text:
Armistice of 22 June 1940

The Armistice of 22 June 1940, sometimes referred to as the Second Armistice at Compiègne, was an agreement signed at 18:36 on 22 June 1940 near Compiègne, France by officials of Nazi Germany and the French Third Republic. It became effective at midnight on 25 June.

Signatories for Germany included Wilhelm Keitel, a senior military officer of the Wehrmacht (the German armed forces), while those on the French side held lower ranks, including general Charles Huntziger. Following the decisive German victory in the Battle of France (10 May – 25 June 1940) during World War II, this armistice established a German occupation zone in Northern and Western France that encompassed about three-fifths of France's European territory, including all English Channel and Atlantic Ocean ports. The remainder of the country was to be left unoccupied, although the new regime that replaced the Third Republic was mutually recognised as the legitimate government of all of Metropolitan France except Alsace–Lorraine. The French were also permitted to retain control of all of their non-European territories. Adolf Hitler deliberately chose Compiègne Forest as the site to sign the armistice because of its symbolic role as the site of the Armistice of 11 November 1918 that signaled the end of World War I with Germany's surrender.

Battle of France
The best, most modernised French armies had been sent north and lost in the resulting encirclement; the French had lost their best heavy weaponry and their best armored formations. Between May and June, French forces were in general retreat and Germany threatened to occupy Paris. The French government was forced to relocate to Bordeaux on 10 June to avoid capture and declared Paris to be an open city the same day.

The proposal of a Franco-British Union to shore up support for Paul Reynaud's government following the fall of Paris split support. With many pro-Armistice ministers in the cabinet, such as the Deputy Prime Minister Philippe Pétain, and the commander-in-chief of the French Army General Weygand, Reynaud resigned on 16 June. Pétain became Prime Minister. While French resistance continued with the Free French Forces led by Charles de Gaulle, the surrender of Metropolitan France ended any further attempts by the British to unite the two countries.

By 22 June, the German Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) had losses of 27,000 dead, more than 111,000 wounded and 18,000 missing. French losses were 92,000 dead and more than 200,000 wounded. The British Expeditionary Force suffered 68,000 casualties, with around 10,000 killed.

Choice of Compiègne
When Adolf Hitler received word from the French government that it wished to negotiate an armistice, he selected Compiègne Forest as the place for the negotiations. Compiègne had been the site of the 1918 Armistice, which ended World War I with Germany's surrender. As an act of revenge Hitler held the signing in the Compiègne Wagon, the same rail carriage where the Germans had signed the 1918 Armistice.

In the last sentence of the preamble, the drafters inserted: "However, Germany does not have the intention to use the armistice conditions and armistice negotiations as a form of humiliation against such a valiant opponent", referring to the French forces. In Article 3, Clause 2, the drafters said that Germany did not intend to heavily occupy north-west France after the cessation of hostilities with Britain.

William Shirer, who was present on that day, reported, "I am but fifty yards from him. [...] I have seen that face many times at the great moments of his life. But today! It is afire with scorn, anger, hate, revenge, triumph." Then, on 21 June 1940, in the same railway carriage in which the 1918 Armistice had been signed (removed from a museum building and placed exactly where it was in 1918), Hitler sat in the same chair in which Marshal Ferdinand Foch had sat when he faced the representatives of the defeated German Empire. After listening to the reading of the preamble, Hitler—in a calculated gesture of disdain for the French delegates—exited the carriage, as Foch had done in 1918, leaving the negotiations to the chief of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (High Command of the Armed Forces), General Wilhelm Keitel. The negotiations lasted one day, until the evening of 22 June 1940: General Huntziger had to discuss the terms by phone with the French government representatives, who had fled to Bordeaux, mainly with the newly nominated defence minister, General Maxime Weygand.

Terms

Adolf Hitler had a number of reasons for agreeing to an armistice. He wanted to ensure that France did not continue to fight from French North Africa, and he wanted to ensure that the French Navy was taken out of the war. In addition, leaving a French government in place would relieve Germany of the considerable burden of administering French territory, particularly as he turned his attentions towards Britain. Finally, as Germany lacked a navy sufficient to occupy France's overseas territories, Hitler's only practical recourse to deny the British use of them was to maintain a formally independent and neutral French rump state.

According to William Shirer's book Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, French General Charles Huntziger complained that the armistice terms imposed on France were harsher than those imposed on Germany in 1918. They provided for German occupation of three-fifths of metropolitan France north and west of a line through Geneva and Tours and extending to the Spanish border, so as to give Nazi Germany's Kriegsmarine access to all French Channel and Atlantic ports. All people who had been granted political asylum had to be surrendered and high occupation costs were demanded of France by Germany, approximately 400 million French francs a day. A minimal French Army would be permitted. As one of Hitler's few concessions, the French Navy was to be disarmed but not surrendered, for Hitler realised that pushing France too far could result in France fighting on from the French colonial empire. An unoccupied region in the south, the Zone libre, was left relatively free to be governed by a rump French administration based in Vichy. The Vichy regime also administered the occupied zones (other than Alsace-Lorraine) to some extent, albeit under severe restrictions.

This was envisaged as a temporary treaty until a final peace treaty was negotiated. At the time, both French and Germans thought the occupation would be a provisional state of affairs and last only until Britain came to terms, which they both thought was imminent. For instance, none of the French delegation objected to the stipulation that French soldiers would remain prisoners of war until the cessation of all hostilities. Nearly 1,000,000 Frenchmen were thus forced to spend the next five years in German POW camps. About a third of the initial 1,500,000 prisoners taken were released or exchanged as part of the Germans' Service du Travail Obligatoire forced labour programme by the time the war ended.

A final peace treaty was never negotiated, and the free zone (zone libre) was invaded by Germany and its ally Italy in Case Anton following the invasion of French North Africa by the Allies in November 1942.

Article 19 of the Franco-German armistice required the French state to turn over to German authorities any German national on French territory, who would then frequently face deportation to a concentration camp (the "Surrender on Demand" clause). Keitel gave verbal assurances that this would apply mainly to those refugees who had "fomented the war", a euphemism for Jews, and especially German Jews who until then had enjoyed asylum in France. Keitel also made one other concession, that French aircraft need not be handed over to the Germans.

The French delegation—led by General Charles Huntziger—tried to soften the harsher terms of the armistice, but Keitel replied that they would have to accept or reject the armistice as it was. Given the military situation that France was in, Huntziger had "no choice" but to accede to the armistice terms. The cease-fire went into effect at 00:35 on 25 June 1940, more than two days later, only after another armistice was signed between France and Italy, the main German ally in Europe.

The armistice did have some relative advantages for the French, compared to worse possible outcomes, such as keeping the colonial empire and the fleet, and, by avoiding full occupation and disarmament, the remaining French rump state in the unoccupied zone could enforce a certain de facto independence and neutrality vis-à-vis the Axis.

Destruction of the armistice site in Compiègne
The Armistice site was demolished by the Germans on Hitler's orders three days later. The carriage itself was taken to Berlin as a trophy of war, along with pieces of a large stone tablet. The Alsace-Lorraine Monument (depicting a German Eagle impaled by a sword) was also destroyed and all evidence of the site was obliterated, except notably the statue of Ferdinand Foch; Hitler ordered it to be left intact, so that it would be honoring only a wasteland. The railway carriage was later exhibited in Berlin, and then taken to Crawinkel in Thuringia in 1945, where it was destroyed by SS troops and the remains buried. After the war, the site and memorials were restored by German POW labour.

title: Armistice of 22 June 1940


text:
Talk:Clipper

A few answers
I am a fourth generation American shipwright living in Seattle Wa. Having grown up reading volume upon volume about the sailing ships of the 19'th century, I hope that I can provide at least some insight into this.

