text:
Talk:Kenneth Branagh

Photo
Not a very good photo. Anyone got a better one? Djbrianuk 16:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Someone should post a photo from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein hehe, he looked good in that :D (tyger 19:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

Edits: Validated sources
I removed the comments regarding Branagh playing the new Batman as well as being a canidate for Obi-Wan Kenobi. I am sure of the former, but if anybody can find a source for the latter, feel free to restore it. It appears that the prankster who inserted Batman did not insert the Obi Wan comment, so I suppose it could possibly be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:KMils (talk • contribs)

 * Some time after it was confirmed that the prequel films were going to be made, I remember having heard this. Further to that, I seem to remember hearing that he was considered too old for the part, and that is why he had been ultimately rejected. I don't have any source (nor can I remember the source I originally read it in .. probably some semi-official internet fansite), but I have re-inserted the information under a new trivia section, and I will look for a source. --Mal 19:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Auto peer review suggestions

 * Note: This posting from 2006 has been modified in 2015 to remove -tags that had no meaningful content and were causing layout problems. The changes can be found in this page's history at the timestamp in my signature. --Xover (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
 * Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per WP:MOS-L and WP:CONTEXT.
 * Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
 * Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day.
 * If this article is about a person, please add  along with the required parameters to the article - see Persondata for more information.
 * Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
 * Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
 * Please alphabetize the.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 06:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
 * Please provide citations for all of the s.
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

Theatre
Hi, I wonder, why there is no short list of his theatre work? E.g.his 'Hamlet' with the RSC or his 'Richard III' in Sheffield.I think, that his work in the theatre is important enough to be listed here. Anne-theater 23.42 CET 5th, May 2007 I agree, as a biography this gives far too much weight to his film & TV career. There's no mention that he was the youngest ever actor to play Henry V with the RSC.Dimmacil (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just saw a video on ''you tube Mr Branagh acting on Hamlet like Sir Laurance did. Alloplastic nearly unhearable stuff in mirrowing himself. Can#T follow this non thinking! Disgusting because I like Hamlet#s Thinking in ouerdays reflective and not suicidel... Eating some earth... Heaven and earth_ I remember not a werther in this role, but a player and a strategue. Shall I do a version? Me in black stockings and a jacket out of sammet; female and greedy of recognition._ in the name of action!--Danaide (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should have seen him on stage and not on a video in a doubtful quality. You may have changed your mind. I found him to be the most interesting Hamlet I have seen so far in the Stratford version.Anne-theater (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

British, Irish, Northern Irish?
I have removed the description of him as a 'British' actor. Such a claim should not be used uncited given his origins in Belfast. Claiming someone from Belfast as British or Irish without adequate research is likely to be offensive to some, and inaccurate. The fact that he refused a British royal honour is indicative that such a statement should not be made without further backup. Some people from Belfast do not regard themselves as British, and some do not regard themselves as Irish. Editors should not unilaterally impose their own interpretation of someones nationality. Without further clarification I would propose 'Northern Irish'. 71.204.133.75 22:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

BET it AMERICANS who know little of the FACTS..?? A person from BELFAST can be as BRITISH as someone from LONDON, EDINBURGH or LONDON......ALL UK.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.230.38 (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

 * If certain British citizens are so offended by their own Britishness, they're free to emigrate elsewhere. Otherwise, it's an inescapable fact of life.  Branagh was born in a part of the UK, and he is therefore undeniably British, whether he personally likes this fact or not.  It's also true to say he's Northern Irish.  (It's even also true to say he's Irish, in the sense of coming from the island of Ireland).  What's wrong with saying he's a British actor from Northern Ireland?  Sean Connery is a British actor from Scotland.  Richard Burton was a British actor from Wales.  Roger Moore is a British actor from England.   They're all British.  --  JackofOz 22:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Branagh was born in an area whose citizens can have British or Irish or both nationalities, and passports. Neither Scottish or Welsh citizens can automatically get a different passport as no other existing sovereign state has a claim on these territories. Common practice in the case of NI persons is to describe then as NI actors/people - or as Irish or British depending on the individuals own views. To avoid giving offence it is best not to superimpose the Irish Question/British occupation or whatever one wishes to call it - on articles where it has no significant relevance. Describing someone as British by virtue of their birth in Belfast is unwise without further reference as to the individuals views - in the the absence of this (unnecessary) referencing, you should describe him as a Northern Irish actor. As to the inane, xenophobic/nationalist comment 'If certain British citizens are so offended by their own Britishness, they're free to emigrate elsewhere.' I would suggest you study history - and English: British refers to England, Scotland and Wales only - which is why said passport says United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland. The UK has never claimed NI to be Britain, it claims it to be a part of the UK - and with the Northern Ireland Act 1998, this is only claimed as a part of a joint process with Ireland. Referring to someone from Belfast as 'British' with no further work is Original Research at best, and POV or trolling at worst. 71.204.133.75 00:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the flattery. To the extent that I stand corrected, I stand corrected.  Is it the case that a NI person with an Irish passport can change his mind and obtain a British one?  Or vice-versa?  And can they do this as often as their whims and caprices dictate?  Would our articles on such people have to be updated every time this happens?  Can they hold both Irish and UK passports simultaneously, and if so, where would we stand?  I'm just curious about how far this issue might have to be taken in an extreme case.   JackofOz 00:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Actually they can get both. And the liklyhood of switch is about the same as someone from Southern Japan flipping between being Korean or Japanese. About the only flip-flop I ever heard of was a Beirut Hostage who later got Irish citizenship as far less countries would be hostile to efforts to release him. It doesn't happen, hopefully in the future as passions are replace by peace, that maybe the case - but then its likely that EU citizenship will be far more relevant than local alliegences, and thus rendering it all irrelevant. 71.204.133.75 22:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Your point about Branagh refusing a British honour does not, of itself, say anything about his Britishness or lack thereof. Many UK citizens (including many from Great Britain) have refused British honours for reasons that generally have nothing to do with a desire to not be associated with British institutions.  Indeed, in some cases they’ve refused only because of the "lowly" status of the honour, eg. they declined the offer of a OBE or CBE because what they really wanted was a knighthood or an OM or CH, which, in some cases, was subsequently offered and accepted.  Maybe Kenneth is hanging in there until he's made Sir Kenneth, who knows.  --  JackofOz 00:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Kenneth is known to be Anglican, that means there is a high degree of probability he considers himself British, but this is not a certainty. I think this is all a red herring, this article in no way benefited from making a first sentence declaration of his 'Britishness', which served merely to politice it. You'll note I did not advocate switching it to "Irish Actor", as neither would that have benefited the article enough to merit a line one listing. Saying he is British, absolutely, as a matter of birth in Belfast makes as much sense as saying Darwin is part of Indonesia because some nationalist general in Indonesia believes it is part of a greater Indonesia. Then there's the matter of whether you would call all Irish people British, after all Britain will give a passport at any stage to someone born in Ireland before 1922; which will then confer their grandchildren with the possibility of being a Subject of Britain in addition to or instead of a Citizen of Ireland. The bottom line is in the case of NI, an individual's nationality is not as clear cut as in a widely recognised, and unoccupied nation state, and is generally down to the individual. It's just unnecessary in this article, needless politisation. 71.204.133.75 22:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * actually someone born in Northern Ireland is automatically British, Irish nationality is a choice it is not automatic, also someone can be British coming from Northern Ireland, just like someone from Hawaii is an american, geography and jurisdiction are two different things, next you will be saying Barack obama is not american as he was not born in america when he was born in Hawaii which is a part of american soil located in the pacific but its still america none the less 2A02:C7C:6322:2800:254A:F9D7:4AFD:352B (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

