text:
Cromwellian conquest of Ireland

The Cromwellian conquest of Ireland (1649–1653) was the re-conquest of Ireland by the Commonwealth of England, led by Oliver Cromwell. It forms part of the 1641 to 1652 Irish Confederate Wars, and wider 1639 to 1653 Wars of the Three Kingdoms. Modern estimates suggest that during this period, Ireland experienced a demographic loss totalling around 15 to 20% of the pre-1641 population, due to fighting, famine and bubonic plague.

The Irish Rebellion of 1641 brought much of Ireland under the control of the Irish Catholic Confederation, who engaged in a multi-sided war with Irish Royalists, Parliamentarians, Scots Covenanters, and Presbyterian militia. Following the Execution of Charles I in January 1649, and establishment of the Commonwealth of England, the Confederates allied with their former Royalist opponents. 12,000 Commonwealth troops under Cromwell landed in Dublin in August 1649, and by the end of 1650 the Confederacy had been defeated, although sporadic guerrilla warfare continued until 1653.

The Act for the Settlement of Ireland 1652 barred Catholics from most public offices and confiscated large amounts of their land, which was given to British settlers. These proved a continuing source of grievance, while the conquest itself was brutal, and Cromwell remains a deeply reviled figure in Ireland. How far he was personally responsible for the atrocities is still debated; some historians suggest his actions were within what were then viewed as accepted rules of war, while others disagree.

Background
Following the Execution of Charles I in January 1649, the newly established Commonwealth of England took steps to regain control of Ireland. The first and most pressing reason was an alliance signed in 1649 between the Irish Confederate Catholics, and Charles II, proclaimed King of Ireland in January 1649. This allowed for Royalist troops to be sent to Ireland and put the Irish Confederate Catholic troops under the command of Royalist officers led by James Butler, Earl of Ormonde.

Secondly, Parliament also had a longstanding commitment to re-conquer Ireland dating back to the Irish Rebellion of 1641. Even if the Irish Confederates had not allied themselves with the Royalists, it is likely that the English Parliament would have eventually tried to invade the country to crush Catholic power there. They had sent Parliamentary forces to Ireland throughout the Wars of the Three Kingdoms (most of them under Michael Jones in 1647). They viewed Ireland as part of the territory governed by right by the Kingdom of England and only temporarily out of its control since the Rebellion of 1641. Many Parliamentarians wished to punish the Irish for alleged atrocities supposedly committed against the mainly Scottish Protestant settlers during the 1641 Uprising. Furthermore, some Irish towns (notably Wexford and Waterford) had acted as bases from which privateers had attacked English shipping throughout the 1640s.

In addition, the English Parliament had a financial imperative to invade Ireland to confiscate land there in order to repay its creditors. The Parliament had raised loans of £10 million under the Adventurers' Act to subdue Ireland since 1642, on the basis that its creditors would be repaid with land confiscated from Irish Catholic rebels. To repay these loans, it would be necessary to conquer Ireland and confiscate such land. The Parliamentarians also had internal political reasons to send forces to Ireland. Army mutinies at Banbury and Bishopsgate in April and May 1649 were unsettling the New Model Army, and the soldiers' demands would probably increase if they were left idle.

Finally, for some Parliamentarians, the war in Ireland was a religious war. Cromwell and much of his army were Puritans who considered all Roman Catholics to be heretics, and so for them the conquest was partly a crusade. The Irish Confederates had been supplied with arms and money by the Papacy and had welcomed the papal legate Pierfrancesco Scarampi and later the Papal Nuncio Giovanni Battista Rinuccini in 1643–49.

Battle of Rathmines and Cromwell's landing in Ireland
By the end of the period, known as Confederate Ireland, in 1649 the only remaining Parliamentarian outpost in Ireland was in Dublin, under the command of Colonel Jones. A combined Royalist and Confederate force under the Marquess of Ormonde gathered at Rathmines, south of Dublin, to take the city and deprive the Parliamentarians of a port in which they could land. Jones, however, launched a surprise attack on the Royalists while they were deploying on 2 August, putting them to flight. Jones claimed to have killed around 4,000 Royalist or Confederate soldiers and taken 2,517 prisoners.

Oliver Cromwell called the battle "an astonishing mercy, so great and seasonable that we are like them that dreamed", as it meant that he had a secure port at which he could land his army in Ireland, and that he retained the capital city. With Admiral Robert Blake blockading the remaining Royalist fleet under Prince Rupert of the Rhine in Kinsale, Cromwell landed on 15 August with thirty-five ships filled with troops and equipment. Henry Ireton landed two days later with a further seventy-seven ships.

Ormonde's troops retreated from around Dublin in disarray. They were badly demoralised by their unexpected defeat at Rathmines and were incapable of fighting another pitched battle in the short term. As a result, Ormonde hoped to hold the walled towns on Ireland's east coast to hold up the Cromwellian advance until the winter, when he hoped that "Colonel Hunger and Major Sickness" (i.e. hunger and disease) would deplete their ranks.

Siege of Drogheda
Upon landing, Cromwell proceeded to take the other port cities on Ireland's east coast, to facilitate the efficient landing of supplies and reinforcements from England. The first town to fall was Drogheda, about 50 km north of Dublin. Drogheda was garrisoned by a regiment of 3,000 English Royalist and Irish Confederate soldiers, commanded by Arthur Aston. After a week-long siege, Cromwell's forces breached the walls protecting the town. Aston refused Cromwell's request that he surrender. In the ensuing battle for the town, Cromwell ordered that no quarter be given, and the majority of the garrison and Catholic priests were killed. Many civilians also died in the sack Aston was beaten to death by the Roundheads with his own wooden leg.

The massacre of the garrison in Drogheda, including some after they had surrendered and some who had sheltered in a church, was received with horror in Ireland and is used today as an example of Cromwell's extreme cruelty. Having taken Drogheda, Cromwell took most of his army south to secure the southeastern ports. He sent a detachment of 5,000 men north under Robert Venables to take eastern Ulster from the remnants of a Scottish Covenanter army that had landed there in 1642. They defeated the Scots at the Battle of Lisnagarvey (6 December 1649) and linked up with a Parliamentarian army composed of English settlers based around Derry in western Ulster, which was commanded by Charles Coote.

Wexford, Waterford and Duncannon

The New Model Army then marched south to secure the ports of Wexford, Waterford and Duncannon. Wexford was the scene of another infamous atrocity: the Sack of Wexford, when Parliamentarian troops broke into the town while negotiations for its surrender were ongoing, and sacked it, killing about 2,000 soldiers and 1,500 townspeople and burning much of the town.

The Royalist commander Ormonde thought that the terror of Cromwell's army had a paralysing effect on his forces. Towns like New Ross and Carlow subsequently surrendered on terms when besieged by Cromwell's forces. On the other hand, the massacres of the defenders of Drogheda and Wexford prolonged resistance elsewhere, as they convinced many Irish Catholics that they would be killed even if they surrendered.

Such towns as Waterford, Duncannon, Clonmel, Limerick and Galway only surrendered after determined resistance. Cromwell was unable to take Waterford or Duncannon and the New Model Army had to retire to winter quarters, where many of its men died of disease, especially typhoid and dysentery. The port city of Waterford and Duncannon town eventually surrendered after prolonged sieges in 1650.

Clonmel and the conquest of Munster

The following spring, Cromwell mopped up the remaining walled towns in Ireland's southeast—notably the Confederate capital of Kilkenny, which surrendered on terms. The New Model Army met its only serious reverse in Ireland at the Siege of Clonmel, where its attacks on the town's defences were repulsed at a cost of up to 2,000 men. The town nevertheless surrendered the following day.

Cromwell's treatment of Kilkenny and Clonmel is in contrast to that of Drogheda and Wexford. Despite the fact that his troops had suffered heavy casualties attacking the former two, Cromwell respected surrender terms which guaranteed the lives and property of the townspeople and the evacuation of armed Irish troops who were defending them. The change in attitude on the part of the Parliamentarian commander may have been a recognition that excessive cruelty was prolonging Irish resistance. However, in the case of Drogheda and Wexford no surrender agreement had been negotiated, and by the rules of continental siege warfare prevalent in the mid-17th century, this meant no quarter would be given; thus it can be argued that Cromwell's attitude had not changed.

Ormonde's Royalists still held most of Munster, but were outflanked by a mutiny of their own garrison in Cork. The British Protestant troops there had been fighting for the Parliament up to 1648 and resented fighting with the Confederates. Their mutiny handed Cork and most of Munster to Cromwell and they defeated the local Irish garrison at the Battle of Macroom. The Irish and Royalist forces retreated behind the River Shannon into Connacht or (in the case of the remaining Munster forces) into the fastness of County Kerry.

