text:
Talk:United Kingdom national football team

Fielding of non-native players
However, a frequent humorous counter to this is that a significant number of players for Wales and Northern Ireland are not natives of those countries, but rather Englishmen who are not good enough to play for England but have ancestry that qualifies them for the other teams.

This statement is a bit weasel worded - are there any actual examples, preferably of current players, to back this up? Vinnie Jones comes to mind as a single example from the past, but I'd be willing to stake that most of the Welsh and Northern Irish teams are proper 'natives' and that the assertion that a 'significant number' of them are Englishmen is false. Qwghlm 12:11, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Mike Basset:Football manager mentions it. Its a pretty widespread joke though it doesn't hold true very often these days, back in the 60s and 70s though people's grandparents had moved around the country as part of the industrial revolution so it happened quite often. --Josquius 20:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to claim that such tactics are only employed by the smaller nations of the UK: John Barnes, Graeme LeSaux and Matt LeTissier had no grounds other than residence by which to claim themselves as English. Kevin McE 09:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Position of the Home Nations' FAs
Currently, the football associations of England, Wales and Northern Ireland are in theory in favour of a British national team; however, the Scottish FA opposes it.

Nothing is given to back this up, while, and  say otherwise - none of the home FAs want a UK team. Deleted this paragraph, and the above pointless jibe at Wales & Northern Ireland. Qwghlm 20:58, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

It is in theory, they don't actually support it its just they aren't vocally against it like the Scots are. Meh, it doesn't matter. I just wrote the base article in one sitting when bored.--Josquius 20:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Football Association of Wales, opposes a Great Britain team. BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/4427504.stm Sulasgeir 13:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

 * The meeting at which they declared their opposition to the plan was held since Qwghlm and Josquius made their statements. Changes in the build-up to, and at, the meeting in December 2005 have since been addressed in the article. Bastin 18:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

UK/GB
Lets discuss the naming - should this be United Kingdom national football team or Great Britain national football team? What are the arguments for each side? I think the latter is most appropriate, especially since that is used for the Olympics and is all over the news right now. violet/riga (t) 12:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Until two days ago, this article had been sitting at United Kingdom - it was moved by User:Dangherous and after a bit of discussion on their talk page, I moved it back. To call it "Great Britain" implies that the team would only contain players from England, Scotland and Wales, when the proposed team is not the case. Also, the team discusses not just the Olympic team but the concept of a UK-wide team for all FIFA competitions; it would be inappropriate to rename it just for the sake of the Olympics, which is a minor international football competition compared to others like the World Cup or European Championship. Qwghlm 12:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm gonna agree with violet/riga. Qwghlm states "it would be inappropriate to rename it just for the sake of the Olympics, which is a minor international football competition compared to others like the World Cup or European Championship". I agree that it's a minor competition compared to the World Cup or Euro Championships (hell, even FIFA doesn't recognise games played in the Olympics to count towards "capping"), but the fact is this British team hasn't been affiliated with those competitions, but it has been connected to the Olympics, under the name "Great Britain and Northern Island", (GBR). I believe this is a question of whether Olympic naming conventions overrule our (Wikipedia's) naming convention. And these should be my final two cents on the matter. --Dangherous 13:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Essentially, they are two arguments. The first is whether you want a UK side for all competitions. This argument has been aired in the past by polticians such as Jack Straw and Tony Banks. The second is whether you want a UK side (named GBR) for the Olympic Games, particularly in 2012. So the Olympic argument should be a sub-section of the wider contention that there should be (or should not be) a UK team for all competitions.

Changes
Having just made a substantial edit, I'd like to explain two points: Otherwise, I think that, with a separation of the primary arguments from the introduction, I think that this article can be quite a good one, given that it's about something that doesn't exist. Bastin 23:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I entered the 2008 Beijing bit unaware of the previous deletion, but I firmly believe that it be included. Simply, it is because there is debate around the issue, with conflicting reports from the BOA and the FA, from the BBC and the Times.  As far as I'm concerned, when those organisations disagree, it's time to put both points of view as equals, even if the odds of a team by 2008 are a million to one.
 * SNP never supported the idea of a unified team. They made the opposite statement, supporting a separate Scottish Olympic team (in either all events or just football), and condemed Blatter for his arrogance.

Woops, should have read the source more closely, sorry Robdurbar 14:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Arguments
As I wrote above, I think that the arguments should be separated from the introduction. Presently, the introduction is too long in comparison to the article itself. Moreover, I can imagine the majority of Wikipedians, i.e. non-Britons, becoming very confused, either as to why the UK has separate national teams or as to why anyone would question having separate teams.

Being very much in favour of a United Kingdom national team, even away from the Olympics, I don't trust my impartiality (or what little there is of it). Consequently, I think it best if it undergoes review on this page before I commit an horrendous crime against the rules of Wikipedia by writing a propagandist tract.

A more pedestrian requirement is to work out how arguments would be arranged. I imagine that many of the arguments and rebuttals would be 'two-sides-of-the-same-coin' territory. Hence, keeping the arguments and corresponding counter-arguments together in a form of sorted rebuttal might make sense, e.g. under the section of arguments for:

Argument: A unified team would give Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish fans a better chance of seeing their national team compete at major tournements. Wales haven't qualified for the World Cup since 1958 and Northern Ireland since 1986, whilst Scotland have never got past the first round.

Rebuttal: A unified team would limit the number of British qualifiers to one. As it is, it is quite common for more than one team to qualify; in fact, all four Home Nations qualified for the 1958 World Cup, and three of them qualified in each of 1982 and 1986.
 * I think most of the rest of the world would consider this an argument for unification of a UK team, on the grounds that other nations, which are much more federal in their governmental structure (USA, Germany, Spain among many others) only enter one side, and thus only have one, albeit larger, bite at the cherry. Kevin McE 09:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I am A scotland fan and know that I could not live without the scottish national team and would strongly oppose a GB team and remember nobody is saying for one away from the olympics which rules this out plus the scottish football acossiation saved fifa in the past when it was going broke also I am in the tartan army and dont know a single scotland supporter who would support a GB team

Links to Crown Dependencies and Overseas territories
There should definitely not be a list of 'national' teams fielded by the Crown Dependencies and Overseas territories in the 'See also' section. They have no relevance to the matter at hand, since their statuses would not be changed by the creation of a United Kingdom national team, nor are their situations analogous or the study of their situations in any way useful to the understanding of a UK national team, whether in the past or in the future. Bastin 17:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * This is getting silly. The only justification that I could possible imagine for adding 'Herm national football team' and 'Pitcairn Islands national football team' is to make some sort of point.  The United Kingdom has a population of sixty million.  Herm has a population of sixty, whereas the Pitcairn Islands make Herm look like Tokyo.  Who is suggesting that they have, or ought to have, football teams, when the Pitcairns don't have enough men to field a full squad?  Certainly not Jack Straw, Sebastian Coe, or the late Tony Banks.  Perhaps WP:POINT would make interesting reading for those that require persuasion otherwise.  Bastin 20:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Agreed, its a needless list. --Robdurbar 08:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Query Re:GA nom (nom on hold for the moment)
I'm reviewing this article as a potential good article (it's looking very good by the way), and wondered about the image caption on the map. Am I right in thinking that the (English) FA is also the FA for certain territories outside the UK, such as Man and the Channel Islands? Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article somewhere? It seems to me that the "UK national football team" would really be a "UK plus Crown Dependencies national football team"... which isn't quite the same thing, even if only hair-splitters would care!

Also, given that "Rest of UK" and "Great Britain" and "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" have all played competitive football, the latter at the Olympics, would it be impossible to include their strips? TheGrappler 02:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I beleive that the Isle of Man, Gurnesy and Jersey FA's are all affiliated to the FA, so that they are independent but, in the event of a player from these islands being good enough (e.g. Graeme Le Saux), they would play for England.

 * Crown dependancy players have the option to choose to play for any of the 4 British teams, not just England.Jizz 13:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Of course, that doesn't make them British naitonals... so whether they would qualify for a UK team at an Olympics is an interesting quesiton. --Robdurbar 08:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The Crown Dependencies (Jersey, Guernsey, and Man) are affiliated as County FAs to the (English) Football Association (hence Le Saux and Le Tissier). Under the British Nationality Act 1981, citizens of the Crown Dependencies are to be treated as British citizens for all purposes, including sport.  Thus, at the Olympics and other sports events, nationals of the Crown Dependencies take part in the Great Britain and Northern Ireland team (as Mark Cavendish will surely do at cycling in 2008).

