text:
Talk:Foreign relations of Albania

Greek relations #1
I have changed the following sentence (found somewhere halfway through the article):

"This is the gravest incident among many abuses by the border police inflicted upon Albanian citizens that is raising tensions."

to this one:

"This is the gravest of many incidents between the Greek border police and Albanian citizens that is raising tensions."

Reason: The sentence, as phrased, is both innacurate and plagued by a skewed, sensationalist and potentially anti-greek POV. The sentence has been refering to the border police firing at illegal immigrants as they have crossed the border. Under this admission, it was the intruders commiting the abuse, willingly, and with a known risk to themselves. Unless it can be proven that the Albanian citizens were within the Albanian side of the border when shot at (in which case I am more than happy to revert the change), it is incorrect to state that they suffered abuse inflicted upom them. Rather, they acted illegaly and as a result suffered a justified response by police officers doing their job. This is not POV by the way: Entry into any country other than your own is a granted priviledge, not an automatic right. I am not trying to suggest that greek cops are generally noble or innocent - far from it (trust me, as a Greek citizen and former resident I know first hand). But in the particular case they only did their job: guarding the country's border against intruders who were attempting unauthorised entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.165.101.124 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 20 July 2005.

 * Contrary to the opinions of Greek nationalists and police, there is no right in international law to kill people for crossing a border. The murder of Albanians illegally crossing the border is clearly an abuse and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fascist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.202.21.122 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 11 January 2006.

Greek relations #2
Can anyone tell me what kind of a 'neutral'(at least) comment is this?:'...of the Greek ethnic minority in southern Albania and of the Albanian minorities in northern Greece.' Is this supposed to be a different look over minority issues?How come there is 1 greek minority in Albania and several albanian minorities in Greece? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.235.185.95 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 23 November 2005.

Corfu Channel
Should be info somewhere on the notorious Corfu Channel incident after WW2-- (see United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_22 for a reference), not to mention rejection of Kruschev over anti-Stalinismm alliance with China, etc. AnonMoos 15:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Notice
This article includes content merged from the articles that follow. Please leave this notice, required for GFDL copyright purposes. Albanian–Greek relations, Albania – Soviet Union relations, Albania – United States relations, Albania – United Kingdom relations, Albania–Russia relations, Albanian–Serbian relations, Albanian–Turkish relations, Albanian–Kosovan relations, Albanian–Croatian relations, Albania – Israel relations

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foreign relations of Albania. 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/20110719132931/http://www.ambtirana.um.dk/en to http://www.ambtirana.um.dk/en
 * Added tag to http://www.mvpei.hr/CustomPages/Static/HRV/

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) 20:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

To much in the lede on Greece and in the table too
There is too much in the lede on Greece and in the table too and its more on the wp:undue side. A sizable amount of the content should be transferred to the relevant article of Albanian-Greek relations. Albania has other important relations with Kosovo, Turkey, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and of course the USA and they should be catered in here.Resnjari (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. The lede has also original research. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , what suggestions would you say you have for this article. On my part i am of the view that we need to include content about Turkey which is Albania's most important ally.Resnjari (talk)
 * The lede has been changed since this discussion started. The original research is not present there. The stuff concerning Albania's relations to Greece is not there too. The lede should inform the reader of Albania's efforts to become a EU member, some of its contributions to NATO, its role at Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and its relations with countries whose relations with Albania are considered very important. Kosovo, Macedonia and Turkey I think are countries we need to focus on because these countries have large Albanian population or in the case of Turkey, it is a country in region with which Albania has not problems but only cooperation and shared values. The inclusion of relations with specific allies or friend countries is not obligatory and should be carefully done in order to avoid WP:UNDUE. The part of Albania's relations with Greece should be trimmed per WP:UNDUE and for the same reason its relations with Kosovo, Macedonia, Germany, US and Turkey should be expanded. Will you do this since you have spent a considerable time and effort on other articles linked to this one? Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ok, i'll do it., some time back i edited the Islam in Albania article and made a section on Albania's geopolitical orientation and Islam. The content of that section: Islam in Albania overlaps with this article. You reckon i should import that in whole to here or make some adjustments and then place it here? If so on the second point what would you recommend? Best.Resnjari (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , will you place the stuff of that section in the lede or in the body of this article? If you will put it in the lede, I think Greece's preference of Fatos Nano over Sali Berisha, and relations with Gulf countries and Isreal are not necessary. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * not for the lede, it was bloated before. My thoughts where for the body.Resnjari (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Then the best thing is to import all stuff. There is space for some additional stuff on relations with Kosovo and Macedonia too. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

POV Pushing related to foreign policy for Arvanites
I would like to comment the latest reverts from Bunker92 who seem to not particularly realise the difference between POV pushing and encyclopaedia building. Referring to Arvanites based to a politicians' talk and not any reliable and secondary source as a group of Albanians in Greece that the Albanian government fights for their rights is a talamount endorsement of Albanian nationalistic POV and does not have place here rather in a partisan site. I will not enter in an edit war however this must be reverted. Othon I (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Arvanites stuff should not be there as those people are not Albanians, like most (former) Albanian speaking Orthodox types wherever they are in the Balkans. I also am going to reiterate that the content on Greece is way to much, to much in this article as it implies that Albania has relations with only Greece. Content needs to be added about Turkey (which is almost absent) as it is Albania's most important ally with whom it relies upon for its defence and very survival within the Balkans.Resnjari (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Resnjari. I agree that they article for Greece is a. It too much, I just c+p from the Greek part. Please feel free to make any alterations. Thanks Othon I (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that Arvanites are not Albanians, but we can not change the statement of Albanian MFA. Albanian Wikipedian (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Albanian government is still in a state of daydreaming on the Arvanites since Berisha's dumb comments in the early 1990s about them being an "Albanian minority" in Greece. On Arvanites we should only include something about them in this article if they somehow have influenced foreign affairs of both Albania and Greece and (a) source/s states that. So far to date there is nothing and anyone has brought forth of that nature. Arvanites view themselves as Greeks and support Greek foreign policy toward Albania and all it entails over the years as epitomised by ex-foreign minister Theodoros Pangalos who is an Arvanite. Also on cultural and other ties Arvanites repeatedly express a disdain for Albanian language and culture and always stress a distance, difference or separations from Albanians and Albania, so linciding something on them as being a bridge orr something like that is also very erroneous and should be avoided.Resnjari (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Foreign relations of Albania. 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/20160307101008/http://www.minfor.gov.gy/docs/other/diplomatic_relations_list.pdf to http://www.minfor.gov.gy/docs/other/diplomatic_relations_list.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110906093451/http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?sec_id=266&lang_id=ENG to http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?sec_id=266&lang_id=ENG
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722215952/http://www.mfat.gov.mn/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70&Itemid=83&lang=en to http://www.mfat.gov.mn/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70&Itemid=83&lang=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303230925/http://www.mofa.gov.pk/Press_Releases/2006/Dec/PR_367_06.htm to http://www.mofa.gov.pk/Press_Releases/2006/Dec/PR_367_06.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.omda.bg/BULG/news/Bulgaria%20news/Bulgaria_Albania.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706131415/http://www.mfa.ba/vanjska_politika_bih/bilateralni_odnosi/datumi_priznanja_i_uspostave_diplomatskih_odnosa/default.aspx?id=6 to http://www.mfa.ba/vanjska_politika_bih/bilateralni_odnosi/datumi_priznanja_i_uspostave_diplomatskih_odnosa/default.aspx?id=6
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120517200830/http://www.mfa.hr/MVP.asp?pcpid=1621 to http://www.mfa.hr/MVP.asp?pcpid=1621
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717200202/http://www.osaarchivum.org/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/101-4-123.shtml to http://www.osaarchivum.org/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/101-4-123.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425112436/http://www.albava.org/lamalb.php to http://www.albava.org/lamalb.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130709191806/http://www.balkanweb.com/forumi/index.php?topic=3133.0 to http://www.balkanweb.com/forumi/index.php?topic=3133.0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080526030522/http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/europe/albania/?profile=intRelations&pg=4 to http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/europe/albania?profile=intRelations&pg=4

