text:
Pōtatau Te Wherowhero

Pōtatau Te Wherowhero (died 25 June 1860) was a Māori warrior, leader of the Waikato iwi (confederation of tribes), the first Māori King and founder of the Te Wherowhero royal dynasty. He was first known just as Te Wherowhero and took the name Pōtatau after he became king in 1858. As disputes over land grew more severe Te Wherowhero found himself increasingly at odds with the Government and its policies.

Early life
Te Wherowhero was the eldest son of Te Rau-angaanga, who belonged to the senior chiefly line of Ngāti Mahuta and was a prominent war leader before and during the 1807–1845 Musket Wars. When Te Wherowhero was born near the end of the 18th century his father had just become the principal war chief of the Waikato tribes. Te Rau-angaanga defeated a much larger coastal Tainui and Taranaki force of about 7,000 warriors led by Ngāti Toa chief Pikauterangi in the battle of Hingakaka near Ohaupo. Te Wherowhero's mother, Te Parengaope, was a daughter of a chief of Ngāti Koura, a hapū (subtribe) of Waikato. Te Wherowhero was thus descended from the captains of both the Tainui and Te Arawa waka (canoes), which are said to have brought Māori to New Zealand.

Te Wherowhero grew up in a period of relative peace for the Waikato tribes, following his father's victory over Ngāti Toa in the battle of Hingakaka. He was taught traditional lore, first by his father and then at Te Papa-o-Rotu, the Waikato whare wananga (school of knowledge) at Whatawhata. He lived at Kaitotehe pā on the western bank of the Waikato River, at the base of the Hakarimata Range and opposite Taupiri on the other bank. He had four wives, Whakaawi, Raharaha, Waiata and Ngawaero. His children included Matutaera Tāwhiao, Te Paea Tiaho, Makareta Te Otaota and Tiria (these last two may be the same person).

When his fellow Ngāti Mahuta chief and relative Te Uira killed a Ngāti Toa man, and was in return killed by a war party led by Ngāti Toa chief Te Rauparaha, Te Wherowhero joined his father in attacks on Ngāti Toa at Kāwhia.

When Marore, a wife of Te Rauparaha, was visiting relatives in Waikato for a tangihanga in about 1820, Te Wherowhero instigated her murder by Te Rangi-moe-waka. After a series of revenge killings, Te Wherowhero led 3,000 Waikato and Ngāti Maniapoto warriors on an overland attack on Kāwhia, while 1,500 of their allies from Whaingaroa (Raglan) attacked by a sea route. Together they defeated Ngāti Toa at Te Kakara, near Lake Taharoa, and Waikawau, south of Tirua Point. Te Rauparaha and Ngāti Toa were then besieged at Te Arawi, near Kāwhia Harbour. Some of the Waikato and Maniapoto besiegers did not want to see Ngāti Toa exterminated, so they were permitted to give up their territory at Kāwhia and migrate to northern Taranaki.

Te Wherowhero led a large army to Taranaki, partly to pursue Ngāti Toa and partly to rescue Peehi Tukorehu, a Ngāti Maniapoto chief, whose war party was besieged by Taranaki tribes at Pukerangiora, on the Waitara River. Although never forced to retreat, he incurred large costs in human life in sieges which were sometimes unsuccessful. Early in 1822 the Waikato forces suffered a heavy defeat at the hands of Ngāti Toa and their allies at Motunui in north Taranaki. Te Wherowhero was almost killed when he refused to retreat and abandon the body of a slain Waikato chief. The intervention of Te Rauparaha saved him, but subsequently he had to engage a number of enemy chiefs in single combat, armed with only a digging implement. Eventually his own people returned and a negotiated truce ensued.

Te Wherowhero returned to the Waikato that year in time to take command in an unsuccessful defence of his tribe at Matakitaki (Pirongia) against Ngāpuhi, armed with muskets and led by Hongi Hika on their great rampage through the North Island of 1818 to 1823. The Waikato people settled further south than their usual territory for several years, in fear of further attacks by Ngāpuhi. Te Wherowhero lived at Orongokoekoea on the upper Mokau River, where his wife Whakaawi gave birth to their son Tāwhiao. Peace was made with Ngāpuhi in 1823 and the Waikato re-established themselves on their tribal land. By the time Ngāpuhi re-appeared in the area some ten years later the Waikato had also acquired muskets and could therefore defend themselves successfully.

In 1831 Te Wherowhero led an immense war party against the Taranaki Māori and killed many hundreds of the Ngatiawa tribe, whose lands more than ten years later he claimed by right of conquest.

In 1832 the Waikato tribes led by Te Wherowhero fought a large battle at Ngunguru sandspit against the local Te Waiariki, ending a sustained campaign against Ngapuhi and their coastal allies such as Te Waiariki.

By 1836 Te Wherowhero made peace with the Taranaki tribes. This occurred at a time when missionaries were having a greater impact on iwi in the Waikato. Te Wherowhero himself regularly attended services, but was never baptised.

Waikato's (or more specifically Ngāti Maniapoto's) involvement in the Taranaki war against Government forces in the 1860s can be traced back to Te Wherowhero's long series of attacks against the Taranaki iwi Te Āti Awa. Te Wherowhero at one stage claimed Te Āti Awa were slaves who lived there only on his sufferance, but he was prepared to end all interest in the land when he was paid £250. Keenan argues that Te Wherowhero never occupied Te Āti Awa's land long enough to constitute possession according to Māori customary lore. Nor did Te Āti Awa ever entirely abandon their land, thereby maintaining their occupation rights. During the latter stages of the war in Taranaki it was the involvement of Waikato warriors in bringing food and war materiel (lead and powder) that enabled the Taranaki warriors to keep fighting in the infertile, wet and inhospitable uplands.

Treaty and influence with Grey
In March 1840 Te Wherowhero was living at Awhitu in the western Manukau. Captain William Symonds brought a copy of the Treaty of Waitangi to Manukau for chiefs to sign, but Te Wherowhero refused. However he was friendly towards the colonial government and not opposed to Pākehā presence in areas he controlled. Initially Te Wherowhero favoured the Pākehā arrivals in his territory: his daughter, Tiria, married the trader John Kent.

In May 1844 Te Wherowhero hosted a large intertribal gathering at Remuera, near Auckland, with the view mainly of impressing Governor Robert FitzRoy with the power of Northern Māori. He was subsequently received at Government House, Auckland, and treated with great distinction by Fitzroy. Te Wherowhero built a house at Pukekawa (in today's Auckland Domain) and it witnessed many discussions and negotiations concerning the implementation of the Treaty.

The Waikato tribes sold land initially; Te Wherowhero sold some tribal land around Manukau. However in 1846 he protested vehemently to Queen Victoria about an edict that land not actually occupied or cultivated by Māori was to be considered Crown property.

Between 1847 and 1852 Governor Grey arranged for 861 retired British soldiers called fencibles and their families to establish a number of military villages at Howick, Panmure, Otahuhu and Onehunga. In April 1849 Te Wherowhero signed an agreement with Governor George Grey to provide Auckland with military protection on the same basis as the fencibles. 121 Ngati Mahuta -originally from Tamahere, now on the southern outskirts of Hamilton, had British officers but supplied their own weapons. The land they were given by Grey was 80 one acre lots and 80 five acre lots at Māngere. Other chiefs who made the agreement were Kati, Nopora, Kahawai, Ponku, Te Tauke, Rewaite, Hankapanga, Te Katea and Rameka Kiaki (sic). They could be called upon for defence should it become necessary after the violent uprising of Māori under Hōne Heke and Kawiti. Grey had learnt the importance of having the support of kūpapa, Māori who sided with the Crown, during that campaign to restore law and order and assert government authority. During the 1851 attack on Auckland by about 350-450 Ngati Paoa a British regiment, the Onehunga fencibles and HMS Fry defended Auckland at Mechanics Bay with Ngati Mahuta playing no part.

Although he never ceded sovereignty to the British Crown, he did have good rapport with early New Zealand governors, especially George Grey.

As more settlers came to New Zealand, from the early 1850s Te Wherowhero became less friendly to the Pākehā. This was at least partially due to the nature of these arrivals in the Waikato lands, who often encroached on Māori tribal lands with no formal jurisdiction or consensual purchasing or gifting of the land.

Māori King
In the early 1850s, a movement to establish a Māori King developed. This aimed to unite the Māori people and to act as a counterbalance to Queen Victoria. But above all the King Movement wanted to halt the sale and alienation of Māori land by the Pākehā Government.

Mātene Te Whiwhi travelled throughout New Zealand seeking a chief of high standing who was willing to be king. Iwikau Te Heuheu Tūkino III of Ngāti Tūwharetoa suggested that Te Wherowhero should be approached, and his choice was supported by Wiremu Tāmihana of Ngāti Hauā. Pōtatau, then elderly, expressed initial reluctance, but agreed in April 1857 at Rangiriri. He was installed as king at Ngāruawāhia in June 1858.

Pōtatau himself wished to continue to work in co-operation with the British Government, but many of his followers adopted a much more independent position. Gradually the two sides polarised and grew apart, culminating five years later in warfare (see Invasion of the Waikato and New Zealand Wars).

Death
Pōtatau died at Ngāruawāhia on 25 June 1860 and is buried on Mount Taupiri, a mountain close to his royal residence in Ngāruawāhia. His son Matutaera Tāwhiao succeeded him.

title: Pōtatau Te Wherowhero


text:
Mohotani

Mohotani (sometimes spelt Moho Tani; also called Molopu or Motane) is an uninhabited island southeast of Hiva Oa and east of Tahuata in the southern Marquesas Islands. It has an area of 15 km2. Much of the island's sparse vegetation has been destroyed by feral goats and sheep, to the extent that following its rare rains, the sea around it is stained red from runoff. Early reports describes the island as fertile, with forest and fields. When Thor Heyerdahl visited the island in 1938, there were only a few goats and remains of deserted huts and villages.

Mohotani is administratively part of the commune (municipality) of Hiva-Oa, itself in the administrative subdivision of the Marquesas Islands.

It is reported that at one time the island was inhabited by a clan called the "Moi a Tiu", but that population has long since been wiped out by disease and war, the few survivors having departed for Hiva ʻOa. In pre-European times, the island was considered part of the territory of the province of Pepane.