 * It wouldn't be too hard to include representations of the strips (if, by your suggestion, you mean something like those given right and left). It may be possible to find photos of the shirts, too; unfortunately, I can't find any photos of the matches themselves, but I'm sure that delving through some of my large collection of football history books would provide something. Bastin 12:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm the original nominator, and I did so because this article is interesting, well-written, well-referenced, and authoritatively answers a relevant question (why, in contrast to all other countries, does the UK compete as separate teams?). I haven't seen this isue dealt with better than here. It looks like the issues TheGrappler raises, if addressed, would make it even better, and I'm glad to see he agrees with me about the quality of the article.  Pr oh ib it O ni o n s   (T) 13:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I wonder if any of the kits are on display at a museum somewhere? That might allow a free use photograph to be taken. I also wonder whether any of the early Olympic photographs might be public domain by now? At any rate, I think it would be a good idea to put the strips in, and include a brief statement about the Crown Dependencies; after that I'm satisfied that this is as comprehensive as WP:WIAGA requires. I suspect, in fact, that there's enough information available out there to bring this up to featured status, if anybody's up for it. TheGrappler 14:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I went to the National Football Museum last year and don't recall seeing the strips anywhere. --Robdurbar 19:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

 * That's a shame! Would it be possible to get the template-kits put into the article at an appropriate location? I'd like to give the article a thorough review for its good article nomination, but at the moment it's "on hold" so the kits can go in... TheGrappler 01:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I've added the kits. Since there are now strips for both 1947 and 1955, it might be sensible to expand upon the occasions, explaining the reasons for playing (the FAs' entry into FIFA and the IFA's 75th anniversary respectively) and maybe even the composition of the teams.
 * I've removed reference to the 1965 game. I had previously believed that it was a 'Great Britain v Rest of Europe' game, played as Sir Stanley Matthews' testimonial.  However, having looked in his autobiography to find the strip in which the game was played, I noticed that Scottish players played for both sides (Jim Baxter and Willie Henderson played for the 'international' team, whilst Denis Law played for Stanley Matthews' British XI). Bastin 21:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A good spot, that. I've promoted this to GA now - a nice article. TheGrappler 23:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature
Never has there been a team representing Great Britain. In all cases, Northern Ireland participated, thus, the teams represented the United Kingdom. Bastin 18:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And the name they played under was? --Guinnog 23:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 'That which we call a rose' and all that. Bastin 13:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Scottish antagonists
Just a thought here and I'm not trying to be anti-Scottish, I'm looking at things objectivly but really a point should be made about how the Scots are the main opponent of this idea due to the rather nasty nationalism with regards to football they developed in the 60s--Josquius 11:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I think that the current balance is fine (and not just because I wrote most of it). The article makes it clear the the SFA is the roadblock to the formation of a team in 2012, being alone in their opposition in principle.  One could make some conjecture about the roots of their opposition, but it's never been identified or chronicled in any way that could make such an entry encyclopaedic and adhere to a NPOV.  Personally, I think that you're right (see how few Crosses of St George were waved at Wembley on 15 April 1967, yet how many Saltires there were), but that's really neither here nor there. Bastin 12:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Would it be "nasty nationalism" for the FA to oppose a European Union football team? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

no move. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 22:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
United Kingdom national football team → Great Britain national football team – Rationale: "Great Britain" was the name of the team before it was abandonned in 1972, and "Great Britain" will be the name of the team if it ever does take to the park again. --Mais oui! 10:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~

 * Support --Mais oui! 10:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Four reasons for it given below. Bastin 10:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for the reasons below. This is a hypothetical team, and the article explains why the unusual situation exists that a sovereign country (the UK) does not have a national football team. Great Britain is only part of the UK, even if it is sometimes used as a term to refer to the whole.  Pr oh ib it O ni o n s   (T) 10:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons below; though I agree the whole name thing is very hard. Seems there is a lot of crystal-balling involved in this already! --Guinnog 11:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In practice it probally will be a Great Britain national football team (hell it'll probally be England and one or two Scotsmen if it was simply going off the best players) but to imply someone from Northern Ireland can never play for it is just wrong.--Josquius 15:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per objections. UK seems "less wrong". --Dhartung | Talk 08:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Very weak oppose. GBFT doesn't sound quite right to me either, I think best to keep as is for now. Just a thought how about British national football team — that sounds so much better — and I know it goes against convention with regards to all of the other national soccer team names. – Axman (☏) 10:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose - Sorry but I don't see any reason why this should be moved. On a side note I hope that this becomes a real team sometime in the future, that way the UK can be united and win the World Cup :) -- UKPhoenix79 03:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

Four reasons for keeping the article where it is:
 * 1) Excepting the two friendly games, the name was never 'Great Britain'; until 1924, the Olympic name was 'Great Britain and Ireland', and since 1928, it has been 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland'.  In any future competition, the name would be 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland', as that is the name in all other sports at the Olympics.
 * 2) The teams that played the friendlies against Wales were deliberately known by the name of 'Rest of the United Kingdom', not 'Rest of Great Britain'.
 * 3) Of the two FAs interested in fielding a team at the Olympics, one is Northern Ireland.  If there are as many non-'Great Britain' FAs as there are 'Great Britain' FAs, to describe it as a 'Great Britain' team is misleading.  Furthermore, it is an offence to the IFA's position.
 * 4) As a hypothetical team, the name of any future side should not be second-guessed; the hypothetical name ventured ought to rely on the logical and uncontroversial.  In most cases, the logical and uncontroversial is the name of the country: United Kingdom. Bastin 10:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Introduction changes
I just reverted an edit made by Mais_oui!. The changes to the introduction were manifold, so I'll explain each in turn:
 * Addition of : citations are not required in the introduction if the statements are substantiated upon and supported (by proper citations) further down the page.  This is the case with both of the statements.
 * Addition of : it's not a future sporting event.  It's not even a future sporting team.
 * Use of 'constituent country': in a sporting context, 'Home Nation' is always the preferred term.
 * Bolded 'Great Britain': 'Great Britain' is not part of the title, nor is it a synonym for the title, so it shouldn't be in bold. See the discussion above; since it has been decided (or soon will be) that the article ought to remain here, there is no need to assert that the two are the same.
 * Re-ordering the international teams: the Home Nations are ordered by alphabet. Scotland does not come before Northern Ireland.  The fact that the editor did make that change suggests the motive behind the recent edits. Bastin 23:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Wrong: I moved NI to before Scotland, per the alphabet (read WP:AGF); and alternative names should always be in bold. --Mais oui! 23:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Apologies for that point, which I have now removed. However, it's hard to assume good faith when there are still criticisms of your edit that you have failed to answer, and even harder when it's in the wake of the above attempt to change the name (not that I resent your return: only that you haven't exactly let the dust settle before moving back to naming conventions).  More importantly, you still haven't removed , which was the most illogical of your changes. Bastin 23:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 * WP:CITE is perhaps the most important Wikipedia policy of them all, and there is absolutely nothing there to support your assertion: "citations are not required in the introduction if the statements are substantiated upon and supported (by proper citations) further down the page". I restored Home Nations, and moved the template to further down the page, hence I did not address them in my previous comment. Stop being so defensive and aggresive. I really am trying to contribute positively to this article, and I do not care one jot for our previous encounters, which were a long time ago. --Mais oui! 23:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I totally agree; you need to justify "a perennial point of discussion". Perennial seems an odd word to use here anyway. Let's take that down or at least change the wording, if we can't find a decent citation for it. --Guinnog 10:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Anticipation is one thing....
Is it really necessary to have a box for most capped player, blank kit colours and FIFA code?

This is ridiculous, isn't this wasting space?

 * No, because the team has played games before. It's just that we're all too lazy to go through the records and work out just who is the most capped player and top goalscorer.  I will do it some time, if only to prove a point. Bastin 08:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Team GB.png
Image:Team GB.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 insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images 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) 02:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't just about the Olympics
The article, which I selected as a GA a while ago, is about the UK national football team, and did a fine job why such a team has and hasn't existed and its relationship to the teams of the Home Countries. It is not solely about the Olympic Games; indeed, any national FA-sanctioned football team would theoretically be on the same footing as, say, the Argentina national football team, even if it did not play in any FIFA matches. (Indeed, in its bursts of existence, the team has played non-Olympic matches.) However, the focus seems to have shifted to something more like "United Kingdom Olympic football team" rather to the unique position of the UK in international football. While the Olympics are obviously very important in this context, and are in all likelihood the only reason such a team would be reconstituted, the Olympics are not the only story here. Pro hib it O ni o ns (T) 12:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason for the focus on the Olympics is because that is the only way that a UK football team is likely to exist in future - and even then it will just be an 'English' team for reasons discussed in the article. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

England players
Well, since Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales aren't supporting. In think the Squad is going to be full of English players. For example, lets say that the coach wants to take a Northern Irish player. Like David Healy. But since Northern Ireland is against it, then the Coach will have to take a squad of English players. Like Michael Owen. I now the players I said are overaged, but the teams are allowed to take 3 Over aged players. Plus, there only examples. But lets face it, even if there was going to be a UK team in the olympics, then they would have to be English.--Villa88 (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

First game/Olympic Problem
Why was the first game played in 1908 if UK won the 1900 Olympics? --VovanA (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