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) 19:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Arms of Albania.svg

Orphaned references in Foreign relations of Albania
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Foreign relations of Albania's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto": From European Union:  From New York City:  From South Korea: Korean Social Sciences Journal, 24 (1997). Korean Social Science Research Council. pp. 33–53

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Extremely Outdated
This article is extremely outdated and very focused on Albania's relations with Turkey, which has its own article. Albania at present has intense relations with many nations, some even more in-depth than it does with Turkey nowadays. Caution is recommended, further research including from Albanian Government portals would be highly beneficial to those wanting a clear understanding of Albania's foreign relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varvanitis (talk • contribs) 21:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Missing information
Is there an article, or a section of an article, that addresses the history of Albania's borders? I've glanced at several articles concerning Albania's foreign relations, & none of them touch on the subject. -- llywrch (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Foreign relations of Albania


text:
Talk:Stroud

Drugs
Obviously it's not a topic that Stroud would like to publicise, but being objective as wikipedia is the culture in Stroud is far too big and prominent, especially among the younger generation to not mention it. The Esso and Maccy D hating Green Party image is more of a fantasy of Celestianpower's than that of a popular stereotype. Sure that character exists, probably in Stroud more so than most other places, but it's not the leading characters in Stroud, anymore anyway.

 * But is it notable? Are there prosecution figures, drug related deaths, or numbers of people being treated for addiction, to show that it is any different to anywhere else?  Lame Name (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

 * It is notable. I will find references to prove it. This article makes Stroud look like a very up-market, very clean and fancy place- from reading this, I'd get the impression that it's a sort of country version of somewhere like Chelsea or Mayfair. Fact is, it's pretty rough, the crime is high and there is a massive drug problem for a place of its size. 80.41.85.45 (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I look forward to seeing those figures.  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 20:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

 * There was a major drugs raid at the up town down town nightclub on the a46 (next to mcdonalds) a few years ago, that should have made the papers and there might be an online reference in the SNJ (although I doubt anything newsworthy has ever made it to print on that rag...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.125.228 (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Places of interest
Have left most of Celestianpower's reverts alone but thought it worth pointing out that it's always better to use fewer words to convey the same info. For example, what does "hamlets" really add? Why add the word "nearby" if it's "on the outskirts" of somewhere? How many towns don't have some shops and a bank? To be honest, doesn't "places of interest" followed immediately by "er, well there are quite a lot of shops" sound just a bit absurd? Do a leisure centre and a multi-storey car park really constitute "places of interest"? OK, Stroud may be a bit light on them but there are surely places more interesting than that!! By the way headings aren't supposed to have caps throughout, just at the start. Best wishes Flapdragon 13:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah - Okay, I take you're comments on board. Do you come from in/around Stroud then? --Celestianpower talk 14:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, Thrupp/Brimscombe really. Stroud has suffered a bit over the years and will never be as pretty as it no doubt was before the Industrial Revolution, but it's certainly in better shape than it was it the 70s and 80s when I was growing up. It will never be first on any tourist's itinerary, but it's not quite as boring as the text implies -- it's not a bad article but I feel there is a risk of implying that the place has been totally ruined and has nothing to offer the visitor (not even a bus station now). It would be good to have a quick mention of stuff like the Shambles, the Old Town Hall (16thC), the museum, Ebley Mill, Rodburgh Fort (just an irrelevant external link from the pic at the moment), as well as its pre-Industrial Revolution history ("Stroud 700"). Also a pic of, say, the Sub Rooms and the Clock would be more relevant than the Sapperton tunnel mouth (would have moved it but currently no entry for Sapperton!). The Hill Paul factory might be worth an entry of its own, certainly a pic, preferably "before and after". Also something about (conversely) Stroud being, or so it has been claimed, a textbook case of out-of-town "superstores" destroying a local shopping centre made up of independent specialist shops. Interesting comparisons with Nailsworth could be made. In fact I did wonder about the line that says that Nailsworth is one of those places within the commercial orbit of Stroud -- people there might claim it actually provides the things Stroud no longer has, like a butchers' shop! Just a matter of finding the time, as usual... Flapdragon 16:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool!!!! I do too. I might know you... Add some more to the Thrupp & Brimscombe article when/if you get time then. It's just short and not all that good so far. I've been thinking about going out with the DigiCam for a while but haven't got round to it. --Celestianpower talk 14:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Tesco
Interesting nobody nowadays has thought to bring up the Great Tesco Trees controversy of circa 1990. Contrast Shepton Mallet where they've written reams on it... Linuxlad 20:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hospitals
Shouldn't there be something in here about the ongoing fights concerning Stroud's hospitals, Weavers Croft and Stroud Maternity? There have been several battles to keep the maternity unit open over the years. Gruffle Gaw 14:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Costa Coffee
Also, some information about the Costa Coffee saga should be in here, especially since it relates to the issue of the imbalance of retail/food outlets in the town centre, which is topical and central to the town's identity. Gruffle Gaw 12:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The Rising Loo!
Information on the newly installed public urinals that rise from the ground should be included

Sport
Anyone feel like compiling a Sports section? There's quite a lot of it available nearby ... --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 09:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Reorganise
I propose to move the entire 'Character and Amenities' section to follow 'History', as this seems to be the most logical place for it. Any objections? ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 12:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Assuming the section is actually worth keeping will it be rewritten and referenced in line with  WP:IINFO and WP:NOTGUIDE? Lame Name (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Why would you think it's not worth keeping?  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 13:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

 * You need to ask? It, in common with many small town articles, reads like a cross between a tourist information brochure and a local newspaper archive. Unreferenced snippets are added and the whole thing grows into a sprawling mess of non-notable tittle tattle. The whole article could be trimmed, and improved, by boldly deleting 50% - 70% of the content.  Specifically...