 * I tried to do some research on this. I found a newspaper interview where he says that even though he left Belfast when he was nine years old, "I feel Irish. I don't think you can take Belfast out of the boy." Later he says "I remember quickly adopting an English accent for school, while keeping the Irish one for home," and "Being Irish, I'd always had this love of words". I don't know what that says about his citizenship, but obviously he identifies with Irishness on a personal level. Downstage right (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

 * He was born in Northern Ireland, to Northern-Irish parents, but self-identifies as Irish - which is the important one. I believe that Wikipedia respects a persons preference to nationality. White43 (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to break it to yet another O'Wikipedian, but self-identification and nationality are not related. I self-identify as English, but my nationality is still British. 86.2.64.179 (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

He supports Linfield and Rangers which leads one to the opinion that he is British first, and Irish merely by virtue of geographical birth. Peter O'Toole is Irish but was born in Britain. Branagh is British, but born on the island of Ireland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.145.93 (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

People from Northern Ireland have the right to be "British, Irish or both, if they so choose" per the Belfast Agreement. Kenneth has self identified as "Irish". Where is the debate? There is a clear bigotry at work here. This cannot be allowed on an encyclopedia, otherwise it makes a mockery of the entire site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.45.222.60 (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See my comment about an inch above. It's possible to call oneself Irish but be British by nationality (the UK is a nation of nations, in case that passed you by).  You keep your claims of bigotry - what about the armies of bigots who scream with anger when anyone dares point out that Obama is 16 times less Irish than he is British, or remind O'Wikipedians that The Edge and Adam Clayton are British: born in Britain to Britons and still holding British passports?  Yeah, no Irishman has EVER been biased against the UK or its people.  Cry your "bigot" river somewhere else. 86.2.64.179 (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say you're right about the bigotry but there's plenty of it still in Northern Ireland. Branagh has a British passport, he's a British citizen, so he's British. 86.180.37.142 (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points on this. (1)There is no such thing as a British Passport. There is a passport covering the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (2)While the Belfast Agreement allows people of Northern Ireland to claim to be British or Irish I personally don't know anyone who would refer to anyone in Northern Ireland as anything other than Irish. You can be a UK citizen and English, Scottish or Welsh. Certainly you can be both a UK citizen and Irish as well? 87.194.162.141 (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

 * a UK citizen is a British citizen it literally says "British citizen"in a UK passport and I am from Northern Ireland it says that in mine "British citizen" 2A02:C7C:6322:2800:254A:F9D7:4AFD:352B (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I DOP NOT KNOW anyone in NI who would DARE call the majority IRISH..Have you been to NI? Do you know anything about us??? See NOT.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.230.38 (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

 * The UK government office responsible for issuing passports refers to UK Passports as - guess what - "British Passports", see the WP article entitled "British Passport" for more info. The opinions of your personal circle of friends don't really enter the equation, nor should they. The terms "British" and Irish" are not mutually exclusive, so I suggest ignoring Brannagh's British citizenship is indefensible in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.76.233 (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There IS such a thing as a BRITISH passport (IS what has always been called since the ADJECTIVE pertaining to the UK is BRITSISH)... AND MOST NI PROTESTANTS dislike being called IRISH ..Would NEVER carry an IRISH passport, even though technically are entitled..Such are taken by the RC minority..Get it straight...ONLY an oddball minority of Loyalists would ever apply for an Irish passport... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.230.38 (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Seems to me the British Nationality Act 1981 is clear that someone born in the UK and who was a UK citizen at the required date (with rights of abode and work in the UK) is a British Citizen. This applies to the whole of the UK and not just that part defined as Great Britain. The fact that Branagh has accepted a Knight Bachelor also seems pretty definitive that he is a British Citizen and that is his nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedschris (talk • contribs) 21:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

NEVER read such RUBBISH..IN WHAT WE ALL CALL A BRITISH passport we are described as BRITISH citizen...Includes the MAJORITY of us in NI who have such....A case of others telling US what we are ..Citizen of UK =BRITISH..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.230.38 (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC) A LOT here NEED to know to call MOST people from Northern Ireland IRISH is taken as an insult.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.230.38 (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The guy played Henry V (one of the English greats) and a Colonel in the British Army... calling him just 'Irish' will no doubt mean people will be confused about his nationality. He came from an Anglican family and said family then moved to Reading in Southern England to avoid The Troubles - not Manchester, not Liverpool... bloody Reading! Quite frankly, I see any deviation from 'British actor from Northern Ireland' as biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.64.223 (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the British note as the previous version called him an Ulster actor which is misleading as Ulster includes counties which are in the ROI. He has a knighthood so it is fairly clear that he identifies as British rather than Irish, so the article now clarifies that he is a British Actor from Belfast in Northern Ireland.PompeyTheGreat (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

There's reference to him self Identifying as Irish, we can't just go changing the article pompey on personal whims. lets discuss this before editing it to our wants. if there's contention, lets leave it as both until we can decide. Perendinatorian (User talk:Perendinatorian) 02:50, 29 October 2021 (GMT)
 * Firstly, WP should be about neither politics nor self-identification; it’s an encyclopaedia. I have restored the long-standing version of this page, as per STATUSQUO and BRD, pending any other consensus emerging from this discussion. The question here is how Branagh is described in reliable sources across the world.  A more thorough survey might help resolve this issue, but when we have looked before, most RS both in the media and journalistic world describe him as a British actor, which is also his legal nationality. In these circumstances there is nothing for editors to ‘decide’; we simply follow the sources.  I have no political axe to grind here; the article says right at top that he was born in Belfast, and that should be sufficient. MapReader (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree in practice, but the nationality of someone from northern Ireland is a self identification, as per https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/about-northern-ireland. And on multiple occasions statement like this have been made I feel more Irish than English. I feel freer than British, more visceral, with a love of language. Shot through with fire in some way. That's why I resist being appropriated as the current repository of Shakespeare on the planet. That would mean I'm part of the English cultural elite, and I am utterly ill-fitted to be.. that's why I feel both should be shown. Perendinatorian (User talk:Perendinatorian) 03:38, 31 October 2021 (GMT)
 * In practice, as you say, WP follows the sources, as far as descriptors are concerned, and if you review policy on biographies you will see that people writing about themselves is strongly discouraged. WP is not autobiography.  The best use for your quote is to find a context for referring to it (i.e. including it) within the article itself, as material that offers a (self) view on the subject.  That would be fine.  But it is the RS that define how someone is described. MapReader (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it wrong the info that he is Northern Irish? No, it's not. I even linked the Northern Irish page that (GASP!) exists on Wikipedia. Now, Northern Irish citizens are part of the UK. As of now, at least (I hope that will change eventually, but hey, that's me). But right now there's no reason to "correct" Northern Irish into british: his UK nationality isn't under discussion, it's just a more specific fitting that, while conveying his UK nationality (unless you live under a rock and don't know about Northern Ireland), it also conveys MORE information. There's literally no downside. On the other hand, british is literally wrong. British means from Great Britain, which is NOT the whole UK, just the british island. Northern Ireland isn't in Great Britain. It's in the UK, but not in Great Britain. So British is factually wrong. So I don't get why you keep insisting into "fixing" a factually correct and also more precise information for one that is 1- technically wrong and 2- even assuming it was correct and going "british = UK and not just Great britain", it conveys less nuance and detail. Also looks like you're trying very hard to cancel his irish identity. 82.50.16.60 (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point? WP edits not according to editor opinion or argument, but based on how information is presented in reliable sources.  As per the discussion above, Branagh is widely described as a British actor.  That he was born in Belfast is covered early and prominently in the lead, as factual data, and doesn’t need repeating. MapReader (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources are necessary when an information has to be "proven", confirmed, isn't self-explanatory. You don't need a source to define someone born in Northern Ireland from Northern Irish parents Northern Irish. Of course, you have to show the sources that
 * 1- he was born and grew up in Northern Ireland and
 * 2- he was born to Northern Irish parents
 * but the fact that he is Northern Irish is a consequence of this two provable facts and thus needs no source, nor is it relevant how media speaks of him. 82.50.16.60 (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, that’s not the point. WP is an encyclopaedia that presents information according to the reliable secondary sources.  It doesn’t work on editor argument or even “provable fact”.  Whether you think you can prove a fact or not is irrelevant (and of course your fact is already stated at the beginning of the second sentence of the article, and prominent in the infobox). People are described here according to how they are described in the RS, not according to how editors think they should be described. MapReader (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:IMOS, specifically MOS:IMOS BIOPLACE. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

