text:
Talk:Chris Langham

Misc.
A user added"Langham gave his name to the Langham, the stalk on top of Berets."This will require detailed substantiation. --Phil | Talk 15:25, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ken Campbell (actor) told this story of Chris, which happened during the long production of Illuminatus, IIRC. The context was that Chris commented one day that a person simply has to find something that doesn't have a name and then give his name to it. He said that one day he would find something without a name and give his name to it. Some time later he announced that he had found just such an item, being the stalk on the beret, which was henceforth known as a 'Langham'. I always refer to it as such, but how many people need to use this word in this way for it to be considered substantiated? I would have thought one was sufficient.David Farmbrough 09:00 (GMT) 15 Jun 2005
 * This is what should be in the article. The point is that that's what he calls them. I have put some of it into the article. A source would be nice too. Tim Ivorson 15:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * To follow this up, is it significant that his first wife was responsible for the popularisation of the slang expression the 'Judith' named after her appearance naked in the film Monty Python’s Life of Brian? DavidFarmbrough 14:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone else can decide where this fits in, but Dirk Maggs writes in the second volume Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy radio scripts that Chris (who appeared in the 6th episode of the 2004 Tertiary Phase) also played Arthur Dent in the May 1979 stage version of Hitchhiker's, directed by Ken Campbell - the famous version where all 80 members of the audience sat and rode around in an air car levitated ever so slightly above the surface. --JohnDBuell | Talk 00:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info! I've added it after merging the two mentions of Not the Nine O'Clock News, since it all happened around the same time. I think it all flows a bit better now, but there's still room for improvement. -- Guybrush 03:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Good thought too, to put his stage appearance back in the H2G2 article! I went back and added the bit about his appearance in the last episode of the third series. --JohnDBuell | Talk 03:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The news coverage is strange...
... it referred to 'internet-related crime' first of all, but now it's changed to child porn. This doesn't sound like Chris Langham to me - perhaps it's all some ghastly mistake. The only source I have seen is the BBC news one which quoted the police as referring to 'internet-related crime'. I hope they haven't jumped to conclusions. DavidFarmbrough 12:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh come on...he's been using child porn, and there's nothing you can do about it. It's not like it really matters, anyway; it's not like he's a child murderer, as the media would probably have you believe.-- CaptainSurrey [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg|20px]] talk
 * We can't say that for sure (innocent until proven guilty still applies), but even so it still doesn't sound like him - and yes they do give him the same treatment as a convicted child molester. cf Pete Townshend and Gary Glitter. DavidFarmbrough 12:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard enough about this case to be able to comment on it specifically, but the first thing that came to mind was the case of Massive Attack's Robert_Del_Naja, who was arrested on charges of downloading child pornography in 2003.
 * Now, you can decide for yourself if his (very public) criticism of the war in Iraq had anything to do with it, or if the fact that the investigation was later terminated with no charges being brought seems suspicious.... but you can probably guess what I think was behind this.
 * That's funny, I thought Massive Attack had decided to change their name just to Massive as they didn't want to be associated with the war in Iraq (the earlier one). Have they gone back on their principles? DavidFarmbrough 17:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * IIRC (and I may be wrong on this), this was more to do with the BBC's paranoia at the time (e.g. they didn't want to play Lulu's "Boom Bang a Bang"). Queen's "Innuendo" video didn't get played as much as it might have because it came out at around the same time, and featured war footage. Fourohfour 17:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Until sufficient genuine information in this case has become public, speculation is worse than meaningless. Fourohfour 16:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

15 counts of making indecent images of children
What exactly does "making indecent images" mean? Is that a legal term for downloading?Or is it actually taking photos and storing them on a PC? 172.139.59.169 15:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a deliberately open term, usually applied to downloading, to make prosecution easier. Technically, downloading is creating another image file; thus "making indecent images". We could get into a Foucauldian discussion here about discourse and power... The JPS   talk to me  15:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is, the charge of 'making indecent images of children' suggests that he had lured them to his house with sweets, undressed and photographed them. I think that this ought to be explained in the article. It's mysterious how this co-incided with his BAFTA award. Are the police just cherry-picking high profile people? DavidFarmbrough 12:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that the term is problematic and provokes dangerous misinterpreation. As far as I understand, though, "making indecent images" is the official charge -- which is what we are accurately reporting. We don't know any further details. Is there an article we could link to that discusses the complexities of the charge? The JPS   talk to me  12:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I heard that, if convicted, he could serve 13 years upwards in jail. Nowadays that seems more than some people get for killing. Whatever anyone's views on the controversial subject of pedophilia, I find it mind-boggling that he could serve so long for merely LOOKING AT A PICTURE. This signifies the kind of out-of-proportion moral panic ridiculed by Chris Morris in Brass Eye, around the whole subject of pedophilia. Merely BEING a pedophile has become the crime, rather than any form of child-molestation. Even if you view pedophilia as an illness (dubious scientifically), this is like making schizophrenia illegal. Even when Oscar Wilde went to jail, it was for the ACT of gay sex rather than BEING homosexual or looking at pictures of naked men. 13 years for looking at a JPEG... am I the only one who finds that a bit absurd?-Neural 22:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The argument is based on the presumption that end consumers of commercial child pornography create a demand for material which results in the abuse of children. DavidFarmbrough 11:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the official line. It probably has more to do with people like Chris Langham being an easier target than child pornographers themselves, who almost never find themselves before a court. As for the rationale... have these extreme sentences reduced the amount of child porn floating around? By all accounts, both supply and demand are growing rapidly. Even teenagers are being arrested for sending sexual images to each other on mobile phones. I read about one 13 year old girl in America who posted naked/sexual pictures of herself on the internet - bizarrely enough, she was arrested on a charge of "making indecent images of children" and "sexually abusing herself"! Society is in a bit of a muddled panic, I do believe. I realize this is no place for my subjective observations, however, so I'll leave my comments there. Sorry everyone. -Neural 19:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize! You have displayed brilliant idealism and very cultured thought. Two things that seem to be lacking in this environment. --CaptainSurrey 21:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a comment in The Times (28th July or 4th August) that you can look up the compensation paid to victims of crime. So famous people run the risk of someone maliciously accusing them of, e.g. sexual assault by some chancer, and low risk to the said chancer. Further that the police link the two charges - sexual assault and child pornography - as, even if cleared of the former, the details of the suspect's sex life may be more likely to convince the jury that he's a pervert. matthewdjb 15:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Having organised video files of children being raped and tortured were plenty evidence to the jury that he was a pervert... --Fredrick day 13:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Pervert" is a very downmarket, rather immature term. Please appreciate the sensitivity of this issue and approach it with slightly more professionalism. The JPS talk to me  13:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * what a strange statement - Pervert is a perfectly sensible and mature term to use. Unless someone wants to argue that wanting to watch children being raped is a normal behaviour. Just because downmarket papers use it in a rather loose manner does not mean it's not still a perfectly fit descriptive term. --Fredrick day 13:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Although this is a talk page, you are making publishing lots of unsourced statements on the internet. I disagree with the status of 'pervert'. It is an inherently subjective term too: although, of course, share your subjectivities. The JPS talk to me  13:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If it makes people happier - I suggest we stick to "Sex Offender" - he is on the UK Sex offenders register, so he is de facto (from a legal POV) a sex offender. --Fredrick day 13:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As an objective legal term, that is preferable. The JPS talk to me  14:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should all just be shot for downloading anything!....oh sorry, wrong meeting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.104.31 (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"having a langham"
Subsequently, having a langham became accepted as a term for a culpable glitter, or perve, on the internet

Assuming this is not a spoof, I think we could do with so e kind of reference here. Flapdragon 16:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This is unsourced. Minglex 16:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Court case
Have removed "Langham did not attend this hearing.", which followed "The case was then adjourned again till 26 July 2006.", seeing as it's only the 21st of July now, making it somewhat impossible to have missed the hearing. Alexrushfear 22:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear to me if he was charged with POSESSING or CREATING these images. 90.11.230.159 13:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Read a section above. The JPS talk to me  15:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know what happened?
What has happened? The last I heard was that the case had been adjourned to the 30th August 2006. That date has come and gone with no news coverage whatsoever. Does anybody know whether it was re-adjourned, or whether the case is now being heard, or what? 06 September 2006.