 * "Visitors and locals say that there is a unique and 'laid back' air to the town" Really? Do they actually say that?

 * "which is home to a significant number of artists, authors and poets." Really? Significant compared to what?

 * "Stroud has a significant 'bohemian' community that dates back to the early part of the twentieth century, and today includes a number of people who pursue 'alternative' lifestyles." Really?  Significant compared to where?

 * "Britain's first purpose-built cohousing community was built in the town." So?

 * "Stroudie" (sometimes spelt "Stroudy") is a locally used term for residents of Stroud." Really?  Google provides zero content to support this claim.

 * "There is a stereotype of the Green Party-supporting Stroudie, generally opposed to genetically-modified produce, oil companies (Esso in particular) and McDonalds, though one has now opened, after much protest." Really? Etc. Etc.

 * "Stroud was one of the birthplaces of the Organic food movement and was home to Britain's first fully-organic café, Woodruffs." Dubious.  Reference?  Etc. Etc.

 * If there is/was a notable artistic community/organic movement/whatever in Stroud an nformative, encyclopedic and referenced section, or whole article, would be most welcome.   Lame Name (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I can't disagree with any of what you say, although I don't particularly like the way you say it. When I first came across the article I was shocked to find it such a complete mess. I have spent the past few weeks re-organising and referencing, but there's still a lot to be done. I think the section is worth keeping as most of what it says is actually true. Stroud does have a significant artistic community, and has also been in the forefront of public protest against municipal vandalism. It's actually what makes Stroud the town it is. And if that sounds like POV I agree that it all needs referencing, but as I appear to be the only one that's doing any editing this may take some time. Are you volunteering?  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 17:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Sorry if my comments sounded abrupt and harsh - I guess I find these articles so depressingly bad . I am aware of your edits improving the article (our Watchlists seem to cross at several points) and my initial comment was to broach the notion of a radical edit of the article rather than moving chunks around. I have started a simlar exercise for Stow-on-the-Wold and I will gladly contribute where I am able here although I do sometimes find the popular "arty/cafe culture" Stroud image and  the reality at variance.  Lame Name (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, it sounds as if we agree on the need if not on the process. It's inevitable that any page that has been edited by many people over a period of five years is going to contain material which is POV, be badly written, disjointed, plain wrong or any or all of the above. But the majority of the edits will have been made in good faith so I am very wary of treading on toes, and am trying to knock it into shape gradually, where you would obviously prefer the more radical approach. I am about to write a section on the arts in Stroud which may go some way to convince you of the 'arty' nature of the town. Watch this space. (Sorry, you already do!)  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 22:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes & Quality of references
Some brief (non-confrontational :-) observations:

Lame Name (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is about the town of Stroud but a lot of the listed artists etc. are living elsewhere in the Stroud District.
 * "Stroud citizens have a history of independent thought and action going back to the Wool Riots of 1825." Are we saying that there was no "independent thought" (as opposed to Collective thought ?)  prior to 1825?  The name "wool Riots" only seems to exist in this article and is usually referred to as the Stroudwater Riots (as indicated by the reference) - but it was mostly a strike about pay and as such does not support the claim of "independent thought and action".
 * A big claim like "Britain's first fully-organic café," needs a reliable reference rather than a mention on a promotional guide website. Something like Soil Association certification like this place.
 * The Digital Stroud website looks like an interesting project. They do include a bibliography but there is no link for the Hill Paul story - which does not get a mention here.  Is this not more of a local paper story rather than an encyclopedic entry?

 * Thanks for your contributions. Work in progress. How's Stow-in-the Wold going?  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 18:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Also, as part of the protest section, it does give the impression at the moment that all protests are successful. Despite the demonstrations, tesco is here, mcdonalds is here, the bus station was torn down and replaced with a cinema and both the stroud and ebley bypasses were built. Also, the fact that the uplands post office was saved with local rates money and that it is used by only the residents of uplands, not all the residents of stroud deserves a mention.

Just to balance it out: not all the protests achieve their aims, and when they do, they are controversial. Just because people stand outside with a banner and get their picture in the local paper, it does not mean they are right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.125.228 (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright?
removed the following text from the article:

and lays claim to being the arts and crafts capital of the Cotswolds.It has variously been described as 'the Covent Garden of the Cotswolds' (by Jasper Conran), 'Notting Hill with wellies' (London Evening Standard ) and 'the artistic equivalent of bookish Hay-on-Wye' by the Daily Telegraph.

I assume it is a copyright violation from this BBC page. Am I wrong? Lame Name (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, I'm afraid you are. BBC lawyers would be highly amused at the suggestion that their copyright had somehow been breached by a single line of text. As someone who has had to deal with copyright issues over a period of thirty years I would be chuckling alongside them, otherwise I would not have provided a direct link to the article. I can do a slight re-wording if it bothers you that much, (it doesn't actually read the same as the original anyway) or you can simply reinstate the original as it was. I don't mind either way. .  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 08:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

 * The BBC says:
 * Except where expressly stated otherwise, you are not permitted to copy, broadcast, download, store (in any medium), transmit, show or play in public, adapt or change in any way the content of these BBC web pages for any other purpose whatsoever without the prior written permission of the BBC.

 * and Wikipedia says:
 * If some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known. If the copyright holder's permission is later obtained, the text may be restored.

 * A slight rewording may be the safer option Lame Name (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Copyright notices like the one you quote are a legal nicety and are virtually meaningless. They are there to protect the unwary. (You've just copied a part of a BBC site and and pasted it here. A talk page is a public document which can be accessed by anyone. Are you now in breach of copyright? By your argument you are.) Copyright exists as soon as any piece of writing is created whether there is a copyright notice or not. All copyright disputes have to be tested in court, and there has to be substantial amount of copying before a breach can be proved. Quoting one line of an article, as I (nearly) did, is the equivalent of a composer using two bars of, say, 'Inca Roads' in his own composition. It would take someone very rich or very stupid, (or probably both) to sue in such a situation.
 * People get too hung-up or too scared of copyright issues simply because they don't know the law.

