text:
HMS Temeraire (1798)

HMS Temeraire was a 98-gun second-rate ship of the line of the United Kingdom's Royal Navy. Launched in 1798, she served during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, mostly on blockades or convoy escort duties. She fought only one fleet action, the Battle of Trafalgar, but became so well known for that action and her subsequent depictions in art and literature that she has been remembered as The Fighting Temeraire.

Built at Chatham Dockyard, Temeraire entered naval service on the Brest blockade with the Channel Fleet. Missions were tedious and seldom relieved by any action with the French fleet. The first incident of note came when several of her crew, hearing rumours they were to be sent to the West Indies at a time when peace with France seemed imminent, refused to obey orders. This act of mutiny eventually failed and a number of those responsible were tried and executed. Laid up during the Peace of Amiens, Temeraire returned to active service with the resumption of the wars with France, again serving with the Channel Fleet, and joined Horatio Nelson's blockade of the Franco-Spanish fleet in Cadiz in 1805. At the Battle of Trafalgar on 21 October, the ship went into action immediately astern of Nelson's flagship, HMS Victory. During the battle Temeraire came to the rescue of the beleaguered Victory, and fought and captured two French ships, winning public renown in Britain.

After undergoing substantial repairs, Temeraire was employed blockading the French fleets and supporting British operations off the Spanish coasts. She went out to the Baltic in 1809, defending convoys against Danish gunboat attacks, and by 1810 was off the Spanish coast again, helping to defend Cadiz against a French army. Her last action was against the French off Toulon, when she came under fire from shore batteries. The ship returned to Britain in 1813 for repairs, but was laid up. She was converted to a prison ship and moored in the River Tamar until 1819. Further service brought her to Sheerness as a receiving ship, then a victualling depot, and finally a guard ship. The Admiralty ordered her to be sold in 1838, and she was towed up the Thames to be broken up.

This final voyage was depicted in a J. M. W. Turner oil painting greeted with critical acclaim, entitled The Fighting Temeraire tugged to her last Berth to be broken up, 1838. The painting continues to be held in high regard: it was voted Britain's favourite painting in a BBC radio poll in 2005 and it appears briefly in the James Bond movie Skyfall. A reproduction of the painting appears on the back of the Bank of England £20 note issued in 2020.

Construction and commissioning

Temeraire was ordered from Chatham Dockyard on 9 December 1790, to a design developed by Surveyor of the Navy Sir John Henslow. She was one of three ships of the Neptune-class ship of the line, alongside her sisters HMS Neptune (1797) and HMS Dreadnought (1801).

She was primarily made from English oak from nearby Hainault Forest. The keel was laid down at Chatham in July 1793. Her construction was initially overseen by Master Shipwright Thomas Pollard and completed by his successor Edward Sison. Temeraire was launched in the rain on Tuesday 11 September 1798 and the following day was taken into the graving dock to be fitted for sea. Her hull was fitted with copper sheathing, a process that took two weeks to complete. Refloated, she finished fitting out, and received her masts and yards. Her final costs came to £73,241, and included £59,428 spent on the hull, masts and yards, and a further £13,813 on rigging and stores.

She was commissioned on 21 March 1799 under Captain Peter Puget, becoming the second ship of the Royal Navy to bear the name Temeraire. Her predecessor had been the 74-gun third-rate HMS Temeraire (1759), a former French ship taken as a prize at the Battle of Lagos on 19 August 1759 by a fleet under Admiral Edward Boscawen. Puget was in command only until 26 July 1799, during which time he oversaw the process of fitting the new Temeraire for sea. He was superseded by Captain Thomas Eyles on 27 July 1799, while the vessel was anchored off St Helens, Isle of Wight.

With the Channel Fleet
Under Eyles's command Temeraire finally put to sea at the end of July, flying the flag of Rear Admiral Sir John Borlase Warren, and joined the Channel Fleet under the overall command of Admiral Lord Bridport. The Channel Fleet was at that time principally engaged in the blockade of the French port of Brest, and Temeraire spent several long cruises of two or three months at a time patrolling the area. Eyles was superseded during this period by Temeraire's former commander, Captain Puget, who resumed command on 14 October 1799, and the following month Temeraire became the flagship of Rear Admiral James Whitshed.

Lord Bridport had been replaced as commander of the Channel Fleet by Admiral Lord St Vincent in mid-1799, and the long blockade cruises were sustained throughout the winter and into the following year. On 20 April 1800 Puget was superseded as commander by Captain Edward Marsh. Marsh commanded Temeraire through the remainder of that year and for the first half of 1801, until his replacement, Captain Thomas Eyles, arrived to resume command on 31 August. Rear Admiral Whitshed had also struck his flag by now, and Temeraire became the flagship of Rear Admiral George Campbell. By this time the Second Coalition against France had collapsed, and negotiations for peace were underway at Amiens. Lord St Vincent had been promoted to First Lord of the Admiralty, and command of the Channel Fleet passed to Admiral Sir William Cornwallis. With the end of the war imminent, Temeraire was taken off blockade duty and sent to Bantry Bay to await the arrival of a convoy, which she would then escort to the West Indies. Many of the crew had been serving continuously in the navy since the start of the French Revolutionary Wars in 1793, and had looked forward to returning to England now that peace seemed imminent. On hearing rumours that instead they were to be sent to the West Indies, around a dozen men began to agitate for the rest of the crew to refuse orders to sail for anywhere but England.

Mutiny
On the morning of 3 December, a small group of sailors gathered on the forecastle and, refusing orders to leave, began to argue with the officers. Captain Eyles asked to know their demands, which were an assurance that Temeraire would not go to the West Indies, but instead would return to England. Eventually Rear Admiral Campbell came down to speak to the men, and having informed them that the officers did not know the destination of the ship, he ordered them to disperse. The men went below decks and the incipient mutiny appeared to have been quashed. The ringleaders, numbering around a dozen, remained determined however, and made discreet inquiries among the rest of the crew. Having eventually determined that the majority of the crew would, if not actually support a mutiny, at least not oppose it, and that Temeraire's crew would be supported by the ship's marines as well as the crews of some of the other warships in Bantry Bay, they decided to press ahead with their plans. The mutiny began with the crew closing the ship's gunports, effectively barricading themselves below deck. Having done so, they refused orders to open them again, jeered the officers and threatened violence. The crew then came up on deck and once again demanded to know their destination and refused to obey orders to sail for anywhere but England. Having presented their demands they returned below decks and resumed the usual shipboard routine as much as they could.

Alarmed by the actions of Temeraire's crew, Campbell met with Vice-Admiral Sir Andrew Mitchell the following day and informed him of the mutineers' demands. Mitchell reported the news to the Admiralty while Campbell returned to Temeraire and summoned the crew on deck once more. He urged them to return to duty, and then dismissed them. Meanwhile, discipline had begun to break down among the mutineers. Several of the crew became drunk, and some of the officers were struck by rowdy seamen. When one of the marines who supported the mutiny was placed in irons for drunken behaviour and insolence, a crowd formed on deck and tried to free him. The officers resisted these attempts and as sailors began to push and threaten them, Campbell gave the order for the marines to arrest those he identified as the ringleaders. The marines hesitated, but then obeyed the order, driving the unruly seamen back and arresting a number of them, who were immediately placed in irons. Campbell ordered the remaining crew to abandon any mutinous actions, and deprived of its leaders, the mutiny collapsed, though the officers were on their guard for several days afterwards and the marines were ordered to carry out continuous patrols.

News of the mutiny created a sensation in England, and the Admiralty ordered Temeraire to sail immediately for Spithead while an investigation was carried out. Vice-Admiral Mitchell was granted extraordinary powers regarding the death sentence and Temeraire's complement of marines was hastily augmented for the voyage to England. On the ship's arrival, the 14 imprisoned ringleaders were swiftly court-martialled in Portsmouth aboard HMS Gladiator (1783), some on 6 January 1802 and the rest on 14 January. After deliberations, twelve were sentenced to be hanged at the yardarm, and the remaining two were to receive two hundred lashes each. Four men were duly hanged aboard Temeraire, and the remainder were hanged aboard several of the ships anchored at Portsmouth, including HMS Majestic (1785), HMS Formidable (1777), HMS Achille (1798) and HMS Centaur (1797). A further seven men involved were sent to prison hulks for life.

West Indies and the peace
After the executions, Temeraire was immediately sent to sea, sailing from Portsmouth for the Isle of Wight the day after and beginning preparations for her delayed voyage to the West Indies. She sailed for Barbados, arriving there on 24 February, and remained in the West Indies until the summer. During her time there the Treaty of Amiens was finally signed and ratified, and Temeraire was ordered back to Britain. She arrived at Plymouth on 28 September and Eyles paid her off on 5 October. Because of the drawdown in the size of the active navy as a result of the peace, Temeraire was laid up in the Hamoaze for the next eighteen months.

Return to service
The peace of Amiens was a brief interlude in the wars with Revolutionary France, and in 1803 the War of the Third Coalition began. Temeraire had deteriorated substantially during her long period spent laid up, and she was taken into dry dock on 22 May to repair and refit, starting with the replacement of her copper sheathing. Work was delayed when a heavy storm hit Plymouth in January 1804, causing appreciable damage to Temeraire, but was finally completed by February 1804, at a cost of £16,898.

Command was assigned to Captain Eliab Harvey, and he arrived to take up his commission on 1 January 1804. The crew were largely from Liverpool. They left Cawsand Bay on 11 March 1804, sailing to join the Channel Fleet off Brest, still under the overall command of Admiral Cornwallis.