 * That we haven't heard anything suggests, I think, that the proceedings are now underway. --81.103.216.19 22:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dubious reference
I also think Retuers is encyclopaedic, but I'm unconvinced about this rather informal souce. The JPS talk to me  07:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - I've replaced it with a link to a news story in The Daily Mirror --J2thawiki 08:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Law lesson
Anyone else thing the "Arrest" section is overlong? There's very little we know of, we don't really need a blow-by-blow account of each hearing: the dates of when he was arrested, charged, and will be tried, and on what charges, would suffice. Further, I am unsure the value of several long paragraphs describing the law exactly. Morwen - Talk 14:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, and had just come here to make the same two points. -- Beardo 06:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * what?, you think that that is too much information. I think that it is good to have a source of information for what is going on for Langham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.200.186 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 15 February 2007 UTC
 * I've shortened it a bit by removing some of the court appearences where he was just rebailed. I also removed the "law lesson"; although it was well written and referenced it belongs on pages for the offences rather than here.--J2thawiki 17:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the term 'Buggery' is either a legal term or a particularly pleasant one, regardless as to whether it is properly referenced. Any suggestions as to an alternative?
 * "Buggery" is a legal term in the UK, as you will see if you follow the wikilink. Lou.weird 08:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that is true, but actually, if you follow the wikilink, things become very unclear, to say the least. The article on buggery cites only two laws in which the term "buggery" was used, the Buggery Act and the Offences Against the Person Act.  Following the wikilink to the Buggery Act, we discovered that "the United Kingdom repealed its buggery laws".  Following the link to the OAPA, we discover that sections 61 and 62 dealt with buggery, but that they have been "repealed" too.  We further discover that almost all sexual offences are now contained in the Sexual Offences Act, but the article about it doesn't mention the term "buggery". -86.142.109.209 21:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I have rfemoved it for WP:BLP concerns, if he were to be convicted it would be different, SqueakBox 21:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Why exactly did you remove it? It is what he's been charged with - you left in the other charges, and now the article is incomplete. 82.35.59.204 15:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Writing credits
Langham appeared in and wrote for Spike Milligan's Q series, yet there's not a mention of it...

Reorganisation of arrest and trial
Now that the verdicts are out, I thought it appropriate to merge and reorganise the arrest and trial sections. I have heavily cut the description of the charges for which he was acquitted. --Peter cohen 17:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

HE was made to sign the sex offenders register by the judge before he left court tonight. The artuicle should make reference to the fact that he is a registered sex offender. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.35.133.150 (talk • contribs).

"Convicted paedophile"
Many people have strong feelings about Langham but this does not mean that we should expose Wikipedia to a possible libel action. Langham, through his lawyer, made a statement stating he was not a paedophile but trying to purge his own demons. Neither the professional assessors who saw him pre-sentence nor the judge who sentenced him expressed the opinion that he was a paedophile. He was convicted of downloading child pornography: this is an offence, whatever the reason behind it (clinical research, curiousity, prurience etc). It is not necessary to speculate about his motives: people will form (and have formed) their own judgement. -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 18:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

 * leaving aside the fact that he'd never attempt such a lawsuit or indeed win such a lawsuit I'd broadly agree - he was never convicted of being a paedophile as such an offense does not exist, he was convicted on the basis of downloading child pornography - this is covered in the second lead paragraph and has it's own headlined section - it's covered, it's in there - we have the fact, we are reporting the facts, what more need to be said. --Fredrick day 18:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

 * We've got no idea what he might do or what, with the benefit of psychiatrists' reports, a libel judge might decide. Langham has no savings, no pension and his career's ruined so he might try it to "clear his name". The nationals were exceedingly circumspect in their reporting (the closest they got was references to "paedophile pornography"). But, yes, Wikipedia's role is to report the facts, not to attach sensational labels. -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 19:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree. Wikipedia's role is to present a factual article. Putting sensational labels on him is both unfair and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. As far as litigation is concerned, he may not have the money, but others may help him to find it. Wallie 10:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so wouldn't it be best to leave the reporting until the facts have been clearly defined? --andreasegde 13:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. I thought they had been clearly defined. Wallie 16:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Although paedophilia is not a criminal offence in itself, it it used to describe people who download child pornography among other things. Quote "The term pedophile is also used colloquially to denote an adult who is sexually attracted to adolescents or youths below the local age of consent,[2] as well as those accused or convicted of child sexual abuse or child pornography related offences". Therefore Chris Langham is a convicted paedophile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.139.84 (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

 * The colloquial use is imprecise. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and, as such, aims to use words precisely and clearly. A paedophile is someone whose primary sexual orientation is towards children, although the definition of what a child is, or at least the age of consent, varies from country to country. Langham may or may not be a paedophile, but he is not a convicted one. He is a convicted downloader of paedophilic pornography. Many people convicted of such offences are paedophiles, but not all are. Not all child sex abusers are paedophiles. And conversely there are people who are paedophiles who are horrifed and ashamed of their sexual urges and suppress them. So, child sex offenders and paedophiles are two overlapping groups neither of which is a subset of the other. --Peter cohen 10:22, 30 September 2007

(UTC)

If Langham does not have a sexual interest in children then why did he have those pictures ? The jury did not believe his story about research because if they did then he would be found not guilty. There are lawful reasons to have photographs of naked children but the jury decided he was not acting lawful. Now if he was not acting lawful and his reasons were rejected, what are we left with? He said he was looking at the images for two reasons, for research and to understand better what had happened to him !! This situation calls for a balance of probabilities. Who would have thought looking at the most serious grade of explicit pictures would help you understand anything ? Also it was not he who was playing the part he was researching, it was Paul Whitehouse playing the "pedro" part. I hope you do not sit on a jury.

 * It's WP:OR and novel synthesis - we do not do either of those at wikipedia - that's the start, middle and end of it. --Fredrick day 11:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "The jury did not believe his story about research because if they did then he would be found not guilty." This is not the case. Possession of indecent images of children is a 'strict liability offence'. That means that there is never ANY excuse for having such material. So you could legitimately view child porn for 'research purposes', looking after it for a friend, etc., and still be committing an offence. DavidFarmbrough 11:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

 * You'll be glad to hear that I've got a jury summons for the week after next. Now please stop making comments that impugn my character.--Peter cohen —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Making an appeal against gaol term
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7027554.stm - needs adding to article, I'm a bit busy at the moment, so am bringing it to the attention of others. --Fredrick day 10:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Source needed for substance addiction
I removed the following, potentially libellous statement from the article pending sources.
 * 'Langham already had problems with addiction to cocaine and alcohol and his sacking worsened this situation.

- Hadrian89 (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

How about an official BBC press release? http://www.bbcprograms.com/pbs/catalog/peoplelikeus/docs/presskit_PeopleLikeUs1.pdf
 * If he sounded the worse for drink throughout most of the press interviews he gave in the Seventies and Eighties, that's probably because he was."... Langham's lifestyle was pretty much all over the place at the time, which may not have helped engender a spirit of unity with the rest of the cast, but that final blow soon after his removal from the show he said,"I was shattered; to this day no one has told me why" – sent him even closer towards the edge. He finally checked into rehabilitation and cleaned himself up, which resulted in subsequent successes like two series of Kiss Me Kate with Caroline Quentin for BBC TV.

