text:
Talk:Prince Nicholas Romanov

Untitled
A membership in the "patronage committee" of Almanach de Gotha does not mean that one necessarily is head of the house. Has anyone checked the actual contents of AdG??? Sjostrom 23:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And, I must warn that the AdG today is not highly authoritative. It is not the same as the AdG of same name in 1800's. It is even possible it recognizes headship of house because someone supports it in patronage committee and so on.

Almanach de Gotha does recognize Nicholas Romanov as Head of the Imperial Family
In answer to the first question above, the actual text of the "revived" Almanach de Gotha recognizes Nicholas Romanov as the rightful head of the Imperial House of Russia (Romanov). This has been true of all editions issued since 1998. I do not know how to post the actual written text here, but anyone can consult a copy in a library. Certainly the new version of the Gotha leaves much to be desired. I am not sure, however, that the original was actually any better. Such publications are always dependent to some extend on their patrons. The value of such things is very much in the eye of the beholder. Whatever its faults, it is difficult to dismiss the Gotha as irrelevant when one considers that it enjoys the support of H.M. King Juan Carlos of Spain and and representatives of most of the former Royal families of Europe. In the end, it is a well-known reference source with a reputation as the arbiter of all things "Royal." As such, the Gotha's support of Nicholas is certainly relevant to an article about him. Noting that support is particularly important in light of the fact that most wikipedia articles on the Romanovs after 1917 tend to support Grand Duchess Maria and dismiss Nicholas. Reading the article on Grand Duchess Maria,I would assume that the Romanov Family Association consisted solely of Nicholas and that he was the only one to doubt Maria's claims. That is not the case so noting the position of the Gotha is certainly relevant as a counter-balance. By the way, if you search the internet for information on the Russian Succession you find that most of the "expert" opinions circulating in support of Grand Duchess Maria's claim were actually written by or rely on the work of her personal lawyer, Brien Horan. Is he a more reliable source than the Gotha? Would anyone really expect Maria's family lawyer to write articles questioning her rights? By the way, if wikipedia is supposed to be neutral why is the article on one claimant titled "Nicholas Romanov" and the article on the other titled "Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia?" At best, the succession is disputed and neither one actually rules Russia or has any prospect of living in the Kremlin. --64.12.116.66 08:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I cannot regard AdG as high arbiter of anything. It is a register. I trust usually on its data on dates: births and so on. Claims to thrones are hopefully to be decided elsewhere. Personally, I would prefer the article Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia to be moved and titled as Maria Vladimirovna of Russia, since we should not use nobility titles in article titles - in my opinion. Perhaps we can give her that "of Russia", not forcing her to "Maria Romanov" as those people did not use surnames in the pre-revolution era. (She claims to be "of Russia", be it properly "grand duchess" or "princess". Her equivalents did not use surname Romanov. Whereas those from so-called morganatic marriages, as Nicholas, use them often.) Her claims should be stated/ explained in the article text, not in the title.

There have been allegations that RFA is one-person lead, where a bunch of others are passive, and several bunches of others are not with. The names of ölast-mentioned category are used in membership lists, but it is not acceptable. Membership in an association is based on voluntary joining, no one should be regarded as member without own expressed desire. These points should be explained when pleading the "authority" of RFA.

Membership of a house is based on genealogy, and it is certainly no association. It is not voluntary, but it neither forces those individuals to other memberships. And, membership of a house usually is not regarded as entitled to choose the head of the house.

I am not appreciative of Nicholas' claims. It is highly true that no proper order of succession puts him first.

Nor am I very supportive of Maria's claims. I cannot appreciate that her father regarded himself as the only entitled to marry a princess of subjugated family. I accept that he was entitled to marry, but his marriage should be treated according to same criteria as marriages of others.

I cannot regard the claim of anyone in that house and its descendants as number one over all others. Therefore, no one cannot be treated here as self-evident, uncontestable heir.

One of the reasons is that as dynasty law was changed by whim, the Russian tradition shuld also be taken into account. Russian rulers succeeded in old tradition by line "from brother to next brother". Russians may feel also that sort of succession as natural.

Regarding the authoritativeness of any expert opinions or such, I believe that most people can see the truth and value and weight of all those arguments when seeing the arguments neutrally explained. The truth, of course, to which I have arrived, is that no one is fully entitled to succeed because of some problems in each one's claims, but a handful of persons have a claim which could be sufficient. Identify such persons and let the possible Russian monarchists to group themselves behind whomever they value highest. If one of those groups ever succeeds in restoring monarchy, good luck.

Do you happen to be Nichols Romanov's supporter? 62.78.124.63 19:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I consider this article to be quite biased and poorly written. The truth is that no one alive today meets the criteria for succession in place before the Revolution. That includes Grand Duchess Maria, not least because the throne could not pass to or through a woman. Prince Nicholas, who has made it clear that he understands this and would have no interest in the throne for himself or his descendants were it to be revived, has correctly pointed out that Maria is not in a position to claim that she and her son George possess inheritance rights that the other family members do not. This article should not, in any case, involve a debate on who is or isn't "the rightful heir" but rather biographical facts only. A separate article on the "Russian Succession" should discuss these matters.

Introduction
I think we should style Romanov in the introduction as His Highness Prince Roman Petrovich of Russia, and then later clarify this style is somewhat unconventional. My reasoning for this is that Maria Vladimirovna's article introduces her with an Imperial title, even though her title is as disputed as Nicholas's. I'm changing it now; if anyone has an objection, please feel free to change it back and leave a comment here on the issue. --Matjlav 01:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Roman Petrovich was known as HH Prince RP of Russia, and I believe his two sons were also styled this way. I think it's correct to keep Nicholas at HH Prince Nicholas Romanovitch. Morhange 04:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Roman Petrovich (who is not the individual of this article) was conventionally Prince of Russia. The unconventionality is that his (allegedly morganatic) son Nicholas, the individual of THIS article, also uses the title Prince of Russia (see his website). I agree that both Maria and this Nicholas should be treated symmterically as to their title of pretension and therefore this article should be Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia. Shilkanni 17:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Almanach de Gotha
The Almanach de Gotha recognises Nicholas Romanov as head Imperial House of Romanov - FACT. It’s so called lack of reliability does nothing to affect the FACT that it recognises him as the head of the House.-dwc lr 15:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm going to withhold my comments on intelligence and possible substance abuse because they would breach WP:NPA. Seriously, what are you thinking? How about we admit the Almanach de Saxe-Gotha and "Prince Karl Fredericke von Deutschland" for Christ's sake. Absolutely and frightfully unbelievable. Charles 15:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The Almanach de Gotha recognises him as head of the house that statement is a fact -it does. One minute you ask for a reference and when one is provided you don't like it. Why not remove the statement when you first came across it if you think the Gotha is unreliable which is irrelevant because the fact is it recognises him as head of the house. - dwc lr  —The preceding  signed but undated.
 * As close as I may come to it, I'm not perfect. Close, but definitely not perfect. Now, however, I have done the right thing and removed the reference. I mistakenly thought it was a reference to The Almanach de Gotha, not the cheap, new rag by the same name. Charles 16:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment
The Almanach de Gotha recognises Nicholas Romanov as the head of the Imperial House of Romanov. This is not a pov statement saying he is the head of the house just that the Almanach de Gotha regards him as such. Its inclusion in the article is disputed. - dwc lr 18:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

 * As I've said, as Noel S McFerran has said, as Guy Stair Sainty's essay says, and as all other royal genealogists have said, the "new" "Almanach de Gotha" is, more or less and in as many words, literally garbage and not a reputable source to cite. Charles 18:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Whether or not the “new” Almanach de Gotha is “literally garbage” as you put it recognises him as head of the Imperial House that is a FACT in the Gotha he is listed as the head of the house. Please I know it extremely difficult for you to not push your pov on articles but facts are facts and mentioning that the Gotha recognises him as head of the house is a legitimate statement. - dwc lr 18:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

 * If I were to push my POV on these articles, you would surely know it. The act of you accusing me of being a POV-monger is no better, and is worse, than what you accuse me of because you are taking it upon yourself to comment on me as a person. Your Wikipedia where anything is admitted as a reliable (note that word!) source would be a Wikipedia few people would want to read. Wikipedia already has it tough as it is without needing to rely on the unreliable! Tell me, honestly, is the new Gotha reliable? Does it equal the Gothas up to 1944? Really. Charles 18:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I’m well aware of you pushing your pov like when you tired to stop Nicholas Romanov being listed as a successor to Vladimir Cyrillovich. I see you repeated your claim about Nicholas Romanov admitting he is not a dynast at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in spite of the fact that you only have to look at the article Russian Imperial Succession by Brien Purcell Horan, (Vladimir Cyrillovich‘s personal lawyer) which is used as a reference in the article, to know ignorant that statement is. On the reliability of the Gotha, well you didn’t have a problem with it until recently. But then you say that you “mistakenly thought it was a reference to The Almanach de Gotha, not the cheap, new rag by the same name“. so you thought that the Nicholas Romanov was accepted as the head of the House of Romanov in 1944? didn’t think so. - dwc lr 00:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

 * People make errors, except you, apparently. Charles 00:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed that the current "Almanach de Gotha", published under the direction of John Kennedy, asserts that Prince Nicholas Romanov is Head of the Imperial House of Russia. Nonetheless there are several problems with citing it as a reliable or authoritative source in this article:

 * 1) The "Almanach de Gotha" that has been using that name since 1998 is not the same publication that was world-renowned for nearly two centuries under that name until ceasing publication in 1944. Nor is it the publication that most genealogists and monarchists referred to after 1950 and at least until 1998 as "the Gotha": That publication is the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels. The Kennedy Almanach has been embroiled in public controversy for the means by which it acquired the original Gotha's name Inclusion of Kennedy's endorsement of a particular Romanov pretender lends Prince Nicholas undue credence because of name association, prompting readers to believe he was recognized as rightful heir by the original Gotha which is not true.
 * 2) The Kennedy Almanach is held in notoriously low regard for the excessive number of errors it contains. More genealogists, monarchists and other knowledgeable users appear to have expressed lack of confidence in its reliability than otherwise.
 * 3) On the Russian succession in particular, the Kennedy Gotha became controversial prior to first publication. By contrast, in 1968 the Handbuch included Maria Vladimirovna Romanov in its dynastic entry on Russia as "Grand Duchess". The Handbuch excluded Nicholas Romanovich Romanov from that entry, and listed him in its third section on the non-dynastic princely family of Romanov. As is customary once internal disputes among descendants of dynastic families come to its attention, the Handbuch omits further entries on that dynasty until the matter is resolved by the family -- rather than foist its own interpretation upon readers. So the 1968 entry was the last to be published in the Handbuch. There is no consensus on the sometimes bitter disputes among royalist pretenders and their supporters. All the more reason to tread carefully in this area, if at all. But Kennedy's Gotha gives the appearance of making inexplicable decisions in recognizing pretenders engaged in dynastic disputes, giving rise to the suspicion that those decisions are made unilaterally and arbitrarily by publisher Kennedy. He is alleged not to follow any consistent formula for his endorsements (such as heeding the advice of an editorial board, research body, or the last monarch's designations), and/or to have come to the data with pre-existing bias. Lethiere 05:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Charles, why can't we do the same in this article with regard to the mention of the gotha?.-dwc lr 13:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Do it if you want, but the reason for that citation, rather than removal, is because all hell will possibly break loose if certain editors find issue with it (this relates to your note at the ANB regarding another user and myself). The fact that it is present in that article (I don't think it should be, but I explained that) has no bearing on this article and the use of it to substantiate a name change won't work since the citation for the citation (!!) essentially nullifies its use. An extreme example of the case is, "A is a lie, but A supports B so B must be true". Charles 13:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Kennedy Gotha on dynastic claims
Kennedy's Almanach de Gotha (published 1998-2004) does not have a reputation as a reliable source on dynastic facts in general, and not in the specific case of the rivalry over the defunct Romanov throne. It can't properly be cited in Wikipedia as grounds for the assertion that he is the "senior" member of the Romanov family, for five reasons: 1. Nicholas is an admitted rival with Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia (and perhaps others) for headship of the Romanov dynasty, and the Kennedy Gotha is being cited in a way that tends to bolster his claim relative to hers in that rivalry 2. The Kennedy book has a reputation for being inaccurate which, in a reference work -- whose only function is as an authority on dynastic data -- renders it unreliable ipso facto 3. The datum for which this book is cited relates to headship of the House of Romanov, yet the Kennedy book's stance on that issue has been questioned. Specifically, how and why it makes the claim that it does has been the subject of an open, online dispute among genealogists, monarchists, and historians such that there are at least two contradictory allegations about the provenance of its position, one claiming that the book's editor was told the information authoritatively by Nicholas and his brother, the other that the book's allegation derives from the publisher's a priori bias. How are we to know who to believe about the book's contents? Since the Kennedy book is cited as source of the claim that two votes were taken declaring Nicholas Romanov the "senior" member of the Romanov family by the Romanoff Family Association, yet that Association's website states that its by-laws have always forbidden it to take sides concerning dynastic claims to Russia's defunct throne, what was the meaning and purpose of the vote? The allegation of such a vote is an extraordinary claim for which Wikipedia requires extraordinary substantiation -- beyond what can be provided by a source with a reputation for inaccuracy. 5. Wikipedia's rule is that the burden of substantiating the reliability of a challenged source rests upon the person who cites it, not upon those who challenge it; I called for an unrelated, reputable source to verify the claims for which the Kennedy book is cited, yet no back-up source has been offered. Therefore the Kennedy book can't be deemed reliable in this instance or acceptable for this purpose. Surely there's got to be a better source that we can agree is reliable for these two claims? FactStraight (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes there are two people who claim the headship, Nicholas Romanovich and Maria Vladimirovna I have provided numerous references showing him refer to himself as head of the dynasty/Imperial Family as I have been told that he "admits that he is not a dyanst" by another user on Wikipedia. The Gotha is used for two dates for Nicholas Romanovich being recognised by the RFA as senior male and the Gotha website is used saying it recognises his as head of the house why have you removed that, why were you asking for another source just to say that in the Gotha he is listed as the head?
 * With all due respect your saying the Gotha is an unreliable sources and your citing from a newsgroup posting! we can all do that It doesn't sound like its particularly unreliable and that nothing can be trusted within its pages to me but its a rather wasted exercise as its not like we can use it as a source. Most of what you've posted is from discussions (gossip and hearsay) on Alt Talk Royalty and you appear to be familiar with WP:RS so I imagine you don't need me to tell you that a newsgroup posting is most certainly not a reliable source. I have first hand experience here on Wikipedia of someone citing from a posting on this newsgroup before and they were mislead as the information in the posting was utterly wrong.
 * "Kennedy book's stance on that issue has been questioned" again a posting from a newsgroup. Guy Stair Sainty has published on his website an argument in favour of the claims of Maria Vladimirovna so no wonder he is upset considering he supports her claims. How and why it takes the stance it does may well have been the "subject of an open, online dispute among genealogists, monarchists, and historians" that is what newsgroups, forums, message boards are for but there not acceptable sources. One could question why the Gotha takes the stance it does regarding the Houses of Lippe or Bonaparte it's irrelevant though here on Wikipedia the disputes are noted with regards to those houses (and Romanov). But really though, it takes a stance on an issue so what? What does it matter?
 * I'm surprised you consider it an "extraordinary" claim regarding the recognition (The Romanov Family Association list the Almanach de Gotha in there Select Bibliography) but I am aware of other sources but as far as I'm aware the reference given is perfectly acceptable. Indeed I have cited from it in other articles, I don't know if you would consider them "extraordinary" claims as I'm surprised you do in this case so you never know. - dwc lr (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My fundamental objection, as we've discussed at Talk: Almanach de Gotha, is to the misappropriation of the gravitas of the original Almanach de Gotha -- which built up a par excellence reputation for dynastic accuracy & authoritativeness over a period of nearly 250 years -- by and for the Kennedy version (published 1998-2004) which is riddled with errors and anomalies to a degree that is notoriously inconsistent with the original's reputation. Here it strikes me that the original's reputation is again being misused to bolster a claim supported by Kennedy's Gotha in direct opposition to the position taken in the original Gotha's final publication (1944), as well as in opposition to the position taken (in 1968) by the publication which is widely considered by genealogists and monarchists to be the Gotha's real successor, the Fürstliche Hauser series of the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels. The point is not that Nicholas's claim is untenable, but that the Kennedy AdG has no business being cited in Wikipedia in support of that claim.
 * Newsgroup commentaries in general may not be cited in Wiki articles to substantiate an allegation, but there is no ban on their use as sources of information on the reliabilty of published sources. Whether or not a source is reliable is significantly dependent upon its reputation among experts & scholars. Alt.Talk.Royalty (ATR) happens to be where several of them have expressed their opinion on the source in question. In this case, ATR (and gen.medieval.genealogy and, perhaps, rec.heraldry) was, until a few years ago, a place where some of the most respected and published royal genealogists and monarchists habitually analyzed and debated royalty-related matters. Your ATR cite, above, of the distinguished royal genealogist William A. Reitwiesner is a perfectly germane and valid defense of Kennedy's Gotha. The problem is that WAR's opinion is outnumbered by most other reputable genealogists who've expressed an opinion. Most not only consider Kennedy's Gotha unacceptably error-prone, but several have enumerated examples of inaccuracy, sloppiness and unprofessionalism. Posted on ATR immediately above the Reitwiesner comment to which you chose to link, is a typical critical comment by the much respected royal genealogist Daniel Willis, whose works are often cited in Wikipedia's royalty articles.
 * Experts often disagree with a non-fiction work's conclusions while still considering it a reputable effort. That is not the case with the Kennedy Gotha, which is criticized predominantly for excessive errors of fact. Still, if you dismiss Guy Stair Sainty's critique of the book as biased because he disagrees with its entry on the Romanovs (although he contributed to many of its other articles), you must also dimiss William A. Reitwiesner's -- who also contributed to the book and minimizes criticisms of it because it takes what he calls a "non-standard" position on Russia's dynastic rivalry. That only cancels out two "critics". But Kennedy's Gotha has also been rejected as a reputable source by several regular editors of Wiki's royalty articles (see here and here and here), whereas its reliability has been asserted mostly by, well, you. We're all entitled to our opinions, but this work's reliability has been sufficiently challenged that other less disputed sources should be relied upon -- particularly to substantiate controversial claims -- rather than an attempt be made to compel acceptance of this particular source.
 * The peculiarity of the Kennedy Gotha's reference to the status of Prince Nicholas is illustrated by the alternative sources given above to substantiate Kennedy's usage: neither, in fact, does so. Kennedy's Gotha states that the Prince was twice elected as "senior male representative" of the Romanoff Family Association (in which he already held the elected office of president) by that organization's members. But the Belgian Knights Templar website (and, in self-contradiction, the Kennedy Gotha's website) states rather that he was chosen "head of the imperial house" (chef de la maison impériale), while the French Genroy website says that he was chosen "claimant to the Russian throne" (prétendant au trône de Russie). Yet these are 3 different assertions. The confusion was inevitable (and deliberate?) given the vagueness of the phrase "senior male representative", which sounds like the usual term for a dynastic and genealogical concept/position which is, however, inherited and to which one cannot be elected. That's why extraordinary substantiation for this "election" is called for, given the Association's by-laws forbidding it from favoring any one claimant to the Russian throne.
 * Finally, in light of the above challenges to the Kennedy Gotha's reliability as a source, the burden of evidence in defence of its suitability as a Wikipedia source rests upon whoever cites it -- not its challengers. Asserting that one personally considers it reliable is neither convincing nor sufficient. FactStraight (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I really don't see the point of talking about newsgroup postings or citing them like you've done again. This is about what you regard as an "exceptional claim" so if I was call that at any time I would expect numerous sources but like I said before I'm amazed you consider this issue with two dates one. The RFA themselves recommend the Almanach de Gotha on there website for people interested in finding out more about the Imperial Family. You know most Romanov's were in Russia in July 1998. What is the comment by Daniel Willis in the newsgroup you want me to take note that its not "entirely horrible" very damming indeed. I imagine I could go and find positive comments on the work but what's the point it's makes no difference here on wikipedia what is posted on there. I've posted at WP:RS.Noticeboard no one there has said it can't be cited in general I will continue to do so if someone disputes something and uses the "exceptional claim" card I will have to look for alternatives these books are not banned as a reference. I'm pleased you mentioned Borwin of Mecklenburg a good example I imagine of why Wikipedia doesn't allow newsgroup postings to be cited. Even the Gotha has the right information. As for the section above you linked, what is cited again, that's right it's Alt Talk Royalty and Sainty's self published review of Vol 2.