As a much forgotten part of history, Napoleon had assembled his Grand Army, 160,000 men, near Boulogne as part of a plan to invade England. The bulk of the French navy: 21 ships of the line, were harboured at Brest but were needed for the invasion plan.

Temeraire now resumed her previous duties blockading the French at Brest, patrolling between Ushant Island and Cape Finisterre. Heavy weather took its toll, forcing her to put into Torbay for extensive repairs after her long patrols, repairs which eventually amounted to £9,143. During this time Harvey was often absent from his command, usually attending to his duties as Member of Parliament for Essex. He was temporarily replaced by Captain William Kelly on 27 August 1804, and he in turn was succeeded by Captain George Fawke on 6 April 1805. Harvey returned to his ship on 9 July 1805, and it was while he was in command that the reinforced Rochefort squadron under Vice-Admiral Sir Robert Calder intercepted and attacked a Franco-Spanish fleet at the Battle of Cape Finisterre. The French commander, Pierre-Charles Villeneuve, was thwarted in his attempt to join the French forces at Brest, and instead sailed south to Ferrol, and then to Cadiz. When news of the Franco-Spanish fleet's location reached the Admiralty, they appointed Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson to take command of the blockading force at Cadiz, which at the time was being commanded by Vice-Admiral Cuthbert Collingwood. Nelson was told to pick whichever ships he liked to serve under him, and one of those he specifically chose was Temeraire.

Collingwood replaced Calder on the Temeraire in August 1804.

The ship sheltered with the Channel Fleet at Douarnenez Bay during the storms of November 1804. Further winter storms caused her to go to Torbay for repairs in January 1805 and she did not return to the squadron at Brest until April.

Command returned to Calder again on 16 August 1805 and headed for Ferrol to intercept Admiral Vileneuve and the French fleet. The French unexpectedly turned south and the British fleet followed them down to Cadiz.

Battle of Trafalgar
Temeraire duly received orders to join the Cadiz blockade, and having sailed to rendezvous with Collingwood, Harvey awaited Nelson's arrival. Nelson's flagship, the 100-gun HMS Victory, arrived off Cadiz on 28 September, and he took over command of the fleet from Collingwood. He spent the next few weeks forming his plan of attack in preparation for the expected sortie of the Franco-Spanish fleet, issuing it to his captains on 9 October in the form of a memorandum. The memorandum called for two divisions of ships to attack at right angles to the enemy line, severing its van from the centre and rear. A third advance squadron would be deployed as a reserve, with the ability to join one of the lines as the course of the battle dictated. Nelson placed the largest and most powerful ships at the heads of the lines, with Temeraire assigned to lead Nelson's own column into battle. The fleet patrolled a considerable distance from the Spanish coast to lure the combined fleet out, and the ships took the opportunity to exercise and prepare for the coming battle. For Temeraire this probably involved painting her sides in the Nelson Chequer design, to enable the British ships to tell friend from foe in the confusion of battle.

The combined Franco-Spanish fleet left Cadiz and put to sea on 19 October 1805, and by 21 October was in sight of the British ships. Nelson formed up his lines and the British began to converge on their distant opponents. Contrary to his original instructions, Nelson took the lead of the weather column in Victory. Concerned for the commander-in-chief's safety in such an exposed position, Henry Blackwood, a long-standing friend of Nelson and commander of the frigate HMS Euryalus (1803) that day, suggested Nelson come aboard his ship to better observe and direct the battle. Nelson refused, so Blackwood instead tried to convince him to let Harvey come past him in the Temeraire, and so lead the column into battle. Nelson agreed to this, and signalled for Harvey to come past him. As Temeraire drew up towards Victory, Nelson decided that if he was standing aside to let another ship lead his line, so too should Collingwood, commanding the lee column of ships. He signalled Collingwood, aboard his flagship HMS Royal Sovereign (1786), to let another ship come ahead of him, but Collingwood continued to surge ahead. Reconsidering his plan, Nelson is reported to have hailed Temeraire, as she came up alongside Victory, with the words "I'll thank you, Captain Harvey, to keep in your proper station, which is astern of the Victory." Nelson's instruction was followed up by a formal signal and Harvey dropped back reluctantly, but otherwise kept within one ship's length of Victory as she sailed up to the Franco-Spanish line.

Closely following Victory as she passed through the Franco-Spanish line across the bows of the French flagship FRENCH SHIP Bucentaure, Harvey was forced to sheer away quickly, just missing Victory's stern. Turning to starboard, Harvey made for the 140-gun Spanish ship Santísima Trinidad and engaged her for twenty minutes, taking raking fire from two French ships, the 80-gun FRENCH SHIP Neptune and the 74-gun FRENCH SHIP Redoutable, as she did so. Redoutables broadside carried away Temeraires mizzen topmast. While avoiding a broadside from Neptune, Temeraire narrowly avoided a collision with Redoutable. Another broadside from Neptune brought down Temeraire's fore-yard and main topmast, and damaged her fore mast and bowsprit. Harvey now became aware that Redoutable had come up alongside Victory and swept her decks with musket fire and grenades. A large party of Frenchmen now gathered on her decks ready to board Victory. Temeraire was brought around; appearing suddenly out of the smoke of the battle and slipping across Redoutable's stern, Temeraire discharged a double-shotted broadside into her. Jean Jacques Étienne Lucas, captain of Redoutable, recorded that "... the three-decker [Temeraire] – who had doubtless perceived that the Victory had ceased fire and would inevitably be taken – ran foul of the Redoutable to starboard and overwhelmed us with the point-blank fire of all her guns. It would be impossible to describe the horrible carnage produced by the murderous broadside of this ship. More than two hundred of our brave lads were killed or wounded by it."

Temeraire and Redoutable

Temeraire then rammed into Redoutable, dismounting many of the French ship's guns, and worked her way alongside, after which her crew lashed the two ships together. Temeraire now poured continuous broadsides into the French ship, taking fire as she did so from the 112-gun Spanish ship SPANISH SHIP Santa Ana lying off her stern, and from the 74-gun French ship FRENCH SHIP Fougueux, which came up on Temeraire's un-engaged starboard side. Harvey ordered his gun crews to hold fire until Fougueux came within point blank range. Temeraire's first broadside against Fougueux at a range of 100 yd caused considerable damage to the Frenchman's rigging, and she drifted into Temeraire, whose crew promptly lashed her to the side. Temeraire was now lying between two French 74-gun ships. As Harvey later recalled in a letter to his wife "Perhaps never was a ship so circumstanced as mine, to have for more than three hours two of the enemy's line of battle ships lashed to her." Redoutable, sandwiched between Victory and Temeraire, suffered heavy casualties, reported by Captain Lucas as amounting to 300 dead and 222 wounded. During the fight grenades thrown from the decks and topmasts of Redoutable killed and wounded a number of Temeraire's crew and set her starboard rigging and foresail on fire. There was a brief pause in the fighting while both sides worked to douse the flames. Temeraire narrowly escaped destruction when a grenade thrown from Redoutable exploded on her maindeck, nearly igniting the after-magazine. Master-At-Arms John Toohig prevented the fire from spreading and saved not only Temeraire, but the surrounding ships, which would have been caught in the explosion.

After twenty minutes' fighting both Victory and Temeraire, Redoutable had been reduced to a floating wreck. Temeraire had also suffered heavily, damaged when Redoutable's main mast fell onto her poop deck, and having had her own topmasts shot away. Informed that his ship was in danger of sinking, Lucas finally called for quarter to Temeraire. Harvey sent a party across under the second lieutenant, John Wallace, to take charge of the ship.

Temeraire and Fougueux
Lashed together, Temeraire and Fougueux exchanged fire, Temeraire initially clearing the French ship's upper deck with small arms fire. The French rallied, but the greater height of the three-decked Temeraire compared to the two-decked Fougueux thwarted their attempts to board. Instead Harvey dispatched his own boarding party, led by First-Lieutenant Thomas Fortescue Kennedy, which entered Fougueux via her main deck ports and chains. The French tried to defend the decks port by port, but were steadily overwhelmed. Fougueux's captain, Louis Alexis Baudoin, had suffered a fatal wound earlier in the fighting, leaving Commander François Bazin in charge. When he learned that nearly all the officers were dead or wounded and that most of the guns were out of action, Bazin surrendered the ship to the boarders.

Temeraire had by now fought both French ships to a standstill, at considerable cost to herself. She had sustained casualties of 47 killed and 76 wounded. All her sails and yards had been destroyed, only her lower masts remained, and the rudder head and starboard cathead had been shot away. 8 ft of her starboard hull was staved in and both quarter galleries had been destroyed. Harvey signalled for a frigate to tow his damaged ship out of the line, and HMS Sirius (1797) came up to assist. Before Sirius could make contact, Temeraire came under fire from a counter-attack by the as-yet unengaged van of the combined fleet, led by Rear Admiral Pierre Dumanoir le Pelley. Harvey ordered the few guns that could be brought to bear fired in response, and the attack was eventually beaten off by fresh British ships arriving on the scene.

Storm
Shortly after the battle had ended, a severe gale struck the area. Several of the captured French and Spanish ships foundered in the rising seas, including both of Temeraire's prizes, Fougueux and Redoutable. Lost in the wrecks were a considerable number of their crews, as well as 47 Temeraire crewmen, serving as prize crews. Temeraire rode out the storm following the battle, sometimes being taken in tow by less damaged ships, sometimes riding at anchor. She took aboard a number of Spanish and French prisoners transferred from other prizes, including some transferred from Euryalus, which was serving as the temporary flagship of Cuthbert Collingwood, who was now in command as Nelson had been killed during the battle. Harvey took the opportunity to go aboard Euryalus and present his account of the battle to Collingwood, and so became the only captain to do so before Collingwood wrote his dispatch about the victory.