 * The 'Yookay' (sic) did not win the 1900 event. Nobody did: no medals were awarded as it was a demonstration event. The "winners" were Upton Park FC.
 * Please note that there has never been a "UK" team in any sport whatsoever at any Olympics whatsoever. Any teams from the UK (eg field hockey) have been branded "Great Britain and Ireland" or "Great Britain" (except at the 1908 field hockey tournament when the teams played in their respective national strips as England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales).--Mais oui! (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Well the first point you make Mais Oui is not entirely true. Whilst no medals were given out in 1900 and it seems the players at the time did not consider themselves part of the olympics proper, it was retrospectively registered as an official event by the IOC and in medal counts the UK/GB are awarded the gold for this event.
 * Your second point really is semantics. It does not really matter what the team is called, it is a team representing the UK (or, if we're being really pedantic, the BOC which is the Olympic committee of the UK)) That it is referred to as Great Britain (or Great Britain and Ireland, or Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is fairly irrelevant; it is the UK, whether or not it is called that.
 * The third issue, then, with the Olympic history part of this is that a variety of different teams have represented Great Britain in football at the Olympics. The problem is that early olympic games were fairly disorganised and did not run to a coherent programme as they do now - so attempts to explain early C20th and C19th olympics in modern day terms come into difficulties. Even now there are issues - supposing an entirely English team organised by the FA enters the 2012 Olympics wearing the shirts of 'Team GB', what do we call them? The scoreboards will say 'Great Britain' and it is Great Britain that will win the gold medal in glory ;), yet an England team who achieved it. Do we grant that gold to England? I think not, but I can sympathise with both viewpoints.
 * The issue for me, then, is that we need to explain clearly the complex history that results in questions such as VovanA's result from, rather than worrying too much about what teams have been labelled. --Pretty Green (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One further issue - I've done something which removes the url from the FA source on the display, but it is there on the wiki-markup - I'm not sure how that's happened! Pretty Green (talk) 11:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, this adds another problem. The 'record defeat' granted by the Bulgarians was against the England national amateur team against Great Britain. Do we then remove this from the UKNT's infobox. If not, then we probably ought to add back the Olympic appearanes that I removed from the box. But then it would seem logical to grant the 1912 gold to this team! I'm minded to change the record defeat in the infobox - thoughts?Pretty Green (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the teams at the Olympics were only Clubs. So, these games may be unoffical. If its a Club, then it does not represent the whole United Kingdom national football team. But if it was the United Kingdom in whole and under that name United Kingdom, then the first match is offical. But if they are a club, then its not offical. So, it is not the first United Kingdom game. The offical game was when the United Kingdom were a whole team in 1908. Not a club. So, really. The first game was not in 1900. It was in 1908. Case closed.--Villa88 (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

 * That's just not true, if we're emboldening everything. Its official if the International Olympic Committee declares that its official. Its their Olympics, they can say if its official or not. In this case, they say the clubs represented the United Kingdom, therefore, the clubs represented the United Kingdom. Now we can agree that this decision by the IOC is a bit strange, wrong even, but it doesn't change that its true. The question that seems tricky for this article is whether a club team representing the United Kingdom at the Olympics can be said to be a United Kingdom national football team. --Pretty Green (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Logic Behind Current Description
OK, I've not really been able to come up with a reasonable approach to this problem. Beyond creating a separate article entitled British Olympic football team (I recognise there are naming issues there, but put that aside for a moment), the only other approach that seems reasonable is to attribute both the 1908 and 1912 victories to this team but to leave a note explaining that it's a lot more complicated than that. In the body of the text, there is then room for a full discussion of the issues. Where sources differ from each other, its better to explain that and the reasoning for difference, rather than to go with just one. Whilst the FA, as the current organising body of English football and the body which organised the team on the behalf of the BOC back in the day, should be given priority as a source, I don't see a reason to grant their description as complete authority on the matter, particularly when it seems somewhat contradictory (why is the 1908 team 'Great Britain' and the 1912 team 'England'?). If the 1912 team is 'England', then what about the various other Olympic teams which didn't win medals? Would we then have to change the 'record defeat' for the team? I'd welcome other suggestions but I think that simply removing mention of all but the 1908 medal one based upon one FA document, without considering the implications for the text and for other aspects of the article, is confusing and misleading. Pretty Green (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Refs
Please see items today, 30 January 2009: --Mais oui! (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland put Team GB opposition in writing; Daily Telegraph
 * Gordon Brown's British Olympic football team dream is killed off; Daily Telegraph
 * Football chiefs against GB team, BBC Sport
 * Ferguson dismisses Olympic role, BBC Sport

Mis-named
The article ought to fail GA for one very simple reason (among others): it is mis-named! The name of the past team (and the likely 2012 team) was "Great Britain" or "Great Britain and Ireland" (prior to Irish independence), not "United Kingdom". No Olympic team (of any sport) from the UK has ever been called "United Kingdom". For complex reasons (mostly to do with NI), British teams at the Olympics are always called GB, not UK. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 * They're actually called 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland' in the Olympics. The article concerns teams that represent the United Kingdom under a variety of names (Great Britain & Northern Ireland, Great Britain & Ireland, Great Britain, as well as 'Rest of the United Kingdom'). Bastin 08:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 * This has already been discussed and rejected. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet another example (as if more were needed) that "voting" is a daft way of ensuring NPOV and Verifiability. Can anyone provide a reliable external reference that there has ever been a football team called the "United Kingdom national football team"? Nope? You do surprise me. If there never has been a "United Kingdom national football team", nor ever will be a "United Kingdom national football team", and no reliable ext ref (official Wikipedia policy) can be found to back the article's title, then the case is closed: the article MUST be moved to the correct title. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to have an edit war, go ahead and I will delist the article. If you want it to maintain its GA status, fix the dead links. The choice is yours. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already replaced the dead links. Mais oui! is just using this as a soapbox. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why am I not surprised that some folk prefer to play the man, and not the ball? Plus ça change.
 * I really don't care what you do with this silly article. Ironically enough, it is actually a classic example of a "Soapbox Article": a see-through propaganda piece to try to pretend to the world that there has ever been a British football team.  There never has been, and probably never will be. Wikipedia is both being duped, and trying to dupe its readers. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How on earth is the article "duping" the readers? Read the first line of the article - "No UK football team exists". How could it be any clearer??? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

 * OK then, tell me this: if "No UK football team exists", then why on earth does Wikipedia have an article about a non-existent football team? It really is beyond parody that we have a GA article on a non-existent sports team.
 * What next? Wikipedia's Featured Article: Top flight badminton clubs of Saturn? Coming soon to a parallel universe near you. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well its not true to state that it has never existed - there are friendly matches that have been played. Secondly, many non-exsitent proposed entities have articles: none of the articles in this category, for example, are about things which exist. But the UK NT passes all the tests of notability - importantly, that it has been discussed in numerous independent serious sources. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

 * As things stand, this article should stick to its current location. What I would potentially support would be split. As I don't quite note but do hint at at Talk:United Kingdom national football team, this article is really trying to do two jobs at once: explain why there is no such team as the United Kingdom (or at least, why the UK has only ever played a half dozen friednlies); and give a history of British participation at the Olympic Games. If someone wanted to split an article to Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic football team then I'd probably support this (though this would mean moving most of the content and the 'Good Article' status there!). Actually, as I think this through, it would probably be a good idea - this article is going to receive further scrutiny and editing over the next two years, so tackling this problem now might be a good thing - it would also remove any dangers of recentism come the inevitable flurry of edits during the 2012 Olympics. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The predominant usage of a UK representative team has been in the Olympics. Splitting is unnecessary, as all the issues are covered here. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that - splitting would leave United Kingdom national football team as a very short article, but then as it is something which doesn't exist that is perhaps unsurprising. But I can see some benefit, particularly as the article develops in the context of the 2012 Olympics, in splitting in the same way we split Brazil national football team and Brazil Olympic football team. At the moment, the article just about works but it is talking about two slightly different entities - the (largely hypothetical) UK full national team and the team representing Britain at the Olympics. I should point out that I don't think this split is definitely necessary, but it might be considered, particularly as the article develops towards the 2012 Olympics. --Pretty Green (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's all theoretical. With the agreement for a "British" team to be entered with English players only, it remains to be seen how it will be covered by the media closer to the time. Obviously the team will be officially known as Great Britain (as with the rest of the Olympic team), but I doubt that there will be any pretence of it being a unified team (ie the union flag will be a flag of convenience in this case). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not all theoretical at all - it's taken some complex editing and decision to make the article currently make sense when talking about these two entities. I'm not saying we should definitely split it; I'm just commenting that I wouldn't support a move but I probably would support a well written split. I just predict that there may well be confusion and editing headaches in the future if we don't. Pretty Green (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is ludicrous. We do not simply make up names for subjects. The best fit for the name is "Great Britain national football team" because that's primarily what it's been known as. It has almost never been known as the "United Kingdom national football team". That through quirks of history and politics the United Kingdom completes as "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" does not mean that we refer to team GB as "UK" for other events. The arguments made for the current article title either fail to address that or are of absolutely no substance whatsoever (such as the childish brinkmanship and personal attacks directed at the proposer). I'd move this myself were I not convinced someone would plomp it right back without a second thought. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I refer you to the points made above by User:Bastin during the first discussion. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Yes, it's very easy to point to something someone else said more than three years ago. If I'm forced to provide a rebuttal then so be it:
 * That choice A nor choice B may not be the best options does not mean that choice C (make a name up arbitrarily) should be chosen. WP:COMMONNAME would still suggest that "Great Britain" is the most common name for the team in question.
 * While it is possible to infer titles from the negation of other subjects, it should not be our first choice.
 * The IFA's position is irrelevant. We do not choose article titles so as to not offend the supposed nationalist sentiments of third parties. Regardless, "Great Britain" is almost universally used as a synonymn for the United Kingdom as a whole, hence the adjective "British" to mean "of the United Kingdom".
 * It is absolutely correct that we should not be second-guessing the name of future sides. Quite why this was used as an argument in support of a contrived title when it fact it is a good argument against it is beyond me. We are not discussing the name for a hypothetical UK team; we are discussing how to name the article on the existing UK team which primarily went by names starting with "Great Britain".
 * Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Idea behind a Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic football team split
Put simply, I think this article is trying to do too much. Essentially, it's talking about two teams I've no problem with the current naming, I just think that these two entities might be better served by separate articles. In the long term too that will prevent United Kingdom national football team from drowning in recentism when the 2012 Olympics come about. I've got the two versions of the article, as I would propose them, User talk:Pretty Green/sandbox/Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic football team and User talk:Pretty Green/sandbox/United Kingdom national football team. Please a. take an open mind towards these (in that this isn't anything to do with petty naming squabbles over bits of the islands that make up the UK and Ireland) and b. give me feedback. If you see the proposals and don't like it; well I guess that's Wikipedia (though I'll continue to belive that you're wrong ;) ) --Pretty Green (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The United Kingdom national football team, which almost uniquely exists as a largely hypothetical entity, though it has competed (under the name of 'Great Britain') on two occasions in unofficial friendly matches. It is closely analogous to the Nauru national soccer team.
 * The Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic football team. This is the team which represents the UK in the Olympics. It first appeared at the 1908 games, was last seen at the 1972 games, and will be seen at the 2012 games. It has, for most of its existence, been made up largely of English players and controlled by the (English) FA. Nevertheless, it is a distinct team. Other national Olympic teams have their own separate article away from the main team (though admittedly only three others ). I think the benefit for this article would be that the concept and make up of a British team at the Olympics is distinct from the UK national team.