 * The reference to the Gotha recognising him was originally added in the very first edit three years ago ( when the page was created). User:Charles asked for a citation regarding such recognition I using the wayback machine gave it to him . He then decided that all though he requested the cite, actually he would like to remove all reference to it . A bit like he tried to remove any cite request relating to the claims of Grand Duchess Maria. Anyway he later said the Gotha reference can be included so the consensus was that it can be included so I don't see a problem. Finally with all due respect you've "dismissed" it as a source by citing from postings on a newsgroup. You can spend all day digging out posts to support your position, indeed we both can, but what difference does that make? none.  - dwc lr (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In the real world, Maria is head of the Romanov family, end of story. This guy is a little Wikipedia hero, tsar of his Web site. Gotha is what the nobles used to figure out who could dance with who back in the 19th century. There are serious scholarly sources for this stuff, The Romanovs: the Final Chapter by Robert Massie, or The Flight of the Romanovs: a Family Saga by John Curtis Perry and Constantine V. Pleshakov. Kauffner (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)b
 * As good as a dynatsic arbitrator as someone at the Telegraph is, actually in 'real world' there is a very real and well publicised dispute as to who is head of the family. As you have mentioned Massie lets see what he actually says. About Nicholas Romanovich he says he is the “head of the family” and the person “most living Romanovs accept as the legitimate pretender to the throne” Maria he says “sees herself as pretender to the throne”. - dwc lr (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's given in quotation marks. I assume Massie is quoting Nicholas' PR girl. It is hard to be sure who it is from the online version of the book. But it certainly isn't Massie's own opinion. Kauffner (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes because I was quoting Massie. In the book there are of course no quotation marks that's is what he himself feels and has chosen to write. - dwc lr (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In the book, there are quotation marks. I'm not sure who he is quoting, but this is definitely not Massie giving his own opinion. Kauffner (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are quotation marks where Massie is actually quoting someone. The statements I gave are what Massie has himself written by his own hand. - dwc lr (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We are talking about page 203, right? "I have a client who wishes and deserves to be heard," she said. "I have just heard from Prince Nicholas Romanov, the head of the Romanov Family Association, whom most living Romanovs accept as the legitimate pretender to the throne." My interpretation is that a PR person who worked for Nicholas contacted Massie and gave him this little self-promotional pitch. Kauffner (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok yeah sorry that part is quote from someone. On page 136 though, for the other quotes, they are Massie's own words. - dwc lr (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Kauffner is right that, when Massie writes, on p.203 of the hardback version of "The Romanovs: The Final Chapter" "I have just heard from Prince Nicholas Romanov, the head of the Romanov Family Association, whom most living Romanovs accept as the legitimate pretender to the throne", that is not Massie speaking. He is quoting a lawyer, Ms. Lindsey Crawford of Andrews & Kurth, addressing a judge on 1 November 1993 in Washington, D.C., who is conducting a hearing to rule on whether tissue samples of the late Anastasia Manahan (aka Anna Anderson), were to be made available for DNA testing. Crawford was representing the interests in the case, if any, of two clients: the said Prince Nicholas Romanov and the Russian Nobility Association. Later, Prince Nicholas, who was then living in Rome, decided not to pursue the matter further. So Crawford was describing the client who was paying her to appear in court, briefly, on his behalf that day. What Massie himself writes about him in the book, on p.274, is: "Prince Nicholas Romanov, recognized by everyone in his family except Maria and Leonida as head of the Imperial house...if Grand Duchess Maria is not the legitimate pretender to the Russian throne, then Nicholas Romanov, now seventy-three, occupies that position. His parents married unequally; so, also, in his opinion, did Maria's parents." Of Maria Vladimirovna he writes, on page 270, "The family argument about who is and is not qualified to claim a nonexitent throne, who is or is not a grand duke, a prince, or a Romanov is fueled by bitterness on both sides, but the more aggressive hostility has come from Cyril, Leonida, Vladimir, and Maria. Since the revolution, there has been no claimant or line of claimants other than this branch of the family. For them, this has not been enough. They have demanded acquiescence and support for their claim, and when these are denied they have retaliated." Although he clearly likes Prince Nicholas and dislikes Grand Duchess Maria, both of whom he interviewed, at no point in the book does Massie offer his own opinion of the relative validity of either's claim. FactStraight (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move June 2011