Collapse of the Royalist alliance
In May 1650, Charles II repudiated his alliance with the Irish Confederacy, and agreed the Treaty of Breda with the Covenanter government in Scotland. This totally undermined Ormonde's position as head of a Royalist coalition in Ireland. Cromwell published generous surrender terms for Protestant Royalists in Ireland and many of them either capitulated or went over to the Parliamentarian side.

This left in the field only the remaining Irish Catholic armies and a few diehard English Royalists. From this point onwards, many Irish Catholics, including their bishops and clergy, questioned why they should accept Ormonde's leadership when his master, the King, had repudiated his alliance with them. The outbreak of the Anglo-Scottish war (1650–1652) forced Cromwell to leave Ireland and deal with the new threat, passing command to Henry Ireton.

Scarrifholis and the destruction of the Ulster Army
The most formidable force left to the Irish and Royalists was the 6,000 strong army of Ulster, formerly commanded by Owen Roe O'Neill, who died in 1649. However the army was now commanded by an inexperienced Catholic bishop named Heber MacMahon. The Ulster Army met a Parliamentarian army commanded by Charles Coote, at the Battle of Scarrifholis in County Donegal in June 1650. The Ulster army was routed and as many as 2,000 of its men were killed. In addition, MacMahon and most of the Ulster Army's officers were either killed at the battle or captured and executed after it. This eliminated the last strong field army opposing the Parliamentarians in Ireland and secured for them the northern province of Ulster. Coote's army, despite suffering heavy losses at the Siege of Charlemont, the last Catholic stronghold in the north, was now free to march south and invade the west coast of Ireland.

Sieges of Limerick and Galway

The Parliamentarians crossed the River Shannon into the western province of Connacht in October 1650. An Irish army under Clanricarde had attempted to stop them but this was surprised and routed at the Battle of Meelick Island.

Ormonde was discredited by the constant stream of defeats for the Irish and Royalist forces and no longer had the confidence of the men he commanded, particularly the Irish Confederates. He fled for France in December 1650 and was replaced as commander by an Irish nobleman, Ulick Burke of Clanricarde. The Irish and Royalist forces were penned into the area west of the River Shannon and placed their last hope on defending the strongly walled cities of Limerick and Galway on Ireland's west coast. These cities had built extensive modern defences and could not be taken by a straightforward assault as at Drogheda or Wexford.

Ireton besieged Limerick while Charles Coote surrounded Galway, but they were unable to take the strongly fortified cities and instead blockaded them until a combination of hunger and disease forced them to surrender. An Irish force from County Kerry attempted to relieve Limerick from the south but was intercepted and routed at the Battle of Knocknaclashy. Limerick fell in 1651 and Galway the following year. Disease, however, killed indiscriminately and Ireton, along with thousands of Parliamentarian troops, died of plague outside Limerick in 1651.

Guerrilla warfare, famine and plague

The fall of Galway saw the end of organised resistance to the Cromwellian conquest, but fighting continued as small units of Irish troops launched guerrilla attacks on the Parliamentarians.

The guerrilla phase of the war had been going since late 1650 and at the end of 1651, despite the defeat of the main Irish or Royalist forces, there were still estimated to be 30,000 men in arms against the Parliamentarians. Tories (from the Irish word tóraí meaning "pursuer" or "outlaw") operated from difficult terrain such as the Bog of Allen, the Wicklow Mountains and the drumlin country in the north midlands, and within months made the countryside extremely dangerous for all except large parties of Parliamentarian troops. Ireton mounted a punitive expedition to the Wicklow mountains in 1650 to try to put down the tories there, but without success.

By early 1651, it was reported that no English supply convoys were safe if they travelled more than two miles outside a military base. In response, the Parliamentarians destroyed food supplies and forcibly evicted civilians who were thought to be helping the Tories. John Hewson systematically destroyed food stocks in counties Wicklow and County Kildare, Hardress Waller did likewise in the Burren in County Clare, as did Colonel Cook in County Wexford. The result was famine throughout much of Ireland, aggravated by an outbreak of bubonic plague. As the guerrilla war ground on, the Parliamentarians, as of April 1651, designated areas such as County Wicklow and much of the south of the country as what would now be called free-fire zones, where anyone found would be, "taken slain and destroyed as enemies and their cattle and good shall be taken or spoiled as the goods of enemies". This tactic had succeeded in the Nine Years' War.

This phase of the war was by far the most costly in terms of civilian loss of life. The combination of warfare, famine and plague caused a huge mortality among the Irish population. William Petty estimated (in the 1655–56 Down Survey) that the death toll of the wars in Ireland since 1641 was over 618,000 people, or about 40% of the country's pre-war population. Of these, he estimated that over 400,000 were Catholics, 167,000 killed directly by war or famine, and the remainder by war-related disease. Modern estimates put the toll at closer to 20%.

In addition, some fifty thousand Irish people, including prisoners of war, were sold as indentured servants under the English Commonwealth regime. They were often sent to the English colonies in North America and the Caribbean where they subsequently comprised a substantial portion of certain Caribbean colony populations in the late 17th century. In Barbados, some of their descendants are known as Redlegs.

Eventually, the guerrilla war was ended when the Parliamentarians published surrender terms in 1652 allowing Irish troops to go abroad to serve in foreign armies not at war with the Commonwealth of England. Most went to France or Spain. The largest Irish guerrilla forces under John Fitzpatrick (in Leinster, Edmund O'Dwyer (in Munster) and Edmund Daly (in Connacht) surrendered in 1652, under terms signed at Kilkenny in May of that year. However, up to 11,000 men, mostly in Ulster, were still thought to be in the field at the end of the year. The last Irish and Royalist forces (the remnants of the Confederate's Ulster Army, led by Philip O'Reilly) formally surrendered at Cloughoughter in County Cavan on 27 April 1653. The English Parliament then declared the Irish rebellion subdued on 27 September 1653. However, low-level guerrilla warfare continued for the remainder of the decade and was accompanied by widespread lawlessness. Undoubtedly some of the tories were simple brigands, whereas others were politically motivated. The Cromwellians distinguished in their rewards for information or capture of outlaws between "private tories" and "public tories".

The Cromwellian Settlement
The English Parliament imposed an extremely harsh settlement on the Irish Catholic population. This was because of his deep religious antipathy to the Catholic religion and to punish Irish Catholics for the rebellion of 1641, in particular the massacres of Protestant settlers in Ulster. Also, Parliament needed to raise money to pay the army and to provide land to those who had subsidised the war under the Adventurers Act back in 1640.

Anyone implicated in the rebellion of 1641 was executed. Those who participated in Confederate Ireland had all their land confiscated and thousands were transported to the West Indies as indentured labourers. Those Catholic landowners who had not taken part in the wars still had their land confiscated, although they were entitled to claim land in Connacht as compensation. In addition, no Catholics were allowed to live in towns. Irish soldiers who had fought in the Confederate and Royalist armies left the country in large numbers to find service in the armies of France and Spain—William Petty estimated their number at 54,000 men. The practice of Catholicism was banned and bounties were offered for the capture of priests, who were executed when found.

The Long Parliament had passed the Adventurers Act in 1640 (the act received royal assent in 1642), under which those who lent money to Parliament for the subjugation of Ireland would be paid in confiscated land in Ireland. In addition, Parliamentarian soldiers who served in Ireland were entitled to an allotment of confiscated land there, in lieu of their wages, which the Parliament was unable to pay in full. As a result, many thousands of New Model Army veterans were settled in Ireland. Moreover, the pre-war Protestant settlers greatly increased their ownership of land (see also: The Cromwellian Plantation). Before the wars, Irish Catholics had owned 60% of the land in Ireland, whereas by the time of the Stuart Restoration, when compensations had been made to Catholic Royalists, they owned only 20% of it. During the Commonwealth period, Catholic landownership had fallen to 8%. Even after the Restoration of 1660, Catholics were barred from all public office, but not from the Irish Parliament.

Historical debate
The Parliamentarian campaign in Ireland was the most ruthless of the Civil War period. In particular, Cromwell's actions at Drogheda and Wexford earned him a reputation for cruelty.

Cromwell's critics point to his response to a plea by Catholic Bishops to the Irish Catholic people to resist him in which he states that although his intention was not to "massacre, banish and destroy the Catholic inhabitants", if they did resist "I hope to be free from the misery and desolation, blood and ruin that shall befall them, and shall rejoice to exercise the utmost severity against them".

Tom Reilly, an amateur historian not taken seriously by most academics, argues in Cromwell, an Honourable Enemy that what happened at Drogheda was not unusually severe by the standards of 17th century siege warfare. In Cromwell was Framed (2014), he also claims that civilians were not targeted. John Morrill commented, "A major attempt at rehabilitation was attempted by Tom Reilly, Cromwell: An Honourable Enemy (London, 1999) but this has been largely rejected by other scholars." Morrill himself argued, that what happened at Drogheda, "was without straightforward parallel in 17th century British or Irish history... So the Drogheda massacre does stand out for its mercilessness, for its combination of ruthlessness and calculation, for its combination of hot- and cold-bloodiness". Moreover, historians critical of Cromwell point out that at the time the killings at Drogheda and Wexford were considered atrocities. They cite such sources as Edmund Ludlow, the Parliamentarian commander in Ireland after Ireton's death, who wrote that the tactics used by Cromwell at Drogheda showed "extraordinary severity".

