text:
Talk:Ellen MacArthur

Technology
Surely this is more a triumph of technology, rather than feats of one person? We should therefore be celebrating the technolgical and navigational advances which were the prime means of attaining this record? Controversial I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.32.84 (talk • contribs)

 * Feel free to go and write some articles on the technology, then. Joyous | Talk 15:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The technology certainly helps (until it starts to go wrong), but the novelty of it wears off after 71 days at sea :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.84.253.241 (talk • contribs)

I'm getting really sick of hearing all this "triumph of technology" stuff. It's total garbage. The next person who tells me that "it's all easy now because it's all GPS" is going to be made to scrub out my holding tank. I'm sure a lot of people — and I'm thinking of people who've never sailed on the ocean — imagine that trimming sail in a gale is as simple as pressing a button on the GPS, but let me tell you that button ain't there. It's true that there are some boats with electric winches where sailing is done by button-pushing — I've sailed on an Amel Super Maramu which was like that — but those are illegal in racing and record setting, for the same reason that using the engine is illegal. These are sailing events, and for competitive purposes the boat has to be propelled and controlled by wind and muscle power only. (Exceptions are made for electronic auto-pilots — simply more accurate and safer than the traditional wind-powered equivalent.)

In any case, how do you imagine that "technology" helps with wrestling a huge, wet genoa weighing hundreds of pounds up through a tiny hatch onto a wet, heaving and wave-swept foredeck? I can tell you from experience that handling a 32-foot heavy-displacement yacht with 650 ft² of sail (main and genoa) in a gale is a serious physical challenge, even with crew. Doing the same single-handed on a 75-foot trimaran weighing a couple of tons less but with 2,900 ft² of sail is something I can't imagine and never want to experience!

What I think few people appreciate is just how incredibly hard racers have to work. To win, you have to keep the boat moving at top speed, and that means trimming sail for every change in the wind. Adjusting the sheets, putting in or shaking out a reef, or changing headsails goes on continually. (I wait hours after a wind change, on the off-chance that it won't hold, because (a) my heavy boat can take it, (b) I don't give a damn about speed, and (c) I can't be bothered!).

The reason that Ellen is the fastest sailor in the world is that she is prepared to push herself harder than any other person sailing on the ocean, in the world, bar none. At the slightest shift she's up there doing whatever it takes to keep the boat going at top speed, cranking a mainsail weighing as much as a small car up and down the mast God knows how many times a day. She wins because she commits more physical effort to the job than anyone else, beyond the point where most people would break down and give up. And that is a "feat of one person", pure and simple.

Technology obviously helps, but not with sailing the boat. Technology designed a fast boat in the first place, but that only made Ellen's job much, much harder — when Robin Knox-Johnston did his trip, he was on a small, heavy boat with a tiny sail plan (coincidentally almost identical to my own boat), a fraction of the effort to sail compared to Kingfisher or B&Q. Technology made B&Q into a huge boat that 10 people would have trouble managing. Technology helps with navigation, and with communication — both important — but not with sailing the boat, except for the cool 2-hand winches which allow Ellen to translate sweat into sailing speed faster than anyone else has ever done. — Johan the Ghost seance 13:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well stated. I would also add that 'technology' is also a major contributor to the fact that B&Q remains in one piece while achieving ever increasing speeds day in day out, week in week out.  Fast speeds in the southern ocean tested Ellen's physical and mental capacity to the limit in order to keep the boat trimmed and sailing to maximum efficiency without exceeding the design limits and breaking.  The faster the boat the more challenges on skill and endurance when sailing in extreme conditions (ie can I go faster without the mast falling down, how/when and for how long can I sleep etc).  So - technology aids navigation, communication, weather forecasting and boat strength but the achievement of the skipper in breaking the record cannot be overstated.  Boatman 20:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I'm certainly not denying the huge amount of technology that makes a modern Open 60, say, an incredibly fast boat.  The point is that all the sailors in these races and record attempts have boats are like that.  Technology will only get you to the starting line, and on a level footing with all the other sailors.  Winning is down to the skipper. — Johan the Ghost seance 21:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks Johan. I think you're right that these people (not to mention their less evolved counterparts who have been vandalizing the page) have never been ocean sailing, or perhaps they've never even raced. Certainly the only records they've broken are in speaking about things they know nothing about. I'd say they should try it themselves, but I doubt they have either the guts or the sailing skill to elicit the necessary funds. Either way, there's a big difference between hopping in your Sunfish in a light breeze on the lake and facing the Southern Ocean by yourself. One of the main human feats of ocean racing and circumnavigation attempts is being able to tame these out-of-control beasts; in other words, the technology makes things both better and worse. (Hmm, perhaps they're merely sexists who think a woman couldn't do this without a man or sufficient technology. Would not surprise me.) Antije (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the amount of text in 'Criticism' paragraph valid/balanced?
In terms of words the Criticism section is by far the dominant part of this article. Questions for discussion:-

 * Is she such a controversial character that so much text is needed?
 * In the media praise far outweighed criticism. What was the ratio? 2:1, 5:1, 10:1?? A proper balance needs to be established in the article.
 * The round the world speed record does not have any restrictions placed on yacht design (except for engine use not allowed). Why does this negate the achievements of any previous record holder who used the best technology of the time to race around the world non-stop?.
 * The technology, speeds achieved etc introduce a whole new set of skills and challenges. eg Sleep deprivation, mental concentration, increased physical stamina etc etc.  This does not negate the achievements of previous record holders who were all 'pushing the boundaries'.  Some experts say that is does because it was achieved by a woman.
 * The motivation of record breakers can always be represented in a negative way to us mere mortals. eg Self centred, selfish, competitive, money motivated, crushes the competition, etc etc but if they did not have some of these attributes they would not be world record breakers. If you follow her story, media interviews, documentaries etc etc have we seen any inference of money motivation?  Typically world record holders earn good money, the higher the profile typically the more they earn.  Every expert has an opinion so to balance the article, for every negative comment there needs to be one or two or three etc times as many supporting quotes from respected sources.

In summary valid negative criticim is not a problem but is she such a controversial character that requires such a large content in the article?. Do you agree that negative criticism in the article must be balanced with respect to the dominant praise from media, experts, fellow competitors etc on her achievements?? Boatman 07:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that most of this new copy is totally irrelevent to Wikipedia, and I suspect comes from someone who holds a grudge. I suggest that it be deleted. Do others agree? Philsy 16:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to reply to this properly later, but I do think that (in general terms) the level of praise she has received is easily equalled (or even surpassed) by both the objective criticism re changes in technology and the subjective criticism/satire re her temperement and motivations. Check almost any news article about her over the past couple of years, and you'll see that it refers to both. I appreciate that fans of hers may wish to keep the Wikipedia article clear of these matters, but I think the way forward for them would be build up on the positive side, rather than try to eliminate or water-down the negative side - which I think I've drafted quite reasonably and sourced with, among others, articles from both the BBC and The Guardian - both very respected sources. I certainly don't hold a "grudge" against her.

Labcoat 16:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ref your reply above, ".....that (in general terms) the level of praise she has received is easily equalled (or even surpassed)......" A google search (after eliminating articles from sponsors, associated charities etc etc) comes nowhere close to justifying this statement.
 * We are not asking for a "watering down the negative side", the same thing can be said far more concisely.
 * Why the comparison with Robin Knox-Johnston's record which has been significantly beaten several times since? Look at any world record that uses equipment/technology and compare that with the record 30 years previously. The article only compares MacArthur's record with the previous record that she beat by just over 1-day.
 * Currently the article is unbalanced. So what I suggest, with your agreement, is that you review all the comments above, review the section and either edit or confirm that you believe that no changes are necessary.  Thanks Boatman 18:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Boatman, cheers for the reply. I'll take another look very soon and get back to you. Please leave 'as is', for the time being, though.