 * Bumping this to see if there are any further comments from people with page on their watchlist!--Pretty Green (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge...
Many arguments have gone on, but I don't think this has thus far been suggested:

How about we merge this article into Great Britain Olympic football team, and, actually, rename THAT article to "GB NATIONAL football team". We can reduce much of the info in THIS article to a couple of paragraphs in the History section of THAT article, merge the only 5 or so friendly matches that THIS "UK team" has ever had (under the name "GB"!?) into the results section of that one (we can add a separate "friendlies" section, to distinguish them from the official Olympics results), and be done with it...

Because, even for people familiar with football history, the existence of TWO separate articles on this issue is way confusing. And, most importantly, the two are essentially the same representative team - the only difference is that THAT article discusses official Olympic games and THIS one lists only exhibition friendlies. Any thoughts...? BigSteve (talk) 07:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

 * No. You're talking about different teams and different concepts. A (theroetical) UK national team would pick the best players available (irrespective of age / professionalism) and compete in World Cups and Euros. A GB Olympic team is restricted to whatever criteria the Olympics are imposing at any given time. To give another example, there are separate articles for the (primary) Brazil national football team and the (Olympics) Brazil national under-23 football team. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest looking up through the talk page. There were regular debates about the purpose of the article, its name, and its content. Since the GB Olympic and UK national football team articles were split over two years ago, this debate has died off as the combined article has been split into two clearer and more succinct articles. I'd suggest keeping it that way. Pretty Green (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, that's fine - but what about the fact that we also have articles for England national amateur football team (in which it says that "There is a difference of opinion as to whether the England amateur team was effectively the Great Britain Olympic football team at the 1908 and 1912 Olympic football tournaments") as well as for England C national football team. All this is way confusing... BigSteve (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on United Kingdom national football team. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120331142403/http://www.andwaddlestepsup.com/questions/read.asp?ID=130&curPage=6&search= to http://www.andwaddlestepsup.com/questions/read.asp?ID=130&curPage=6&search=
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131029190633/http://www.footballzone.co.uk/Football-Testimonial-Benefit-Match-Game/Alan-Mullery-Testimonial-Fullham-1976-10557.html to http://www.footballzone.co.uk/Football-Testimonial-Benefit-Match-Game/Alan-Mullery-Testimonial-Fullham-1976-10557.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100218101729/http://www.olympics.org.uk:80/contentpage.aspx?page=127 to http://www.olympics.org.uk/contentpage.aspx?page=127
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060623225216/http://www.rsssf.com:80/tableso/ol1908f.html to http://www.rsssf.com/tableso/ol1908f.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Afghanistan national football team which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


text:
User:Philip Cross

Philip Cross is a Wikipedian who created an account in late October 2004. Since then, I have modified or created pages relating to biography, film, international politics, jazz, literature, and the media. I also have an active account on Wikiquote.

B–G

 * Emma Barnett, British broadcaster and journalist
 * Max Blumenthal, American journalist
 * Dorothea Brooking, BBC television children's drama producer/director
 * Caroline Criado-Perez, British feminist campaigner and writer
 * Paul Dacre, British journalist, former newspaper editor
 * Shelagh Delaney, British dramatist and screenwriter
 * Buzz Goodbody, British theatre director
 * Geoffrey Goodman, British journalist and Labour correspondent
 * Felicity Green, British journalist and former newspaper executive
 * Lars Gullin, Swedish jazz saxophonist

H–M

 * James Harding, former editor of The Times and ex-head of BBC News
 * Georgina Henry, British journalist, formerly in charge of The Guardian website
 * Anna Home, former head of BBC Children's television
 * Anthony Howard, British journalist, broadcaster and author
 * Cassandra Jardine, British journalist
 * Jay Landesman, Anglo-American bohemian
 * Lux Film, Italian film distribution and production company
 * James MacTaggart, Scottish born television drama producer/director and writer
 * Geraldine McEwan, British actor
 * Eleanor Mills, British journalist
 * Charlotte Moore, British television executive and last controller of BBC One

N–V

 * Dora Noyce, Edinburgh 'madam'/brothel keeper
 * Amol Rajan, BBC Media Editor, former editor of The Independent
 * Gillian Reynolds, British radio critic, journalist, and broadcaster
 * Olive Shapley, British broadcaster/producer for the BBC in Manchester
 * Kim Shillinglaw, British television executive, last controller of BBC Two and BBC Four
 * Sally Soames, British newspaper photographer
 * Stan Tracey, British jazz musician, pianist and composer
 * Katharine Viner, editor-in-chief of The Guardian newspaper/Guardian Media Group

W–Y

 * Michelene Wandor, British writer and broadcaster
 * The Wednesday Play (1964–70), BBC television drama anthology series
 * Mary Whitehouse, British Christian morality campaigner, founder and first president of the National Viewers and Listeners Association
 * Wearside Jack (real name: John Humble), Yorkshire Ripper hoaxer
 * Joy Whitby, British television producer and executive specialising in children's programmes
 * Peregrine Worsthorne, British journalist, former editor of The Sunday Telegraph
 * Yesterday's Men, 1971 BBC television documentary

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

title: User:Philip Cross


text:
Iron Rhine

The Iron Rhine or Steel Rhine (IJzeren Rijn; Eiserner Rhein) is a partially nonoperational freight railway connecting the port of Antwerp (Belgium) and Mönchengladbach (Germany) by way of Neerpelt and the Dutch towns of Weert and Roermond.

The Treaty of London between the Netherlands and Belgium in 1839 recognised the independence of Belgium. As part of the treaty, Belgium had the right to build a road or canal from Sittard to the Prussian border over Dutch territory, with Belgium funding the construction. This right was further established in the Iron Rhine Treaty of 1873. At first, Belgium planned to dig a canal, but in the end it opted for a railway.

In 1868, construction of the Iron Rhine started, and in 1879, the first trains used the railway. Initially, traffic was dense and frequent, but it decreased over time. Currently the railroad is used by some trains between Antwerp and the zinc factory in Budel, and between Budel and Weert. The line Weert - Roermond is part of the Dutch InterCity network, and is used daily by many trains. Between Roermond and the German border, traffic has fully ceased since 1991.

Current operation
Although the 160.3 km Iron Rhine is not fully operational, 134.8 km of its tracks are in regular use. 85 km of the route is double tracked and 55 km is electrified. However, the 16.5 kilometers (Roermond-Dalheim) are not operational and a further 9 km (Budel-Weert) are used only rarely. 200 m of track in Dalheim, on the German side is fully overgrown.

On the German section Mönchengladbach-Dalheim RegionalBahn trains run alongside freight trains, long distance travel no longer takes place on the German section. On the Belgian and Dutch side of the track the route is used extensively by InterCity - Interregio -, local and freight trains.

Germany
The Schwalm-Nette-Bahn (RB 34) traverses the line between Mönchengladbach Hbf and Dalheim, directly on the border with the Netherlands. It is operated on behalf of DB Regio by Rurtalbahn and runs during peak times every hour and off peak every two hours. The line runs through the territory of the Aachener Verkehrsverbund (AVV) and the Verkehrsverbund Rhein-Ruhr (VRR). The train stops only when needed at the Arsbeck and Mönchengladbach-Genhausen halts. The Rurtalbahn uses railcars of type RegioSprinter on the line. A resumption of cross-border passenger traffic between Dalheim and Roermond (with a Meinewegstation) is the aim of the AVV by 2015.

