), which may or may not be "late romantic", but certainly during the time he was studying with Schreker he began writing atonal (but not twelve-tone) music. Krenek's First String Quartet is a prime example of this style, with clear influence of Bartók, amongst others. This does not entirely exclude elements of the romantic musical language, of course. The "Schubert thing" came afterward, in the 1920s (rather than the 1930s, as stated, though there maqy be some overlap into the following period), and was followed by his adoption of twelve-tone technique in the early 1930s. I'll have to dig into this a little deeper, but the bulleted list will certainly need revising, preferably with some dates indicating the rough limits of each "style period".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the clarification, and I couldn't agree more about precise usage in the service of the reader; that's why I preserved "atonal" as a distinct term in the "12-tone" bullet, even though I had (apparently unfounded) suspicions that someone originally had confused the two. In fact, when I broke the style section into bullets I had a hunch that some of the dates were going to prove shaky and that the whole thing might turn out to need an overhaul, something obscured by its original format.  I will look forward to your prospective corrections and what they'll teach me, since my familiarity with this composer (as you'll doubtless have guessed by now) centers almost exclusively around his Schubert sonata completion.Drhoehl (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

'Sources' now put in 'bibliography'
We now have sources - which were used in writing this article - put in the bibliography! This is different from the way it's done on other music articles. I realize that there is some confusion about this on WP, however it is generally understood that 'bibliography' means 'further reading' (i.e. works that important but which were not used directly in writing the article). Also it's normal now to use 'References' rather than 'notes' when citing published works rather than providing additional information. So can we please revert to the way it was before or suggest some other arrangement which is not so misleading for readers? -- Klein zach  10:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I've now attempted to make it clearer. Please make any corrections as necessary while keeping the important distinctions between general sources, specific references (e.g. the cigarette ref.), and further reading. -- Klein zach  06:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I am more than a little perplexed by this whole issue on Wikipedia which, as you say, is confused. I have been trying for months to find some proper guidelines on WP, without much success so far. Though Citing_sources does imply that 'bibliography' to be understood as containing no cited sources, it also implies that it is distinct somehow from 'further reading' (perhaps in that the former contains items used in writing the article, and the latter does not). In the print world, however, "A list of books and other references used by an author in preparing a scholarly work may be titled Bibliography or Select Bibliography or, if it includes only works referred to in the text, Works Cited, Literature Cited, or References; other appropriate titles are not ruled out" (Chicago Manual of Style, 15.74), and I find "Bibliography" used on Wikipedia this way, as well (that is, including both cited and uncited items). For example in the articles Flute, Set theory (music), and Karlheinz Stockhausen, and the term is used exclusively for cited items in List of musical works in unusual time signatures. I have not been able to find any examples where a Bibliography includes no cited items at all, but, then, this word isn't used anywhere near as frequently on Wikipedia as Sources or References.
 * In your most recent edit, you have requested that works be moved "from Bibliography to Sources or References as appropriate", and here I am really confused. For example, the article Tonality has two sections: "References" and "Sources", with the note: "The references are uncited, the sources are cited, see WP:CITE" Unfortunately, WP:CITE does not define what a "Sources" section is supposed to be, but it does say that cited references when using the footnote system go into a section "towards the end of the article (usually headed "References")", so that article has got at least this idea wrong. At least the present article does seem to follow WP:CITE in using the term "References" for the footnotes. By no means do all Wikipedia articles agree, however. Musical improvisation, La Monte Young, and Symphony of Psalms, for example, have footnotes in shortened citation format, found in a section titled "Notes" or "Footnotes", and a mixed cited/uncited list titled "References". Leo Ornstein has short-format footnotes and a list of "Sources" listing only items found in the footnotes. Igor Stravinsky uses a mixture of shortened and full footnote citations, with a list of "References" listing a mix of the short-format citations and some uncited items, plus a "Further reading" section with entirely uncited material. Bluebeard’s castle is perhaps the worst example of all, mixing as it does intext citations with footnotes, and having a section titled "References", with subsections "Notes" (containing one short-format citation and an external link), and "Bibliography” containing the in-text and short-format citations and two other uncited items.
 * There is the further complication that, somewhere in the innards of WP (though I cannot at the moment find it), there is a discussion of sources used but not specifically cited in the article text (a good example of this is the birth/death dates and places found in the first line of most biographical articles, which are rarely given inline citations—see the recent discussion on Talk:Gillian Whitehead, for instance). I find a couple of examples where this applies to an entire article: Wozzeck has no inline citations, and a section titled "Sources", listing three items which surely were consulted when writing the article. On the other hand, Silvestre Revueltas also has no inline citations, but the long list of "Sources" cannot possibly all have been consulted in the writing of this very short article. Up until just last week, Charlotte Purkis's article was such an item here, but is now cited in a footnote. This kind of thing happens all the time on Wikipedia, and raises very serious questions about the advisability of keeping separate lists of cited, uncited but used, and "further reading" items, since a future edit may add or delete a footnote, and the editor may not think to move things around in the Bibliography/References/Sources/Further reading sections.
 * One last thing: I don't think it is a good idea to sandwich the footnotes sections (whatever it is titled) between two of these reference-list categories. In books and printed articles, the usual placement is after the appendix (if any) and before the glossary and bibliography (or reference list).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've acted on your last suggestion. I'm sorry to have caused you to write such a long response to my message at the top of this topic. It is indeed a 'no win' situation. It's not something we can solve here. (Even on the Opera Project, where we usually try to resolve WP anomalies, we have not produced any guidelines, though recently most people have kept 'Bibliography' for 'Further (uncited) reading' and the 'References/notes' and 'Sources' have been combined under 'References' with the citations preceding the general sources.)