Labcoat 07:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. Boatman, I've re-read both your feedback and also the content of the Criticism section. Thanks again. I've deleted the bit about Leslie Grantham, because it doesn't really add anything valuable. However, with the rest, I think the real problem here is a lack of substantive content in the article generally re her positive achievements, rather than any serious problem with the content of the Criticism section per se. As things currently stand, I do agree that the overall article is now disproportionately weighted on the negative side. But the way forward would be for someone to add content that reflects her positive achievements more fully - for example, her charity work. I think the comments re self-promotion are justified, given the extreme wealth her racing career has earned her, together with the Damehood - which, at such a young age and in such an exclusive environment, did attract controversy over whether it was truly merited. Additionally, her temperament has been repeatedly lampooned by the UK tabloids and 'lads mags' - which, irrespective of one's opinions of them, do (for better or worse) represent a substantial percentage of the British public. You'll probably be aware that Wikipedia has in recent months and years come under attack for it's reliability as a source of information. One of the main charges being that many articles, particularly those concerning celebrities, are often closely 'guarded' by fans/supporters of the person/people concerned, who actively strike out or dilute anything which may construed as negative. I fear that this article may cited as an example of that if we do not permit sufficient space for fair criticism. Labcoat 20:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time in considering the content and for a clear reasoned response. Boatman 21:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi.. I have a bit of a problem with the criticism section too. While it is perfectly fair to mention that Robin Knox-Johnston had a harder time than Macarthur because of the technological disparity, why is this a "criticism" of MacArthur? and if it isn't, why is it a section labelled 'Criticism'? Secondly, what exactly does it mean to say she "motivated by self-promotion".. in particular, what is alleged to be wrong with putting the logo of her sponsors on her yacht (aren't they paying for it after all)? And even if it were wrong, how would it constitute "self-promotion"? Thirdly, I am not sure that being accused of having whiny temperament is a notable criticism.. after all, she is not notable because of her personality and so I feel criticism of her personality is intrinsically non-notable as criticism. As a media phenomemon, bitching and satire about her whininess might be notable but perhaps it should be presented as a media phenomenon rather than as criticism. The only notable criticism I can see is that, having been perhaps disproportionately honoured and celebrated, she has not made an active effort to cut herself down to size or to acknowledge her colleagues and predecessors. I'm not sure this deserves a whole section called "criticism". Zargulon 17:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

In the criticism section, I feel it is unnecessary to include Knox-Johnston's quote as an example of criticism, it is merely an observation (however negative) on technological progress. I have retained the citation, but removed the text. Secondly, the whole second part of the "Criticism" section is merely conjecture and personality-based. The accusations of marketing (her boat being called B&Q) should therefore be applied to any sportsperson racing under a sponsor's banner, which brings in all manner of F1 teams, a few football (soccer) teams such as Bayer Leverkusen, etc. etc.. If whinging and whining at 100mph winds, rough sea swells, homesickness and psychological stress is a bad thing, then maybe the criticism section should be levelled at the entire human race. As such, I can see no merits in the second part of Criticism and I have lopped it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.187.123 (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see User:Labcoat has been reinserting the excessively critical passages which were removed earlier in accordance with what I read above in this discussion as the general consensus that they were overblown and not fair. Maybe be I am mistaken but that is how I read the discussion. User:Labcoat is also accusing people of vandalism which strikes me as contrary to AGF. Do we want the current excessive (IMO) criticism section or do we want it reverted back to the more restrained version? Dabbler 21:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree that this behaviour is destructive and unacceptable. I do not understand what this guy's (girl's?) problem is, it might help if he contributed on the talk page rather than flinging accusations of vandalism. Zargulon 23:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

 * It's me again, the one who "lopped" it. I don't see how the reverted version is anything vastly different to what's on there now, albeit in a much more concise form, removing unnecessary citable quotes and removing a lot of POV conjecture. I will once again remove the POV non-encyclopaedic language. It is not vandalism, it is streamlining. 80.4.187.123 —Preceding comment was added at 00:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I'm not sure whether it's fair to assume that a shared opinion between two (or three, if you include the anonymous 'lopper') contributors forms any kind of "consensus". I also think that the near-wholesale, repeated (and anonymous) deletion of well-sourced article sections that have remained entirely unchallenged for almost five months could legitimately be considered a form of vandalism. The "consensus" you have claim disregards the preceding "consensus" on this page that justified the passages - in which, as you'll see, I participated and provided a reasoned justification for their inclusion. You'll see that I had already acknowledged that the criticism section was probably disproportionate in terms of size - but that the problem was more as a consequence of too little in terms of the 'positive' aspects of her career, rather than a fault with the "negative" comments in themselves.

Please be aware that I have no personal dislike of MacArthur. I do worry however that the article (as it now stands) provides an account that misses much of the controversy that she has been subject to.

Accordingly, at present I feel that the section has been edited unfairly. We are clearly in disagreement and need to try and work through this together.

(Also, Zargulon, please refrain from using language such as "I do not understand what this guy's (girl's?) problem is" and "...flinging accusations" on these pages. The tone and nature of such comments are contrary to the basic rules governing discussions on these pages.)

Labcoat 06:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

 * You are the only rule-breaker, Labcoat. I do not think you had any basis for using the word "vandalism", particularly when the deletions were given *prior* support by the most recent opinions on the talk page. Sourced that material may be, but my above questions remain unanswered.. the 'criticism' about relating to her voyage being easier than previous is not actually criticism of either her or the voyage, is it? Merely a criticism of the interpretation they have received (allegedly.. do I detect a straw man?) in some quarters. As for her temperament even if it should be included it obviously doesn't deserve a "criticism" section, which looks kinda foolish. Just stick all this somewhere more stylish in one of the already existing sections and I wouldnt have any objection to it being reinstated. Zargulon 08:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Zargulon, for the sake of the article, let's put the issue of who's 'rule-breaking' and who isn't to one side. I agree that the deleted content sat awkwardly under the banner 'criticism'. If the passages were re-inserted under a new section entitled 'Perspectives', would that be acceptable to you and others?

Labcoat 10:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Right now the article reads like a hatchet job with all the criticism of Macarthur because she used more up to date technology than Know-Johnston did thirty years ago when Suhaili was already old. That is not a criticism it is a description of changing technology and may have a place in Long distance sailing races but not as a Criticism of Macarthur. So that section should be moved to another article of deleted. Secondly, if she does get tired, emotional and even whinges after being sleep deprived for months thatis hardly a criticism unless she is the only yachtsperson ever to do so. You could see if it fits in under Sleep deprivation perhaps? Thirdly, I doubt she threw a tantrum until Blair made her a Dame, it wasn't here decision so she should not be criticised for it. Any comments about her personality are essentially POV even if sourced by POV writers in in POV papers. If she has been charged with a crime because of her personality or has been part of some public scandal as a result of it perhaps it would have a place. Because some journalistic hack or another competitor doesn't like her getting attention does not make it notable. Dabbler 11:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think, with respect, that you may be missing the point slightly with this. MacArthur's whinging, self-promotion etc were included since they have become (fairly or otherwise) closely linked to her achievements in the eyes of both the public and those from within the sport. These points are therefore notable. Whether they should be termed 'criticism' or something else is a separate matter.

As a (fairly random) illustrative example of this point, see the article on Tony Slattery, which refers to how "Early in the 1990s he became over-exposed as a celebrity, to the extent that he was a target of satire."

Labcoat 11:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

 * With respect, it isn't a separate matter. And you are also missing the point that even if a small amount of criticism should be in the article, it does not make sense here to have a separate section devoted to it. Zargulon 14:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just saw your intermediate comment. I really favour integrating the material into existing sections rather than having a separate section devoted to it. A discussion of how great (or not) her achievement and a discussion of her temperament don't sit well in the same paragraph (whether it's called criticisms or perspectives). Rather the discussion of whether her achievement was exaggerated by the press should join the section on the round-the-world yacht race, and the discussion of her temperament, well it's quite difficult to find anywhere stylistically reasonable to put that.. it's pretty disconnected from anything else on the page. By the way I still don't understand what is meant by 'self-promotion'.. seeking sponsorship isn't self-promotion, it's self-finance via the promotion of others. Zargulon 14:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Lopper here again - i do have a Wiki username but I cannot remember my password -- Firstly I'm glad we've seen off a stupid vandal today.. IMHO Ellen IS pretty but that's POV.

Labcoat: One would normally include Character aspects if they were a major part of their public image.. for example Lee Evans manic energy, Gordon Brown's solemnity or Julian Clary's campness. However Ellen's persona is far far outweighed by her actual achievements. Forget what boat she used - the year she broke the record was 2004, not 1974. Her personality traits were only highlighted in a SATIRICAL comedy show, a few right-wing rent-a-mouths.. plus the previous version of Criticism used quotes in a prejudiced way - i.e. expounding an interpretation and then using a particular quote in such a way as to re-inforce a view. In a GCSE English Literature essay this would be ideal. In an ideal encyclopaedia entry we deal with facts and accepted norms, not conjecture and opinion.

Above all this, I do not think a heavily weighted Criticism section is beneficial to the article. People looking up Ellen MacArthur will be looking for her records, her essential information and her activities. They will not be looking for a character reference, and no sane / eduacated / informed person will for one second think that the round the world speed record is in any way less of an achievement than her predecessors. Fact is she did sail non-stop around the world faster than anyone else using the allowable technology she had available. If she was going for an unassisted record that would be something else, but she wasn't. And I hardly think linking in the Daily Mail, a newspaper with a reputation for being sniffy about individual achievement, helps.

OK it's now half midnight and I'm highly caffeinated...back to work! 80.4.187.123 —Preceding comment was added at 00:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK it's now half midnight and I'm highly caffeinated...back to work! 80.4.187.123 —Preceding comment was added at 00:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I fear that we might be going around in circles with this. 'Lopper', I'm not sure if I accept the argument that the inclusion of non-positive comments regarding MacArthur's career somehow denigrates her positive achievements. Also, you made a passing joke regarding some POV vandalism. Yes, it was a joke but I also wonder whether it hints at what might be influencing the reasons for wish to strike out the critical remarks? If you're an admirer of MacArthur's, perhaps you're unduly sensitive to non-positive aspects of her life? Personally, I really have no opinion either way.