His alcoholism has been well covered in the mainstream press too, often as part of interviews, with direct quotes of him openly discussing his former addiction. See:
 * "My career was being a drunk and work was something I did if I had a spare five minutes," he said."I was self-destructive. It wasn't just the drinking, it was the mindset: you don't like yourself if you are an alcoholic and other people don't like you either, because your behaviour is appalling. You are dishonest, disloyal, full of self-pity." Langham sought counselling for alcohol and cocaine addiction and still undergoes therapy once a week. Daily Mail - Profile:Chris Langham

and also:
 * "He became an alcoholic and a cocaine addict, and was fired after one series. His marriage to his first wife, with whom he had three children, became another casualty of his addictions. "I used to say, 'Of course I drink and take drugs, I'm in the entertainment industry. It goes with the territory.' But that was convenient justification for what I was doing" The Guardian - Gareth McLean talks to Chris Langham

Really this information is certainly notable and belongs in the article - his addictions were a huge part of his life and career in the 80s and 80s. Little Professor (talk)

The section detailing Langam's conviction is far too long. 195.217.128.36 (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

POV section on prosecutions - ridiculously pro-Langham
The section on his conviction is clearly POV, written from a pro-Langham stance. No mention is made of the fact that a police officer concerned with the case "told reporters outside [the court], "I am satisfied that he is a paedophile"." [ref http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/sep/25/chris-langham-interview]; no evidence is presented to counter the information in the article that Langham doesn't consider himself a paedophile (plenty of people mentioned in the press reports do); no mention is made that he downloaded 15 videos on four separate occasions; no mention is made that his friend Paul Whitehouse appeared as a witness for the prosecution and said that Langham's defence was nonsense and that you don’t need to do that sort of research for a comedy show. [ref http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2044463/Chris-Langham-Weeping-tears-self-pity-denying-hes-paedophile-TV-pariah-plotting-comeback.html?ito=feeds-newsxml]

The giveaway is the 'however' in the section "Whitehouse stated that he was unaware that the character was intended to be a paedophile, nor was he personally aware of Langham obtaining such material for the development of the programme's script. However, a script was read out in which Pedro ogles young women and says: "God sent these young girls to me as temptation and I failed."." The "however" shows that this has been edited from a pro-Langham point of view, as if to "correct" the anti-Langham evidence cited. Too much weight is placed on trying to clear Langham's name even thoughh he was convicted of the crime of possessing child pornography. 86.134.91.83 (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the Guardian interview make clear that the judge did not consider Langham a paedophile, and that the police officer decided to ignore that judgment and made a statement that the right-wing press obligingly followed? Paedophilia is slightly more complicated than name-calling by some tabloid journalist. The JPS talk to me  10:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Expert witnesses testified that he was not a paedophile, and appeared to convince the judge, who told Langham: "Paedophilia is not an issue in this case. You are not a sexual predator." But a police officer told reporters outside, "I am satisfied that he is a paedophile," [...]'  The JPS talk to me  18:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * From the Appeal Judge's summary in R. v Langham (Christopher) [2007] EWCA Crim 3004 (emphasis added): "You claimed that you down loaded these images for the purpose of research. You knew that did not give you a defence. You asserted in your evidence that your reason for contesting this case was that you did not wish to be labelled a paedophile. I made it absolutely clear to both you and the jury at your trial that that was never the issue the jury had to consider. On the evidence before me, it is right that I should make this observation, that there is nothing in the papers before me to indicate that you are a sexual predator, in the sense that it is ordinary used. You accept it in your evidence that you had been arrogant in thinking that you were above the law in downloading these images. With that sentiment, I wholeheartedly agree." 87.112.4.40 (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
I agree with the post above, this has been written as a defence of what he did. Can we add this to the section please: The graphic footage, downloaded on four separate occasions, contained Level Five child abuse - the most severe end of the scale. It was so repulsive that during his trial a juror was physically ill after viewing it. Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2044463/Chris-Langham-Weeping-tears-self-pity-denying-hes-paedophile.html (Dave006 (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC))

I have added the details of the pictures being level 5 and of none-consensual acts (ie rape) I believe this is an important part of the reason he was jailed, if they were level 1 or 2, it would have been unlikely that he would have gone to prison. It is also important to balance this correct leagal statement "(a legal term actually meaning to download and store abuse/indecent images as distinct from the act of photography" by explaining that the children in the pictures are victim's, and because of people like Chris Langham downloading them their is a market for it, and that their actions feed the demand for such pictures. Source: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/aug/03/crime.broadcasting1 (Dave006 (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC))

Daily Mail
Not only is the source not reliable] - per many, many discussions - but the claim by a policeman is not of encyclopedic value and probably violates [[WP:BLP as well. It should stay out.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence
you said "Plenty of actors have convictions for plenty of things, but we don't roll them into the opening sentence." However, this ended his career, and he was jailed obviously. So the lead sentence is misleading without mentioning it. Any reason why it shouldn't be restored? zzz (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 * It is covered sufficiently in the lead. It is not a notable occupation. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Still an actor?
12 years since acted in anything at all. Time to state as former actor?  Giant-Dwarfs Talk  18:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Has he said he has retired though? He was in Vengeance (2020) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, will leave until anotheer 12 years pass! Thanks for the find Giant-Dwarfs Talk  22:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