In 1992, the island and its surrounding smaller islands (including Terihi) were officially protected by the declaration of the Motane Nature Reserve.

History
Before the arrival of westerners, Mohotani was inhabited by the Moi a Tiu tribe. It was the smallest inhabited island in the archipelago. Decimated by fighting and disease brought by foreign sailors, the few survivors eventually abandoned the island and headed for Hiva Oa.

Mohotani is uninhabited today, but there is clear archaeological evidence to suggest a permanent Polynesian settlement. American anthropologist Ralph Linton (1893–1953) located the remains of a settlement. Thor Heyerdahl found several stone house platforms (paepae) in the arid east of the island during a brief foray in 1938. The island was inhabited by a single clan called "Moi-Atiu," a collateral line of a tribe from Hiva Oa.

Mohotani was discovered by Europeans in 1595 by the Spanish navigator Álvaro de Mendaña de Neyra on his second voyage to Europe. He did not set foot on the island, but named it "San Pedro" in honor of Saint Simon Peter and in reference to the name of its captain, Pedro Fernández de Quirós. Mendana described it as an island "covered with much forest" and could see no signs of inhabitants.

James Cook, during his second voyage to the Pacific, passed through the strait between the islands of Hiva Oa and Mohotani on April 7, 1774, but without entering Mohotani. He describes the island as follows. "'San Pedro [Mohotani] is rather high, but not mountainous, and is about 3 leagues in circumference. [The island] lies 4 ½ Leagues south of the eastern point of La Dominica [Hiva Oa] and we do not know whether it is inhabited or not, probably not, however, as nature does not seem to have endowed it with anything that men require.'" In the cartographic sketch of William Wales, astronomer aboard the Resolution, Mohotani is marked with the name "Onateayo", probably the name given to it by the inhabitants of the island of Hiva Oa.

In 1992, it was declared "Motane Island Nature Reserve" (réserve naturelle de l'île de Motane) to protect its endangered ecosystem. The reserve extends to Terihi islet, which is home to colonies of seabirds such as gannets, terns and frigate birds.

Geography
Mohotani is located 17 km south and southeast of Hiva Oa, 21 km east of Tahuata and 47 km north of Fatu Iva. With an area of 15 km2, it forms an open crescent to the east, about 8 km long from north to south and 2 km wide at most from east to west. It is a high island, with its highest elevation (520 meters) in the south, and its overall shape resembles the back of a whale.

Terihi
At 300 meters to the southeast is Terihi, a rocky islet of 0.150 km2 with a very steep coastline and a total perimeter of 3.4 kilometers, which is part of the same volcanic complex. It rises 245 meters above sea level.

The flora is sparse and consists mainly of the hardy grass Eragrostis xerophila and the slow-growing nightshade Nicotiana fragrans var Fatuhivensis, a species endemic to Fatu Hiva and Mohotani.

Geology
Mohotani corresponds to the west-southwestern part of a collapsed caldera, which belonged to a much larger volcano, about ten kilometers in diameter. This volcano was born from the presence of a hot spot in this part of the world, several million years ago.

The island was formed in two phases, the most recent of which dates from about 2.2 million years ago. It is composed mainly of basalt.

Flora and fauna
Mohotani has been protected since 1971 (French Polynesia Sites Commission, Order No. 2559 of July 28, 1971). Hunting is regulated and requires a permit, but the remote island is also visited without a permit. In addition, trees are illegally cut down to obtain wood for the souvenir industry. Effective management and monitoring of the protected area is still lacking.

Sheep introduced by French settlers from Hiva Oa in the second half of the 19th century have run rampant and cause erosion by grazing low vegetation.

Flora
Mohotani can be divided into three vegetation zones: The east is arid over a wide swath, the north has little vegetation, and the west center of the island is covered by dense forest that remains largely pristine. The entire east is arid due to animal browsing, and vegetation cover is sparse. In favorable locations, Nicotiana fragrans var. fatuhivensis, which belongs to the tobacco plants and is endemic to Fatu Hiva and Mohotani, purslane (Portulaca oleracea), and the herbs Eragrostis xerophila and Brachiaria reptans grow.

The northern part of the island is also severely damaged by grazing. The evergreen shrub Arbutilon hirtum, Cordia lutea and Waltheria tomentosa appear as low-growing forms. Pisonia grandis, Premna tahitensis and Morinda citrifolia also grow in the few places that are not accessible to animals.

The central plateau, in the west, is covered by a dense forest area that covers about a quarter of the island. It consists of giant Pisonia grandis, which not infrequently reach a height of 30 to 40 meters. Other common trees are Cordia subcordata, Thespesia populnea, Hibiscus tiliaceus, Pandanus tectorius, Ficus marcuesensis, Casuarina equisetifolia, and occasional coconut trees among them.

Fauna
There are only two species of mammals, neither of which is indigenous: the Pacific rat, probably introduced by Polynesians as a food animal, and sheep, which Europeans settled in the 19th century.

Ten species of seabirds and seven species of land birds, two of which are endemic, have been observed in Mohotani:

Frigatebirds nest in the large pisonias. Other seabirds found at Mohotani and Terihi include noddi (Anous stolidus), sooty tern (Sterna fuscata) and fairy tern (Gygis alba).

Among the landbirds, the Marquesas monarch, in the Pomarea mendozae montanensis variation, and Acrocephalus caffer consobrinus, a subspecies of the long-billed warbler, are endemic. Other rare and threatened species include the Marquesas warbler (Acrocephalus mendanae), the Marquesas salangana (Aerodramus ocistus), and the Petit-Thouars fruit pigeon (Ptilinopus dupetithouarsii).

Resources

 * Christian, F.W. Eastern Pacific Lands, Tahiti and the Marquesas Islands.  London, 1910.
 * Heyerdahl, Thor: Fatuhiva

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

title: Mohotani


text:
Motu Oa

Motu Oa ("Long Rock") is a small island, 1 km southeast of Ua Pou, in the northern Marquesas Islands in French Polynesia. It is 1100 meters long and up to 460 meters wide at its northern end. Its area is approximately 30 hectares, making it the largest of the satellite islands of Ua Pu. The island is a haven for seabirds and is home to boobies, noddies, terns, and petrels.

title: Motu Oa


text:
Talk:Zhao Yun

Main picture
Can we perhaps get a better main picture for Zhao Yun? He's a historical figure, not an aggregation of polygons from a video game. Such a ridiculously romanticised picture is suitable for the article on Lara Croft - not for Zhao Zilong.

SuperXW: He's a historical figure without any realistic pictures. Even the Qing dynasty's dispiction is just an imagination of that time. However, I do agree with you that not using a japanese's romanticised video game's picture as the main one. A screenshot from the CCTV drama should be ok. That one was based on most Chinese' traditional impressions of the figures. 203.198.224.143 (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

comment
A man of China or of the Chinese decendent should follow this man on honour, gallantry and wisdom then he can called him self a man of China or Chinese descendent.

Zhao yun can be said a great warrior.I really wish to see him saving the young baby e dou at Changban.written by Angela Verita lin

Cleanup
Why is there an individual page called "Biography of Zhao Yun"? Part of the introduction text could also be moved down to the biography section. Please clean up. --Plastictv 22:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those who have Honor
Even now when Honor and devotion is more of a hard practice, Zhao Yun of the Three Knigdoms shows many people that bravery, respect to his or her lord, and willing to give his or her life means having the most honor on or off the battle field. There are also others who carried the same honor just as he did for his own kingdom.

Zhang Liao: Wei General of the top Five. Zhang He: Wei General of the top Five. Huang Gai: Veteran officer of Wu. Zhou Tai: Body Guard of Sun Quan. --Zhang Liao 04:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Zhao yun
Zhao yuns the man in the game hes awsome but man when i learned about this dude i liked the way he was and now i think hes even more cooler. JG

This article is rubbish.
"He charged into 1,000,000 of Cao Cao troops by himself"

Give me a break...Cao Cao didn't even have that many men. Not to mention that Zhao Yun would have been slaughtered.

There's just too much information taken from the novel (Not historical)

 * Perhaps you should try and correct it? --Nsevs 17:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * the article should be following history, but in history some generals did charge into a lot of men themselves in ancient china. But how it is written might be a bit biased Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it based on the novel. if in the novel ROTK says so, it's OK to say that. Anyway, Cao-Cao have that number of troops. --User:Rudy[Rudy 11:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also you did know that many documents from the 3k period were lost in Mao's revolution right? So calling 1,000,000 men rubbish isn't a good idea when you considered not knowing the exact number of troops. I.E. How many member are there in the Chinese Communist party? You don't really know but you sum up the number right? So in war is the same way. Also why can't a man face against 1 million men? it's not like they're all compact into a single area, they could be behind him or in front of him or around him. So when Zhao Zilong faced one million men it isn't that they're all in one spot but they could be spreaded out. Also I remember some guy in WWI that took out a few hundred Enemies with his gun....(Clue he was against fighting before he went to war)- Randomguy 9 July 2007

It can be fixed easily
Just because someone added non-historical contents does not mean the entire article is rubbish. That error was removed once, but was added in by another individual. It can be removed again.

Zhao Yun's Bravery and Honor
"Say," said Zhao Zilong, "that I will seek the lost ones in Heaven or Hell, through good or evil. And if I find them not, I will die in the battlefield."

"I am Zhao Zilong of Changshan!" Quotes of Zhao Yun aka Zhao Zilong

 * What's up with these seemingly random thoughts about the Romance of Three Kingdom people? There's always one of those in every RTK article on wikipedia. The talk page isn't made for discussing the novel. And this could be just me, but I believe people would prefer the old ancient drawing of Zhao Yun that was removed to this ridiculous Dynasty Warriors picture. 80.227.100.62 07:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture
I don't think that's Zhao Yun in the main pic; it looks like Guan Yu.

It is indeed a picture of Zhao Yun from an old edition of "ROTK." There are different portraits (all of them imaginary) of Zhao Yun in various books, some look young and some look old. However, in Han Dynasty and the Three Kingdoms era, males with a well groomed beard (i.e., Guan Yu) were considered "handsome," while those without much facial hair were occasionally ridiculed. The picture shown here, though not a true reflection of Zhao Yun, should not be considered any less “accurate” than any other Zhao Yun portrait out there.