 * That’s a red herring as far as the descriptor in the opening sentence is concerned, which is always based on the RS. IMOS relates to how birthplace locations are described, given the historical changes in Ireland and Northern Ireland’s history. By stating that Branagh was born in Belfast, this article avoids any conflict with IMOS. MapReader (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

 * And there's absolutely nothing preventing greater precision, either. "...from Northern Ireland" or "is a Northern Irish [thing causing notability]" are both absolutely common forms of expression in lede sentences for people from Northern Ireland. will be able to verify. Branagh describes himself as Irish, btw! Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Lead sentence descriptors follow the RS, and Branagh is, according to reliable sources from around the English speaking world, generally described as a British actor. The absence of a volume of RS using alternatives absolutely does prevent using alternative terms.  The very next sentence says that he was born in Belfast, and by using that terminology we avoid having to get embroiled in the sensitivities that IMOS is attempting to find a way through. MapReader (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Standard practice on Wikipedia for people from Northern Ireland who haven't identified their national identity preference (which they're 100% entitled to do) is to just use the neutral "from Northern Ireland." If they have self-identified as a particular identity then it can be used, along with a reference. If non-self identified then we should not presume their preferred identity and keep it neutral. Canterbury Tail talk 17:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Sorry, what's "volume kf"? I'm not familiar with the term. Belfast being in Northern Ireland is WP:SKYISBLUE territory, and I don't honestly believe you're saying we can say he's from Belfast but not that he's from Northern Ireland because a source doesn't say Belfast is in NI. And the reason use of "...from Northern Ireland" or "is a Northern Irish [thing causing notability]" are both absolutely common forms of expression in lede sentences for people from Northern Ireland is precisely to avoid edit wars over "he's British"/"no, he's Irish." It works on every other NI BLP where it's used... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This has been debated extensively on this page, and the long-standing description as a British actor born in Belfast and raised in Reading has been stable for a long time, reflects the reliable sources, and is supported by citation. There is no reason to change it. MapReader (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thor
Is he legit going to direct Thor? There's no source, and I haven't heard anything like it.70.179.98.58 (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

 * He is in talks about the possibility of directing it but nothing has been signed or decided. It should not be listed here per WP:CRYSTAL until a final decision is made. MarnetteD | Talk 00:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to formulate a sentence or 2 about his cultural and religious insensitivity as a director, regarding the casting of idris as Heimdel in Thor. There are many scandinavian people and comic fans who are furious for this kind of violation and feel hurt by it, much as if Muhammad was portrayed as white or the Queen of England, a black woman. Someone get back to me so we can start and negotiate the format.PeterHarlington (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can find the sources, by all means please do. Remember it can't just be your own point-of-view though, it needs to be backed up by source material. JonChapple Talk 14:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To follow up on JonChapple's recommendation IMO you need to proceed with caution. At the moment you look to be a WP:SPA with a POV ax to grind. If you can provide any sourcing for your assertions I would suggest that it belongs on the article for the film. Per WP:UNDUE it would have limited usefulness on this article. You might also want to investigate any praise for his cultural sensitivity in his portrayal of the Scandinavian character Wallander. MarnetteD | Talk 16:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Audio Books?
There is a sentence listed in Branagh's film work detailing his work in audio books. This is sentence is obviously misplaced. Any ideas on where to move it or wether to remove it competely? In my opinion it is not notable enough to warrant its own section. TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a significant "discography and audiobooks" list towards the end of the article so it would seem sensible that this aspect is covered in the description of Branagh's career. The sentence you're objecting to is not in a section of its own, but only under a sub-heading. I don't see a problem. Exok (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits on 24 Oct
An IP editor keeps adding Irish nationality with three poor references, WP:OR in all cases as the facts arent in them. The three that are given include "Kenneth Branagh is also of Irish descent"- not Irish nationality or citizenship, "Branagh moved to Reading when he was still in primary school, but has credited his Irish background for his love of language" with the ironic point of this interview in accpecting a royal honor which (Bachelor Knight) can be only bestowed on British citizens (if he had dual nationality he would have had to ask the Irish government for premission to recieve) and "I feel more Irish than English. I feel freer than British, more visceral, with a love of language. Shot through with fire in some way. That's why I resist being appropriated as the current repository of Shakespeare on the planet. That would mean I'm part of the English cultural elite, and I am utterly ill-fitted to be", again this is the closest but does not give his nationality or citizenship over ethnic background or does not affirm that he believes himself to be solely Irish either (and I re-emphasize that it is still not clear over nationality/citizenship or etnicity). Murry1975 (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Agree, his nationality must be explicitly verified. However this issue can be avoided all together by just simply stating his nation of birth, Northern Ireland.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is not even a Country so He is not Irish
Northern Ireland is a region which is part of Britain, just like Scotland and Wales

Everybody in Northern Ireland are British having a British citizen and British passport

there is no such thing as Irish Citizen in Northern Ireland

so He is British — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.10.55.222 (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

 * According to the British government Northern Ireland is one of the four countries that make up the United Kingdom. Indeed more people in NI selected Northern Irish as their sole identity in the last census than those that choose Irish, so it is a valid identity which simply means someone from Northern Ireland. Also there is such a thing as Irish citizens in NI due to the GFA. Mabuska (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you even read his Bio? He moved to England since he was 9. He is not Northern Irish anymore despite there is no such thing as North Irish Nationality. Northern Ireland is not even a nation. prove me that there is such thing as Northern Irish Citizen, now. and He has been living in England for his life for over 50 years now and on   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.10.55.50 (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

1.Prove that There is such thing as Northern Irish Citizen. 2.Prove that There is even North Irish Passport. 3. Prove that Northern Irish is a country. It has never been formed as a Country since the Beginning. It is a Region from the start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.10.55.50 (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

 * It's hard to know where to begin with 58.10's comment. The title of this paragraph I suppose, would be a good start. As has been pointed out, Northern Ireland is indeed regarded as a country. Part of the problem some people have is that the definition of "country" in the English language can be very loose. Northern Ireland is certainly not a sovereign country. Nor are England, Scotland or Wales.

 * However, saying that Northern Ireland is not a country and that THAT makes Mr Branagh NOT Irish, is like saying, "London is not even a country, so Kit Harrington is not English". There is absolutely no logic to the statement.

 * Moving along, correctly speaking Northern Ireland is not "a part of Britain". Nor even Great Britain. Northern Ireland is a part of the sovereign country the United Kingdom. Just like Scotland, Wales and England.

 * Further on, the next paragraph makes slightly more sense. At least the conclusion is correct - the explanation is not. People in Northern Ireland born there before 1981 are automatically British due to British citizenship laws. Not everybody in Northern Ireland holds a British passport. I don't know what "having a British citizen" means, so I cannot comment on that part of the statement!

 * The result is that Kenneth Branagh is indeed British. As it happens, so is Gerry Adams, unless he specifically renounced his British citizenship. Legally speaking, Adams is a British citizen, whether he accepts that as fact or not.

 * The Belfast, or Good Friday, Agreement has done nothing to change any of this. All the Agreement did was set out the civic right of everyone from Northern Ireland to describe themselves as British or Irish, or both. This merely reaffirms what had already been happening in Northern Ireland for decades. It's nothing new. People were able to hold British, or Republic of Ireland passports in the past. The only thing that might have changed is the idea of dual citizenship (and therefore legal ownership of BOTH passports).