 * But I'll change it, when I get time, if it makes you happy.  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 10:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

References & Fellows
Even ignoring that some references are articles written by the subject of the reference I still doubt the notability of Ted Fellows. The ref added for him makes no mention of Stroud. Lame Name (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I have just removed Prof Tom Jefferson for non notability. If you want to do the same for Ted Fellows be my guest. As for articles written by the subject of the reference - why not, if they say they live in Stroud what further proof do you need? (The vast majority of references are from good, independent sources.)

 * With 46 references Stroud must already be the most heavily referenced of all small town articles on Wikipedia. I think I would be justified in asking you to remove the tag.  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 13:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Population
The population figure for Stroud in the infobox is 12,690, which is similar to that for Thornbury (12,342) and considerably less than that for Cirencester (19,000). This is an obvious nonsense (it's a parish figure). The ONS statistic for Stroud District is 107,898, but I can't find one for the actual town. I seem to remember reading somewhere that it is well in excess of 20,00 but I can't find a source. Can anyone help? ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 14:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an old question, but I've just hit the same problem. I don't know Stroud well, so I need some guidance. The population figure does seem a bit low. In the lead, it says the parishes of Stroud (pop.12,690), Rodborough (pop. 5,115) and Cainscross (5,839) are often considered one conurbation, giving a combined population of 23,644 (all using 2001 ONS census data). Before I write a Demography section that that no Stroudian would recognise, does it make sense to combine the figures for these three parishes? GyroMagician (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Since I posted the above message the figure has been updated to 32,052 in the infobox, using the ONS 2001 census data, which is referenced. This would seem to be the correct figure for the town so it wouldn't make much sense to combine parish figures to arrive at a different one.  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 09:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Now how about that? I read the first line, which matched my figure, and didn't read any further - doh! Thanks for pointing out. GyroMagician (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Phew, section added. Demography is a horrible section to write, I promise never to do one again. I took stats for the urban area, rather than the CP, as it seems to fit better. How did I do? GyroMagician (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. harej 02:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Stroud, Gloucestershire → Stroud — Stroud has redirected here for the past two years and nobody has objected to that. Regarding primacy, the populations of the various settlements called Stroud are: So, in conclusion, Stroud, Gloucestershire seems to be the primary topic for Stroud. — Amakuru (talk) 07:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Stroud, Gloucestershire 32,052 (town) or 47,348 (conurbation)
 * Stroud, Oklahoma 2,758
 * Stroud, New South Wales 669
 * Stroud, Hampshire - not listed in the article, but it's just a small village
 * Stroud, Ontario - unsure, but is a redirect and it seems to be just a small part of the larger Innisfil, Ontario
 * Stroud Green and Stroud Township, Monroe County, Pennsylvania - these are not vying for the title "Stroud" as they both have an extra word on.

Survey

 * Support per nom. Clear primary topic. PC78 (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Clear primary topic.  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 08:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - can see no reason not too, shorter URLs are a good thing. GyroMagician (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support – Appears to be the primary topic. Green Giant (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree that Stroud, Gloucestershire is the prime topic but I think that it makes more sence to keep it as Stroud, Gloucestershire as there are other places in England called Stroud. Homan's Copse (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In looking at the actual page views, I'm not convinced that there is a primary topic here.  Size is not the same as primary topic.  Stroud also happens to be a somewhat common name, so leaving a dab page at the main name space makes more sense.  Vegaswikian (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. As others. Clearly the primary topic. —Cel es tianpower háblame 17:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Vegaswikian, except I would go so far as to say this is clearly not the primary topic. I'm sure I'm not the only one who regularly searches for articles on people by entering only the surname in the Search box.  Similarly, anyone looking for any place with Stroud in the name on the Stroud (disambiguation) page is likely to enter only "Stroud" in the search box.  The very basis for primary topic is about the likelihood that anyone entering the name in question in the Search is looking for one particular topic.  I just don't see how this topic qualifies per that criteria. Also, while having Stroud redirect here for two years is good supporting evidence, it's just not enough.  In this case, it was clearly a mistake no one noticed and cared enough about to fix.  Until now... the dab page should be moved to Stroud.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Comment - Interestingly there is a similar conversation going on at Talk:Stroud (disambiguation) which will inevitably have a bearing on this discussion. I don't know why someone hasn't mentioned this before?--Ykraps (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've redirected that discussion to this one. Clearly the two questions ought to be decided in a single discussion. (I also left notes at the disambiguation and UK geography project talk pages to try to break the deadlock.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