 * I don't think this is going to be resolved because of the incompatible approaches of the (print-influenced) 'copyeditors' and the (post-print) 'techies'. I realized that when I tried to make all our references 'Harvard style' and found the various citation templates. Anyway if you want to devote a large part of your Wiki-life to reforming this - the best of luck. it would be a good cause! -- Klein zach  03:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm sure you are correct about the unliklihood of a resolution. I observe that WP:CITE itself is in an ongoing process of fairly intensive revision, so that guidelines there may well be changing even as we edit. However, I don't read the present guideline to be making 'Bibliography' equivalent to 'Further reading', but only to suggest that, like 'External links', sections with these titles should not include sources actually cited in the text. I cannot find anywhere anything more specific about what constitutes a 'Bibliography' in the Wikipedia sense (as opposed to the way the word is used in common English), but it might well be used to list sources upon which the article is founded, though they are not actually cited anywhere to support specific claims.
 * In our present case, however, Purkis's article on Krenek in the New Grove Dictionary of Opera, not cited in a footnote, is in the "Sources" category. Am I to understand this to mean that, in this case, 'Sources' contains things used for the article but not actually cited? Krenek 1943 is cited in the notes, but is listed in the Bibliography, whereas the other items in the Bibliography are not cited. How can we tell which of these items have been drawn on for the article (but did not require specific citations), and which have not? Stewart 1991 certainly ought to be one of these, and perhaps Bowles 1989, as well. Furthermore, there is a second Purkis article (the one on Karl V) as well as three other print sources in footnotes but not in either the Bibliography or the Sources. These should probably be reduced to short citations with the full bibliographical information in either Sources or Bibliography, but which one? As things stand, it would appear they must go in the Bibliography, since 'Sources' has the one uncited item in it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:EntarteteKunst.jpg
The image Image:EntarteteKunst.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --12:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Oddly enough, the same image has drawn no copyright challenge at the Degenerate Art exhibit article, where it also appears; perhaps the appropriate documentation is available there (I have no experience whatever in documenting photographs). That said, I don't think the picture  particularly enhances Krenek's article, even with the caption that I tacked on a few days ago tying it to the subject at hand, and I'd welcome its replacement with a photo of the composer or even of a scene from one of his operas.  Just not one of those placeholder image things, please! Drhoehl (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Much missing
for example there is no mention of the famous LAMENTATIONS, and the beginning hexachordal rotations. What about discussion of the other operas such as THE BELL TOWER (I see there is a short wiki entry on the Melville opera), the eight string quartets, five symphonies, seven piano sonatas one of which was championed by Glenn Gould. I would add if I had all of the data... Hstokar (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Ernst Heinrich Krenek
Geni.com strongly suggests that his middle name was Heinrich; I don't know how reliable we believe that site is, of course, but it may be worth double-checking elsewhere. Schissel | Sound the Note! 13:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hauptname: Krenek, Ernst; Geburtsname: Křenek, Ernst Heinrich (from LexM) Grimes2 (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ernst Krenek. 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/20120716183924/http://artofthestates.org/cgi-bin/composer.pl?comp=87 to http://artofthestates.org/cgi-bin/composer.pl?comp=87

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) 05:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ernst Krenek. 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/20080820030501/http://www.bandoneonrecordings.com/bandoneon%20pages/biographycn.html to http://www.bandoneonrecordings.com/bandoneon%20pages/biographycn.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Spelling of his surname: Krenek, not Křenek
I've just undone a good-faith move of the page from Ernst Krenek to Ernst Křenek. The fact is that he was born Křenek but changed it to Krenek when he moved to the USA. ,,.

I'm very surprised this issue hasn't cropped up before, or that some mention of it hasn't made it into the article. I'll rectify that now.--  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  16:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

he wrote his memoirs (in English)
but they are mentioned here (weren't they published ?)

I only find a translation (into German). 178.203.113.19 (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ernst Krenek


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smeghead

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was move to wiktionary. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Smeghead
Slang term. Basically a dictionary def. Propose move to Wiktionary. — Brim 23:19, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary, Merge and Redirect to Red Dwarf (television). Also Merge to List of sexual slurs or some-such article (looks like it's also been merged into Smeg). — Asbestos | Talk 23:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary. Megan1967 02:04, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary though I'd also go for a redirect to Red Dwarf (television) since that show popularized the term in recent years. 23skidoo 05:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary with link to Red Dwarf (television). Actually I'm pretty sure that the Red Dwarf writers invented the term. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης )

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


text:
Category:Giant stars

Normal giant stars are stars of luminosity class III.

title: Category:Giant stars


text:
Hampton Court Garden Festival

The Hampton Court Garden Festival (formerly The Hampton Court Flower Show) is an annual British flower show, held in early July of each year. The show is run by the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) at Hampton Court Palace in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. The show features show gardens, floral marquees and pavilions, talks, and demonstrations. Erected on the north and south sides of the Long Water in Hampton Court Park, it is the second major national show after the Chelsea Flower Show, but has a different character, focusing more on environmental issues, growing your own food, vegetables and cookery, as well as selling gardening accessories, plants and flowers.

The 2020 festival was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic which caused limitations for public gatherings. The 2023 festival takes place from 4 to 9 July.

Foundation
The original Hampton Court Palace Flower Show was the brainchild of the management consultant Adrian Boyd, who saw an opportunity to connect two organisations facing times of uncertainty in a joint venture. The Department of the Environment had been dismembered in the 1980s, and one of the cuttings was Historic Royal Palaces, which found itself looking for ways of increasing revenue and attracting a larger audience. Similarly, Network SouthEast (NSE), one of the temporary aggregations thrown up by the pre-privatisation of British Rail, was looking for ways of making its rail services more profitable. Boyd's idea was that Network SouthEast should sponsor a flower show at Hampton Court, and provide the public transport to Hampton Court railway station. At the time the RHS Shows Department was working on four new events for 1993, in Birmingham, Harrogate, Wembley, and Glasgow.

Early shows – 1990 to 1992
In July 1990 the first Hampton Court Palace Flower Show was held. An effort was made to attract people to the show with special trains being laid from London Waterloo and porters wore carnations in their hats to create a buzz around the show. Even though there was comparatively little trade support for the show, it drew in large crowds. Network SouthEast was pleased, saying "70 per cent of the estimated 300,000 visitors used rail and that has paid for our sponsorship many times over".

The RHS debated whether to offer assistance with the show, especially when Chelsea reached full capacity. After initial dismissal, the organizers indicated they would welcome RHS involvement from 1992, and RHS members were granted a reduced admission price at the 1991 show. Adrian Greenoak, the Show's horticultural director, achieved continuous improvement in the standards. The 1991 Show introduced a British Rose Festival with the joint involvement of the Royal National Rose Society and the British Rose Growers' Association.