First thought: The origins of the clipper ship.  Though the Ann McKim had many similarities with clippers it has and is not considered to be the first true clipper. Built for Isaac McKim in Baltimore, it was actually designed as a larger example of the Baltimore schooner clipper of which he had owned a few prior and not purpose designed as a new and radical type, fast cargo ship. The raked bow mentioned in the article is ambiguous and the Clipper design does not necessarily adhere to this. Many clippers had an almost bluff stem with little to no rake, but instead had a very sharp entry, usually with a hollow and a large amount of reserve buoyancy (widened hurricane style bow) at the sheer line. The other defining features were an extremely fine exit aft(narrow stern), and an extremely narrow width to length ratio. Some of these, but not all of these features can be found in many ships pre-dating even the Ann McKim, but no ship incorporated all of these features until John Griffith's Rainbow Built in 1843.

Also the term clipper is again ambiguous. Although the Baltimore Clippers, were fast ships their design and use are ultimately far different than the Clipper ships that would come after. Moreover there is no evidence that the first true clipper ships designed by John Griffith and William Web living in New York, were at all influenced by the smaller vessels being built "down east". Basically what I am saying is that to claim any ship as the first true clipper, you must show that later designs have a true lineage from it. Only the Rainbow can make that claim as the ships coming directly after it were direct result of lessons learned from that design.

Second thought: The history of the clipper. The first building and by all accounts design of the clipper, began as discussions between freinds in the pubs of New York between the then young designer John Griffith, ships captain Nathaniel Palmer, and shipwrights William Web, and Donald McKay. (Donald McKay had been an apprentice along with William Web at Web's fathers shipyard in New York. Having been signed on by his father at age 16.  (McKay's family were loyalists that fled to Newfoundland from New York after the revolution).

Griffith had come across a book written by a British scientist (will correct with proper name later), that had been discredited in England simply because it ran against principles promoted by the great English scholar Isaac Newton regarding fluid dynamics. Griffith continued and expanded upon the research creating his own test tanks and experimenting with the concepts.

These discussions led Nathaniel to design a ship while on an East Indies run that would have the entry but not the exit of the true clipper. His ship would be built in 1843 across the river from John Griffith's Rainbow and would be completed much sooner. However after the successful launch and subsequent verification of design of the Rainbow, a string of ships from the two shipwrights William Web and Donald McKay would improve upon the design. Beginning with William Web's Sea Witch, that would be captained by Nathaniel Palmer.

Third thought: The demise of the clipper ship. Though many historians place the demise of the clipper directly in the path of the steam ship this is not entirely true. There were many factors that led to the end of the clippers. The first of which was the advent of the Wind Jammer. Massively built large sailing cargo vessels built with the clean bow of the clipper but without the narrow hull. Usually these larger sailing vessels could carry drastically larger cargo than the clippers, at a much cheaper rate. The issue of speed was nominal simply because the larger ships having a water line length of 300' or more would sail at speeds close enough to the clippers as to make them overkill. Except in the cases where extreme speed was essential such as the British Tea runs. This also explains why the decline of the clipper happened much faster in the US than in Briton. With the building of the first trans-continental rail in the US. There were really no high speed long distance runs left for American shipping. Thus the steamers with their shorter range could handle most of the short distance cargo, and the long range runs could be handled by the Wind Jammers at a much lower cost. Donald McKay would continue advancing and competing with clipper ships until the construction of Glory of the Seas. At which time the ship itself was lost to creditors even before the launch and Donald McKay, basically lost everything.

I admittedly don't know much about the bust of 1857, but I do know that American shipping continued through this time, and there is no reason to believe that clipper ships would have been the sole target of such an economic downturn. All shipping would have probably been affected equally, and we do know that many ships were built during and after this time of all types.

I am sure in my library that I have at least one out of print book on the subject that would legally be in the public domain. I will check on it and then scan drawings, and give better references.

Deathguppie (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Could somone provide a better panoramic?
"Decline in the use of clippers started with the economic slump following the Panic of 1857" lead me to check what "the Panic of 1875" was just to find out that it was a part of US History alone (back then such an event couldn't have the worldwide effects now it would), seeing that I had say all data on the end of the golden age of sail becomes an easy target for doubt on its meaningfulness to maritime history as a hole... But I don't how to add the banner asking for les US.centric infoUndead Herle King (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

20 knots???
" Sometimes these ships could reach 20 knots." I'm very sure this is a mistake. Can anyone vet it or provide data? Modern long-distance racing sailboats  average in the neighborhood of 10 knots. I did not remove the text. --Wetman 05:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Cutler reports four specific instances of speeds logged at 20 or more, with an 1854 voyage of Sovereign of the Seas logging 22 knots. This is prefixed with three pages of discussion on whether any number over 15-16 knots was plausible, at the end of which he concludes that the logs ought to be believed. I should probably add a paragraph on this point. Stan 08:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Even if it were only for me. I was wrong: it is certainly an incredible speed. Good thing I didn't remove the text. What's the highhest speed for a modern catamaran I wonder? --Wetman 10:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Heh, you weren't the only one disbelieving - to some extent, I think Cutler was simply unwilling to call the captains liars or incompetent. One of the reasons day's runs are preferred as a measure of performance; more reliably documentable, and not just a momentary fluke of perfect wind and perfect water. New cats seem able to go quite a bit higher; reports an average of nearly 26 knots for Playstation in 2001, with some other sites mentioning 40-knot(!) peaks. But they're "cheating"; no cargo. :-) Stan 16:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * All good entries answer the primary questions. The first question about clippers is, "How fast did they go?" So, any sourced text on this heading is grist to the mill. --Wetman 22:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * You find 20 knots hard to believe ? Frigates of the beginning of the 19th century were quite often reaching the 18 knots... (with awfully anti-hydrodynamic hull shapes :p ) Rama 13:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't beleive that, can you give us a source? --John.james 22:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

However I just removed the 35 knots top speed from the 'The China Clippers and the Epitome of Sail' section. I guess someone confused wind speed with boat speed here. You find a lot of articles that go up to 20 knots and a bit over what is a great speed already. Take into concideration: the boat is at 35 knots means around 50 knots + wind speed resulting in 8 meters + waves ... rummsmummel 14:39, 16 Nov 2006 (UTC)

 * But surely that section's current speed of 7 knots is low. Was it vandalized? See the "Speed Again" section of this discussion. Wdfarmer 10:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The 7 knot change first appeared here as far as i can tell. This is certainly far too low.  I'm going to change it back to 20 knots and add a citation.--John.james 21:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Ok, heres what I found:

400 miles in a day is 16.6 knots average. Since there are only 14 cases of ships exceeding 400 miles in 24 hours, and only 12 cases of over 18 knots measured, I changed the article to read: "with peak average speeds even exceeding 16 knots" --John.james 22:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Clippers and economic context
User:AlainV has made a suggestive connection between clipper production and economic bust times. I only query his "1855" instead of the more general bank and market "Crash of 1857". Could the familiar date be substituted, or is there more information? --Wetman 09:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Aerial Clippers"
I have never seen this term used elsewhere; as far as I know the term was "flying clipper." Can anyone think of a good reason why I shouldn't change the wording?J S Ayer 02:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * "Flying clippers" is right. --Wetman 02:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

We don't have to use a word because it's been used before. The trouble with 'flying' is that the big German ships were given names beginning with 'P', Pamir, Preussen and so on. They came to be known as the 'Flying Ps'. The word 'flyer' was frequently used in connection with fast ships. 'Aerial' sees a good adjective for the aeroplanes - that's what they were. (RJP 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC))

 * ("Flying clippers" was the common expression nevertheless.) --Wetman 08:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I think RJP is talking about the Flying P Line. This line didn't go in for the P theme until later in the 19th century, and perhaps the appeal of the flying appelation was in part because of the earlier context.  Theres also the Flying Cloud.  I think these usages are prior to the flying P line. --John.james 01:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

 * The most common phrases used in literature are the terms "extreme clipper" or "china clipper".  The latter would be mostly a reference to the clippers used in the British tea trade. Ref  Deathguppie (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Move this Title to disambiguation
Does anyone else think that this page should be a disambiguation page, with Clipper (sailing) as a separate page? There are enough other topics under "clipper" to warrent this. Fresheneesz 21:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC) the creater is me

Speed again
"fastest of all sail vessels, with peak average speeds even exceeding 7 knots for endurances over 12 hours."