Heros in dynasty warriors
why insult images that they use from dynasty warriors? they do a much better job at putting them in a game then any of you do.

Merging Qin Gong article into Zhao Yun article
It has been proposed on the Talk:Qin Gong page that the information there be merged into a section on this page. I think that a section of information about his exploits in the novel should be added. The information on the Qin Gong page falls under this. As long as the information is labeled as fictional tales there shouldn't be any confusion with the historical information under the "Life" section. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 22:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC))

Source Citations
I'm no expert on the subject, but it seams to me that this article was written by some video game fan boys with little historic accuracy. It has a wealth of un-sourced material, and I think should be tagged as 'not verified' until they can be sighted. If they remain unsighted, they should probably be removed. --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 01:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That was quite demeaning. Besides the statement you added a citeneeded tag to, what else needs to be addressed? _dk 03:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey sorry if I sounded rude. I didn't mean for that. However, I stand by the fact that it needs source citations. The entire page has 2 references, which are hardly even used. If the article is to be accurate, it should have a wealth of sources (considering its size). I was going to place citation needed tags in a lot of places, but I realized about 95% of the facts stated are unsourced. Realistically, I realize it shouldn't have citations after every single fact, but I'm just saying, it would be nice to have at least 5-10 sources, (preferably with footnotes). If you shoot for that, it'd probably be sufficient. Thanks for your help. --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 03:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * All of the "Life" section is based on the first source, because that is the only authoritative primary source there is on him. I'll add a source on the RoTK stuff. _dk 14:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's good, but the first two sources are in Chinese. Seeing as this is English Wiki, I'm not sure that cuts it. I'll go ahead and remove the banner, but we really should be shooting for at least 5 legit sources. --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 20:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Inline citations were given. And we have "biography" section instead of "life" section now, still we'll keep on to follow SGZ to enhance related articles from time to time.EkmanLi (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

About Chen Dao
Why did someone insist that some stories in ROTK about Zhao Yun were based on Chen Dao? This is pure speculation and not acceptable. This kind of speculation first arose in some internet chat rooms, it should not belong here.

In Chen Shou's San Guo Zhi as well as some other historical records, Chen Dao was mentioned only briefly and his life achievements remain unclear. To say that Luo Guan Zhong combined Chen and Zhao Yun into one character is not reasonable. Luo created many fictional characters and fictional deeds, but there is no reason to believe he decided to omit Chen Dao for the sake of enhancing Zhao Yun as a character.

 * Well, 2 speculations were discussed above. I don't think the first speculation is correct, but the second "speculation" is quite reasonable and acceptable to me. A few deeds, like assisting Liu Bei's retreat after the latter lost to Lu Yi, and protecting Liu in An'an palace, were achieved by Chen but given to Zhao in the novel. I also completed a major expansion and rewrite on Chen Dao's article in Wiki several months ago.EkmanLi (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Zhao Yun's Horse
In games and pictures, Zhao Yun rides a white horse.This horse is suposed to be a fast and fearless horse. Zhao Yun also has great horsemanship. Ma Chao also has great horsemanship. The horses saddle is red and gold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.157.234 (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Born in 168? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.147.120.68 (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Zilong
I came here looking for Zhao Zilong but found Zhao Yun. I searched the article and he is referred to in a couple of quotes as Zilong "Zilong would never desert me!" but no where is it explained where Zilong comes from. Someone with ready sources want to add this secondary name in the leadin and where it came from? Please? 97.85.185.160 (talk) 05:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

 * "Zilong" (子龍) is Zhao Yun's Chinese style name. It's not much different from a name given to any child by his parents. 暗無天日  contact me (聯絡) 06:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Translation of a passage
皆 in ancient time had several meanings, but it should not be translated as "together" in Zhuge's dialogue (亮曰：「大軍在祁山、箕谷，皆多於賊，而不能破賊為賊所破者，則此病不在兵少也，在一人耳. 今欲減兵省將，明罰思過，校變通之道於將來；若不能然者，雖兵多何益！). First, in terms of its usage in Chinese language, "皆" used after the punctuation "," should not be translated as "together." Second, to take Zhuge's statements to be coherently logical, my translation would be: "Armies in Mount Qi and Ji Valley, were more than the foes..." Note Zhuge omitted Jieting, where Zhang He had more troops than Ma Su at this single point, so it's rather obvious how Zhuge used the word "皆". The reason I pointed out online articles' interpretation on this particular quote was that many people selectively chose the usage of this word without looking into the sentence structure and the whole meaning of the paragraph.EkmanLi (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if we should devote time and space to debunk unscholarly online theories with an unpublished interpretation of our own. That is, unless we actually have secondary sources we can use that dealt with this supposed controversy. _dk (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I also think that without a published interpretation on the ancient usage of "皆" in this particular passage, common translation should be acceptable. Otherwise, all articles have to be deleted (because they haven't been translated by authority word by word)! I left this note here is just a response to earlier opposition to Nick's idea of translating the word "皆" in one rare, ancient meaning. Of course, if citation of published work is given, I'll gladly change my stance. Before that happens, I deem current translation as accurate and sufficient to tell the details.EkmanLi (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Chinese texts do not have Punctuation marks. If you go back to prints from just 100+ years ago, those texts do not have commas, periods, etc. The original meaning of 皆 is "all"/"together," (皆,俱词也. ——《说文>;《傳》皆，遍也. 與偕通; 偕,俱也. ——《说文》; 俱,皆也. ——《说文》 . ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nck88 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I knew they did not have punctuation marks, that's why I pointed it out: published works put the punctuation marks THERE -- got it?EkmanLi (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You can look for a published work which has its "," somewhere else, but I believe most authors would have the same common interpretation as I do. If you can present source with another perspective, we should have a deeper discussion. But before that, the previous edition is in accord with wiki's rules, and a nomination of deletion should be reviewed before actual deletion (I hope u notice this).EkmanLi (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do know "recent" published work put a comma there. :) There exist many contradicting materials among the surviving historical texts. Many mistakes can be found in Chen Shou's accounts as well. To emphatically single out one historical document as not being as "authentic" as others without providing convincing evidence, or any evidence at all, is not suitable. If you can provide concrete evidence that Zhao's decoy had more people than Cao Zhen's main force, then I have no problem with you putting the paragraph back. As for now, I think it better not to have that in there.
 * I can say I have tried my best to put different perspectives into an article by citing from different sources, how can you say I just "emphatically single out one historical document as not being as "authentic" as others without providing convincing evidence?" (check my works/contributions related to the project -- I never used a single source. When touching controversial stuff, careful inline citations would be given.)
 * No offense, but I think the idea "concrete evidence that Zhao's decoy had more people than Cao Zhen's main force" is wrong, because Chen Shou never said Zhao acted as a decoy (the novel might do), and I'd rather do a common translation as said. Also, the translation on previous edition is in accord with modern published work, and should remain there. Just for this article, my editions are more than several, but this is my first edit, which was "undo" without following wiki's protocol, I wanna know if it is me who "emphatically single out one historical document" or someone else? I'm not here to ridicule any specific person, but please place historicity as a priority when editing an historical figure (they are more than characters in a novel/game).EkmanLi (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Chen Shou did specifically mention Zhao Yun was a decoy: 诸葛亮传第五: 六年春，扬声由斜谷道取郿，使赵云、邓芝为疑军，据箕谷，魏大将军曹真举众拒之. Zhao: 疑軍, decoy. 曹真舉眾: main force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nck88 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I see, you may be right on Zhao being a decoy. Here I also want to mimic you: 疑 can be translated to 副 (second/assisting) in ancient usage. Anyways, I'll use a common translation and put up an updated edit in accord with the above citation in the article.EkmanLi (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't really know whether your new edit is appropriate, since majority of your entry is not relevant here. Do you think it is more suitable for Battle of Jieting discussions? Again you mentioned that Zhao had more people, which is the whole point of contention. I am going to remove that part since it is still disputed. No offense. BTW, "As we can see, we can see..." should not be included in the main text. Such statements belong in discussions.
 * arrr... did u get what i said? We don't selectively choose sources or ways to translate passages (common translation unless cn is given), and my method is in accord with current wiki's rules. Let me give u a hint: instead of deletion, you should take a look in Zhang He's article. To say it straightly, you should add a "theory section" when you really need to raise statements without direct source. Please, follow the protocol, and don't exhaust me(and I don't really wanna say "as we can see from the records of the SGZ from Chen Shou during..." everytime) .EkmanLi (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, I don't want to go back and forth with this either. But your persistence at including your own interpretations, which may be wrong, is not necessarily the best thing for Wikipedia. However, they are great for discussions. Here you can have your own interpretations, as many as you want, presented here, but please don't do that on the main page and force your interpretations on other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nck88 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not my own interpretations as Wiki's rules dictate.EkmanLi (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There're no views from me but Zhuge himself, Chen Shou, and Xi Zaozi. I only included more sources into the article.EkmanLi (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You still insisted on using your own translations and interpretations. You picked translations that fit your agenda, which is again, as I stressed, not necessarily correct. This is a common practice among Three Kingdoms fans in chatrooms. Why not say, it is in dispute whether Zhao Yun had less men than Cao Zhen, however, it's stated that his force was weaker than Cao's. There, you have it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nck88 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

 * The only source that is arguably dubious is 雲別傳. But it seems to me you didn't pick to say about that... and as I said, those are not my agenda or whatever, unless I were Zhuge or Chen Shou. Chen's work should be the primary source, and I couldn't believe you keep saying I'm picking them to fit an agenda... so what agenda am I having??? I talk about both sides of a historical figure, and by doing so remain neutral, THAT is my agenda.EkmanLi (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

 * As the "Theory section" remains empty, I'm going to del it. If one wants to add it back or has anything to add into the main article, plz free feel to do so.EkmanLi (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

About 雲別傳
The only source that is arguably dubious is 雲別傳That's your opinion, not facts. Please give me 3 concrete reasons why you think 雲別傳 is dubious, and please don't cite He Zhuo 何焯, who was criticized for maligning historical figures and distorting facts.

