text:
Border campaign (Irish Republican Army)

The border campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a guerrilla warfare campaign (codenamed Operation Harvest) carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. It was also referred to as the "resistance campaign" by some Irish republican activists. The campaign was a military failure, but for some of its members was justified as it kept the IRA engaged for another generation.

Background
The border campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened it. In 1939-40 the IRA carried out a sabotage/bombing campaign in England (the S-Plan) to try to force British withdrawal from Northern Ireland. The final figures resulting from the S-Plan are cited as 300 explosions, ten deaths and 96 injuries. From 1942 to 1944 it also mounted an ineffective campaign in Northern Ireland. Internment on both sides of the border, as well as internal feuding and disputes over future policy, all but destroyed the organisation. These campaigns were officially called off on 10 March 1945. By 1947, the IRA had only 200 activists, according to its own general staff.

In principle, the IRA wished to overthrow both "partitionist" states in Ireland, both Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State, both of which it deemed to be illegitimate entities imposed by Britain at the time of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922. However, in 1948 a General Army Convention issued General Order No. 8, prohibiting "any armed action whatsoever" against the forces of the recently proclaimed Republic of Ireland, amounting to a de facto recognition of the state. Under the new policy, IRA volunteers who were caught with arms in the Republic of Ireland were ordered to dump or destroy them and not to take defensive action.

From then on, armed action was focused on Northern Ireland, which was still part of the United Kingdom and which was dominated by Protestant unionists. The idea of a campaign launched from the Republic against Northern Ireland, first mooted by Tom Barry in the 1930s, gained currency within IRA circles as the 1950s went on. In 1954, after an arms raid at Gough Barracks in Armagh, a speaker at the Wolfe Tone commemoration at Bodenstown repeated that IRA policy was directed solely against British forces in Northern Ireland.

IRA Chief of Staff Tony Magan set out to create "a new Army, untarnished by the dissent and scandals of the previous decade," according to J. Bowyer Bell. One of its advisers was a retired British Major-General, Eric Dorman-Smith. The IRA was officially "apolitical," existing only to overthrow the "British-imposed political institutions" in Ireland. However Magan believed that a degree of political mobilisation was necessary and the relationship with Sinn Féin which had soured during the 30s was improved. At the 1949 IRA Convention, the IRA ordered its members to join Sinn Féin, which would partially become the "civilian wing" of the IRA.

Re-arming
By the middle of this decade, moreover, the IRA had substantially re-armed. This was achieved by means of arms raids launched between 1951 and 1954, on British military bases in Northern Ireland and England. Arms were taken from Derry, Omagh, Essex, Berkshire and Armagh. At the latter raid on Gough barracks in Armagh in June 1954, the IRA seized 250 Lee–Enfield rifles, 37 submachine guns, nine Bren guns and 40 training rifles. On 25 July 1953, there was an IRA arms raid on the armoury of the Officer Training Corps at Felsted, a private school in Essex. In that raid, the IRA netted over 108 rifles, ten Bren and eight Sten guns, two mortars and dummy mortar bombs. The police seized the van carrying the stolen weapons some hours later.

By 1955, splits were occurring in the IRA, as several small groups, impatient for action, launched their own attacks in Northern Ireland. One such activist, Brendan O'Boyle blew himself up with his own bomb in the summer of that year. Another, Liam Kelly founded a breakaway group Saor Uladh ("Free Ulster") and in November 1955, attacked a Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) barracks at Roslea in County Fermanagh. One RUC man was badly injured and a Republican fighter was killed in the incident. In August of the following year, Kelly and another IRA dissident, Joe Christle, burned down some customs posts on the border.

In November 1956, the IRA finally began its own border campaign. They were partly motivated by a desire to prevent any more splits in their organisation. They were also encouraged by the results of the UK general election of 1955, when Sinn Féin (since 1949, largely dominated by IRA members) candidates were elected MPs for the Mid-Ulster and Fermanagh and South Tyrone constituencies in Northern Ireland, with a total of 152,310 votes. This appeared to show that there was a substantial Irish republican support base within Northern Ireland. However, as the mainstream Nationalist Party had decided not to take part in the election, its supporters had voted for Sinn Féin instead.