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

The result of the move request was: page not moved to the suggested title per discussion. It's possible there's a better name than the current one, perhaps including the patronymic, but it would be best to have a separate conversation about that, as this discussion has not produced a clear consensus for any particular title. - GTBacchus(talk) 17:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia → Nicholas Romanov – Relisted. There appears to be no current consensus for this move, but there may be consensus for an alternative such as "Nicholas Romanovich Romanov". Ucucha 13:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC) He was born 5 years after the end of the russian monarchy so logically can not be a prince. Dbpjmuf (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose always known by a title and indeed uses one himself. - dwc lr (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Unlike Henry, Count of Chambord, this would appear to be a courtesy, not a substantive, title. (Note that we do not call Henry HRH nor Son Altesse Royale.) It does not disambiguate. Let there be proof that he "is always known by it" - even in sources independent of the Romanov dynasty  and its partisans - and we can consider the matter; this will be difficult; a search finds no printed sources (except Wikipedia mirrors), which call him Nicholas, Prince of Russia at all.   Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What evidnece is there for 'plain' "Nicholas Romanov"? Name, Title is the form he uses for himself. If someone wanted to find information on him through Google I doubt they would search for "Nicholas Romanov" which would give you worthless results most likely about the last Emperor. A Google news archive or book search will show he is known as something like 'Prince Nicholas/Nikolai Romanov/Romanoff', a title is used. - dwc lr (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But neither of those is the present title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The present title is what he uses himself Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia. At any rate I very much doubt he is the primary use for plain 'Nicholas Romanov'. - dwc lr (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We are not here to adopt the subject's POV. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose I prefer "Nicholas Romanov" to remain the disambiguation page as there are other people called that, some very famous. Instead of the current title, I would prefer "Nicholas Romanovich Romanov" as his real name, or "Prince Nicholas Romanov" as his common name. DrKay (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Nicholas Romanovich Romanov" is a very sensible suggestion; we usually use patronymics for Russians. Certainly he is not primary for Nicholas Romanov, but most of the Romanovs are disambiguated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose see WP:COMMONNAME. Shatter Resistance (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please provide some evidence that this is his common name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are more than eight notable Nicholas Romanovs, many of whom are far more notable than this guy. Softlavender (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Well put. The original proposal is just plain silly. The DAB should stay right where it is (and am I missing something or should this have been a multiple move with a heads-up to the DAB talk page anyway?). Andrewa (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose The primary topic for "Nicholas Romanov" is either the last tsar or a fitness guru, certainly not this person. The only place on Google books where he is called "Prince of Russia" is in an article that he wrote himself. So I'd say this page needs to be moved. Either title suggested by DrKay is fine with me. "Prince Nicholas Romanov" -Wikipedia" gets 69 post-1980 Google Book hits, plus one hit each for the variants "Prince Nicholas Romanovich Romanoff" -Wikipedia and "Prince Nicholas Romanovich Romanov" -Wikipedia. No examples of "Nicholas Romanovich Romanov" sans prince. Kauffner (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Prince of Russia
My understanding is we left "prince of Russia" in the title to disambiguate this person from the last tsar, not because anyone thought it is was part of his name, or even argued that it was a correct title. A disambiguator certainly doesn't belong in the opening. If you pull open his Swiss passport, do you think it will say, "prince of Russia"? I don't see anything in the New York Times article that would suggest that "prince" is part of his name. It is not a title of nobility if it is not recognized by law. Did he exercise his prerogative as a sovereign in granting himself the title? If "prince of Russia" is just a fancy way to say that he is a pretender, which how I would interpret the NYT article, that kind of title doesn't get treated as part of the name. Kauffner (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Deposed royals don't just stop having titles attributed to them, or using them themselves because a country has become a republic. I have no idea what his Swiss passport will say, if he even has one, and I don't see what relevance it has either. I very much doubt someone would think think a title 'Prince of Russia' is part of his name. Titles and names are clearly distinct and separate. - dwc lr (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He isn't a deposed royal. He was born after the revolution, so never had anything to be deposed from. His father was a deposed royal, but he is not. Dbpjmuf (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, he is a member of a deposed dynasty. - dwc lr (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To run the name and the title together implies he is a noble. We don't say, "Alan Mulally, CEO of Ford Motor Company", at least not in boldface. IMO, the Otto von Habsburg article is a good model. Otto was a bona fide crown prince, at least until was he was six years old. Kauffner (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a very POV statement to say he is not noble. On Wikipedia titles have always been used for members of royal houses, both reigning and non reigning. Otto von Habsburg is a rare example of a royal who is not known by a title. - dwc lr (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * From looking at the reference section, it seems that this is all based on his own Web site, as well as statements by the Romanov Family Association. Nobility is an objective, verifiable fact, a matter of law. Kauffner (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The majority of cites to his website or the RFA are about his life and his claims to the headship of the family, as you see the headship is disputed between him and his cousin Maria. I would imagine expect for die hard republicans or supporters of his rival he is royalty (from a non reigning royal family). I don't know why some people get upset about giving titles to non reigning royals on Wikipedia this is the general, normal practice that you find in sources if people bothered to look. - dwc lr (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Even Tsar Nicholas II's page doesn't include titles in the article title, and he was an actual royal. Dbpjmuf (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:NCNT. Most kings and emperors are under the format "Name of Place". - dwc lr (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * NCNT does not apply to non-royals. Dbpjmuf (talk) 04:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Prince of Korea" was just removed from the article for the Korean pretender, Yi Seok. Unlike the subject of this article, Yi Seok was an actual prince when he was a child. So I think we are making progress. To me, the issue is just that someone should be not be described as royal or noble if that is not in fact their status. Kauffner (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but sources that refer to members of non reigning houses do not just overnight referring to them by their families titles. If he is not royalty why does the Danish Royal Family and other sources attribute the princely title to him? I suppose you think its his first name. - dwc lr (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * European royal families, and the descendants of former royal families, are highly intermarried and related, as well as having strong social links to each other. Simply because a friend or relative humours ones desire to be royal or noble does not make one so. Dbpjmuf (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You regard the New York Times as a reliable source. Why does this source say he 'bears the title Prince of Russia'. - dwc lr (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This title is very thinly documented and quite dodgy all away around. It's mentioned only once on Google Books, as the way he gives his own name as the author of some essay. Besides the New York Times article, there is also an article in the Washington Times that gives him this way. That seems to be about it. But, hey, if your family association names you prince of Russia, and the Times runs with it, that's good enough for me. But it's no different than Mulally having the title "CEO", Martin Luther King being "Dr.", or John Green bearing the title "president of the Little League Baseball Association". That is to say, it does not justify writing him up as if he was a noble or a royal. Kauffner (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There were in fact other sources cited but Dbpjmuf removed them and I really can't be bothered to edit war with them over it when the title is there anyway. This and other other articles fully conform to the Manual of Style (biographies) and Naming conventions. The fact that academic titles are not given in the initial sentence is irrelevant. Styles for instance are not allowed so thats why we don't have His Highness Nicholas Romanovich Romanov, Prince of Russia. - dwc lr (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They were not reliable sources. Dbpjmuf (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 consensus to move. This has been open for over a month and needs to be closed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia → Prince Nicholas Romanov – As shown by the first requested move debate "Prince Nicholas Romanov" is his common name. Using "Prince of Russia" as a disambiguator makes it sound like an official title bestowed by Russia. "Prince Nicholas Romanov" would seem to be the compromise position between the monarchist "Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia" and the republican "Nicholas Romanovich Romanov". DrKay (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Support "Prince Nicholas Romanov" gets 66 results on Google Books. Robert Massie repeatedly gives the name this way, and Massie would be the authority on this issue. Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia is used by only a couple of LLC books. Kauffner (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose. He's mostly notable as one of two rival pretenders to the abolished monarchy of Russia, which his current title of pretence reflects. His rival, Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia, is accorded the title that she, her supporters and reliable sources use, so according him his preserves NPOV without making up names that neither of these BLPs uses or considers correct. Actually, his royalist title would be "Nicholas III of Russia" (and his rival's would be "Maria I of Russia"). Midway between that and "Nicholas Romanovich Romanov" is "Nicholas, Prince of Russia". Anyone reading the lede should quickly learn he is not a member of a reigning dynasty -- if they really come here not knowing whether today's Russia is a monarchy. So it's proper to use the article name to disambiguate but not to "de-dynasticize" him. FactStraight (talk) 08:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Other crap exists" is not a strong argument. The current title is not neutral because it chooses his supporters' name over his opposers' name. It still gives him the title prince so it doesn't "de-dynasticize" him. The suggested target is the name used by neutral, objective parties. DrKay (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are familiar with this topic you would know that this move does indeed 'de-dynasticize' him. - dwc lr (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am familiar, and no, I know it doesn't. DrKay (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose....again as my reasoning given just two months ago. People who are seemingly unfamiliar with this topic are going to, I suppose unintentionally, settle the dispute over who is the Head of the Russian Imperial Family and thus not present a NPOV. The reality with this subject is he is known by various forms Prince/Duke Nicholas/Nikola Romanovich/Romanovitch Romanoff/Romanov/of Russia Google hits are irrelevant and very varied IMHO. - dwc lr (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've said nothing about who is the Head. You need to lift your blinkers, and stop assuming that everyone who comes here with a different viewpoint to you is a supporter of Maria or an anti-monarchist. DrKay (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure but you still want to remove the dynastic formal title that he uses from him. I just think its pointless trying to find a 'common name' for someone with many different forms and styles of his name and title. I agree his common name is Nicholas over Nicolas, Nikolai, Nicola that's about it. The current title is fine. - dwc lr (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You say "you still want to remove the dynastic formal title". No, I don't. I have at no point removed it from the article. I just think the article title should follow the policy, which "prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". DrKay (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I do a Google news search for let’s say the British heir apparent. I type in exactly “Charles, Prince of Wales”. This is not the most ‘common’ form of his name. However according to naming conventions it is correct, the same applies with this article. - dwc lr (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to apply the naming conventions if you insist. I don't much favour them myself, but if you want to follow them, then fine. The naming convention for this page is WP:NCNT which says "for a pretender ... call them what independent secondary sources in English call them." That is "Prince Nicholas Romanov". DrKay (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow so we ignore "what independent secondary sources in English" call everyone else and just apply it for 'Pretenders'. Who came up with that stupid idea, should be all or nothing. - dwc lr (talk) 18hat:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is standard practice for non-nobles, per WP:MOSBIO. The NCROY guidelines are for "royalty and nobility". Pretenders are neither. Kauffner (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For as long as I have been on Wikipedia NCROY has applied to Royalty. That is royalty regardless of whether they happen to be reigning or not. - dwc lr (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Support. Clearly the most common name in reliable sources. In addition, the relevant part of NCROY says "for a pretender ... call them what independent secondary sources in English call them", which is exactly what the proposed title would do. Jenks24 (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia. 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/20080617204448/http://www.nikolairomanov.com/presentation/index.html to http://www.nikolairomanov.com/presentation/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609161754/http://www.imperialhouse.ru/eng/imperialhouse/succession.html to http://www.imperialhouse.ru/eng/imperialhouse/succession.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.orderofdanilo.org/en/peter/index.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) 23:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia. 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/20121118125604/http://www.russkiymir.ru/russkiymir/en/news/common/news7896.html to http://www.russkiymir.ru/russkiymir/en/news/common/news7896.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 8 October 2021

 * 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: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia → Prince Nicholas Romanov – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Also per WP:TITLECON; ex. his brother and successor Prince Dimitri Romanov, as well as other relatives, including Prince Andrew Romanoff, Prince Rostislav Romanov (born 1985), Princess Olga Andreevna Romanoff, etc. Even for other rival claimants such as Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia, the royal prefix is placed before the first name. The current way in which "Prince of Russia" has been placed as a disambiguator gives the false impression that it is a specific title like Prince of Wales or Prince of Asturias, while in fact it is not. Keivan.f Talk 03:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This was also a contested technical request (permalink). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support. Common name, as shown in the previous requested moves. Natural, concise, consistent and NPOV. DrKay (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per proposal and DrKay. Havelock Jones (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support If not renamed, the disambiguator should be changed to uncapitalized “prince,” since it is a common noun and not a title in a name. —Michael Z. 16:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Prince Nicholas Romanov


text:
Planet Prince

Planet Prince (遊星王子) is a 1958 Japanese tokusatsu superhero television series created by Masaru Igami and produced by Senkosha, the series aired on NTV from November 4, 1958 to October 6, 1959, with a total of 49 episodes (comprising four separate adventures). It was created to capitalize on the success of Shintoho's Super Giant (Starman) movie series. In fact, the title hero (whose alter-ego was Waku-san, played by Toshio Mimura) bore a strong resemblance to Super Giant (known as "Starman" in the U.S.). The pair of Planet Prince theatrical featurettes, adapted from the Senkosha TV series, were produced by Toei Studios and filmed in black and white ToeiScope format.