 * To reiterate: people from Northern Ireland can "identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose". I don't think it particularly changed nationality law in the UK. It just reaffirms the right that people have to describe themselves as British or Irish or both.

 * Irish citizens come and go in Northern Ireland all the time. Many are actually from Northern Ireland, and their rights to describe themselves as such, and to hold a passport of the Republic, are affirmed by the 1998 Agreement.

 * However, legally speaking, anyone from Northern Ireland born before 1981 is automatically a British citizen. The only way to voluntarily stop being a British citizen is to apply in writing to the British government.

 * Another part of the problem is that the word "Irish" has a few different contexts. Branagh undoubtedly feels Irish because he was born in Ireland, to Irish parents, descended from Irish people from at least the 1600s. With a name like Branagh, he probably has Irish ancestors from way before the Plantations too, like most people from Northern Ireland.

 * In this context, 'nationality' in terms of legal belonging to a specific sovereign country is not applicable.

 * Many Northern Irish people are happy to identify as Irish without suggesting any connection with the Republic of Ireland. One can be Irish and not have affiliation with, or allegiance to, the Republic of Ireland, or the desire for a 32-county independent state.

 * Indeed, according to the Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey, the 2016 results suggest that some 46% of Northern Irish people regard themselves as Irish to some degree or other. That number is coincidentally a similar number to the percentage of Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland. However, on further examination, it can be seen that 54% of people who declared themselves in the survey as Protestant also describe themselves as being, to one extent or another, Irish. Plus 68% of those surveyed who were of no fixed religion also see themselves as Irish to one degree or other.

 * The difference that is felt toward the term Irish and the demarcation of context with regard to the description 'Irish' as a sovereign nationality, particularly by those of a Protestant background, can be seen when they are asked to describe themselves in a more either/or question. Therefore when asked if they are British or Irish, many more Protestants will tend to answer British. In the case of the 2015 Life & Times Survey, for example, only 2% of the Protestant respondents choose "Irish" as their answer. This is despite the fact that, in 2015, 48% of Protestants described themselves as Irish to some degree in another question.

 * For people of a Protestant background, context is everything. It has become confused over the decades because, for Protestants, political affiliation to the words "Irish" and "Ireland" by certain terrorist organisations has made them feel alienated from those descriptions. Far fewer Protestants today describe themselves as Irish than people prior to 1922. Even fewer still since the modern Troubles circa 1969.

 * Moving along to 58.10's next posted message, it is hard to understand the logic of what they are saying. Moving to England, no matter what age, does not particularly change the ethnic roots of a person. To wit, Branagh is still Northern Irish, and Irish, and British, even if he has lived most of his life in England. If a person from Denmark moved to England when they were 9 years old, it doesn't make them any less Danish, ethnically speaking.

 * There is indeed a nation of Northern Irish people, by dint of the fact that there are a large number of people who come from, or inhabit, Northern Ireland. Nobody is claiming that Northern Ireland is a sovereign state: it isn't. But somebody from Wales is generally regarded as Welsh, from Scotland Scottish and from England English. "Citizens from Northern Ireland" or "people of Northern Ireland" means that there are "Northern Irish citizens" and "Northern Irish people". It is grammar and descriptors.

 * It would not be possible to prove that there is a "Northern Irish passport", because there isn't one. Passports have little to do with it. Nationality law differs from ethnicity. There is no such thing as an English passport, for example, and yet there are - somehow - English people.

 * Finally, proving that Northern Ireland is, or is not, a country is not particularly relevant. Prove, for example, that Liverpool is a place. There exist Liverpudlians. How can this be, when Liverpool is clearly not a country?! However, arguably Northern Ireland could be described more fittingly as a country than England, Scotland or Wales. After all, for good or for bad, Northern Ireland had its own devolved government for some fifty years. It was without a devolved parliament since 1973, but regained local regional devolved powers again in the early years of the 21st century. By contrast, Scotland and Wales have only had devolved administrations since 1998.

 * England, of course, has not had a separate local administrative government since before the Union of 1707.

 * Even without this added level of administrative context though, Northern Ireland certainly fits into the definition of a country. Again arguably, Northern Ireland is actually the continuation of the country that had been Ireland, because the Irish Free State actually broke away from it - not the other way around. This "Ireland" just became smaller, and its administrative headquarters was moved.

 * Just as a footnote, many politicians in what was to become the Republic feared that the politicians in the North would choose the name "Ireland" for the country. It's already confusing enough that there are two Irelands due to the fact that the Republic insists on people calling it "Ireland", in common with the name of the island.

 * It is ironic that many of these same people object to the idea of referring to Northern Ireland as "Ulster". The Republic of Ireland is merely the majority of Ireland - not all of it, just in the same way that Northern Ireland is merely the majority of Ulster - not all of it.

 * To sum up, the terms "Irish" and "British" have never been mutually exclusive. In a similar way, the terms "English" and "British" are not mutually exclusive. The term "Northern Irish" exists and, again according to the Life & Times Survey in 2016 28% of the surveyed population chose that term as a sole description. Many more describe themselves as Northern Irish in combination with "British" and/or "Irish". The fact is that over half of people of a Protestant background see themselves as Irish in some context, even if they also see themselves as British. While Branagh probably doesn't feel associated particularly strongly with the Republic of Ireland in a national notion, he is almost the rule for Northern Irish people, rather than an exception, by owning his Irish identity. 24.163.2.149 (talk) 09:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That must have taken some time to write up. The problem the other IP has is that they are confusing the definition of the term country. On one hand it can refer to a sovereign state, I.e. Spain or the UK, on the second hand it can refer to a region of a sovereign state, I.e. the Basque Country or England. Never heard of a Basque or English citizen or passport..... Mabuska (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

He doesn't hold an Irish passport, so saying he holds 'Irish' Nationality would be misleading. PompeyTheGreat (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Despite the hidden note an IP/IPs changed his 'nationality' here, no summary, they've been doing other silly edits. In the text Branagh apparently 'identifies' as Irish. 220  of  Borg 14:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think 'irish-born British' is an apt descriptor in the lede. Kenneth himself is vocal on his Belfast/Northern Irish roots and identity.Halbared (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Collaborations
Collaborations seems a little arbitrary (extending this to other individuals would be arduous and of little value), the table herein could grow significantly to cover all twice-credited actor that gets a mention, surely adding prose to cover the significant and or multiple project co-works would be more beneficial especially if either party had direct hire/recommendation/red line/line in sand authority/investment/pull and these should really be differentiated.121.99.108.78 (talk) 08:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

RADA / "new wave of actors"
In the second paragraph of the Career / Theatre section there’s a passage referring to RADA that says, "Branagh was part of the 'new wave' of actors to emerge from the Academy. Others included Jonathan Pryce, Juliet Stevenson, Alan Rickman, Anton Lesser, Bruce Payne and Fiona Shaw". ....Aside from the fact that somebody is copying and pasting this section into other articles on actors, it seems odd: the "generation" it's referring to is rather vague, to stay the least. Jonathan Pryce left RADA around 1968. Alan Rickman left around 1967. Branagh left around 1981. To say he's from the same "generation" as the 2 other actors is incorrect. Pryce was "known" and was working through the 70's (actually Branagh would have been at school at the time), and although Rickman's success seemed concurrent with Brannagh's, to include him and Pryce in Branagh's generation would seem wide of the mark. Have also mentioned as much on the Pryce talk page.