On "making"
I put back information removed on the meaning of "making" in these edits, also adding a source. However, having done so, I see we also have a wikilink to a page that describes making, so perhaps it is redundant to have the parenthetical comment too. I am thus opening here for discussion on that point. Readers are better served if they understand what the legal term means, but there is no need to labour the point, of course. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I see this working as simply there to make the offences committed lesser. Not by you obviously. Seeing as none of the sources actually states this claim it should not be on the page. This smacks of OR I am afraid, so I have removed it again. If anyone can find relevant sources that back this claim please add it back, but until then wiki just states what the sources say  Giant-Dwarfs Talk  11:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sirfurboy thank you for adding the source, but as the source is obviously not about this actual subject it can not be included. That would be OR IMHO? Wiki states what the charges and conviction actually was, it doesn't try to explain the difference between other offences that the subject wasn't actually charged with  Giant-Dwarfs Talk  11:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not OR, it is simply the meaning of the word! Now, my concern: I do not think your edits adhere to WP:NPOV. Why are you trying to hide the fact that the offence was downloading indecent images? Are you trying to make the crime seem worse than it was? Wasn't it already bad enough? The term "making" has a legal definition that is not the natural meaning. If you ask someone with no background in this what it means to "make an indecent image" they will assume it is to take a photograph, or perhaps to draw one. Here the sources are all quite clear that Langham did not take the photographs, he downloaded them. We should say that, because that is educational, true, and yes - it is in the sources. I have added a Guardian source that makes this very clear. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. Wiki is supposed to state what the sources say. He was charged with an offence. That is what should be stated, not amended because you feel it needs to be explained better in your opinion? I am not trying to cause offence here, but the article should state what he was charged with? He was charged with "making" images, so that is what should be stated. To state further really is OR imho  Giant-Dwarfs Talk  22:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You will note that the Guardian writers in the source I added also felt it needed to be explained better. The article does tell us what he was charged with, and it explains what that means. That is what the article should do. Why don't you want it to do that? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Seriously, I understand what you are saying. It DOES need to be explained better, I agree. But the sources do not say what you want to state? Therefore it should not be worded like that. I hope I am explaining this well enough, I'm not the best at that I am afraid! IMHO, stating further explanation by yourself is the very definition of OR, I hope you can see that? The fact that you say "the article should do" is OR, it really is Giant-Dwarfs Talk  22:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This source used in the lead says "possessing" that may be a better way to phrase this. Thoughts? https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/aug/02/ukcrime.media  Giant-Dwarfs Talk  22:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There are two sources against that in the lead. The Telegraph is paywalled so I can't see the online version. Instead I searched it out on Newspapers Online. The 14 November online article can be found in the 15 November printed copy of the Newspaper on page 13. It reads: It does not say "possessing". Neither does it mention level 5. That is a "verification failed". The Guardian article is longer. It also doesn't mention level 5, but it does say "possessing" once but then it says downloading and making. The reason the article write mentioned possession was not because of the charge, but because of a statement made by the prosecution after the trial:  The conviction, according to the article, was for the making offence (downloading). Now it is clear that he possessed the images on his computer, but the actual offence is making, because that is the intentional causing of a copy to be made (by downloading or printing). The article does state that. Saying "possessing" in our article is less accurate. He was convicted of downloading the images (per the Telegraph and the Guardian in those lead citations). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "The actor and writer Chris Langham was today found guilty of possessing child pornography and warned he could be sent to jail" The Guardian source has this right at the top?
 * Re the level 5, the source for the telegraph opens fine with no paywall and says this "Many of the images found on Langham's computer were of the worst, level 5 category, it emerged during his trial" - so level 5
 * The BBC source states this "Award-winning comedian Chris Langham has been charged with 15 counts of making indecent images of children, Kent Police have confirmed" - So he was charged with making and possession. We state what the sources say. I dont understand the claim that the article is less accurate for stating what the actual sources actually say? This is the very definition of OR, the fact that you want the article to state something different from what the sources state. I want it to say what the sources say, nothing more or less  Giant-Dwarfs Talk  13:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You have added a second telegraph article, that does open for me without a paywall. That is Telegraph 02 August 2007. This one does not mention level 5. The other article I mentioned above (Telegraph 14 November 2007) still has a paywall, and the accompanying newspaper article does not verify. However I do believe that the information is correct, which is why I have not removed it. Nevertheless a better source is needed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I will leave for a time for others to contribute and/or other sources to be provided that may state different charges the subject was convicted of. But unless these are found, this needs to be stated as the actual charges in the sources and nothing more Giant-Dwarfs Talk  22:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

 * The sources say "making" and "downloading". Because, per our other sources, that is what making means here. We are not reaching a conclusion that is not found in the sources. It is in the sources. And again, why don't you want the readers to know this? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We state what the sources say, not what you want to say? I am not trying to be difficult here, I am sure you know the rules of wiki. Adding your extra interpretation of it is OR. We state what the subject was convicted off, nothing more. So unless you can provide a source that states the extra details in the actual conviction, I am removing the extra working?  Giant-Dwarfs Talk  12:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The source that you want to use to add extra working for (but that is not actually stated in the source) also says this: "The crown prosecution service said some of the videos and photographs found on Langham's computer contained images of sadism and non-consensual sex between adults and children" - Is it OK to add this info as well?  Giant-Dwarfs Talk  13:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We state what the sources say, not what you want to say? I am not trying to be difficult here, I am sure you know the rules of wiki. I know them, and I understand what needs to be referenced when in academic work too. But do you understand them? Because Adding your extra interpretation of it is OR is a mis-statement of the rule. The particular type of OR you claim is happening here is synthesis. See WP:SYNTH which says: That is what you are trying to summarise, yes? But I have highlighted the word “conclusion” there, because that is key here.
 * There is a whole explanatory essay about SYNTH. See WP:NOTSYNTH. This essay explains the issue well, and I would draw your attention to the section: WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION which states: Okay so far?
 * Now scroll down to the heading “SYNTH is not presumed”, which reads:
 * So a couple of points. Firstly, you need to get a consensus here before removing this. The burden of proof lies with you to show that there is SYNTH. Thus far you have stated your belief that there is SYNTH but you have not demonstrated it, nor has any editor agreed with you.
 * Secondly, a question: what is the new thesis here? We have sources that say he was charged with "making", sources that say he was charged with "downloading" (referring to the same charges) and a source that says that the act of making means making a copy, as happens in downloading or printing. It is not a new thesis that Langham was convicted of downloading. Sources literally say that. It is not a new thesis that he was convicted of making. Sources literally say that too. It is not a new thesis that making is a legal term that means downloading or making a copy - sources literally say that as well. So, what is the synthesis? What is the new thesis that is synthesised from these sources? There is none. The text is fine. I would highly recommend you read the whole of WP:NOTSYNTH carefully.
 * And once again, because you have repeatedly refused to answer this question: Why don’t you want the reader to know that “making” here means downloading? Do you deny it means downloading? Are you trying to make it sound like Langham created new images that did not previously exist? Because he didn’t do that. Why do you want to mislead the reader? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I dont need consensus to remove OR, or remove claims in the article that simply are not in the sources. The article should state what the charges were, not what you want them to show. Sorry, that is OR. And to answer your question, I do want the readers to know what he was charged with, that is literally what I am doing here. The other working is not telling the readers the charges, it is your opinion of what it should say. I will ask more experienced editors to take a look when they have the time, but please do not add back statements that are not in the sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giant-Dwarfs (talk • contribs) 10:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 * You do need consensus that there is any OR to remove. Your reversion is edit warring. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding statements that are literally NOT in any of the sources you use is OR. Please review. Again, if you have better sources that back what you want in the article please use them and add back, I have no problem at all with that?  Giant-Dwarfs Talk  22:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The statements are in the sources. Except you removed all the sources they are in! Let's review:
 * BBC 11 May 2006 - Primary source - Only says "making". This is the only source you left in.
 * Huskinson, Lucy; Waddell, Terrie (27 November 2014). Eavesdropping: The psychotherapist in film and television. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-57704-1. - Secondary source. - Only says "downloading". You reverted this one out in this edit with an edsum including "what the sources say"!!
 * Guardian 3 Aug 2007 - Primary Source - Headline says "downloads" and repeatedly uses "downloads" and "downloading" but once refers to "making". I replaced this one with the above secondary sources, but when you reverted the secondary sourcing, you chose only to revert back in the BBC primary source and not this one. So at that point you cherry picked your source. And it is primary.
 * Telegraph 15 Nov 2007 (discussed above. Paywalled online article refers) - Primary Source - won an appeal to have his 10-month sentence for downloading child pornography (my emphasis)
 * Guardian 2 Aug 2007 - Primary Source - has "downloading" and 1 use of "making" and also, confusingly, "possessing".
 * Guardian 25 Sep 2011 - Arguably a secondary source but elements are primary - "downloading".
 * I'll stop there. The point is that this information very literally is in the sources, except you have now cherry picked the only (primary) source that does not use the term downloading. This is not neutral. You came into this article unaware that Langham was still working and complaining that explaining the term "making" meant downloading was "trying to defend the subject". I have patiently shown you why this is wrong, but at this point what we are dealing with is the cognitive bias of belief revision intransigence.
 * I have posted a notice at the BLP noticeboard, Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. You are welcome to join the conversation there as well as here, but do note what has already said there. We should not be using "making" in wikivoice at all in articles, and certainly not without explanation. Note also that BLPs must use secondary sources. The secondary source I added says "downloading". The writers of that book clearly agreed on this point. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. The term "making" has a very precise meaning in this legal context, which the average reader cannot be expected to know about. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Career update
This section is a jumbled mess. I propose splitting this into decade sections. And then anything after subjects release into another section at the end of the article. Will look and read much better. I will wait to see if anyone has thoughts and/or objects before doing this. I will not be adding or removing anything, just redoing it  Giant-Dwarfs Talk  22:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Your edits didn't make it any less jumbled. You changed "discussed" to "claimed" and added a couple of headings. I disagree with those headings, which I believe show that you are not approaching this BLP neutrally. You appear to wish to highlight information about his conviction and to make it much more prominent than anything else in his career. I suggest that if you continue to wish to assert your edits, you may want to consider WP:3PO to get a third opinion, or to post an a noticeboard to bring in more eyes on this article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please, again, assume good faith. I literally just started these new sections. And there is obviously a break in career when the subject was convicted. If you can suggest a better way to break this and a title please do so? Most other articles have a section for career after release? I will post as you suggest and get other opinions, thanks for that. But OR is still not allowed. The sources state what he was convicted of, you want to change that to what you want to state, that is OR. Please do not revert until a source is found that states the subject was convicted of the working you want  Giant-Dwarfs Talk  10:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality
Giant-Dwarfs, you are repeatedly edit warring to remove sourced factual content from this article. Neither, per the above section, is it SYNTH. You will not answer why you don't want the reader to know what the legal term "making" means, and you have reverted all reformulations. Your initial edsum has wtf is this added to defend the subject? which, coupled with your edits on other pages of figures with similar convictions, suggests to me you are approaching this subject with a (perhaps unacknowledged) POV. You are here because you want to write about the conviction (as per your latest edits that showcase it). Wikipedia will not brush the conviction under the carpet, and the information on the page is good information, but this is still a BLP and not a place to showcase such information or name and shame. This is not a newspaper report, it is a neutral encylopaedic treatment of the subject as a notable actor. I suggested ways you could build consensus but instead you simply reverted again. As such, this page is no longer neutral. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Giant-Dwarfs, I raised an issue this months ago. I should have removed it then. As per the edsum, I removed it because it contravenes WP:BLPPRIMARY. Have a read of that. We can't have primary sourced opinions about the subject in an encyclopaedic article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Your reversion of the information back in is a BLP violation. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I disagree. It its sourced correctly. I note that there are many, many similar sources used (just in that section alone) that you see no problem with? Can I ask why you want the readers to form a more positive opinion of the subject and their convictions?  Giant-Dwarfs Talk  22:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Look, I understand that you don't have a lot of edits to Wikipedia, and so not a lot of experience with BLPs. Wikipedia has a lot of rules and guidelines and it is hard to get your head around them all, but please do read WP:BLP very carefully. This is a contentious topic area, and you should definitely not be reverting back in the opinion of one person about the page subject, sourced to a primary source (which is what that news report is. It is literally reporting the words and opinion of a single person). You say there are similar sources that I don't see a problem with... but if you check the article history, you will find it was I who placed the "primary sources" template on that section some months ago. I do have a problem with all the primary sourcing, but I didn't remove it all, because the only sections I felt needed to come out now, per WP:BLPPRIMARY were those that were clear and egregious violations of the wording and spirit of BLPPRIMARY. And I notice that you restored the one that places the subject in a bad light but left out the one that quotes court record to place him in a better one.
 * Again, your editing is not neutral. You are not approaching this subject encyclopaedically and you appear to be pushing a POV narrative based on your perceptions regarding his conviction. This is perhaps why you also removed the secondary source I added today and reverted back in primary sourced information, which you are also misquoting. BLPs need secondary sources. Do not remove secondary sources in favour of primary sources.
 * Even the primary sourcing says he was convicted of downloading. A word you have repeatedly removed despite the fact it is in all the sources.
 * Your editing is not neutral. It may not be intentional on your part, but it is not. An article like this is a minefield. You might want to spend your time on something that is not so contentious to get a bit of experience. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not edit waring at all, I have made less edits and reverts than you? Please, again, assume good faith. All accusations you make against me, could just as easily be boomeranged back to you. I am not doing any of the actions you claim, I am simply making sure the convictions, sources and other points are actually supported by the sources. And it is not a neutral encyclopaedia, far from it. Not in the way you claim. It shows what sources state, and that is all. Please stop accusing me because you dont agree. That's normal. There is no ownership here. I have stated many times, if you have sources that state what you want to put in the article then use them. Until that time please dont add OR and POV to the article  Giant-Dwarfs Talk  22:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chris Langham