Cromwell's actions in Ireland occurred in the context of a mutually cruel war. In 1641–42 Irish insurgents in Ulster killed some 4,000 Protestant settlers who had settled on land confiscated from their former Catholic owners. These events were magnified in Protestant propaganda as an attempt by Irish Catholics to exterminate the English Protestant settlers in Ireland, with English Parliamentarian pamphlets claiming that over 200,000 Protestants had died. In turn, this was used as justification by English Parliamentary and Scottish Covenant forces to take vengeance on the Irish Catholic population. A Parliamentary tract of 1655 argued that, "the whole Irish nation, consisting of gentry, clergy and commonality are engaged as one nation in this quarrel, to root out and extirpate all English Protestants from amongst them".

Atrocities were subsequently committed by all sides. When Murrough O'Brien, the Earl of Inchiquin and Parliamentarian commander in Cork, took Cashel in 1647, he slaughtered the garrison and Catholic clergy there (including Theobald Stapleton), earning the nickname "Murrough of the Burnings". Inchiquin switched allegiances in 1648, becoming a commander of the Royalist forces. After such battles as Dungans Hill and Scarrifholis, English Parliamentarian forces executed thousands of their Irish Catholic prisoners. Similarly, when the Confederate Catholic general Thomas Preston took Maynooth in 1647, he hanged its Catholic defenders as apostates.

Seen in this light, some have argued that the severe conduct of the Parliamentarian campaign of 1649–53 appears unexceptional.

Nevertheless, the 1649–53 campaign remains notorious in Irish popular memory as it was responsible for a huge death toll among the Irish population. The main reason for this was the counter-guerrilla tactics used by such commanders as Henry Ireton, John Hewson and Edmund Ludlow against the Catholic population from 1650, when large areas of the country still resisted the Parliamentary Army. These tactics included the wholesale burning of crops, forced population movement, and killing of civilians.

Total excess deaths for the entire period of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms in Ireland was estimated by Sir William Petty, the 17th century economist, to be 600,000 out of a total Irish population of 1,400,000 in 1641. One modern estimate estimated that 200,000 were killed, of which 137,000 were civilians.

In addition, the whole post-war Cromwellian settlement of Ireland has been characterised by historians such as Mark Levene and Alan Axelrod as ethnic cleansing, in that it sought to remove Irish Catholics from the eastern part of the country, others such as the historical writer Tim Pat Coogan have described the actions of Cromwell and his subordinates as genocide. "[The Act of Settlement of Ireland], and the parliamentary legislation which succeeded it the following year, is the nearest thing on paper in the English, and more broadly British, domestic record, to a programme of state-sanctioned and systematic ethnic cleansing of another people. The fact that it did not include 'total' genocide in its remit, or that it failed to put into practice the vast majority of its proposed expulsions, ultimately, however, says less about the lethal determination of its makers and more about the political, structural and financial weakness of the early modern English state." The aftermath of the Cromwellian campaign and settlement saw extensive dispossession of landowners who were Catholic, and a huge drop in population. In the event, the much larger number of surviving poorer Catholics were not moved westwards; most of them had to fend for themselves by working for the new landowners.
 * Albert Breton (Editor, 1995). Nationalism and Rationality. Cambridge University Press. p. 248. "Oliver Cromwell offered Irish Catholics a choice between genocide and forced mass population transfer".
 * Ukrainian Quarterly. Ukrainian Society of America, 1944. "Therefore, we are entitled to accuse the England of Oliver Cromwell of the genocide of the Irish civilian population".
 * David Norbrook (2000).Writing the English Republic: Poetry, Rhetoric and Politics, 1627–1660. Cambridge University Press. 2000. In interpreting Andrew Marvell's contemporarily expressed views on Cromwell Norbrook says; "He (Cromwell) laid the foundation for a ruthless programme of resettling the Irish Catholics which amounted to large scale ethnic cleansing".
 * Frances Stewart (2000). War and Underdevelopment: Economic and Social Consequences of Conflict v. 1 (Queen Elizabeth House Series in Development Studies), Oxford University Press. p. 51. "Faced with the prospect of an Irish alliance with Charles II, Cromwell carried out a series of massacres to subdue the Irish. Then, once Cromwell had returned to England, the English Commissary, General Henry Ireton, adopted a deliberate policy of crop burning and starvation, which was responsible for the majority of an estimated 600,000 deaths out of a total Irish population of 1,400,000."
 * Alan Axelrod (2002). Profiles in Leadership, Prentice-Hall. 2002. p. 122. "As a leader Cromwell was entirely unyielding. He was willing to act on his beliefs, even if this meant killing the king and perpetrating, against the Irish, something very nearly approaching genocide".
 * Tim Pat Coogan (2002). The Troubles: Ireland's Ordeal and the Search for Peace. ISBN 978-0-312-29418-2. p. 6. "The massacres by Catholics of Protestants, which occurred in the religious wars of the 1640s, were magnified for propagandist purposes to justify Cromwell's subsequent genocide."
 * Peter Berresford Ellis (2002). Eyewitness to Irish History, John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-26633-4. p. 108. "It was to be the justification for Cromwell's genocidal campaign and settlement."
 * John Morrill (2003). "Rewriting Cromwell: A Case of Deafening Silences", Canadian Journal of History. December 2003. "Of course, this has never been the Irish view of Cromwell. Most Irish remember him as the man responsible for the mass slaughter of civilians at Drogheda and Wexford and as the agent of the greatest episode of ethnic cleansing ever attempted in Western Europe as, within a decade, the percentage of land possessed by Catholics born in Ireland dropped from sixty to twenty. In a decade, the ownership of two-fifths of the land mass was transferred from several thousand Irish Catholic landowners to British Protestants. The gap between Irish and the English views of the seventeenth-century conquest remains unbridgeable and is governed by G. K. Chesterton's mirthless epigram of 1917, that 'it was a tragic necessity that the Irish should remember it; but it was far more tragic that the English forgot it'."
 * James M. Lutz, Brenda J. Lutz (2004). Global Terrorism, Routledge: London. p. 193: "The draconian laws applied by Oliver Cromwell in Ireland were an early version of ethnic cleansing. The Catholic Irish were to be expelled to the northwestern areas of the island. Relocation rather than extermination was the goal."
 * Mark Levene (2005). Genocide in the Age of the Nation State: Volume 2. ISBN 978-1-84511-057-4. pp. 55–57. A sample quote describes the Cromwellian campaign and settlement as "a conscious attempt to reduce a distinct ethnic population".
 * Mark Levene (2005). Genocide in the Age of the Nation-State. London: I.B. Tauris.

Long-term results
The Cromwellian conquest completed the British colonisation of Ireland, which was merged into the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland in 1653–59. It destroyed the native Irish Catholic land-owning classes and replaced them with colonists with a British identity. The bitterness caused by the Cromwellian settlement was a powerful source of Irish nationalism from the 17th century onwards.

After the Stuart Restoration in 1660, Charles II of England restored about a third of the confiscated land to the former landlords in the Act of Settlement 1662, but not all, as he needed political support from former parliamentarians in England. A generation later, during the Glorious Revolution, many of the Irish Catholic landed class tried to reverse the remaining Cromwellian settlement in the Williamite War in Ireland (1689–91), where they fought en masse for the Jacobites. They were defeated once again, and many lost land that had been regranted after 1662. As a result, Irish and English Catholics did not become full political citizens of the British state again until 1829 and were legally barred from buying valuable interests in land until the Papists Act 1778.

The Cromwellian government also contributed to the decline and eventual extinction of wolves in Ireland, through such methods as deforestation and anti-wolf legislation, the latter including bounties paid out for killing wolves.

title: Cromwellian conquest of Ireland


text:
Diversion colitis

Diversion colitis is an inflammation of the colon which can occur as a complication of ileostomy or colostomy, where symptoms may occur between one month and three years following surgery. It also occurs frequently in a neovagina created by colovaginoplasty, with varying delay after the original procedure. Despite the presence of a variable degree of inflammation the most suggestive histological feature remains the prominent lymphoid aggregates.

Symptoms and signs
People may be asymptomatic but common symptoms are abdominal discomfort, anorectal pain, mucous discharge and rectal bleeding that develops from the inflamed mucosa of the distal, unused colon.

Diagnosis
Diagnosis is aided by knowing the full clinical history.

Treatment
In many milder cases after ileostomy or colostomy, diversion colitis is left untreated and disappears naturally. Possible pharmacologic treatments include short-chain fatty acid irrigation, steroid enemas and mesalazine. For surgical candidates, reanastomosis is a reversal procedure carried out to restore bowel continuity that effectively halts the symptoms of diversion colitis.