Just adding more: Zhang He was sent separately by Cao Rui directly from Jingzhou (荆州) to the front at Jieting. 加郃位特进，遣督诸军 He was not being commanded by Cao Zhen, who was in command of the army that was already in place in Mei. 诸葛亮围祁山，南安、天水、安定三郡反应亮. 帝遣真督诸军军郿，遣张郃击亮将马谡，大破之. Wei threw a lot of men into the whole campaign. Your statement that Wei put more emphasis on Wu thus not having prepared for the battle may be true at the beginning of the campaign, but it did not stay that way throughout.

Chen's work should be the primary source-Nowadays no studies on Records of the Three Kingdoms can be considered complete or even legitimate without Pei's annotations. Your point being?

 * I knew this topic would be raised sooner or later, but I'm watching a movie in home, so I'm not sure if I can give u a quick response on the issue. But I think you probably notice or should understand this: I don't biased against Zhao, on the other hand, a professional may even argue I'm a bit in favour of him. Anyways, I'll try to remain neutral. In brief, He Zhuo (何焯) had sufficiently addressed the issue, and I can't agree to not cite him. But if you don't want him in this informal discussion, then we can forget him. "The only source that is arguably dubious is 雲別傳That's your opinion, not facts." Not really, despite He Zhuo, Chen Shou did not include materials from <<雲別傳>>. The compilation of SGZ of Shu people included folklore from Shu regions, but it is not seen in SGZ, so 雲別傳's records are literally "dubious." And, about Zhang, I'll come back to the issue. (By the way, I don't get paid from you, so I'm only giving u a general answer as of now.)EkmanLi (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

 * My input to your second question about Pei's annotation is that I would like to have it, but without it, Chen's SGZ is by itself legitimate.EkmanLi (talk) 08:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Chen Shou's SGZ is legitimate but incomplete, contains conflicting accounts by itself, obvious mistakes and blatant omissions of sensitive materials. Without Pei's annotations, we could not have found out Chen Shou's work was incomplete or even incorrect, could we? As for why Chen Shou did not include materials from 雲別傳, whether he had seen the document (was it written before his time?) or whether he was aware of those deeds is not known. Chen Shou wrote SGZ in Luo Yang, far away from Shu, and the Kingdom of Shu happened to not have an official state record, unlike Wei and Wu. Was Chen Shou able to research thoroughly and diligently enough to cover everything? Obviously not. Most biographies in Shu section are short, lacking details, especially those not from 川. And some of later Shu officials had no entries whatsoever. Prior to writing SGZ, Chen Shou collected information on famous people, mostly intellectuals, in Sichuan, which formed a basis for SGZ. That's why many biographies of local Chuan people are better presented in details.

In brief, He Zhuo (何焯) had sufficiently addressed the issue, and I can't agree to not cite him. I was hoping that's not where you got your "proof" that 雲別傳 is dubious. Instead of taking his words at face value, why not dig a little deeper and see that his entire logic is flawed? I am praying Wikipedia does not become a haven for people like He Zhuo.

his huge army at Qi Mountain and Zhao's army in Ji Valley, were both larger than that of the enemies."Both" is your own interpretation. Like I said, you cannot put disputed interpretation in there.

Not realizing the truth that Wei actually devoted most of his forces to fight Wu, some dilettanti asserted Zhao had less troops than Cao.--Zhang He was sent separately by Cao Rui directly from Jingzhou (荆州) to the front at Jieting. 加郃位特进，遣督诸军 He was not being commanded by Cao Zhen, who was in command of the army that was already in place in Mei. 诸葛亮围祁山，南安、天水、安定三郡反应亮. 帝遣真督诸军军郿，遣张郃击亮将马谡，大破之. Wei threw a lot of men into the whole campaign. Your statement that Wei put more emphasis on Wu thus not having prepared for the battle may be true at the beginning of the campaign, but it did not stay that way throughout. From the records, Zhuge had taken the crack troops for his favorite, Ma Su, and himself; Zhao was only given plenty of weaker soldiersagain, speculation on "weak" vs. "less". "crack" can be changed to "elite".

Zhuge even fantasized that number along would help him prevail over his rival-I doubt he fantasized that. Wei's army was way more seasoned and experienced, and Zhuge knew it. He attacked the region that was not well defended, precisely because he was reluctant to engage with Wei's main forces at the early stages of the campaign(see also the conflict between Wei Yan and Zhuge Liang). The surprise came when Wei soldiers showed up en masse and defeated Ma Su swiftly at Jieting before Zhuge's main force could settle in.

the honor of being the van fell into the hands of Ma Su, instead of Zhao Yun. People of the time were surprised by Zhuge's decision on human resources. Zhao Yun was sent to Jigu prior to Ma Su's appointment. Zhuge Liang could not send Zhao to Jieting even if he wanted to at the time. Zhuge promoted Ma Su over Wei Yan etc., in spite of the objections from others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nck88 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

 * You were wrong at the beginning, which rendered the this discussion meaningless -- I said the only source I used is "arguably dubious is 雲別傳. (07:14, 26 March 2011)" But you changed my words into I said "雲別傳 is dubious" in your reply. Similar acts were done in another topic. I want to point this out: If you constantly distort my original meaning, I have no way to conduct a meaningful discussion with you (and as a basic manner, you should not do so). As you request to give reasons for 雲別傳 to be dubious, I can say it is literally "dubious", caz the word "dubious" suggests unclear origin (but again, I am saying it upon request). And your personal view on He Zhuo (何焯) is not mine.
 * I quote you, "Let me clarify this: 漢晉春秋 is a dubious source, yet it's significantly more trust-worthy than than 雲別傳." But you failed to provide any proof to back up this statement. Such statements can be frequently seen in dubious chatroom discussions. Some contemporary scholars of He Zhuo were critical of He Zhuo's methods of analyzing historical texts, so my "personal" view is both based on his flawed arguments and other people's comments. Many of He's arguments are Zhuge-centric, i.e., "Since Zhuge did not do this, nobody else was capable of doing this either. So a document that says other people did something must be wrong", which flies in the face of logic. Nck88 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Speculation and translation are two things... Your theory of going against common translation is beyond my comprehension. My translation is adequate even in the academic world, as far as I know, for a G.E. class (at least in UC Berkeley), you can use a modern dictionary to translate Chinese into English for an Asian-history paper.
 * Using Modern dictionary and vocabulary is OK to translate "modern" Chinese works into English. But the Chinese language has evolved and changed significantly since ancient times. You have to be very careful when applying modern dictionaries to ancient texts. There are many published versions of translated SGZ. Often they disagree with one another, and many contain incorrect (sometimes ridiculous) translations. Different translations of one single word can result in completely different interpretations. That's why I think it wrong to state something as facts, especially when it's based on one particular translation of a single word while the word itself has multiple meanings, without giving a certain thought. Nck88 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

 * The description of Wei's stance against Wu of course is about its initial deployment. Check out mobilization. The one side arrives force concentration quicker than the other usually has a better chance to win. And I believe Zhang had more troops than Ma (which reflects Wei's better concentration of force and HR) as I pointed out in prior discussion. NOW, THIS is a speculation of mine.EkmanLi (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Situations in war change by the minute, and the moment Zhang He arrived from Jingzhou at Jieting, the balance of power started to shift. Ma Su arrived in Jieting before Zhang he, and as Zhang He was in command of several Wei armies, one can only speculate Ma Su's vanguards were greatly outnumbered and overwhelmed by Zhang He's troops as well. Whether Zhuge had more troops than Ma is not the point, because they were not at Jieting but stationed in different towns/areas. Many of his troops were subsequently cut off and overrun by Zhang He. Zhuge's main force had no time to reorganize and assemble, and at any moment or spot of the battle, the number of his troops in action was not superior to that of Zhang He's. However, it is admirable that Zhuge took full responsibility for the loss, even though the outcome was inevitable once Ma Su failed miserably to delay Zhang He's advance.

Again, all these are my speculations, thus they belong in discussions, or in a section specifically dedicated to "speculations". :)Nck88 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

 * ... u merged my comments into yours... I suppose you did not do it on purpose, but that distorts the discussion. Alright, there's a "signing comment (4 ~)" function so ppl can distinguish what you think and what the others think, and this way the discussion can be kept smooth and clear. Putting things in-between different people's comments will automatically leave your "sign" at the end of the large chunk of stuff you touch, making the conversation blurred. (BTW, I believe u quote me from the main article? Contents presented there are straightly under wiki's regulation. And works without clear origin, i.e. author name, publisher (modern works), etc fall under the category of "dubious source," that rule aligns with academic norm, and I just followed protocol to leave a note there. In the talk page, points I present would be more flexible.EkmanLi (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

= Family = Children
 * Sons:
 * Zhao Tong oldest son
 * Zhao Guang second son

File:Zhao Yun TV Serial.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

 * @ 2600:1700:6430:F01:983D:AF07:FDE9:2768 (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Zhao Yun


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lemonghost

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 13:55, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lemonghost
Not notable. Thue | talk 08:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete, not notable. Gazpacho 10:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. utcursch 12:23, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, teen self-promotion. Wyss 18:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lemonghost members may "have grown in skill and talent greatly" but not enough to be notable. Zzyzx11 00:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as above. -- Hadal 04:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, about the 2,000th vfd'd non-notable teen webcomic. Bart133 (t) 04:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan

Six-octave range?
Hmmm. Seems to me that "six-octave range" is an exaggeration. He was a tenor who used a set of techniques to reach beyond the two octaves most mortals can reach. As an example, in the video for "Must Nazron Se Allah Bachaye" it is clearly seen that the highest notes are sung by another party member. elpincha (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

 * It's a reliably sourced statement. The fact that a different singer sings higher notes in any given video doesn't prove anything. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

 * What is the reliable source? Are you aware that the claim is very close to be physically impossible? elpincha (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

 * OK, after some research I am going to remove the claim, and here is the rationale. The source cited is anything but reliable (it is IMDB, come on fellas). The claim is completely bogus. See the article on Tim Storms for the widest range ever recorded, which is five octaves, i.e. half of what the claim here is/was (six octaves is indeed twice as wide as five octaves; kindly do some research before disputing this). Attaining any such range, for a tenor such as Ustad NFAK, is simply physically impossible. Please note that it is actually disrespectful to enter claims that belong in the supernatural (e.g. it would be disrespectful to claim that NFAK levitated).
 * In my personal understanding, he worked within the usual two-plus octaves, and transcended that by using traditional techniques for some superb command in the lower registers. The fact that on Youtube you can see who sings each part is not to be lightly disregarded. elpincha (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