Return to England
Temeraire finally put into Gibraltar on 2 November, eleven days after the battle had been fought. After undergoing minor repairs she sailed for England, arriving at Portsmouth on 1 December, three days before Victory passed by carrying Nelson's body. The battle-damaged ships quickly became tourist attractions, and visitors flocked to tour them. Temeraire was particularly popular on her arrival, being the only ship singled out by name in Collingwood's dispatch for her heroic conduct. Collingwood wrote: "A circumstance occurred during the action which so strongly marks the invincible spirit of British seamen, when engaging the enemies of their country, that I cannot resist the pleasure I have in making it known to their Lordships; the Temeraire was boarded by accident; or design, by a French ship on one side, and a Spaniard on the other; the contest was vigorous, but, in the end the combined ensigns were torn from the poop and the British hoisted in their places."

Collingwood's account, probably based largely on Harvey's report in the immediate aftermath of the battle, contained several errors. Temeraire had closely engaged two French ships, rather than a French and a Spanish ship, and had not been boarded by either during the action. Nevertheless, the account was popular and a print was rushed out purporting to show Harvey taking the lead in clearing Temeraire's decks of enemy seamen.

A number of artists visited the newly returned Trafalgar ships, including John Livesay, drawing master at the Royal Naval Academy. Livesay produced several sketches of battle-damaged ships, sending them to Nicholas Pocock to be used for Pocock's large paintings of the battle. Temeraire was one of the ships he sketched. Another visitor to Portsmouth was J. M. W. Turner. It is not known whether he visited Temeraire, though he did go aboard Victory, making preparatory notes and sketches and interviewing sailors who had been in the battle. The story of Temeraire had become firmly ingrained in the public mind, so much so that when the House of Commons passed a vote of thanks to the men who had fought at Trafalgar, only three were specifically named. Nelson, Collingwood, and Harvey of Temeraire.

Mediterranean and Baltic service
The battle-damaged Temeraire was almost immediately dry-docked in Portsmouth to undergo substantial repairs, which eventually lasted sixteen months and cost £25,352. She finally left the dockyard in mid-1807, now under the command of Captain Sir Charles Hamilton. Having fitted her for sea, Hamilton sailed to the Mediterranean in September and joined the fleet blockading the French in Toulon. The service was largely uneventful, and Temeraire returned to Britain in April 1808 to undergo repairs at Plymouth. During her time in Britain the strategic situation in Europe changed as Spain rebelled against French domination and entered the war against France. Temeraire sailed in June to join naval forces operating off the Spanish coast in support of anti-French forces in the Peninsular War.

This service continued until early 1809, when she returned to Britain. By now Britain was heavily involved in the Baltic, protecting mercantile interests. An expedition under Sir James Gambier in July 1807 had captured most of the Danish Navy at the Second Battle of Copenhagen, in response to fears that it might fall into Napoleon's hands, at the cost of starting a war with Denmark. Captain Hamilton left the ship, and was superseded by Captain Edward Sneyd Clay. Temeraire now became the flagship of Rear Admiral Sir Manley Dixon, with orders to go to the Baltic to reinforce the fleet stationed there under Sir James Saumarez. Temeraire arrived in May 1809 and was sent to blockade Karlskrona on the Swedish coast.

While on patrol with the 64-gun HMS Ardent (1796) and the frigate HMS Melpomene (1794), Temeraire became involved in one of the heaviest Danish gunboat attacks of the war. A party of men from Ardent had been landed on the island of Romsø, but were taken by surprise in a Danish night attack, which saw most of the Ardent men captured. The Melpomene was sent under a flag of truce to negotiate for their release, but on returning from this mission, was becalmed. A flotilla of thirty Danish gunboats then launched an attack, taking advantage of the stranded Melpomene's inability to bring her broadside to bear on them. Melpomene signalled for help to the Temeraire, which immediately dispatched boats to her assistance. They engaged and then drove off the Danish ships, and then helped the Melpomene to safety. She had been heavily damaged and suffered casualties of five killed and twenty-nine wounded. Temeraire's later Baltic service involved being dispatched to observe the Russian fleet at Reval, during which time she made a survey of the island of Nargen. After substantial blockading and convoy escort work, Temeraire was ordered back to Britain as winter arrived, and she arrived in Plymouth in November 1809.

Iberian service
After a period under repair in Plymouth, Temeraire was recommissioned under the command of Captain Edwin H. Chamberlayne in late January 1810. The Peninsular War had reached a critical stage, with the Spanish government besieged in Cadiz by the French. Temeraire, now the flagship of Rear Admiral Francis Pickmore, was ordered to reinforce the city's water defences, and provided men from her sailor and marine complement to crew batteries and gunboats. Men from Temeraire were heavily involved in the fighting until July 1810, when Pickmore was ordered to sail to the Mediterranean and take up a new position as port admiral at Mahón. Temeraire was thereafter based either at Mahón or off Toulon with the blockading British fleet under Admiral Sir Edward Pellew. Chamberlayne was replaced by Captain Joseph Spear in March 1811, and for the most part the blockade was uneventful. Though possessing a powerful fleet, the French commander avoided any contact with the blockading force and stayed in port, or else made very short voyages, returning to the harbour when the British appeared.

Temeraire's one brush with the French during this period came on 13 August 1811. Having received orders to sail to Menorca, Spear attempted to tack out of Hyères Bay. As he tried to do so, the wind fell away, leaving Temeraire becalmed and caught in a current which caused her to drift towards land. She came under fire from a shore battery on Pointe des Medes, which wounded several of her crew. Her boats were quickly manned, and together with boats sent from the squadron, Temeraire was towed out of range of the French guns. She then sailed to Menorca and underwent repairs. During this period an epidemic of yellow fever broke out, infecting nearly the entire crew and killing around a hundred crewmen. Pellew ordered her back to Britain, and health gradually improved as she sailed through the Atlantic.

Retirement
Temeraire arrived in Plymouth on 9 February 1812 and was docked for a survey several weeks later. The survey reported that she was "a well built and strong ship but apparently much decay'd". Spear was superseded on 4 March by Captain Samuel Hood Linzee, but Linzee's command was short-lived. Temeraire left the dock on 13 March and was paid off one week later. Advances in naval technology had developed more powerful and strongly built warships, and though still comparatively new, Temeraire was no longer considered desirable for front-line service. While laid up the decision was taken to convert her into a prison ship to alleviate overcrowding caused by large influxes of French prisoners from the Peninsular War campaigns. Conversion work was carried out at Plymouth between November and December 1813, after which she was laid up in the River Tamar as a prison hulk. From 1814 she was under the nominal command of Lieutenant John Wharton. Despite being laid up and disarmed Temeraire and the rest of her class were nominally re-rated as 104-gun first rates in February 1817.

Temeraire's service as a prison ship lasted until 1819, at which point she was selected for conversion to a receiving ship. She was extensively refitted at Plymouth between September 1819 and June 1820 at a cost of £27,733, and then sailed to Sheerness Dockyard. As a receiving ship she served as a temporary berth for new naval recruits until they received a posting to a ship. She fulfilled this role for eight years, until becoming a victualling depot in 1829. Her final role was as a guard ship at Sheerness, under the title "Guardship of the Ordinary and Captain-Superintendent's ship of the Fleet Reserve in the Medway". This final post as flagship of the Medway Reserve involved her being repainted and rearmed, and she was used to train boys belonging to The Marine Society. For the last two years of her service, from 1836 to 1838 she was under the nominal command of Captain Thomas Fortescue Kennedy, in his post as Captain-Superintendent of Sheerness. Kennedy had been Temeraire's first-lieutenant at Trafalgar.

Sale and disposal
Kennedy received orders from the Admiralty in June 1838 to have Temeraire valued in preparation for her sale out of the service. She fired her guns for the last time on 28 June in celebration of the Coronation of Queen Victoria, and work began on dismantling her on 4 July. Kennedy delegated this task to Captain Sir John Hill, commander of HMS Ocean (1805). Her masts, stores and guns were all removed and her crew paid off, before Temeraire was put up for sale with twelve other ships. She was sold by Dutch auction on 16 August 1838 to John Beatson, a shipbreaker based at Rotherhithe for £5,530. Beatson was then faced with the task of transporting the ship 55 miles from Sheerness to Rotherhithe, the largest ship to have attempted this voyage. To accomplish this he hired two steam tugs from the Thames Steam Towing Company and employed a Rotherhithe pilot named William Scott and twenty five men to sail her up the Thames, at a cost of £58.

Last voyage
The tugs took the hulk of Temeraire in tow at 7:30 am on 5 September 1838, taking advantage of the beginning of the slack water. They had reached Greenhithe by 1:30 pm at the ebb of the tide, where they anchored overnight. They resumed the journey at 8:30 am the following day, passing Woolwich and then Greenwich at noon. They reached Limehouse Reach shortly afterward, and brought her safely to Beatson's Wharf at Rotherhithe at 2 pm. This was a breakers' yard owned by the Beatson family.

Temeraire was hauled up onto the mud, where she lay as she was slowly broken up. The final voyage was announced in a number of newspapers, and thousands of spectators came to see her towed up the Thames or laid up at Beatson's yard. The shipbreakers undertook a thorough dismantling, removing all the copper sheathing, rudder pintles and gudgeons, copper bolts, nails and other fastenings to be sold back to the Admiralty. The timber was mostly sold to house builders and shipyard owners, though some was retained for working into specialist commemorative furniture.