This doesn't seem all that impressive to me. I know that Stavros S Niarchos once recorded a speed of something like 16 knots and the TSYT brigs are not fast ships. Granted that is peak rather than sustained, but to record only 7 knots average a ship could do that kind of speed for half the time and then sit there motionless for the other half - and I'm pretty sure they weren't in the habit of doing that! PeteVerdon 08:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

City of Adelaide
The reference in Wikipedia to "City of Adelaide (1864)" directly relates to the clipper ship in Scotland facing destruction.

The link as follows needs to be cross indexed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Adelaide_%281864%29

Peter Christopher Convenor Save the Clipper Ship City of Adelaide Action Group www.cityofadelaide.org.au

Clippered art
I moved "and represented the first pronounced use of color in American advertising art." and deleted
 * "These cards, slightly larger than today’s postcards, were produced by letterpress and wood engraving on coated card stock. Most clipper cards were printed in the 1850s and 1860s, and represented the first pronounced use of color in American advertising art.
 * "Relatively few (perhaps 3,500) clipper cards survive today. With their stunning appearance, rarity, and importance as artifacts of nautical, Western, and printing history, clipper cards are highly prized by both private collectors and institutions."

as irrelevant to clippers. Anybody who wants to can move it to advertising, card collecting, or someplace. Trekphiler 01:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Notable Ships Section
Perhaps this section should be removed as the body only consists of a link to another article? That link could then be moved to the See Also section.--PlantPerson (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Cutty Sark
The Cutty Sark is no longer, as stated in the article, "in reasonable condition", the chief engineer, Professor Peter Mason, has resigned, saying the restoration project will damage the ship and should be stopped, etc. see Andrew Gilligan's article Cutty Sark Disaster: The £11 Million Nail In the Coffin. --Robkam (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

American clipper images and content, yet more subtle Americanisation of Wikipedia?
The vast majority of clippers were British (including Baltimore Clippers) subsequently the opening picture should be represented either by a British or neutral clipper image. It was British clippers that opened up Chinese trade, US clippers and traders were represented by no more than 4% total. I suggest the Cutty Sark or Thermopylae image. In fact reading the article it seems that US-orientated content it is WAY over-subscribed irrespective of the historical reality.Twobells (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Clipper ships were often used for transporting goods and travelers etc. Their speed made them popular for traders, merchants and travelers, there were in high demand during the trade with China and was later used to transport people to California during the Gold rush. The ships often made trips to India and around the Cape Horn. The ships had massive masts which made the ship quite fast. The ships use was diminished after the panic in 1857 by then stem ships had mostly taken over and there now longer was a need for the large clipper ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.129.14 (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

short and sweet
Clipper ships were often used for transporting goods and travelers etc. Their speed made them popular for traders; merchants and travelers, there were in high demand during the trade with China and were later used to transport people to California during the Gold rush. The ships often made trips to India and around the Cape Horn. The ships had massive masts which made the ship quite fast. The ships use was diminished after the panic in 1857 by then stem ships had mostly taken over and there now longer was a need for the large clipper ship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.129.14 (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Water Witch painting
Is the particular painting of the Water Witch on the page accurate as to her sail plan? I pulled up a search for other, clearer images of her sail plan but, aside the the one on this page, all images of her showed the mizzenmast as having a fore-and-aft rigged course sail with only square rigged sails above (main and foremasts were consistent with the image in being entirely square rigged). Could the painter have made a mistake (possible painting the ship while given only a description)? Or was the Water Witch rerigged at some point? -Orodum 2601:0:5600:72:BDF6:BF0F:1C1B:2337 (talk) 06:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Origin of Clipper Speed
I suggest the article be expanded with a introductory technical discussion of what attributes of Clippers results in their high speed. Perusing the pictures and text would suggests to me that the large area of sails compared to hull size might be an important factor in speed, but it would be helpful if someone with more nautical engineering knowledge could actually shed some technical insight on this topic.OttawaAndy388 (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

 * It would also be helpful if the term "deadrise" was explained or linked to another article that explains it. I know nothing about nautical engineering, myself and the use of the term without explanation was annoying. Wastrel Way (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Eric

 * ✅ Used Merriam-Webster citation. Thanks for the suggestion, Wastrel Way! HopsonRoad (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clipper. 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/20060208111227/http://www.historyscotland.com/features/svcarrick.html to http://www.historyscotland.com/features/svcarrick.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051018172408/http://www.theshipslist.com/ships/descriptions/baltimore.htm to http://www.theshipslist.com/ships/descriptions/baltimore.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Tattoos
I'm surprised there's no mention of clipper ships in traditional and neotraditional tattooing (see Sailor tattoos, for example). — OwenBlacker (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Clipper (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Lead needs a rewrite
I'd not spotted it before, but the lead on this article is in need of a serious rewrite: The sailing vessels known as clippers were not developed from Baltimore Clippers - certainly not those built in the UK (and see later in the article for the US situation).

"Narrow for their length" - not universally - there was quite a range of hull types as builders experimented with different hull forms.

"...routes between the United Kingdom and its colonies in the east" - a real howler, this one: the tea trade was mostly into ports in China, which was not a British colony. Some tea was bought in Hong Kong (which was British at the time) but that was not locally produced but brought in from other areas.

The "boom years" of the tea trade were caused more by the loss of the East India company monopoly than an increase in demand - the demand was a result of increased availability and a lowered price.

There is also the ambiguity over use of the word ship (been a lot of discussion about that). The article should be rephrased to swerve around the inherent ambiguities in the term. It is important to make clear that a few clippers from the clipper ship era were built as barques: for instance Ziba, a well-liked Aberdeen-built clipper, was a jackass barque. "Well-liked" is based on the date that she loaded tea in the various years in that trade - being loaded early meant that the local agents expected a fast passage. (pg 116-117 in MacGregor). Also some clippers, in the years of decline, were reduced to barque but still continued in fast trade.

Quickly looking at the rest of the article, decline in the predominance of the clipper was primarily due to 2 things: the Suez canal and the technological advances of maritime steam engines. Alfred Holt was instrumental in the latter, managing to obtain Board of Trade approval for higher steam pressures which gave more fuel efficient steam engines. The relevance of the 1857 slump in trade is, I believe, due to the cessation of the Crimean War, which had given rise to a large demand for ship charters. (Incidentally, Holt used his profits from Crimean War charters to finance his experiments with more efficient steam engines and to finance his first commercial long-distance steam ship.)

I thought I should flag this up whilst other work is ongoing on the article - because it would be quite a bit of work to rewrite and reference just the points listed above. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Problem in lead
I have a problem with "...continued to be built into the 1870s, they were largely replaced by newer Iron-hulled sailing ships."

Clippers generally carried high value cargoes, often where speed was needed to secure the best prices in a seasonal market. When tea clippers lost out to the next generation - it was to steam ships, not the large capacity windjammers that were built for lower value cargoes. This is very clearly spelt out by MacGregor from page 209 onwards in The Tea Clippers, their History and Development 1833-1875. He gives example rates of freight for steamers and sailing vessels, with steamers usually getting £2 per ton more than the clippers. He mentions the lower insurance costs for the cargoes carried by steamers, and the 45 steamers being built for Far Eastern trade in 1871 on the River Clyde alone (though to be fair, that is where most of the UK's steamships were being built at time).

So, as it stands, this sentence implies that clippers were replaced by windjammers, when they were actually replaced by steamships.