 * What's with the attitude? --Sarabseth (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I am sorry if the attitude is an issue. I did try to be as objective as possible, save for the dis on IMDB, which is a dis on IMDB as a source for reliable statements, not on any person... elpincha (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to these two statements: "kindly do some research before disputing this" and "Please note that it is actually disrespectful to enter claims that belong in the supernatural (e.g. it would be disrespectful to claim that NFAK levitated)". --Sarabseth (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

@Elpincha. Why does the 6 octave vocal range seems an exaggeration? Are there any proofs to prove that he didn't possess such an ability? Any articles published about it? Please share if any. IndieOKB (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

(As far as I have listened to Nusrat) His lowest note is B2 (in one of the Nusrat-Brook collab tracks and in a 1993 recording of Chaap Tilak) and the highest is G5 (in the 1993 recording of Mera Piya Ghar Aaya performed at Washington University). But he does not sustain these notes. His lowest and highest sustained notes are C#3 and F5. Mostly he sung between C#3 and F5. C#3 to F5 is 2 octaves and 4 semitones (which is a great range, considering that he never used falsetto). B2 to G5 is 2 octaves and 8 semitones. WellSoz (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Update: In a 1990 recording of Man Kunto Maula, he sustains G5 for a second or two. In a 1993 recording of Raag Gawati, he goes down to Bb2, for a second. In a 1989 recording of Raag Ahir Bhairav he goes down to A2. A2 to G5 is just two semitones short of 3 octaves. WellSoz (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Vocal Range Record Explanation
Vocal Range of six octaves is not something impossible at all and has been attained by people on several occasions. The current record holder is Tim Storms who has attained 10 octave range check it out Five octaves as mentioned by elpincha is his range in inaudible frequency,below middle C... and not his complete vocal range.... Tim Storms is not alone ... there are quite a few record holders above 6 octaves... some of them are Georgia Brown (Brazil), Adam Lopez etc...

I would like to point that elpincha had been very direct and disrespectful without any proper citation.AvnishIT (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, he was certainly rude. To be fair, he did provide a citation.  Too bad he didn't understand what the citation actually meant, or check the facts properly and see that the vocal range of Tim Storms is 10 octaves. --Sarabseth (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

 * PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS COMMENT WAS DELETED BY THE AUTHOR SOON AFTER POSTING IT (this is presumably the temporary comment referred to in the next comment). BUT DELETING IT DISTORTS THE HISTORY OF THIS DISCUSSION (AND ALSO VIOLATES TALK PAGE GUIDELINES I BELIEVE) SO I HAVE RESTORED IT ON SEP 9, 2012 TO ITS ORIGINAL PLACE--Sarabseth (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, here I am again, and I am gonna be rude again. Tenors cannot have a six-octave range. This is a physical impossibility. Claiming that anything or anybody has a 10-octave range means that somebody has to learn what an octave is. An incredibly silly claim such as this is disrespectful to Ustad NFAK. elpincha (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

 * OK. (Deleting temporary comment here.) To be more scientific than rude here. After listening to a significant number of recordings, the lowest voice I hear is a C3, and I am not sure this is the Ustad himself. Range of comfort is the usual for a tenor, ending around D5, and then we hear and delight in the more acute notes; C6 is the highest I've found. Even giving some ample margins for having missed something, including that C3, a very optimistic evaluation would be 3.5 to 4 octaves. elpincha (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

 * And yes, you can be superhuman with less than six octaves. Cesaria Evora had two, Joni Mitchell and Stevie Wonder have three. The three of them have been admired greatly. Any singer who claims more than 3.5 octaves is either a white male hard-rock singer who wants his primal screams (as opposed to his singing) to hit the walls and back, or somebody who is more of a physical phenomenon than an artist. And of course, the ten octaves claim cannot be taken seriously. elpincha (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

1) With all due respect, you're making edits based on OR, which violates the most basic Wikipedia principle.

2) Any singer who claims more than 3.5 octaves is either a white male hard-rock singer who wants his primal screams (as opposed to his singing) to hit the walls and back, or somebody who is more of a physical phenomenon than an artist. And of course, the ten octaves claim cannot be taken seriously. As pointed out in the previous section, Tim Storms has a vocal range of 10 octaves, and this is certified by Guinness. Perhaps it is you (and your personal opinion, unsupported by anything else) who should not be taken seriously?

3) I am reverting your edit to the article. Please do not restore it unless you can support your claims. --Sarabseth (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Tim Storms claims 5 octaves and not 10, see any & all articles on him. Also, "six octaves" is the actual claim, so the burden of proof is on those who want it on the article, not on the sceptics. Claiming that a tenor cannot produce six octaves is pretty self-evident for anybody who knows their stuff. 205.189.94.11 (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Don't have to look at any or all. Just his Wikipedia article seems to suffice (bold emphasis mine):

 * Storms's Guinness World Record for the lowest note produced by a human was certified in January 2002.[3] Storms also holds the Guinness World Record for the widest vocal range for a male. His records have been published in the Guinness World Records 2006. He broke both of these records in August 2008.[1] As of 2008, the new record for lowest note was .7973Hz (point 7973Hz), and the new record for Widest Vocal Range For Any Human was ten octaves.

 * Updated: 30 March 2012, Tim Storms reclaimed the record for the Lowest Note Produced by a Human. The new record is G-7, or .189Hz (point 189 Hertz). That is 8 octaves below the lowest G on the piano. Although the record of ten octaves for Widest Vocal Range has not been formally broken, based on Tim Storms' previous record of ten octaves, his new record for Lowest Note would put his range, unofficially, at twelve octaves. Guinness World Records dot com has not yet updated their website to reflect the newly certified record.

 * Perhaps it's time to drop the argument that "anybody who knows their stuff" knows this is impossible" ? --Sarabseth (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

To a person who has studied a little music, it is rather embarrassing to read this exchange and see the 6-octave claim continues to stay in Wikipedia. I know that the user elpincha did some "original research" and so is not supposed to change Wikipedia because of that, but perhaps that original research would convince some of you who doubt elpincha's findings to check with your own ears. If you would simply would write down the lower and higher notes he sings while you listen to his music you would see why 6 octaves is not true. (Simply because a thousand newspapers repeat something ridiculous does not make it true.) Ustad Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan is a great musician! He does not need anybody to claim that he could sing 6 octaves. That is not even an important thing about a true musician. But certainly he does not need false claims and it is not respectful to him for us to perpetuate them. Comparing this deep artist -- whose music is beloved by millions -- to a handful of physical oddballs -- whose "music" is known only to the machines recording their "music" for the Guinness record book (as elpincha wrote: "somebody who is more of a physical phenomenon than an artist") -- is not relevant and is disrespectful to NFAK. Ustad Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan SANG -- he did not make rumbling low notes like an elephant nor did he squeak nor sing high high notes above the range of an operatic coloratura soprano; he sang beautiful music. I will not edit the page but will leave it to those of you who are dedicated to NFAK and to this page -- but I beg you to use your own ears and check if you hear him singing anything below C3 or above C6 (and that is only a four octave range). David Couch (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

 * You are surely right, but we are in danger of falling foul of the WP:OR rules. The 6-octave claim is evidently wrong, but that is just our opinion based on our experience of the world. The best would be to find a reliable source contradicting (or just reliably doubting) the claim. Meanwhile, we could perhaps tone it down ("a wide octave range") or indicate doubt ("a claimed 6-octave range"). I'd suggest the former. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Thanks to both David Couch and Chiswick Chap. I am convinced by this discussion. Perhaps if elpincha had been less rude, expressed himself more clearly and not made statements that were clearly untrue (e.g. that a vocal range of six octaves is impossible), I might have understood much earlier.

 * Are there any objections to removing all references to his octave range from the article? --Sarabseth (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

 * It is very important that we remain civil in discussions. It seems however that we broadly agree that the octave claim is doubtful; also, we already know that people around the world have strong feelings about it. If we simply remove it, it will therefore very probably come back sooner or later. I suggest therefore that we now have sufficient mandate to tone the claim down without removing it altogether. Chiswick Chap(talk) 07:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

 * I think you jumped the gun a little bit. AvnishIT was the editor who had the strongest feelings about this issue.  I think we should have let him opine too.  I suggest that we not treat this as a consensus till we have heard from him too.

 * Personally I'm not in favor of retaining a reference to a "wide vocal range" just to mollify people who might be offended by removal of a doubtful claim. If someone wants to resurrect the 6-octave claim again later, we can discuss it again at that time.

 * OK, I'm happy to go along with the consensus when it's established. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that http://www.nusrat.pl/nusrat/ represents a reliable source. These guys may be making a movie, but where did they get this "fact" from?

Also, I think Chiswick Chap and David Couch made a very relevant point. A person can technically have such a wide vocal range, but you achieve that by making "rumbling low notes like an elephant" and "high high notes above the range of an operatic coloratura soprano", and Nusrat certainly didn't do that. I'm not sure that the article is improved by adding this dubious, apparently incorrect claim just because some support can be found for it somewhere on the internet. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I agree ,very convincing discussion...AvnishIT (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Unless someone else wants to chime in, it looks like we have a consensus. Thanks to all! --Sarabseth (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I was searching for definite sources on vocal range of NFAK when I came across this. I found this YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkU-_xCRFOA that records various notes that NFAK hit. Maybe it would help all the experts above with evaluation. 39.45.151.215 (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Nauman
 * That video shows a vocal range of about 3 to 4 octaves, with a lowest note of C3 and highest sustained note of E♭5, although one of the comments says it goes down to C2. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Redid Introduction statements (Considered One of the greatest singer ever recorded....)
The statement might have been taken from IMDB but is indisputably credible..

1. Considered One of the greatest singers ever recorded....... NFAK is featured & ranked in most of the greatest singers list and some of them are even mentioned in this wiki page.

2. Could perform at high Intensity for several hours... this fact is know to anyone who knows NFAK.. but is mentioned in the Asian Heroes Article by TIME.