Favourites Films - new section
Re: new section created by The One I Left -- without any context or specific attachment to facts in the article, this section seems to qualify as trivia. Please reference WP:HTRIVIA. If you can amend this section with further notes on how these films have been cited as influences, it would be worthy of inclusion. Otherwise, I'd recommend deletion of this section. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, come on, this was a valuable part of the article. It’s a specific submission he made for a project, not coastal conversation or gossip. I’d be happy to find all of those entries in the articles for other contributors. Marty Mangold (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Relationship with 1st wife? Comment
Query: Is it known whether his 1st wife, Emma Thompson, and Branagh have been able to sustain a friendship? The article doesn't address this in neither a positive nor negative way. I know that he scuttled his own marriage with his Helena Bonham Carter relationship, but they are both brilliant and it would be a crying shame if they never worked together again. Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Covid
This is a wider issue for BLP, the "tested positive for Covid". Fortunately, Branagh recovered and is healthy, and is attending this year's Oscars. But is his testing positive briefly for Covid and quickly recovering sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia? I am not sure it passes a WP:10YT. Solipsism 101 (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kenneth Branagh


text: Category:Rivers of Panama

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

title: Category:Rivers of Panama


text:
CKC

CKC is a three-letter acronym that may stand for:

 * Canadian Kennel Club, one of the national kennel clubs of Canada
 * Canoe Kayak Canada
 * Cervical conization, cold knife conization
 * Chicago–Kansas City Expressway
 * Capital Kids' Cricket, charity, London, UK
 * Christ the King College, Onitsha, or CKC Onitsha, Nigeria
 * CKC Chinese Input System
 * Closed kinetic chain exercises, physical exercises performed where the hand or foot is fixed in space and cannot move
 * The IATA code for Cherkasy International Airport, Cherkasy Oblast, Ukraine

title: CKC


text:
Bhakti Tirtha Swami

Bhakti Tirtha Swami (February 25, 1950 – June 27, 2005), previously called John Favors and Toshombe Abdul and also known by the honorific Krishnapada, was a guru and governing body commissioner of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (commonly known as the Hare Krishnas or ISKCON). He was the highest-ranking African American in ISKCON.

He wrote 17 books on religious topics and led community development projects in the United States and other countries. He was the founder and director of the Institute for Applied Spiritual Technology in Washington, DC, "a nonprofit, nondenominational organization whose membership represents a variety of spiritual paths and professional backgrounds". He traveled frequently and served as a spiritual consultant. He also served as chairman of the Third World Coalition. On February 7, 2006, the Council of the District of Columbia recognized him for dedication to social change for residents in the District of Columbia.

Early life
Bhakti Tirtha Swami was born John Edwin Favors on February 25, 1950, into a Christian family living in Cleveland, Ohio, US. His parents instilled in him the values of self-confidence, religiosity and a spirit of generosity demonstrated by giving to persons less fortunate than oneself. As a child, John Favors appeared on television to preach Christianity.

Education
Favors excelled in his academic achievements while attending East Technical High School in Cleveland and received a scholarship to attend the prestigious Hawken School, where he spent an additional year of college preparation in philosophy and political science. While at Hawken, he was a member of the football and wrestling teams.

In 1968 he came to Princeton University. While at Princeton, he partook as a leader in Martin Luther King Jr.'s civil rights movement being "at the forefront of political activism on campus, a leader of the Association of Black Collegians (ABC) and a founder of the Third World Center". He also served as a president of the student council. In 1972, he earned a B.A. in psychology and African American studies. Attending lectures at the university and reading books on different subjects, "he began feeling the futility of acquiring knowledge which would become obsolete very soon".

International Society for Krishna Consciousness
After Princeton, he joined the Hare Krishna Movement and "began a career of worldwide travel, study, teaching, lecturing, and writing". On February 16, 1973, in Los Angeles he was initiated into the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition by ISKCON's founder A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, whereupon he was given the name Ghanashyam Dasa (meaning servant of Krishna). In the 1970s, Ghanashyam Dasa preached Gaudiya Vaishnavism in Eastern Europe by distributing religious books and working with scholars.

On March 13, 1979, during Gaura-purnima festival at New Vrindaban, he was initiated into the Vaishnava sannyasa order of renunciation by Kirtanananda Swami and given the name Bhakti Tirtha Swami. In the same year, he visited Nigeria and to assist Brahmananda Swami in preaching in West Africa. In 1990, he was crowned as high chief in Warri, Nigeria. Later he went on to become a senior leader and one of the most prominent preachers within ISKCON and a member of its management body known as the Governing Body Commission.

He was the first person of African descent to become an initiating guru in the disciplic succession of the ancient Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Sampradaya. As a religious leader, Bhakti-tirtha Swami made a friendship with celebrities and served as a spiritual consultant, specializing in international relations and conflict resolution to high-ranking members of the United Nations and world leaders, including former President of South Africa Nelson Mandela and Zambia's president Kenneth Kaunda

Nori Muster (Ex-member of ISKCON) whom worked for ten years as a public relations secretary and editor of ISKCON's newspaper, the ISKCON World Review, recalls in her book:

In 1990, Bhakti Tirtha Swami was crowned High Chief in Warri, Nigeria, West Africa in recognition of the reputable work he performed there.

Works
Swami published more than 17 books and was frequently interviewed in the media.

Films
Bhakti Tirtha Swami took part in many documentaries, television shows and was frequently interviewed in the media. B.T. Swami Vault was created to preserve his filmed memory B. T. Swami was interviewed in One: The Movie

Death
Bhakti Tirtha Swami died following complications from melanoma cancer on June 27, 2005, 3:35pm at Gita Nagari,, the Gaudiya Vaishnava Krishna community in central Pennsylvania. Bhakti Tirtha Swami is survived by four sisters, Bernadette Satterfield, Julia Henderson, Frances Myers, and Marguerite Brooks; a brother, Paul Favors; and numerous nieces and nephews.

Honors
On February 7, 2006, the Council of the District of Columbia adopted ceremonial resolution, in which it "recognized His Holiness Bhakti Tirtha Swami Krishnapada for dedication to social change that has impacted civil and human rights for residents in the District of Columbia".

Black Lotus biography
In 2007, his biography was released, entitled Black Lotus: The Spiritual Journey of an Urban Mystic, the 410-page book is complete with full-color pictures, interviews with loved ones, and comprehensive Index. The author, Steven J. Rosen is senior editor of the Journal of Vaishnava Studies and associate editor of Back to Godhead, the magazine of the Hare Krishna movement. According to Princeton University website, the book "explores the life and mission of His Holiness Bhakti Tirtha Swami (1950-2005), an African-American seeker who rose from impoverished conditions in the Cleveland ghetto to become a global spiritual leader of the Hare Krishna movement".

title: Bhakti Tirtha Swami


text:
Arsu

Arsu was a god worshipped in Palmyra, Syria.

A deity known from Syrian and northern Arabian lands, being represented as either male or female (most often). Arsu was connected with the evening star.

Frequently portrayed as riding a camel and accompanied by his twin brother Azizos; both were regarded as the protectors of caravans. His worship is also confirmed by material evidence found in the Temple of Adonis, Dura-Europos. In the temple complex there was a relief depicting Arsu on a camel. The inscription under the figure reads: "Oga the sculptor has made (this to) 'Arsu the camel-rider, for the life of his son". It is likely he was associated with the planet Mercury early on.

Elsewhere in pre-Islamic Arabia, he was equated with Ruda (literally benign).

title: Arsu


text:
Mandelʹshtam (crater)

Mandelshtam is the remains of a large crater on the Moon's far side named after Leonid Mandelstam. Nearly attached to the northeast outer rim is the crater Papaleksi. To the south lies the crater Vening Meinesz.

The outer rim of this crater has been battered into near ruin, with sections forming only an irregular circular rise in the surface. Much of the rim consists of clefts, small craters, and ridges. The satellite crater Mandelshtam R breaks across the rim to the west-southwest, and Mandelshtam Y is attached to the northern edge.