Legacy
The immediate legacy of Temeraire was the use of the timber taken from her as she was broken up. A gong stand made from Temeraire timber was a wedding present to the future King George V on the occasion of his marriage to Mary of Teck, and is held at Balmoral Castle. A barometer, gavel, and some miscellaneous timber are in the collections of the National Maritime Museum, and chairs made from Temeraire oak are in the possession of the Royal Naval Museum, Portsmouth, Lloyd's Register, London and the Whanganui Regional Museum, Whanganui. An altar, communion rail and two bishop's chairs survive in St. Mary's Church, Rotherhithe. A ship model of Temeraire made by prisoners of war uses a stand made from wood taken from her, and is currently in the Watermen's Hall in London. Other relics of Temeraire known to exist or have existed are a tea caddy made for her signal midshipman at Trafalgar, James Eaton, and sold at auction in 2000, the frame for an oil painting by Sir Edwin Landseer titled Neptune, and a mantelpiece made for Beatson's office, supported by figures of Atlas supposedly taken from Temeraire's stern gallery. The mantelpiece can no longer be traced, nor can a plaque once fixed to Temeraires deck commemorating Nelson's signal at Trafalgar, nor a wooden leg made for a Trafalgar veteran from Temeraires wood. John Ruskin foreshadowed the fate of Temeraire's wood in an essay which claimed that "Perhaps, where the low gate opens to some cottage garden, the tired traveller may ask, idly, why the moss grows so green on its rugged wood, and even the sailor's child may not answer nor know that the night dew lies deep in the war rents of the wood of the old Temeraire."

Art
Temeraire features in a number of paintings and prints, the earliest commemorating her role in the battle of Trafalgar. She can be seen at least partially in paintings of the battle by Clarkson Frederick Stanfield, John Christian Schetky, Nicholas Pocock, Thomas Buttersworth and Thomas Whitcombe. A fictionalized depiction of her launch was produced by Philip Burgoyne. Later representations of the retired Temeraire were also popular. Though no known contemporary image of her in the prison ship role exists, she was painted while a guardship on the Medway in 1833 by Edward William Cooke, and by William Beatson and J. J. Williams while laid up at Rotherhithe in 1838. More recently she has been the subject of paintings by Geoff Hunt. The most famous painting of Temeraire was made by J. M. W. Turner and titled The Fighting Temeraire tugged to her last Berth to be broken up, 1838. Turner depicts Temeraire on her last voyage, towed up the Thames by a small black steam tug as the sun sets (or dawns). In choosing his title Turner created an enduring appellation, as previously she had been known to her crew as the "saucy" Temeraire. Turner presented it for exhibition at the Royal Academy in 1839 with an accompanying excerpt, slightly altered, of Thomas Campbell's poem Ye Mariners of England. "The flag which braved the battle and the breeze, no longer owns her."

Turner's painting achieved widespread critical acclaim, and accolades from the likes of John Ruskin and William Makepeace Thackeray. It was Turner's particular favourite; he lent it only once and refused to ever do so again. He also refused to sell it at any price, and on his death bequeathed it to the nation. It hangs today in the National Gallery, and in 2005 it was voted the nation's favourite painting in a poll organized by BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

Books
The Fighting Temeraire is a historical narrative written by Sam Willis and details the "extraordinary story of the mighty Temeraire, the ship behind J. M. W. Turner's iconic painting". It includes a detailed history of the ship, history of both the Seven Years' War (1756–1763) and the Napoleonic Wars (1798–1815), and 50 full-color illustrations and 60 black-and-white photographs.

The Temeraire series is a historical fantasy/alternate history written by Naomi Novik. While HMS Temeraire herself is only briefly featured, the ship becomes the namesake of the series' main character, a large black dragon who sees naval and aerial action alongside his British captain. The series takes place in an alternate version of the Napoleonic Wars, in which the various nations of the world fight with air forces made up of manned dragons. HMS Temeraire appears briefly in the ninth and final book.

Poetry and songs
Temeraire became the subject of a number of poems and songs commemorating her life and fate. An early work by James Duff written between 1813 and 1819 referenced her role as a prison ship, and was set to music in 1857 under the title The Brave Old Temeraire. More generally, an anonymous poem entitled The Wooden Walls of Old England appeared in Fraser's Magazine shortly after Temeraire's arrival at Rotherhithe, and lamented the fate of the great sailing warships. Turner's painting created an enduring interest in the story of Temeraire and several poems appeared in the decades following her breaking-up. Gerald Massey wrote The Fighting Temeraire Tugged to Her Last Berth, Herman Melville produced The Temeraire, and Henry Newbolt wrote The Fighting Temeraire, with its closing lines "Now the sunset's breezes shiver, And she's fading down the river, But in England's song forever, She's the Fighting Temeraire."

title: HMS Temeraire (1798)


text: User talk:67.167.86.158

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

title: User talk:67.167.86.158


text:
Lokata Company

The Lokata Company (pronounced low-kay-tah, "locator") was formed in the late 1970s in Falmouth, Cornwall, UK. The first product was a combined marine receiver and direction finder, for yachts and small boats. From there, the company designed and manufactured products for the marine electronics market, including communications receivers, Navtex receivers, radar detectors, transponders and emergency position indicating radio beacons (EPIRBs).

On November 22, 1982, Lokata filed a patent application for its "Watchman", a passive marine radar detector. and spent £50,000 developing the system.

In 1983 a New Scientist article covered a story about the inventor of the Lokata product, the "Watchman", that he had independently re-invented part of the well-known Exocet missile's guidance system in his invention. "Lokata had not realised that it was treading on a defence secret." This led to some publicised controversy involving the MOD and the Patent Office and thus prevented the firm to sell the gadget.

The Ministry of Defence tried to requisition the inventor's patent, but he defied the secrecy order and went public, and a public row arose about possible loss of employment making Lokata Watchmans in Falmouth, Cornwall where he lived.

In 2001, support for Lokata EPIRB products was transferred to Sartech Engineering Ltd.

The company was acquired by Kelvin Hughes Ltd, and eventually moved to Hainault in Essex. Production of Lokata-branded products has ceased, as the company now concentrates on products for commercial shipping. Thousands of Lokata products remain in use worldwide.

title: Lokata Company


text:
Talk:Dress skirt

Untitled
The See also - upskirt link has no value in an article about clothing type...Glenlarson 07:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can I ask the people (or person), changing the image to stop doing it. The original image is PD, wheras the new "Woman in short skirt" image currently gives no source info. It seems to be a copy of an image on this page. Unless permission is given, then this is a copyright infringement, and arguably a violation of privacy, given that the website is a personal website, and not a commercial one. Silverfish 11:39, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

- There are requests for dress patterns, definitions of types of dresses, etc., floating around, and it would make sense to me to combine these with the current article - but this article is protected.

I'm new and I don't know how to ask someone to unprotect this article, so I may do a related article that we can fold into this later.PKM 17:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi there! I have unprotected the article - I assume it was protected because it has been the scene of some prolonged and pointless content wars in the past. It's on my watchlist, anyway, so if there are any problems I'll sort them out. —Stormie 02:02, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

How Skirts and Dresses are Worn Today

 * Thanks, Stormie. PKM

Okay, I added much of what I think is needed. This could still use fleshing out and more styles. I am not really happy with the section title "How skirts and dresses are worn today" - if anyone has a better idea, please fix! PKM 07:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * PS The current picture is very likely a skirt and bodice, not a one-piece dress, but I think I covered that option in the text... - pk

recent addition - men in skirts
I'm not sure that the following addition is really suitable, but it is possible I just don't understand it.

Response - The problem isn't men wearing skirts. The problem is that most people from Western Civilization have not seen it. Please bear in mind that Western Civilization is but a small part of the World's population (about 1/10th). The other 90% of the world's population have no issues with it, and about half the men in non-Western cultures wear skirts and dresses on a routine basis. In many countries, they wear the same cut and style of fabric as do the women, with the difference between men and women being defined by the body, not the clothing. Dr1819 16:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The disputed edit: ''It is necessary of course to ask why, as thinking people don't just arbitrarily accept cultural rules and many other gender specificities of costume have been broken. Unless they are ground length with is unpopularly cumbersome, the shape of skirts results in a difficulty over ensuring the wearer remains decent. It has been accepted by the arbitrariness of immemorial social custom, that women are not breaking decency laws even when minor failings of decency occur. However, opponents of school uniforms contend that this results in skirt uniforms being an immoral sexploitation of children. This would imply that skirts are a fundamentally illogical and unreasonable garment, despite their long history. It follows logically that men, not being socially established as skirt wearers, have cause to fear the decency problem arising, so they can't break the gender rule.''

Response - I'm usually able to make sense of almost everything I read - please help me with the preceding paragraph! Dr1819 16:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

 * This was a paragraph that was added, that I was disputing. I'll find the edit in the history if you want.  It was by User:Tern I think. Silverfish 16:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be one person's opinion, and rather speculative, and I don't think it actually explains very much. Firstly, the decency problem would seem to apply equally for men and women. The argument seems to come back to men not being skirt wearers, which is rather circular, and I'm not sure how we get from this to decency being more of a problem for men in skirts than women in them.