In November 1992 came the announcement that Network SouthEast was withdrawing its support for the show. A flurry of negotiations took place: Boyd, having no title to the Show, had to join in competitive tendering by blind bid. Stephen Bennett outlined the benefits of RHS involvement: 'We can reduce the costs hugely… Apart from saving publicity costs with our extensive media relations network, we have a colossal amount of equipment. We have around £1m worth of tentage and tons and tons of staging equipment. Try to hire that sort of stuff and it costs and arm and a leg.' Historic Royal Palaces accepted the RHS bid on condition that it undertook to keep certain staff on the payroll, including Adrian Greenoak. The venture was a risky one, with four new shows already booked for 1993.

The RHS years – 1993 to present

The first RHS Hampton Court Show took place in 1993, with additional sponsorship from the Daily Mail. The Show was a considerable success, and the following year was declared to be the best outdoor public event of 1994.

With a 25 acre show ground, there was room for considerable expansion before the infrastructure would be severely tested, and over the next few years a Heritage Marquee was set up for the NCCPG and its national collections – initially a rather quiet area, but increasing steadily in public interest; crafts pavilions, which under Adrian Boyd were the first sight to greet the visitor, were gradually moved to a less prominent position; there was room for a couple of dozen display gardens, plus a separate section, on the other side of the Long Water from the major part of the exhibition, for ten water gardens.

In 1998 a Hampton Court garden was rebuilt at the Royal Hospital for Neuro-disability. While Chelsea remained the most prestigious of the Society's shows, Hampton Court was the largest, and readily marketed as such. Within a couple of years the investment in Hampton Court had been more than recouped.

The show rebranded as the Hampton Court Garden Festival in 2019, with the festival manager saying that this "better reflected the atmosphere and the experience of our visitors at the event".

The 2020 festival was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, along with most of that year's other RHS flower shows.

Dates
The show is always held on a Tuesday until Sunday, usually ending on the second Sunday in July.

title: Hampton Court Garden Festival


text:
Talk:Free The Gnomes

This page was voted on for deletion at Votes for deletion/Free The Gnomes. It was redirected. dbenbenn | talk 23:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Free The Gnomes


text:
John 20:16

John 20:16 is the sixteenth verse in the twentieth chapter of the Gospel of John in the New Testament of the Bible. The verse describes the moment that Mary Magdalene realizes that Jesus has returned from the dead, when she recognizes his voice calling her name.

Content
In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads:
 * Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She
 * turned herself, and saith unto him,
 * Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

In the English Standard Version it reads:
 * Jesus said to her, "Mary." She
 * turned and said to him in Aramaic,
 * "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher).

In the Vulgate Bible the text reads:
 * dicit ei Jesus Maria conversa illa dicit, ei: Rabboni (quod dicitur Magister).

For a collection of other versions see BibleHub John 20:16

Translation notes
This verse, in the original Greek text, presents Jesus as addressing Mary Magdalene by the name “Μαριάμ” (Μariam), not the Hellenized form “Μαρία” (Maria), with Mary responding by calling Jesus “Ῥαββουνι” (Rabbouni), in both instances using the Aramaic terms.

Analysis
The exact significance of Rabboni is disputed. In Mark 10:51 it is translated as meaning "beloved teacher", but John here and in other verses translates it as simply "teacher". W. F. Albright and others interpret it as the diminutive form of Rabbi, and therefore translate it "my dear Rabbi", showing the close friendship between Mary and Jesus. Mary was thus calling Jesus with a title she had long used, signifying that she sees his return as a reversion to the status quo before his crucifixion. In John 20:17 and John 20:18 he divests her of this view, informing her that everything is changed.

However, in some works from this period Rabboni is used as a name for God. Thus some scholars, such as Hoskyns, see the term as demonstrating that Mary has understood Jesus' divinity. Most scholars consider the title a respectful one, but less adoring than the term adonai. By contrast, when Thomas later accepts the truth of the resurrection he calls Jesus "My lord and my God" (John 20:28).

Mary's reaction seems to be spontaneous, and it is not known if "Rabboni" is an exclamation of discovery, or whether it should read "Rabboni?" with Mary momentarily questioning Jesus.

The Greek word διδάσκαλος in the original text and its Latin translation magister mean "teacher". Older English translations use "master", derived from the Latin word and meaning the same thing.

Context
Mary has found Jesus' tomb empty and is worrying about what happened to his body. At first she does not recognize Jesus when he appears, thinking he is a gardener. In John 20:16 she recognizes him when he calls her by name.

John 20:14 has already mentioned that Mary had turned around to see Jesus, so why does this verse say she turns again? One school of thought is that unmentioned by the author Mary had turned away from Jesus in the meantime. Kastner argues that she did so because the resurrected Jesus was nude. According to Brown most scholars simply believe that she had not fully turned in John 20:14 and was now fully turning towards Jesus.

Mary earlier did not recognize Jesus. When he addresses her by name she quickly realizes who it is. Some scholars link this to John 10:3, which states that "the good shepherd calleth to him by name every sheep of his flock", arguing that Jesus using Mary's name had deep powers. Some see Mary's transition from ignorance to worship as a metaphor for the adoption of faith.

Other gospels
The three other gospels do not recount this exchange, and give somewhat different accounts of the event. Matthew 28:9, for instance goes:

 * And as they went to tell his disciples,
 * behold, Jesus met them, saying, All
 * hail. And they came and held him by the
 * feet, and worshipped him.

This passage describes the women having already been informed of the resurrection by the angels in the tomb and leaving to tell the disciples of the event. It also clearly describes more than one woman being present, and omits the period where Mary is uncertain of Jesus' identity. Mark, and Luke agree with Matthew on these incongruities. Some scholars, such as Norman Geisler, explain this by arguing that, unmentioned by John, Mary ran into another group of women after leaving the tomb. This larger group returns goes to the tomb together whence the events described by the Synoptic Gospels unfold.

Mystery play
The York Cycle of English mystery plays has a whole (ten-minute) play about this incident. The word discussed above is Rabony in the original manuscript and Rabbi in one modernized version.

title: John 20:16


text:
Talk:Frank Martin (composer)

The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20010524111341/www.frankmartin.org/eng_text/eng_biografie_concise_text.html (see Copyright problems/2010 August 28). }}

Fair use rationale for Image:Martin 300.jpg
[[

Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|70px|left]] Image:Martin 300.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot 09:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Frank Martin (composer)


text:
Tatton Park Flower Show

RHS Flower Show Tatton Park held at Tatton Park, near Knutsford, Cheshire, first began in 1999 by the Royal Horticultural Society. The show houses the RHS National Flower Bed Competition, Young Designer of the Year Award and a wide range of inspirational show gardens, smaller 'Back to Back' gardens, visionary gardens and a number of marquees displaying prize plants and flora exhibits. Other key features of the show are the floral marquee and plant plaza, the arts and heritage pavilion, and the floral design studio.