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

title: Diversion colitis


text:
Talk:Modern history

Feudalism
The obsolescence of feudalism and ultimately transition into imperialism of separate states under monarchy sometime during the late fifteenth century by 1500 may mark a buffer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.44.178.73 (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The Holy Roman Empire's coronation marks the beginning of the Middle Ages in Europe as there are recurring feuds between Imperial and Papal authority as claim over the Papal States is never solidified. The fall of the Eastern Roman Empire 1453 to the Ottoman Turkic Dynasty may signify a transition into the modern era in the Near East.

By 1500, not many states in Europe would adhere to feudalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.44.178.76 (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The Migration Period of the European dark ages the final chapter to Antiquity prior to our solidity of religion (Church) tying in to the state. The Reformation only scatters this sense of fluidity between state as individual crowns across Europe vie for imperialistic influence. Ivan the Terrible and the independence of the Russian state from the Golden Horde. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.44.178.76 (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Tesla fiction
Removed this because it was unreferenced and contained popular (fictional?) claims about Tesla including his "work formed the basis of modern alternating current electric power systems", ... "with which he helped usher in the Second Industrial Revolution". "War of Currents" was "a bitter rivalry between Tesla and Edison", and Tesla was "the victor in the "War of Currents"". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

primary topic for "Modern"?
If someone wishes to argue this, please use Talk:Modern. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Modern History/Modern Period - What's the Difference?
There seems to be some redundancy in the subdivisions of the Modern History time period. The period between the Early Modern Period and Contemporary History (approx. 1750 to 1914) is often referred to here, and in many other articles, as the Modern period. But this is also what the overall era (approx. 1450 to present) is more or less referred to— the modern history. Obviously the fact that these two time periods are conflated makes the discussion about the post-medieval age confusing. For example, you may have noticed that clicking on "Modern Period" in the sidebar takes you to "Modern History."

It is necessary that someone find a respected and appropriate time period to cover (approx.) 1750 to 1914. I would like to put out the suggestion that Age of Revolution be used as the global categorization for this era. It connects most of the world with the trend of Industrial Revolutions (Europe, USA, Russia, Japan), and political revolutions (USA, France, Haiti, Latin America, China, etc). If anyone has a better suggestion or would simply like to put out their opinion on this matter, please do share. — InvaderCito (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Update: I have also found this article, Long nineteenth century. Once again, is this supposedly theoretical period well-known and respected enough to use as a fundamental article in the WikiProject History? It would fill the hole in "middle" Modern history. But it sounds like this time period might be set for an entirely different system of time periods (i.e. it is followed by the "short twentieth century"). Age of Revolution is probably too narrow for this time frame, so the Long nineteenth century is probably more well-suited. Once again, I would really like more opinions on this matter. Thank you. — InvaderCito (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Update: This discussion has now been moved to WikiProject History as per WP:MULTI. Move any discussion there. Thank you. — InvaderCito (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Egress and Negation?
Should the headings "United States egress" and "Transitions and Enlightenment negation" be just "United States" and "Transitions and Enlightenment"? Vandalism?68.98.129.253 (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Someone has removed "egress." The section currently entitled "Transitions and Enlightenment negation" would be better titled "Science and Philosopy," so I am going to make that change.68.98.129.253 (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Both are descriptive section headers. If you need help with the understanding of the terms, see egress and negation. --J. D. Redding 12:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * they are not descriptions used by RS and that makes it original research, which is not allowed. Rjensen (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cited and see also'ed. Stop removing info, thanks.--J. D. Redding 19:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, Don't confuse the local phenomena of America's later Great Awakenings (3rd/4th) with the events on the world stage. --J. D. Redding 23:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Such wording falls way outside WP:TONE per articles should avoid "argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon". Reworded per above. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Terminology and usage
This section needs reviewing. The "Pre-Modern" subsection and first paragraph of the "Modern" may be copiously referenced (albeit some of the references appear a bit odd), but they are not really about terminology. They come across as a grossly simplistic philosophy based on "Pre-modern = religion and myth, reason and innate knowledge" and "Modern = science, empirical method and new information". There are various ways we could tinker with this, but I'd restrict it to a simple definition of the term "modern" (as compared with e.g. "medieval" or "renaissance", etc.) and leave the philosophical stuff out. --Bermicourt (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Have a look at this version, may be better. Allot of the article was expanded by an editor known for OR and WP:REFBLOATing articles. Many other parts of this article have the same problem. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the current version is bad. "The term 'modern' was coined in the Sixteenth Century." Could the Fifteenth Century not be described as "modern" then? What happened in the Seventeenth? Did some people call the Sixteenth Century modern and some people medieval? Just too confusing. 05:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Modern history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070628021303/http://www.el-universal.com.mx/editoriales/34023.html to http://www.el-universal.com.mx/editoriales/34023.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Modern history. 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/20071127032512/http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/04-05/essay.cfm to https://www.minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/04-05/essay.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061004110408/http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=282 to http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=282

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) 19:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Modern history. 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/20080622132303/http://www.bartleby.com/61/28/M0362800.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/28/M0362800.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005005904/http://www.vistorica.com/eng/persongroups/1500%2C2000%2Ceuropean%2Call.html to http://www.vistorica.com/eng/persongroups/1500%2C2000%2Ceuropean%2Call.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) 16:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Generation of Love?
In the second-to-last paragraph of Modern history, there's a reference to the Generation of Love. I'm not sure what this is referring to. The wikilink points to a song. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed it. Its unverified and does not appear in the article it summarizes. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Modern history. 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/20131005005904/http://www.vistorica.com/eng/persongroups/1500%2C2000%2Ceuropean%2Call.html to http://www.vistorica.com/eng/persongroups/1500%2C2000%2Ceuropean%2Call.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) 10:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Image use is excessive
Seems as if an excessive number of images have been recently added to this article which is creating a WP:SANDWICH effect. While images can help enhance an article per WP:IUP, too many actually detracts from the article content and makes things more difficult to read; moreover. the article starts to move into WP:NOTGALLERY territory and may even cause MOS:ACCESSibilty problems for some editors using mobile devices in general or maybe even for visually impaired readers used special devices to read articles. Comparing this version here from June 5, 2018 with the most recent version today, best illustrates the excessive image use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There were some oddly-formatted images, mostly with long captions, but to claim "the article starts to move into WP:NOTGALLERY territory" suggests strongly that, like many who cite WP:NOTGALLERY, you have not actually read it. The relevant bit talks about "Photographs or media files with no accompanying text", which is very much not the case here. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is simply not an page of images, so maybe in that sense suggesting WP:NOTGALLERY was a bit too strong. At the same time, there seems to be quite a number of images which seem to have been added where the connection between text and image is flimsy at best that it's as almost as if there is no accompanying textual content, at least pertaining the image in question, at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. A smaller number of better chosen images would be much more useful for readers. The effect of the current number of images is to make the article look rather overwhelming. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree with the assessment, images are vital to connect text to the reader. If some images must be removed, it should be done carefully.
 * Bear in mind that some sections had no illustrations what so ever, before, and I think that was not conductive for the information conveyed here.
 * As far as choice of images go, are there any particular images you object here too?
 * Sunriseshore (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

 * Images can enhance an article, but I would not automatically say they are vital for an article to be understandable to the reader. Certain represntative images can be used, but not every section needs to be illustrated by an image. Moreover, the WP:SANDWICHing of images into an article actually seems more detrimental to the reader's understanding than any benefit to said understanding obtained by adding the additional images. The reader doesn't need to see a generic ohoto of someone in a lab to understand that the growth of science impacted history, and also doesn't need to see a photo of the Cheops Pyramid to understand that faith or the belief in a god was important as well. Simply adding random images (i.e., images where the subject is not specifically mentioned or directly tied into the article content) or generic images of subjects which don't require an image be seen to be understood is a type of image WP:OR where personal preference rather than encyclopedic relevance seems to be the determining criterion for inclusion. Images of Wikipedia servers or commuter train riders in Hong Kong seem more decorative and distractive than informative. That's four images which seem uneccesary within the first two sections alone.
 * Perhaps the older version I've referenced above could use a few more images, but I believe the current version has taken things way to the other extreme. One of the main differences between Wikipedia and a print encyclopedis is that it's not always necessary to include excessive detail in broader more general articles because such information is usually found in more detailed specific articles which can be linked to. This WP:SS style approach can also be applied to image use, where a sufficient number of representative images can be used but the unnecessary addition of images already being used in other articles probably should be avoided. My count might be a little off, but there seem to be almost 90 images and audio files currently used in the article, whereas in the older version there were about 30. Editors are encouraged to be WP:BOLD, but adding 60 more files to the article might have been a bit too bold. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

 * The images you speak of illustrate in apparent ways the meaning of 'modern' as a theoretical concepts vs earlier times in that specific case. The Wikipedia Servers demonstrate the age of information or 'contemporary' times which is a category of breaking up eras in history. I think we should try to compromise but a blanket removal of images is not productive. I can assure that none provide a decorative purpose but are hands-on representations of the subjects discussed.