The interior floor of the crater has not escaped bombardment, and the central portion is overlain by Mandelshtam A, a respectable crater in its own right. Mandelshtam N lies on the interior along the south-southwestern inner edge. The northwestern floor and to a lesser degree the southeast floor are relatively level, and have suffered less impact damage than elsewhere.

The crater was named after Dutch geophysicist and geodesist Leonid I. Mandelshtam by the IAU in 1970. Mandelʹshtam was known as Crater 220 prior to naming.

The small crater Mandelshtam F to the east has a small ray system with several faint, streaky rays overlaying the floor of Mandelshtam.

Satellite craters
By convention these features are identified on lunar maps by placing the letter on the side of the crater midpoint that is closest to Mandelshtam.

title: Mandelʹshtam (crater)


text:
Ludmila Javorová

Ludmila Javorová (born 31 January 1932 in Brno) is a Czech Roman Catholic woman who worked in the underground church during the time of communist rule in Czechoslovakia and served as a vicar general of a clandestine bishop. She was one of a number of Czech women who were allegedly ordained priests, the religious validity of which has been disputed since.

Life
Javorová was born into a Catholic family in Brno in 1932. Although she expressed a wish to become a nun, that was not possible in the time of communism, so she started to work in civilian professions and to support Church activities in her free time.

According to statements made in 1995 and later, the underground bishop Felix Maria Davídek, a friend of Javorová's family, secretly ordained her on 29 December 1970, during the early years of Soviet occupation of the country after the Prague Spring. She had served as his secretary and deputy after his release from prison in 1964 and "gradually took over important tasks in organising the clandestine Church structure Koinótés." Davídek named her his vicar general and later ordained her a priest. Around five women were thought to have been ordained in total, with Javorová the only one publicly known.

After the end of communist rule in Czechoslovakia in 1989, Javorová seemingly tried for some time to conceal her status from the public, saying that "the time is not ripe to talk about that". Around 1995, she changed her mind and decided to speak publicly. She helped to prepare a book interview about her experiences, authored by Miriam Therese Winter. Javorová now lives in Brno and remains an active member of the Roman Catholic Church. She is currently a speaker of the Liturgical Commission of her local parish.

Controversy
Although there is thought to be no evidence that an ordination ceremony did or did not take place as claimed, its theological significance has been the subject of controversy.

On one side, Davidek, who had himself spent 14 years in prison as a result of his faith, justified the ordinations based on the pastoral needs of a church suffering harsh persecution, particularly of women tortured in prison who had no contact with male priests but could be ministered to by priests of the same gender. Archbishop John Bukovsky has described the ordinations as "illicit but valid".

On the other side, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that an ordination ceremony performed on a woman would be invalid as well as illicit; this doctrine is found in the writings of Thomas Aquinas and many others. Pope John Paul II has written "Priestly ordination, which hands on the office entrusted by Christ to his Apostles of teaching, sanctifying and governing the faithful, has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone" in his Apostolic Letter, Ordinatio sacerdotalis. This is reflected in the current Code of Canon Law.

Within Davídek's group itself, the ordination of women and of married men was highly controversial and may have played a role in its splitting in the early 1970s. Davídek himself concealed Javorová's ordination from many of his co-workers and demanded written promises of "absolute silence on the matter" from people participating in his secret ordinations. Historians Fiala and Hanuš argue that these ordained women had very few specific sacerdotal tasks in Davídek's group, and conclude from this that their ordinations can therefore be considered as only a "symbolical act and a precedent".

Christian publisher Hermann Herder – who had met Javorová – said in an interview that the ordination had been real, but was invalidated by the Vatican after the fall of the communist regime.

title: Ludmila Javorová


text:
General of The Salvation Army

General is the title of the international leader and chief executive officer of The Salvation Army, a Christian denomination with extensive charitable social services that gives quasi-military rank to its ministers (who are therefore known as officers). The general is elected by the High Council of The Salvation Army and serves a term of five years, which may be extended to seven years. According to the organization, the general is purported to be chosen by God, and the council identifies that person. Lyndon Buckingham is the current general, who assumed office on 3 August 2023 upon the retirement of Brian Peddle. The organization's founder, William Booth, was the first and longest-serving general. There have been 22 generals as of 2023.

History and procedures for election
Usage of the title "General" within the context of The Salvation Army, began with the founder of The Salvation Army, William Booth. His wife, Catherine Booth, the organisation's co-founder, became known as the "Mother" of The Salvation Army. General Booth served as General until his death in 1912; Booth selected his son, Bramwell Booth as his successor. It was William Booth's intention to have each General dictate their successor, but the Salvation Army Act 1931 passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom requires that each General is selected by the High Council of The Salvation Army. Every General after Bramwell Booth has been selected by the High Council. In accordance with the Salvation Army Act 1931, a General must retire at age 68 and may serve as long as seven years. The General is elected by the High Council when their predecessor retires or dies (known within the Salvation Army as being promoted to Glory). William Booth was the only general to die in office. The High Council is composed of the Chief of the Staff, all active commissioners, except the spouse of the incumbent General, and all territorial commanders. The High Council may also remove a General from office for violations of their "covenant to God", disability, or the inability to fulfill their duties, though this has never happened.

The officer of the Salvation Army who is elected general is the worldwide spiritual leader of the Salvation Army and the Chief Executive Officer of the organization. The General has a role that is similar to the Pope's role within the Catholic Church. Since The Salvation Army maintains a hierarchical, quasi-military structure, all appointments and regulations are issued under the General's authority.

Three women have been elected General of the Salvation Army: Evangeline Booth, William Booths's daughter, in 1934, Eva Burrows in 1986, and Linda Bond in 2011.

On January 31, 2011, after 10 days of meetings which began on January 21, 2011, the 17th High Council elected Linda Bond as the 19th General of The Salvation Army. Bond was the third woman to hold the post and the fourth Canadian. This election was handled by the largest High Council in history and was especially significant due to the number of women delegates (57) outnumbering the number of men delegates (52).

On 3 August 2013 the then-Commissioner André Cox was elected by the High Council of 2013 as the 20th General of The Salvation Army. The High Council of 2018 selected Brian Peddle as Cox's successor in May 2018; he took office in August 2018.

On 26 May 2023 the High Council of 2023 elected Lyndon Buckingham as Peddle's successor.

Vacancy
In the event of vacancy, either by death or resignation, the Salvation Army Act 1980 requires that the Chief of the Staff of The Salvation Army serve as acting general if a successor had not already been elected. The most recent instance of vacancy was in 2013 when Linda Bond retired unexpectedly; Andre Cox served as acting general.

List of living retired Generals
There are four retired generals living. The most recent general to die was Shaw Clifton on 29 May 2023.

 * Paul Rader
 * Linda Bond
 * André Cox
 * Brian Peddle

Leadership
The General serves as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of The Salvation Army at the international level, but the organization is divided into many subunits controlled by other individuals. For instance, Commissioner Kenneth Hodder, appointed by Peddle, serves as the National Commander of The Salvation Army of the United States.

Timeline
Below is a timeline of Salvation Army Generals' terms in office.

title: General of The Salvation Army


text:
Talk:Gata Kamsky

old talk
Are people sure that his place of birth is Tatarstan? He is certainly a Crimean Tatar, but they were deported en masse to Soviet Central Asia after WW2 for collaboration. However Tatar is a term which has sometimes been used rather loosely. The Crimean Tatars are not all that closely akin to the Kazan or Volga Tatars, the inhabitants of Tatarstan. If nobody responds in a reasonable time I will change. PatGallacher 16:37, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Pat, you are absolutely wrong. Gata Kamsky is certainly not a Crimean Tatar. There are many (in fact, over a million) Kazan or Volga Tatars living in Central Asia. He is a Kazan Tatar. I used to know his father, Rustam. Rustam told me once that he was born in Tatarstan. His real last name is Sabirov, "Kamsky" was originally just a stage pseudonym of Rustam's parents, who worked in a Tatar theater in Orenburg. 66.65.129.159 (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Somebody named Shanes removed the pucture of Kamsky on September 18. That picture was taken by my son, Peter Aravena Sloan, and is from his website. Wikipedia has our permission to re-post it. I do not understand what gave Shanes the right to remove it.