Response - Can you specify what "one person's opinion" is? Are you referring to men wearing skirts or the paragraph immediately above yours? If it's that men should wear skirts, it's the opinion of approximately 1.4 Billion men (and presumably their wives) that men should wear skirts, because that's 40% of the world's male population, the same 40% who wear skirts, dresses, and similar garments on a regular basis. Dr1819 16:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

 * My comments were all about the disputed edit, which I quoted above. I've marked it in italics now, to seperate it from my comments. Silverfish 16:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, who calls skirt uniforms sexploitation of children? I'm also not convinced that this means that skirts are illogical (what does it mean for a garment to be illogical?). Silverfish 11:03, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Delete it. PMA 08:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It may be relevant to note that Tern is a new arrival to Wikipedia, but he apparently has a long and chequered online history. See Talk:Asperger's syndrome for interesting comments by other editors. Zora 11:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * You might find this even more interesting.

comment on recent edits
Some recent changes mention skirts and dresses as sometimes being men's clothing in the intro. These seem to be very similar to what we already have in the section on how they are worn today. I think it best not to have them in the intro, as it makes it a fair bit longer, and also I think the intro should give a general impression of what skirts and dresses are, and then later fill in the details. If we do want to mention men in skirts (or skirt-like garments), I would prefer something short more like a sentence, rather than an entire paragraph. Silverfish 22:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think it has anything to do with dresses, but I have seen workmen wearing canvas kilts and I saw the exhibit at the Met. I'm not planning to give up my pants any time soon, but this sort of thing is definitely going on.  Whether it's a fad or a trend, I wouldn't know.  But I think it deserves more than a mention.  –Shoaler (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's worth including, but not in the intro, or at least not in much detail. Before the new content (that added after my revert) it said that dresses and skirts were women's garments. In the intro, I think if we want to acknowledge male skirt or dress wearers, then we should just briefly acknowledge that briefly there, and go into more detail later.

That's the problem, I think the new content goes into too much detail for an intro. As I point out, there is a section that covers this, that I think would be more suitable. Silverfish 11:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The comment is never going to be "suitable" for everyone as it's a new concept. It's just not something that the western world is very used to so that's why you said it's not suitable. Drinking alcohol by children isn't seen as suitable but in the past it was much better than the drinking water available.

Men in Skirts - Edits Complete
I reworked these issues to address the duplication of men in skirts information and to accommodate the recommendations above. Dr1819 16:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Men in skirts
I reverted all the edits glorifying men in skirts and exaggerating the number of men who wear them. There is a huge global trade in used Western-style clothing. The items thrift stores can't sell are baled up and sold to exporters, who then resell to shopkeepers and peddlers in poor countries. Old T-shirts and torn pants are replacing the "national costume" in many countries. In Tonga, many men wore pants for working in the fields, and only wore wrapround skirts for relaxing at home, or on formal occasions. Hence it is misleading to say that because some men wear skirts sometimes, the whole country should be enrolled in the column "Men wear skirts". It's a lot more complicated than that. Zora 20:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Reality vs Wishful Thinking
I edited the article to reflect reality. I've visited more than 30 countries, and despite the comments above, reality is quite a bit different than certain members of the fashion police and Western civilization would have you believe. The truth is that throughout the world, many men wear skirts regularly, not just at home, but at work, whether that be in an office, university, or in the fields. This hasn't changed for tens of thousands of years, people. Please stop trying to impose your limited view of what's acceptable for men to wear on the rest of human civilization. Wiki isn't about re-editing reality to suit your limited perception of what's acceptable. It's about reflecting reality as it exists.

No, Zora - I've never been to Tonga.

I have been to Korea, Japan, Phillipines, US, Canada, Mexico, France, Germany, Panama, Honduras, Columbia, Peru, Costa Rica, Austria, Switzerland, UK, Oman, Bahrain, Dahran, Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, Egypt, Italy, Greece, Turkey...

The list goes on. My comments aren't wishful thinking. They're obvservations.

Please stop deleting reality! If your experience doesn't include men wearing skirts, simply admit the fact that your experience is limited. I've provided numerous links of pictures of men wearing skirts throughout the modern world, yet you keep deleting the links, too. Why not educate yourself, instead?

Stop! Your privalages as an admin carry significant responsibilities to ensure the truth and accuracy of what's posted. Your limiting your resources to your own experiences in Tonga hardly constitutes any minutia of a reasonable research. Just because you come from a third world country does not make you an expert on fashion as it exists elsewhere in the world.

As for the rest of the ignorants who keep relegating these articles to the dustbin, take a vacation! You'll see for yourself that reality isn't quite what you and the Western media have lead you to believe it is. 84.166.180.34 08:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I believe men wear skirts. I believe men wearing skirts can be very very sexy . I don't believe your website or your movement are notable. Please stop trying to use WP to propagandize for them. Zora 10:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I reverted the Men and skirts section. You may be a fashion expert, and perhaps the world's leading authority on skirts, but when it comes to Men and skirts, your claims run strongly counter to the reality experienced an entire subculture, that has been using certain terms (not "neologisms" as you and others claim).  As for your other claims concerning "my website" and "my movement," I have neither.  I became loosely affilliated with alternative clothing styles and the men's fashion freedom movement in 2001, when I first donned a skirt (handed to me by my wife because all my pants were in the wash).  "Nice!" I thought, wore it the rest of the afternoon, and was hooked.  But the movement, Zora, was codified seven years earlier, and had it's beginnings in the late fifties, courtesy of a lot of beach movies and the move away from conservative culture experienced primarily in Southern California and other progressive urban population centers.  In short, I'm still learning about it!  It's far, far more vast than just me (and began long before I was born).

 * In closing, please refrain from discourteous/disrespectful accusations about ulterior motives which simply do not exist. It's not my website.  It's not my movement.  There is no "propaganda" being spread, here, Zora.  Unfamiliarity does not magically translate into "propaganda."  Any such conclusion is a non-sequitor and quite erroneous.  Thank you for your understanding.

 * By the way, by attacking me with comments on ownership, you're employing Ad Hominem arguments (Argument To The Man), which is a logical fallacy. Put simply, it's "attacking the person instead of attacking his argument," and it's both bad form, and semantically null.  You're also employing what's known as "attack by innuendo."  Both attacks are well known to trial judges, and do not stand up in court, nor do they stand up in any intellectually capable society or subsection thereof.  Dr1819 19:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Links to commercial websites do not constitute spam when they're provided as evidence/reference/example of a particular phenomenon, particularly one about which many may be unfamiliar, such as companies that market skirts for men. Link jusifiably restored in accordance with Wiki policy.  Dr1819 19:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I also restored the link to the website depicting numerous examples of the subtopic of discussion at hand, Men and skirts. The link is highly relevant as it provide an outstanding visual example, not only of men wearing skirts, but of the various styles worn throughout the world, the various names, and the countries in which they're routinely worn, again leading to a growth in knowledge and understanding - what encyclopedias are all about, even Wiki.  Dr1819 19:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Finally, I restored content removed because of claims of it being "not notable." Notability isn't a Wiki requirement for content, nor are personal opinions of notability valid in deciding the fate of content, again, IAW Wiki policy.  Furthermore, Wiki policy strongly supports keeping content that may not be notable to some, even most, provided such content is indeed notable to others.  In support, Wiki maintains countless pages of content notable only to a select few, some with less than 100 Google hits - yet the content remains, so Ghits are obviously no indicator of notability/retainability.  Rather, the notability arguement is used as an illogical attack against content because the attacker has other reasons for removing it, such as they find it personally distasteful - again, not a valid argument for removal of the under Wiki policy.

Please adhere to policy, folks. Dr1819 19:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Trouser Skirt may need repair
I thought a trouser skirt was still a true skirt (one opening), but with pockets and belt loops like a normal pair of trousers. A quick search through stores like Lands End and Chadwicks confirms this. But the link to trouser skirts doesn't exist and is instead redirected to coulletes, which are flaired shorts (two openings) - not the same thing at all. Someone with page creation experience might wish to fix this. Mugaliens 08:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Fashion Trend
Kilt sales have skyrocketed in the last ten years, with more than twenty thriving companies conducting online and storefront sales to customers around the world, so I restored the comment and added a reference. If you need more, I can oblige. Mugaliens 09:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work on condensing the sarong entries, Zora! Mugaliens 09:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandelism
Who keeps deleting the reference to kiltmen? That site correctly depicts, describes, and portrays (with pictures) the many unbifurcated garments currently worn by men around the world. Also, other deletions have occured without showing up in the History pages, including several key variations of the sarong. Someone with an apparently narrow POV is trying to reshape the world. All such "permanent" and/or "ghost" deletions have been recorded for future reference, if need be." Mugaliens 10:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Men in Skirts Pic
The foustenella pic isn't applicable, as it does not depict current skirtwear by men. Choose another. Thousands abound on the Internet. If you need help finding one, let me know here or on my talk page. Mugaliens 10:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

More Possible Vandelism
There are a lot of red links that didn't use to be red when I last visited. Why were articles on the sapeta, djellaba, and galabiyah were deleted? Wikipedia doesn't belong to the US. It's a global Encyclopedia. These entries appear in Britannica, they should appear here. They were good articles, complete with pictures. Mugaliens 12:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Men in skirts section
I removed the commercial references. WP is not a linkfarm. I also condensed a number of the examples. The same garment can have different names in different countries. There were several duplications. I left the reference to dhotis, but ... the dhoti is usually worn as a bifurcated garment. It's more convenient for work that way. The back is pulled forward and tucked up into the waist. The dhoti worn as a skirt is called a "priest's dhoti" in Boulanger's work on saris. It's more appropriate for men not doing hard physical labor. Zora 19:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Good work on the cleanup, Zora. I think a couple of references were removed altogether, though.  By the way, I included the "notable exceptions" section because it's a valid phenomena in many outdoor events.  Been there, done that, seen many others, etc.  In a recent kayaking expedition in Oregon, a third of us men wore Macabi skirts in the evening.  The links were included as examples.  I included two links to reduce the notion that I was promoting any particular store.  Since this entire section deals with men in skirts, it's quite appropriate to note the extent of skirt-wearing among normal, non-crossdressing males.  Mugaliens 13:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

 * A better link would be one that affirms that, as you say, in a recent kayaking expedition in Oregon, a third of the men wore Macabi skirts in the evening. Linking to sites that sell products only tells us that such products are for sale, not that they're being used or how.  And what about other MUG usage? –Shoaler (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

 * You mean like these www.kiltmen.com/Kevin-boston.jpg, a www.kiltmen.com/Dave-krgyzstan.jpg a US soldier relaxing while on deployment in Krygyzstan during "Operation Enduring Freedom," this www.kiltmen.com/strand-pbteam.JPG paintball team from San Diego, or these men attending a wedding?   As for other MUG usage, www.kiltmen.com/photogallery4.htm here's a link to 36 celebrities known to wear MUGs.  Lot's of men wear both kilts and other skirts, and that's just one example.  I've found thousands of images on the Internet.  Here's a video on the subject.  Why are people are surprised, shocked, or reject men wearing what men have worn since the dawn of clothing?  That's amazing.  Mugaliens 17:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Prolific Deletions
I restored the Kiltmen external link. Don't let the title fool you - it's about far more than kilts. It's about any unbifurcated garment worn by men, which occurs about 33% of the time men around the world get dressed. That's pretty significant, and certainly belays a deletion.