So the question being addressed is: Is Stroud, Gloucestershire the primary topic for "Stroud"? (Support presumably means yes, oppose means no.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Mildly support. It seems that among the topics actually called just "Stroud", this one is dominant. I don't think any of the people called "Stroud" are that well known (like Abraham Lincoln, say) as to attract significant numbers of readers typing in just "Stroud" with the expectation of getting to those articles - if you want to go striaght to one of these people, you type in the first name as well.--Kotniski (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for others, but I know that I often (probably more often than not) enter only the surname of the person I'm searching for when searching for a person in Wikipedia, much of the time because I don't remember the first name. For example, I did that with Stockman recently (looking for David Stockman).  I much prefer landing on a dab page than on some completely unrelated article with a hatnote link to the dab page; a big point of primary topic is to minimize the latter from happening to users.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Using an article where you have previously closed a move request incorrectly to support your point doesn't carry much weight with me I'm afraid. Quantpole (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In terms of the essence of your point, none of the people are known simply as "Stroud" so do not compete for the primary topic. If I was looking for a person and only knew the surname I would expect to have to go through a couple of pages to find it, or type in "Stroud (disambiguation)" which isn't that difficult really. If you take Washington as an example, that is at a dab page, but the only person listed there is the president (which makes sense as he is known by his surname only), for all other people with that surname you have to go from there to Washington (name). Quantpole (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please review what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states. It is clearly about "the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box".  Regardless of what people expect when they enter a surname in the Search box, the point is that that is often what people enter when looking for an article about someone with that surname.  Therefore, articles about people whose surname matches the term in question need to be considered when determining whether that term has a primary topic.  Unless we change how primary topic is determined, in this case that means we need to consider, not ignore, articles about people with surname Stroud when determining whether this topic is primary for Stroud.   --Born2cycle (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support None of the other places comes close to the significance of this Stroud, or is likely to be referrred to as plain "Stroud" outside its immediate area. And none of the people is prominent enough to be often referred to as "Stroud" in a general context.  The fact that you might search for such people through the Stroud (disambiguation) page does not mean that you should not expect another topic to be the primary topic - that might be an argument for having no primary topics ever, but that is a different discussion. Mhockey (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and oppose venue: It looks like there is no clear primary topic; there are many, many 'Stroud's and it's not clear that this one is even the plurality choice. But further, any straw poll placed on the Talk page for Stroud, Gloucestershire will clearly be biased toward that choice.  The whole thing is flawed. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Which others do you think might be candidates for primary? Evidence so far seems pretty convincing that it's this one or nothing (and apparently this one - the fact that "there are many somethings" is not much of an argument against there being a primary topic), but feel free to leave notices on any other talk pages you consider relevant, to balance out the venue bias.--Kotniski (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm arguing for the disambiguation page to be primary, not to make something else primary. I don't think notes will suffice to level the venue bias, even if they were left on all the pages linked to on the current DAB page (but that would contribute to the leveling). CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I presume by "disambiguation page to be primary" you mean "disambiguation page to be at the plain name". "Primary" has a very specific meaning, and only a topic (not a dab page) can be "primary".  A dab page is not a topic and therefore cannot be primary.  However, a dab page for a given term can be at the term if there is no primary topic; but that doesn't mean the dab page is primary.   --Born2cycle (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Comment: The first Google result for "Stroud" is for Stroud, Oklahoma. The second is for a software company; the third is for a restaurant, the fourth for an environmental research center in Pennsylvania.  The Stroud in Gloucestershire is only the fifth result. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't find that enormously relevant (I think our own page view statistics, as given above, are more relevant to our primary topic decisions that whatever criteria or commercial arragements determine Google's rankings).--Kotniski (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that our stats are more relevant, I was just providing extra information. But in my reading, both support the disambiguation page as primary. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Google tends to be location specific. If you use Google in England the entire first page pertains to the Stroud in Gloucestershire. To get 5th from a location in N. America speaks volumes.--Ykraps (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so it is. But I don't think that this is an argument in favor of making Stroud, Gloucestershire primary; far from it.  It appears only once on the first page of google.com, ten times on the first page of google.co.uk, once on the first page of google.co.au, once on the first page of google.ca: that's a population-weighted average of 2 results.  There are other 'Stroud's that get higher results than that!  Now it's not even obvious that this Stroud would be the primary topic even if the disambiguation page wasn't. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Goggle results are something of a distraction in cases like this. Google modifies results depending on the location of the searcher, while Wikipedia doesn't, so Google doesn't really lend weight to either side of the argument GyroMagician (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the part where I addressed that? CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm disagreeing with your method. Here in Switzerland Stroud, Glos, gets 5 spots - what does that tell us? As I say, I don't think Google results offer much insight either way in this case. GyroMagician (talk) 07:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Support. Appears to have primacy of page views, population etc. None of the people are well known enough simply to be known by 'Stroud'. No point in having the redirect from Stroud to Stroud, Gloucestershire as if it is the primary topic it should be at the non-disambiguated name. Quantpole (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This argument is based on a misreading and/or misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, apparently conflating "primary" with "best known" or "most important". That there are no other candidates for being the primary use of this name is not relevant.  The only relevant issue here is whether this use is primary (not merely most important) per the criteria spelled out at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  The criteria that must be met is "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box".  Nothing presented here indicates that this subject meets that hurdle.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a significant-ish town compared with a few other topics which no-one has shown to be of any kind of comparable importance at all. In the absence of any argument that any of the other Strouds are significant for anything, I'd be inclined to assume, by common sense, that the significant town is going to the one most readers are going after. (Sorry, I may have mixed up the population figures above with page-view counts - does anyone have the latter? They're probably the best objective guide.)--Kotniski (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it has more page views than all the other places combined. The American one is only likely to be known as "Stroud" in its local area - anyone else would refer to it as "Stroud, Oklahoma". And the comment about importance is nonsensical - if something is far more important than something else it is much more likely to be the primary topic. Quantpole (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is true that "it has more page views than all the other places combined", but unless we change how primary topics are determined, we need to consider all uses for which readers are likely to enter "Stroud" in the Search box when looking for them, not just places. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What links here
Here's another set of potentially flawed numbers: whatlinkshere (limited to only show entries in article space):

---snip---Table cut, combined with people table below---snip---

The message seems clear. Even summing all entries except Stroud, Glos, (382 links) gives less links than to Stroud Glos. itself. I haven't included similar stats for people called Stroud - if someone is feeling keen, please add them. (All errors are my own, primarily attributable to problems with counting ;-) GyroMagician (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That simply shows that there is no primary topic for the subset you selected. Ignoring the people named Stroud simply supports the position that there is clearly no primary topic.  Vegaswikian (talk) 07:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you think this shows there is no primary topic for the place name Stroud? As for people called Stroud, think of it more as an invitation for anyone who thinks there are significantly well known people called Stroud to fill in the rest of the table ;-) GyroMagician (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm feeling generous:

As usual, errors are my own and corrections are welcome. I have now listed everyone and everywhere on the Stroud disambiguation page except the 'See Also' section - I skipped these because they are not actually Stroud, simply related.

I've combined both tables, and added plain unspecified Stroud to the mix. As far as I can tell, all Stroud links are actually for Stroud, Gloucestershire (a few of these are included in references to Sutton Publishing, which is based in Stroud, Glos). I don't know the best way to deal with Stroud (district) and Stroud (UK Parliament constituency) here - they all refer to Stroud in Gloucestershire. Marcus Stroud figures may be slightly inflated because his name appears on several templates.

The top three positions are held by Stroud, Gloucestershire (535 + 147 = 682), Stroud (UK Parliament constituency) (205) and Marcus Stroud (198).

Thoughts? GyroMagician (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * There are two criteria listed at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:
 * much more likely than any other, and
 * more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box.

 * The link counts are a pretty good indication that this topic is "much more likely than any other" "to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term ["Stroud"] in the Search box". However, what's not clear at all is that this topic is "more likely than all the others combined" to be the subject being sought.  To be the primary topic, both criteria have to be met.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

 * WP:PRIMARYTOPIC also says "There are no absolute rules for determining how likely a given topic is to be sought by readers entering a given term; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a requested move." I guess that's the discussion we're having here.