Freight transportation is provided to a military base near Rheindahlen and to the connection for the Test- and Validationcenter Wegberg-Wildenrath near Arsbeck/Klinkum.

Netherlands
The Dutch section between Weert-Roermond, since the abandonment of the stations Buggenum, Baexem-Heythuysen, and Kelpen in the 1940s, sees no more regional trains. The stations Roermond and Weert are connected with each other, however, by InterCity trains of the Netherlands Railways. These trains link Amsterdam and Schiphol with the South Limburgian cities Heerlen and Maastricht up to every ten minutes. Double-decker EMUs of type DD IRM are mainly used.

Belgium
Given its proximity to the large Belgian port city of Antwerp, freight and passenger traffic between Antwerp, Lier and Mol (the line branches here to Hasselt and Neerpelt) has always been relatively dense. The section between Mol and Neerpelt (inoperational after the Second World War) was, because of political pressure from the municipalities Lommel and Neerpelt, reactivated on 27 May 1978.

A long-distance inter-regional line (IR e) connects Hamont with Antwerp every hour. The trains start in Hamont, combine in Mol with a train partition from (or to) Hasselt, (or on the way back splits) and travels via Herentals and Lier to Antwerpen Centraal. In Herentals a branch line connects to the city of Turnhout, which is served by two lines of the SNCB; the InterCity R and the Interregio g. The latter, hourly train, uses the same route Herentals–Lier–Antwerp as the Interregio e (Antwerp–Lier–Herentals–Mol–Hasselt/Neerpelt). The InterCity R, which also travels hourly, however, leaves the Iron Rhine in Lier, and reaches Brussels-Midi via Mechelen. The section Antwerp-Lier is also used by the Interregio c (Antwerp-Lier-Aarschot-Liege) and by local trains on the route Antwerp-Lier-Aarschot-Leuven. The service offering is reinforced along the trunk route of the Iron Rhine, with hourly local trains on the route Antwerp-Lier-Herentals-Mol serving smaller intermediate stations. In addition, the only during peak travel time circulating P-Train (Piekuurtrein / Train d'heure de pointe come) will also use the route. On weekends and holidays, the traffic is modest and the route will be run only by the IR e, the IR cand IR g at hourly intervals, whereas the IC-, P-, and L-trains do not run. Smaller stations will be serviced either by the IR gor not at all.

The rolling stock used by the IR e and P-and L-Trein are diesel trains of the NMBS Class 41. InterCity traffic use AM80 break-motor coaches and locomotive-hauled trains (HLE21/27) with M5 or M6 Bilevel rail cars. The IR g and IR c use AM80 Break-railcars and the L-Trein service Antwerp-Lier-Aarschot-Leuven use railcars of type NMBS Class AM 86-89.

Reopening of border section
In 2004, Belgium requested a reopening of the Iron Rhine. The government stated it was the result of the increasing transport of goods between the port of Antwerp and the German Ruhr Area. As part of the European policy of modal shift on the increasing traffic of goods, transport over railway lines and waterways is preferred over road transport.

Currently Belgium uses the, south of the Iron Rhine, from Antwerp to Aachen via Aarschot, Hasselt, Tongeren and Montzen, for transportation of goods to Germany. High passenger traffic on parts of this route causes a lack of capacity for goods, and a number of steep inclines over the route make it problematic for long and heavy trains.

The Belgian request is based on the treaty of 1839, and the Iron Rhine Treaty of 1873. Critics felt that Belgium could not invoke these treaties, as the 1873 treaty granted Belgium a concession of 99 years on the Iron Rhine route, a period which ended in 1972. Furthermore, Belgium had sold the railroad to the Dutch Government. The argument that carries most weight in the Netherlands is that the railroad runs through the nature reserve of De Meinweg, and nature activists fear the destruction of the local habitat of several threatened species, whereas Belgian interests consider this to be a delaying tactic while the Netherlands completes the Betuwe line.

After a series of failed negotiations, the Belgian and Dutch governments agreed to take the issue to the Permanent Court of Arbitration and respect its ruling in the case. In its ruling of 24 May 2005, the court acknowledged both the Belgian rights under the cessation treaty of 1839 and the Dutch concerns for the nature reserve. The 1839 treaty still applies, the court found, giving Belgium the right to use and modernize the Iron Rhine. However, it has to finance the modernisation of the line, while the Netherlands have to fund the repairs and maintenance of the route. Both countries will split the costs of the construction of a tunnel beneath the nature reserve.

The reopening would allow heavier trains than on the Montzenroute (2000 tonnes in both directions compared to 800 and 1300 tonnes); and a shorter journey (162 km compared to 211 km); it would reopen some time after 2015. As of 2018, the Dutch and Belgian authorities remain discussing the route the Iron Rhine would take.

However on 11 May 2007, and again in 2013-2014, the Walloon Region opposed the project for fear of seeing employment go down in case of reduced traffic on the Montzenroute. Then end 2014 an alternative route has been proposed, using the existing lines Roermond – Venlo and Venlo – Mönchengladbach, which are in regular use, rather than clearing the historical route from its overgrown vegetation and protecting by tunnels and/or soundscreens the part of it crossing the Meinweg National Park. This alternative route would have the same advantages as the historical one but at half the cost. The need for the train to change direction in Roermond and again in Venlo could be solved easily, e.g. by temporarily adding an additional locomotive at its former "tail" end, to pull it on that part of the line.

title: Iron Rhine


text:
Tipas

Cerro Walther Penck (also known as Cerro Cazadero or Cerro Tipas) is a massive complex volcano in the Andes, located in northwestern Argentina, Catamarca Province, Tinogasta Department, at the Puna de Atacama. It is just southwest of Ojos del Salado, the highest volcano in the world. Walther Penck itself is perhaps the third highest active volcano in the world.

Vulcanism
The complex covers a surface area of 25 km2, it consists of stratovolcanoes, lava domes, and lava flows. There are reports of fumarolic activity, and de Silva and Francis (1991) considered that the volcano was last active in the Holocene. Crater lakes with a smell of sulfur were reported in 2013. The Tipas-Cerro Bayo complex was active 2.9-1.2 million years ago with dacites and rhyolites. Magma composition is typical for Andean stratovolcanoes. Tomographic studies of the underlying crust indicate a pattern of seismic attenuation beneath Tipas.

Elevation
It has an official height of 6658 meters, however, based on the elevation provided by the available Digital elevation models, SRTM (6663m ), ASTER (6627m ), SRTM filled with ASTER (6663m ), TanDEM-X(6699m ), and also a handheld GPS survey by Maximo Kausch on 04/2013 (6688 meters), Walther Penck is about 6670 meters above sea level.

The height of the nearest key col is 6019 meters. so its prominence is 651 meters. Walther Penck is listed as mountain, based on the Dominance system and its dominance is 9.76%. Its parent peak is Ojos del Salado and the Topographic isolation is 9.8 kilometers. This information was obtained during a research by Suzanne Imber in 2014.

title: Tipas


text:
Talk:Horsehead Nebula

Alnitak
In Orion (constellation), it states that Alnitak is the "bottom" or what I would call the "westernmost" star in the Belt. I assume that this is correct, and that the "easternmost" is an error? Can someone check my Northern Hemishpere logic? Deadstar 12:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You assume incorrectly. The article is correct: Alnitak is the "easternmost" of the three belt stars. You must remember that when we look up at the heavens, east and west are reversed when compared to a map (because we look down at maps). Alnitak is closest to the point where the Sun rises, so it is the easternmost star, though to a viewer in the northern hemisphere it is on the left. --Eroica 11:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article is correct here, although it bugged me too at first, until I realised that it was referring to geographical East, and not the left-hand side of the picture. I would explain this apparent reversal simply by pointing out that we, in the Northern Hemisphere,view Orion by looking southwards; and therefore that the directions East and West appear precisely reversed. AJHSimons (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference to this article in a comic strip
This article has been referred to (indirectly) in a comic strip. Here's the information as I posted it on Press coverage:

JamesMLane 03:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Jen Sorensen, Slowpoke (comic strip), December 2005.
 * Woman to man, in an imaginary movie: "Darling, when I saw your Wikipedia entry on the Horsehead Nebula, I knew I had to have you."

It looks like a horse's what?
I may just be dense, but the image doesn't look anything like a horse's head to me. Or... is the horse's head just the tiny piece sticking up into the bright spot near the top? In which case, might it be useful to point that part out, or provide a close-up image of it? -- Super Aardvark 08:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad picture
I came to this page with exactly the same thought as Mr Aardvark. Here's a much better NASA one which makes it clear why it's called the Horsehead Nebula. Any chance this could be used instead? I don't know how to upload but I guess as it's a NASA picture same as the Hubble one it would be ok with the licensing to use it. 86.153.216.204 16:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

 * It's just a small part of the neck. This is the whole picture:The horsehead is in the upper left quarter. Horsehead alone:--90.179.235.249 (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Size
How large is the nebula? I'm thinking in terms of volume, or area; it must be several light years. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Personally I have seen no figures which estimate the nebula's size, but in terms of area it would certainly be several light years. I'll look into details about the subject later (as I'm busy now) and post any data I find here.--Metalhead94 (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick search and found a website that states the horsehead nebula is 22.7x3.8 light years in terms of total area. Hope that helped.--Metalhead94 (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Energising of NGC434 by which star?
The main article claims that the emission nebula NGC434, directly behind the Horsehead nebula B33 from our point of view, is energised by the star Sigma Orionis (not visible in this image, but directly "above" the horse's head in this orientation and just out of the frame).