You've dismissed the critical comments as being the product of right-wing / Daily Mail-style bigotry, which is an interpretation I find very odd, since the perceptions regarding her temperament are widespread throughout all sections of British society. This is evidenced by the fact that the deleted passages were sourced from a BBC1 (i.e national and very mainstream) show and national newspapers of practically opposite political leanings.

Her whining etc is a notable character trait because most people would describe her as such. And I'm afraid, whether we like it or not, her achievements absolutely are less of an achievement compared to her predecessors. To claim otherwise is like saying the modern tennis racquet performs basically the same as the wooden ones used 40 years ago.

 * I live in the UK and until I read this article I only knew of MacArthur as a prominent sailor.. I didn't give her personality a second thought. To be honest, I still don't. I also think the fact that she is a woman adds to her achievement.. just as for a lot of commentators and satirists it is apparently an excuse to look for kinds of low-level faults that I imagine they would not if she were a male sailor. Zargulon 09:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Zargulon, the comment re 'self-promotion' concerns an arguably cynical belief that her primary motivation in the sport is to acquire fame and build on her vast wealth as opposed to any genuine love of the sport or personal ambition to break records.

 * Ok. I think this needs to be expressed more precisely. Zargulon 09:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, as per your suggestion, I would like to move the deleted passages to another section of the article. Labcoat 07:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 07:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Please give it a try. If it reads sensibly I will support you. Zargulon 09:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

 * The article as it currently stands provides a very well balanced article for the reader. ie Life, achievements, criticism etc.  The motives for people breaking records in any sport or activity are complex and at best imprecise.  If `her motivation is 'to acquire fame and build upon her vast wealth' some will commend this as a wonderfull magnificent objective and others will condemn it as the pits - who is right?  Also what does 'vast wealth' actually mean? Knox Johnston was not trying to break a record he was trying to be the first in an era when no-one knew if it was even possible for a small boat to structually survive a non-stop voyage around the world, no-one knew if the solitude could be endured, no-one knew if it was possible for one person to sail, navigate, sleep etc and complete the voyage intact. MacArthur was out simply to break a record using the best technology, best sports medicine, nutrition, weather advice etc etc that was available.  The record she was aiming to beat was even broken while she was preparing.  She was and is a full time professional sailor ie if no sponsorship then the morgage does not get paid.  If we come back and review this in 20 years time us 'old salts' will say 'well it was so much harder in MacArthur's day because she only had carbon fibre technology available, weather forcasting was only reliable to 30 days out, she only had dual quad pentiums for computer power, even downloading a weather chart took 30 secs from the satellite and she even had to do it 10 times a day - an absolute age' etc etc   The article as it currently stands provides a very well balanced article for the reader.  ie Life, achievements, criticism etc. Remember Wikipedia must be an encyclopedia of facts not opinions  Boatman 13:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Zargulon and Boatman, I agree entirely with almost everything you've said. Almost.  My issue, and it has been my issue from the outset, is that MacArthur's detractors and those that satirise her do enjoy popular support from a broad spectrum of the British public.  I actually agree that such critcisms are in themselves probably unjust - but it is not our role to construct an account that 'does justice' (as we see it) to the individual concerned in the sense that we plaster over the 'unfair' popular perceptions and portrayals of that person.  From the start, I have accepted that the (now deleted) critical aspects of the article were disproportionately large in the context of the article overall.  The correct way, I feel, to have dealt with that would've been to build up on the positive side.  Can we agree on some kind of half-way compromise?

Labcoat (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * certainly. Zargulon (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

 * "MacArthur's detractors and those that satirise her do enjoy popular support from a broad spectrum of the British public." - Er...just who exactly? I was at her homecoming at Falmouth - which is the most southwesterly one can go. The place was packed with people from all over the place. Is there an "Anti-Ellen" group that we're not aware of?

The only way to settle this would be to put a separate "Admiration" section in to counter the criticism section. We would then be getting into all manner of character references and opinionated conjecture; stuff I believe does not lie in a Wiki article. LOPPER 212.32.86.43 (talk)

 * 100% agree with LOPPER above. Ref Labcoat's question re compromise - The article currently says: "Critics of MacArthur's voyage emphasise the vast, near incomparable differences in the technological capabilities of present-day sailing vessels against those used by previous record holders.  In addition to this some commentators have found her personality challenging and overly negative. Her temperament is something that forms the central basis for her caricature on the BBC satirical comedy show Dead Ringers."  All true, very clearly stated with references provided for further external references.   This is not a half way compromise from anyone it is a very unambiguous statement of fact.  As soon as we get into the realms of assumptions around motivation, assumptrions regarding the state of her bank balance, assumptions about what % of UK dislike versus % who like her then this is outside the realms of an encyclopdia.  (Incidentally I live and work in France and I am amazed how many non-sailing people people have heard of 'ellen macarteur'.  So I think that I will add that observation to the article and I will also add that that France have adopted her as one of their own due to her sailing achievements in Castorama and due to her charitable work in France - Oops, best not as I have just remembered that Wikepedia is an Encyclopedia!!) The critism as currently stated is as concise and factual as can be and no compromise needed.  Boatman (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I can't help feeling that I'm simply being shouted down. Can we at least agree that the existing Criticism section remain unaltered without any further swipes, then?  Labcoat (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Labcoat, I support your excellent recommendation.  Thanks, Boatman (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not acceptable to me. I'd be happy for some of the deleted critical points to be reinstated to the sections of the article where they have individual relevance, but I feel a "criticism" section is an abomination in this article. Zargulon (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think to get a 'Controversies' or 'Criticisms' section you've got to pretty much do something wrong, or appear to have done wrong. Such as a drink driving conviction or a strong suspicion of wrong-doing in the popular conscience. Gomez2002 (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The criticisms regarding technological advances might well be valid. In other areas though, the use of the 'Viz Profanasaurus' as a reference is utterly ridiculous, it has no place here.  Satirical characterizations on TV shows don't really belong here either, are all satirical characters listed for other famous people?  I very much doubt it, why is this individuals satirical character so notable?

General Observations
As a non-sailor, perhaps I am not welcome to offer observations, in which case delete me. However, in looking over this colloquy I find myself wondering about several questions: 1) Are the correspondents underemployed, making available time to engage in this seemingly endless discussion? and 2) What is it about this woman (about which I know almost nothing, which is why I came to Wikipedia in the first place), which engenders such irrepressible emotion? OK, so now I know she has an abrasive manner (which apparently serves to disqualify her to some degree for recognition), and has performed remarkable feats (to which, to a disputed and unresolvable degree technology has contributed).Does anyone think this obsessive chat will resolve any of this? Give it a rest, please.Mallow1 (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a general Wikipedia policy and methodology. Someone tries to extend an article in a direction that others don't want to go. Rather than each party obsessively rewriting and reverting the article ad nauseam, which would make it change every few minutes, they try and resolve the issue by coming to a consensus here in the Talk pages on what should be in the article and what shouldn't. If after a time a general agreement is reached, the article is rewritten and then any subsequent changes to that aspect can be regarded as closer to vandalism than an attempt to improve. Dabbler (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We are at very least relating to each other constructively - our aim may be futile, but roads are for journeys as well as destinations. At any rate, you seem have the time on your hands to mock us for it.. doesn't that make you a hypocrite? Zargulon (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Bye.Mallow1 (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Bye! Good luck. Zargulon (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Marvellous debate, and I hope it can be resolved in an amicable and beneficial manner (i.e the facts are presented , and people and allowed to make up their own mind ). I am a fan of Ms MacArthur and her achievements. So i maybe slightly biased. However where Labcoat suggested there was a wide spread acceptance, within the media of her "whining" persona. It seemed more the classic cases of, certainly the British media employing their , build you up knock you down syndrome. Also there was a very small band of male Sailors (from various periodicals and on-line forums ) who seemed to show distaine and contempt for her achievements, simply for her gender.

I believe the criticism part should remain, however reflect in its wording a more opinion based rather then factual outlook. I remember seeing both the Dead Ringers sketches, and reading the reactions in magazines (like Zoo and Loaded) while both mentioned this each were also complementary within either the same articles or other editions.