Furthermore, it's a non-commercial website, and provides a plethoral wealth of information regarding skirt/dress worn by men throughout the world. As such, it's entirely relevant to this entry on skirt and dress. I'm not sure why it was deleted, although I surmise it was because someone was watching too much "Leave it to Beaver," or because they were raised with an incorrect notion that only women wear unbifurcated garments (not true to the tune of about 1.5 to 2 billion men). Regardless, it's a highly valuable resource as the wear of non-Western men's clothing, much of which (about a third, world-wide), involves one form of skirt or dress. Plus, it has numerous pictures which provide detailed examples from around the world as well as additional links to other websites depicting the same. Because of the very high value of that link, I'll consider any further deletions of that link to be vandalism or due to a very narrow point of view, and will raise the issue in the appropriate Wikipedia section for others to evaluate. This is not a threat - I just want Wikipedia to reflect reality, as it currently exists throughout the world, and not some extreme editor's personal and apparently very limited experience and/or set of morals. I sincerely hope you understand. Mugaliens 19:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Djellaba
The Wikipedia article appears to have disappeared for this item of clothing, and I'm not sure why. It's a common form of dress for a people who're often in the news. I'm a US citizen, but I believe it's only fair to accurately represent the dress of all peoples, without resorting to deletions on the basis of personal or political bias. I'm not pro-anything, except for the truth. Whoever deleted the entry, I'd like it brought back, please, as it's just the right thing to do. Mugaliens 18:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

dhoti vs mundi
It's a dhoti, which is an unbifurcated garment worn by men in India, not a mundi which is a town in the middle of India. Change reverted. Mugaliens 20:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations Needed
Although this may be happening, given what I've experienced among adult wear of kilts, skirts, and other male unbifurcated garments, I've not seen it myself, save at one highland games where a father kilted his entire clan including three sons (they loved it). But it's not substantive Wikipedia material until it can be verified by several reputable third-party sources. The [kilt] entry is a good resource as to how to properly cite references. Newspaper articles, books, anything that's reasonably verifiable from previously reliable resources (such as the New York Times, CNN, Fox News, etc.) should be good, provided they're cited in the appropriate format. Mugaliens 22:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Male Skirt proselytizing
Zora wrote: "Removing male skirt proselytizing. NO evidence whatsoever that teen boys are wearing jean skirts."

Actually, there is evidence:

|More evidence

This incidient in Chicago is quite siginficant, as it details the fact that the principal felt like he had to make daily announcements over the PA system because it was becoming a significant trend. Principals don't make daily PA announcements reminding male students not to wear skirts to school unless unless they're actually doing it.

So yes, Zora, this phenomenon does exist in the US, and it's not just limited to Chicago.

The next one is an isolated incident in the UK, and was done for temperature control. Nevertheless, it did happen, and the boy's head teacher supported him:

|More evidence

In the next one, a UK school specifically changed its dress code and is specifically "allowing boys to wear knee-length skirts and white socks." (third paragraph)

| Guardian Unlimited article

| Pic of teen in skirt, admittedly not necessarily at school...

My point is this: It's not proper to delete content with claims that "there is NO evidence" when there clearly is. Three days hence, if considerably more substantive justification cannot be provided, I'll restore the edits long with the appropriate references/sources. - Mugs 14:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

 * As usual you are giving undue weight to a ver very minor issue. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

 * When a third of the men around the world wear these garments, it's not a "ver very minor issue." By the way, please watch your spelling.  - Mugs 19:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a minor issue even to the men who wear skirts. When I was in Tonga, where men do wear skirts, sometimes skirts were worn, sometimes pants. No one was stressing about it, or talking about it.

 * So then why is 90% of the article devoted to women in skirts? Are they stressing, or talking about it?  Of course not.  Yet the female-oriented content is still there.  Arguing that the male content should disappear because, like the females, they're not stressing about it is a two-edged sword.  It would be more appropriate to have each section of the article sized reflect relative numbers of males and females around the world who wear unbifurcated garments.  - Mugs 19:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Men tended to wear simple tupenu (a wrapped rectangle of cloth) for relaxing, pants for hard physical labor, and tailored tupenu for very formal occasions. "Tended." It was a matter of personal choice, not a matter for comment unless the dress chosen was WAY too formal or informal for the occasion. That had less to do with the skirt/pants choice than with the material used, the kind of tailoring, and the condition of the garment. Mugaliens, you're very very interested in the subject and tend to proselytize; most people just don't care. Zora 19:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Mugaliens - yes, I know that there are vast numbers of men around the world who wear these garments, that is why it is such a non-issue. I have edited the article on several occasions to precisely that effect - but at the same time we need to avoid pretending that wearing a skirt is seen as anything other than eccentric by modern Western society, and we absolutely must not stray over the line into advocacy or special pleading, especially when it involves original research.  The principal effect of your argumentation (and edits) is to make it seem more of an issue, not less.  And actually my spelling is generally excellent but, as my user page explains, I burned the fingers of my left hand very badly when I was a toddler and have bone-deep burn scars across the knuckles of my left hand so my typing is full of characteristic errors caused by the fingers of my left hand being unable to move at more than about half the speed of those on my right.  I did try to fix this but the surgeon said it could not be remedied surgically.  Does Bishonen make the same kinds of errors?  Is that how you so cleverly identified Bishonen as my sockpuppet? Guy (Help!) 22:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Section edited to reflect reality. I respectfully disagree, Guy.  By the way, the "reality" link is to an artical written by a fashion designer, fashion model, and fashion writer.  He has both more knowledge and credibility concerning this trend that either of us.  Eccentricity is in the eyes of the beholder.  You think it's eccentric.  The tens of thousands of Western MUG-wearers don't think it's eccentric at all.  There are far more obscure entires in Wikipedia, which perhaps 20 people, worldwide, might take an interest.  To me, that's eccentric, but I don't see you hunting those down, for despite their obscurity, they don't offend you sensibilities.  I grew up in the mid-late 60s and 70s.  By the time I hit college, I'd have thought the idea of a man wearing a skirt was gay, gay, gay.  Having lived in several different countries and visited many more, I no longer think that at all, as it's quite common elsewhere, and many Westerners living abroad adopt local customs and have brought those customs back home to the West.  By the way, Wikipedia is a global product, and not just for the West.  It should reflect global happenings, not just a narrow, strictly Victorian Western point of view.  I'm sorry about your hands - I wasn't aware of you situation, and I apologize for criticizing your spelling.  Please forgive me.  On another note, I never claimed Bishonen was your sockpuppet, and I responded to your accusation of such on my  RfA page.  - Mugs 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Here's another article about just how far this trend has actually penetrated into Western culture, while detailing the issues surrounding how and why some people recoil at the very idea. From an Indian perspective.  I thought Zora might appreciate this.  - Mugs 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Opinions vs Reality
That is your opinion, Zora, but you've not provided any evidence, references, or substantiation to back up your reversion, merely an empty claim. Meanwhile, independant, third-party articles such as this and this confirm that your opinion is not based on fact, but rather, on a narrow point of view. Want more? I have about fifty on file. I thus reverted the article (leaving in about half your edits) to restore a neutral point of view. Furthermore, the wearing of skirts made for men is neither cross-dressing, transvestism, and your allusions as such border on homophobia. It certainly has nothing to do with one's sexual orientation. Some men simply prefer wearing a skirt! About a third of us on the planet, last time I checked... Fashion has no room for narrow-minded Western rhetoric, particularly on a global product like Wikipedia. I hope you understand I'm trying to ensure Wiki articles reflect reality, WHAT ACTUALLY IS, rather than what some people would rather reality to be. The reality is that many men around the world, even in the West, wear MUGs, and that phenomena deserves accurate, unbiased representation in Wiki. I've provided countless links to photos, newspaper articles, and other substantiating evidence, yet some people continue to slash valid material and throw around terms like "cross-dressing" when they haven't the slightest clue as to what they're talking about. A man wearing a bra and breast forms is cross-dressing. A man wearing a skirt made for men is not. I hope you understand the distinction between the two. - Mugs 19:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Mugaliens, you're filtering everything anyone says through a schema that says "If anyone opposes me, that person must be prejudiced against male skirts." Any attempt to restrain your proselytizing and soapbox behavior results in a spate of accusations re prejudice. If you persist in this behavior, our options are an RFC on your behavior (long overdue, I should think) and ultimately an Arbitration Committee case to get you banned. Do you want to force us to that route? Zora 19:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Zora, I respectfully request you stop trying to rewrite history and the present, and refrain from threats of banning only because you disagree with the information I'm presenting. Over the last five months, I've posted numerous links to verifiable, objective reports substantiating what I've posted.  I'm sorry you disagree with that information, but clearly, it can't all be wrong.  Occam's Razor, it must be right.  Also, referring to this as an ethnic trend in the article is inappropriate, as ethnicity has nothing to do with male skirt wear, which occurs throughout most ethnic groups.  Furthermore, your use of the word "proselytizing" in your accusation is incorrect, as that has to do with one's religion, not accurate details on the variations of people's choice of fashion.  This has nothing to do with presenting my idea or your idea.  There's no soapbox, and it's not a topic for an RFC.  It's simply about accurately portraying verifiable reality.  Please do not twist this issue into something it's not, and I respectfully request you refrain from trying to start an arguement, much less a war.  If you disagree with the information presented, please provide verifiable evidence which supports your stance.  If you're unable to provide that evidence, please refrain from commentary such what you posted above.  Thank you.  - Mugs 08:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Opinions vs Reality, Take II
You still have not provided anything of substance to back up your opinion, Zora. I certainly won't engage you in a revert war. However, because you continue to revert well-documented and substantiated content back to unsubstantiated opinion, this evening I will be adding your name to the RfA I created for Guy and Sandstein's issues involving the same inappropriate behavior. - Mugs 12:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The onus is on the editor seeking to include content, to justify that content. Guy (Help!) 12:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 * You're well aware that I've done so countless times, Guy, via links to many (20+) articles (written this century, not last), in many countries (including the UK), and countless websites, also in many countries, each with hundreds (some with thousands) of members. Ignoring the vast plethora of evidence while claiming "what evidence" merely underscores the narrow point of view, personal bias, lack of information (apparently willingly kept that way, too), merely highlights the gross lack of objectivity behind the slash and burn deletions of the content and supporting references.  This kind of behavior is not welcome here, or for that matter, anywhere.  The fact is, guys wear skirts, and by all accounts it's a growing trend, not a "vogue trend back in the late 1990s."  On the one hand, you say that's not the issue, yet you and two others continue to slash content that reflects this well-known and established fact.  - Mugs 15:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 * So you say. But you have yet to find another editor who agrees with you.  Guy (Help!) 12:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't know if it's a "growing trend" but I have seen young men wearing Utilikilts on a construction job. But not very often. If sales of Utilikilts, etc. are increasing, I would prefer to see some statistics. –Shoaler (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of non-Western, religious list items from "Male Wear" section
I removed a number of items from the Male Wear section. The items were unsourced and many were counterfactual--Korean traditional dress for men, hanbok, includes trousers for example. Calling the liturgical vestments dresses is at least a private definition of the term "dress" and at most completely risible. Calling various non-Western garments by Western names views these garments through Western eyes and should be discouraged per WP:CSB. You know, I thought this was mere sloppiness/inventiveness until I read the above discussion. It now seems to be sloppiness/inventiveness with a purpose. JChap2007 15:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Question about Men in Skirts and dresses
Here is a picture of Phillip III of Burgundy and it looks to me that ALL the men in the painting are wearing dresses (some have shorter hemlines of course). This was long after William the Conqueror. So is the history section off a bit?--Filll 13:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Is wiki Western-centric or Global?
Having read the debate between Zora, Guy and Mugs, I have a question. Is wiki intended to discuss content at a global level, or is it meant specifically to be western-centric?