Now, this does not make sense to me from other related data. Sigma Orionis is given as being around 1150 light years away; whereas B33 is given as being around 1500-1600 light years away (depending who you read). This would put Sigma Orionis closer to us, *in front* of the horse's head, which would be illuminated from our point of view; whereas we see B33 in silhouette. So, I can only see three ways of resolving this:

Either, the distance to B33 is incorrectly reported; Or, the distance to Sigma Orionis is incorrectly reported; Or, it is not Sigma Orionis which energises NGC434.

I'm inclined to think the light year measurements are reasonable estimates, and that the supposed illumination by Sigma Orionis is a fiction. What do others think?

AJHSimons (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Which Way?
...is the 'horse' looking? Photos show both left and right. 68.148.93.15 (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The 'horse' faces left. The middle photo appears to be reversed. If you compare it with the NASA photo at you will see the bright stars near the nebula on the opposite side. Since the middle photo (which has beautiful quality and should be kept) was taken with a camera attached to a telescope and many telescopes normally reverse the image, this is understandable

File:Barnard 33.jpg
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Barnard 33.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 10, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-05-10. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence in lede
From the third paragraph of the lede:

 * The nebula exhibits a noticeable change in the density of the stars which indicates that a red ribbon of radiant red hydrogen gas at the precipice of a sizable dark cloud.

It seems that there's a verb missing here, and the next sentence doesn't make too much sense; "this concept of shade and density" doesn't refer back to anything in the same paragraph. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 10:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I too had trouble with this entire paragraph. I was going to correct its grammar, but I don't actually know what it's trying to say. Is there an expert on this aspect of the nebula who can enlighten us? Bazza (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

 * It's problematic. And rather adjective heavy. I'll ask at the Reference desk if anyone can help clarify this statement. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Here is a rewrite that fits my understanding of what we see.

 * The nebula exhibits a noticeable change in the density of the stars which indicates that a red ribbon of radiant red hydrogen gas at the precipice of a sizable dark cloud. The underside of the horse's visible 'neck' reflects this concept of shade and density because it casts a great shadow across the field of view just below the horse's 'muzzle'.

 * The edge of a sizable dark cloud is visible behind the nebula as a stratum, the upper part of which is dense with stars showing through a red ribbon of radiant red hydrogen gas. The horse's visible 'neck' crosses this stratum which casts a great shadow across the field of view just below the horse's 'muzzle'.

 * 84.209.89.214 (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

 * So is it the nebula which is "dense with stars", or the sizeable dark cloud?. And could the word "layer" be used instead of the more unusual "stratum"? Bazza (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that "stratum" is not the best word if it leads to ambiguity. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've answered my own question. The paragraph in question, together with those adjacent, repeat the same information. I've reordered the text and added a couple more references. Bazza (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My wording: "Both the highly transparent glowing layer of the nebula and the background stars are partially obscured by a highly opaque dark nebula which is shaped like a horse head."
 * - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 07:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Simpler: "Both the highly transparent glowing layer of the nebula and the background stars are partially obscured by an highly opaque dark nebula which is shaped like a horse head." 84.209.89.214 (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 09:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Anything to make it readable and understandable to non-specialists. Bazza (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Hubble Sees a Horsehead of a Different Color.jpg}} to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File: will be appearing as picture of the day on January 27, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-01-27. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 09:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Horsehead Nebula. 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/20150106052626/http://freescruz.com/~4cygni/horsehead/B33-19thC_4.htm to http://freescruz.com/~4cygni/horsehead/B33-19thC_4.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930014743/http://www.spacetelescope.org/bin/images.pl?searchtype=freesearch&string=Horsehead+Nebula to http://www.spacetelescope.org/bin/images.pl?searchtype=freesearch&string=Horsehead+Nebula

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) 03:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

New Bold Attempt and Significant Update
I have just made an extensive update on the article. I've have added new links, updated info with them, added new material, and also re organised the images. I have corrected several syntax or context errors, and rearranged the structure similar to the Orion Nebula article. New errors may have been accidental introduced and may need corrections. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Orion Belt.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Orion Belt.jpg

title: Talk:Horsehead Nebula


text:
User:Dirknachbar

Dirknachbar = Dirk Nachbar, born 1980 in Berlin, GDR.

Interests:
 * Economics
 * Statistics
 * Econometrics
 * Philosophy
 * Contemporary Music
 * Free Jazz

Twitter @dirknbr

title: User:Dirknachbar


text:
Mary White (Fianna Fáil politician)

Mary White (born 7 October 1944) is an Irish businesswoman and former Fianna Fáil politician. She was a member of Seanad Éireann on the Industrial and Commercial Panel from September 2002, until April 2016 when she stood down.

Born in Dundalk in 1944, she is married to Padraic White, and they have one daughter. She has an Arts degree in Economics and Politics from University College Dublin and a Higher Diploma in Architectural Technology from the Dublin Institute of Technology. White co-founded Lir Chocolates in 1987.

She was first elected to the Seanad in 2002 and was re-elected in 2007 and in 2011.

On 6 February 2008, White declared her candidacy to succeed Mary McAleese as President of Ireland. She was seeking the nomination of the Fianna Fáil party and was the first candidate to declare her intention to run. In May 2011, she said that she would not be seeking a nomination. She stood down at the April 2016 election, having failed to be elected to the Dáil in the February 2016 general election.

In the Seanad she was the Fianna Fáil Seanad spokesperson on Enterprise, Jobs and Innovation.

title: Mary White (Fianna Fáil politician)


text:
Sheila Terry (politician)

Sheila Terry (born 7 June 1950) is an Irish Fine Gael Party politician who served as a member of the 22nd Seanad Éireann.

As a member of the Progressive Democrats (PDs), Terry was elected at the 1991 local elections as a PD member of Fingal County Council for the Castleknock electoral area. She stood as a PD candidate in the Dublin West constituency at the 1992 general election and at the by-election in 1996.

She left the Progressive Democrats before the 1999 local elections, when she was re-elected to the council as an independent, and joined Fine Gael in about 2000. She then stood as a Fine Gael for Dáil Éireann in the Dublin West constituency at the 2002 general election, but did not win a seat. However, in the subsequent Seanad elections she was elected by the Industrial and Commercial Panel.

She gave up her council seat when the dual mandate was abolished in 2003 (future Taoiseach Leo Varadkar was co-opted to replace her on the council), and did not contest the 2007 general election. She stood again in the 2007 Seanad election, but lost her seat.

title: Sheila Terry (politician)


text:
Kieran Phelan

Kieran Phelan (19 November 1949 – 26 May 2010) was an Irish Fianna Fáil politician and member of Seanad Éireann on the Industrial and Commercial Panel.

Phelan was a farmer and auctioneer. He was elected to Laois County Council in 1991 as a councillor for Borris-in-Ossory, where he topped the poll in 1999. He first stood for the Seanad in 1997, where he was an unsuccessful candidate on the Agricultural Panel, and in 2002 he was elected to the 22nd Seanad on the Industrial and Commercial Panel, which re-elected him in 2007.

Phelan died suddenly in Dublin on 26 May 2010. The death occurred at a Dublin hotel he was sharing with James McDaid, TD and medical practitioner, who later told of his frantic bid to revive Phelan. McDaid had been upstairs listening to the radio when he was alerted by their colleague Dara Calleary.

title: Kieran Phelan


text:
Derek McDowell

Derek McDowell (born 11 September 1958) is an Irish former Labour Party politician. He was a Teachta Dála (TD) from 1992 to 2002, and member of Seanad Éireann from 2002 to 2007.

McDowell was an unsuccessful candidate at the 1989 general election in the Dublin North-Central constituency, but at the 1992 general election he was returned to the 27th Dáil, topping the poll with 23% of the first-preference votes. He was re-elected at the 1997 general election with a much reduced share of the vote. At the 1999 Irish local elections, he was elected to Dublin City Council from the Clontarf area.

At the 2002 general election, McDowell lost his seat to the independent candidate Finian McGrath. After the loss of his seat in Dáil Éireann, McDowell was elected to the 22nd Seanad by the Industrial and Commercial Panel, where he was Labour's Seanad spokesperson on Finance, Transport, Enterprise, Trade and Employment. At the 2007 general election, he stood again in the Dublin North–Central constituency, but did not regain his seat. He did not contest the subsequent elections to the 23rd Seanad.

McDowell worked as Head of International Advocacy at Concern Worldwide,. During the 2011 to 2016 Fine Gael–Labour Party coalition he served as deputy government press secretary and advisor to Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore and Tánaiste Joan Burton.

title: Derek McDowell


text:
Marc MacSharry

Marc MacSharry (born 12 July 1973) is an independent, formerly Fianna Fáil, politician who is a Teachta Dála (TD) for Sligo–Leitrim since 2016. From 2002 to 2016, he was a Fianna Fáil Senator on the Industrial and Commercial Panel. He resigned from Fianna Fáil's parliamentary party in September 2021, alleging double standards. He resigned his Fianna Fáil membership in November 2022, amid claims he had bullied colleagues.