Noble Title
MacArthur is a Dame, was the title bestowed or inheritated? The article doesn't clarify this enough. Zidel333 (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It was bestowed, just how is the statement

"On her return to England on February 8, 2005, it was announced that she was to be made a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire in recognition of that achievement" not clear enough? M100 (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the line in Trivia claiming she is the youngest person to recieve a knighthood, since it is unsourced, and even a cursory glance at the lists of historical knights in British Chivalric Orders here on wikipedia show plenty of people knighted at an age lower than 29. She may be the youngest commoner to recieve a knighthood, or the youngest person since some particular date, but I do not have a source to verify that, so I thought it better to remove the line altogether. 82.28.182.227 (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Early Life and Nancy Blackett trust
The article contains this sentence. "She acquired her early interest in sailing, firstly by her desire to emulate her idol at the time, Sophie Burke and, secondly by reading Arthur Ransome's Swallows and Amazons books and is the Patron of the Nancy Blackett Trust[2] which owns and operates Ransome's yacht, Nancy Blackett." Does anyone agree that the part about her being patron of the Nancy Blackett Trust should be removed from "Early Life"? It hardly seems the right place for it, though I do think it's worth including in the article. I thought about moving it to the "Charitable activity" section but since the Nancy Blackett Trust is a limited company (I've confirmed that with Companies House) and I'm not sure of it's charitable status I'm not sure if that's the right place. I believe it makes sense to put it in Charitable activity, but thought I'd get other input first. Jack of Many (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
Is there any need for this section. Why does it matter that other people think she's negative. Perhaps we should move the point about the technological advances to the actual section on here Round the World voyage.

The stuff about the parodies and satirisation could remain and the section renamed "Satire".

What do people think? RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ellen MacArthur. 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/20081006073002/http://www.ipa.nw.ru/PAGE/DEPFUND/LSBSS/ALF/21.htm to http://www.ipa.nw.ru/PAGE/DEPFUND/LSBSS/ALF/21.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I think Ellen MacArthur Foundation should be merged with this page. There isn't enough RS about the EMF to justify a standalone article and this page isn't too lenghthy or unweildy to accomodate it.Daily Spider Glee (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand the points about length, though the characteristics of both a substantial person and an organisation are that they will grow and develop more material. This aside, the point about separation is vital. It is extremely useful to view the nature of a Foundation as being there for the long term, beyond the life of the founder. It is also useful to reflect the nature of relationship between an individual (albeit a founder) and an independent charitable foundation as being separate under charity law. For these reasons I argue that the pages remain distinct.Watkyn Jones (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Watkyn Jones You haven't indicated any relevant policies. This merger propsal has existed long enough for a non-SPA to make a reasonable counter argument. I'm going ahead with the merger WP:BEBOLD style.ديلي سبايدر جلي (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ellen MacArthur


text:
Expo Hall

Expo Hall is an indoor arena located at the Florida State Fairgrounds in East Lake-Orient Park, Florida. It is used primarily as an exhibition hall during the Florida State Fair, but has also hosted concerts and sporting events.

The South Florida Bulls men's basketball team used Expo Hall as their main home arena for the 1979–80 season before the on-campus USF Sun Dome opened.

The Tampa Bay Rowdies of the defunct North American Soccer League used Expo Hall for 8 of their 16 home games during the 1983–84 indoor season. At that time the arena's capacity was 9,200. This would also prove to be the league's final indoor campaign before suspending operations following the 1984 outdoor season.

The arena was more famously used by the National Hockey League's Tampa Bay Lightning during the team's inaugural season of 1992–93. The facility's seating capacity of 10,425 proved too small for the Lightning, and the team relocated to the ThunderDome in St. Petersburg for three seasons, until its permanent home, Amalie Arena, was built in downtown Tampa.

In 1994 the expansion Tampa Bay Tritons of Roller Hockey International played for one season at Expo Hall before folding. Mark Messier owned the club.

The facility currently hosts graduation ceremonies for Hillsborough County's public high schools.

Noteworthy entertainers to perform in concert at Expo Hall include Robert Plant, REO Speedwagon, Cheap Trick, No Doubt, Green Day, Nine Inch Nails, Peter Frampton, Stone Temple Pilots, Yes, George Michael, Santana, Beastie Boys, Alabama, Motörhead, and the Smashing Pumpkins.

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

title: Expo Hall


text:
Talk:Malawi

"Women in Malawi" section needs major revisions
The placement and content of the "Women in Malawi" section of the article is fairly odd. Based on what the other major sections of the article are, it should probably be a subsection under one of them rather than its own standalone section. It would probably fit well under either the existing "Demographics" or "Human Rights" sections of the article. Additionally, the tone and grammar of the section are noticeably odd. It reads like something that came directly from a government task force or committee, instead of how informative sections are usually phrased for articles about nations here on Wikipedia. I don't want to just singlehandedly decide which parts of that section need rewriting or rephrasing, so I was hoping we could get some consensus here on what should remain in the section as is, what should be removed, and what should be rewritten or rephrased. MojaveSummit (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

 * It is odd here, but could probably be its own article. CMD (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Consensus for language section of infobox
The language section of the infobox is being reverted back and forth by myself and user RC88. They keep blanking the language section of the infobox claiming there are no sources for the information. I have tried pointing out how the source listed clearly states the information there. User RC88 insists that it does not use the exact wording of national and regional languages so it is not a correct source. I insist that those parameters are not required to have that.

What is the consensus for this so the edit warring stops? Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Update: an agreement was reached and the languages were re-labeled as "spoken languages". Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Child who is looking for her father
Hello everyone my name is Talawa Qomisa I am looking for a my father called Innocent Patrick Fundi he is from Malawi in Lilongwe in Blantyre can anyone help me find  him because I really would appreciate your help 41.114.175.75 (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Malawi


text:
Talk:Helsingborg Municipality

I am looking for a place called halsingland (as i remember my grandmother calling it)in sweden. Would this be the place or is there another place up north with a name similar to this? My e-mail is fiffenelli@hotmail.com. The last name is Sjodin.The old name was Erikson but was changed in the army to Sjodin because there were to many Olaf Erikson's. Please would someone respond. Thank you.

See: Hälsingland --Johan Magnus 01:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Undue or necessary ?
I'm just raising the question. Having both Helsingborg and Helsingborg Municipality here (at Wikipedia in English) seems a bit unnecessary and perhaps even undue. Why not merge these articles ? I can't find similar separation in city & town related articles in any other country but Sweden. This is just an example - and perhaps ought all similar articles be merged. Normally that is, when there is no particular reason for a separation of a city/town and its municipality. This article may even be WP:undue ? (Given Helsingborg also exists). Please convince me that I'm wrong, those of you who may feel I am. Boeing720 (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Helsingborg Municipality


text: File:PunkRockSongsAlbumCover.jpg

title: File:PunkRockSongsAlbumCover.jpg


text:
User talk:Halcatalyst

FNORD
Hi! This is Icarus!, being non-Wiki (I'm not logged in...), saying thanx for the work on the Discordianism page! Keep it up!24.176.20.60 17:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on fr.
We finally decided to blank these pages, when we find it. Lisaël 05:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for the advice on the tables. They look nice and summarise information, but wasn't sure whether a fictional item should be treated like a real one.  smurray  inchester (User), (Talk) 10:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"I hope to shout!"
I had to look that one up =) Aussie slang is a little different... jnothman talk 10:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, don't you worry, we have some good stories about Americans: My father in New York in December told an acquaintance that it was summer in Sydney, to the response "Oh, so which month is it there, now?" =) And no, I don't have an accent. :P jnothman talk 00:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: CSS
Well, admittedly I didn't test what I suggested you do here, but now that I do, it does work fine for me. I don't see any problems in your monobook.css, but I can't edit it (it's protected for only you and admins, to my knowledge: which means I may be able to edit it on Sunday night =P ). One thing you might need to do is refresh your browser's cache of the page by going to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Halcatalyst/monobook.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css and pressing refresh. Also, note that this CSS only works on talk pages and not, say, on the Help desk. It also only works when : is used to reply and not *. jnothman talk 02:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

CAoW
Since you are listed as a Roman Catholic, I figured I'd send you this. Catholic Alliance of wikipedia has been nominated for Deletion. Please vote and/or tell other people to vote to keep this organization on wikipedia. --Shanedidona 02:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Pope Innocent III
Hi, thanks for your work on this article. But I wonder why you reverted "Thereafter Otto lost all influence and died on May 19, 1218, leaving Frederick II the undisputed king." to "...emperor." Frederick II didn't become emperor until November 22, 1220 (see Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor). --Chl 00:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"Port arms"
Thanks for your very informative answer to this question! --Lph 14:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Project
Hi, my name is Federico (alias Pain) and I am creating a section for nominating th best user page, I was wondering if you were interested in joining the project.

The project has just started, and we need help to spread the word and ameliorate it.