If it is supposed to be written primarily from a western point of view, I have nothing to add, except that a section should be added about male skirts as a 'foreign' issue, explaining how it is much more common in non-western cultures. The existing section about male skirts in western culture could be kept as it is, or shortened. Note that there is a separate article to discuss this - Men in skirts.

If it is supposed to be global, I propose we aim to completely overhaul this article to reflect the dominance of male skirts around the world. The extreme female bias is highly unrepresentative of reality, and should probably be reversed. The existing content could be separated into another article entitled something like "skirts and dresses in western culture".

To anyone who considers replying - This is an honest question. Please give a rational and unbiased answer. Bards 06:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How Skirts and Dresses are Worn Today
There is lengthy discussion here about the comparatively minority issue "male skirts" here, but a far more contentious, and important passage has escaped unscathed.

"Outside the U.S., however, higher-status women (judges, cabinet ministers, physicians, corporate executives et al.) generally avoid wearing trousers in public. Conversely, women at the lowest socio-economic levels often do not own skirts or dresses."

Is this true? I think not. At the very least "the UK" (where I live) must be added to "the US" on this, as it is just quite clearly false. Whilst "the avoidance of trousers" for professional women may be slightly more predominant on the European continent, I suspect this is outdated too. "Conversely", i think you will find most working-class women have the odd skirt and dress or two too.

To summarise - this statement is rubbish:- please get rid.

Joseph 2.10.07

Splitting of article into Skirt and Dress (garment)
I have reverted a change by User:Tatterfly to split this article into separate Skirt and Dress (garment) articles, since it seemed a bit of a drastic change to make without discussion.

So, please, discuss! --Stormie 00:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Well the two distinct articles have already been created - what purpose will this page serve if not as a disambiguation page? -- SiobhanHansa 00:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

 * The question is whether there should be two distinct articles or one. I actually have no opinion, this page is only on my watchlist due to vandalism sometime way back in ancient history. I just think that you should have at least a little discussion before splitting a page. --Stormie 03:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I actually like the idea of these articles being split. As I have heard from other Wikipedians, it is customary not to have an article titled "blank and blank." The general practice is to either use a title without the word "and" title that encompasses both, or else have separate articles. Besides, the "skirt and dress" article is so long that it just naturally would be better off as separate articles. I am not planning on going through the hassle of changing back each of these pages, but I did revert the dress article to the way it was before. Shaliya waya 14:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

 * User:Tatterfly suggested the split in August. Since no one seemed concern enough to comment in over a month, it seems like Tatterfly should be able to continue with his/her boldness.  People can always propose a re-merge if it doesn't work out.  -- SiobhanHansa 18:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems there may be some kind of small revert war going on. But for now, though I had mentioned on that page that the article had been split, the original Skirt and Dress article is a full article as such, and the separate articles on each that I created seem to still be there. The dress article is currently titled "Dress (garment)" as I named it, and it is accessible from the "Dress (disambiguation)" page, which "Dress" redirects to, as I had made it. As a compromise, let's leave it as it is. Tatterfly 13:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was certainly not my intent to get into any sort of revert war, just to say "whoa! let's talk for at least a moment before doing this". I actually have no particular opinion as to which arrangement is better, and everyone else seems to agree that yes, two separate articles make more sense than one Skirt and dress article. So I invite you to revert my revert and go ahead with the split, or I can do it myself if you like. :-) Cheers! --Stormie 00:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As you said, I finally did revert it to this disambiguation I had made. It does seem pointless after all to have two articles describing the same topic. Tatterfly 14:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD, unable to create page
To the gracious user who will complete the nomination, please provide this as the Reason:

It baffles me as to why this article has remained, even as a disambiguation page. It does not actually reduce any sort of confusion for the reader, and rather further confuses them.

According to the talk page, the page was originally an article, when the topics of skirt and dress were on this page; the topics were separated into the current articles. A redirect to either page does not work since the title of this page does not weigh to one article or another. Finally, it does not seem to be the correct use of a "disambiguation" page, per WP:D.96.52.0.249 (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dress skirt


text:
Death from Above 1979

Death from Above 1979 (also known as Death from Above or DFA 1979) is a Canadian rock duo consisting of bassist Jesse F. Keeler and drummer and vocalist Sebastien Grainger from Toronto, Ontario, formed in 2001. The band released their debut album, You're a Woman, I'm a Machine, in 2004 and broke up in 2006. They reformed in 2011 and released their second album, The Physical World, in 2014. Since then the band has released 2 more albums, Outrage! Is Now in 2017 and Is 4 Lovers in 2021.

Formation and Heads Up (2001–2003)
Grainger and Keeler reportedly met at a Sonic Youth concert, though they sometimes jokingly claimed to have met in prison, on a pirate ship, or in a gay bar, leading some journalists and fans to believe these stories. Keeler has also said to have met Grainger when looking for a drummer to play in his hardcore punk band Femme Fatale, further stating "That's how Death from Above got started." In a 2021 interview with Anthony Fantano, Keeler finally revealed how the band actually formed. In 2001, Keeler was playing drums in Black Cat #13 and was storing bass guitar gear at his house for a planned concert in Detroit opening for The Blood Brothers. The concert was cancelled due to the September 11 attacks, so Keeler invited Grainger to jam to put the equipment to use and they were inspired to form their own band.

On December 15, 2002, the band released their debut release, the EP Heads Up.

You're a Woman, I'm a Machine and break up (2004–2006)
The band began recording for their debut album, You're a Woman, I'm a Machine from February to April 2004 at The Chemical Sound in Toronto. Additional recording was done at Studio Plateau in Montreal and the album was engineered and produced by Al-P, with the exception of the Montreal sessions which were engineered by Drew Malamud. The album was released in October, 2004. The band released three singles to promote, You're a Woman, I'm a Machine, these singles were "Romantic Rights" on November 4, 2004, "Blood on Our Hands" on February 17, 2005, and "Black History Month" on June 13, 2005. In 2005, the video for "Blood on Our Hands" won a VideoFACT award at the MuchMusic Video Awards.