3. Six-Octave Vocal length..... there must not be any speculation over the six octave vocal range. There are thousands of news reports & magazines reporting NFAK's 6-ocatve range. Any of them can be a trusted source as per Wikipedia Rules. Moreover ,Chhote Ustaad- Do Deshon Ki Ek Awaaz,a 2010 music program which featured Rahat & Sonu Nigam as judges shows Sonu Nigam explaining how his vocal range is incomparable to that of NFAK. A very strong source can be Ustad Ghulam Haider Khan, who explains in one of his articles for Friday Times where he talks about NFAK's voice technically telling that " He lacked the bass notes but still trained his vocal range to more that that of keys of Harmonium", note that Harmonium can maximum be played to 6-octaves.This source has been added..

The Source:The source Pune Mirror is a part of "TIMES Group" and hence is a trust-able source irrespective of where the content is taken from. I have retained the the source for now because it directly references what has been said, all 3 points... however, any better source is always welcomed.AvnishIT (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

 * The Source:The source Pune Mirror is a part of "TIMES Group" and hence is a trust-able source irrespective of where the content is taken from

 * I'm sorry, but I cannot agree. If it's not a reliable statement when it was made in the IMDb biography, how can it become a reliable statement just because some newspaper copies and pastes it from IMDb?  Since the IMDb biography predates the Pure Mirror article, it's indisputable that the statement originally appeared on IMDb, and was simply copied from there by the Pure Mirror article (without attribution).  An article with demonstrated plagiarism cannot be taken seriously, regardless of where it is published. (Especially when it plagiarizes from unreliable sources!)

 * There are thousands of news reports & magazines reporting NFAK's 6-ocatve range.

 * If so, one or more of those should be used as the source. However, one needs to be careful about eliminating Wikipedia mirrors.  (I wouldn't be surprised if all of the sources for the 6-octave claim turn out to have copied material verbatim from some past incarnation of the Wikipedia article.)

 * Please also see the previous discussion on the Talk page ("Six-octave range?"), where the editor claims that a 6-octave range is physically impossible. This is the supporting quote: "Storms also holds the Guinness World Record for the widest vocal range for a male. His records have been published in the Guinness World Records 2006. He broke both of these records in August 2008.[1] He is able to reach a full 5 octaves below Middle C and reach a sound of just 8 hertz which is inaudible to the human ear. The previous record was 16.5 hertz, just over a full octave higher.[4]"

 * Please do not misrepresent my earlier claim. I said that six octaves is physically impossible for a tenor. I stand by this claim. elpincha (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

 * --Sarabseth (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It definitely makes sense to remove the Pune Mirror Source and most of the news sources have definitely copied the 6-octave story from Wikipedia/IMDB...... but the phrases "one of the greatest" and "high intensity" are indisputable and can be kept without any source.... NFAK's vocal range was definitely one the best in world, even National geographic described it as "Superhuman vocal abilities" .. any one who heard NFAK knows this ....i guess for now we should keep this fact based on Ustad Ghulam Haider Khan's description of NFAK's voice ..... Please see upper section on vocal length.AvnishIT (talk) 08:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

 * You're absolutely right. Thanks! --Sarabseth (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Please note that the range of teh harmonium is three and a quarter octaves. Ref: The Harmonium Handbook by Kraig Brockschmidt, available on Google Books. 205.189.94.11 (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

 * AvnishIT, can you support your statement that "Harmonium can maximum be played to 6-octaves", or do you accept that the range is three and a quarter octaves? --Sarabseth (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Sarabseth I have added a new Source Please Check it out.. It is the the Official website for polish film "Nusrat – ostatni prorok muzyki” " .... The directors were in Pakistan and India to Research Nusrat's Music... Please check it out.. As far as range of Harmonium is concerned .. it depends upon the number of keys.. can even be 2 or 6(older ones)AvnishIT (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Edits On 19/4/12 and 20/04/12
The article was moved to page named "Pervez Fateh Ali Khan", I have moved it back to the original title. Pervez was Nusrat's name only for a few years after his birth, and then he was named "Nusrat" by his father which remained forever. However I have retained the change of "Nusrat" By "Khan" because its more formal. AvnishIT (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Hello User:AvnishIT, I hope you are well. Thanks for all your good work on Wikipedia. With the best of intentions I made this page title change because, as you say, Khan was born with the first name Pervez. Wikipedia bio pages ordinarily carry the real names as the page titles, but not always (Marilyn Monroe, Charlie Sheen, etc). Fair enough. I accept that. Perhaps you might add to the article a reliably cited clarifying statement about the name change you mention above. Just a thought. Regards and best wishes.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 08:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Hello! The 'birth' name is already placed in the infobox, which is where it belongs and perfectly adequate. Thanks. Snoop God (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely wrong. Use of an infobox at all is optional Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes), but the full birth name is expected to be in the lead sentence. WP:BIRTHNAME.-- The Red Pen of Doom  14:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Introduced Sufi Music to the West
While it seems clear that NFAK was a key figure in bringing Sufi music to us lot, it is perhaps not certain that he was the one and only person who did so. For example Brian Jones helped to bring Moroccan music to the west back in 1971. Perhaps we should make it clear that we are speaking about Qawwali music specifically? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, absolutely. Done. --Sarabseth (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)--Sarabseth (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit war regarding opening paragraph
This is a pretty pointless quibble. Citation 1 says: “There are great singers, and then there are those few voices that transcend time.” As per citation 25, he was nominated as one of the 20 most iconic musicians from the past 50 years. As per citation 34, Paul Williams included him in his list of the 20th century’s top 40 greatest hits (across all forms of artistic expression) as one of only 11 musical acts.

All of this surely supports “Considered one of the greatest singers ever recorded”? --Sarabseth (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And above all that it a know fact to anyone who knows music in India/Pakistan. AvnishIT (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Using "world renowned" in any Wikipedia biography is simply unencyclopedic language; after all, Wikipedia's requirement for notability of a subject applies to all biographies. "Considered one of the greatest singers ever recored" is unsupportable hyperbole and fancruft; it devalues the real achievements of the subject.
 * Other improvements which are: one author called "USA", another called "By Ustad". According to MOS:YEAR, the period 1992 to 1993 ought to be written as "1992–93". I suggest you restore the article to its version from 28 August. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sarabseth, please read WP:PEACOCK. -- S M S  Talk 11:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

fancruft, again please research the subject AvnishIT (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Several editors have supplied arguments why the language in your version of the article is unsuitable. AvnishIT has not provided a single argument to support their version. Please restore the version from 28 August. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Please go through all the references given in the article, mainly Awards & Title & Influence & Tributes section .Also, there was a detailed discussion on this topic last year on talk page.. Please suggest a different version of introductory lines that justifies the subject if possible. AvnishIT (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have, and I can't find any sources which call him "one of the greatest singers ever recorded". Using "world renowned" in any biography is against WP:PEACOCK and is unencyclopedic language. I don't understand what you are trying to say with your last sentence: "justifies the subject"? Again, several other edits I made which were technical corrections (see above) need to be re-instated. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Added new source. I am still stunned over so much fuss on this topic, ask anyone who knows music(ind/pak or even foreigners who knew him)....."Justifies the subject".. "Introduces NFAK adequately enough..."AvnishIT (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree with Michael Bednarek. It's irrelevant to say "ask anyone who knows music in ind/pak" - that's like saying ask any American who's the greatest singer/actor of all. Even if there are sources that call him "great" or "renowned" - its very unencyclopedic to say such things in the article. It's clear to me that the supporters (Sarabseth and AvnishIT) are big fans of Nusrat, and as such are biased. I think the "Puffery" guideline is very clear. 95.131.110.124 (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

 * we are not talking about any source, talking abt Time Magazine, CNN, NPR, National Geographic...And no one says "greatest".. just "one of the greatest".. which is pretty obvious.. AvnishIT (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * None of those sources are presented in the article as supporting the claim of "one of the greatest voices ever recorded"; the only one that does is hispanicbusiness.com (WTF?), dated 6 September 2013, which reprints a widely circulated press release. This is definitely not a reliable source. Lacing a biography with peacock language and unencyclopedic hyperbole does not increase the subject's following or reputation. I'm taking this article off my watch list. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Hope this puts an end to the discussion:

 * "undoubtedly, spiritually and technically of the greatest voices" - Billboard, 6 Sep 1997.

 * "there's no denying he was one of the great voices of the 20th century" - Chris Nickson of AllMusic

 * "Khan was not just one of the world's greatest singers, he was emblematic of a startling rise of interest in non-Western music". The Cambridge Companion to Singing by Cambridge University Press

 * "His voice is universally recognised as one of the great voices in musical history". Real World Records

 * "and that Night Song is easily digestible pop with one of the world's greatest singers". CMJ New Music Monthly, Mar 1996.

Fideliosr (talk) 08:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan. 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/20110110150402/http://wass-up.com/ukama2005.php to http://www.wass-up.com/ukama2005.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005080152/http://www.brooklynqawwaliparty.com/html/about.php to http://www.brooklynqawwaliparty.com/html/about.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) 16:19, 6 December 2017 (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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan.jpg

.
Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan (born Pervez Fateh Ali Khan; 13 October 1948 – 16 August 1997) was a Pakistani vocalist, musician, composer and music director primarily a singer of qawwali, a form of Sufi devotional music.[1] He is considered by some to be the greatest Sufi singer in the Punjabi, Hindi and Urdu language, and one of the greatest qawwali singers in history;[2][better source needed] he is often referred to as "Shahenshah-e-Qawwali" (the King of Kings of Qawwali).[3][4][5] He was described as the 4th greatest singer of all time by LA Weekly in 2016.[6] He was known for his vocal abilities and could perform at a high level of intensity for several hours.[7][8][9][10] He belonged to the Qawwal Bacchon Gharana (Delhi gharana) extending the 600-year old qawwali tradition of his family, Khan is widely credited with introducing qawwali music to international audiences.[11] 182.185.207.207 (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Intro only cites NYT and LA Weekly by name
American media as only mentioned sources in an article about a Pakistani singer seems… odd. Are there no authoritative sources of reasonable prestige in English anywhere in India, Pakistan or Bangladesh? It makes them seem like definitive sources of judgement, and while I respect these publications, as an American observer, I’d be more impressed by what sources closer to the primary / original audience think. tvleavitt (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan


text: Talk:Interstate 405 (California)

title: Talk:Interstate 405 (California)


text:
Motu One (Marquesas Islands)

Motu One (Marquesan for "Sand Island"; Îlot de Sable) is the name of a small sandbank with no vegetation, located on the western edge of a coral reef; the only atoll in the Marquesas Islands.