Votes_for_best_User_page

Best regards, Federico Pistono  ✆   ✍  14:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for cleanup.
Thanks for the thorough scrubbing of the Censorware page. It is more than I could have hoped for when I tagged it with the copyedit template. JonHarder 15:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Text of Turned (and Reference Desk writ large)
I respond here to your query apropos of the provenance of my finding Turned in text form, inasmuch as one's replies on the Reference Desk are often lost amongst the many questions there posed and debates there begun. In any case, though I regret to write it, in view of your having searched in vain for so long, I found our quarry simply by Googling "Charlotte Perkins Gilman 'Turned'"; the teacher's guide you found was likely of more use to the poster, though, I imagine. More broadly, I write to commend you for sundry responses you have authored at the Reference Desk; given that the Reference Desk is surely the best place for Wikipedians to interact with others not yet having partaken of the project, it is especially to your credit that your work there toward the edification of others is provided so cordially. I imagine that if one's only contact with Wikipedia is at the Reference Desk, in the form of posting, and then regarding replies to, a question, where he/she has had you for an interlocutor, he/she necessarily leaves Wikipedia with a positive impression of the project and with a greater likelihood of return, to the betterment of the encyclopedia. The fact of your answering so many questions so well would merit thanks enough, but the fashion in which you write must engender extra recognition; so eloquent is your prose as well to delight the heart of a fellow grammarian. Joe 19:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Dendurent
Bonjour. This is in reply to your message on the French Bistro today. Are you aware of the existence of this web page? It says, among other things:
 * The earliest mention of Dendurent family comes from the early eighteenth century, from the detailed marriage records kept in the parish churches. The present spelling of the name came from the nasaled "a" that sounds so strange to English ears. Thus, the original spelling was undoubtedly Dandurand or Dandurant. The name meant De Andirand--a person from the region of Lot-et-Garonne in southern France. The Canada parish records demonstrate the presence of only one Dandurand, from whom presumably all Canadian and American Dandurants and Dendurents are descended.
 * - Mu 12:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, I'm not too suprised to hear there are problems with the explanations offered. I don't know whether any of the following can be of help: (1) Jean Tosti in his Dictionnaire des noms de famille has this to say: Dandurand: Le nom est surtout porté dans l'Aveyron et le Cantal. On le rencontre en Gascogne sous la forme Danduran. Voir Andurand . Andurand: C'est dans l'Aveyron que le nom est le plus répandu (également 47, 82). Variantes : Anduran, Andurant, Enduran. On peut certes y voir le surnom d'un homme endurant, patient, mais une autre solution est envisageable : le nom Durand, précédé de la particule occitane "en" (marquant en général un degré élevé dans la hiérarchie sociale). Dernière possibilité : un éventuel nom de baptême médiéval. Les noms Danduran, Dandurand désignent pour leur part le fils d'Anduran(d), ou encore celui qu'on appelait "dam Durand" ("dam", du latin "dominus", à rapprocher de l'espagnol "don") . (2) With the spelling Dandurand, the name was a fairly common one in France at the turn of the last century. This map shows where: . (3) One of the main genealogy sites in France has many family trees with the name Dandurand and a few others with the name Dandurant  (many of which are in the USA or Canada). Contributors to this site usually have an email address at which they can be contacted if anything exciting turns up. As for myself, I wouldn't call myself a genealogist, but I have in the past done some research in the field. So, bonne chance! - Mu 20:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup!
Dear Halcatalyst:

You have the honor of being the 19th person to respond to my survey!

Thank you for your participation. Your responses to the survey are much appreciated!

The final essay should be posted on my user page no later than March 27. Stay tuned!!!

Shuo Xiang 01:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Reference desk (Orson Welles)
I readily concede that my note was likely untoward, but I made it with the knowledge that, inasmuch as she left her e-mail address (to which I sent the IMDB link) and seemed not to realize that the answer to her query would be posted at the desk site, the poster likely wouldn't return to see my remark. In any case, I think I probably should have said that, while surely researching at an encyclopedia is an excellent place to start, asking a question at the Reference Desk perhaps isn't; I would hope, for example, that one who does doctoral work apropos of Orson Welles would be familiar with IMBD and associated film websites. Though one's using Wikipedia for research, even in pursuit of a PhD, seems certainly fine, I would suggest that the Reference Desk, a resource not representing a learned consensus of views and an appropriate distillation of sources, as perhaps describes Wikipedia qua encyclopedia proper, is perhaps more akin to asking the Welles question on a film e-mail list or some similarly-constructed discussion group; such research doesn't inspire confidence in the general abilities of the questioner. OTOH, as you seem quite properly to suggest, it seems that the questioner didn't pose her query in hopes of receiving specific information that previously she did not have, but, instead, in hopes of receiving information as to where she might find the sources in which to find that specific information; in this way, she (I continue to use the feminine pronoun here, having assumed, perhaps erroneously, that the questioner's first name was feminine) would be using the Reference Desk in the same way one might use a reference desk or computer database at a library, which usage surely is fine. In sum, I think you properly lead me to rethink, a bit, my (throwaway) comment as to the propriety of the questioner's asking her question at Wikipedia, and I will, I think, edit my response accordingly. Cordially, Joe 02:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Shortcut program
Regarding the computer program we were discussing on the Science reference desk, I'll do that for you soon, but I don't know if I'll be able to do it tonight. Hopefully you can wait. :) Oh, and by the way, when I write it, do you want me to make it start up each time Windows starts up? Just a convenience thing. -- Daverocks (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Hehe, I know a tiny, tiny bit of C... I'm not using that. I know a decent amount of batch too, it's great, the code is just there and you just run the code. Anyway, I was planning to make it in AutoIt (website). I know, probably sounds n00bish and stupid, but it's actually a good scripting language that allows the coder to do many, many things, one of which includes binding keys to functions. I think the AutoIt compiler was written in C++. Anyway, it's great. Hopefully I'll have written the program soon; just keep reminding me ;) -- Daverocks (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It's here!!!
Dear Halcatalyst

And it's here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Announcing my CS 492 term-end paper: On Wikipedia — the Technology, the People, the Unfinished Work.

Thank you for all the kind help you have lent me during the paper-writing process!!!

Long live Wikipedia!!!

Shuo Xiang 22:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Censorship
A watered-down version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 12:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Keystroke program
Hey, remember me? I offered to make you a keystroke program earlier (to disable unused shortcuts like Ctrl-B). I just wanted to say I'm really sorry for not having done it, I've had a *lot* of schoolwork recently and stuff... do you still want it? If yes, I'll try to get started on it. -- Daverocks (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

 * And it's done! You can download it here. It's a .exe of course, and although I would personally never run random exes from strangers, it's kind of your only option if you want to run a program which does anything. You can scan it with an anti-virus program but it'll be clean. Some notes on it... it stops Ctrl-anything and Alt-anything from working, except Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, Ctrl-X and Ctrl-A. When it's running, you'll see an icon looking like an A in a dark blue circle in the taskbar. You can right-click and exit the program from there if you want. Also, a known issue, Ctrl-Shift-letter may work. In some programs where it accepts the capital of a letter, that might happen. I couldn't find a way to disable Ctrl-Shift without disabling Shift (disabling shift would stop you from typing capital letters, which you probably wouldn't want). But most programs I know only recognise the lower-case Ctrl. Anyway, tell me how it performs. You'll need to run the program again every time you restart your computer or log off and log on. If you find running the program manually every startup tedious, I can change that in a later version. Let me know once you've got the program and are using it. -- Daverocks (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the feedback. If there's any other features you want in it, just ask. -- Daverocks (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: help desk
There's now a reply. Hope this helps in some way.

 * [[Image:Smiley.svg|left|60px| ]]

has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

EvocativeIntrigue TALK 17:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Intermec
I believe the corporate PR job was deleted, and I restarted the article. Please help us improve it! Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 16:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Revisionism
It was! :-) --DashaKat 16:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Userbox deleted
User:Sceptre has deleted one of your userboxes where you expressed your personal preferences against ultra-nationalistic rhetoric. Other users have suffered the same fate and according to User:Sceptre, having such an userbox constitutes as a personal attack. Not all agree with this argument and if you are one of those people who disagree with User:Sceptre's argument, you are welcome to make your point at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You may also read this discussion to see what things had been said on this controversial subject. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:UP - polemical userboxes are prohibited in userspace. Thank you. Will (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have enjoyed your edits
Keep up the good work, my man! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.103.122 (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...!
Thank you for check my article on Peruvian Amazon. I will put more information. May you traslate the article to french or another languages? The original article is Amazonía Peruana in Spanish Wikipedia. I can traslate some of yours articles to Spanish.

Greetings from Iquitos, in the Peruvian Amazon Jungle...!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwinJs (talk • contribs) 01:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

innocent iii only a deacon when chosen pope
Hi Halcatalyst:

Yes, there were lay cardinals until 1899 when the last one died. The requirement that a cardinal be an ordained priest (or bishop) was not made until the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Lay cardinals were those who were not ordained as priests: they were tonsured and often ordained as high as deacon. They were expected to remain celibate, even though the obligation of celibacy only began when ordained a subdeacon. The titles of cardinal deacon, cardinal priest, and cardinal bishop usually corresponded to the actual rank one held in holy orders until the 12th century when Pope Alexander III began to bring bishops and archbishops from all over the catholic world to Rome and give them titles as pastors of Roman parishes (actually pastored by local priests). This made them cardinal priests within the sacred college and yet they were also bishops or archbishops from various dioceses and provinces within Latin Christendom (and sometimes a few from the East wherein the people had remained catholic).