History
By the mid-1990s the Society’s confidence in its abilities at staging regional shows had improved, and Council was considering the creation of purely RHS shows in the more far-flung regions. By 1996 negotiations were under way with Tatton Park in Cheshire, and with Strathclyde Council in Scotland. The Island, a 19 acre site between the River Clyde and Strathclyde Loch, in Strathclyde County Park, southeast of Glasgow, was chosen as the site for a show. Stephen Bennett was quoted as saying, ‘We have long known that Scotland has enormous potential for a show of international standing, and response to the concept has been overwhelming’. The target was 50,000 visitors in the first year.

Scotland’s National Gardening Show was launched in 1997, and billed as the largest flower show in Scotland since the Glasgow Garden Festival of 1988. It was publicised with a special issue of The Garden devoted to Scottish themes, and the first year was seen as a great success, with 260 exhibitors and 47,000 visitors. Over 40 per cent of the exhibitors were Scottish, and most of them had never appeared before at an RHS show. Exhibits included a Robert Fortune garden, sponsored by Christian Aid Scotland, devoted to plants that he had introduced; a mining garden; a small wildlife garden from Scottish Natural Heritage; and an exhibit recreating the centre of Inverness, planted with alpines.

In its second year (1998) exhibitor numbers rose to 300, but attendance fell to 43,000, largely because of adverse weather.

The third year (1999), however, was disastrous: while the mounting costs of an expanding show meant that 50,000 visitors were needed in order for it to break even, the attendance fell to 35,000 – a third of the attendance attracted by the Tatton Park Show in the same year. In August 1999, the Society reluctantly announced that it could not afford to stage the show again. Scottish horticulturists hurriedly formed a consortium to stage a replacement show, and the Royal Caledonian Horticultural Society became involved in its organisation.

In later years the show developed a reputation for showcasing new talent across all forms of gardening design and the arts. In 2009 the show introduced two new show garden categories, The RHS Young Designer of the Year Award and the Visionary Gardens where designers were encouraged to "break the mould".

The 2011 introduced a "Ladies Day" which encouraged women to dress stylishly and socialise at a fashion show and dinner from Fortnum & Mason.

RHS Show Tatton Park
The first Tatton Show had been planned for 1998, but in the event it was decided to concentrate on Scotland first. The late Max de Soissons (who died in his early 50s in June 2012), an experienced organiser of trade exhibitions, who had been hired in 1996 as the RHS manager for the BBC Gardeners' World Live show in Birmingham, was appointed the Tatton Show manager. At the first Tatton Show in 1999, there were 12 show gardens, 16 back-to-back gardens (distinct from the small gardens at Birmingham or the courtyard gardens at Chelsea), 77 nurseries in the main marquee, ten rose growers in the Royal National Rose Show (sponsored by Manchester Airport), 200 sundries stands, some 20 plant societies in a specialist societies marquee, and about 30 national collections represented in a heritage marquee, and a crafts pavilion sponsored by Country Living magazine, and a separate furniture pavilion. 70,000 visitors were expected, and 102,000 arrived. Tatton, the RHS staff agreed, had the friendliest atmosphere of any of the Society’s shows.

Robert Sweet, the former Torbay Parks Officer, now Head of Shows Development, suggested a competition among parks departments for the best bedding scheme. The plots, each a standard 6×4 ft bed so that the local authorities competed on equal terms despite any differences in their size and wealth, were laid out on either side of a principal avenue: there were six competitors in the first year, 12 in the second, rising to 24 in 2003, by which time the competition was having a decided effect on the media coverage of municipal bedding.

The volume of traffic attracted by this show causes temporary road closures and one-way working in the country lanes between Tatton Park and the A556 road, and some congestion on the A556.

title: Tatton Park Flower Show


text:
Petri Lindroos

Petri Lindroos (born 10 January 1980 in Espoo, Finland) is a melodic death/folk metal guitarist and vocalist. He is currently the lead vocalist and guitarist in Ensiferum and vocalist for Warmen. Previously, he was a founding member and lead vocalist and guitarist for Norther.

Biography
At 14 years old, Petri (also known as "Pete") began to play the guitar. In 1996 he founded the melodic death metal band Norther with drummer Toni Hallio. In 2004, he joined the folk metal/Viking metal band Ensiferum as lead vocalist and continued to perform and record with Norther until 3 March 2009, when Norther's official website announced his departure from the band to focus more on his duties with Ensiferum. Petri said later in an interview that he did not want to quit the band, and on the contrary, the band members forced him to.

In 2008, Lindroos fell sick and was subsequently unable to perform on the planned Russian tour. For the duration of the tour, bass player Sami Hinkka took over Lindroos' vocals while ex-bassist Jukka-Pekka Miettinen filled in as a sessional guitarist.

With Norther

 * Warlord (2000) - Demo
 * Released (2002) - CD Single
 * Dreams of Endless War (2002) - CD
 * Unleash Hell (2003) - CD Single
 * Mirror of Madness (2003) - CD
 * Spreading Death (2004) - CD/DVD Single
 * Death Unlimited (2004) - CD
 * Solution 7 EP (2005) - Mini CD
 * Scream (2006) - CD Single
 * Till Death Unites Us (2006) - CD
 * No Way Back (2007) - EP
 * ''N (2008)

With Ensiferum

 * Dragonheads (2006) EP
 * "One More Magic Potion" (2007) CD Single
 * Victory Songs (2007) CD
 * From Afar (2009) CD
 * Unsung Heroes (2012) CD
 * One Man Army (2015) CD
 * Two Paths (2017) CD
 * Thalassic (2020) CD

title: Petri Lindroos


text:
Beer knot

A beer knot is a bend used to join tubular webbing. Its most common application is in constructing slings used in rock climbing. Compared with the water knot, it has the advantages of a higher strength, smaller profile, and a cleaner appearance due to the lack of free-hanging tails. However, the beer knot can be more difficult to tie than the water knot, and one of the tails is hidden from view, making safety checks for adequate tail length more difficult.

Testing by PMI in 1995 showed that the beer knot preserves about 80% of the strength of the webbing.