 * As I said before delivering the stats, the numbers are potentially flawed. In this case, the difference is whether a page is included in a template, which will significantly bump the links-here numbers. Two pages stand out in this respect: Stroud, Hampshire, which is barely a stub, and Marcus Stroud, who is included in several templates. Unfortunately I have no way to separate 'in-article' links from 'template transclusion' links. But this also applies to the other pages, to a greater or lesser degree, including Stroud, Gloucestershire.

 * I started this discussion as a weak support, basically because I didn't know of another significant Stroud. I've now looked in a bit more detail, and find that Stroud, Glos. is significantly more likely to be the desired page, both in terms of population (relative to other places called Stroud), and incoming links. WP:D is, I think, deliberately vague on exactly how to calculate these stats because it is extremely difficult to specify. The second criteria (more likely than all the others combined) is difficult to judge, without details about page hits that we don't have. If you add all the links-here numbers, the combined Stroud + Stroud, Glos. + Stroud (district) + Stroud (UK Parliament constituency) = 1037, vs. all the others at 1032 (from memory). Very close. More relevant, I think, is that Stroud + Stroud, Glos. has more than three times as many links-here hits as the next non-Glos. contender, whose numbers are likely inflated. I think this is the primary topic. GyroMagician (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Notable People
Bit surprised to see Jasper Conran included under the heading of "Scientists" - and I can't find anything in his own Wikipedia article to suggest it's appropriate. Can anybody suggest a better heading? The best I can come up with at the moment is "Creative". I think "Fashion Designers" would probably be too specific. Zeusfaber (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Campaigns
This section of the page reads very badly and is very biased in the way that it describes protests in Stroud. I propose that it is rewritten to give a more objective view of Stroud protests. e.g. "unwanted traffic plans", "the public won the day". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.31.152 (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems reasonably well written. Do you still have any concerns? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Stroud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090213052941/http://www.wildinthecotswolds.co.uk:80/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=357&Itemid=80 to http://www.wildinthecotswolds.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=357&Itemid=80

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 one external links on Stroud. 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/20151001163432/https://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=7&b=11129255&c=Stroud&d=16&e=62&g=6427852&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1427624280408&enc=1 to https://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=7&b=11129255&c=Stroud&d=16&e=62&g=6427852&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1427624280408&enc=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804211441/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=8283&More=Y to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=8283&More=Y
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804232415/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=8326&More=Y to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=8326&More=Y
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304053928/http://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/news/9523123.NHS_managers_agree_to_halt_plans_for_Stroud_General_Hospital_to_be_run_by_a_social_enterprise/r/?ref=twtrec&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter to http://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/news/9523123.NHS_managers_agree_to_halt_plans_for_Stroud_General_Hospital_to_be_run_by_a_social_enterprise/r/?ref=twtrec
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402093620/http://www.fresh-n-local.co.uk/about/awards.php to http://www.fresh-n-local.co.uk/about/awards.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070625114026/http://www2.newsquest.co.uk:80/stroud/picture_special/PICTURE_SPECIAL26.html to http://www2.newsquest.co.uk/stroud/picture_special/PICTURE_SPECIAL26.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101220134328/http://www.britishcouncil.org:80/italy-arts-alanhollinghurst.htm to http://www.britishcouncil.org/italy-arts-alanhollinghurst.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100606185829/http://www.redler.com/en/aboutus/ to http://www.redler.com/en/aboutus/
 * Added tag to http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/life/23669/part_2/the-fabled-fred.thtml.

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Stroud. 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/20120927190939/http://www.stroud.gov.uk/info/ihca/4.pdf to http://www.stroud.gov.uk/info/ihca/4.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130725051410/http://alanthornhill.co.uk/thoughts%20on%20creativity.htm to http://www.alanthornhill.co.uk/thoughts%20on%20creativity.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.newsquest.co.uk/stroud/picture_special/PICTURE_SPECIAL26.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.britishcouncil.org/italy-arts-alanhollinghurst.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) 13:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Stroud. 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/20111005230236/http://www.molli.org.uk/wrapping_the_globe/sw_wool.htm to http://www.molli.org.uk/wrapping_the_globe/sw_wool.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100409015732/http://www.cotswoldcanals.com/history.htm to http://www.cotswoldcanals.com/history.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120401005716/http://digitalstroud.com/landmarks.php?pageid=517&topid=6&pid=333 to http://digitalstroud.com/landmarks.php?pageid=517&topid=6&pid=333
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305021649/http://www.savestroudhospitals.org/ to http://www.savestroudhospitals.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720024759/http://www.glosgen.co.uk/stroud.htm to http://www.glosgen.co.uk/stroud.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100616050723/http://www.marling.gloucs.sch.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=112 to http://www.marling.gloucs.sch.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=112
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120226090458/http://www.parksandgardens.ac.uk/274/explore-31/historical-profiles-176/people-at-the-cutting-edge%3A-lawnmower-designers-483.html to http://www.parksandgardens.ac.uk/274/explore-31/historical-profiles-176/people-at-the-cutting-edge%3A-lawnmower-designers-483.html
 * Added tag to http://pimagazine.net/index.php/weblog/more/brakes_interview/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130619072556/http://southwestsnookeracademy.com/wp/ to http://southwestsnookeracademy.com/wp/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509122131/http://www.rosaryschool.ik.org/ to http://www.rosaryschool.ik.org/

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) 21:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Stroud. 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/20091121193415/http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/gloucestershireheadlines/Gloucestershire-town-gets-currency/article-1333162-detail/article.html to http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/gloucestershireheadlines/Gloucestershire-town-gets-currency/article-1333162-detail/article.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715035243/http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/hot-seat-Katie-Fforde/article-354274-detail/article.html to http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/hot-seat-Katie-Fforde/article-354274-detail/article.html
 * Added tag to http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/BAFTA-winner-Emily-headlines-Easter-fest/story-18200142-detail/story.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120912191120/http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/gloucestershireheadlines/Eddie-Eagle-Edwards-return-Olympics/article-1556070-detail/article.html to http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/gloucestershireheadlines/Eddie-Eagle-Edwards-return-Olympics/article-1556070-detail/article.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715090115/http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/stroud/sport/Hignell-claims-BBC-award/article-547096-detail/article.html to http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/stroud/sport/Hignell-claims-BBC-award/article-547096-detail/article.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) 23:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits on history
Recent edits to the history section by an unregistered editor who geolocates to Swindon - while well intentioned - are wholly unreferenced. References from reliable published sources should be added, or else all those edits may be reverted. Please read WP:RS and WP:REFB... etc.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Stroud
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Stroud's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Guardian": From Siobhan Baillie:  From 1994–95 Gillingham F.C. season:  From Industrial Revolution:  From Great Western Railway:

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Stroud


text: User talk:195.173.85.90

title: User talk:195.173.85.90


text:
Benedetto Brin

Benedetto Brin (17 May 1833 in Turin, Piedmont – 24 May 1898 in Rome, Lazio) was an Italian naval administrator and politician. He played a major role in modernizing and expanding the Italian Regia Marina ("Royal Navy") from the 1870s to the 1890s, designing several major classes of warships, including the large ironclad warships of the Duilio-class ironclad, Italia-class ironclad, and Re Umberto-class ironclades, the pre-dreadnought battleships of the Ammiraglio di Saint Bon-class battleship and Regina Margherita-class battleshipes, and the armored cruisers of the Vettor Pisani-class cruiser and Giuseppe Garibaldi-class cruiseres. His contributions to Italian naval power were marked by the naming of the second Regina Margherita-class battleship as ITALIAN BATTLESHIP Benedetto Brin, among other commemorations.

Biography
Born in Turin, he worked with distinction as a naval engineer until the age of forty. In 1873, Admiral Simone Antonio Saint-Bon, Italy's Minister of the Navy, appointed him undersecretary of state. The two men collaborated on major projects: Saint-Bon conceived a type of ship, and Brin made the plans and directed its construction.

On the advent of the Left to power in 1876, Brin was appointed Minister of the Navy by Agostino Depretis, a capacity in which he continued the policies of Saint-Bon, while enlarging and completing the project in such a way as to form the first organic scheme for the development of the Italian fleet. The huge ironclads of the Italia-class ironclad and Duilio-class ironclades were his work, though he briefly abandoned their type in favour of smaller and faster armored cruisers of the Vettor Pisani-class cruiser and the Giuseppe Garibaldi-class cruiseres, before returning to large capital ships with the Re Umberto-class ironclads and later the Regina Margherita-class battleship of pre-dreadnought battleships. Through his initiative, the Italian naval industry, almost non-existent in 1873, made rapid progress.

During his eleven years in the ministry (1876–1878 with Depretis, 1884–1891 with Depretis and Francesco Crispi, 1896–1898 with Antonio Starabba, Marchese di Rudinì), he succeeded in creating large private shipyards, engine works and metallurgical works for the production of armour, steel plates and guns.

In 1892, he entered the Giovanni Giolitti cabinet as Minister of Foreign Affairs, accompanying, in that capacity, King Umberto I and Queen Margherita to Potsdam, but chose not to act against France on the occasion of the massacre of Italian workmen at Aigues-Mortes. He died while Minister of the Navy in the Rudini cabinet.

Commemoration

 * The Regia Marina launched the Regina Margherita-class battleship ITALIAN BATTLESHIP Benedetto Brin, named for him, in 1901.
 * The submarine ITALIAN SUBMARINE Brin was named after him.
 * A commemorative plaque dedicated to Benedetto Brin is on Via Santi Apostoli in Rome.

title: Benedetto Brin


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If a tree falls down in a forest, and no-one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was send this off to BJAODN. Take a look here. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

If a tree falls down in a forest, and no-one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Non-Encyclopedic  — Chris Capoccia  T⁄C 13:55, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - patent nonsense JRP 13:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Anyone want to count the fallacies and misuses of logic in that? I lost count, myself. -R. fiend 14:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I actually discovered some new types of fallacies in this article. I think I'll write an article about this article as it is now notable in fallacy research. --Dmcdevit·t 23:18, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, Wikipedia is nothing if not educational. -R. fiend 04:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, eh? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 14:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * WTF? - I mean - Delete -- Francs2000 | Talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 14:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing encyclopedic here. --Several Times 15:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I worry about the future of the British government... Delete. — Asbestos | Talk  15:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN I actually found the arguments quite funny. --Scimitar parley 17:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not a Encyclopedia Article - NickC 18:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or BJAODN. Original research. It seems at least as sound as some of the arguments for the existence of God that I've seen presented. Anyway: 1) Nothing is better than a good laugh. 2) This article is a good laugh. 3) Ergo, it would be better to have no article at all than to have this article. So delete it. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL :). Thue | talk 19:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN as a flawed concept. -- BD2412 talk 19:36, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * BJADON. --Titoxd 21:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If this article is dropped from Wikipedia, and no-one reads it, does it make me happy? Yes!  --A D Monroe III 21:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * LART time. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 21:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and maybe send to BJAODN. Binadot 22:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete This philosophical question is well-known, and it might be possible to write a reasonable article about it, however this article is just nonsense. --Buuneko 00:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete for this steaming pile of nonsense. The fact that #8 is taken as an assumption, without any qualification, made me wretch. Xoloz 03:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * BJOADN. Ridiculous argument that goes everywhere and nowhere. Item 27 even purports to prove that "this argument must... be flawed". Eric119 07:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN. JamesBurns 08:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * A clear case of BJAODN. -- Kaszeta 13:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Kill it with fire.DS 18:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- This joke would have been cool, if it didn't suck so much.--Muchosucko 23:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Rust v. Sullivan

Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991), was a case in the United States Supreme Court that upheld Department of Health and Human Services regulations prohibiting employees in federally funded family-planning facilities from counseling a patient on abortion. The department had removed all family planning programs that involving abortions. Physicians and clinics challenged this decision within the Supreme Court, arguing that the First Amendment was violated due to the implementation of this new policy. The Supreme Court, by a 5–4 verdict, allowed the regulation to go into effect, holding that the regulation was a reasonable interpretation of the Public Health Service Act, and that the First Amendment is not violated when the government merely chooses to "fund one activity to the exclusion of another".

Legislative and regulatory history
When Congress passed Title X of the Public Health Service Act (hereinafter "the Act") in 1970 §1008 states that Title X funds could not be used "in programs where abortion is a method of family planning." The funding restriction was implemented "in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary may promulgate." The funds were authorized "only to support preventive family planning services".

For around 20 years Title X clinics were permitted to provide referrals and abortion counseling to pregnant patients. Between 1974 and 1978 Congress rejected three amendments that would have prohibited publicly-funded clinics from providing abortion counseling services. A GAO report in 1982 found "no evidence that title X funds had been used for abortions or to advise clients to have abortions". The audit also found that some clinics did not inform patients of alternatives to abortion and provided informational materials describing abortion as a back-up method of family planning. Some of the women who underwent abortion procedures after receiving counseling at title X clinics reported that they later regretted terminating their pregnancies.