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Write like this we should

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete, BJAODN. mikka (t)

Write like this we should
I saw this page created in April, and added it to my watchlist, to keep an eye on it. I had forgotten about it until today, when cleaning up my watchlist. Nothing has been done with it, no-one else seems to have picked up on it, and I feel it is a worthy candidate to delete. --Daniel Lawrence 15:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Incomplete VfD nom left over from April. Looks like late April Fool's joke attempt. Completing VfD process; my vote is Delete. Niteowlneils 16:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not fully completing the VfD process. Thanks for finishing it off for me.  I'd also like to note that this page has been heavily edited since putting it on VfD only a couple of hours ago.  --Daniel Lawrence 17:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete--not just Yoda English, but incorrect Yoda English. Meelar (talk) 16:51, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Where's the Manual of Style (Yoda English)?—Wahoofive (talk) 18:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, you don't need one. Yoda English simply mimics German sentences structure, with  predicate at the end of the sentence. It is a known source of jokes among syncronous translators: a German sentence may end with "nicht" ("not"), thus inverting the whole sense, to at unpleasant surprise of a parallel interpreter, especially when the sentence was long and translated piecewise: ''"We agree with all your conditions, stated henceforth and herewidth, blablabla,... not!" mikka (t) 00:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Potentially funny idea (BJAODN attempt, maybe?) that doesn't go anywhere and doesn't quite sound enough like real Yoda talk to even be amusing. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 17:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Stuff like this is why BJAODN shouldn't exist. It only encourages the creation of useless pages with the sole intent of trying to be funny. Random vandalizers are already running around being disruptive. We don't need users to be doing the same thing. -ÅfÇ++ 20:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete to BJAODN we should. Laughed much I did, although Star Wars fan I am not. --Idont Havaname 21:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN. Hey, at least it wasn't in the article namespace. -- BD2412 talk 21:45, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. I thought it was funny. :) Sincerely, Short Verses (talk) 22:37, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh dear... I fear this was indirectly my fault. Someone made a vaguely inane suggestion at the village pump - something like that that all articles should appear in US English, UK English and simplified English (thereby tripling the number of articles). I suggested yoda-speak as another viable alternative and pointed the reader to this (then non-existent) proposal. Seems like someone thought it was too good an idea to resist... BJAODN Grutness...  wha?  00:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN/delete This is one of the better jokes I've seen lately. Ashibaka (tock) 01:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to meta, where we keep humour. James F. (talk) 02:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN "delete this.. we must". JamesBurns 06:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Send it to BJAODN we should. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or remove. Slike2 22:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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


text:
Potassium citrate

Potassium citrate (also known as tripotassium citrate) is a potassium salt of citric acid with the molecular formula K3C6H5O7. It is a white, hygroscopic crystalline powder. It is odorless with a saline taste. It contains 38.28% potassium by mass. In the monohydrate form, it is highly hygroscopic and deliquescent.

As a food additive, potassium citrate is used to regulate acidity, and is known as E number E332. Medicinally, it may be used to control kidney stones derived from uric acid or cystine.

In 2020, it was the 297th most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than 1million prescriptions.

Synthesis
Potassium citrate can be synthesized by the neutralization of citric acid which is achieved by the addition of potassium bicarbonate, potassium carbonate or potassium hydroxide to it. The solution can then be filtered and the solvent can be evaporated till granulation.