I am no expert on USA clippers, but I would guess that much of their trade was lost to the railways in 1869 - who wants to sail round Cape Horn when you can much more quickly travel across the continent by train? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

 * Thank you for this observation, ThoughtIdRetired. I have replaced the text to read, "While clipper ships such as Hallowe'en continued to be built into the 1870s, the next generation of sailing ships were iron-hulled." Perhaps this will solve the problem that you identified. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I have identified the point that the original text was trying to convey - that a few iron-hulled sailing vessels that could be classified as clippers were built in the 1870s, but these were generally not carrying the traditional clipper cargoes (depending on your definition of wool from Australia in that category). That is really too complex a point for the lead, especially if not fully explained in the article. The section on "Decline" is highly deficient - for instance it was the development of the steamship, not its introduction, that precipitated the end of the clipper. A good re-write is needed. I would have a go, but am currently over-run with things outside Wikipedia - and this needs a proper job doing. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Clippers has been nominated for discussion
Category:Clippers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 13:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit: "vessel" to "ship"?
I am puzzled by User:HopsonRoad's intent with the change of "vessel" to "ship". Is this based on the premise that all clippers were fully rigged ships? If so, it is clear that, though the more famous clippers tended to be rigged in that way, there are many that were not - especially opium clippers (see Basil Lubbock's book on the subject for confirmation that these are correctly called clippers). This would also be clear, for instance, from a reading of MacGregor's Fast Sailing Ships, and the detailed descriptions of tea clippers in his book on the subject (several that were built as barques are listed). If something else is intended, please explain.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

 * Thank you for engaging here, ThoughtIdRetired. I appreciated the distinction, regarding full-rigged ships, even before I rewrote the Sailing ship article (see the "Sail plans" graphic at the beginning of the article). My intent is that "vessel" extends to include boats and is therefore too broad. Clippers were all ships. Additionally, sailing vessel links to Sailing ship, which makes the word "vessel" seem further lacking in specificity. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Noted - thanks for answer, User:HopsonRoad. At this point I think the problem is more with the English language than anything else (ambiguity of "ship"). Perhpas the article probably needs an explanation of the diversity of possible rigs, despite the preponderance of fully rigged ships. There are plenty of other problems with this article, which I will chip away at when I get an opportunity.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

More problems
There is a problem with This implies that the word "clipper" was applied to sailing vessels in the late 18th century.

In Howard I. Chapelle's definitive book on the Baltimore Clipper he states (on page 65)

Chapelle makes clear that in the time when most Baltimore Clippers were built, they were variously described as "Virginia-built", "Virginia model", "pilot boat model", with "Baltimore model" appearing during the War of 1812.

I am embarrassed to be throwing further criticism at this article when having contributed nothing of significance to its contents, but this point, in conjunction with others, suggests the need for a thorough review of content and sourcing.

I am particularly puzzled by the appearance of David MacGregor's book "Fast Sailing Ships" in the references, but on close examination of the article, find that this simply points to an online copy of the index of this book, with little evidence that any contributing editor has actually read it. MacGregor is probably the definitive author on British clippers. (I note, also, that Howard Chapelle wrote the introduction to this book, giving it further authority - because the two of them represent a big chunk of the expertise in this part of maritime history). I appreciate that the views stated by MacGregor in the introduction to the first edition of Fast Sailing Ships may not go down to well with clipper-related Wikipedia contributors:

Nor would Chapelle's comments in the introduction to the same book be appreciated by the same audience:

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks for these observations, ThoughtIdRetired. There seems to be few better-qualified than you to improve this article. It's an important one, so it would be great, if you did! I realize that you have been occupied elsewhere. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks for taking the criticism well. Lots of organised reading to do before any big editing changes could be done here and I am only doing sporadic and more minor editing at the moment. But this is on my list of things to do. No idea when this will get to the top. (Unpredictable world at the moment!)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Naval ships get a lot of attention on Wikipedia, merchant ships, very little. The standard of articles in this area is generally pretty bad, with bits and pieces added randomly by people with little knowledge of the topic and little commitment. Having said that, almost every ship article I look at contains factual errors, naval or otherwise. Lots of articles have been created very quickly and without much attempt to corroborate material, it really amazes me how much work has gone into the WP:SHIPS area over all these years and yet how much remains to be done. Gatoclass (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 28 November 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Although there were more oppose !votes than supporters of any of the other options, some of these !votes were simply assertions that this usage is the long-term primary one for "clipper", without supporting evidence or arguments. Such !votes will not be given much weight. However, there's also a concern that "ship" may not be the technically correct terminology. And although pageviews are one of the main factors to consider in terms of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it's not the only thing. (t · c)  buidhe  20:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

– Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NOPRIMARY and WP:ASTONISH. "Clipper ship(s)" is the common name of the ship in a generic context as demonstrated by the fact that Britannica uses "Clipper ship". "Clipper ship(s)" is also commonly used on Wikipedia such as Template:Clipper ships, List of clipper ships, and List of people who sailed on clipper ships and several qualified titles such as Torrens (clipper ship). And in the previous RM many users said that they thought "Clipper ship" was the common name anyway and a significant number of sources use "Clipper ship(s)". Clipper ship has 187 total incoming links and 150 mainspace links. Clipper ships has 33 total incoming links and 27 mainspace links. At Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 8 there was a proposal to merge "Category:Wool clippers" to Category:Clippers suggesting editors expect the tool not the ship to be what "Clipper(s)" refers to. "Clipper ship(s)" appears 58x in the article (excluding the externals links, template and Commons links).
 * Clipper → Clipper ship
 * Clipper (disambiguation) → Clipper

Even if one was to assume that "Clipper" alone is the most appropriate title for the ship the ship fails WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:ASTONISH. Google returns things like tea, lighters and the other tools, Images returns the lighter and hair clippers. Books on the other hand does mainly return the ship but as noted above most of those use "Clipper ship(s)" for the ship anyway. Many editors argued that "Clipper" alone refers to the ship but that clearly isn't true since hair and nail clippers are also called "Clipper(s)" alone if the context is clear, I have a hair clipper kit and it says "8 piece clipper kit" without mention to "Hair clipper" in other words the ship is only called "Clipper(s)" alone if the context is clear which also applies to the other types, if this was an encyclopedia about ships then we may well use "Clipper" alone just like we might use "Clipper" alone if we were an encyclopedia about hair cutting etc. The ship has 8,933 views but Clipper (electronics) has 3,241 (suggesting its not "much more likely than any other"), Clipper (lighter) has 2,999, Clipper (programming language) has 1,464, Clipper (automobile) has 54, Clipper (video game) has 40, Clipper, Washington has 25, Clipper (steam automobile) has 22 and Clipper (nickname) has 15. That makes 7,862 views for topic qualified v 8,933 for the ship. Hair clipper has 4,187 and Nail clipper has 3,751. [] So even if you assume that the ship is usually called "Clipper(s)" alone and hair and nail clippers aren't known as "Clipper(s)" very often there is still unlikely to be a primary topic by usage and the tools also have long-term significance, quite probably more than the ship again because their every day items unlike the 19th century ship. Also Clipper chip has 3,119 views and Los Angeles Clippers has 39,748 but those probably aren't known as "Clipper(s)" very much at least the sports team probably isn't known as "Clipper" (singular) much.

The ship fails ASTONISH because its not well known relative to the cutting devices (and also fastening ones but we don't appear to cover those) hair and nail clippers are everyday words while many won't even have heard of the ship, I hadn't until I can across it on Wikipedia.

While I realize I made a RM at the DAB page previously that was 17 months ago and was solely about disambiguation while this proposal is also about common name (hence the reason the RM isn't on the DAB page this time) and the previous RM was close with the outcome of no consensus with the reason "The page view stats can support each side" but that also has been addressed by the fact that the ship isn't the only meaning known mainly by this alone in a specific context.