Based on the GAO's recommendation that the HHS clarify §1008 regulations the Secretary of Health and Human Services proposed amendments in 1987 "to set specific standards for compliance with the statutory requirement". Clinics were required to refer pregnant patients to prenatal care providers that did not offer abortion planning or procedures. Physicians were directed to tell pregnant patients requesting information about abortion that the clinic did not consider abortion "an acceptable method of family planning". They were not allowed to offer any abortion counseling and could not make referrals to licensed abortion providers. The new regulations also required that Title X clinics be physically and financially separate from facilities that provide abortion counseling.

Around 4,000 Title X clinics serving 4.3 million mostly low-income patients were effected. Supporters of the regulations argued that abortion counseling at Title X projects directly channeled federal funds to Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics contrary to the intention of providing public funds for preventive family planning services. Planned Parenthood said there was no evidence supporting the accusation that federal funds were being used to improperly promote abortion.

Procedural history
These regulations were challenged by the recipients of Title X funds on the grounds that they exceeded the Congressional intent of the statute and violated the free speech rights of doctors counseling patients.

The family planning clinics requested declaratory judgements in federal courts. before the rules went into effect.

The petitioner Irving Rust was the director of a family planning clinic. Reagan's term had ended while the first federal appeals were still being decided. President George H. W. Bush decided to keep the new regulations. His administration's Health and Human Services Secretary Louis Wade Sullivan became was the respondent in the case.

Circuit courts were divided. Two courts of appeal ruled the regulations were unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the regulations. The Second Circuit decision was appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court
Chief Justice Rehquist wrote a broadly worded opinion for the 5-4 majority upholding the regulations against statutory and constitutional challenges. Justice David Souter, new to the Court, voted with the majority to uphold the new regulations in a 5-4 decision. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor dissented.

Briefs
Petitioners argued that the government could not impose unconstitutional conditions on the receipt of public benefits: "The government cannot exact adherence to any orthodoxy through the imposition of viewpoint-based conditions on its largess".

The government's position was that "the government is not obligated to provide the means to exercise" the abortion right.

Chevron deference
Applying Chevon the Court explained that an administrative agency's plausible construction of an authorizing statute was accorded judicial deference when the legislative history was ambigious as to congressional intent about restricting funds for abortion counseling. All district courts and Courts of Appeals had found that the legislative history was ambigious with respect to funding for counseling under §1008.

Although the previous regulations had been in place for 20 years, the Court said that revised interpretrations are shown deference under Chevron. The Court found adequate justification was provided for the change based on the GAO report and recommendations.

First Amendment
The Court said that the arguments put forth by the Title X clinics "ultimately boil down to the position that if the government chooses to subsidize one protected rights, it must subsidize analogous counterpart rights". Relying on prior precedents the Chief Justice added that "the Court has soundly rejected that proposition". This argument had been rejected by the Court in Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540 (1983).

Section 1008's abortion prohibition was constitutional because the government may, in the language of Maher v. Roe, "make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion", and subsidize some family planning services without an obligation to subsidize those that "promote or encourage abortion".

The court also rejected the argument that the regulations had conditioned the receipt of a benefit on the non-exercise of free speech rights that protect abortion advocacy and counseling. Recipients of Title X funds are not required to give up abortion-related speech outside Title X projects:

"The Title X grantee can continue to perform abortions, provide abortion-related services and engage in abortion advocacy; it simply is required to conduct those activities through programs that are separate and independent from the project that receives Title X funds."

The Court points out that unconstitutional conditions are conditions placed on recipients where a benefit recipient is "barred absolutely" from the restricted activity because it is "not able to segregate its activities according to the source of its funding".

Fifth Amendment
After the abortion right was recognized by Roe privately funded abortions received a measure of court protection from coercive regulations, however, in the Harris v. McRae (1980) and Maher cases the Court upheld restrictions on public funding, services and facilities for abortions. The court points out that the restrictions on public funding in those post-Roe cases were upheld and that it would "strain logic, in light of the more extreme restrictions in those cases, to find that the mere decision to exclude abortion-related services" from a preventive family planning program would impermissibly deprive women of their Fifth Amendment right to terminate their pregnancy.

The Court also rejects petitioner's argument that the regulations impermissibly deprive women of their Fifth Amendment right to medical self-determination under City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health (1983) and Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (1986) by placing restrictions on the counsel a doctor can give a patient within the context of the doctor-patient relationship:

"'Under the Secretary's regulations...a doctor's ability to provide, and a woman's right to receive, information concerning abortion and abortion-related services outside the context of the Title X project remains unfettered...the Constitution does not require that the Government distort the scope of its mandated program in order to provide that information.'"

Dissent
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Blackmun said "the Court for the first time upholds viewpoint-based suppression of speech, solely because it is imposed on those dependent upon the government for economic support. I conclude that the Secretary's regulation of referral, advocacy and counseling activities exceeds his statutory authority, and also that the regulations violate the First and Fifth Amendments of our Constitution." Justices Marshall, Stevens, and O'Connor joined Blackmun's dissenting opinion. Stevens wrote separately that "not a word in the statute...authorizes the (HHS) Secretary to impose any restrictions on the dissemination of truthful information or professional advice by grant recipients."

Justice O'Connor dissented from the majority in Rust on statutory grounds.

Impact
Congress quickly passed an amendment to Title X that said publicly-funded clinics should be permitted to make referrals to licensed abortion providers when requested by a pregnant patient. President Bush did not delay in vetoing this legislation. The House narrowly failed to override the veto, so the regulations remained in effect.

The Supreme Court had signaled their disapproval of any application of the regulations that would prevent a doctor from providing a patient with a referral for a medically needed abortion. Taking this into account, President Bush amended the regulations to allow a health exception to the family planning policy so that physicians could refer patients for abortions when it would prevent serious medical harm to the patient. However, the Bush administration did not follow the proper administrative procedures required for issuing new regulations. As a result, Bush's changes were declared void by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

It was an election year and the Bush White House did not have time to put any new policy in place; Bill Clinton was elected in the 1992 Presidential Election. Eliminating the Title X "gag rule" had been a campaign promise and the regulations were promptly reversed as one of the first official acts of the new administration in January 1993. Around 75,000 people protested in Washington D.C. on the day the regulations were reversed. People from all over the United States carried signs and wore stickers with non-partisan statements like "In Your Heart You Know It's Wrong" and "The Natural Choice is Life".

title: Rust v. Sullivan