Planning the campaign
The plan for the border campaign – codenamed "Operation Harvest" – was devised by Seán Cronin. It envisaged the use of guerrilla units called flying columns, initially four units of about 50 men each. They were to operate from within the Republic of Ireland and to attack military and infrastructural targets within Northern Ireland. Cronin believed that a strong campaign of attacks on RUC barracks, military installations and government buildings would force the withdrawal of security forces from townlands, villages and small towns, thereby making large parts of the north ungovernable. In addition, another twenty organisers were sent to various locations within Northern Ireland to train new units, gather intelligence and report back to the leadership in Dublin. An IRA document probably seized in Dublin in a raid on Cronin's flat, on 8 January 1957, stated that the aim of the campaign was to: "break down the enemy's administration in the occupied area until he is forced to withdraw his forces. Our method of doing this is guerrilla warfare within the occupied area and propaganda directed at its inhabitants. In time as we build up our forces, we hope to be in a position to liberate large areas and tie these in with other liberated areas – that is areas where the enemy's writ no longer runs".

No actions were to take place in Belfast, the capital and biggest city in Northern Ireland. It was excluded because Paddy Doyle, the Belfast operational commander and a member of the Army Council, was arrested and the unit was disorganised, although Hanley and Millar attribute the non-participation of the Belfast IRA to fears that informers had access to the IRA's plans. There was also a desire not to provoke reprisals by loyalists against the Catholic/nationalist population there. This had happened on a large scale in 1920–22, during and after the Irish War of Independence.

1956
On 12 December the campaign was launched with simultaneous attacks by around 150 IRA members on targets on the Border in the early hours. A BBC relay transmitter was bombed in Derry, a courthouse was burned in Magherafelt by a unit led by an 18-year-old Seamus Costello, as was a B-Specials post near Newry and a half-built Army barracks at Enniskillen was blown up. A raid on Gough barracks in Armagh was beaten off after a brief exchange of fire.

The IRA issued a statement announcing the start of the campaign, "Spearheaded by Ireland's freedom fighters, our people have carried the fight to the enemy...Out of this national liberation struggle a new Ireland will emerge, upright and free. In that new Ireland, we shall build a country fit for all our people to live in. That then is our aim: an independent, united, democratic Irish Republic. For this we shall fight until the invader is driven from our soil and victory is ours". Despite formal condemnation of the IRA by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, many units were given absolution before going out on operation. On 14 December: an IRA column under Seán Garland detonated four bombs (one of which blew in the front wall) outside Lisnaskea RUC station before raking it with gunfire. Further attacks on Derrylin and Roslea RUC barracks on the same day were beaten off. On 21 December: In response to the statement the government of Northern Ireland under Basil Brooke used the Special Powers Act to intern several hundred republican suspects without trial. Over 100 men were arrested on 12 January 1957. This, in time, severely limited the IRA's capacity to build up units within Northern Ireland. On the evening of December 30, the Teeling Column under Noel Kavanagh attacked the Derrylin RUC barracks again, killing RUC constable John Scally, the first fatality of the campaign. Others involved in that attack included two prominent IRA men, Charlie Murphy and Ruairí Ó Brádaigh.

1957
The year 1957 was the most active year of the IRA's campaign, with 341 incidents recorded.

The most dramatic attack of the whole campaign took place on 1 January: 14 IRA volunteers, including Séan Garland, Alan O Brien, Paddy O'Regan and Dáithí Ó Conaill planned an attack on a joint RUC/B Specials barracks in Brookeborough, County Fermanagh, though they attacked the wrong building. During the attack a number of volunteers were injured including Séan Garland. Fergal O'Hanlon and Seán South died of their wounds as they were making their escape. The remainder of the group were pursued back over the border by 400 RUC, B Specials and British soldiers. The funerals of South and O'Hanlon in the Republic produced a strong emotional reaction among the general public there. The two men are still considered martyrs in Irish Republican circles. Up to 50,000 people attended their funerals.