I think both the move to "Clipper ship" for the ship and the DAB to plain "Clipper"(A) should both take place but if not I'll provide a list of options below:

 * A move the ship to Clipper ship and Clipper (disambiguation) to Clipper.
 * B move the ship to Clipper ship as with A but leave the DAB at Clipper (disambiguation) and allow Clipper to redirect to Clipper ship per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT.
 * C move the ship to Clipper (ship) and the DAB page to Clipper. This is the same as the last RM but given "Clipper ship" being the common name I don't think that this is needed at least per WP:NATURAL.
 * Oppose it should be left as is with the ship at Clipper and the DAB at Clipper (disambiguation).

Please indicate you're options by putting A, B, C or Oppose per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 32 or even list you're preferred outcomes in order such as "B, A, D, C" in which "D" can be used for "Oppose".  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Comment - I don't know about this one... the most common names I can think of are clippers (used for hair/nails) and the Los Angeles Clippers. Both of these are with the s plural which as you pointed out probably aren't known as "Clipper(s)". If I were to make an estimate... those looking up Clipper (electronics) more than likely have an interest in that field or were redirected from another article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * C – Wiktionary has seven senses for "clipper", starting with "anything that clips" and including ships and weather fronts. Since it's not necessary to add "ship", when talking in a nautical context about a clipper, I support "Clipper (ship)" as the most direct primary title. HopsonRoad (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment A "clipper ship" is a subset of "clipper" (meaning a fast sailing vessel). The term "clipper ship" is something of an American term, as the clippers that sailed round Cape Horn to the California Gold Rush were largely rigged as ships. Some tea clippers were rigged as barques, Opium clippers were often schooners or brigs, Baltimore Clippers were largely schooners, etc., etc. Unfortunately, in modern usage "ship", when applied to a sailing vessel, is ambiguous - it may define the rig or it may just mean a large vessel. Given that, it would be entirely improper to have an article name that is, in the context of a historical sailing vessel, lacking in clear meaning and may exclude (in one of the possible meanings) valid content of the article. Incidentally, List of clipper ships was specifically set up to exclude any clippers that were not rigged as ships. See that article's talk page and edit history for confirmation.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The vessel type appears to be primary, and the aircraft and teams took their names from it.  There is no need for a change.  Kablammo (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What about all the other uses and hair and nail clippers that in total get more views and didn't get their name from it?  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In singular, the vessel is surely the primary topic.  Clippers correctly redirects to the disambiguation page since there's a lot more options there, but the singular one in common parlance is the ship.  SnowFire (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is worthy of debate, but I think in the singular the ship is the primary topic by long-term significance. And I can see difficulties with any use of "ship" (common usage vs. purist usage). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * what are the difficulties with common v purist usage? As I've shown in sources the ship is usually "Clipper ship(s)" rather than plain "Clipper(s)" which would be general common usage while "Clipper" alone if the context is established (in purist usage). As shown "Clipper ship(s)" have numerous links despite the article being at "Clipper" since editors often don't link to redirects or change the wording in an article to match it for example Cutty Sark uses the term "Clipper ship" and a mainspace search for "Clipper ship" returns 607 results.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello C,S. It's just that the sheer amount of time and effort spent exploring if a ship can be called a ship—in places like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 62—tells me to avoid the use of "ship"! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That discussion seemed to be about how to disambiguate (individual) ships but interestingly Full-rigged ship is linked at that discussion. Note that with Schooner Britannica uses "Schooner" alone but does use "ship" in the title (as opposed to description) for this type, when I check other sources like Books they use "Schooner(s)" alone probably because that's relatively unambiguous unlike clipper so I think common usage is for "ship" here.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "As I've shown in sources....". It all depends on which sources you choose to look at. Maritime historians generally use "clipper" without "ship", unless they are denoting the rig. You can see this from book titles: David R MacGregor (the definitive expert on Tea Clippers): British and American Clippers and The Tea Clippers ( ISBN 0 85177 256 0); Basil Lubbock (prolific writer on clippers): The Opium Clippers, The China Clippers (ISBN 0851741096) (and other similar titles); Howard I. Chapelle (possibly the most influential of the USA's maritime historians): The Baltimore Clipper, also if you look in the index of his The Search for Speed Under Sail, you find entries for "clipper bark", "clipper brig", "clipper schooner" and (unsurprisingly) "clipper ships" (and if you read the entries he means sailing vessels rigged as ships). I don't follow the argument based on searches of Wikipedia to establish English usage, since we all know that Wikipedia cannot be used as an RS.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The singular "clipper" almost always refers to the ship. Since no one has pointed it out yet, a similar request took place last year and was closed as no consensus. -- Calidum  16:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you provide evidence to support the claim that "Clipper" (singular) almost always refers to the ship? In my experience it never does and the evidence of page views and Google also don't support this. While the tools are normally in the plural they aren't always which is why the articles are at Hair clipper and Nail clipper. While I realize I hadn't linked to it, this was pointed out in my statement I made a RM at the DAB page previously that was 17 months ago and was solely about disambiguation while this proposal is also about common name (hence the reason the RM isn't on the DAB page this time) and this request has significantly more information than the previous.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also note that Hedge trimmer has 643 views[].  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment User:Crouch, Swale highlights the fact that, whereas among Wikipedia articles the ship sense of "clipper" may be primary, in the English language at large it is not. That's why I recommend "Clipper (ship)". HopsonRoad (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * HopsonRoad yes that's my point, when the context is clear that you mean the ship you can use "Clipper(s)" alone, since Wikipedia articles are aimed at a general audience then we can use natural disambiguation as noted here. You would also use "Clipper(s)" alone if you were in the hair sense rather than "Hair clipper(s)". If "Clipper" and "Clipper ship" are both acceptable then using the alternative from instead of qualifying it makes sense as an effective tie breaker per WP:ATDAB even if the ship if more often called "Clipper" alone in a general context than hair and nail clippers.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * C Per WP:NOPRIMARY.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We've already had this discussion. Nothing has changed. The ship is the clear primary topic for the term "Clipper". The other main uses are generally referred to as "Clippers". -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As stated last time we had this discussion (and per Necrothesp, above) hair clippers, horse clippers, etc. are usually in the plural. We have several, and I have checked the boxes and instructions: all in the plural.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Usually in the plural maybe but even the articles here are in the singular namely Hair clipper and Nail clipper. That doesn't make the ship primary anymore than the likes of Shoe and Twin that have singular articles here even though they are usually in the plural or are we suddenly assuming people mostly search for terms that are more often than not in the plural in the plural?  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at Hair clipper etc. to determine English usage is using Wikipedia as an WP:RS, which it is not.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There appears to be no compelling argument since the last discussion. Charts and graphs were thrown out before with evidence trying to discredit "Clipper' as the primary topic. If we are talking about consistency "Clipper" is the clear winner. |Clipper_(programming_language)|Clipper_(electronics)|Clipper_(lighter)|Clipper_(automobile)|Clipper,_Washington|Clipper_(nickname)|Clipper_(steam_automobile)|Nail_clipper|Hair_clipper - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

bit of a rewrite
I have tackled some points in the article today. I particularly targeted text referenced by Men Ships and the Sea by Alan Villiers and others. Taking a look at this reference, it is mostly written by un-named authors - Villiers is just the "headline" name to sell the book. It has some "fuzzy"/wrong concepts - like implying that only clippers used studding sails, when the majority of square rigged ships until the last quarter of the 19th century had them. (I've just checked some current reading: The Merchant Schooners by Basil Greenhill - there is a diagram of studding sails drawn by one of the sources consulted by the author when he researched the book before its first publication in 1951. You can also see studding sail gear on a few old photos of ordinary merchant vessels - though the camera became common after their useage reduced.) On top of that, the definition (from Villiers, or whomever) can easily be substituted by consulting named, recognised maritime historians - which is what I have done.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Need to tackle the usage of Baltimore clippers as slavers next. This was a significant trade - it is covered by Chapelle in his book on Baltimore clippers and also by MacGregor in Fast Sailing Ships. Putting a proper section in for each major type of clipper may be appropriate - so that would be Baltimore clippers (privateers, blockade runners, slavers) Opium clippers (another unsavoury trade) American clippers (California gold rush, to which is added the tea trade) Tea clippers all the other clippers (for instance South American coffee trade, Florida and West Indian fruit trade see pg 322 of Search for Speed Under Sail - more refs to find on this point.)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Villiers does not state or imply that only clippers used studding sails. Kablammo (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reefing topsails.jpg of me to imply it was Villiers who was at fault, more the editor who cited him - but it seemed to me that the article implied that studding sails were used mostly by clippers, when they were common on all working sailing vessels in the middle of the 19th century. Even if this assessment is wrong, I would hope that the replacement text is more of a more encyclopaedic tone.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Clipper