Toei produced two theatrical movies in 1959 that featured the Planet Prince character, but wearing a completely different, more streamlined costume (and goggled helmet) than the one worn in the tv series. The hero in these two movies was played by Tatsuo Umemiya. The movies were released a week apart. The films were titled:

 * Planet Prince (遊星王子) Released: May 19, 1959
 * Planet Prince - The Terrifying Spaceship (遊星王子 - 恐怖の宇宙船) Released: May 25, 1959

For TV release in America, these two Planet Prince movies were compiled into an 85-minute, English-dubbed movie entitled Prince of Space that was first shown in 1965.

Production
The TV version looks very similar to Super Giant (Starman), in that both wear cowled costumes and capes. Each character also has superpowers and flies. The two-part movie version (produced by Toei) is very different, as Prince of Space wears a more streamlined costume, cape, and helmet with goggles. In the edited US version, he has no superpowers other than the invulnerability of his costume and - in a subplot unique to the Japanese version - the ability to revert a man who was brainwashed by the Ginsei aliens back to a peaceful state. In the films, he uses a wand-like laser gun and flies a small spaceship.

In the TV version, just like Moonlight Mask, the Planet Prince persona was listed in the credits as being played by "?" (even though the character never wore a mask to conceal his face).

In the film, Prince's enemy is called Ambassador Phantom of the Silver Planet (銀星のまぼろし大使) (this villain also appeared in one of the tv series' story arcs), while in the English-language version, the villain is called Dictator Phantom of the Planet Krankor. He (along with his henchmen) wears a large prosthetic nose and cowl that give him a decidedly chicken-like appearance, something that was constantly mocked when the film was featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000.

Cast
(Americanized names in parentheses)

 * Planet Prince/Waku-san (Prince of Space/Wally) - Tatsuo Umemiya
 * Ambassador Phantom (Ambassador Dictator Phantom) - Joji Oka
 * Sachiko (Susie) - Hiroko Mine
 * Dr. Maki (Dr. Macken) - Ushio Akashi
 * Ichiro (Johnny) - Akira Asami
 * Makoto (Mickey) - Koji Komori
 * Kimiko (Kimmy) - Midori Tsuzuki
 * Inspector Takeda - Takashi Kanda
 * Sawamoto (Dr. Sangamon) - Akira Tatematsu
 * Shibasaki - Masahiko Naruse
 * Mukai - Ken Sudo
 * Newsreporter Tabei (Mr. Tannen) - Ken Hasebe
 * Newsreporter Tono (Jerry the Reporter) - Giichi Sugi
 * Sakai - Koji Sahara
 * Tsunoda - Tokio Kozuka
 * Keichi Kawajima (Inspector) - Rin'ichi Yamamoto
 * Dr. Naito - Hiroshi Katayama
 * Newspaper reporter - Yuji Kitamine
 * Phantom's henchmen - Riki Iwaki, Kenji Todoroki, Hiroshi Mihara, Nobuo Yana
 * Dr. Tateishi (Dr. Fletcher) - Shusuke Sone
 * Mrs. Tateishi - Kaoru Nakano
 * Commander Koda - Akikane Sawa
 * Secretary of Defense Fukuhara - Shiko Saito
 * Captain Munakata - Tadashi Minamikawa
 * Colonel Matsuda - Junkichi Orimoto
 * Colonel Watanabe - Junji Masuda
 * The Guardian - Rinichi Yamamoto
 * Kidnapped American scientist (Dr. Cohen) - Osman Yusuf (uncredited)

Production credits
Theme Song – "Planet Prince Song"
 * Planning - Sanehiko Okada
 * Director - Eijiro Wakabayashi
 * Producer - Sanehiko Sonoda
 * Screenplay - Shin Morita
 * Original Story - Masaru Igami
 * Music - Hirooki Ogawa (stock music; uncredited), Katsuhisa Hattori
 * Director of Photography - Masahiko Iimura
 * Lighting - Kenzo Ginya
 * Art Director - Shuichiro Nakamura
 * Recording - Shozo Hirokami
 * Film Editor - Yoshiki Nagasawa
 * Director of Special Effects - Shozo Horai
 * Assistant Director - Hajime Sato
 * Production Assistant - Takeshi Nishii
 * Vocals - Kamitakada Junior Chorus
 * Lyrics - Masaru Igami
 * Composer - Katsuhisa Hattori

Reboot
In 2021, Minoru Kawasaki directed a feature film reboot of the series, Planet Prince 2021.

Mystery Science Theater 3000

 * Episode guide: 816- Prince of Space
 * Episode guide: 816- Prince of Space

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

title: Planet Prince


text:
H.U.N.E.

In 2003, the National Corporation for Antiquities and Museums (NCAM) of the Republic of Sudan launched an international appeal for rescuing the archaeological sites which are going to be inundated by the floods of the Hamdab High Dam currently under construction near Merowe in the Fourth Cataract region of northern Sudan. The new reservoir will cover about 170 km of the Nile valley, and its completion is scheduled for 2007. H.U.N.E., the Humboldt University Nubian Expedition is one of a group of international expeditions which followed this appeal and joined the Merowe Dam Archaeological Salvage Project (MDASP). H.U.N.E. is based at the Institute of Northeast African Archaeology and Cultural Studies at the Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany. Its main aim is the complete recording of all archaeological sites, including rock art sites, in its concession area by intensive foot surveys and the excavation of chosen representative sites of each archaeological period. The H.U.N.E. concession area comprises four main islands, Us, Sur, Sherari and Shiri and a stretch on the left bank of the Nile from Gebel Musa to the market village of Salamat. Results of the first two campaigns in the years 2004 and 2005 comprised the discovery of more than 700 archaeological sites and the excavation of a Neolithic settlement site, burials of the Kerma period, and two churches of the Christian era. Apart from rescuing the archaeological sites, H.U.N.E. also took efforts to document the traditions and customs of the local inhabitants of the Dar al-Manasir region, which belong to the Manasir tribe. Their material culture, economic life and poetry are recorded as well.

The Institute of Northeast African Archaeology and Cultural Studies at Humboldt University undertakes substantial financial efforts in order to conduct rescue excavations of several months duration in order to meet the needs of this large-scale project. It is only partly supported by public grants. Therefore, H.U.N.E. offers a sponsorship scheme for archaeological sites to individual persons or institutions.

title: H.U.N.E.


text:
Bomba

Bomba may refer to:

Places

 * Bomba, Belize, a village in the Belize District of Belize
 * Bomba, Abruzzo, a comune in Province of Chieti, Italy
 * Bomba, Libya, a village near the city of Derna in Libya
 * Gulf of Bomba, a body of water in the Mediterranean Sea on the northern coast of Libya
 * Lago di Bomba, a lake in Province of Chieti, Abbruzzo Region, Italy

Music

 * Bomba (Ecuador), a musical style of Ecuador
 * Bomba (Puerto Rico), a musical style of Puerto Rico
 * Bomba (band), an Australian band
 * Bomba (song), 2017 single by Aggro Santos
 * "Bomba", 2007 song by Edo Maajka
 * "Bomba", 2013 song by Sean Kingston from Back 2 Life

People

 * Bomba (surname)
 * Bomba (tribe), a tribe of Azad Kashmir, Pakistan
 * Bomba Jawara, Sierra Leonean politician
 * Ferdinand II of the Two Sicilies, called re bomba ("King Bomb")

Other uses

 * Bomba (cryptography), the Polish device for breaking the Enigma cryptographic machine
 * Bomba (genre), a Filipino film genre
 * Bomba rice, a Spanish variety of rice
 * Bomba, the Jungle Boy, a series of books by Roy Rockwood that later became a film series
 * Bomba, the Jungle Boy (film), a 1949 American film about Bomba, the Jungle Boy
 * Malaysian Fire and Rescue Department or Bomba
 * Bombilla, also known as bomba, a drinking straw used for drinking mate
 * Berliner (doughnut), commonly known in Venezuela as bomba

title: Bomba


text:
Georgios II of Makuria

Georgios II (before 887–915/920?) was a ruler of the medieval Nubian kingdom of Makuria. He ascended the throne in 887, after the death of his father Georgios I, and ruled until 915 or 920, when he was succeeded by his son Zacharias II. Belonging to the Dynasty of Zacharias, little is known about his rule, although it is recorded that at some point between 910 and 915, his kingdom was involved in a war with the Abbasid Caliphate.

Life and reign
Georgios II lived during the Makurian golden age between the 9th and 11th centuries, when the kingdom reached the peak of its cultural development. He has previously been assumed to have been identical with Georgios I, but it is now clear that he was a king of his own. Georgios II was probably born after the early 860s. He was the grandson of Zacharias I, who, in 835, had founded a new Makurian dynasty, and the son of Georgios I, who had famously travelled to Baghdad in the same year. He also had a sister whose name has not been reserved in the records, who was married to Nyuti (nephew of Zacharias I), and a younger brother named Zacharias.

The sources for the reign of Georgios II are limited. What is known is that he became king in 887, after the death of his father. He was married to a woman named Mariam, who bore him a son and eventual successor, Zacharias II. Zacharias II was already consolidating his power during the rule of his father, holding the highest offices of the kingdom (protoeparch and protodomestikos).