Early life
MacSharry was born in Dublin in 1973 to Ray MacSharry, the former Tánaiste and European Commissioner, and his wife Elaine Neilan (died 2008). He was educated in Sligo and at Castleknock College, Dublin and is currently an M.Phil. research masters candidate at the University of Ulster.

Prior and in parallel to his political career, MacSharry worked in the financial services sector with Irish Permanent Building Society and Irish Permanent Finance (now Irish Life and Permanent) between 1992 and 1995, and as a chief executive officer of Sligo Chamber of Commerce & Industry between 2000 and 2005. He marketed and exported meat products throughout the world with Celtic Foods Ltd from 1995 to 2000 and provided consultancy to other meat export firms from 2000 to 2002. He ran his own estate agency and property solutions provider from 2006 to 2017.

Seanad Éireann (2002–2016)
Following his election to the Seanad in 2002, he was appointed Seanad Spokesperson on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. He was re-elected in 2007 and was appointed Seanad Spokesperson on Finance.

On 31 January 2011, prior to that year's general election, MacSharry was appointed to the Fianna Fáil frontbench by the new party leader Micheál Martin, as Spokesperson on Tourism and Arts. MacSharry was a candidate at the 2011 general election in the Sligo–North Leitrim constituency, but was not elected. He was re-elected to the Seanad in April 2011 and was appointed Fianna Fáil Seanad Spokesperson on Health.

Following the financial crisis of 2007–2008 and the consequent mortgage arrears crisis which ensued in Ireland, MacSharry co-founded the prevention of family home repossessions group, advocating for the protection of the family home.

MacSharry introduced the Family Home Bill 2011 in July 2011 in the Seanad, which would effectively have prevented the granting of an order for the repossession of a primary family residence except in very exceptional circumstances where borrowers were in difficulty due exclusively to willful neglect. The bill was narrowly defeated in the Seanad.

In 2012, collaborating with Seanad colleague and professor of oncology at St Vincent's Hospital in Dublin, John Crown, MacSharry introduced the Access to Cancer Treatment Bill to the Seanad which sought to simplify the approval process to ensure early access for patients to avail of expensive breakthrough cancer drugs. The bill was defeated by one vote.

MacSharry authored a Fianna Fáil policy paper in February 2013 entitled, Actions Speak Louder than Words, which promoted the case for and approach to be taken for a reduction in loss of life through suicide by 30 percent. To progress proposals to increase funding for suicide prevention and mental health measures, he introduced the Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Fund Bill in 2014 to the Seanad which was defeated.

Dáil Éireann (2016–present)
In the 2016 general election, MacSharry was elected on his second attempt, topping the poll in the newly reformed Sligo–Leitrim constituency with 8,856 votes (14.2%), to take a seat in the constituency his father Ray had served in.

In 2018, the Dáil was suspended for ten minutes because of an allegedly anti-semitic remark made by MacSharry. While discussing the reduction of hours in a Garda station in Donegal town, MacSharry alleged that the government was like Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, and shouted "Goebbels" at the government's benches. Minister for Justice Charles Flanagan and Minister for Health Simon Harris called on MacSharry to withdraw the remark, with Harris calling the comment "anti-semitic" and "an attack on the Jewish Community", but MacSharry's Fianna Fáil colleague, Ceann Comhairle Sean O Fearghail, did not call on MacSharry to withdraw the remark.

In 2020, MacSharry was re-elected in the same constituency, albeit with a reduced share of 7,004 votes (11.5%), being elected on the final count over his Fianna Fáil running mate Eamon Scanlon.

MacSharry caused controversy in 2020 when he accused public servants of "laziness" and said they were "using the COVID-19 crisis as an excuse to "lie on the couch and watch box sets". The Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants called on MacSharry to withdraw the remark, calling it "ill-informed and ill-considered" and requesting an apology from MacSharry, but MacSharry refused to, saying "Of course, such comments aren't popular, but it needs to be said."

MacSharry criticised Fáilte Ireland and his Fianna Fáil colleague at the time Stephen Donnelly on the public health guidelines they had issued regarding the opening of pubs and restaurants across Ireland, comparing them to the East German intelligence agency the Stasi.

In January 2021, MacSharry attracted further controversy for his comments made during a Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meeting, in which he said that "if the Ku Klux Klan were selling a COVID-19 vaccine, Ireland should buy it".

During his time in Fianna Fáil, MacSharry was very critical of Micheál Martin, calling on him to resign as leader of Fianna Fáil multiple times. He first called on Martin to resign in June 2021 after it had emerged Fianna Fáil had used covertly polled voters while pretending to be independent pollsters. In July 2021, MacSharry again called on Martin to resign after Fianna Fáil's poor performance in the 2021 Dublin Bay South by-election, in which Fianna Fáil's candidate Deidre Conroy received under 5 percent of the vote. It was revealed that month that MacSharry was seeking out TDs in his party to put forward a motion of no confidence in Martin.

MacSharry published a paper, Now More Than Ever in July 2021 on the impact of COVID-19 related restrictions on the mental health of society suggesting no further lockdowns should be considered.

On 15 September 2021, MacSharry resigned from the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party in order to vote against Simon Coveney of Fine Gael in a motion of no confidence resulting from the Katherine Zappone controversy.

On 2 November 2022, MacSharry was prevented from rejoining Fianna Fáil following a row over the handling of a bullying complaint against him.

On 18 October 2023, MacSharry announced that he would not contest the next general election.

Personal life
MacSharry was married to Marie Murphy from 2003 to 2016, when they separated. MacSharry has three children and lives in Strandhill, County Sligo.

MacSharry was an amateur actor appearing in several stage productions, winning the All-Ireland One-Act Drama Championship in 1997 and performing at a world drama festival in Monte Carlo with the Carlow Little Theatre Festival in August of that year.

title: Marc MacSharry


text:
Margaret Cox

Margaret Cox (born 24 September 1963) is an Irish former politician and Senator.

Electoral history
She entered politics having been co-opted onto the Galway City Council in 1995, following the death of her father Tom Cox. At the 1997 general election she was an unsuccessful Fianna Fáil candidate for Dáil Éireann for Galway West, but was then elected to the 21st Seanad by the Industrial and Commercial Panel. At the 1999 local elections, she was elected to Galway City Council, topping the poll in her electoral area.

Cox was unsuccessful again in Galway West at the 2002 general election, her share of the first-preference vote having increased only marginally. However, the Industrial and Commercial Panel returned her to the 22nd Seanad.

After the abolition of the dual mandate, she did not contest the 2004 local elections. Her brother Tom Cox stood for election to Galway City Council in her place, but was narrowly beaten by the Green Party candidate, Niall Ó Brolcháin.

Political career
In the 21st Seanad (1997–2002), Cox was government spokesperson in the Seanad on Enterprise, Trade and Employment. In the 22nd Seanad, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern appointed her as government spokesperson on Social, Community and Family Affairs.

She did not go forward for selection at the Fianna Fáil convention for Galway West for the 2007 general election and resigned from the party in April 2007, citing dissatisfaction with Government delivery on its promises for Galway and the west of Ireland. She unsuccessfully contested the 2007 general election as an independent and announced she would not be seeking re-election to Seanad Éireann.

title: Margaret Cox


text:
Paul Coghlan

Paul Coghlan (1 June 1944 – 8 June 2023) was an Irish Fine Gael politician who served as Leas-Chathaoirleach of Seanad Éireann from June 2016 to March 2020 and a Senator for the Industrial and Commercial Panel from 1997 to 2020.

Coghlan unsuccessfully contested the 1992 general election in the Kerry South, constituency. He then stood on the Agricultural Panel in the election to the 20th Seanad, but did not win a seat.

In 1997, he was elected to the 21st Seanad by the Industrial and Commercial Panel, and re-elected in 2002 to the 22nd Seanad, where he was Fine Gael spokesperson on Enterprise, Trade and Employment. He was re-elected in 2007 to the 23rd Seanad, again by the Industrial and Commercial Panel.

Born in Killarney, County Kerry, he was a member and former President of the Killarney Chamber of Commerce. He was a founding director of Radio Kerry and was a trustee and former Chairman of Muckross House. He was also a member of the Institute of Bankers in Ireland, the Life Assurance Association and the Institute of Professional Auctioneers and Valuers.

Coghlan was previously a member of Kerry County Council, Killarney Town Council and the Dingle Harbour Commissioners.

Coghlan was a member of the British–Irish Parliamentary Assembly and a member of the committee on the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. He retired from politics in 2020 and did not contest the 2020 Seanad election.

Coghlan died on 8 June 2023, at the age of 79.

title: Paul Coghlan


text:
Eddie Bohan

Edward Joseph Bohan (23 November 1932 – 21 July 2019) was an Irish politician and member of the Fianna Fáil party. He was an auctioneer and publican, a President of the Vintners' Federation of Ireland, and a chairman of Dublin Licensed Vintners. He was elected to the 18th Seanad in 1987 by the Industrial and Commercial Panel, and was returned to the Seanad in subsequent elections until he retired in 2007.