The beer knot was introduced to the National Speleological Society in the 1980s by Peter Ludwig, from Austria.

title: Beer knot


text:
Talk:University of Toronto Engineering Society

This page was voted on for deletion at Votes for deletion/University of Toronto Engineering Society. The consensus was to keep it. dbenbenn | talk 23:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Invitation to wikicity
If you wish to edit articles about schools you can try Students Wikicity where those articles will be more than welcom. Beta m (talk)


text:
Topsy

Topsy may refer to:

Arts and entertainment

 * Topsy, a character in the novel Uncle Tom's Cabin
 * Topsy, a character in the 2018 film Mary Poppins Returns
 * Topsy and Eva, a 1928 film based on Uncle Tom's Cabin
 * Topsy and Tim, a children's book series
 * Topsy (Tom and Jerry), a character in the cartoon series Tom and Jerry
 * "Topsy" (instrumental), a jazz instrumental first recorded by Count Basie, then by Benny Goodman, and later by Cozy Cole
 * "Topsy" (Bob's Burgers), the 38th episode of the animated comedy series Bob's Burgers

People

 * Topsy Sinden (1878–1950), an English dancer, actress, and singer
 * Topsy (d.1998), an abused Chinese girl, subject of The Story of Topsy, a book by Mildred Cable

Places in the United States

 * Topsy, Missouri, an unincorporated community
 * Topsy, Oklahoma, a rural community also known as "Chloeta"

Other uses

 * Topsy (elephant) (c. 1875–1903), a circus animal electrocuted by her owners
 * Topsy (analytics), an online social media and communications insights platform
 * A codename of the Mitsubishi Ki-5-II, an aircraft
 * Topsy's Roost, a former restaurant and nightclub at Playland-at-the-Beach in San Francisco

title: Topsy


text:
Talk:Charles Enderlin

Quote section
I've removed the quote section for the following reasons:

1) Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations. A simple list of quotations would be better suited for Wikiquote. If the quotations have any relevance, they should either be moved there or incorporated into the body of the article.

2) All but one of the quotations are unsourced, and the last one is sourced to a blog (and is in any case not a real quote, since it's someone else's uncorroborated assertion of what Enderlin supposedly said). This is an absolute must-not-do for biographies of living people, which requires the removal of contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Verifiability.

3) The quotations are presented without any context, and I'm concerned that (particularly with the last one) they may be (mis)used to advocate a particular POV concerning the article's subject.

-- ChrisO (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I have restored the last quote, with two more sources, one of which is the person to whom the statement was made. I have not created a new "Quote" section but added the quote to an existing section.  It is now properly sourced.  As for your claim that it is taken out of context, the context is given in the sources, which in one case is quoted in the reference section.  As for your "concern" that this particular quote "may be (mis)used to advocate a particular POV concerning the article's subject", the fact is that he said what he said, and it is up to the reader to decide whether he meant it.  There is no reason to believe he didn't mean exactly what he said.  6SJ7 (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

 * No, it's not "properly sourced". It's a hearsay statement from a highly partisan blogger - not a journalist - which you've cherrypicked to support a POV statement about purported "fake footage". As for the other two sources you identified, one was another blog and the other was the personal website of an anti-Enderlin conspiracy theorist. You know as well as I do (or you should do) that such sources don't remotely qualify as reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

 * It is a known fact that Muhammad al-Durrah was killed. I think that any source that still attempts to contest this automatically disqualifies itself to be a source for anything else than a discussion on itself.
 * It is exactly the same sort and same level of looniness than people who keep claiming that the Pentagon was hit by a missile rather than by a plane on 11 September 2001. Rama (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