The reef is approximately 5 km in diameter, and the islet has a surface area of less than one hectare, rising only a few feet above sea level and changing shape regularly as the action of the currents deposits and removes sand. Motu One is the northernmost of the Marquesas Islands, located about 30 km northeast of Eïao and 15 km northeast of Hatutu. It is a calcareous coral reef on a volcanic plug - the only island in the group not made of exposed volcanic material.

Motu One is administratively part of the commune (municipality) of Nuku-Hiva, itself in the administrative subdivision of the Marquesas.

History
Although Motu One was reportedly visited by Marquesans from islands in the region, primarily on egg-collecting missions, there is no archaeological evidence that it was ever inhabited. The first Westerners to sight the islet were those on the 1813–1814 voyage of the American commander Commodore David Porter, who named it Lincoln Island. Subsequent explorers called it Sand Island.

The Motu One Reserve was declared in 1992, as a first step in preserving the ecosystem of the island. In combination with the declaration of this reserve, several other reserves were declared as a part of the Marquesan Nature Reserves. This includes the Hatutu Nature Reserve, the Motane Nature Reserve, and the Eiao Island Nature Reserve.

Ecology
Green sea turtles nest on Motu One. There is a large stand of Porolithon (Hydrolithon) that is unique in French Polynesia.

There are a wide variety of pelagic birds nesting on the islets including a subspecies of the southern Marquesan reed warbler, the Mohotani Marquesan warbler (Acrocephalus mendanae consobrina) (Murphy & Mathews, 1928).

Since 1992, the whole reef and island ecosystem have been protected as the Motu One Reserve.

title: Motu One (Marquesas Islands)


text:
Carton House

Carton House is a country house and surrounding demesne that was the ancestral seat of the Earls of Kildare and Dukes of Leinster for over 700 years. Located 23 km west of Dublin, in Maynooth, County Kildare, the Carton Demesne is a 1,100 acres estate, from an original estate of 70,000 acres. For two hundred years, the Carton Demesne was the finest example in Ireland of a Georgian-created parkland landscape. In the 2000s, much of the demesne was redeveloped into two golf courses and the house into a hotel complex.

Beginning of the Carton Demesne
During a history spanning more than eight centuries, Carton Demesne has seen many changes. The estate first came into the ownership of the FitzGerald family shortly after Maurice FitzGerald, Lord of Lanstephan (c. 1105-1176), an Anglo-Norman noble, played an active role in the capture of Dublin by the Normans in 1170 and was rewarded by being appointed Lord of Maynooth, an area covering townlands which include Carton.

His son, Gerald FitzMaurice (c. 1150-1204), became jure uxoris 1st Baron of Offaly, and his descendant John, 4th Baron of Offaly (c. 1250-1316), became the 1st Earl of Kildare in 1315. Under The 8th Earl of Kildare (c. 1456-1513), a long-serving Lord Deputy of Ireland, the FitzGerald family reached pre-eminence as the virtual rulers of the Lordship of Ireland between 1477 and 1513. The Lordship of Ireland was replaced by the Kingdom of Ireland in 1542.

However, the 8th Earl's grandson, The 10th Earl of Kildare (1513-1537), better known to history as 'Silken Thomas', was executed at Tyburn in February 1537, with his five uncles, for leading an uprising against the English Crown. 'Silken Thomas', previously styled as Lord Offaly, had succeeded to the earldom in December 1534. Although the FitzGeralds subsequently regained their land and titles, they did not fully regain their position at either the Irish or British Courts until the 18th century, when The 19th Earl of Kildare (1675-1743) became a noted statesman.

First house at Carton
The first record of a house at Carton was in the early seventeenth century when William Talbot, Recorder of Dublin, was given a lease of the lands by the 14th Earl of Kildare (d. February 1612) and is thought to have built a house. The house and lands were forfeited to the Crown in 1691 and in 1703 sold to Major-General Richard Ingoldsby, Master General of the Ordnance.

Commencement of the current house
In 1739, as the Ingoldsby family had lost most of their money, the lease was sold back to the 19th Earl of Kildare, who employed Richard Cassels (1690-1751) to design the existing house. This was the same year the FitzGerald family bought Frescati House. Castle (originally Cassels) was also responsible for some other grand Irish houses, including: Castle Hume, on the shores of Lower Lough Erne in County Fermanagh; Summerhill House in County Meath; Westport House in County Mayo; Powerscourt House in County Wicklow; and, in 1745, Kildare House (later renamed Leinster House) in Dublin, which he also built for the FitzGeralds.

In 1747, the 20th Earl of Kildare (created His Grace the 1st Duke of Leinster in 1766) married Lady Emily Lennox, daughter of the 2nd Duke of Richmond and great–granddaughter of King Charles II. Lady Emily played an important role in the development of the house and estate as it is today. She created the Chinese Room (bedroom of Queen Victoria) and decorated the famous Shell Cottage on the property with shells from around the world. One of their 23 children was the famous Irish patriot Lord Edward FitzGerald, a leader of the 1798 rebellion.

19th century

Carton remained unaltered until 1815, when His Grace The 3rd Duke of Leinster (1791-1874) decided to sell Leinster House to the Dublin Society (renamed the Royal Dublin Society in 1820) and make Carton his principal residence. He employed Richard Morrison to enlarge and re-model the house. Morrison replaced the curved colonnades with straight connecting links to obtain additional rooms, including the famous Dining Room. At this time, the entrance to the house was moved to the north side.

Twentieth- and twenty-first century history
Carton remained in the control of the FitzGeralds until the early twentieth century when the 7th Duke of Leinster (1892-1976) sold his life interest to a moneylender, Sir Harry Mallaby-Deeley, to pay off gambling debts of £67,500. The 7th Duke, who was known as Lord Edward FitzGerald up until he inherited the dukedom in February 1922, was originally third in line to succeed, so he did not think he would ever inherit. However, both of his older brothers were unmarried and predeceased him.

His eldest brother was the 6th Duke of Leinster (1887-1922), who had succeeded as a child to the dukedom and estates in December 1893 but who suffered from serious psychiatric issues; the 6th Duke lived from 1907 until his death in February 1922 in a house in the grounds of Craig House Psychiatric Hospital in Edinburgh. Lord Edward's other older brother was Major Lord Desmond FitzGerald (1888-1916), an officer in the Irish Guards who was accidentally killed during a grenade demonstration at Calais during the First World War. So, Lord Edward inherited the dukedom and what remained of the Carton Estate in February 1922, thus becoming the 7th Duke. In this way, much of the Carton Estate was lost to the FitzGerald dynasty. Carton House and what remained of the Carton Estate was finally sold by the 7th Duke of Leinster and his son, the then Marquess of Kildare (1914-2004), in the late 1940s.

It is alleged that, in 1923, a local unit of the IRA went to Carton with the intention of burning it down. However, they were stopped when a member of the FitzGerald family brought a large painting of Lord Edward FitzGerald to the door and pointed out that they would be burning the house of a revered Irish patriot.

During the Second World War, Carton House was occupied by the Irish Army who used the building as the headquarters of the 2nd Infantry Division.

In 1949 the house was purchased by the 2nd Baron Brocket (1904–1967), a multi-millionaire Tory peer and businessman and a member, by descent, of the ancient Ulster family of Ó Catháin (O'Cahan or O'Kane), whose principal residence was Brocket Hall in Hertfordshire, England. Lord Brocket bequeathed Carton to his younger son, The Hon. David Nall-Cain who, having moved to the Isle of Man, sold the house in 1977 to the Mallaghan family.

In 2017 the Mallaghan family sold Carton House to John Mullen for €57 Million.

Government decision not to buy the estate
From 1977 to 2017, Carton House and Demesne was the property of the Mallaghan family, and in the 1980s and 1990s, the Irish Government came under public and political pressure to buy the house and its grounds but decided not to do so.

House as film set
The house was used as a film location by many film-makers and broadcasters. Two of the films made there were Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon in 1975 and The Big Red One in 1980. They starred Ryan O'Neal (as an 18th-century Irish adventurer, with a soundtrack by The Chieftains) and Lee Marvin respectively. The film Leap Year, starring Amy Adams, Matthew Goode, and Adam Scott, shot some scenes at Carton during 2009.

Director Blake Edwards and wife actress, Julie Andrews, lived in Carton House over the summer and autumn of 1969 while filming the movie Darling Lili (1970). Rock Hudson, Andrews' co-star also lived on the grounds during filming. The actual house was used in the movie in several interior and exterior scenes.

More recently, Carton House was used as a prime location for the filming of the Irish drama Love/Hate.

Conversion into a hotel with golf courses
In 2000, Carton was redeveloped as a "premier golf resort and hotel", an action condemned by heritage groups, including An Taisce, and criticised in Seanad Éireann (the Irish Senate) by Senator David Norris. A hotel was added to the main house, altering it drastically, while the estate's eighteenth-century grounds were converted into two golf courses.

Tyrconnell Tower
Allegedly originally built by Richard Talbot, 1st Earl of Tyrconnell, and intended for his mausoleum. Its official name is The Prospect Tower.

Shell Cottage
The famous Shell Cottage is a quaint cottage which once had a thatched roof and is decorated outside and inside with seashells. It was built for Her Grace Emily, Duchess of Leinster (1731-1814), wife of His Grace The 1st Duke of Leinster. The cottage was the home of the singer, songwriter and actress Marianne Faithfull from the late 80's and through the 90's.

Golf
Carton House Golf Club has two courses, one designed by Mark O'Meara and opened in 2002, and the other designed by Colin Montgomerie and opened in 2003. The former is a parkland course, utilising the rolling land of the estate as well as the waters of the River Rye, while the latter is an inland links and features head high pot bunkers, "fast-running" greens and narrow fairways.

Carton House was the venue for the European Tour's Nissan Irish Open in 2005 and 2006, having previously hosted the 2004 and 2005 AIB Amateur Open Championship. In 2006, Carton House was the first Irish golf club to be awarded the 'Committed to Green' environmental award by the International Committed to Green Foundation, and the International Association of Golf Tour Operators, European Golf Resort of the Year 2008. The 2013 Irish Open was held on the Montgomerie Course at Carton House (27–30 June). The winner was England's Paul Casey with an outstanding −5 (67) on the final day including an eagle on the last for a total of −14 to win by 3.