 * The larger reason though for including what might be seen as an excess of images is that this article is an exceedingly broad subject which cannot be handled easily. One could risk by having too few images to uncannily support a bias of perspective with images. That is why I added a variety of paintings, photographs and audio files that gives a broader context to the material discussed in the text. I also worked on the captions so that images provided encyclopedic information. In cases where captions are short such as the 1900 photograph from Russia I think the image itself demonstrates Russia's large peasant agrarian population which still were in a very conservative state at the turn of the 20th century when compared to the rest of Europe.

 * I have recently learned about the concerns of text sandwiching though I believe that the small size of images mitigates this specific issue. If not certain removals can be made to accommodate this
 * I am afraid the other statements you made Marchjuly are matters of opinion. If possible I think this issue should be resolved by finding Wikiepeida users who have academic credentials in world or modern history so they can give their perspective on what images may be most necessary to include.

 * I must say in advance that I strongly recommend that as many as the audio and video files be preserved as possible. This due to their value in showing the evolution of 19th/20th century civilization. The first video for example, shows the rise of skyscrapers which had never existed prior to that time. The second video, a clip from a silent film represents the rise of popular culture in the 1920s. This is informative because it describes the context of changing technology and lifestyle which occurred so rapidly in a comparatively short amount of time.

 * I must press how much I agree with you on the informative v.s decorative value. However on subjects like this it is important to see the wider scope of what is informative, especially in matters of historical theory (which is not even history itself).
 * Sunriseshore (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

 * To clarify my point better Ill explain my chose of the Hong Kong metro photograph. After a long time of deliberating between several images I choose this one because it represented several key words used in the text to explain the meaning of being modern. For one there is the location of where the photo was taken - Hong Kong a British Colony in China. Along with this goes with urbanization, of course cities existed prior to modern times but they were far smaller and unsanitary. To my understanding the location of Hong Kong was a small village prior to colonialism.

 * The metro system was specifically chosen because it is infrastructure which allowed (and still does allow) modern cities to function in a productive safe pace, unique for the modern time at least on such a large scale. Therefore the photograph demonstrates Colonialism, Globalism, and Urbanism all of which are large concepts in the topic. This might sound a little pedantic but the point holds true. The image is attempting to visually represent large theoretical concepts in a hands-on fashion. This was especially important I believed because this was near the beginning of the article. Clearly the written content is trying to introduce the Modern History by discussing the theory and definition of being modern first.

 * Sunriseshore (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * First just some general advice regarding talk pages. Please try to properly WP:INDENT your posts because such other things make threads much easier to follow, especially as more and more editors join a discussion. Next, Wikipedia article content is basically determined through consensus; it’s OK to be WP:BOLD, but disagreements are resolved according to WP:DR, which basically means using discussion to establishing a consensus. All editors in good-standing are welcome to participate in article talk page discussions, including people who might be considered WP:EXPERTs in the subject matter; however, arguments made editors with academic credentials, etc. aren’t automatically given more credence than arguments made by others. What matters the most is what relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines say and how to best apply them.  As you’ve probably noticed, one other editor has also posted above that they feel the image use is excessive. You might also have noticed that another editor added a Too many images template (and a few other templates) to the top of the article. So, this indicates that I’m not the only editor who feels that image use might be excessive. You’ve nominated this article for WP:GA status. I believe the article’s chances of being upgraded to GA status will only be enhanced by removing many of the images and trying to focus only on the key ones. What those key ones are something that can be determined through further article talk page discussion. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

 * To be honest I began to believe that the nomination was not going to be addressed but that is a fair point. I can agree that we should talk about the images which are worth :::::keeping the most in the article. Sunriseshore (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree this article is over imaged including MOS:SANDWICHING by definition. Cleaning up some illogical placement should fix some of it: Beatles in "American Peace"? "The Blue Marble" should be moved to "Space Age" and "Hubble Ultra Deep Field" should be deleted, etc. At each double squeeze one image can be deleted, they read as redundant or a little off topic for the section, we can not depict everything. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

 * I still think this article needs to be well illustrated in comparison to prior however I have a made a moderate removal that hope can serve as a compromise.Sunriseshore (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I took some more images out for breathing room. -- Beland (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Modern history for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Modern history is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Modern history until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in t he discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 11:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * World 1920 empires colonies territory.png

Proposed Split
A proposal was made in February, but there has little discussion since. I think given that early and late modern history are two separate different fields of study in historiography, it makes sense that Late Modern History just like Early Modern History, be given its own article, where more details can be discussed on events, and how they fit into historiography of the period.

Bear in mind that modern history in the techincal framework is everything from 1800 to 1945 (or 50) maybe, so the article will mostly flesh out, the general summary of industrialization, imperialism, the consumer economy and the World Wars. I am not sure, if that would allow for any reductions of this current article, because as it stands, it provides a very basic summary as is. -Sunriseshore  [this comment was made at 10:45, 21 June 2019]
 * This article is probably too long, and this is a huge subject. I agree with the idea of splitting it up, and I don't think an overview that merely combines highlights from two periods with full articles is worthwhile. We already have early modern period; most of this article would move to late modern period and the disambiguation there would have to move or be turned into hatnotes. -- Beland (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * History of the world has a high-level summary of the early modern, late modern, and contemporary periods, so after moving details to sub-articles I'm planning to redirect there. -- Beland (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no useful definition of the split between "early modern", "late modern", and "post-modern", with the last one not always agreed to even exist. Different fields of study -- arts, society, politics, military, technology -- casually use the terms quite differently, and there's little agreement even within these fields.  We will not find authoritative sources that cover these as distinct subjects with any consistency.  Thus what we put in or leave out of the proposed articles will be based on individual editors' choices, becoming some form of SYNTH or OR by definition, so cannot ever become a good articles if separated.  The article late modern period currently suffers from this problem, which is why it's a mishmash of disconnected sections and not a good article.  Even this article, Modern history, struggles with this lack of useful definition, with similar results.  If this article is too large, we should cut down the bloat in this article, not spread it around to allow more articles to become even more bloated.  --A D Monroe III(talk)  16:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, an immediate concern is that when these two periods are in the same article, we have the same problem, because they are in different sections. But considering the deeper question, I'd say that especially at this scale, pretty much all periodizations of history are fuzzy concepts. We could make the same objections about "modern period" or Bronze Age (which happened at different times in different places, and in some places not at all) or Second Industrial Revolution or even World War II. Or about other fuzzy concepts on which there are major definitional disagreements like sandwich. We would be a very poor encyclopedia if we didn't have any articles about these things, which are real enough to scope out a useful article. It would be definitely be problematic if we said "the late modern period objectively exists and these are definitively the years it spans". It's not original research or impermissible synthesis to say "sources disagree on the definition" and to explain the different boundaries and if it's interesting why there's a controversy. For example, look at the map on Middle East which does a great job explaining three different definitions commonly encountered. Or even at Early modern period which visualizes the fuzziness of the the political boundaries of this period. As you point out, this type of periodization crosses fields, so we could do a similar visualization to show how coherent periods in the history of war or technology or culture also form a ragged boundary or simply span multiple periods. If you think it would be more helpful to have objective, clear scoping that distances the encyclopedia from periodization controversies, we could use titles like History of the world (1500-1815).  I'm not sure if we did that if we'd have a separate article on early modern period that covers more or less the same timespan but focuses on periodization specifically. At this level of detail, many of the most interesting things to say describe the long-term trends rather than trying to catalog a very large number of important events or individual threads, though that is also to some degree important. Picking arbitrary start and end years doesn't really solve the boundary-drawing problem, because at this scale there threads and trends that span any given year boundary and we'd have to explain that for context. One might also raise the same objection for this approach anyway, that picking a certain year to stop one article and start another is an act of original research. But I think decisions about whether to merge or separate articles like this are actually just an editorial decision about how to organize an abundance of content, made for the convenience of readers and ease of explanation.  Late modern period has original research issues on much finer-grained claims unrelated to the scope of the article, which early modern period doesn't seem to have (or at least it's not tagged). When I was separating it out, I definitely found material that was misplaced in early vs. late, but I think I was able to make two coherent piles of history without relying on any one rigid definition, minimizing overlap to avoid duplication, but explaining the ragged boundaries and limitations of the periodization terminology.
 * As for the issue of bloat, trimming this article down would make it too close to History of the world to be a useful addition to the encyclopedia, I think. For the next level of detail beyond that top-level summary, there is so much to say I think trying to fit that into a single article would make it too long. Especially given the well-developed early modern history; up-merging that here would definitely make it too long. -- Beland (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/2
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/2. Sdkb (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Early modern period which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Modern era which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Modern history


text:
Roy Plomley

Francis Roy Plomley, (20 January 1914 – 28 May 1985) was an English radio broadcaster, producer, playwright and novelist. He is best remembered for devising the BBC Radio series Desert Island Discs, which he hosted from its inception in 1942 until his death.