Shortly afterwards the Republic's government, led by John Costello of Fine Gael, feared that the IRA's action would drag it into a diplomatic confrontation with Britain. It used the Offences Against the State Act to arrest most of the IRA's leadership, including its Chief of Staff, Seán Cronin. Clann na Poblachta (led by former IRA Chief of Staff Seán MacBride) withdrew its support for the government in protest over this policy. In the ensuing Irish general election, 1957, Sinn Féin won four seats and polled 65,640 votes (c. 5% of those cast), while Clann na Poblachta's vote dropped sharply. However, Clann na Poblachta were very weak originally in the constituencies where Sinn Féin fielded candidates.

The new government, of Fianna Fáil, led by Éamon de Valera proved even more hostile to the IRA than its predecessor. In July 1957, after the killing of an RUC man, de Valera introduced wholesale internment without trial for IRA suspects. The use of internment on both sides of the Irish border made it impossible for the IRA, most of whose leadership was imprisoned, to maintain the momentum of their campaign.

On 11 November: The IRA suffered its worst loss of life in the period when four of its members died preparing a bomb in a farm house at Edentubber, County Louth, which exploded prematurely. The civilian owner of the house was also killed. It is believed they were going to attack an empty customs post and electricity pylons in Northern Ireland. They would later be referred to by republicans as the "Edentubber Martyrs".

1958 -1960
By 1958, the campaign's initial impetus had largely dissipated. Certain IRA activities produced public hostility and by 1958, there were already many within the IRA in favour of calling the campaign off. The Cork IRA, for instance, had effectively withdrawn. By mid-1958, 500 republicans were in gaol or interned, North and South. The decline in activity meant that the Fianna Fáil government in the South felt confident enough to end internment in March 1959. Following their release, some of the interned leaders met Sean Cronin in a farmhouse in County Laois and were persuaded to continue the campaign "to keep the flame alive". In 1960, the number of incidents fell to just 26. Moreover, many of these actions consisted of minor acts of sabotage, for example the cratering of roads.

That summer two IRA men were killed in separate gun battles with the RUC on the border in County Fermanagh, Aloysius Hand in July and James Crossan in August.

The period after the summer of 1958 saw a steep drop in the intensity of the IRA campaign. That the IRA's campaign had run its course by 1960 is testified by the fact that the Republic of Ireland's government closed the Curragh Camp, which housed internees in the South, on 15 March 1959 (judging them to be no further threat). The Northern Irish government followed suit on 25 April 1961.

1961
In November 1961 An RUC officer, William Hunter, was killed in a gun battle with the IRA in south County Armagh. This was the final fatality of the conflict. Minister for Justice, Charles Haughey reactivated the Special Criminal Court, which handed down long prison sentences to convicted IRA men.

End of the campaign
By late 1961, the campaign was over. It had cost the lives of eight IRA men, four republican supporters and six RUC members. In addition, 32 RUC members were wounded. A total of 256 Republicans were interned in Northern Ireland in this period and another 150 or so in the Republic. Of those in Northern Ireland, 89 had signed a pledge to renounce violence in return for their freedom.

Although it had petered out by the late 1950s, the campaign was officially called off on 26 February 1962. In a press release issued that day, drafted by Ruairí Ó Brádaigh who consulted with several other persons including members of the Army Council, the IRA Army Council stated:

The leadership of the Resistance Movement has ordered the termination of the Campaign of Resistance to British occupation launched on 12 December 1956. Instructions issued to Volunteers of the Active Service Units and of local Units in the occupied area have now been carried out. All arms and other matériel have been dumped and all full-time active service volunteers have been withdrawn... Foremost among the factors motivating this course of action has been the attitude of the general public whose minds have been deliberately distracted from the supreme issue facing the Irish people – the unity and freedom of Ireland. The Irish resistance movement renews its pledge of eternal hostility to the British Forces of Occupation in Ireland. It calls on the Irish people for increased support and looks forward with confidence – in co-operation with the other branches of the Republican Movement – to a period of consolidation, expansion and preparation for the final and victorious phase of the struggle for the full freedom of Ireland.