Bohan was born on a small farm near the village of Drumlish, County Longford on 23 November 1932 the third of seven children to James and Bridget Bohan. At age 15 he left for Dublin to join his two older brothers and started working in a grocers shop in the city. As he learned the retail trade he became involved in the confectionery business and by age 19 had a few vans on the road and a small factory producing sweets and fancy goods.

At aged 23 he married Elizabeth Lambert from Rathmines and in the 1950s they decided to emigrate to North America, and spent about 6 years living in Los Angeles where he became involved with the motor trade, starting off working for Chevron in a gas station and progressing to owning 3 stations of his own.

On returning to Dublin, he entered into a new career path by buying his first licensed premises, Bohans of Meath Street. He would go on to buy and run a number of well known Dublin pubs over the years. During this period he became Chairman of the Licensed Vintners Association who nominated him to run for election on the Industrial and Commercial Panel in the 1987 Seanad elections where he won the first of his 5 election campaigns holding a seat for 20 years.

In September 2007, his name was published in the Revenue Commissioners' list of tax defaulters after he made a settlement of €2,032,714.

title: Eddie Bohan


text:
James Bannon (Irish politician)

James Bannon (born 6 March 1958) is an Irish former Fine Gael politician who served as a Teachta Dála (TD) for the Longford–Westmeath constituency from 2007 to 2016. He was a Senator for the Industrial and Commercial Panel from 2002 to 2007.

A native of Legan, County Longford, he worked as a farmer and auctioneer before entering politics.

He was first elected to Longford County Council at the 1985 local elections for the Ballymahon local electoral area, and was successively re-elected to the County Council at the 1991 and 1999 local elections, receiving the largest number of first-preference votes in the electoral area on each occasion. He has served as Chairperson of Longford County Council, becoming the youngest person ever to do so.

In 2002, he was elected to Seanad Éireann as a Fine Gael candidate for the Industrial and Commercial Panel. He stood down as a member of Longford County Council when legislation was introduced prohibiting serving members of the Oireachtas from being members of local authorities, and was succeeded by his brother, Larry. He was first elected to Dáil Éireann at the 2007 general election for Longford–Westmeath.

He served as the party deputy Spokesperson on Environment, with special responsibility for Heritage from 2007 to 2010. In October 2010, he was appointed as deputy spokesperson on Environment with special responsibility for Local and Community Development.

In 2012, he asked Bishop Colm O'Reilly to reconsider selecting an Italian organ maker to rebuild the organ in St Mel's Cathedral in Longford.

During campaigning ahead of the 2016 general election, Gardaí gave Bannon a lift after he became involved in a dispute while canvassing in the Creevaghbeg estate area in Ballymahon, County Longford. An associate of Bannon was reported to have stolen election leaflets belonging to a rival candidate from local letter boxes.

He lost his seat at the 2016 general election. He subsequently failed to gain re-election to Seanad Éireann in April 2016.

title: James Bannon (Irish politician)


text:
Classifier

Classifier may refer to:
 * Classifier (linguistics), or measure word, especially in East Asian languages
 * Classifier handshape, in sign languages
 * Classifier (UML), in software engineering
 * Classification rule, in statistical classification, e.g.:
 * Hierarchical classifier
 * Linear classifier
 * Deductive classifier
 * Subobject classifier, in category theory
 * An air classifier or similar machine for sorting materials
 * Classifier (machine learning)

title: Classifier


text:
Talk:Volga Türki

Old and Modern Tatar
Which are the actual differences, apart form using the Arabic script rather than the Latin one, between old and modern Tatar? Turkish seems to have changed just a little since it was first written, but what about Tatar?--Caesarion 12:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In modern Tatar language there is a rule of how it is heard and written. In Old Tatar there is no such rule for Tatar and the language is subject to the rules of the Arabic and Tatar languages. This is how it is written in the original. After the 3rd change of graphics. The Soviet Tatar language began to form differently, the Western dialect began to prevail. The endings in the language changed and the language ceased to be independent. But the Old Tatar language remains understandable for the modern Tatar. 28 Jule 2021 Qaramalitawdan

Turki
"Turki" seems to be a more appropriate name for this literary language, as the term presently used leads to a misunderstanding and erroneous association with the modern (Volga) Tatar language. These two languages do not have much in common, except they belong to the same language family. In literature, "Turki" is used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borovi4ok (talk • contribs) 08:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Turki" is a more general term. There were different versions of the Turki - Chagatai, Ottoman, Old Tatar, etc. All of them were formed on the basis of the Karakhanid language. Old Tatar was formed on the territory of the Golden Horde (or a little earlier than Golden Horde was esteblished, but spread already in the Horde). It would make sense to write this more clearly in the article itself, but I'm not ready.94.140.193.130 (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Turks is not quite a correct name, since under the Turks many languages are meant, including the Chuvash, the only living "r" dialect of the Turks. Old Tatar was not only spread in the Volga region, but also in Siberia and Khorezm. In Old Tatar, together with Russian, the Word about Igor's regiment is written. 28 Jule 2021 Qaramalitawdan

rename the article to the Academic literary Tatar language
I ask you to rename the article to the Academic literary Tatar language. Since it has developed independently and sold it is used. 28 Jul 2021. Qaramalitawdan

title: Talk:Volga Türki


text:
Jerry Edmonton

Gerald Michael Edmonton (born Gerald McCrohan, October 24, 1946 – November 28, 1993) was a Canadian musician who was the drummer and secondary lead vocalist for the rock band Steppenwolf.

Early life and career
Edmonton was born in Oshawa, Ontario. Both his brother Dennis, also known as Mars Bonfire, and he changed their surnames to Edmonton during the 1960s, when they performed in a group called The Sparrows. John Kay and Goldy McJohn joined this group in Toronto in 1965 and, after some more changes in personnel and relocating to California, the group was renamed Steppenwolf.

When Steppenwolf temporarily broke up on February 14, 1972, Edmonton and Steppenwolf organist Goldy McJohn formed the band Seven with singer Lance Gullickson and guitarist Robin Huff. After Seven, Edmonton, and McJohn formed Manbeast with Rod Prince and Roy Cox of Bubble Puppy before Steppenwolf reconvened in 1974 for three albums before breaking up again in 1976.

Personal life
Edmonton married former Steppenwolf bandmate Andy Chapin's widow in the 1980s. Edmonton died in a car accident, crashing into a tree after failing to manoeuvre a turn, in Santa Ynez, California, on November 28, 1993.

Discography
Singles

title: Jerry Edmonton


text:
User:Asbestos/Copyvio

Copyvio
Hi — I'm afraid that the article you just submitted,, appears to be a copyright violation from [ this page]. In general it's best not to copy-and-paste articles from the web, as they are usually copyrighted. Articles at Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Project:Copyrights for details), which does not allow us to import copyright material.

I've listed the article at Copyright problems. Feel free to reply there or at my talk page if I've tagged the page in error. Thanks,

title: User:Asbestos/Copyvio


text:
Minimum of Two

Minimum Of Two is the second collection of short stories by multi award-winning Australian writer Tim Winton.

It is an anthology which consists of 14 short stories, seven of which feature the characters Jerra, Rachel and Sam Nilsam:
 * Forest Winter*
 * No Memory Comes
 * Gravity*
 * The Water was Dark
 * Nilsam's Friend*
 * Minimum of Two
 * Distant Lands
 * Laps
 * Bay of Angels*
 * The Strong One*
 * Holding
 * More*
 * Death Belongs to the Dead, His Father Told Him, and Sadness to the Sad
 * Blood and Water*

Stories marked with * indicate stories which feature the recurring characters Jerra, Rachel and Sam Nilsam.

Although many of the stories do not contain references to any particular setting, it is most likely that all stories in the anthology are set in Perth, Western Australia, around the late (post-World War II) 20th century.

Most of the stories deal with relationships which are placed under hardship and stress, it also deals with the theme of men and masculinity. They are written in a minimalist style typical of Tim Winton.

Perhaps the most prominent theme throughout all the stories is not necessarily the adversity these people are placed under, but the way in which they react to the problems confronting them. For example, Jerra Nilsam doesn't try to deal with his problems at all; preferring to accept his circumstances and be depressed about it. Jerra, a failed rock musician, chose marriage, and is now the stay at home carer who wonders where the music, happiness, and money of his earlier life has gone. Rachel doesn't address the cause of her problems, but moves on from them, determined to better herself with education and a career. Jerra's father accepts his illness (cancer), but rather than wallowing in it, decides to make the most of his remaining days. The unnamed boy in "No Memory Comes" uses denial to deal with his problems, assuring himself that things are not changing, and that 'he doesn't mind' when things do. Queenie Cookson is possibly the most successful, going back to her old town to confront her past demons, deal with them, and then be able to move on in her life.

In the title story Minimum of two Madigan, rather than dealing with the actual problems arising from his wife's rape, decides to deal with the cause, killing her rapist once he is released from prison.

Many of the stories mentioned in this book relate to two common characters found throughout the book, Jerra and Rachel Nilsam. Rachel and Jerra are two very separated people who learn to live together through the birth of their son Sam. Sam provides the two with a connection which ultimately always pulls them through their everyday and life struggles.

Since 2005, the anthology has been included in the VCE reading list, as an option for study by Year 11 and 12 English Students.

Awards

 * 1988 Winner Western Australian Premier's Book Award - Fiction

title: Minimum of Two