 * The 9/11 comparison is apposite, though of course the main difference is that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are truly on the fringe while the al-Durrah conspiracy theorists appear to have been embraced by a substantial portion of the pro-Israel far right, particularly in America. Hence the idiotic hit-and-run edits we get on this article, like this one from an Illinois university network. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In France, there are journalists such as fr:Luc Rosenzweig, far from being of the "pro-Israeli far right" who criticized virulently Enderlin in the al-Durrah affair after visualizing the rushes.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to imply that all of the conspiracy theorists are on the far right - clearly they're not. But if you have a look at the blogs, websites and media articles where the conspiracy theory is actively supported (as opposed to merely being reported on), it's pretty obvious that the conspiracy theory supporters are overwhelmingly very right-wing, ranging from conventional "Israel is always right" conservatives to the openly Islamophobic far right. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ChrisO just uses "conspiracy theorists" to mean editors or sources that don't conform to his POV, so he can justify removing material from articles. 6SJ7 (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all. It's simply that what we have here is a largely blog-driven political campaign being pursued largely by people with a particular ideological agenda. We have to be very careful about how we report such things, given what Biographies of living persons requires and especially considering that this particular individual hasn't been shy about suing people and groups who have libeled him. That means we all - including you - have to take care to properly source what is said in this article, using only material drawn from reliable sources, which explicitly excludes blogs and other questionable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Muhammad al-Durrah was killed. Period. Denying it, claiming that the al-Durrah is a "hoax", is plain lunacy and denial of reality. Criticising Enderlin for his treatment of the affair is quite another thing. The two should not be mixed up.
 * Similarly, "Muhammad al-Durrah was not killed by a Israeli bullet" does not mean "Muhammad al-Durrah was not killed". Indeed, quite often, it means ""Muhammad al-Durrah was killed by a non-Israeli bullet". It is quite different, and we must be wary of the attempts by fringe conspiracy theorists to assimilate reasonable discourse to their constructions.
 * Note, also that many people who criticise Enderlin for his treatment of the information do so because they claim that Enderlin had no way of knowing from where the bullet came from. This is also different from saying that the bullet was not israeli. It means that the bullet might or might not be have been Israeli, but that saying that it way was unwarranted.
 * Ceedjee, Luc Rosenzweig is certainly vehemently pro-Israelian. He oppoes the United Nations and collaborates with the Metula News Agency, which is saying enough. Rama (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This thread isn't about any of that. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. We are considering sourcing information from Frum's blog. Frum contends that the entire affair is a "hoax" and accuses Enderlin of being antisemitic (Enderlin is an Isreali citizen). I say that these positions eliminate Frum's site from reliable source for anything else than Frum's own views of the world. Rama (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rama,
 * The reasonning you use to evaluate Luc Rosensweig's opinion is at the same level as the one used by far right pro-Israelis to evaluate Charles Enderlin's credibility...
 * Luc Rosenzweig was redacteur en chef of Le Monde...
 * Pro-Israelis who hate Enderlin should read his last book as well as you should read Rosenzweig biography of Ariel Sharon.
 * 6SJ7,
 * I think the information you want to introduce in the article is (of course) true but it is also true that the sources that refer to it lack reknown, which makes me think that even if true, this is not relevent.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We are straying away from the subject, but I really would be interested to see how being a former chief redactor of Le Monde would automatically prove that one does not hold strong opponions in favour of Isreal. Rama (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ceedjee (and others), the attribution to Landes' own web site, seconddraft.org, is definitely sufficient. Landes is notable enough to have his own article on Wikipedia, and he reported that Enderlin made a statement to him (Landes), and it is on Landes' own web site.  The other two sites serve as confirmation.  I am putting it back, although I know that one of the usual edit-warriors will revert again.  6SJ7 (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable sources per WP:BLP and WP:V. If you restore that statement, you will violate the BLP policy. Please either find a proper source for it, or leave it out altogether. - ChrisO (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't a BLP issue and you know it. You are just trying to keep material you don't like out of the article.  Nevertheless, in light of your edit summary that threatens a block, as well as some of your past administrative actions, I will not re-add the material.  You have successfully bullied me.  Congratulations.  6SJ7 (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 6SJ7, I finf your attitude frankly unhelpful. You have been personally accusing ChrisO and miscaracterasing his point, and your last statement is frankly worrying. You should quite thinking of this as a battlefield. We are not fighting each others, we are all in the same camp striving to build an encyclopedia together. Rama (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rama, Rosenzweig holds strong opinions in favour of Israel.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * About the quotes,
 * I think we could report them but only if Landes (whom I don't know) has enough reknown and if this quote is contextualized and if it is explained in the article why it is/would be relevent concerning Enderlin. Maybe it would be better in the article about al-Durrah affair ? Ceedjee (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rama, I agree. I really don't want this to turn into some sort of confrontation, but the difficulty we seem to be having is that 6SJ7 apparently doesn't agree with the sourcing requirements of WP:BLP. 6SJ7, perhaps you could explain for us why you consider Landes' personal website and Frum's blog to be reliable sources, when WP:BLP explicitly states "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article"? -- ChrisO (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rama, I agree. I really don't want this to turn into some sort of confrontation, but the difficulty we seem to be having is that 6SJ7 apparently doesn't agree with the sourcing requirements of WP:BLP. 6SJ7, perhaps you could explain for us why you consider Landes' personal website and Frum's blog to be reliable sources, when WP:BLP explicitly states "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article"? -- ChrisO (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note here (from me, an uninvolved administrator), as I saw that an editor expressed a concern that ChrisO, another administrator, was "threatening a block". To be clear, ChrisO is participating here as an involved editor. He is an administrator, yes, but he is not allowed to use his administrative tools here. See also WP:UNINVOLVED. Other than that, carry on. :) --Elonka 16:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of sentence
I suggest to remove this :
 * On November 28, 2006, a case by Enderlin and France 2 against Pierre Lurçat was dismissed on the grounds that they had not proven that Lurçat was the director of the website Ligue de Défense Juive, [1] which had published a text calling for Enderlin and France 2 to be awarded the "Goebbels Disinformation Prize."{{#if:||[citation needed]

per wp:undue. Pierre Lurçat is not known and the information doens't bring any interesting information. Ceedjee (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

 * According to Le Monde (I think) Lurçat is the head of the French branch of the extreme right-wing Kahanist movement. I've not found any references in the French media concerning this case. I suggest that we remove that bit of text to the talk page (here) until we can source it properly. It may well be correct, but without proper sourcing it's not really usable information. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thank you.
 * Unless somebody disagrees I will remove this in the next days.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a source for this :
 * This should be wp:rs for the information.
 * I still wonder nevertheless if it is worth reporting here per wp:undue.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

 * What is Guysen News? I can't say I've ever heard of it; it gets a surprisingly small number of Google hits (<500) and there's only a handful of links to it from Wikipedia articles . I think it might be worth asking about this on the WP:RSN. But you're also probably right about the undue weight issue, anyway. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the best is to remove the information. Ceedjee (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Describing defamatory claims and who makes them
We need to be very careful in this article about how we describe the claims against Enderlin. Let's not forget that (1) they have been judged to be defamatory and (2) Enderlin has shown a willingness to take legal action against his critics. Above all, BLP policy requires us to be very conservative about including material. We must avoid any form of words that can be read as endorsement of the claims against Enderlin, like this edit. This isn't simply a matter of NPOV - it's required by BLP policy, which mandates that "the writing style should be neutral" and that critical material must be "presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." There's also a question of original research - we cannot make judgments, as editors, about whether Enderlin is right or wrong.

We also need to avoid weasel phrases. If we state that somebody holds a particular view, we need to say who holds that view. Unfortunately some recent edits have been unacceptably weasely. " It has also been suggested..." - by who? "Enderlin's reporting of the incident has been criticized..." - by who? As WP:WEASEL says, weasel words "give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed." -- ChrisO (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

 * By whom? By the following for starters:

There are pages and pages of "criticism" in relation to this case! There is zero question that there is/was criticism. Criticism is not the same as "defamatory remarks." Specific and attributed criticism can come further on in the article. In the lede it is only necessary to mention that it exists. Even if critics claim that the statements were false, this is not necessarily defamatory, since the article mentions that he was not there, thus it may have been simply a mistake, that he relied on others' false testimony for example. To claim that someone has erred is not defamatory, simply criticism. "Some commentators" is meaningless. Criticism exists. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Phillipe Karsenty
 * Nidra Poller
 * Richard Landes
 * Charles Gouz
 * Pierre Lurcat
 * Stephane Juffa
 * Gerard Huber
 * Nahum Shahaf
 * Esther Shapira
 * James Fallows
 * Luc Rosenzweig
 * Denis Jeambar
 * Daniel Leconte
 * Ronald Blum
 * Serge Farnel
 * Dr. David Yehuda
 * CAMERA
 * Daniel Seaman
 * Melanie Phillips and many more.