Golf Ireland
In 2020, Golf Ireland was established as the single governing body for golf in Ireland by the amalgamation of The Golfing Union of Ireland, the men's association founded in 1891) and Irish Ladies Golf Union (or ILGU; the ladies' association founded in 1893). The GUI had their national headquarters on the Carton House Demesne, which facility also comprised the GUI National Academy, a 22 acre teaching facility for up-and-coming golfers, as well as being a facility available to all golfers in Ireland.

Rugby
The IRFU have used the house and its demesne for training and a team base since 2010

Soccer
A range of soccer teams come to Carton House for pre-season training. Newcastle United F.C. became the first team to train at the Platinum One group facility. Real Madrid became the second team to go to Carton House in 2009. Shamrock Rovers F.C. also trained there ahead of the 2010 season. Chelsea F.C. and Birmingham City F.C. have trained at the facility. It was visited by the Brazil national team during 2008. In July 2010, Wolverhampton Wanderers held a week-long training camp. During an interview for Irish TV, Wolves manager Mick McCarthy stated that Middlesbrough FC would be there later. In July 2013 Birmingham City F.C. held a week-long training camp. In 2016 Newcastle United F.C. spent a week at Carton House during pre-season, and returned for another week-long stay in pre-season 2017 and 2018. Burnley FC also visited during pre-season 2017.

GAA
Dublin GAA used Carton House Demesne for training during the summer of 2009.

title: Carton House


text: User talk:144.131.179.132

title: User talk:144.131.179.132


text:
Private Communications Technology

Private Communications Technology (PCT) 1.0 was a protocol developed by Microsoft in the mid-1990s. PCT was designed to address security flaws in version 2.0 of Netscape's Secure Sockets Layer protocol and to force Netscape to hand control of the then-proprietary SSL protocol to an open standards body.

PCT has since been superseded by SSLv3 and Transport Layer Security. For a while it was still supported by Internet Explorer, but PCT 1.0 has been disabled by default since IE 5 and the option was removed in IE6. It is still found in IIS and in the Windows operating system libraries, although in Windows Server 2003 it is disabled by default. It is used by old versions of MSMQ as the only choice.

Due to its near disuse, it is arguably a security risk, as it has received less attention in testing than commonly used protocols, and there is little incentive for Microsoft to expend effort on maintaining its implementation of it.

title: Private Communications Technology


text:
Valley Arts Guitars

Valley Arts Guitars was an American electric guitar manufacturer. The company was taken over by Samick in mid-1993, and sold to Gibson in 2002, which used the brand "Valley Arts" to name guitar stores.

History
Mike McGuire and Al Carness founded the company in the mid-1970s in North Hollywood, California, a district of Los Angeles, California in the San Fernando Valley; the name "Valley Arts" is a reference to the firm's original location. Partners in a music store and repair shop, their repairs and customizations gained the attention of Los Angeles studio musicians and jazz guitarists such as Lee Ritenour, Steve Lukather, Tommy Tedesco and Larry Carlton. They began building custom guitars from scratch in 1977, and by 1983 demand for these guitars had increased to the point of requiring a separate manufacturing facility. Most of their guitars had a radical styling similar to that of a superstrat; others were modified versions of Fender's popular designs, the Stratocaster and the Telecaster. "Signature" Valley Arts features often included highly figured wood grain on the front, translucent colored finishes, gold hardware, Floyd Rose locking tremolos, EMG and Seymour Duncan humbucking pickups.

In late 1990 the store was destroyed by fire. Underinsured, McGuire and Carness found it necessary to sell the store and concentrate on the manufacturing side of the business. In an attempt to expand their business, in 1992 they sold half of Valley Arts to the Korean guitar manufacturer Samick. One year after, Samick bought the whole company. McGuire and Carness became dissatisfied with their positions in the company and the quality of the guitars manufactured by Samick, and by 1993 they had moved to positions at Gibson.

Through the 1990s Gibson was moving to expand and diversify its brands, and by the late 1990s they had decided to acquire the "Valley Arts" name as an outgrowth of the Gibson Custom Shop. In late 2002 Valley Arts reopened as a music store, repair facility and small manufacturer specializing in custom guitars in downtown Nashville. Al Carness managed the store; Mike McGuire became operations manager of the Gibson Custom division, which oversees the Valley Arts line of guitars. The Nashville store closed in 2005. Mike McGuire officially retired August 3, 2012.

title: Valley Arts Guitars


text:
Maurice Finkel

Maurice Finkel may refer to:

 * Moishe Finkel (died 1904), prominent figure in the early years of Yiddish theater
 * Maurice Herman Finkel (1888–1949), Yiddish theater performer, who later became an architect

title: Maurice Finkel


text:
WaveBird Wireless Controller

The WaveBird Wireless Controller (stylized as WAVEBIRD, commonly abbreviated as WaveBird or WaveBird controller) is a radio frequency-based wireless controller manufactured by Nintendo for use with the GameCube home video game console. Its name is a reference to Dolphin, the GameCube's codename during development. The WaveBird was available for purchase separately as well as in bundles with either Metroid Prime or Mario Party 4, which were exclusive to Kmart in the US.

Development
Nintendo had attempted to create a reliable wireless controller since the development of the Famicom. Its first attempt was for the Advanced Video System (AVS), the precursor to the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES), which included two wireless controllers but was never released.

Nintendo later developed an infrared (IR) adapter called the NES Satellite for the NES. Released in 1989, it used infrared to extend the length of up to four wired controllers, which would plug into the base of the unit rather than the console. The base could then be positioned anywhere within a certain range of the NES without the need for a cable. However, the extension base still needed a direct line of sight with the NES console; line of sight is a significant limitation of IR technology, requiring a clear space between an IR port and controller.

Radio Frequency controllers were not possible in the late 1980s as the early digital RF links were bulky and used too much power to be useful in battery-powered devices. However, advancements in integrated circuits made radio controllers for game consoles commercially viable only a decade later. The WaveBird, released in 2002, solved previous usability problems of wireless controllers by relying on radio frequency communication instead of infrared, allowing the controller to be used anywhere within 6 m of the console. Although Nintendo only certifies the WaveBird to work within this 6 m range, tests have proven that they may work as far as 27.5 m on all 16 different channels. This controller would become the first modern wireless gaming controller, leading to the proliferation of wireless console gaming controllers for subsequent gaming generations, starting with the seventh generation's Wii Remote (Wii), DualShock 3 controller (PlayStation 3) and the Xbox 360 controller (Xbox 360).

Design
The WaveBird Wireless Controller was designed and sold by Nintendo. Unlike most wireless controllers of its era, it relies on RF technology (first used in gaming with Atari's CX-42 joysticks ) instead of infrared line-of-sight signal transmission, and the controller's radio transceiver operates at 2.4 GHz. The range of the WaveBird controller is officially 6 m but some users have reported ranges of 18 –. The WaveBird includes a small receiver unit which must be plugged into the controller port of the GameCube. Made of the same gray-colored plastic as the standard WaveBird, it features a channel-selection wheel and an LED to indicate when a signal is received. Up to sixteen WaveBird controllers may be used in the same area if each is set to a different channel.

The WaveBird Wireless Controller maintains the same overall aesthetic design as the standard GameCube controller. The components (analog sticks, buttons, and triggers) and layout remain the same, while adding wireless functionality and space for two standard AA batteries. It is somewhat larger and heavier than a standard GameCube controller, with a channel selector dial, an on/off switch, and an orange LED power indicator on the face of the controller in place of the gap between the D-pad and the C-stick. Functionally, the only feature the WaveBird controller lacks compared to the standard controller is the rumble feature, the motors of which would reduce battery life.

Colors
The WaveBird Wireless Controller was available in most regions only in light gray and platinum colors. In Japan, two limited edition WaveBird models were released through Club Nintendo: 1,000 Special Edition Gundam "Char's Customized Color" WaveBirds (two-toned red with the Neo-Zeon logo) to coincide with the Japan-only GameCube release of Mobile Suit Gundam: Gundam vs. Z Gundam, and a "Club Nintendo" WaveBird (white top with light blue bottom and Club Nintendo logo).

Use on subsequent consoles
Like all GameCube controllers, the WaveBird Wireless Controller is compatible with the original Wii model (RVL-001), for use with GameCube and Virtual Console titles as well as certain Wii games and WiiWare titles. Since the launch of the Wii, the WaveBird has seen increased popularity due to its ability to control these games wirelessly.

Following speculation that Nintendo might re-release the WaveBird due to the popularity of its use on the Wii, a Nintendo representative confirmed that there were no plans to offer WaveBirds in stores again. Although the representative stated that "original GameCube controllers" would be available directly from Nintendo, there is no listing for the WaveBird.

In November 2014, Nintendo released a GameCube controller adapter for use with the Wii U alongside the release of Super Smash Bros. for Wii U. In 2018, shortly after the announcement of Super Smash Bros. Ultimate for the Nintendo Switch, the company added support for the Wii U GameCube controller adapter for the newer hybrid console.

Legal issues
Anascape Ltd, a Texas-based firm, filed a lawsuit against Nintendo for patent infringements regarding Nintendo's controllers. A July 2008 verdict found that a ban would be issued preventing Nintendo from selling several controllers, including the WaveBird, in the United States. Nintendo was free to continue selling the WaveBird pending an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On April 13, 2010, Nintendo won the appeal and the previous court decision was reversed.

title: WaveBird Wireless Controller


text:
Talk:California State Route 91

Comment
Wasn't this one of the first freeways to use FasTrak? --64.169.88.40 08:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Currently, I haven't found that information yet. What I do know is that the name FasTrak is trademarked by Transportation Corridor Agencies, the local agency that maintains the Orange County toll roads. So I'm assuming that they were the first ones to use the system. The 91 Express lanes are run by a different agency. In the meantime, I'll have to edit the changes you made. Zzyzx11 22:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Now, I've decided to create a separate article to deal with the 91 Express Lanes. Zzyzx11 06:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Riverside Freeway
Can that part of this highway also represent the Santa Ana river which it parallels, with its name? Eloc08 (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:California State Route 91