The statement was released by the Irish Republican Publicity Bureau and signed "J. McGarrity, Secretary."

Implicit in the statement was a recognition that the IRA, after a promising start in 1957, had failed to mobilise much popular support behind its campaign.

In popular culture

 * In 2007, the campaign was the subject of a TG4 documentary.
 * The campaign was referenced in the episode The Sanctuary of Danger Man, in John Drake's attempt to uncover an IRA cell.
 * In 2020, the campaign formed the backdrop of the crime thriller Blackwatertown by Paul Waters, published by Unbound in paperback and ebook and W.F. Howes now RBMedia in audiobook.
 * The 1 January 1957 attack on the joint RUC/B Specials barracks in Brookeborough, County Fermanagh is referenced in the song Sean South of Garyowen.

Aftermath
The border campaign was considered a disaster by some IRA members, not least because it enjoyed practically no support from the nationalist population of Northern Ireland. Even before the campaign ended some within the organisation had begun to consider other avenues in pursuit of the organisation's goals. Many of those involved with the border campaign felt that their lack of support was due to a failure to address the social and economic issues faced by ordinary people. The early seeds of addressing such issues are found in Sinn Féin election materials in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

The larger unionist population in Northern Ireland was further alienated from Irish republicanism by the campaign, and considered that its internment policy had worked. However, the policy was to fail when it was repeated in the 1970s.

Cathal Goulding, who became IRA Chief of Staff in 1962, tried to move the IRA away from pure militarism and towards left wing and ultimately Marxist politics. This process ended with the 1969/70 split in the republican movement between the Official IRA and Provisional IRA wings. The Officials, under Goulding wanted to transform the movement into a revolutionary party involved in both parliamentary and street politics, while the Provisionals under Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, wanted to maintain the movement's traditional refusal to engage in parliamentary politics. More immediately, the Provisional faction wanted to use armed force to defend the Catholic community in Belfast from loyalist attacks in the civil strife that had broken out in Northern Ireland (the start of "The Troubles"), but the Official IRA, as led by Goulding, also engaged as Belfast defenders. A key difference is that, ultimately, the Provisionals also wanted to re-build the IRA's military capacity to launch a new armed campaign.

The Officials and Provisionals went their separate ways in 1969. The Official IRA maintained armed actions up until 1972, but characterised them as "defensive". Feuds between the two IRAs in the 1970s claimed about twenty lives. The Provisional IRA launched what turned out to be a much more sustained and destructive campaign than the border campaign – the Provisional IRA campaign 1969–1997, which was to claim up to 1,800 lives.

title: Border campaign (Irish Republican Army)


text:
Talk:People's Republic of Korea

Countrywide developments?
This section reads as follows:
 * Early November saw the creation of the National Council of Korean Labor Unions (NCKLU) and its endorsement of PRK and its program. December saw the creation of the National League of Peasant Unions, the Korean Democratic Youth League, and the Women's League, and their support of the PRK.

The Youth League links to a North Korean organisation, but the others are red links. The Women's League seems to be intended to link to a North Korean organisation, probably the Socialist Women's Union of Korea. While no doubt these organisations aspired to be countrywide, it would be good to know what they amounted to in 1945, and what their support meant since the KPR was basically defunct at this point. In addition, the placement of the section at the end of article is odd chronologically...--Jack Upland (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistencies about the duration of the republic
The lead says the PRK was "forcibly dissolved" in the South in January 1946 (without giving a citation), whereas the infobox says the PRK was "abolished" in February 1946 (apparently referring to events in the North). However, sources say that Hodge outlawed the PRK in December 1945, and there is nothing to say that the Soviet occupation "abolished" the republic.