In short, cardinal deacons and cardinal priests were the chief clergy of the diocese of Rome, and cardinal bishops were the bishops of the surrounding dioceses to the Roman archdiocese in the Roman province. An example of an ecclesiastical province is that of Pennsylvania, of which the archbishop of Philadelphia is the metropolitan and his affiliated (suffragan) bishops are those of Harrisburg, Allentown, Scranton, Erie, Pittsburgh, Greensburg, and Altoona-Johnstown. One archdiocese and seven dioceses together comprise the ecclesiastical province of Pennsylvania. In Rome, the bishop of Rome (the pope) is the head (archbishop and metropolitan) of the province of Rome and his suffragan bishops are the cardinal bishops (Ostia, Porto, Santa Ruffina, Poggio Mirteto, Albano, Palestrina, and Veletri. Paul VI began the custom of including the patriarchs of the various oriental churches, (if promoted to the sacred college) in the rank of the cardinal bishops.

66.92.237.79 (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)J Hess of PA66.92.237.79 (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

More speculation
Hi Halcatalyst, I thought of some more but already the qn is in archives so I present here:
 * "You're welcome. It's descriptive rather than an academic or otherwise position afaik. By neutral do you mean someone who has no position either way? More like a theistical virgin or natural born (as in non-academic) anthropologist perhaps. Theistical observer maybe... "

 * Then I saw the term "lay" above which could be applied to any of these. Best with the nuance, Julia Rossi (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Like me!
Just saw your user page and want to say fwiw, I dig Julian and the Cloud among others. How nice, Julia Rossi (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Hi Halcatalyst, thank you so much for a new Prévert to enjoy. So nice of you, :) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Bon Noël
Happy Christmas from Australia! Julia Rossi (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Robert Lindsa/ey
Thanks for that - that's now the third mistake I've found on the CWA website while working on this article (and I've notified them, and they're changing them). So much for a "Reliable source"! PamD (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Poetry collaboration
--Midnightdreary (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, trying to [revent conflict on the "Harmonium" page. Please advise or help if you can.
Greetings.

Over by the page on Harmonium, we've got ourselves a slight situation. The page is riddled with criticisms of each work that violate NPOV, there's a user who keeps defending them, and there's not enough editors to form a consensus. The perfect recipe for disaster, so I thought I'd consult you if that's all right. In the interest of maintaining civility, and because I'm not myself capable of fixing the article due to a lack of relevant knowledge or source material, I'd prefer to stay out of the whole conflict and simply alert the community to the problem. Seeing as how you've been editing the main biographical article for Stevens for some time now, protecting it from this very type of criticism, I thought you might be able to help.

I can point out what I mean if you wish, but it really should be a little apparent just from reading the article. Cheers, and many thanks for whatever help you may be able to offer. Kevin M. Daley 11:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepebuslo (talk • contribs)

Specifying user address
I would like to write to you off wiki. Is there a way to do this please? Kittybrewster ☎  17:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, hal@dendurent.com

WP Poetry and The Canterbury Tales task force
As someone who is listed as a participant for WikiProject Poetry, I hope you will be interested to learn of an attempt to revive the WP and alongside this the creation of task force to improve coverage of The Canterbury Tales. We are currently looking for participants to help set up the basics. Please get involved if you can, and we can hopefully revive this important project within Wikipedia! Many thanks, MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Surname Heil
I have been researching my ancestors and the earliest of our name is of Adam Heil born about 1537. I would like to know the origin of the name Heil. I have read the Wikipedia: Sieg Heil and I understand the uses of the name in greeting etc. However, I can find nothing in its use as a surname. Can you help?

Van A. Hoyle hoylegenealogy@carolina.rr.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.27.10 (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

twice the effort
I'm wondering why you recently wrote on the Computing Desk " Email address harvesting " rather than, for example, " Email address harvesting ". Did I miss a nuance? Were you using some tool that made it easier that way? —Tamfang (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I didn't know you can simplify it that way. That format was required years ago when I was more active.

a park in Moscow

 * You have posted the question below at Reference desk/Computing (archived at Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2014 October 22) which I think is not the best place for it, so I copy it here (with my answer). --CiaPan (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a picture of a statuary group in a park in Moscow. Can anybody tell me the name of the park? I'd like to know more about the statuary. Thanks. --Halcatalyst (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like this... http://englishrussia.com/2009/03/17/the-sins-monument/ http://www.dauntlessjaunter.com/2014/03/02/weekly-photo-children-are-the-victims-of-adult-vices-monument-moscow-russia/ ru-wiki: ru:Дети — жертвы пороков взрослых en-wiki: en:Children Are the Victims of Adult Vices CiaPan (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference desk discussion
Hi, I was glad to see another Ph.D. on the ref desks, in part because I think we could used more! Of course a degree is not necessary to contribute, but I do find that actual academics seem to have a bit better handle on how to provide good references. If you're still curious about what applied math in theoretical ecology looks like, I work mostly in population dynamics using mathematical models. Recently I've been focused on how disturbance_(ecology) processes can interact with life history traits to influence biodiversity in plant populations. Basically I think about plants, write some equations, analyze them, then try to convince that the results are worth publishing as being informative about ecosystems... sometimes it works well, other times it doesn't, a fact that I'm sure you're familiar with in humanities publishing :) Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I really liked your answer!
 * I was in academe for only five years: loved research (two books), but teaching depressed me, so I got out. Eventually I became a software developer. My abiding interest has been in science. I think I should have studied astronomy and then become a science writer. I could have been covering the exciting developments in cosmology and particle physics. I could have... oh well.
 * I'm amazed how very different scientific disciplines have come together.
 * So, please tell me a little about yourself. You should write on my talk page; that's how we keep conversations going, since I get notified of changes there but not about changes on your page. Halcatalyst (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh hi again, I just gave some refs to you on the ref desk and had the thought "what was I talking with Hal about...?" So here I am. Anyway, since you're interested, I've been thinking I'll leave academia for the past, oh, ten years or so, but here I am, ~7 years post PhD, still grinding away. My current gig will expire soon though, and I may indeed find an "industry" job after that. I actually love teaching, but find research a bit stressful, and I may end up teaching at some smaller college that doesn't demand as much research output, though it's a pity that gig doesn't pay that well. What was your PhD in? I can't recall how this thread started and if you mentioned it at the time. Most science PhDs don't do books within a few years, so the book bit makes me think humanities. Are you one of these people who quite humanities to follow the siren call of coding? What kinds of stuff do you do? I'm mostly self taught and bad at coding, but mostly good enough to get done what I need to. My current project consists mostly (programming-wise) of slinging around lots of high-dimensional arrays in MATLAB and finding lots of eigenvalues. I'm happy to chat here or via email, but if you reply here please use the ping template to notify me. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm, I don't know what could have happened to your messages on my talk page, but I too see no record of them. I did box up some stuff in an archive a while back but it there was nothing in there from you. Feel free to keep the thread on this page, or you can click the "email this user" button on my talk page to send me an email (this lets users contact each other without publishing our addresses here).
 * I am a big fan of the classics too- I took four years of Latin in high school and about a year of ancient Greek in college. The most advanced I got was translating a few paragraphs of the Aeneid and a small bit of the Gorgias diaglogue. I liked how translating those was fairly formal and mathematical, though now sometimes I wish I knew a bit of a non-English, non-dead language :) SemanticMantis (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Classics – classical languages. I had two years of Latin in high school and all I remember is, veni vidi, vici. Oh well.

I have a good friend who’s a professor of Greek at our local college. There’s a passage in the Bible of extreme importance; it has to do with Grace, and was being discussed on Wikipedia. An Anglican priest made a comment that depended on a Greek translation. You could say that this passage, and this word, are at the root of what Martin Luther did in starting the Protestant Reformation. My friend explained it to me and it became an important part of my knowledge, my understanding. Those are the most important things in my life. I’m curious, I’m an intellectual. I love to know and understand. But that’s all I know about Greek, ha.

Translation is also important to me. I speak French, and I try to speak it well. I think about the fact that, for instance, the word train is the same in French and English, but dog and chien are completely different. Translation is hard enough, but what about translating poetry? The answer: you use a crib. British poet W. H. Auden translated from Icelandic, a language he knew nothing of. With poetry, the words are of utmost importance, but there's a lot more, too. A faithful translation has to take a lot into account.

So what are you up to currently? --Halcatalyst (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Confusing edit
I do not understand this edit. What happened? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

 * You must mean this thread. I wasn't involved in it, though farther down the page I had a question about

Google Apps and Passwords. --Halcatalyst (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:John Beebe China 2006.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:John Beebe China 2006.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Halcatalyst


text:
Talk:Transport in the United Kingdom

Cleanup/expansion
I chose to mark this cleanup. Perhaps there are some general sections which could be written, eg on the governments role, but much of it can just be links to other articles. Oliver Chettle 13:04, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Airports
'Internal flights are uncommon but not unknown'

I think this underplays internal air transport in the UK. Anyone else think this?--KharBevNor 29 June 2005 16:35 (UTC)

 * yes, that struck me too - how about 'Internal flights are less common than international travel, but are becoming increasingly popular.' --Mark Lewis 29 June 2005 17:58 (UTC)

 * Definitely. Flights between Scotland and the South of England and to and from Northern Ireland in particular are getting increasingly popular. Maybe we could mention companies like Easyjet in passing? --KharBevNor 29 June 2005 18:36 (UTC)

As Edinburgh Airport is the busiest airport in Scotland and not Glasgow International, I have updated this accordingly. I had updated this previously but note this has reverted back to saying Glasgow Airport is the busiest in Scotland. This is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.19.212 (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Railways
The phrase "The rail network in the United Kingdom consists of two independent and unconnected parts" confuses me. Does it mean independant in the geographical sense, or in the management sense. If the former, what about the Isle of Wight?
 * I wrote it quite quickly to get some information there, based on what was written at Rail transport in the United Kingdom - by all means correct and improve it as you see fit! -- Joolz 2 July 2005 01:30 (UTC)

I think it refers to the fact that Northern Ireland Railways are separate from those of the British mainland. G-Man 2 July 2005 18:36 (UTC)

You've used the word "separate" which doesn't address my question, do you mean geographically separate or separate in a mangement sense? I suspect the former, in which case the IOW should be listed since it is also geographically separate.