In 2004, the band changed their name to "Death from Above 1979" (previously named "Death from Above") due to a cease and desist letter that was filed against the band by James Murphy's label Death From Above Records. The band responded by attaching the legal minimum number of numerals required to keep the first part of the name. On MuchMusic's television program The New Music, Keeler further explained why the band split. He claimed it was due to disagreements with bandmate Grainger on many levels, including creative differences and musical style.

Reunion and The Physical World (2011–2016)
On February 4, 2011, the band officially reunited, performing live for the first time in more than 5 years at Coachella on April 17, 2011. A world tour was announced for the summer of 2011.

The band performed a new song while performing at EdgeFest on July 14, 2012, at Downsview Park in Toronto. On September 18, 2012, a Canadian tour was announced; the band revealed that they had written new songs, but needed to perform them live in order to "make them any good". On October 28, 2012, the band's blog was updated as they built excitement for their string of shows around Canada. In the post, Grainger cited that they were "coming to share new material, and to work out the kinks". The band was originally scheduled to perform at Governors Ball Music Festival in June 2013, but later announced that they were having unexpected trouble while working on new music and cancelled their appearance. On July 11, 2013, the band confirmed that a new record is in the works on their Facebook page after cancelling European shows due to a "medical emergency". They did, however, perform at Wakestock Music Festival in August and Rifflandia in September. On July 8, 2014, the band released a single, "Trainwreck 1979", and announced more details of their upcoming studio album, The Physical World. On September 9, 2014, the band released their second album, The Physical World through Last Gang and Warner Bros. Records.

On October 7, 2014, the band released a documentary Life After Death from Above 1979. The documentary chronicled the history of the band and their reunion. It was directed by Grainger's wife, Eva Michon.

On April 22, 2016, the band released a live album, Live At Third Man Records which was recorded in 2015 at Jack White's Third Man Records headquarters in Nashville.

Outrage! Is Now (2017–2020)
On June 6, 2017, the band announced an official name change back to the original "Death from Above". Although the band has said their social media handles will keep the "1979" suffix, all future music and shows from the duo will reportedly arrive under the new name. Grainger said in an interview that the band decided to not include the "1979" suffix on a tour promo for their tour with the Eagles of Death Metal in early 2016, "just to see what would happen" and the band received no legal issues because of it which led to them doing it again on their tour promo with Black Rebel Motorcycle Club and once again there were no legal repercussions. Sebastian has also said the making the album art for the band's single "Freeze Me" also was part of the decision, "The final straw was when I was making the art for our single 'Freeze Me'. I wanted to write the name out in ice, so I went on Amazon and ordered an ice cube tray in the alphabet. It came and there were no numbers. That was that." Along with the name change, the duo announced the new single, "Freeze Me." The song premiered on BBC Radio 1 before its release on June 7.

Is 4 Lovers (2020–present)
In December 2020, the band wiped their social media pages. A series of posts to their Instagram grid revealed the band's logo, followed by a teaser video confirming the band's name change back to Death from Above 1979. After months of teaser posts, the band confirmed a new album on February 3, 2021. The album, Is 4 Lovers, was released on March 26. The announcement coincided with the release of a new single, "One + One".

Musical style
Throughout its career, the band has been described as dance-punk, noise punk, and punk rock. Grainger has stated when the band first started his and Keeler's aim was "to be as straight ahead as possible," and "to be the AC/DC of hardcore." Rolling Stone claims "Death From Above embodied the DIY dance-punk aesthetic that lived in home recordings and grimy basement clubs" and that the band's early work "combined noisy hardcore, gritty synths and earnest screams".

Members

 * Jesse F. Keeler – bass, synthesizer, keyboards, backing vocals
 * Sebastien Grainger – drums, vocals

Discography
Studio albums
 * You're a Woman, I'm a Machine (2004)
 * The Physical World (2014)
 * Outrage! Is Now (2017)
 * Is 4 Lovers (2021)

title: Death from Above 1979


text:
Talk:Bob Chiarelli

City of Ottawa
It was always marketed that it was a brand new City of Ottawa, and that Bob is the first mayor of the new City of Ottawa. --Spinboy 07:23, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * True, but the title "Mayor of Ottawa" never changed. Ottawa has existed since 1855 and we have had mayors ever since then. To say Bob Chairelli is the first mayor of Ottawa is ludacris, as the City of Ottawa has had 56 mayors before him. Earl Andrew 07:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * That's a good point. Spinboy 07:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that the article is incorrect also but meh what-ever. Also I would like to say... Isn't Bob the 58th mayor... and O'Brien 59th? Because Jim Watson is the 56th and then we state Chiarelli as 57th, but it seem we forgot acting mator Higdon. --Deenoe 12:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm embarrassed or angry at Chiarelli for all the shit about the light rail. Right now I'd like to spit on him. I heard they want to name something after him. How about a garbage can on Rideau street near all the hostile/crazy homeless people? I think we would have done better the last three years if we had no mayor. 74.104.1.193 01:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Jordan

1st mayor

 * Section moved below older posts by -M.Nelson (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"When the 'new' City of Ottawa was created through amalgamation, he ran for and was elected its first Mayor." This is from the "About the Mayor" page of the City of Ottawa web site. Bob Chiarelli is the 1st mayor of this City of Ottawa. Based on this established, and referenced fact, I have changed the main page.Dave 00:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Then why did Ottawa just celebrate its 150th anniversary rather than its 4th? -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A new municipality was formed in 2001 by teh merger of 11 former municipalities which included Nepean, Gloucester, West Carleton, Cumberland, Goulbourn and the ohters including a former municipality that was called Ottawa, The history of this new municipality includes the history of all former municpalities. To say that the the last mayor of the former Ottawa waas a mayor of the new Ottawa is factually incorect and insulting to the citizens of the other former municipalities. If it wasn't for Kanata and Nepaen, there would be no high tech industry in Ottawa. The old Ottawa was certainly not interested in any form of development.

It is insulting and inaccurate to regard the history of the region as the history of only one of teh previous municipalities.

 * We have already discussed this, see the discussion below above -M.Nelson (talk). Ottawa marked its 150th anniversary this year, not its 4th. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I saw the discussion. The article is still incorrect. The discussion fails to recognize the distinction between 'signifier' and 'signified'. So the signifier 'Mayor of Ottawa' can point to two very different things. One 'signified' is a person who was mayor of the old city of Ottawa which was abolished with the amalgamation of the municipalities in the region of Ottawa-Carleton. The signifier can also point to a signified who is a person who was or is the mayor to the new city of Ottawa which was created at the time of amalgamation of the constituent municipalities of Ottawa-Carleton.

The above discussion disposes of your grammatical argument that the mayor of Ottawa is a unique office which was created at the inception of the old, now abolished, city of Ottawa. That argument would be equivalent to saying that marijuana is a cooking container because both marijuana and a cooking container can be denoted by the signifier ‘pot’.

A better argument for this is that the 'facts' contained in your article are merely your point of view and nothing more. An encyclopedia article should not be a place for only one point of view when there are others, just as knowledgeable of the situation, who hold quite different and incompatible points of view

Fair use rationale for Image:Old Ottawa Flag.png
Image:Old Ottawa Flag.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bob Chiarelli. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ottawasun.com/news/columnists/susan_sherring/2010/01/17/12504661.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=15b1a058-6843-45a8-9ec9-e5d07fbf48d6&k=92930
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/mcguinty-liberals-win-narrow-victory-in-ottawa-by-election/article1490446/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Liberals%2Bacclaim%2BChiarelli%2BOttawa%2BWest%2BNepean%2Brace/2506667/story.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140923154021/http://wemakevotingeasy.ca/en/general-election-district-results.aspx?d=066 to http://wemakevotingeasy.ca/en/general-election-district-results.aspx?d=066

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bob Chiarelli. 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/20140821234616/http://results.elections.on.ca/results/1995_results/valid_votes.jsp?e_code=36&rec=0&district=ottawa+west&flag=E&layout=G to http://results.elections.on.ca/results/1995_results/valid_votes.jsp?e_code=36&rec=0&district=ottawa+west&flag=E&layout=G
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/mcguinty-liberals-win-narrow-victory-in-ottawa-by-election/article1490446/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Liberals+acclaim+Chiarelli+Ottawa+West+Nepean+race/2506667/story.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) 03:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bob Chiarelli


text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/World War II/archive 1

World War II
Detailed, well written, well referenced, topic completely covered, lots of pictures. Not a self-nom. →Iñgōlemo←  talk   donate  07:22, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
 * Object. Although this article is pretty decent, I think it is not sufficient for such a complex and broad topic. I have several specific complaints, which I will not list here, since the article notes that "There is currently an alternative writing of this article at World War II/temp." This alone seems enough to object to this article. Jeronimo 07:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As there is a major rewrite underway in /temp I think this might not be such a good idea as a FA article. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Particularly not as the /temp-version to my eye seems more Anglo-centric, less correct, and suspiciously unconnected to the (hierarchies of) articles World War II refers to. (Compare for instance Replies to common objections.) The proposition of a rewrite must be properly handled before it's relevant to consider FA-status. --Johan Magnus 14:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object — Nothing mentioned as to the real reasons that Japan invaded Burma. The Japanese wanted to defeat the British in India that was vital in providing foods and supplies to the Allies. See India during WWII. Also English conventions are not followed eg. USS Missouri should be italicised to USS Missouri. Maps would be useful on this page. Nichalp 19:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * object no article on WWII could possibly be comprehensive enough to merit being a featured article. Most featured articles are simply overachievers - they take an obscure topic and really do it justice, leaving nothing out.  Surely individual generals or battles of WWII could become featured articles, but not the whole war.Dinopup 20:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object to the objection. This is not an actionable objection, and is therefore invalid. --Carnildo 21:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)