See:

21:31, 18 September 2005 Shanes (rm image deleted due to lack of copyright info and without any source given)

Sam Sloan 16:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

When was Kamsky rated third in the world?
So far as I know, his highest ever rank was fourth on the July 1995 FIDE list. The following link has the top ten from then: http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/AlltimeList.html. I think FIDE called him fourth best, but the P.C.A. rankings called him third, e.g. see here: http://theweekinchess.com/html/twic06.html Greg Holden 08 (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Nigel Short claims his life was threatened and there was cheating in their match
Does anyone know details? Happily ever after 11:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

 * See the Rustam Kamsky page. Peter Ballard 02:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It was Kamsky's father a professsional boxer that threatened Short. I recall his father was no longer allowed in the tournament. Gata did not threatened short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertyt1 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 07:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

FIDE copies portion of this article
Look here: http://baku2008.fide.com/video-interview-of-gm-gata-kamsky.html Conscious (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Real name
The article says his "real", and his birth surname, is Sabirov. However it appears that the family name was changed from Sabirov to Kamsky by his father or grandfather. That would probably mean that the family name was already Kamsky by the time Gata was born, so his real, and birth name, would indeed be Kamsky. Can anyone confirm what his birth name was? Peter Ballard (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I've moved "Sabirov" out of the infobox and lead sentence (except for the non-English transliteration). It is still mentioned in the "Early Career" section, though a cite is requested. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone else verify the "uğlı" or "улы" middle name here? Probably nothing, but my inner schoolboy has to suspect subtle vandalism when "ugly" or some variant is literally your middle name... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catofgrey (talk • contribs) 22:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Kamsky-Kasparov
I'm disappointed. The article fails to mention his games against Then world champion Garry Kasparov. Those were classics. If you read Mortal Games by Fred Waitzkin, you learn of the matches.

Sigh.... Aprill809 18:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Rapid Champion
Kamsky is not world rapid champion, he is the champion in 2010. Karjakin is the current champion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.46.196.161 (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gata Kamsky. 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/20091126000035/http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/AlltimeList.html to http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/AlltimeList.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) 11:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gata Kamsky. 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/20111020131839/http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessnews/events/52nd-reggio-emilia-2009-10 to http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessnews/events/52nd-reggio-emilia-2009-10
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012180510/http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessnews/events/baku-open-2010 to http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessnews/events/baku-open-2010
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080306001016/http://01chess.com/index.php to http://01chess.com/index.php

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) 18:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

"Controversy" section
The "Controversy" section, copied to this article from Gastón Needleman, has been removed due to WP:BLP concerns. For the discussion, see Talk:Gastón Needleman. GregorB (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Are his father and mother still alive?
That information would help the article Rich (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gata Kamsky


text:
'Amm

ʿAmm (عمْ) was a moon god worshipped in ancient Qataban, which was a kingdom in ancient Yemen. 'Amm's name stems from the Arabic word for paternal uncle. The inhabitants of the kingdom referred to themselves as the Banu Amm, or the "Children of Amm". He was also revered as a weather god, as his attributes included lightning bolts. His consort is the goddess Asherah, and he was served by the oracle-judge Anbay.

According to French archaeologist and biblical scholar Daniel E. Fleming, one possible origin for the title 'Amm or "Children of 'Amm" is speculated to have stemmed from a designation of an earlier group of people who worshiped 'Amm as a central god, with the name 'Amm simply being the title for a forgotten deity whose true designation was not known. Though 'Amm was worshipped into the time of the Qataban kingdom.

title: 'Amm


text: User talk:66.63.0.14

title: User talk:66.63.0.14


text:
Talk:Normandy landings

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2024
Hi I am George P III, and I want to edit this article as I am an expert in my field. Also, just to let you know I've been studying this specific subject for about 5 years so it would be great if I can edit and give some extra but important information. Besides being an expert, I am a scientist and archiologist with 30 years of experience in science and 28 years in archiology. So if you want any additional information on the Normandy landings and what the Germans did to defend the French land they forcefully took over. AnonymousSushiMan (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 * OK AnonymousSushiMan (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ok AnonymousSushiMan (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * OK AnonymousSushiMan (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Jamedeus (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Size of force
"The Normandy landings were the largest seaborne invasion in history" Beevor 2009 p74. Only that is not what the reference states on p74. It states the largest sea force assembled in history, then lists the number of ships. Earlier on p72 Beevor states that it was the largest amphibious assault attempted - whether that attempt relates to WW2 or in history is not clarified. The two relevant pages need to be correctly cited, else we have the current POV. Additionally, other secondary sources should be used to support such a key statement in the article. Also, a comparison should be drawn with the invasion of Sicily, which had a similar number of troops in the initial assault (according to WP Sicily had 4,000 more troops) with more tanks, artillery etc during the landing. 182.239.146.143 (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What Beevor says is "Many wondered what the Germans would think when they caught sight of this armada, which was by far the largest fleet that had ever put to sea." My opinion is that it supports the included content. Here's a second source: CNN says "largest sea invasion". — Diannaa (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello Diannaa. The issue is not the number of ships in the naval flotilla supporting the landing. The issue is that this was an amphibious invasion i.e. the focus is on what landed from the sea and onto the beach. We need to confirm that it was the largest in history, else we should be saying that it had the largest naval support in history - we need to be accurate. I have little faith in an opinion piece hosted on CNN - regardless of who it is - because it has not been peer reviewed and therefore not open to challenge by the writer's peers. Surely there are reliable secondary sources (history books) that support this statement? I note that the article is GA-rated and refers to many historical works already. 182.239.146.143 (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are going to do comparisons with other amphibious landings, you need to look at more than the first day - otherwise it all looks misleadingly tiny compared with Soviet operations at the same time. Counting ships does not mean a lot either - many of the vessels that crossed the English Channel were very small. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * According to Beevor, the size of the invasion fleet was the largest in history. Do we need to amend it to say that instead? Something like "The invasion fleet was the largest in history." But this might not be necessary, as we also have sourced content elsewhere in the article that says "The official British history gives an estimated figure of 156,115 men landed on D-Day." Was this not the largest one-day troop landing in history? Do you know of one that was bigger? — Diannaa (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "The millionth Allied solider crossed the beach on 4 July." Ruppenthal Logistical Support of the Armies Volume 1, page 457. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Negative tone re Allied first day achievements
Whilst factually correct, the tone of this is overly negative. A reader could well think this had been a disaster or a German victory; it was not!

“The Allies failed to achieve any of their major goals beyond the establishment of the beachheads on the first day. Carentan, Saint-Lô, and Bayeux remained in German hands, and Caen, a major objective, was not captured until 21 July. Only two of the beaches (Juno and Gold) were linked on the first day, and all five beachheads were not connected until 12 June; however, the operation gained a foothold that the Allies gradually expanded over the coming months.”

It reads as though D Day was a failure. It was a resounding success! The allies established a beachhead which the Germans never reversed - never even looked like reversing - and so the Germans lost the war; this was the main aim. It is not to be an aside following ‘however’!

Caen was not captured until 21 July because the Germans didn’t do the sensible thing and withdraw to a more-easily defended position. Hitler’s military training was as a corporal on the Western Front - never yield an inch of land; he lost endless men and materiél through failure to withdraw. As a result of a month’s intense fighting near the coast the German army in France was effectively defeated in Normandy and the liberation of Paris and then arriving at the Rhine followed quickly after.