Late in Georgios' reign, between 910 and 915, Nubia was reportedly raided by the Abbasid Emir of Egypt, Takin al-Khazari. It is not entirely clear when Georgios' rule came to an end: a document from Qasr Ibrim suggests that he was succeeded by his son in 915, while a foundation stele from Faras places that event in the year 920.

title: Georgios II of Makuria


text:
Mike Grier

Michael James Grier (born January 5, 1975) is an American former professional ice hockey winger and current general manager of the San Jose Sharks in the National Hockey League (NHL). He played for the Edmonton Oilers, Washington Capitals, Buffalo Sabres, and San Jose Sharks. Primarily a checking forward, he played 1,060 games over 14 seasons. He was the first African-American NHL player to train exclusively in the United States, and the league's first black general manager.

Early years
Grier's father Bobby was the associate director of Pro Scouting for the Houston Texans of the National Football League (NFL). Prior to that, Bobby Grier was a running backs coach, director of pro scouting, and vice-president of player personnel for the New England Patriots of the NFL. (The elder Grier (born 1942) should not be confused with the Bobby Grier (born 1933) who broke the color barrier in the 1956 Sugar Bowl.) Grier's brother Chris currently serves as the general manager for the Miami Dolphins, a position he has held since 2016. Another notable athlete in the family is Pro Bowl NFL defensive lineman Roosevelt "Rosey" Grier.

Grier was raised in Holliston, Massachusetts, where he attended and played hockey at St. Sebastian's School. He is of Bajan descent.

Playing career
Grier was originally drafted by the St. Louis Blues in the ninth round (219th overall) of the 1993 NHL Entry Draft, and was considered a long-shot to make an NHL team. He spent his early playing days with Saint Sebastian's School and later with Boston University, culminating in his best amateur season in 1994–95, where he was named a first team all-star. During his time at BU, Grier's NHL rights were dealt to the Edmonton Oilers along with star goaltender Curtis Joseph in exchange for a pair of first round picks.

After leaving college, Grier immediately cracked the Oilers lineup as a checking-line right-winger, scoring 32 points and bearing a respectable +7 plus-minus rating. During his time in Edmonton, Grier was best known for provoking Chris Simon of the Washington Capitals in 1997. Grier allegedly made derogatory comments about Simon's Ojibwa heritage, and Simon allegedly responded with a racial slur directed at Grier. Although the spoken words were never confirmed, Simon was suspended for three games as a result of the incident. Grier played six seasons with the Oilers organization, including two in which he scored twenty goals.

On October 2, 2002, in order to free up roster space, Grier was traded to the Washington Capitals for a pair of draft choices. Incidentally, this put Grier and Simon on the same team for a short time. Simon was traded to Chicago after playing 10 games in the 2002–03 season. The Capitals attempted to put a Stanley Cup-caliber team together, primarily built around star forward Jaromír Jágr and goaltender Olaf Kölzig. The team disappointed on the ice, although Grier remained a reliable checking player.

This did not last long, as Washington traded Grier on March 4, 2004, to the Buffalo Sabres for Czech prospect Jakub Klepiš. Grier finished the season with Buffalo, scoring nine points, but the Sabres failed to make the playoffs. During the 2005–06 NHL season, Grier set a personal record, scoring four game-winning goals for the Sabres and contributing to their run to the 2006 Eastern Conference Finals. Grier was then signed to a free agent deal by the San Jose Sharks, where he recorded 16 goals, including three shorthanded, in his first season with San Jose. He scored nine and 10 goals in his next two seasons with the Sharks, respectively.

On August 10, 2009, Grier returned to the Buffalo Sabres as a free agent.

Grier's biggest contribution to the Sharks and Sabres was his penalty-killing ability. San Jose ranked 14th, 1st, and 4th in penalty killing in the three years he played there. In the 2009–10 season, Buffalo was second overall in the NHL in penalty killing. He was in the top penalty-killing units of both teams.

Grier played his 1,000th NHL game on November 3, 2010, against the Boston Bruins, becoming the 254th player in NHL history to reach the milestone. After not being re-signed by Buffalo for the 2011–12 season, Grier announced his retirement from the NHL on December 1, 2011.

Post-playing career
Early roles

After retiring, Grier served as a scout with the Chicago Blackhawks and an assistant coach with the New Jersey Devils before he was hired by the New York Rangers as hockey operations advisor on May 19, 2021.

Grier also coached at Saint Sebastian's School, where he played his high school hockey. He also coached his son's Boston Jr. Terriers 03 AAA team.

San Jose Sharks general manager (2022–present)

On July 5, 2022, Grier became the general manager of the San Jose Sharks. This move made him the first black general manager in NHL history.

title: Mike Grier


text:
Clifford Road Air Raid Shelter

The Clifford Road Air Raid Shelter, located under the playground of Clifford Road Primary School in Ipswich was built during the first months of World War II. It was an unusually solid construction, capable of holding several hundred people. After the war, it was sealed up and largely forgotten.

In 1989, workmen digging a pond in the school grounds discovered one of the original stairways leading into the shelter. The structure had survived with little more than a few leaks.

The Museum
Today, the shelter is preserved as a museum, is open to the public and to private & school groups. The displays in the lengthy tunnels take a visitor through various aspects of life during the war, including rationing and military activity. One section of the tunnels recreates the conditions when the shelter was in use, with dim lighting, wooden benches, and the sounds of an air raid outside.

The museum is open the first weekend of each month from April to October, with some additional evening openings. It is also possible to arrange guided tours and group visits at other times.

title: Clifford Road Air Raid Shelter


text:
Benedictine University

Benedictine University is a private Catholic university in Lisle, Illinois. It was founded in 1887 as St. Procopius College by the Benedictine monks of St. Procopius Abbey in the Pilsen community on the West Side of Chicago. The institution has retained a close relationship with the Benedictine Order, which bears the name of St. Benedict (480–543 A.D.), the acknowledged father of western monasticism.

The university resides in the western Chicago metropolitan area, located near two national research facilities, Argonne National Laboratory and Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. The university's location along the East-West Tollway corridor provides internship and employment opportunities for students. Benedictine University also has a branch campus in Mesa, Arizona.

History
Benedictine University, also called BenU, was founded in 1887 as St. Procopius College by the Benedictine monks of St. Procopius Abbey, who lived in the Pilsen community of Chicago's West Side. The monks created the all-male institution just two years after their community began, with the intention of educating men of Czech and Slovak descent. While the school was called a college from its founding, it did not begin offering post-secondary courses until after it moved from Chicago to rural Lisle in 1901. It became fully accredited in 1957 and, as the area around it transitioned from rural to suburban, it grew substantially. Also in 1957, the institution's high school component began operating independently of the college and is now called Benet Academy. The college became fully coeducational in 1968, though the first female, Joan Hewitt, graduated in 1953.

The school changed its name to Illinois Benedictine College in 1971, and in 1996, it became Benedictine University. While the institution continued to grow in Lisle, it expanded its reach to include campuses in other cities, including Springfield, Illinois, in 2003 and Mesa, Arizona, in 2012. The university added the Kindlon Hall of Learning and the Birck Hall of Science in 2001 and the Neff Alumni Center in 2012, and in 2015, Benedictine opened the Daniel L. Goodwin Hall of Business, which features the Trading Lab and a 600-seat auditorium.

After recognizing that there is great demand for American business programs overseas, Benedictine joined forces with Shenyang University of Technology and Shenyang Jianzhu University in China to bring Master of Business Administration and Master of Science in Management Information Systems programs there.

Presidents

 * Rev. Daniel Kucera, O.S.B. – a Benedictine who later became Archbishop of Dubuque, 1959–1965, 1971–1976.
 * Richard C. Becker, Ph.D., 1976–1995
 * William J. Carroll, Ph.D., 1995–2015
 * Michael S. Brophy, Ph.D., 2015–2018
 * Charles Gregory, 2018–2023
 * Joseph J. Foy, Ph.D., 2023–Present

Academics
Benedictine University offers 59 undergraduate majors through The College of Science, The College of Liberal Arts, The Daniel L. Goodwin College of Business, and The College of Education and Health Services. It also offers 19 graduate programs, 34 graduate certificates, and 4 doctoral programs.

Rankings
Forbes magazine named Benedictine among "America’s Top Colleges" for the ninth consecutive year in 2019 (ranked #566 in Top Colleges, #362 in Private Colleges, and #222 in Research Universities). Benedictine did not make the Forbes list in 2020.

U.S. News & World Report listed Benedictine among its best colleges in 2019 (ranked #221 [tie] in National Universities).

Lisle campus

Benedictine University moved to Lisle, Illinois, in the far western suburbs of Chicago and DuPage County, in 1901. After the dedication of Benedictine Hall, new buildings were added throughout the early 1900s. Although it had admitted women from time to time, the college became fully coeducational in 1968. In 1971, it changed its name to Illinois Benedictine College. In response to community needs, graduate, doctorate and adult learner programs were added. In 1996, the college was renamed Benedictine University. The Birck Hall of Science and the Kindlon Hall of Learning were built in 2001. The Village of Lisle-Benedictine University Sports Complex, a unique cooperative venture between a governmental body and private university, was dedicated in 2005. Renovation of the Dan and Ada Rice Center was completed in October 2011.

The rapid growth of the Daniel L. Goodwin College of Business created the need for construction of the Daniel L. Goodwin Hall of Business – the largest classroom building on campus at 125,000 square feet – which houses the college's undergraduate and graduate business programs and doctoral programs in Organization Development and Values-Driven Leadership. The building also features classrooms, study areas, seminar rooms, offices, a 600-seat auditorium to facilitate lectures, a 40-seat real-time trading lab that provides hands-on investing experience, a 7,500-square-foot main hall and a café.