Early life
Plomley was born in Kingston upon Thames, Surrey, the only surviving child of pharmaceutical chemist Francis John Plomley (1868–1942) and Ellinor Maud (1880–1968; née Wigg). He was educated at King's College School, Wimbledon. On leaving school he worked first briefly for an estate agent, then for a London advertising agency, and then in publishing.

His original aim was to be an actor, and he did secure very minor parts in a number of films, e.g. To the Public Danger (1948), Double Confession (1950), but he soon drifted into broadcasting, coming to public notice as an announcer, and later producer, for the International Broadcasting Company (IBC), starting on Radio Normandy in April 1936 and moving on at the end of that year to the IBC's Paris-based station, Poste Parisien.

Between mid-1937 and late 1939 he was involved in writing and production, travelling back and forth between these two IBC stations in France and the company's offices and studios in London, while also presenting the variety programme Radio Normandy Calling, recorded on location in theatres at UK seaside resorts and regularly beating the BBC in audience ratings.

World War II
This part of his career came to an abrupt end when commercial broadcasting from the continent was brought to a halt by World War II. Plomley and his new wife, Diana Wong, whom he married earlier that year stayed on in Paris, only narrowly escaping back to the UK via a circuitous route through the chaos and panic of the Fall of France, losing all their possessions in the process, as German occupying forces approached the French capital in June 1940.

Desert Island Discs
In November 1941, Plomley devised the BBC Radio series Desert Island Discs. The idea spontaneously came to him one evening while at home, and he wrote to Leslie Perowne, who was in charge of popular record programmes. He had a favourable reply and so, in his little back bedroom/study he set out his ideas with the names of personalities to be invited to participate. In those days of WWII every BBC Radio show was scripted by Plomley and submitted for censorship.

On 29 January 1942, the first of a series of eight weekly programmes was broadcast. Each show consisted of an interview with a celebrity, interspersed by the guest's choice of music. His contract was renewed for a further 15 shows. In the end he presented 1,791 editions of the programme stretching over 43 years. Its success was attributed to his skill as an interviewer and to his meticulous research.

Plomley was succeeded as presenter by Michael Parkinson (1986–1988), then by Sue Lawley (1988–2006), Kirsty Young (2006–2018) and most recently by Lauren Laverne. Desert Island Discs is the second longest-running radio programme in the world (after the Grand Ole Opry), and it is still running.

Until late September 2009, unlike many other BBC radio programmes, Desert Island Discs was unavailable for Listen Again on the BBC website. This was because when Roy Plomley devised the programme he was a freelance producer, and it had therefore been argued that the 'format rights' of the programme belonged to him rather than to the BBC. At his death, those 'rights' passed to his widow, and the BBC were subsequently unable to negotiate the right to include Desert Island Discs in their Listen Again offering. It was announced on 27 September 2009 that an agreement had been reached with the family as to payment of royalties and it would be available via iPlayer.

Other work
Plomley's broadcasting career was not restricted to Desert Island Discs; he also compiled and presented several feature programmes and was the chairman of BBC Radio's game show Many a Slip from 1964 to 1979, and a participant in such panel games as Does the Team Think?, also on BBC Radio. He also anchored Round Britain Quiz in 1961. For television he produced Dinner Date with Death in 1949, claimed to be the first UK film made for TV, and in the same year chaired We Beg to Differ on BBC Radio, transferring with it to BBC Television in 1951. He also wrote the screenplay for the 1953 film The Blakes Slept Here.

Plomley was appointed OBE in 1975. He was Chairman of the Radio and Television Writers' Association from 1957 to 1959, and was voted BBC Radio Personality of the Year in 1979. He published 16 stage plays (one of which, Cold Turkey, was put on in the West End), and one novel. He was posthumously inducted into the Radio Academy's Hall of Fame.

After a period of declining health, Plomley died from a heart attack at his home in Putney on 28 May 1985, at the age of 71; he was buried at Putney Vale Cemetery.

title: Roy Plomley


text:
Talk:Bio-Lizard

VFD Result
The result of the VFD can be found here: Votes for deletion/Bio-Lizard -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bio-Lizard


text:
Talk:Geb

Untitled
Need some citation for the relationship between Geb, fatness and so on quoted in the article. Apepch7 (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Added the following to the top: Slicksurfer1898 (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

trying to fix up the article flow
Wow, that is kind of sort of a really bad start to an article. Not sure how it got mungled up so bad (not to mention there is no need to include "Other pagan religions did this" at the beginning) or is not in the right format. I'll try and fix it. 204.112.158.144 (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

More Human Terms?
"Ptah and Ra, creator deites, usually begin the list of divine ancestors. There is speculation between Shu and Geb and who was the first god-king of Egypt. The story of how Shu, Geb, and Nut were separated in order to create the cosmos is now being interpreted in more human terms; exposing the hostility and sexual jealousy. Between the father son jealously and Shu rebelling against the divine order, Geb challenges Shu’s leadership. Geb takes Shu’s mother, Tefnut, as his chief queen, separating Shu from his sister-wife. Just as Shu had previously done to him."

I'll admit, I haven't done much extensive reading on Egyptian Mythology lately, but this is the first I ever heard about something like this, particularly those last few sentences. The lack of citations/sources doesn't really help. Can anyone else confirm this? 2601:281:C901:4400:1478:FD80:2BB8:22B (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Geb / Goose
A very interesting section but the way of phrasing should be tidied up. There are often strongly competing hypotheses in Egyptology. The details on the Geb Goose attribution are fascinating, and (as a non-Egyptologist) quite possibly correct I have no doubt, but they are not proof -- there are far too many cross-overs and allusions to say "This theory is assumed to be incorrect" unless saying who says it, how and where (the passive tense suggests that it is a generally accepted theory). The statements of the authors would be helpful as that is the way forward to academic certainty. Richard H Wilkinson is a very well-known authority. Does he defend his position or has he withdrawn it? Either way it would be good practice to re-phrase. You could say that " [Egyptologist X] says that the popular theory that "Geb was associated with a mythological divine creator goose" is incorrect. Make the author of the statement the subject. (Rather than the way that it is phrased now, which sounds like a personal attack on R.H. Wilkinson et al) Then towards the end of the paragraph you can say, "contra: Richard H Wilkinson (or whoever)however states that, ..." and make an exact quote.

Wikipedia is perhaps not the place for personal attacks. There's probably no need to mention these other Egyptologists by name unless you can quote them and make a joined-up case in an proper academic fashion.

I've glanced through a few of Prof. Wilkinson's books on my shelf and can't find a statement to the effect you claim. The closest I found was in an internet search which quoted in relation to 'Goose and snake as earth god' from “Reading Egyptian Art: A hieroglyphic guide to ancient Egyptian painting and sculpture” (which I don't have) p.97: "With these achievements in its résumé, the Goose landed several high-profile and long-term jobs. From the earliest times on, a goose was the emblem of the earth god Geb and sacred to him." http://phaistosgame.com/Phaistos24.htm

It doesn't say " mythological divine creator goose", just "goose".

Good luck.

Parzivalamfortas 00:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas (talk • contribs)

This article is bad
This is awful I mean write like normally, idiots 82.77.55.176 (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Article
The articles are much better you people write badly 82.77.55.176 (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Geb


text:
Talk:Castrum doloris

1
The term is in regular use, at least in scholarly articles. I changed the typo baldachimes to the correct spelling. References abound on the web.

[Castrum Doloris of Emperor Rudolf II] in the Cathedral of St Vitus, Prague.

[Castrum Dolris of Pope Sixtus V] referenced in a scholarly article.

It seems clear that the entry wasn't just vanity. Lee-Anne 04:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A castrum, by the way, also refers to a castle, or anything resembling a castle, which is, strictly speaking, a diminutive variation of the same word. Lee-Anne 04:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"Pope Sixtus V's funeral arrangements included a castrum doloris in the mid 14th Century..." This is indisputably wrong. Pope Sixtus V died on August 27, 1590. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.107.59.41 (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

VFD Result
The result of the VFD can be found here: Votes for deletion/Castrum doloris -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Castrum doloris


text:
Raphine, Virginia

Raphine is an unincorporated community in Rockbridge County in the Shenandoah Valley in the U.S. state of Virginia.

History
The name "Raphine" was chosen in honor of James Edward Allen Gibbs (1829-1902), a local farmer who patented a novel single-thread chain-stitch sewing machine on June 2, 1857. Gibbs had named his home in the area ("Raphine Hall"), and the new railroad station ("Raphine"), after the ancient Greek word "rhaphis", meaning "needle.". In partnership with James Willcox, Gibbs formed the Willcox & Gibbs Sewing Machine Company. Willcox & Gibbs commercial sewing machines are still made and used in the 21st century.