 * This is a non-starter if ever was -- Tundrabuggy said it well, so I'll only add that you yourself, Chris, have been placing dreaded weasel words "was criticised by some", and in the passive voice, yet! I know you hate some of the theories that suggest al-Durrah wasn't killed by Israelis, but they are real, and they are notable, whether they end up being true or not. IronDuke  05:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't dispute that they're real, just as Obama birth certificate conspiracy theories are real - the issue is how we describe them and what weight we should give them. Above all, we shouldn't turn this article into either (a) an attack article, which it was for some time; or (b) a rehash of the al-Durrah article. We should certainly note the controversy but not in terms that endorse the allegations against Enderlin or that overstate the support which those allegations have received. Kudos to Tundrabuggy for this amendment, which is a better form of wording than I was able to come up with. Thanks for approaching it constructively rather than just blindly reverting. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, I don't think that analogy is quite apt. Tell me if you think I'm wrong, but I believe that if you compare the initial finding "the boy was targeted," against the competing ideas that he was instead 1) Accidentally shot by Israelis, 2) Accidentally shot by Palestinians, 3) Deliberately shot by Palestinians, 4) Not shot at all, you'll find those subscribing to the intitial description (he was targeted) in a distinct minority as compared to those who believe one of the other scenarios. I emphatically agree with you that this should not be a rehash of the al-Dura article, but neither can it be written to suggest (as it was when I got to it) that "Israeli soldiers had targeted and killed a Palestinian boy." I'm sure the person who wrote that didn't mean for it to be as flagrantly POV as it was, but that was the effect. IronDuke  14:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Permit me just to note in this 3 against 1 tussle, that whoever is writing ' A number of commentators have asserted that Enderlin's reporting of the incident was allegedly inaccurate' is culpable of weaseling bad English into the text.

 * A number of commentators either
 * (a) 'allege that Enderlin's reporting of the incident was inaccurate or false'
 * or
 * (b)they 'assert that Enderlin's reporting of the incident was inaccurate.'

 * A moment's thought should make editors realize you can't have people 'asserting that something was 'allegedly' whatever without violating style, logic and WP:SYNTH, since no single self-respecting WP:RS would ever employ both words ('assert' and 'allege') in this way to challenge Enderlin. Unless there is a source that 'asserts' that charges Enderlin's reporting was inaccurate are nothing more than allegations'. Quite possible, but it would support, in that case, ChrisO's edits, not those of the three editors, Iron Duke, Tundrabuggy and the other chap challenging him.Nishidani (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Yeah, saw that. That was from Chris, here. I assumed it was just an oversight, made in haste, and would eventually get smoothed out in the discussion. But thanks for pointing it out :). IronDuke  14:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Illustrating the principle on Arbcom. I saw it was from Chris, was surprised that a classicist would make this error, and privately thought it was from exhaustion, which is an excuse, but I was irritable and let loose. Perhaps my harshness was from exhaustion yesterday night. I see the Enderlin, and al-Durrah thing basically as he does, of course, and am indebted to his work on both articles.Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

 * What way is it that you see the Enderlin and al-Durrah things? You've got me curious. IronDuke  15:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No one has ever answered my query many months ago. What happened to all of the high-tech, on site monitoring, radio communication registrations, filming records that are customary in field operations by the IDF? If this was all put up, as, and in this I concur with Chris, a minority but high profile opinion insists, why hasn't the IDF, as in a very small number of cases, released all relevant visual and verbal records registered by their communication networks at the time. It is an argument ex silentio, allied to my perception that there is strong evidence that in the few incidents that draw the international limelight, the innuendo is constant that it couldn't have occurred, and that Palestinians are unreliable sources, the, to use a grotesque word, Pallywood syndrome. But this is not quite appropriate to the page, and my apologies.Nishidani (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So... you think the fact that the Israelis haven't released any at-the-scene evidence that would exculpate them tends to incriminate them? (And sorry if I, too, am taking us too far afield.) IronDuke  15:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, To my knowledge, the IDF released no evidence of the kind I listed, and I wonder why, given that so many contest the evidence by a fellow Israeli, Enderlin, who reported on the incident from the other side. Mais, monsieur, si vous voulez me soumettre à une interrogatoire, je dois mettre l'affaire entre les mains de mon avocat, . .:-(Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tu est vachement drôle... (even if you didn't really answer the question ;) IronDuke  18:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * YOu let me off lightly. I was expecting to cop something along the lines of drôlement fâcheux!!, which in the other sense, may apply to my suggestion below.Nishidani (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to achieve consensus on changing the initial wording back to "Enderlin's reporting of the incident has been criticized..." without the unnecessary qualification: "by some". Simply stating that criticism exists does not imply everyone, nor is it defamatory, as I said, and we can include the fact of the petition supporting him signed by numerous French reporters as evidence further down in the article where we elaborate. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay by me. IronDuke  15:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * good solution ! Ceedjee (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify
Will whoever put in the following sentence please clarify its meaning?

''"In the same decision, the appeals court declared "worthless" (sans objet) the conclusions reached by Karsenty in his own analysis, thus confirming the analysis of Karsenty's conclusions in the initial verdict." ''