text:
Portal:The arts

'' For editor resources and to collaborate with other editors on improving Wikipedia's arts-related articles, visit WikiProject Arts. ''

title: Portal:The arts


text:
Portal:The arts/Featured article/December, 2005

El Lissitzky was a Russian artist, designer, photographer, teacher, typographer, and architect. He was one of the most important figures of the Russian avant-garde, helping develop suprematism with his friend and mentor, Kazimir Malevich, and designed numerous exhibition displays and propaganda works for the former Soviet Union. His work greatly influenced the Bauhaus, Constructivist, and De Stijl movements and experimented with production techniques and stylistic devices that would go on to dominate  20th century graphic design. Lissitzky's entire career was laced with the belief that the artist could be an agent for change, later summarised with his edict, "das zielbewußte Schaffen" (The task-oriented creation). In 1941 he produced one of his last known works — a Soviet propaganda poster rallying the people to construct more tanks for the fight against Nazi Germany.


text:
John 20:10

John 20:10 is the tenth verse of the twentieth chapter of the Gospel of John. Peter and the Beloved Disciple have just finished examining the empty tomb of Jesus, and in this verse they return home.

Content
In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads:
 * Then the disciples went away
 * again unto their own home.

The English Standard Version translates the passage as:
 * Then the disciples went back to their homes.

For a collection of other versions see BibleHub John 20:10

Analysis
describes this same scene, but it adds that on the trip home Peter was "wondering what had happened". John does not make clear what is in the minds of the disciples, and some read John 20:8 as meaning that one or more of the pair had been convinced of the resurrection.

According to Brown most scholars believe the home that the disciples depart for is not their actual home in Galilee, but rather where they had been staying in Jerusalem, although Luke seemingly indicates that some of the disciples were traveling home after the crucifixion and it is not impossible that Peter and the Beloved Disciple were embarking on the long journey.

As it is indicated in John 20:2 that Peter and the Beloved Disciple were found separately by Mary Magdalene it is also often assumed that Peter and the other disciple returned to separate areas. They will be together again that evening when Jesus appears to the ten disciples at John 20:19. The departure of the two disciples allowed Mary to meet Jesus alone (verses 11–18).

title: John 20:10


text:
Hello! Morning

Hello! Morning (ハロー! モーニング.) was a weekly Japanese TV show featuring members of Morning Musume, and sometimes other Hello! Project members on TV Tokyo. It was also known by the shorter name of HaroMoni (ハロモニ.). On April 1, 2007, the show ended after seven years of broadcast. A new show featuring the same people, entitled Haromoni@ (ハロモニ@), took its place. The program is best known outside Japan due to the "Dramatic Chipmunk," an online phenomenon video. The video is from the seventh episode of the segment Minimoni Chiccha, with Mari Yaguchi, Mika Todd, Nozomi Tsuji and Ai Kago. In the episode, the girls plan on having a pet so an employee from a pet store brings in some animals for the girls to look over.

Contents
In addition to the segments listed below, many other one-time segments run as well.

 * Hello! Project Product segments
 * Hello Pro News (ハロプロニュース)
 * Hello Pro Wide (ハロプロワイド)
 * Hello Pro Hour (ハロプロアワー)
 * Eric Kamezō's Everyday Thanks! (エリック亀造の毎度ありぃ!)
 * Scream! Commercial. (絶叫！コマ～シャル.)
 * Sweat! CM (発汗！CM.)
 * Hello Pro! Channel (HPC) (ハロプロ！ちゃんねる.)
 * HaroMoni Theater Series (ハロモニ. 劇場 シリーズ)
 * "Haromoni Theater, Until the Bus Comes" (ハロモニ. 劇場 バスがくるまで)
 * "Haromoni Theater, Mōmamas in the Afternoon" (ハロモニ. 劇場 昼下がりのモーママたち)
 * "Haromoni Theater, The Story of Eki-mae Kōban" (ハロモニ. 劇場 駅前交番物語)
 * "HaroMoni Theater, Koen-dori San-chome" (ハロモニ. 劇場 公園通り三丁目)
 * Penguin Gomaki's Story (ゴマキペンギン物語)
 * Sparrow Gomaki's Nursing Diary (ゴマキスズメの子育て日記)
 * Hawaiian Girls (ハワイヤ～ン娘.)
 * Be a Member of Hawaiian Girls! (めざせ!ハワイヤ～ン娘.)
 * Pyōn-Seijin (ぴょ～ん星人)
 * Mini Moni - The Way of the Kappa (ミニモニ. 河童の花道)
 * Mini Moni - The Four Priests (ミニモニ. 四休さん)
 * Be a Pioneer by Niigaki's School (魁!!新垣塾)
 * Write to the Laughless Princess! (投稿!笑わん姫)
 * Fighters for the Earth W (地球戦士W)
 * Urōboe Seminar (うろおぼえゼミナーる)
 * Turn Dori Chicken (ターン鳥チキン)
 * World Petit Game (ワールド・プッチ・ゲーム)
 * Take Me on a Date ♥ (私をデートに連れてって♥)
 * HaroMoni Academy (ハロモニ. アカデミー)
 * Mini Moni Chiccha
 * Magic Restaurant (マジックレストラン)

title: Hello! Morning


text:
1571 in music

Events

 * Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina becomes maestro di cappella at the Julian Chapel, St. Peter's, Rome
 * Andrea Gabrieli writes the music for the festivities celebrating the victory of the Venetians over the Turks after the Battle of Lepanto.
 * Orlande de Lassus visits France at the personal invitation of King Charles IX, who unsuccessfully attempts to employ him
 * Tomás Luis de Victoria begins teaching at the Collegio Germanico in Rome
 * Bálint Bakfark, Hungarian lutenist, moves to Padua, Italy

Bands disbanded

 * Weimar Court Chapel Choir

Publications

 * Elias Ammerbach – Orgel oder Instrument Tabulatur (Leipzig: Jacob Berwald Erben), the first printed German organ music in tablature
 * Costanzo Antegnati – First book of madrigals for four voices with a dialogue for eight (Venice: Antonio Gardano)
 * Giammateo Asola – Le Vergini, for three voices, book 1 (Venice: Antonio Gardano and sons), a book of madrigals
 * Fabrice Caietain
 * Liber primus modulorum for four voices (Paris: Le Roy & Ballard), a collection of motets
 * Livre de chansons nouvelles for six voices (Paris: Le Roy & Ballard)
 * Francesco Corteccia
 * First book of motets for six voices (Venice: the sons of Antonio Gardano)
 * First book of motets for five voices (Venice: the sons of Antonio Gardano)
 * Giovanni Matteo Faà di Bruno – Second book of madrigals for five and six voices (Venice: the sons of Antonio Gardano)
 * Giovanni Ferretti – Fourth book of canzoni alla napolitana for five voices (Venice: Girolamo Scotto)
 * Andrea Gabrieli – First book of gregesche et justiniane for three voices (Venice: Antonio Gardano, figliuoli)
 * Jacobus de Kerle – Selectae quaedam cantiones sacrae for five and six voices (Nuremberg: Theodor Gerlach)
 * Orlande de Lassus
 * Modulis quinis vocibus numquam hactenus editi (Motets for five voices, never before published) (Paris: Le Roy & Ballard)
 * Livre de nouvelles chansons for four voices (Paris: Le Roy & Ballard)
 * Luzzasco Luzzaschi – First book of madrigals for five voices (Ferrara: Francesco de' Rossi)
 * Tiburtio Massaino – First book of madrigals for five voices (Venice: Antonio Gardano)
 * Philippe de Monte – Fourth book of madrigals for five voices (Venice: Girolamo Scotto)
 * Giovanni Battista Pinello di Ghirardi – Second book of canzoni napolitane for three voices (Venice: Girolamo Scotto)
 * Costanzo Porta – First book of musica sex canenda vocibus (music for singing with six voices) (Venice: sons of Antonio Gardano), a collection of songs with sacred lyrics
 * Alexander Utendal – Sacrae cantiones
 * Gioseffo Zarlino – Dimonstrationi harmoniche, which establishes the primacy of the major mode