Nearby, the McCormick plantation Walnut Grove, was the home of Cyrus McCormick (1809-1884)'s family, including parents and brothers. His father owned more than 500 acres.

McCormick became famous as the inventor of the mechanical reaper in 1831. He moved to Chicago, Illinois in 1847, and was the founder, with his brother Leander, of the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company. It became part of International Harvester Corporation in 1902. Donated to the state of Virginia in the 1960s, the McCormick property was used as a test farm for Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (better known as "Virginia Tech").

Surviving as important structures of their historic period, Walnut Grove, the Kennedy-Lunsford Farm, and Kennedy-Wade Mill are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Publications

 * The Rockbridge Advocate (monthly magazine)
 * The News-Gazette (weekly newspaper)
 * Rockbridge Weekly (weekly newspaper)

title: Raphine, Virginia


text:
Star Light, Star Bright (book)

Star Light, Star Bright is the name of a 1976 collection of science fiction short stories by American writer Alfred Bester, first published in 1976.

Contents

 * "Adam and No Eve"
 * "Time Is the Traitor"
 * "Oddie And Id"
 * "Hobson's Choice"
 * "Star Light, Star Bright"
 * "They Don't Make Life Like They Used To"
 * "Of Time and Third Avenue"
 * "The Pi Man"
 * "Something Up There Likes Me"

title: Star Light, Star Bright (book)


text:
Giovanni Palatucci

Giovanni Palatucci (31 May 1909 – 10 February 1945) was an Italian police official who was long believed to have saved thousands of Jews in Fiume between 1939 and 1944 (current Rijeka in Croatia) from being deported to Nazi extermination camps. In 2013 a research panel of historians led by the Centro Primo Levi reviewed almost 700 documents and concluded that Palatucci had followed Italian Social Republic and German orders concerning the Jews and enabling the deportation of the majority of the 570 Jews living in Fiume and surrounding areas, 412 of whom were deported to Auschwitz, a higher percentage than in any Italian city. The matter is currently the topic of scholarly debate. A national commission of historians recommended by the Union of the Italian Jewish Communities, the Center for Contemporary Jewish Documentation in Milan, the Italian Ministry of the Interior and the Centro Primo Levi NY is conducting a comprehensive review of the documents.

Arrested on charges of treason and embezzlement, Palatucci was deported to Dachau concentration camp. He died there of typhus months before the camp's liberation.

Biography
Palatucci was born in Montella, Avellino, Italy. He graduated from the University of Turin, Faculty of Law in 1932. In 1936 he entered police service in Genoa and the following year he was assigned to Fiume. For 5 decades, Palatucci was believed to have been Fiume Chief of Police, and that he used his power to help the Jews until he got arrested. Even though already in 1994, historian Marco Coslovich published the documents showing that Palatucci never had more than a subordinate administrative role, in which he excelled and for which he was praised by his superiors, the misrepresentation of his position continued until the 2013, when the Holocaust Museum stated in its anniversary exhibition that Palatucci "used his power of Chief of Police to help the Jews".

Palatucci, known as “the Italian Schindler,” has long been credited with saving thousands of Jews during the Holocaust while serving in the police department in the city of Fiume, and was designated by Yad Vashem as one of the Righteous Among the Nations.

After the promulgation of racial laws against Jews in 1938 and at the beginning of World War II in 1939, Palatucci was chief of the Foreigners' Office. According to his hagiographers, he began falsifying documents and visas.

The documentary report issued by Centro Primo Levi NY in 2013 demonstrates that no evidence nor testimony of such activity was ever found. Moreover, the report reviews in depth hundreds of police records preserved at the State Archive of Rijeka showing that one of Palatucci's main activities between 1938 and 1943 was the compilation and update of the census of the Jews. The census was the principal instrument in the application of the Racial Laws and in Fiume it was compiled and maintained with unparalleled thoroughness.

Hagiographers also claim that when Palatucci "officially deported" Jews, he instead arranged for them to be sent to Campagna, telling them to contact his uncle, the Catholic Bishop of Campagna Giuseppe Maria Palatucci, who would offer them the greatest assistance possible.

Already Marco Coslovich in 1994 had demonstrated through extensive documentation that Palatucci and the Police of Fiume had no power to decide internment location for the Jews. More recently the database of foreign Jews interned in Italy curated by Anna Pizzuti provided unequivocal evidence of the implausibility of this theory. As published in Pizzuti's documentary resource, the Jews deported from Fiume to Campagna are 40. Moreover, 10 of this allegedly "protected group" ended up in Auschwitz.

Hagiographers also claim that he managed to destroy all documented records of some 10,000 Jewish refugees living in the town, issuing them false papers and providing them with funds. This theory has been questioned by several historians, including Marco Coslovich and Silva Bon. The latter, in her "The Jewish Communities of Fiume and the Carnaro" (Trieste, 2001) argued that, based on official records, the Germans and the RSI police conducted the arrests of the Jews through the lists of the Italian police. The arrests began in October 1943 and were organized first as round-ups and then as targeted operations in which the Italian Questura provided information to both locate and identify Fiume Jews. Both German and Italian records indicate that by June 1944 hardly any Jews had remained in Fiume. Moreover, if local records had been destroyed, something of which there is no sign, those refugees would still appear in the central police archive that kept copies of all local police headquarters as well as in the records of the Italian DP camps after the war, which is not the case.

Following the 1943 capitulation of Italy, Fiume was occupied by Nazis. Purportedly, he continued to clandestinely help Jews and maintain contact with the Resistance, until his activities were discovered by the Gestapo.

However, both German and Italian documents show that Palatucci was arrested for treason and for having transmitted to Britain official documents requesting negotiations for Fiume’s post-war status under Italian aegis.

As the imminent defeat of the Axis became clear, many RSI officers began to negotiate with the Allies concerning Italy's post war fate and their own. The tensions between the German and Italian RSI forces grew harsher. On the Eastern border, near Fiume, British support of Yugoslav resistance fighters grew stronger causing continuous attacks. Palatucci highest superior, to whom he reported, Tullio Tamburini was arrested in June for treason and embezzlement and deported to Dachau. After the liberation of Florence, in August 1944, Roberto Tomasselli, his direct superior and protector who had left him in his place, defected the ranks of Salò and ended up in an Anglo-American POW camp. His chief of cabinet and close collaborator in Fiume, left for Milan, where he served briefly Mussolini ailing administration and passed to the Liberation forces before the Allies entered the city.

On 13 September 1944 Palatucci was arrested. Oral sources claim that he was condemned to death, but no documentary evidence of this fact ever emerged. Along with other Italian policemen from Fiume and Trieste who were also accused of treason and embezzlement, he was deported to the Dachau concentration camp, where he died during the epidemics of typhus on 9 February 1945, before the camp was liberated by the Allies on 29 April 1945.

The Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial honored him in 1990 as Righteous Among the Nations, for helping one Jewish woman. The Institute of the Righteous commission in 1990 found no evidence that he might have assisted anyone outside of this case. In October 2002, the Pope's vicar in Rome opened a beatification case for Palatucci, but in June 2013 the Vatican announced that it had asked a historian to review the new findings.

Allegations of collaboration
According to the 2013 research, the story surrounding Palatucci stemmed from the activity of Bishop Giuseppe Maria Palatucci and Rodolfo Grani, a Jewish man from Fiume who had briefly been interned in Campagna and remained friendly with the bishop after the war. As shown in the 2013 report, the main narrative of all rescue operations attributed to Palatucci can be found in a speech that the bishop delivered in Ramat Gan (Tel Aviv) on the occasion of a dead boy ceremony in honor of his nephew. According to the CPL report, there is no evidence that Grani ever died, returned to Fiume after 1940 or even met Giovanni Palatucci.

Michael Day asked in The Independent newspaper how Palatucci helped "more than 5,000 Jews to escape in a region where officially, the Jewish population was half that". Anna Pizzuti, editor of the database of foreign Jewish internees in Italy, told Corriere Della Sera that it was impossible that Palatucci could have rerouted thousands of Jews to Campagna when "no more than 40 Fiume residents were interned in Campagna; and a third of these ended up in Auschwitz".

The Giovanni Palatucci Foundation, which campaigns for Palatucci's beatification, criticized what it called "revisionist historians", and cites on its website individual cases where Jews claim relatives were saved by Palatucci’s direct intervention. It also said that critics who claim it is untenable to suggest he saved 5,000 Jews in an area with a Jewish population of just half that number, have failed to take into account the huge number of migrant Jews from eastern or central Europe who may have been present.

However to date, all research concerning the influx of Jewish refugees through Italy's eastern border, including works by Klaus Voigt, Liliana Picciotto and Anna Pizzuti, concurs that very few refugees were able to pass through Fiume.