Uses
Potassium citrate is rapidly absorbed when given by mouth, and is excreted in the urine. Since it is an alkaline salt, it is effective in reducing the pain and frequency of urination when these are caused by highly acidic urine. It is used for this purpose in dogs and cats, but is chiefly employed as a non-irritating diuretic.

Potassium citrate is an effective way to treat/manage arrhythmia, if the patient is hypokalemic.

It is widely used to treat urinary calculi (kidney stones), and is often used by patients with cystinuria. A systematic review showed a significant reduction in the incidence of stone formation RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.68.

It is also used as an alkalizing agent in the treatment of mild urinary tract infections, such as cystitis.

It is also used in many soft drinks as a buffering agent.

Frequently used in an aqueous solution with other potassium salts, it is a wet chemical fire suppressant that is particularly useful against kitchen fires. Its alkaline pH encourages saponification to insulate the fuel from oxidizing air, and the endothermic dehydration reaction absorbs heat energy to reduce temperatures.

Administration
Potassium citrate liquid is usually administered by mouth in a diluted aqueous solution, because of its somewhat caustic effect on the stomach lining, and the potential for other mild health hazards. Pill tablets also exist in normal, and extended-release formulations.

title: Potassium citrate


text:
Cementoblastoma

Cementoblastoma, or benign cementoblastoma, is a relatively rare benign neoplasm of the cementum of the teeth. It is derived from ectomesenchyme of odontogenic origin. Cementoblastomas represent less than 0.69–8% of all odontogenic tumors.

Signs and symptoms
Cementoblastoma usually occurs in people under the age of 25, particularly males. It usually involves the permanent mandibular molars or premolars. The involved tooth usually has a vital pulp. It is attached to the tooth root and may cause its resorption, may involve the pulp canal, grows slowly, tends to expand the overlying cortical plates, and, except for the enlargement produced, is usually asymptomatic. This involves the buccal and lingual aspects of the alveolar ridges. But may be associated with diffuse pain and tooth mobility, but the tooth is still vital.

Since a cementoblastoma is a benign neoplasm, it grossly forms a mass of cementum-like tissue as an irregular or round mass attached to the roots of a tooth, usually the permanent mandibular first molar.

Diagnosis
A cementoblastoma in a radiograph appears as a well-defined, markedly radiopaque mass, with a radiolucent peripheral line, which overlies and obliterates the tooth root. It is described as having a rounded or sunburst appearance. There is usually apparent external resorption of the root where the tumor and the root join. Severe hypercementosis and chronic focal sclerosing osteomyelitis are lesions to consider in the differential diagnosis of this lesion.

Treatment
Surgical enucleation of the lesion is done, and depending upon the clinical circumstances, this  involve removal of the involved tooth. With incomplete removal, recurrence is common; some surgeons advocate curettage after extraction of teeth to decrease the overall rate of recurrence.

title: Cementoblastoma


text:
Edgbaston Hall

Edgbaston Hall is a country house (albeit now in the middle of the city) in the Edgbaston area of Birmingham, England.

Description and current usage
Since 1936, through negotiations initiated by The Birmingham Civic Society with the owner, Calthorpe Estates, it has been the clubhouse for Edgbaston Golf Club. Edgbaston Hall, and its lodge house, are Grade II listed buildings. The grounds, which includes Edgbaston Pool, are now divided into an 18-hole golf course and a nature reserve.

History
Early in the Civil War, Edgbaston Hall, along with Hawkesley House, now the site of a council housing estate in Longbridge, was a stronghold of Colonel John Fox, the so-called "Jovial Tinker". The Edgbaston Garrison musters from August 19, 1645 to April 30, 1646, can be found among the accounts of the Warwickshire County Committee, which was the Parliamentary Committee of accounts for the County, along with musters, warrants, levy assessments and other documents submitted by field officers and garrison commanders to be examined by the Committee. The garrison muster from 1645 lists about 40 soldiers and officers, including Thomas Rawlins, "a prisoner". The Edgbaston garrison troops had a fearsome reputation, making forays into the sounding villages for provisions and plunder and raiding rival royalist strongholds. They were highly mobile and so could be shifted around to augment the parliamentary garrisons at Tamworth, Coventry and Warwick.

In 1717, Sir Richard Gough purchased the hall from Thomas Belasyse, 3rd Viscount Fauconberg and began to have it rebuilt. In 1776, Sir Henry Gough commissioned Capability Brown to lay out the park. It was later home to William Withering.

title: Edgbaston Hall


text:
De Koningshoeven Brewery

De Koningshoeven Brewery (Brouwerij de Koningshoeven) is a Dutch Trappist brewery founded in 1884 within the walls of Koningshoeven Abbey in Berkel-Enschot (near Tilburg).

History
In 1884, the abbey opened a brewery inside the monastery in order to finance the monastery and contribute to charitable causes. Despite this goal, the brewery was run as a commercial enterprise. The abbey owned several bars in the area and produced lager under its own "Trappist" brand as well as contract brewing for several private labels. In 1969, the abbey licensed the brewing operations to the Artois Brewery (now InBev). In 1980 the deal with Artois ended, and the monks went back to brewing themselves, this time a top fermented beer which had only been made in limited quantities since the 1950s. Over time the brewery introduced more varieties, first with Dubbel and Tripel in 1987, then in 1992 they introduced Blond. Between 1993 and 2000, the brewery also marketed a brand called Enkel. The brewery also produces the world's only Trappist witbier. The brewery also used to produce the Jopen beer.

The brewery started exporting in 1985, and in 1989 the brewery was modernised.

From 1980 until 1999, the brewery was largely run by the monks. Due to the difficulty of the ageing monks continuing to operate the brewery, a limited liability company was set up as a subsidiary of the large commercial brewer, Bavaria. In 1999 the new company began to take over day-to-day operations, renting the buildings and equipment from the abbey.

As a result of this agreement, a dispute arose with the International Trappist Association, the body that governs the labelling of goods as Trappist. They claimed that this new method of operation was against the regulations that permitted the beer to display the Authentic Trappist Product logo. Whilst the beer continued to be brewed within the abbey walls, the arrangement with Bavaria was felt to be too commercialised. As a result, the brewery withdrew their use of the logo on 1 December 1999. However, the brewery continued to label the beer as Trappistenbier.

After a lengthy study by all parties, and a review of the agreement between the abbey and brewery, the beers were granted the right to display the logo again as of September 9, 2005. As part of this settlement, the monks have taken a more active control of the brewery day-to-day operations, working several hours each day.

The brewery
Of the twelve trappist breweries, this brewery is currently operated by De Koningshoeven NV, a subsidiary of the Bavaria Brewery, but the buildings and equipment are owned by the abbey. The monks of the abbey are the ultimate authority on the brewing process. However, the secular company runs the business operations. The abbey also houses a bar and shop/museum, the latter of which is staffed by a monk.

At times, the brewery has allowed its spare capacity to be used for brewing of other beers. Wieckse Witte and Chimay have at one stage been brewed in the abbey.

As with all other Trappist breweries, the brewery exists in order to finance the monastery, not for profit or any other commercial reason.

Originally the brewery was called De Schaapskooi, and this name is still used casually especially around the region.