Additional data and freight
This seems to me a useful starting article, but a few extras might help: – we probably ought to say a bit about transport trends (so rail was once dominant but car / lorry now are) and give some idea of proprtion of journeys made by particular modes of transport - a lot more needs to be said about freight - there's no mention of road freight, and little of rail freight

Would appreciate your comments. I shall find some data to add - I think there is some at DfT website. --Alistairkent 3 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)

How long are the railways?
The DfT website suggests that the National Rail network (i.e. excluding parts not operated by Network Rail, e.g. LUL, DLR) has 15,042 route kilometres open for passenger traffic, and 1,610 route kilometres for freight traffic only (making a total of 16,652 route km). This is the GB total - Northern Ireland is not included.

But, as at the end of the year 2004-05 the SRA's website states that the number of route kilometres open for passenger traffic in GB is a mere 14,328, with an additional 1,788 route km open for freight. It seems that the SRA has reclassified some routes since the previous year, as its figures for 2003-04 are much closer to those of the DfT - being just 169 km less for passenger route km, and identical for freight route km.

See DfT GB Transport Statistics section 6.5 (PDF)

also SRA National Rail Trends Section 6.5 (PDF)

Do others have any views / preference which to use?

My personal view is that - for national rail - we should use the SRA's figures.

You are welcome to disagree though!

--Alistairkent 4 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)

Ferry connections?
Could someone add something about the ferries that go to the UK please?--Hhielscher 19:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Transport Trends
At the moment, this talks about the share of transport the different modes of transport account for. Nothing is said about the enormous growth in passenger transport in the recent past --- though growth in freight is discussed. It might be worth dividing the section into freight and passenger sections. And a nice graph would make everything much easier to take in.Omicron18 08:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.dtistats.net/energystats/ecuk2_2.xls is quite good. It suggests that total passenger travel inside the UK has risen from 403 bn passenger kms in 1970 to 797 in 2004. Omicron18 09:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Project proposal
I prose a Waterways of the United Kingdom project (along the lines of the UK Railways Project). Please add your support at WikiProject Council/Proposals. Andy Mabbett 14:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Now started; see banner, above. Andy Mabbett 11:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Major transport company
Which would count as a major transport company and which as a minor? Simply south 15:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Cycling
Maybe a bit more information could be added on the (weak) promotion of transportation cycling in the UK in recent years; the London cycle hire, the "Cycle Superhighways," and individual councils promoting cycling through (hollow) initiatives such as advertising, despite the lack of any real usable infrastructure. 130.88.91.95 (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Channel 4 modified this entry to foil cheating in live quiz show
At 20:46 tonight, an anonymous IP modified the length of the National Railway network from 10,000 miles down to 1000 miles.

Minutes later, a live Channel 4 quiz show with Davina McCall asked 2 contestants which was shorter, the rail network or the motorway network in the UK - he wanted motorway, she wanted the railway network to be shorter.

Watching the show, I guessed correctly but came here to check anyway - and found that the entry in the lead was wrong, it didn't match the entry in the body of the article. I've corrected it. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Air transport
I noticed two items in the air transport section that should (in my opinion be reviewed and possibly edited.)

It is stated "Easyjet is the largest airline," I believe this should be modified, stating that "British Airways, as the flag carrier of the United Kingdom is the largest airline as it has the largest fleet (statistic could be proven). This would improve accuracy and avoid confusion.

It also mentions: "other airlines include:" Ryanair is included in the subsequent list, wrongly as it is an airline of the Republic of Ireland. I believe Ryanair should be removed (from the list) and I also think this confusion should be noted, due to the size of Ryanair's UK operations.

I would like feedback before making any changes.-Maybe my first point could be worded better. ThanksBen.710 (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Tyne and Wear Metro
It needs to be pointed out this article is incorrect in calling the Tyne and Wear Metro "rapid transit" – it's light rail, as even the UK's Department of Transport categorizes as – e.g.: Light Rail and Tram Statistics: England 2013/14. (Meanwhile, Docklands Light Railway and Glasgow Subway are really more light metro than "metro", but that's a more minor distinction...) But the Tyne and Wear Metro, despite it's name, doesn't actually qualify as a true "rapid transit" (or "metro") system, as it has at-grade crossings and track-sharing. Thus it's "light rail". --IJBall (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * More evidence: The Light Rail Transit Association (based in the UK) categorizes the Tyne and Wear Metro as "light rail": here. And UITP does not count Tyne & Wear among the world's "metro" (i.e. "rapid transit") systems here (see map). With Tyne and Wear Metro's several at-grade intersections, and track-sharing with other rail, it really does not qualify as "rapid transit". I will likely be changing this article's text shortly to reflect all of this... --IJBall (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Major Roads
This needs updating but I am not sure what source the editor used. From what I can find, there are currently only 31k miles of major roads (and this has only slightly increased over the past ten years). Possibly the previous editor included B roads as major roads as this would take it up to 50k but I am not sure. Really we need to find a source for the previous data so we can compare. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/428857/road-lengths-in-great-britain-2014.pdf Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Disprotionate Number of Rail Transport Images
At the time of this entry there appears to be a disproportionate number of images of rail transport compared to other forms of transport in this article ... Approx 10 rail to 3 road to 1 air and 1 maritime. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 * I agree, but possibly this is because there seems to be a disproportionate number of rail pictures in general - far more trainspotters than carspotters! Could you suggest some pictures of roads that you think could replace some of the rail pictures? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Transport in the United Kingdom


text:
Talk:James Mitchell (Methodist minister)

Title
This title of this article, Rev. James Mitchell, doesn't follow the naming conventions. If there is already another James Mitchell, this one could be moved to James Mitchell (American), James Mitchell (commissioner), James Mitchell (minister), or something similar. Also, common abbreviations are discouraged, even in text. By the by, here's a neat trick: when linking to an article that has parentheses in the title, you can simply add a "pipe" and it will truncate the parentheses "James Mitchell (minister)" is rendered as "James Mitchell". Cheers, -Willmcw 08:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Mitchell (Methodist minister). 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/20110310170617/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/29.1/magness.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/29.1/magness.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Mitchell (Methodist minister). 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/20070624054017/http://mzh.carrollcountyschools.com/home/MZHS%20History.html to http://mzh.carrollcountyschools.com/home/MZHS%20History.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


text: Talk:Pholus

title: Talk:Pholus


text:
Ain't No Sunshine

"Ain't No Sunshine" is a song by Bill Withers, from his 1971 debut album Just As I Am, produced by Booker T. Jones. The record featured musicians Donald "Duck" Dunn on bass guitar, Al Jackson Jr. on drums and Stephen Stills on guitar. String arrangements were done by Booker T. Jones. The song was recorded in Los Angeles, with overdubs in Memphis by engineer Terry Manning.

The song was released as a single in 1971, becoming a breakthrough hit for Withers, reaching number six on the U.S. R&B Chart and number three on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. Billboard ranked it as the No. 23 song for 1971.

The song reached the Top 40 again in 2009, when it was sung by Kris Allen in the eighth season of American Idol.

In 2024, the single was added to the National Recording Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, and/or aesthetically significant".

History
Withers was inspired to write the song after watching the 1962 movie Days of Wine and Roses. He explained, in reference to the characters played by Lee Remick and Jack Lemmon, "They were both alcoholics who were alternately weak and strong. It's like going back for seconds on rat poison. Sometimes you miss things that weren't particularly good for you. It's just something that crossed my mind from watching that movie, and probably something else that happened in my life that I'm not aware of."

For the song's third verse, Withers had intended to write more lyrics instead of repeating the phrase "I know" 26 times, but then followed the advice of the other musicians to leave it that way: "I was this factory worker puttering around," Withers said. "So when they said to leave it like that, I left it."

Withers, then 31, was working at a factory making bathrooms for 747s at the time he wrote the song. When the song went gold, the record company presented Withers with a golden toilet seat, marking the start of his new career. "Ain't No Sunshine" was the first of Withers' three gold records in the U.S.