Thanks, Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Not one of mine, but it refers to the line in the appeal court judgment that reads: "Déclare sans objet les conclusions d'incident déposées par Philippe KARSENTY". Essentially it's a reiteration of the first court's judgment that Karsenty's conclusions were "devoid of any serious or coherent character". I'll tweak the line to clarify this. I think it's slightly mistranslated, btw - "sans objet" means "pointless", not "worthless". -- ChrisO (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the clarification. In the US, we talk about one court "voiding" a previous decision.  When a superior court voids a previous decisions, as in this case, it only makes sense that more emphasis is on the final verdict than on the initial one.  In this article, there is much verbiage about the initial voided judgment, and little or none on the (current) standing judgment.  To my mind this is POV.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Hello,
 * I confirm that "sans objet" means "pointless" rather than "worthless".
 * I have read several times the judgment here. (French is my mother tongue.)
 * In the sentence stating that the "conclusions d'incidents de Karsenty sont sans oject" ("the conclusions of incidents of Karsenty are pointless"), "incident" refers to the 27 minutes of rush that Karsenty wanted to be analysed by an expert and for which he gave his "conclusions".
 * I think that the judgement just underlines that the analysis of Karsenty is pointless, which means that whether true or not, it has nothing to deal with the issue that the tribunal was dealing with, ie, it there was diffamation or not.
 * I suggest we remove the current sentence from the section of the article.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Well it's your mother tongue Ceedjee, so I'm tempted to defer. I'm extremely wary however of making rapid conclusions from technical (well, non-literary, for me) jargon in another language. Looking on, I would have thought, probably stupidly, that the phrase meant something along the lines of 'Karsenty's submissions on points of law are irrelevant'. I write this at the risk of proving to be a pommie twit in the eyes of native francophones. But what the fuck...!Nishidani (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That may. Not easy to understand.
 * The only reference I see to the incidents is the viewing of 27' of rushes. If it is the arguments to see these that that would have been pointless, I assume that the rushes would not have been seen... But they were. So the tribunal would not have stated anything about this... (???).
 * Ceedjee (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Ceedjee, I agree we should remove it. This sentence "In the same decision, the appeals court upheld the previous judgment about the nature of Karsenty's conclusions, declaring that it found them to be "sans objet" (pointless)" seems to refer to this sentence in the previous paragraph: "Karsenty's conclusions were "devoid of any serious or coherent character"... when if my understanding of your analysis is correct, it means "pointless" in the sense that his conclusions were not "to the point" ie relevant to the decision, correct?  Thus that sentence is not only confusing, in my opinion, but even misleading, and should be excised.  Can I get agreement on this? Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * It is not easy to understand what it means exactly : "conclusions d'incidents" has no meaning in French. We would expect "conclusions des incidents". So, I assume, as Nishidani points out, that is refers to technical jargon of lawyers.
 * Nevertheless, I think that the judgement states that [something that Karsenty claimed] is pointless, ie irrelevant and I think that they refer to the ("conclusions") he wanted to draw from the visulisation of the 27' of rushes ("incident").
 * Whatever, the sentence is misleading... Ceedjee (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Charles Enderlin. 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/20081114075130/http://www.revue-medias.com/article.php3?id_article=288 to http://www.revue-medias.com/article.php3?id_article=288
 * Added tag to http://www.consulfrance-jerusalem.org/france_jerusalem/spip.php?article2229
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091224220803/http://blog.france2.fr:80/charles-enderlin/index.php/Le-grand-aveuglement to http://blog.france2.fr/charles-enderlin/index.php/Le-grand-aveuglement

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Enderlin. 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/20091224220803/http://blog.france2.fr/charles-enderlin/index.php/Le-grand-aveuglement to http://blog.france2.fr/charles-enderlin/index.php/Le-grand-aveuglement

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) 05:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Charles Enderlin


text:
Talk:Castlebar

Copyvio?
Copyright violation?

Compare the second para with -- Picapica 23:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Nope. They have copied it from here. Word for word. Note the edit history shows that the content here has been added gradually. The first paragraph at Castlebar travel guide is particularly telling - it matches the original content here perfectly, yet our content was gradually added (some of it by me).

 * And they are not copyvio'ing, they provide attribution and link-back at the end of the page, note the "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Castlebar"." (Castlebar is linked to this article)

 * zoney ♣ talk 16:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Poor research by me there. Sony-youth's verbless sentences (especially the strange one beginning "A routing" -- just who were the French forces aiding?) read far more like a tourist brochure than an encyclopedia entry, and I didn't look before I leapt (to the wrong conclusion!) -- Picapica 11:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Material from Wiki IT
Not sure that "excursion" is the best word - feel free to change. The Italian reads migliaia di camminatori si avventurano in passeggiate di quattro giorni. My Italian 101 translates that thousands of walkers/ramblers/hikers adventure themselves in four day walks/hikes".

Material from Catlebar
Someone created a new page at Catlebar, which I've redirected here. I'm going to paste the content in here, as there are a couple of things that aren't mentioned, in case someone wants to find sources for them and work them into this article.

Castlebar (Caislean an Bharraigh)

Castlebar is the administrative and cultural centre of County Mayo for local government, hospitals and tertiary education. It's situated about 16 miles from the western coast of the Atlantic Ocean, 20 miles from the famous mountain of Croagh Patrick, only 30 minutes' drive from Knock International Airport and one hour from Galway City.

The castle from which the town got its name, was built in the middle of the 13th century by one of the Barry family from Buttevant, Co. Cork.

Until the collapse of the rising, Castlebar was the capital of the ‘Provisional Republic of Connacht’. A 1798 memorial stands at the entrance to the Mall in honour of the French soldiers who died on Irish soil that year. The pleasant tree-lined Mall, once a cricket pitch of Lord Lucan, is now a town park.

Castlebar, with a population of about 9,500 people (2007), is now a developing, industrial, commercial and services centre. There are a number of walking trails in the vicinity. The town holds an annual festival in June/July. Why not visit Christchurch - this fine Church was completed in 1739 and renovated in the early 1800s. The feature clock tower was added during renovations in 1807. The graveyard contains many interesting headstones and also a fascinating plaque commemorating six members of the Frazer Fencibles who were killed in battle in 1798.

prepared by Gintarius Petkus

Town river
"where the town river is thought to have originally flowed." It geniunely did. Its course was changed so that Lucan could have a Cricket ground. Where this information is on the internet I do not know but it should be around somewhere. 86.46.16.83 (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

City status
Castlebar is not a city, and has never officially been recognised as such. RashersTierney (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Population
Do we add the population of just the town (i.e. the town within its legal boundaries) or also the environs? The Banner talk 21:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Sure, I think it is good to include both populations rather than one or the other so people can see the official town population but also a more realistic general popultion. All the other towns seem to be using it also, Ballina, Kilkenny etc. Hope you agree. - Brancott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brancott (talk • contribs) 17:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is certainly not common, look for instance at Ennis or Galway. You better create a section "Demographics" to put it in. The Banner talk 13:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

 * The Demographics section is good but should it not also be in the population section in the main table under urban? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brancott (talk • contribs) 13:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Castlebar. 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://archive.is/20130215170125/http://www.castlebarblues.com/ to http://www.castlebarblues.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140318212028/http://www.idaireland.com/facts-about-ireland/selecting-location/west/ to http://www.idaireland.com/facts-about-ireland/selecting-location/west/
 * Added tag to http://wnl.fai.ie/clubs/castlebar-celtic-fc.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140120215117/http://www.castlebartc.ie/ContactUs/TwinTowns/ to http://www.castlebartc.ie/ContactUs/TwinTowns/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Castlebar. 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/20121027021021/http://www.discoverireland.ie/Whats-On/castlebar-international-four-days-walking-festival/13024 to http://www.discoverireland.ie/Whats-On/castlebar-international-four-days-walking-festival/13024

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) 04:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Castlebar