On Lyuh Woon-Hyung's page, it says, "In September 1945, Lyuh proclaimed the establishment of the Korean People's Republic and became its vice-premier. In October, he stepped down under pressure from the United States Military Government, and organized the People's Party of Korea, becoming its chairman". The infobox here states he was "Chairman of the National People's Representative Conference" 1945–1946. This conference is not mentioned elsewhere in the article.

The lead also says:

 * The People's Republic of Korea (PRK) was a short-lived provisional government that was organized with the aim to take over control of Korea shortly after the surrender of the Empire of Japan at the end of World War II. It operated as a government from late August to early September 1945 until the United States Army Military Government in Korea was established in the southern portion of the Korean Peninsula...

The dates in this seem wrong. Japan surrendered on 6 September, the US landed in Korea on 8 September, and the republic was proclaimed on 12 September. There doesn't seem any evidence that it operated as a national government. The Japanese occupation government remained in place until the arrival of Soviet and US troops. The answer to the fundamental question here seems to be that the republic never existed. There was an attempt to create this republic, but it failed because the occupation forces intervened. An infobox is an entirely unhelpful way of summing this up, as it creates a factoid that the PRK existed from 1945 to 1946, which has been replicated in infoboxes elsewhere.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

 * I have partly fixed these problems.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Potsdam
has changed the text to read: "After the American arrival in September 1945, as agreed at the Potsdam Conference..."I don't think that there was anything wrong with the word "landing", but this is trivial. The claim about the Potsdam Conference is not made in the conference's article and is not mentioned in Division of Korea. As the cited journal article says, most sources say that the decision on dividing Korea was made on August 10-11, and this is the date we use in Division of Korea. The cited article concludes, "Considering the circumstances of the time, there is little possibility that a secret pact was made at Potsdam, but decisive evidence for its absence has not been discovered so far". This then is a tenuous theory, which we don't need to mention here. This article could do with more about the division, but I don't think this belongs under "Development in the South".--Jack Upland (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The abstract of the journal article says "conventional accounts" use Aug 11, but "may be a deliberate cover-up for actual deliberations had taken place earlier. Interviews with Lieutenant General Hull reveal that the idea of the 38th parallel line was created at an earlier date, around July 25, during the Potsdam Conference." I think "not secret pact" reference means that the 38th parallel was not a formal agreement at Potsdam. The abstract ends "The present study concludes that while the actual draft of the 38th parallel dividing line was confirmed and formulated to the superior authorities by Lincoln and others on August 11, the plan was devised earlier, around July 25."

 * I'll take out mention of Potsdam in this article because "agreement" is too strong, but I think this study is well reasoned and should be presented over in Division of Korea. MB 22:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Well, maybe, but it should be based on the article itself, not the abstract.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Ministers of PRK
Somehow my edit was reverted because I listed head of state of PRK as Syngman Rhee. I found that 'de jure' leader of PRK is listed as Lyuh Woon-hyung. So I made edit from Korean sources I can find, but it seems that I should have explained about PRK's establishment, and that's why I listed Syngman Rhee as Chairman of PRK. It has no relations with Provisional Government of Republic of Korea.

September 6, 1945, Central People's Committee(중앙인민위원회) with 55 members, 12 candidate members, 12 consultants, which would function as supreme goverment of PRK, was elected by Nationwide Congress of Representative People's Committees(전국인민위원회 대표자대회, composed from representives from regional People's Committees(인민위원회)) at Kyunggi Girls' High School(경기여고, Located then Jaedong, Jongno-gu, Seoul, South Korea(서울특별시 종로구 재동)). List of ministers are here with corresponding Korean Wikipedia articles.