Originally released as the B-side to another song called "Harlem", "Ain't No Sunshine" was preferred by disc jockeys, and it became a huge hit, Withers' first. "Harlem" was subsequently covered by The 5th Dimension, who featured it on their Soul and Inspiration album and released it as a single.

Withers performed "Ain't No Sunshine" on The Old Grey Whistle Test. It won the Grammy for Best R&B Song in 1972 and is ranked 285th on Rolling Stone 's list of the 500 Greatest Songs of All Time.

Michael Jackson version
In 1971, singer Michael Jackson recorded a rendition of Bill Withers' song for his debut album Got to Be There (released in early 1972).

In the UK the song was released as the third (and final) single from the album (after the two singles "Got to Be There" and "Rockin' Robin", a cover of Bobby Day's 1958 song). The song "I Wanna Be Where You Are", which was released as the third single in the US, was on the B-side. It was a hit, peaking in the UK Singles Chart at number 8 for 3 weeks in September 1972. The song was remixed by Benny Blanco for the 2009 release The Remix Suite. The song's drum break was sampled in "Gonna Love Me" by Teyana Taylor from her second studio album K.T.S.E..

Other charted versions
The Polish rock band Budka Suflera recorded a cover version of the song in 1974 under the title "Sen o dolinie", with Krzysztof Cugowski providing the lead vocal. The single also appeared on their 1983 compilation album "1974-1984" released by Polskie Nagrania Muza. The Polish lyrics were written by Adam Sikorski. It peaked at number 14 on Poland's LP3 chart in 1983

In November 1991, Australian pop band Rockmelons, (featuring vocalist Deni Hines) released a version as the lead single of their second studio album, Form 1 Planet (1992). The version peaked at number five and was certified Gold in Australia. It also peaked at number eight in New Zealand.

The Nylons version was released in 1998 and reached number 53 on the Canadian Adult Contemporary chart. A South African male choral group Ladysmith Black Mambazo recorded its own version featuring vocalist Des'ree for their studio album In Harmony (1999). As a single, the version peaked at number 42 in the UK.

A heavy metal band Black Label Society covered the song entitled "Ain't No Sunshine When She's Gone" for their 2013 album Unblackened. As a single, the version peaked at number 42 on the Canadian Rock Chart.

title: Ain't No Sunshine


text:
Talk:Sergei Korolev

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marebow.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wintersoldat.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to hold Soviet nationality
The nature of the USSR was that officially it was a union of nominally independent republics. For example, the Ukrainian SSR was a founder member of the United Nations. This is why nationality is listed as Russian on Korolev's NKVD record. If the modern equivalent of the NKVD held Theresa May in detention, her nationality would be listed as British, not EU. The modern EU, like the former-USSR, is a union of many nations; its citizens take the nationality of one of its constituent members, not the union.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Historically, member states of the USSR maintained their national identity. While the USSR existed, their athletes would compete as Romanian - Nadia Comăneci is a fine example from 1976, at the height of Soviet power. Soviet as a term is a government council, but governments are not nations. Giving an individual a nationality of "Soviet" would be akin to calling a German "Democratic" if they were from the (former) German Democratic Republic (DDR) or "Republican" if they were from West Germany - Federal Republic of Germany (BRD).  Government types are not nations.  Bear in mind that individual nation states of the USSR maintained their nationality as well, with their own flags and designations - for example, the Ukrainian SSR, the Moldavian SSR, and the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic.  At no time should "Soviet" be listed as a nationality.  Scr ★ pIron IV 14:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to hold British or American nationality? Same. The Soviet Union consisted of nations just like the UK consists of countries and the US of states, but in the Olympics, for example, they competed as one country, the Soviet Union. The USSR wasn't like the EU but like the US or the UK.

So yes, Soviet was a nationality. Nationality is a matter of citizenship, and he was a citizen of the USSR. There was no Russian, Belarusian, or Ukrainian citizenship at the time.

ScrapIronIV is wrong, and the fact he uses Romania as an example only shows how little he knows of the subject. Romania was never a part of the Soviet Union, it was a separate country, and same goes for East Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.169.101 (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I provided a citation that clearly stated that his nationality was Russian. You have not provided any citation to back up your claim.--  Toddy1 (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, wrong. In Russian, "nationality" means ethnicity. On my birth cert. it says my nationality is Jewish, for example. Ask any Russian speaker, they could tell you that.
 * In Yugoslavia it was the same case, if I'm not mistaken, as it was possible to list Muslim as nationality (but not Bosnian).
 * He wrote "Ukrainian" on an early application, and "Russian" on a later one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.169.101 (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The difference between states in the U.S. and Nation States in the USSR is that states in the US are not - and never were - nations. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a collection of countries, or so their propaganda would have us believe. Voluntary nation states. Being a citizen of the USSR did not change their nationality. Try calling a Canadian or Australian "British" as a member of the commonwealth realm. And if your birth certificate specifies your nationality as "Jewish" then you are clearly translating something incorrectly. This is English Wikipedia, and we use the English meaning of "nationality" not the closest former soviet approximation of it. Oh, and I will freely admit to being wrong about Romania; yes, the Soviets controlled and occupied it, but did not ingest it.  The example of Germany was for terminology, I was not claiming East Germany's was part of the USSR.  Restoring nationality to the sourced entry of Russian.  Scr ★ pIron IV 15:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, you're talking nonsense. Just like the US, the Soviet Union appeared at the Olympics as a unified team, held a seat in the UN Security council, and granted a single passport.
 * So yes, the Soviet Union was a nation just like Britain and America. Being a citizen of the USSR did grant you a nationality - you were Soviet, like a British citizen is British.
 * The mistake you made about Romania showed how little you know of the topic, you're making it up as you go.
 * In Russian, "nationality" means ethnicity. Korolev referred to his ethnicity, simple as that. It's explained in one of the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.169.101 (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Which reference?

 * P.S. I have restored the dubious tag. The matter of nationality is disputed.  Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on the opinions of editors, who see a source saying that the nationality is Russian, and say that it does not really mean that.--  Toddy1 (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Please note that three of the founder members of the United Nations (on 24 October 1945) were:
 * Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, known as Belarus since 18 September 1991.
 * Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, known as the Russian Federation since 24 December 1991.
 * Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, known as Ukraine since 23 August 1991.
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly so; if the closest thing in Russian to nationality is ethnicity, then there is no clear correlation. Therefor we use, in English Wikipedia, the English definition.  Russian is correct in the English definition.  Scr ★ pIron IV 12:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really, if we use English definition then Soviet is correct one and we should use it. As we established in this thread there was no Russia or Ukraine at that point of time, but only Soviet Union.--Odessit1989 (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ukraine was not a sovereign country until the 1990s but was formally part of the Russian Empire when Korelev was born. On top he had a Russian father. That makes him Russian. 2003:EA:7F4C:CF05:6417:106C:146C:C881 (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Claiming Korelev was Ukrainian is as nonsensical as claiming e.g. that Kant was Russian just because Königsberg (present day Kaliningrad) in now located in Russia, which no one even in Russia will do, never mind what Ukrainian nationalists who try to insert their POV think 2003:EA:7F4C:CF68:38E4:94D1:B095:639 (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Here it is necessary to ask the person himself who he considers himself to be. But since the person himself is no longer there, it is necessary to speak as it was at the time when he was alive. And then there was the USSR and Korolev was a Soviet man. 93.81.218.164 (talk) 08:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Сергей Павлович Королёв (портрет).jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Молодой Королёв.jpg

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * SP Koroev.jpg (discussion)
 * Sergey Korolyov boy 1912.jpg (discussion)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Bw1940-02-29-KorolevSP.jpg (discussion)
 * Korolev posle aresta 1938.jpg (discussion)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sergey Korolyov.jpg

Origin of the Queen
Wikipedia should not be a politicized platform... what are the authoritative sources that Korolev is Ukrainian? The fact that he was born on the territory of present-day Ukraine?

according to this logic, Kant is a Russian, not a German philosopher. After all, he was born on the territory of present-day Russia.

so I want to touch on such a topic that the Surname Koroleva is a Russian surname, not a Ukrainian oneso I want to touch on such a topic that the Surname Koroleva is a Russian surname, not a Ukrainian one.so I want to touch on such a topic that the Surname Koroleva is a Russian surname, not a Ukrainian one.

Ukrainian surnames end in -ok, -ec Kalimenk (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

 * 1. Korolev' mother was Ukrainian (Cossack is not nationality as some would like to present in the article).
 * 2. Korolev identified himself as Ukrainian in different documents, e.g. https://files.ar25.org/sites/default/files/2204012_korolov-anketa.jpg 188.95.211.239 (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Stop manipulations with nationality of Korolev' mother! She was Ukrainian.
1. Korolev' mother was Ukrainian (Cossack is not nationality as some would like to present in the article). It is simply embarrassing how Russian internet trolls are trying to erase any Ukrainian identity in Wikipedia. 2. Korolev identified himself as Ukrainian in different documents, e.g. https://files.ar25.org/sites/default/files/2204012_korolov-anketa.jpg 188.95.211.239 (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sergei Korolev