The historian of Early Modern Europe Anna Foa of Sapienza University of Rome wrote in a June 2013 article for the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that the decision to re-classify Palatucci, a Catholic, as a collaborator was hasty, bur conceded that more study was needed. She asserted that the target of the move against Palatucci was the papacy of Pope Pius XII, and wrote that "in targeting Palatucci the desire was essentially to hit a Catholic involved in rescuing Jews in support of the idea that the Church spared no effort to help the Jews — a person whose cause of beatification was under way. ... But this is ideology and not history." Foa argued that "Palatucci may have saved only a few dozen lives instead of the 5,000 attributed to him". She agreed that Palatucci's achievements have at times been exaggerated based on the limited evidence, but noted that scholars should be cautious about jumping to conclusions given the paucity of evidence. Foa claimed that there are many testimonies in favor of Palatucci and concluded that before a definitive determination can be made about Palatucci's role in the Holocaust, the documentation used by the Primo Levi Center would have to be made available for other historians to review. The New York Times reported a reply from Centro Primo Levi's director, Natalia Indrimi, stating that the documents have been available to the scholarly community since the inception of the project, and that, if testimonies are available, they should be made public.

Fr. Murray K. Watson, vice-rector and assistant professor of Sacred Scripture and Ecumenism at St. Peter's Seminary in Ontario, said in June 2013 "I think a judicious patience as regards this question is probably wise, since even the scholars familiar with this material disagree about its meaning and interpretation."

title: Giovanni Palatucci


text:
Talk:Philippa Forrester

Spelling
I have been quite confused about how Philippa is spelt, and moved the page backwards and forwards. Forrester certainly has two R's, about that there seems to be little doubt.

However, the Internet brings up all sorts of pages claiming her name is Phillipa, some claiming it's Philippa, and some purporting it's both, at the same time!

There seems to be more evidence for Philippa. One L, three Ps. Brequinda 13:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well the BBC says it's "Philippa Forrester" and that's how she spells it on the cover of her book ... Jaster 08:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Update required
"A third child is due at the end of September 2006." - its now November 2006, presumably her child has been born now? Thryduulf 03:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Family
"I don't believe the father and uncle part. Her parents are Brian and Vicky Forrester, for a start!" - Carl Rylander Jaster 08:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philippa Forrester. 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/20070629215759/http://www.recyclenow.com/home_composting/celebrity_composters/index.html to http://www.recyclenow.com/home_composting/celebrity_composters/index.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) 19:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philippa Forrester. 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/20110110084852/http://www.halcyonmedia.org/pf.php to http://www.halcyonmedia.org/pf.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Marriage
Having followed the link from this article to Charlie Hamilton James, I noticed the conspicuous complete absence of any reference there to Forrester, from three consecutive edits (the only ones it made) by an IP account in 2020- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlie_Hamilton_James&type=revision&diff=961764158&oldid=957546225 Is there any source indicating a dissolution of their marriage? The latest seems to have been the Telegraph article of 2020 about their relocation to Wyoming in 2015. It's just less than ideal encyclopaedically-speaking for two related articles to present completely different things! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.165.191 (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Philippa Forrester


text:
Acland

Acland is an English surname. The Aclands of Devon (often Dyke Acland: see Acland baronets, Dyke Acland baronets) were an influential family, whose name was derived from Acland near Barnstaple. Notable people with the surname include:

 * Alexander Fuller-Acland-Hood, 1st Baron St Audries (1853–1917), British Conservative Party politician
 * Alexander Acland Hood (disambiguation), multiple people
 * Alfred Dyke Acland (1858–1937), lieutenant colonel in the Royal 1st Devon Yeomanry (territorial army), son of Sir Henry Wentworth Acland
 * Sir Antony Acland (1930–2021), Head of the Diplomatic Service and Provost of Eton
 * Arthur Floyer-Acland (1885–1980), British soldier
 * Charles R. Acland (born 1963), Canadian professor and author
 * Chris Acland (1966–1996), 1990s Britpop musician
 * Emily Acland (1830–1905), pioneer settler in New Zealand and a watercolour artist
 * Sir Francis Dyke Acland, 14th Baronet (1874–1939), British Liberal politician
 * Gilbert Acland-Troyte (1876–1964), British soldier and Conservative Party politician
 * Guy Acland (born 1946), British Army officer and member of the British Royal Household
 * Lady Harriet Acland (1750–1815), wife of John Dyke Acland
 * Henry Acland (1815–1900), physician and son of Sir Thomas Acland
 * Hugh Acland (disambiguation), multiple people
 * Jack Acland (1904–1981), New Zealand politician of the National Party
 * John Acland (disambiguation), multiple people
 * John Edward Troyte (1848–1932), or Acland-Troyte, born Acland, founder of the Oxford University Society of Change Ringers
 * John Acland (British Army officer) (1928–2006), British Army officer
 * Peter Acland (1902–1993), son of Alfred Dyke Acland
 * Reginald Acland (1856–1924), British barrister and judge
 * Sir Richard Acland (1906–1990), 15th Baronet, Member of Parliament and one of the founders of UK's Common Wealth Party
 * Richard Acland (bishop) (1881–1954), British soldier and Anglican bishop
 * Robert D. Acland (1941–2016), son of Sir Richard Acland, and plastic surgeon and microsurgery pioneer
 * Sarah Acland (1815–1878), wife of Sir Henry Acland
 * Sarah Angelina Acland (1849–1930), daughter of Sir Henry Acland and Sarah Acland, and pioneer of colour photography
 * Simon Acland (born 1958), son of Sir Antony Acland, British venture capitalist and author
 * Stafford Floyer-Acland (1916–1994), British soldier
 * Thomas Acland (disambiguation), multiple people

Places

 * Acland, Queensland, a town in the Toowoomba Region, Australia
 * Acland Hospital, Oxford, England

title: Acland


text:
Talk:Giovanni Palatucci

Untitled
Initial content is extracted from. No point adding that link to the page as it will disappear. There is more stuff there which could be added. --Zero 13:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Giovanni Palatucci. 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/20120924111536/http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/press/giovanni-palatucci-italian-397/ to http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/press/giovanni-palatucci-italian-397/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Giovanni Palatucci. 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/20071015011443/http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/?en%2Fsaviors%2Fothers%2Fpalatucci%2Fgiovanni-palatucci-italian.1340.htm to http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/?en%2Fsaviors%2Fothers%2Fpalatucci%2Fgiovanni-palatucci-italian.1340.htm

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) 20:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Giovanni Palatucci


text:
Mayfair Games

Mayfair Games was an American publisher of board, card, and roleplaying games that also licensed Euro-style board games to publish them in English. The company licensed worldwide English-language publishing rights to The Settlers of Catan series between 1996 and 2016.

History
Mayfair Games was founded in 1981 by Darwin Bromley in Chicago, Illinois, United States. The company was created to publish Empire Builder, a railroad game designed by Bromley and Bill Fawcett. In 1982, Mayfair Games expanded its focus to include Role Aids, a line of role-playing game supplements.

In 1993, Mayfair was sued by TSR, Inc., who argued that Role Aids violated their 1984 trademark agreement, being advertised as compatible with Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. The court found that some of the line violated the trademark, but the line as a whole did not violate the agreement, and Mayfair continued publishing the line until the rights were bought by TSR.

In 1996, Mayfair Games became the publisher of The Settlers of Catan in the US. The company shut down for financial reasons in 1997 but was subsequently bailed out by Iron Crown Enterprises (ICE), who purchased most of their assets and restarted operations as Ironwind, Inc. This new company operates publicly under the Mayfair Games trademark.

Pete Fenlon became the CEO of Mayfair Games in 2007 to oversee a major reorganization with a refocusing on core brands, most importantly the Catan family of games. In 2013, Mayfair reported selling more than 750,000 Catan-related products. In January 2016, Mayfair transferred all publishing, commercial, and brand rights for all English-language Catan products to Catan Studio, a newly created subsidiary of the Asmodee Group. Former CEO Pete Fenlon left Mayfair Games to become the CEO of the new company. Larry Roznai was the last CEO of Mayfair games. He joined the company in 1999 as a board member, president, and chief operating officer.

On February 9, 2018, Mayfair announced it had sold all of its assets to the North American branch of Asmodée Éditions, and would be shutting down. Rights to some Mayfair titles are no longer retained by Asmodée.

Notable games
This list includes games published by Mayfair and games licensed by Mayfair from other publishers.

 * 1830: The Game of Railroads and Robber Barons and other 18XX games
 * Agricola
 * Bang!
 * The Settlers of Catan and other Catan games
 * Caverna
 * Cosmic Encounter
 * Discworld: Ankh-Morpork
 * Encounters
 * Empire Builder games
 * I.C.B.M.
 * Isle of Skye: From Chieftain to King
 * Patchwork
 * Role Aids
 * Saboteur
 * Sim City: The Card Game
 * Steam
 * Tigris and Euphrates
 * Underground
 * The Worlds of Boris Vallejo

title: Mayfair Games