The objective was the liberation of France, which was achieved spectacularly quickly - e.g. the supply lines became over-extended as the Germans collapsed too quickly. The reason for this collapse was that they defended every inch of Normandy and were defeated there.

In terms of choosing objectives, simple psychology requires the setting of objectives that are unachievable. That way productivity is higher than if achievable objectives are set. Failure to achieve impossible targets does not amount to failure.

The Allies do not deserve this negativity; D-Day was an overwhelming victory. Elements of this article read as though they were written by Goebbels! D-Day was not essentially a success for the Germans. Quincefish (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 * What about: “The Allies succeeded in establishing beachheads on the first day that the Germans were unable to reverse; the Germans failed in their aim to throw the Allies back into the sea. Other goals beyond the establishment of the beachheads proved to be unachievable on the first day. Carentan, Saint-Lô, and Bayeux remained in German hands, and Caen, a major objective, was not captured until 21 July. Two of the beaches (Juno and Gold) were linked on the first day, all five beachheads were not connected until 12 June; however, the operation gained an irreversible foothold that the Allies gradually expanded over the coming months.” Quincefish (talk) 06:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at the "Aftermath" section of the article, you can see that the Allies failed to attain any of their major objectives and suffered ten times more casualties than the Germans (10,000 vs 1,000). It was certainly not a failure, and we don't say that it is. But it reflects what the sources have to say about the first day of the invasion.The lead is a summary of the article, and must not contain content not present in the article. The article for example does not state a German aim as being to throw the Allies back into the sea; and it does not say that the foothold the Allies attained was irreversible. So we can't include those additions.To sum up, my opinion is that the content you suggest changing gives a realistic assessment of D-Day and does not need to be beefed up the make things look more positive. — Diannaa (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Diannaa, thanks for the feedback, I have followed your suggestions with lots of nicely referenced additional material in 'Aftermath'.
 * The 1,000 German casualties is clearly wrong; within this article both in the summary and in the "casualties and losses" part of the summary table the generally accepted range of 4,000-9,000 is used. I have ordered a copy of the book referenced, Ford and Zaloga to check. In any event, it was not a football match, it would still have been a success for the Allies if the Germans had not had a single casualty and the Allies had lost 30,000 men but still achieved the same objective of establishing a bridgehead.
 * Whilst not everything went according to plan, it laid the foundations for the defeat of the Germans. Quincefish (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Diannaa for your help on this, all your comments duly noted with gratitude.
 * Re Cherbourg and the Mulberry harbours, I'm not sure why is Cherbourg even in an article on D-Day as it was not an objective for D-Day - and particularly it makes no sense to have it as a negative result for the Allies. It would of course have been an ideal place to have occupied on D-Day, as a landing ground, but there was no hope for that. If it is to remain in the article then it is quite valid to say that the existence of the Mulberry harbours meant that Cherbourg was not an essential part of the plans. The Allies expected the port to have been destroyed by the time they got there. Quincefish (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The port facilites at Cherbourg were still intact on D-Day. Without port facilities at Cherbourg, the Allied troops would have to backtrack northward up the Cotentin Peninsula in order to capture it and seal it off. The distance from Omaha Beach to Cherbourg is 82 km, and the terrain was swampy and had been intentionally flooded by the Germans and would be difficult to cross. Hence the importance of having access to the port at Cherbourg. Therefore a landing on the peninsula was added to the plans. Cherbourg was not captured until 25 June, by which time the Germans had intentionally destroyed the port facilities. — Diannaa (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you but I do not understand you, sorry. If I may break down your note:
 * 1. "The port facilites at Cherbourg were still intact on D-Day." - yes indeed, the port was in German hands and the Germans were using the port.
 * 2. "Without port facilities at Cherbourg, the Allied troops would have to backtrack northward up the Cotentin Peninsula in order to capture it and seal it off." - I do not understand what you mean by this. They Allies never expected to have port facilities at Cherbourg for their landings which is why they landed on the beaches they chose. And indeed they did advance northward up the Cotentin Peninsula in order to capture it, I am confused by your use of the conditional 'would have to' as the plan was exactly that.
 * 3. "The distance from Omaha Beach to Cherbourg is 82 km, and the terrain was swampy and had been intentionally flooded by the Germans and would be difficult to cross." - Agreed.
 * 4. "Hence the importance of having access to the port at Cherbourg." - This is a non sequitur. There is no 'hence 4' from '3'.
 * 5. "Therefore a landing on the peninsula was added to the plans." - What plans? Cherbourg was never a target for D-Day. There was no planned landing on the Cotentin peninsular (other than at Omaha Beach) The Allies took it on D-Day plus 12, admittedly later than they wanted to, and admittedly in a worse condition than they wanted to.
 * But it is, as you note, 82 km (I haven't checked the actual distance) from Omaha Beach. There was not a chance of the US Army's getting up there on D-Day! It really doesn't belong in an article on D-Day at all. Indeed the article says "The Americans, assigned to land at Utah Beach and Omaha Beach, were to attempt to capture Carentan and Saint-Lô the first day, then cut off the Cotentin Peninsula and eventually capture the port facilities at Cherbourg."
 * I do not think the date on which Cherbourg was captured has anything to do with this page, its presence suggests that it was a failure of the D-Day landings. I think we should delete it; do you agree? Quincefish (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my reply was not as well researched as it should have been, as I was in hurry to get a reply out before I had to leave for work. Yes they did intend to capture the Cotentin Peninsula by coming up from the south, but a little ways into the planning process for D-Day they realized that the German ability to re-supply from the intact port at Cherbourg was a Bad Thing, so they added another landing site (Utah Beach) to the four already planned. But yeah, I think the material in the Aftermath section about Cherbourg can come out, as Cherbourg and its port was not a first-day objective. — Diannaa (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Dubious: German losses on D-Day
In the 'Aftermath' section the article refers to 1,000 German casualties which is clearly wrong; within this article both in the summary and in the "casualties and losses" part of the summary table the generally accepted range of 4,000-9,000 is used. I have ordered a copy of the book referenced, Ford and Zaloga, to check. Quincefish (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I suspect that the book will say that there were 1,000 men killed and that total casualties were 4,000–9,000 (includes killed, wounded, missing, and captured). I have changed the body to match the infobox. I also had to remove some of your recent addition, because it is too closely paraphrased/copied from the source. — Diannaa (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ford/Zaloga page 335 says "1,000 men" so I am changing the citation back to the one that was there when the article passed GA. Somebody changed it at some point — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 15:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking the Ford/Zaloga reference!
 * The Portsmouth Museum site linked - the citation you have reverted to - doesn't exist any longer (or, at least, I cannot make the link work). They seem to have become https://theddaystory.com/discover/what-is-d-day/
 * The problem is that the Germans were in such disarray as a result of the surprise attack that their normally very accurate records do not exist. Most sources on the internet I suspect are using this Wikipedia article as their source anyway.
 * These people suggest 6,000 German deaths https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/d-day-casualties-by-country/ against 4,400 Allied. And these suggest 10,000 German casualties https://www.dday-overlord.com/en/d-day/figures Quincefish (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Portsmouth Museum link works if you use the archived link, here. The Wayback Machine was down for a while today and the archive url would not jhave worked during that outage. So I thinkl we are okay to leave it as-is until/unless a more definitive source is found.  — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 18:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

American-centric photos
We must accept that D-Day was an operation where all Allied Nations contributed, including but not limited to, Canada, Britain and France. These nations are excluded in favour of American-centric photos which excludes them. I would like this to change, so all of the nations who fought for freedom against evil fascism are represented here 2604:3D08:1A71:5200:C6E:9D16:D915:9D18 (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ? There's images that show British, Canadian, and French resistance, as well as Amercian troops. So I disagree that any of the major participants were excluded. — Diannaa (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Normandy landings