The Lisle campus' additionally features the Jurica-Suchy Nature Museum, a small natural history museum located on the second floor of the Birck Hall of Science. The museum represents the work of Frs. Edmund and Hilary Jurica, O.S.B., who collected specimens for their students to use during their almost 100 combined years of teaching at Benedictine University, and Fr. Theodore Suchy, O.S.B. (d. 2012), who served as museum curator for more than 30 years. The museum has continued to collect specimens since the Juricas' deaths in the early 1970s and now has a collection numbering more than 10,000 specimens ranging from small invertebrates to a rorqual skeleton. The Jurica-Suchy Nature Museum is open to the public as well as to school groups.

Benedictine's Lisle campus has 2,885 undergraduate students of which 44 percent are male and 56 percent are female, and the student body represents 50 states and territories, and 15 countries. Approximately one-third of the students are minority.

Benedictine University at Mesa
Benedictine University Mesa, located in Mesa, Arizona, became the first four-year Catholic university in Arizona when classes began in 2013. It is a remote campus of Benedictine University in Lisle, IL. Undergraduate majors include accounting, communication arts, computer science, criminal justice, fine arts, graphic arts and design, management and organizational behavior, nutrition, political science, psychology, theology and Spanish. As of 2019, the Mesa campus had 568 students, and 76 faculty and staff.

The university also provides degree-completion programs and graduate degrees.

Its athletic teams are known as the Redhawks and compete in the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics as a member of the California Pacific Conference. Student athletes compete in men's and women's cross country, golf, basketball, soccer, baseball and softball, and volleyball, including women's beach volleyball.

In 2019, Mesa established a partnership with Co+Hoots, a private co-working business based in Phoenix, Arizona, to explore innovative educational opportunities, which includes establishment of a "certificate program in entrepreneurship". The partnership, which fits into the city's plan to create a "downtown innovation district", included renovation and expansion of Mesa's downtown campus facility at 225 E. Main Street to include space which would be provided "rent-free" to Co+Hoots as a commercial co-working space. Benedictine leases this downtown facility from the city, a lease which ends in 2038, with an option to purchase beginning in 2033.

Former Springfield branch campus
The Springfield branch campus of Benedictine University was founded in 1929 as a separate institution known as Springfield Junior College. The college changed its name in 1967 to Springfield College in Illinois. In early 2003, Springfield College in Illinois and Benedictine University formed a partnership through which Benedictine offered bachelor's, master's and doctoral degrees in Springfield. This partnership resulted in a merger between the two institutions, following Illinois Board of Higher Education guidelines and those of the U.S. Department of Education. In 2010, Benedictine University established a branch campus named Benedictine University at Springfield. Springfield College in Illinois ceased all academic programs in August 2011. In fall 2014, the Benedictine University Board of Trustees decided that the Springfield campus would end undergraduate education and transition to adult-oriented academic programs. Adult programs are now offered through the university's School of Graduate, Adult and Professional Education.

On February 27, 2018, The Benedictine University Board of Trustees and the Board of Springfield College in Illinois announced that the Springfield property at 1500 N. 5th St. would be offered for sale. As of the end of the 2018 spring semester, courses were no longer offered at the Springfield branch campus. Starting with summer 2018 courses, the adult degree-completion and graduate students formerly at the Springfield branch campus attended Benedictine University at employer and community sites in the Springfield area. The Springfield branch campus property was in need of capital improvements. The decision to move to other area sites provided the university's students and faculty with more accessible, comfortable and equipped-for-teaching locations.

Benedictine in Asia
More than 1,000 students have graduated with a Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.) or Master of Science in Management Information Systems (M.S.M.I.S.) from Benedictine University through its partnerships with two Chinese universities – Shenyang University of Technology (SUT) and Shenyang Jianzu University (SJZU) – formed in the early 2000s. In 2009, Benedictine partnered with two universities in Vietnam—the Vietnam National University (VNU) in Hanoi and Binh Dong University in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon)—to offer graduate programs in business administration and management information systems. In 2012, Benedictine received approval from the Ministry of Education in China to offer a Master of Public Health (M.P.H.) through a partnership with Dalian Medical University.

Lisle Eagles
The athletic teams at the Lisle campus are called the Eagles. The campus is a member at the NCAA Division III ranks, primarily competing in the Northern Athletics Collegiate Conference (NACC) since the 2006–07 academic year. The Eagles previously competed in the defunct Northern Illinois-Iowa Conference (NIIC) until after the 2005–06 school year.

Benedictine–Lisle competes in 19 intercollegiate athletic programs: Men's sports include baseball, basketball, cross country, football, golf, lacrosse, soccer, track & field and volleyball, while women's sports include basketball, cross country, golf, lacrosse, soccer, softball, track & field and volleyball.

Mesa Redhawks
The athletic teams at the Mesa campus are called the Redhawks. The campus is a member of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA), primarily competing in the California Pacific Conference (Cal Pac) since the 2015–16 academic year.

Benedictines–Mesa competes in 15 intercollegiate athletic programs: Men's sports include baseball, basketball, golf, soccer and volleyball, while women's sports include basketball, beach volleyball, golf, soccer, softball and volleyball. Club sports include badminton, bowling, eSports and spirit squad.

The men's and women's golf, cross country, volleyball and tennis teams played their first season at the club level in the 2014–15 school year.

Springfield Bulldogs
The athletic teams at the Springfield campus were called the Bulldogs. The campus was a member of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA), primarily competing the American Midwest Conference from 2011–12 to 2014–15 (when the campus dropped its athletics program).

Benedictine–Springfield competed in 14 intercollegiate athletic programs: Men's sports included baseball, basketball, cross country, distance track, golf and soccer; while women's sports included basketball, cross country, distance track, golf, soccer, softball and volleyball; and co-ed sports included cheerleading.

Intramurals
Both campuses also offer intramurals, group fitness classes and club sports. Benedictine students play men's tennis, men's lacrosse, ping pong, spirit squad, eSports, bowling and badminton as club sports.

title: Benedictine University


text:
Donald Antrim

Donald Antrim (born 1958) is an American novelist. His first novel, Elect Mr. Robinson for a Better World, was published in 1993. In 1999, The New Yorker named him as among the 20 best writers under the age of 40. In 2013, he was named a MacArthur Fellow.

Life
Antrim was born in Sarasota, Florida. After graduating from Woodberry Forest School in 1977, Antrim graduated from Brown University, taught prose fiction at the graduate school of New York University, and was the Mary Ellen von der Heyden Fellow for Fiction at the American Academy in Berlin, Germany in Spring 2009. Antrim teaches in the MFA program at Columbia University and lives in Brooklyn.

Antrim is a frequent contributor of fiction to The New Yorker and has written two other critically acclaimed novels, The Verificationist and The Hundred Brothers, the latter of which was a finalist for the 1998 PEN/Faulkner Award in fiction.

He is also the author of The Afterlife, a 2006 memoir about his mother, Louanne Self. He has received grants and awards from the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Center for Scholars and Writers at the New York Public Library. In 2013, he received a fellowship from the MacArthur Foundation.

Family
Antrim is the brother of artist Terry Leness and the son of Harry Antrim, a scholar of T. S. Eliot.

Novels

 * Elect Mr. Robinson for a Better World (1993, ISBN 0-375-72503-2)
 * The Hundred Brothers (1998, ISBN 0-517-70310-6)
 * The Verificationist (2000, ISBN 0-679-76943-9)

Short fiction

 * Collections
 * The Emerald Light in the Air : Stories (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2014.) Collects seven stories originally published in the New Yorker between 1999 and 2014.
 * Stories
 * "An Actor Prepares" (New Yorker, June 21, 1999)
 * "Pond, with Mud" (New Yorker, October 20, 2003)
 * "Solace" (New Yorker, April 4, 2005)
 * "Another Manhattan" (New Yorker, December 22, 2008)
 * "He Knew" (New Yorker, May 9, 2011)
 * "Ever Since" (New Yorker, March 12, 2012)
 * "The Emerald Light in the Air" (New Yorker, February 3, 2014)
 * Stories excerpted from novels
 * "Y Chromosome" (New Yorker, November 18, 1996) (from The Hundred Brothers)
 * "The Pancake Supper" (New Yorker, December 7, 1999) (from The Verificationist)

Non-fiction

 * Books
 * The Afterlife: A Memoir (2006, ISBN 0-312-42635-6)
 * One Friday in April: A Story of Suicide and Survival (2021, ISBN 978-1324005568)
 * Essays and reporting
 * Black Mountain 1977
 * I Bought A Bed
 * A.K.A. Sam
 * Ad Nauseam
 * Church
 * The Kimono
 * A Man in the Kitchen
 * Fed
 * The Unprotected Life
 * Everywhere and Nowhere: A Journey Through Suicide

title: Donald Antrim


text:
Vajracharya

A vajrācārya (vajra + acharya, Tib. རྡོ་རྗེ་སློབ་དཔོན་, dorje lopön, Wyl. rdo rje slob dpon, Jp. “kongō ajari” 金剛阿闍梨) is a Vajrayana Buddhist master, guru or priest. It is a general term for a tantric master in Vajrayana Buddhist traditions, including Tibetan Buddhism, Shingon, Bhutanese Buddhism, Newar Buddhism.