Births

 * January 15 (baptized) – Henry Ainsworth, author of the Ainsworth Psalter, the only book of music brought by the Pilgrim settlers to the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1620. (d. 1622)
 * February 15 (possibly) – Michael Praetorius, German organist, composer and music theorist (d. 1621)
 * May 17 – William White, English composer (d. c. 1634).
 * August 7 – Thomas Lupo, English composer of instrumental music (d. 1627)
 * December 27 – Johannes Kepler, astronomer and writer on music (d. 1630)
 * Dates unknown
 * Filipe de Magalhães, Portuguese composer (d. 1652).
 * Leon Modena, Italian rabbi, cantor, scholar and writer on music (d. 1648).
 * Martin Peerson (born ca. 1571 – ca. 1573; died 1650 or 1651), English composer, organist and virginalist
 * John Ward, English composer of madrigals (d. 1638).

Deaths

 * February 13 – Benvenuto Cellini, cornettist and recorder player, best known as a goldsmith and sculptor (b. 1500)
 * March 20 – Giovanni Animuccia, composer (b. c. 1520)
 * June 7 – Francesco Corteccia, Italian composer and organist (b. 1502)
 * November 21 – Jan Blahoslav, Czech writer and composer (b. 1523)
 * date unknown
 * Francisco de Ceballos, organist and composer
 * Bernardino de Ribera (Sahagún), Spanish composer (b. c.1499)

title: 1571 in music


text: Category:Music publications

title: Category:Music publications


text:
Bedford Avenue (disambiguation)

Bedford Avenue may refer to:

 * Bedford Avenue (Brooklyn), the longest street in Brooklyn, New York City

New York City Subway stations

 * Bedford Avenue (BMT Canarsie Line) at North Seventh Street; serving the train
 * Bedford–Nostrand Avenues (IND Crosstown Line) at Lafayette Avenue; serving the train

title: Bedford Avenue (disambiguation)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tao of quitting smoking

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 20:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tao of quitting smoking
Blatant advertisement, also probably copyvio. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "The Tao of Quitting Smoking is a spiritual guide written in a no-nonsense Dr. Phil-like way..." That Dr. Phil, he's my kind of Taoist. 249 web hits for "Tao of quitting smoking", nearly all online bookstores, one Usenet hit that is from the book's author. Delete this press release; it can't be worth improving. Samaritan 05:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, book advertisement/promo. It's either a copyright violation or plagiarism, see . Megan1967 08:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. We shouldn't have to waste time voting on this kind of commercial self-promotion.  HowardB 10:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, ad. Wyss 19:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Evil Monkey∴Hello 07:43, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
QE2 (album)

QE2 is the sixth studio album by Mike Oldfield, released in 1980 on Virgin Records. The album was named after the ocean liner Queen Elizabeth 2.

The album contained both original Oldfield compositions as well as two cover versions of pieces recorded by other bands ("Arrival" by ABBA and "Wonderful Land" by The Shadows).

Though only reaching number twelve on the German album charts, the album became the best-selling album of 1981 in Germany.

Album analysis
The longest tracks on the album are "Taurus I" and the title track, "QE2", lasting 10 minutes and 7 minutes respectively. Some years later The Shadows responded to Oldfield's cover of "Wonderful Land", by releasing a cover of Oldfield's "Moonlight Shadow". The cover songs were released as singles.

The album was the first Oldfield album to feature Maggie Reilly as a collaborator. Some tracks on the album feature vocals sung through vocoder. "Conflict" has an excerpt from J. S. Bach’s "Badinerie" (the last part of Bach's Orchestral Suite No. 2 in B Minor). The lyrics for "Celt" were written by Tim Cross.

"Molly" was made for his daughter, Molly Oldfield, who would later play keyboards on The Songs of Distant Earth and play a part in the Songs for Survival project.

The European Adventure Tour 1981, which ran from March to August of that year, was in promotion of the album.

Album title and artwork
The album and its title track were named after the then 11-year-old Cunard Line ocean liner Queen Elizabeth 2. The album cover design appears to be a close-up of the side of the ship, complete with Plimsoll Line in the lower left corner. The first pressing even had a porthole cut out in the sleeve. The inside of the original foldout LP sleeve featured a schematic of one of the Queen Elizabeth 2's decks as well as a stylised picture of her engine; these have not been reprinted in later reissues, except for the 2012 reissue by Mercury Records on CD and LP, which reinstates all the elements of the original artwork with the exception of the cut-out porthole.

Side one

 * 1) "Taurus I" (Mike Oldfield) – 10:16
 * 2) "Sheba" (Oldfield) – 3:33
 * 3) "Conflict" (Oldfield) – 2:53
 * 4) "Arrival" (Benny Andersson, Björn Ulvaeus) – 2:48

Side two

 * 1) "Wonderful Land" (Jerry Lordan) – 3:38
 * 2) "Mirage" (Oldfield) – 4:41
 * 3) "QE2" (Oldfield, David Hentschel) – 7:38
 * 4) "Celt" (Oldfield, Tim Cross) – 3:06
 * 5) "Molly" (Oldfield) – 1:15

On the original vinyl label of the album, the title piece, "QE2" is listed as two tracks, "QE2" by Oldfield/Hentschel and "QE2 Finale" by Oldfield, but gives their running time as a single piece.

Reissue
The album was re-released by Mercury Records on 30 July 2012. This came as part of a deal in which Oldfield's Virgin albums were transferred to the label. It was released on the same day as Platinum and a year after the last Universal reissue of Incantations.

The first disc is the original recording remastered with bonus material, and the second disc (available in the deluxe edition) is a live concert recorded at the time of the album's original release. The concert was recorded in April 1981 in Essen during Oldfield's European Adventure Tour.