Beers
The beers and the brewery are usually marketed under the name La Trappe. However, in some markets, such as the United States, the Koningshoeven name was used until 2010. It is one of five producers of Trappist beer outside Belgium, and produces four regular and two seasonal beers:

 * La Trappe Blond (6.5% ABV)
 * La Trappe Dubbel (7% ABV)
 * La Trappe Isid'or (7.5% ABV)
 * La Trappe Tripel (8% ABV)
 * La Trappe Quadrupel (10% ABV)
 * La Trappe Quadrupel Oak Aged (10% ABV)
 * La Trappe Witte Trappist (5.5% ABV)
 * La Trappe Bockbier (7% ABV) (Seasonal)
 * La Trappe PUUR (4.7% ABV) (organic)
 * La Trappe Nilis (0.0% ABV) (alcohol free)

Apart from the La Trappe brand, the brewery produces Tilburg's Dutch Brown Ale mainly for export.

The water for the beer is drawn from five 200-metre deep wells on the abbey grounds, and all beers except the Blond are bottle conditioned. The spent grain remaining after the wort is filtered from the mash is used to feed the abbey's own herd of cows.

Originally there was an Enkel which was the monk's table beer, but it was replaced by Blond in the range.

title: De Koningshoeven Brewery


text:
Drummore

Drummore ((from Gaelic An Druim Mòr meaning "the great ridge") is the southernmost village in Scotland, located at the southern end of the Rhins of Galloway in Dumfries and Galloway: it has two satellite clachans, called Kirkmaiden and Damnaglaur.

The village lies where the Kildonan Burn runs out to the sea, north of the Mull of Galloway. It is further south than the English cities of Durham and Carlisle. It is historically within the Wigtownshire area and the parish and community of Kirkmaiden. It is 16 mi from the nearest major town, the ferry port of Stranraer. In the 2011 census, the population was 534.

Drummore shares its name with High Drummore a mile (1.6 km) up Glen Lee, and also with Drummore Glen 1/2 mi to the east. The underlying name is the Gaelic "druim mòr" or "big ridge", and it has been suggested that this reflected the motte associated with the castle of the Adairs of Kinhilt, whose lands were granted in 1602 by King James VI.

The rather scattered incidence of related names, however, makes it more likely that the hill-ridge itself is in question, although at 300 ft it is not all that prominent compared to the 450 ft Muntloch Fell and Inshanks Fell to the west, or even the 250 ft Mull of Galloway itself, 3 mi to the south.

A branch line was proposed in 1877 linking to the Portpatrick Railway. It was opposed by the feudal landowner, the Earl of Stair, and finally abandoned after the failure of the City of Glasgow Bank in 1882; aspects of the village's street layout still reflect plans for the railway.

Early history and language
The southern Rhins was an area of early Christian activity following the missionary work of Ninian across Luce Bay in the Machars. Shortly before 1860, at Low Curghie less than a mile up the coast north of Drummore, and not far from an extant standing stone, a gravestone was discovered which appeared to date to the 5th or 6th century, with a weathered Latin inscription in which the name "Ventidius" was legible along with another word which translated as "sub-deacon".

Many place-names testify to Norse influence in the southern Rhins, as in many of the west-coast islands and peninsulas, but Drummore's Gaelic name is in tune with the general use of Gaelic in Galloway after the Dark Ages until it was supplanted by English under Presbyterian influence in the 17th century.

Ecclesiastical history
Drummore is the largest settlement in the parish of Kirkmaiden, named after St Maiden or Medan. The parish church was originally some 5 mi south of the village, but in 1638 the parishioners, citing the inconvenience of the journey to church, secured the building of a new church known as Kirk Covenant on Core Hill, about a mile west of Drummore. Following the Disruption of 1843, a new church was again built, for worshippers in the Free Church of Scotland, and this time in the village itself, in the street now known as Stair Street. Early in the 20th century the two congregations were reunited. Now worship is habitually at the church within Drummore, with one service each month in the summer being held at Kirk Covenant.

Drummore Harbour
The harbour, facing north and shielded by the Rhins from the prevailing southwesterly wind, was developed with a jetty in the early 19th century to serve a lime manufacturing industry. For many years in the hands of the UK's Ministry of Defence as part of the management of their bombing range and weapon development area offshore in Luce Bay, it was taken over in 2004 for a nominal sum by the Drummore Harbour Trust Ltd, which announced the aim of developing its use for pleasure boats.

This disposal by the MoD attracted attention in the UK Parliament as a result of disputes over the rights of access to the harbour by fishermen, and a subsequent Court of Session judgement confirmed a Victorian precedent that no right of harbour existed. Failure of the Drummore Harbour Trust to widen its membership beyond the initial two individual members, or to begin its promised investment programme, caused increasing concern.

In July 2008 the Dumfries and Galloway Council decided to seek an Empowerment Order under the Harbours Act 1964 which would enable the council to take over the harbour land and operations, following the pattern of a number of successful harbours along the Solway coast. This was not achieved.

In 2015 the Harbour Trust became liable for a £15,000 personal injury claim, and it then dissolved itself, so the harbour reverted to the Crown Estate. As of June 2018 the Drummore residents are attempting to buy the harbour, via the Kirkmaiden Community Harbour Trust.

Character and facilities
Older residents recall a time when the main streets were full of shops, including no fewer than three bakers (one on the corner of Stair and Mill Streets). Even recently there have been significant casualties, including on Mill Street the bank, the butcher's (now wholesale only, as a result of health legislation), and the Harbour Stores (formerly the second general shop, with an additional speciality in fishing supplies).

The village's facilities still however include the Mariners Coffee Shop, the Queen's Hotel, a post office, a volunteer tourist office and a general shop on Mill Street; a garage for repairs (no fuel); a primary school; a doctor's surgery and pharmacy; the Ship Inn on the shore; a bowling club and children's play park; a number of holiday cottages; and two caravan sites near sandy beaches (one of them associated with another pub). The Kirkmaiden Community Council meets monthly in Drummore. Housing is mixed, ranging from listed Victorian residential and commercial properties to modern bungalows and harled council houses.

Within living memory a number of street names have changed, notably Stair Street (formerly Church Street), Mill Street (formerly Main Street) and Harbour Road (formerly Quay Road). Following a landslip in the 1960s the former Lower Road, which had brought traffic in along the coast to Shore Street, was barred to traffic. It is now a footpath, set thickly about by Japanese knotweed; in the summer of 2014 it was decorated anonymously with fairy doors.

title: Drummore


text:
Talk:Logan Square, Chicago

Bucktown 1
Bucktown should probably be separate from logan square.
 * Why? — oo64eva (Alex) (U @ 19:59, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Bucktown is an unofficial neighborhood located within the Logan Square community area. Community areas are officially designated and are used by the census. Matthew.haak 01:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Since Wikipedia sticks to the officially defined community areas, Bucktown should remain in the Logan Square article. If this pattern changes, and all Chicago neighborhoods are given their own articles, then Bucktown should and would have its own page. Cymbaliner (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Bucktown 2
If the "Logan Square community" was originally understood as an area that encompassed Bucktown, those days are gone. As it stands now, Logan Square and Bucktown are two, separate neighborhoods. I'm in favor of a separate Bucktown page.

 * The Chicago Dept. of Planning and Development defines 77 official community areas within the City of Chicago. One of those areas is called Logan Square, which is what this article is about.  Within each community area are a number of neighborhoods loosely defined by history, community members, chambers of commerce, and real-estate developers (among others).  Within the Logan Square community area, there are neighborhoods for Belmont Gardens, Logan Square, Palmer Square, Bucktown, and Avondale; and there may be others.  Unless there is a significant amount of information for the Bucktown neighborhood, it would make sense to me to leave it under its relevant community area.  Perhaps more emphasis can be made in the article between the community area and its associated neighborhoods.  --Mindfrieze 15:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This is retarded.I live in Bucktown. Bucktown is not Logan Square. You're simply wrong. Absolutely 0% of anyone living in bucktown would answer: "Are you living in Logan Square" in the affirmative. Bucktown is a completely and totally separate entity from Logan Square.