Tibetan Buddhism
Dorje Lopön is a title given to high-level religious leaders who preside over Tibetan tantric practice. Dorje is the Tibetan equivalent of the Sanskrit vajra and therefore the term appears frequently in Tibetan terminology relating to Vajrayana Buddhism.

A Dorje Lopön is usually well educated and trained in tantric practice, and is therefore a well respected figure. They might be the heads of monasteries or spiritual communities.

Newar Buddhism
Bajracharyas are a married priestly class among the Newar communities of Nepal. They are knowledgeable in Newar Buddhist Vajrayana practices and rituals. They are also commonly called guru-ju or gu-bhaju (a short form for guru bhaju) which are Nepali terms related to the Sanskrit term guru, and translate as "teacher" or "priest". The bajracharya is the highest ranking of the Newar castes that are born Buddhist.

The emergence of vajracharya institution is ascribed to the decline of celibate Buddhist monks in about 13th century, and the emergence of Vajrayana.

To become a professional Guruju, a person of the bajracharya caste must go through a number of rituals. The bajracharya boy goes through a ritualistic process of initiation known as bajravishekha, including shaving off the head as the Buddha and asking for alms, at a minimum of seven houses a day in different places, in the tradition of monks since the time of Gautama Buddha. Sometimes tantric Newar Buddhism and Esoteric Buddhism is referred to as "Vajracharya Buddhism".

The writers of Rebuilding Buddhism: The Theravada Movement in Twentieth-century Nepal explore the unusual relationship of the vajracharyas and their assistant shakyas with Buddhist monasticism: Unlike Vajracharyas, Shakya men may not be priests for others, but together with Vajracharya men they are the members of the traditional Newar Buddhist monasteries, known honorifically as vihara and colloquially as Baha or Bahi. In so far as Shakya and Vajracharya men filled their roles in the monastery, they were monks. In effect, they were married, part-time monks.

Many of the modern Buddhist scholars in Nepal belong to the vajracharya tradition. There are several legendary Vajracharya priests from different parts of Kathmandu valley. Shantikara Acharya, a king who turned into a powerful tantric priest and disappeared inside the cave in Shantipur, Swayambhunath is well known for his expertise in Vajrayana Buddhist practice. He is still believed to be dwelling inside the Shantipura cave performing intense Sadhana. Vajracharya Bandhudutta, who was a disciple of the legendary Shantikara Acharya, is credited with bringing Lord Lokesvara from Kamaru Kamakhya Askam, in Kathmandu valley. Leela Vajra, a Buddhist priest from Sakhu is believed to have built Kasthamandap from the wood obtained from Kalpabrikshya. Leela Vajra, also known as Lilapa, is counted among the 84 Mahasiddha. Similarly Surata Vajra, Vak Vajra, Sashwot Vajra, Manjuvajra (Jamana Gubhaju) etc., are some of the famous Vajracharya priests whose folklores of magical and mystical deeds have remained popular among the Newar people of Kathmandu valley.

title: Vajracharya


text:
Talk:Christopher Nolan

Not accurate info!
Barrow Hills School is not in Weybridge, it is in Witley, near Godalming Paul Crisell (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 * You are correct. According to Barrow Hills School website, the school was originally based near Weybridge but moved to Witley in 1952 long before Nolan attended. Unfortunately, the citation used is from The Nolan Variations book which describes the school as being in Weybridge and I do not have another citation for Nolan attending this school. I will leave it up to others to decide if it's OK to edit based on this. Musetaker (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2024
The article has missing information: Please add:

Christopher Nolan has US, UK and Irish citizenship. The article is missing the Irish one but he himself confirmed he has it in a Q&A promoting Oppenheimer available under at 7 minutes 10 seconds. Please edit the last line in the first paragraph under „Early life“. 109.42.240.119 (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

 * I went to 7:10 in the linked video and did not hear him mention this. Can you confirm the timestamp? Pdubs.94 (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Lack of reply from IP means this edit request is procedurally declined. For what it's worth, clicking the same link shows me various videos all of which could conceivably be construed to be a Q&A, so I don't even know which video the timestamp applies to. — Sirdog (talk) 05:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I added this comment to the talk page: "See: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sB-JhaVzZ7I at timestamp 1m 32s, Cillian Murphy mentions that Christopher Nolan has an Irish passport."
 * (I'm not the OP) 79.97.108.174 (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ...also in: https://www.bfi.org.uk/interviews/cillian-murphy-emily-blunt-how-we-made-oppenheimer, "I read the script, and then he flew to Ireland – because it was the end of Covid and I couldn’t leave. He has an Irish passport as well. Little factoid. Nolan: Irish name." 79.97.108.174 (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

 * See: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sB-JhaVzZ7I at timestamp 1.32, Cillian Murphy mentions that Christopher Nolan has an Irish passport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.108.174 (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ❌ Stale, contested request. And I'm not convinced any of the sources cited are reliable for this content. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2024
Hello! I suggest, or submit, that the references to the subject as "Sir" Christopher Nolan be emended, as the only sources cited as evidence of this apparent knighthood speak in the future tense, and therefore as having not actually been bestowed (as of time of submission). Ie, 'set to be given a knighthood', not actually given yet. 2406:2D40:40C7:3010:3181:1660:DD3C:F6D2 (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Per Debrett's, "An honour may be used from the moment it has been announced in the Press. There is no need to wait until the recipient has received the accolade or been invested." (https://debretts.com/peerage/the-knightage/) He is Sir Christopher and his wife is Dame Emma as of the announcement - no need to wait for their investiture ceremony. Ranucci (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

As of 5th June 2024 the supplement to the London Gazette announcing the 2024 Birthday Honours has not been published, therefore you are premature in making him a Knight. The case of Joyce Grenfell, who died before her Damehood could be gazetted, and thus is not a Dame, shows the requirement for the announcement to appear in the London Gazette for it to be official. Bohun (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Christopher Nolan


text:
Logie Awards of 1994

The 36th Annual TV Week Logie Awards was held on Sunday 17 April 1994 at the World Congress Centre in Melbourne, and broadcast on the Nine Network. The ceremony was hosted by Ray Martin and guests included Michael Crawford and Grant Shaud.

Gold Logie

 * Most Popular Personality on Australian Television
 * Winner: Ray Martin in Midday (Nine Network)
 * Other Nominees: Gary Sweet, Dieter Brummer, Daryl Somers

Acting/Presenting

 * Most Popular Actor
 * Winner: Gary Sweet in Police Rescue (ABC TV)

 * Most Popular Actress
 * Winner: Sonia Todd in Police Rescue (ABC TV)

 * Most Outstanding Actor
 * Winner: Garry McDonald in Mother and Son (ABC TV)

 * Most Outstanding Actress
 * Winner: Ruth Cracknell in Mother and Son (ABC TV)
 * Other Nominees: Denise Roberts in G.P. (ABC TV), Jacqueline McKenzie in Stark (ABC TV)

 * Most Popular Comedy Personality
 * Winner: Ruth Cracknell in Mother and Son (ABC TV)

 * Most Popular Light Entertainment Personality
 * Winner: Ray Martin in Midday (Nine Network)

 * Most Popular New Talent
 * Winner: Melissa George in Home and Away (Seven Network)

Most Popular Programs

 * Most Popular Series
 * Winner: Home and Away (Seven Network)
 * Other Nominees: A Country Practice, G.P.

 * Most Popular Drama
 * Winner: Police Rescue (ABC TV)
 * Other Nominees: Law of the Land, Snowy

 * Most Popular Light Entertainment Program
 * Winner: Hey Hey It's Saturday (Nine Network)
 * Other Nominees: The Late Show, Ray Martin at Midday

 * Most Popular Comedy Program
 * Winner: The Late Show (ABC TV)
 * Other Nominees: Hey Hey It's Saturday (Nine Network), Mother and Son (ABC TV)

 * Most Popular Public Affairs Program
 * Winner: Real Life (Seven Network)
 * Other Nominees: A Current Affair, Hinch

 * Most Popular Lifestyle or Information Program
 * Winner: Burke's Backyard (Nine Network)

 * Most Popular Sports Program
 * Winner: AFL Grand Final (Seven Network)

 * Most Popular Children's Program
 * Winner: Agro's Cartoon Connection (Seven Network)

Most Outstanding Programs

 * Most Outstanding Achievement in Drama Production
 * Winner: Phoenix II (ABC TV)

 * Most Outstanding Achievement in Comedy
 * Winner: The Late Show (ABC TV)
 * Other Nominees: Mother and Son (ABC TV), Full Frontal (Seven Network)

 * Most Outstanding Achievement in News
 * Winner: "Sydney 2000 Announcement" (Nine Network)

 * Most Outstanding Achievement in Public Affairs
 * Winner: "Ships of Shame", Sunday (Nine Network)

 * Most Outstanding Documentary Single or Series
 * Winner: Labor in Power (ABC TV)

 * Most Outstanding Achievement by a Regional Network
 * Winner: Rest in Peace (Prime Television)

Performers

 * David Dixon
 * Caroline O'Connor
 * Abi Tucker
 * Randy Crawford
 * Gary Sweet
 * Jon English
 * Larry Emdur
 * Steady Eddy
 * Matthew Krok
 * Rebecca Gibney
 * Kimberley Davies
 * Shirley Strachan
 * Ronnie Burns
 * Derryn Hinch
 * Jane Hall
 * Mark Mitchell
 * Stan Grant
 * Ann-Maree Biggar

Hall of Fame
After a lifetime in Australian television, Charles "Bud" Tingwell became the 11th inductee into the TV Week Logies Hall of Fame.

title: Logie Awards of 1994