Disc 1
 * 1) "Taurus 1" (2012 remaster) 10:16
 * 2) "Sheba" (2012 remaster) 3:32
 * 3) "Conflict" (2012 remaster) 2:48
 * 4) "Arrival" (2012 remaster) 2:45
 * 5) "Wonderful Land" (2012 remaster) 3:37
 * 6) "Mirage" (2012 remaster) 4:39
 * 7) "QE2" (2012 remaster) 7:37
 * 8) "Celt" (2012 remaster) 3:03
 * 9) "Molly" (2012 remaster) 1:16
 * 10) "Polka" 3:34
 * 11) "Wonderful Land" (Single version) 2:50
 * 12) "Shiva" 3:34

Disc 2 – Live from the European Adventure Tour
 * 1) "Taurus 1" 11:11
 * 2) "Sheba" 3:28
 * 3) "Mirage" 5:01
 * 4) "Conflict" 5:16
 * 5) "Ommadawn" 21:45
 * 6) "Punkadiddle" 5:24
 * 7) "Tubular Bells (Part One)" 18:30
 * 8) "QE2" 4:55
 * 9) "Portsmouth" 2:28

Personnel

 * Mike Oldfield – Acoustic guitar, African drums, banjo, bass guitar, Celtic harp, drum machine, electric guitar, mandolin, marimbas, percussion, piano, rhythm sticks, Spanish guitar, synthesizers, timpani, vibraphone, vocoder, and vocals
 * English Chorale – vocals
 * Guy Barker – trumpet
 * Phil Collins – drums
 * Tim Cross – piano, synthesizers
 * Raul D'Olivera – trumpet
 * Mike Frye – African drums, Vocoder, drums, timpani, hi-hat
 * David Hentschel – synthesizers, drums, vocals, horn arrangement
 * Paul Nieman – trombone
 * Morris Pert – drums
 * Maggie Reilly – vocals
 * Dick Studt – strings
 * Philip Todd – tenor saxophone
 * David Bedford - string and choir arrangements
 * Technical
 * Simon Johnston – assistant engineer
 * Peter Greenslade – assistant engineers
 * Richard Barrie – technical advice

title: QE2 (album)


text:
Lasse Lehtinen

Lasse Lehtinen (born 23 January 1947 in Kotka) is a Finnish politician, former Member of the Finnish Parliament and former Member of the European Parliament (MEP). He is a member of the Social Democratic Party of Finland, which is part of the Party of European Socialists, and sat on the European Parliament's Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection.

He was also a substitute for the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, vice-chair of the delegation for relations with Canada, and a substitute for the delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation.

He hosted the Finnish version of the television quiz Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (Haluatko miljonääriksi?) for years before becoming an MEP. At the beginning of the 2000s he was among the contributors of the Kanava magazine.

Lehtinen was awarded the Freedom of the City of London on 21 September 2007. See: City of London news release.

Career

 * Doctor of Philosophy (2002)
 * Journalist (since 1962)
 * Diplomat (1983-1990)
 * Senior Vice-President, Corporate Affairs (1990-1993)
 * Writer and television producer (1993-2004)
 * Member, Kuopio town council (1968-1980)
 * Member of Parliament (1972-1983)

title: Lasse Lehtinen


text:
Reino Paasilinna

Reino Paasilinna (5 December 1939 – 21 July 2022) was a Finnish politician who served as a Member of the European Parliament (MEP). He was a member of the Social Democratic Party of Finland, which is part of the Party of European Socialdemocrats. He was in the European Parliament from 1996 to 2009, and sat on the Parliament's Committee on Industry, Research and Energy.

He was also a substitute for the Committee on Culture and Education, vice-chair of the delegation to the EU–Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee, and a substitute for the delegation for relations with the countries of Central America.

Early life and education
Reino Paasilinna was born on Aunus, a ship on the Arctic Ocean, on the coast of Norway, where the Paasilinna family fled during the Winter War. His family is from Petsamo but they moved to Kittilä because the Soviet Union invaded Petsamo during the Winter War. The writers Erno, Mauri and Arto Paasilinna were his brothers.

He earned a Master's degree in social sciences (1974), a postgraduate degree in social sciences (1989) and a doctorate in social sciences (1995).

Career

 * TV journalist, director and editor (1961–1974)
 * Chairman, Union of Radio and Television Journalists (1967–1969)
 * Press secretary and adviser at Finnish embassies in Moscow and Washington, D.C. (1974–1983)
 * Member, Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) (1983–1989)
 * Member of Parliament (1983–1989 and 1995–1996)
 * Member of the board and Vice-chairman of Elisa Communications (1988–2002)
 * Director-General (last) and Chairman of Yleisradio (1990–1994)
 * Vice-chairman, International Radio and Television Organisation and Vice-chairman, European Broadcasting Union (1992–1994)
 * Chairman, Board of Governors of Euronews (1992–1994)
 * Vice-chairman, Committee on the Future (1995–1996)
 * Member of Finland's delegation to the Council of Europe (1995–1996)
 * Member of the European Parliament (1996-2009)
 * Member, Helsinki City Council (1998–1999)
 * Chairman, PSE Group Working Party on the Information Society (1998-)

Awards

 * Commander of the Order of the Lion of Finland (1995)

title: Reino Paasilinna


text:
Riitta Myller

Riitta Myller (born 12 July 1956 in Joensuu, North Karelia) is a Finnish politician and former Member of the European Parliament (MEP). She is a member of the Social Democratic Party of Finland, which is part of the Party of European Socialists, and sat on the European Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.

She was also a substitute for the Committee on Regional Development, a member of the delegation for relations with the Gulf States, including Yemen, and a substitute for the delegation to the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly.

Myller was a member from January 1995 to July 2009.

Career

 * Master's degree in social sciences
 * Freelance journalist, Yleisradio (1983-1987)
 * Member, Joensuu Town Council (1980-1995)
 * Member of Parliament (1987-1994)
 * posts held in the Finnish Parliament
 * member, Transport Committee (1987-1990 and 1991-1994)
 * member, Grand Committee (1987-1990 and 1993-1994)
 * member, Environment Committee (1991-1994)
 * Member of the Finnish group in the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) (1990-1994)
 * Member of the European Parliament (since 1995)
 * Vice-chairwoman of the PSE Group (1997-2004)
 * Member, EP Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-2004) and substitute member (1995-1999)
 * substitute member, Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (1999-2004)
 * substitute member, Temporary Committee of Inquiry into BSE (1997)
 * substitute member, Temporary Committee on Human Genetics (2001-2002)
 * member, Temporary Committee on Improving Safety at Sea (2003-2004)
 * member, Committee on Regional Policy (1995-1999)

title: Riitta Myller


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty pirate

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 20:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dirty pirate
There is nothing more I can say. Samaritan 05:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. --MarkSweep 06:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't belong here. also dict-def, non-notable and non-sense. RJFJR 06:17, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Made up terminology. Mgm|(talk) 09:42, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not even anatomically possible, as it would require that both the perpetrator and victim be simultaneously laying down and standing up. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 13:08, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, prank, vanity neologism, borderline speedy. Wyss 19:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ooh, rather imaginative. Gross, but imaginative.  I recall a bunch of similar "how-to" articles a few months back.  Most were deleted.  Shiver me timbers and delete this too, mateys!  Avast, ye scurvy scum! - Lucky 6.9 00:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Spinboy 23:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Of course it's possible! The victim would have to be squating as the perpetrator would be standing and facing him/her, thus the possible ejaculation into the eye because the penis and eyes are at the same level.  Then, you can kick them in the shin.  So it can be done.  But it's sick and wrong, so get rid of this.  Frank12
 * Delete. Sounds like something that should be on Urbandictionary.com
 * Delete. unless a parrot could be worked in there somewhere :)  --Monk Bretton 23:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text: Portal:Visual arts/Things you can do

title: Portal:Visual arts/Things you can do


text:
Talk:Emmanuel, comte de Las Cases

Name
This guy's name can be written a hundred different ways, and there seems to be confusion about whether "marquis" or "comte" is appropriate. "Emmanuel, comte de Las Cases" mostly follows present-day EB (we don't translate "comte" into "count"), which seems as good a choice as any. Stan 05:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Napoleon learning french
This was known from the publicaiton of the Memorial de Sainte Helene. It's not a new fact which came out recently as argued by some people.

Works now at project gutenberg
Please see: TP: The Memorial of Saint Helena - Text at Project Gutenberg--89.204.153.232 (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC) ✅

title: Talk:Emmanuel, comte de Las Cases


text:
Talk:WAM

I'd like to change this to a disambiguation page, with pointers both to the Warren Abstract Machine article and to the Wet and messy fetishism article. Any comments? --Jay (Histrion) 05:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:WAM


text:
Talk:Warren Abstract Machine

I'd like to change the WAM redirection to a disambiguation page, with pointers both to the Warren Abstract Machine article and to the Wet and messy fetishism article. Any comments? --Jay (Histrion) 05:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Warren Abstract Machine