If anything, Bucktown is linked to Wicker Park (very frequetly) which is totally different from Logan Square as well.

THis is another great example of wikipedia getting it wrong, and the editors linking to other incorrect or misleading wikipedia articles to bolster their points. So i don't expect anyone here to grow a damn clue, I expect this 100% wrong information to persist.

this is the downside of wikipedia: 1 incorrect or misleading article that is ostenisbly "official" looking can corrupt data throughout the entire site. Why? BECAUSE THE EDITORS DO NOT INHERENTLY ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND THE DATA THAT THEY ARE EDITING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.218.31.5 (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Hi there. Most of Bucktown falls within the boundaries of the Logan Square Community Area, as designated by the City of Chicago (see official LS map, and others available as well). Note that this is not the same thing as the Logan Square neighborhood. This Wikipedia article is about the community area, and the various neighborhoods within it, one of which shares the name "Logan Square".
 * The community areas were originally defined by the University of Chicago in the 1920s, and although many of the neighborhoods have shifted boundaries or identities since then, the city continues to use them. Because this is the best-maintained, most standardized and official way of breaking up the city into regions, that's what most Chicago-related Wikipedia articles are based on. However, there are some neighborhoods that have been broken off into separate pages. For example, Wicker Park (neighborhood) is a separate article from West Town (community area). Perhaps Bucktown would benefit from the same treatment. Ibadibam (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Avondale
Just to be clear, Avondale is a community area the size of Logan Square, the two are not interchangeable. Carter

 * I don't think anyone ever said the Avondale community area is interchangeable with the Logan Square community area, but just like Logan Square, Avondale is both an official community area (located north of the Logan Square community area) and also a neighborhood. While most of the Avondale neighborhood is within the Avondale community area, at least one boundary definition shows that the extreme southeast tip of the neighborhood crosses into the Logan Square community area.  --Mindfrieze 23:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Culture and LoganSquarist
I have inserted this content, as it appears to be a noteworthy initiative in the area that has flourished since it was founded. The section is very brief and the area seems to be a vibrant one, so I have attempted to develop it. I have no association with the website or initiative and am happy to try and confirm this in whatever way is deemed suitable.--Soulparadox (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a bit too detailed, and makes it sound like it's the only neighborhood news source, which it isn't. I've taken a stab at revising the section to make it more balanced. Unfortunately, most of this stuff doesn't have sources backing up the significance of these outlets, and it may be just as well to remove the paragraph in its entirety. Ibadibam (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You have done an excellent job! Thank you for creating an exemplary section (this is not sarcasm). Sincerely,--Soulparadox (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is one of the best Chicago Community Area articles. Unlike most of them, it really gives a feel for the neighborhood, its history, and its people past and present.69.85.218.68 (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Larry Siegel

Excessive bolding
I have reversed the excessive, unnecessary bolding in this article. Please read the Wikipedia guidelines for this topic before attempting to reinstate the previous, inappropriate formatting. Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Logan Square, Chicago. 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/20131005010817/http://www.robparal.com/downloads/CDPH/Citywide%20Summary.xlsx to http://www.robparal.com/downloads/CDPH/Citywide%20Summary.xlsx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006113902/http://www1.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/ukv/history/ to http://www1.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/ukv/history/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130318055428/http://www.robparal.com/downloads/ACS0509/HistoricalData/Chicago%20Community%20Areas%20Historical%20Data.htm to http://www.robparal.com/downloads/ACS0509/HistoricalData/Chicago%20Community%20Areas%20Historical%20Data.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) 06:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Logan Square, Chicago. 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/20160520084014/https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160516/logan-square/logan-squares-hispanic-population-dropped-by-19000-since-2000 to https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160516/logan-square/logan-squares-hispanic-population-dropped-by-19000-since-2000
 * Added tag to http://quickproxy4.chipublib.org/imrjL168/url=http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid%2Fiw.newsbank.com%3ANewsBank%3ACSTB&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=0EB37362D33E53CF&svc_dat=InfoWeb%3Aaggregated5&req_dat=C23BE832E46446E3AEC1CCAEBDEAF5AE
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100710131747/http://usps.whitepages.com/service/post_office/roberto-clemente-2339-n-california-ave-chicago-il-1379544 to http://usps.whitepages.com/service/post_office/roberto-clemente-2339-n-california-ave-chicago-il-1379544

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Logan Square, Chicago. 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/20101201140850/http://chicagopc.info/Chicago%20postcards/entertainment/clubs/chicago%20norske%20club%20ext.JPG to http://chicagopc.info/Chicago%20postcards/entertainment/clubs/chicago%20norske%20club%20ext.JPG

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) 05:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Citing
I marked areas that needed citing please go find those and cite them Logawinner (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Some are in The Belmont Gardens section. Logawinner (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Never mind I did it. Logawinner (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Logan Square, Chicago


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babes of Broadway

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. — Xezbeth 12:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Babes of Broadway
The article only contains a thumbnailed picture. No info at all. Kross 15:31, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for above reasons.--Kross 15:35, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete We are told that it is a "One-shot pin-up comic", but there is no indication to its notability. Sonic Mew 15:43, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as article with no content. -R. fiend 15:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy. No content.  Article created by a newbie who seems to have disappeared (no edits since May 26), so I think it's kind of a newbie mistake - created an article due to a redlink and thought that book cover images are appropriate articles.  Check out Broadway Comics.  This is the parent article (and, frankly, possibly another VfD candidate; company existed for one year 10 years ago (although I haven't (sorry) the time or energy to research this or list it)).  Another linked article is another cover image and is CSD'd. Soundguy99 17:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Changing vote - OK, fair enough, DS1953 added some content so it's no longer a speedy, but I now think (after doing some research) that a Merge and Redirect to Broadway Comics would be appropriate. I mean, c'mon guys, it's a one-shot pin-up; what kind of article could possibly be written?  B'way Comics is definitely keepable, but it's short, and IMHO merging all of the stuff in the subsidiary series articles would be a nice way to expand it.  Soundguy99 16:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I added a couple of sentences of content to put it into context so its now a stub, but I am not voting . DS1953 18:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep DS1953 03:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as a stub as expanded by DS1953. Legitimate comic from a legitimate company (which was run by the same company behind Saturday Night Live incidentally). Certainly it's no longer a speedy candidate IMO now that there is some content. 23skidoo 20:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as stub. Meelar (talk) 23:42, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep new version - nice turnaround. Ah, the magic of vfd... -- BD2412 talk 05:03, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
 * Keep rewritten version. Well done DS1953. JamesBurns 05:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Oldendorf, Stade

Oldendorf is a municipality in the district of Stade, in Lower Saxony, Germany. It is situated west of Hamburg. Oldendorf has a population of approx. 3,000. Oldendorf was the seat of the former Samtgemeinde ("collective municipality") Oldendorf.

History
Oldendorf belonged to the Prince-Archbishopric of Bremen, established in 1180. In 1648 the Prince-Archbishopric was transformed into the Duchy of Bremen, which was first ruled in personal union by the Swedish Crown - interrupted by a Danish occupation (1712–1715) - and from 1715 on by the Hanoverian Crown. In 1807 the ephemeric Kingdom of Westphalia annexed the Duchy, before France annexed it in 1810. In 1813 the duchy was restored to the Electorate of Hanover, which - after its upgrade to the Kingdom of Hanover in 1814 - incorporated the duchy in a real union and the ducal territory, including Oldendorf, became part of the new Stade Region, established in 1823.

title: Oldendorf, Stade