Chairman: Syngman Rhee

Vice-Chairman: Lyuh Woon-hyung

Prime Minister: Heo Heon(ko) (Later Chairman of the Supreme People's Assembly of DPRK, and President of the Kim Il-sung University)

Minister of Internal Affairs: Kim Koo (Deputy: Cho Dong-ho(ko), Kim Gye-rim)

Minster of Foreign Affairs: Kim Kyu-sik (Deputy: Choi Geun-woo(ko), Kang Chin)

Minister of Finance: Cho Man-sik (Deputy: Park Mun-gyu(ko), Kang Byung-do)

Minister of Military: Kim Won-bong (Deputy: Kim Se-yong, Chang Gi-wook)

Minister of Economy: Ha Pil-won (Deputy: Kim Hyung-seon(ko), Cheong Tae-sik(ko))

Minister of Agriculture: Kang Gi-deok(ko) (Deputy: Yu Chuk-woon(Later Minister of Coal Industry of DPRK), Yi Gwang)

Minister of Health: Yi Man-kyu(ko) (Deputy: Yi Cheong-yun, Kim Jeon-gwon)

Minister of Transportation: Hong Nam-pyo (Deputy: Yi Sun-geun(Later member of Provisional People's Committee of North Korea), Cheong Jong-geun)

Minister of Security: Choi Yong-dal(ko) (Deputy: Mu Chong, Yi Gi-seok)

Minister of Justice: Kim Byeong-ro(ko) (Deputy: Lee Seoung-yeop(ko), Cheong Chin-tae)

Minister of Culture and Education: Kim Seong-su (Deputy: Kim Tae-jun(ko), Kim Ki-cheon)

Minister of Propaganda: Yi Gwan-sul(ko) (Deputy: Yi Yeo-seong(ko), Seo Jung-seok(ko))

Minister of Communication: Sin Ik-hui (Deputy: Kim Cheol-soo(ko), Cho Du-won(ko))

Minister of Labour: Yi Wi-sang (Deputy: Kim Sang-hyeok, Yi Sun-geum(Younger sister of Yi Gwan-sul))

General Secretary of Central People's Committee: Yi Gang-guk(ko) (Member of German KPD) (Deputy: Choi Sung-hwan)

Minister of Government Legislation: Choi Ik-han (Deputy: Kim Yong-am)

Minister of Planning: Cheong Baek(ko) (Deputy: Ahn Ki-sung)

While lot of ministers were right-wing or even anti-communist, list of ministers were written by then General Secretary of Communist Party of Korea, Pak Hon-yong. One-third of members of CPC were either socialist or communist, and important ministries like ministry of propaganda or ministry of security were in hands of communist activists. It was because of Popular front policy of CPK(named August Thesis - 8월 테제). However, Syngman Rhee, after returning from U.S, refused to take office as chairman, while Kim Koo and Kim Kyu-sik refused to take part in PRK during 28th November, 1945.

References(In Korean) http://db.history.go.kr/id/dh_001_1945_11_28_0040 http://encykorea.aks.ac.kr/Contents/Index?contents_id=E0052184 https://terms.naver.com/entry.nhn?docId=548886&cid=46626&categoryId=46626 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.140.153.170 (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You may be confused with the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

No, not at all. Provisional Government, also under Kim Koo as Chairman of Provisional State Affairs Commission(Elected by Provisional Parliament), was 'hostile' with PRK. Lyuh Woon-hyung and other Korean independence activists who remained in mainland Korea(While Provisional Government goes to Chongqing) wasn't friendly with Provisional Government at all. Also, comparing the fact that he was elected as leader of PRK with Syngman Rhee as a leader of Provisional Government is completely anachronistic, Syngman Rhee was impeached from President of Provisional Government at March 21th, 1925(Due to his letter to American Government about request of establishment of American mandate government at Korea) - while PRK was established at August 1945. How could I confuse 20 year difference?

Anyway I removed Syngman Rhee as Head of State from Article, and added some details to prevent confusions. If there's anything that seems to be an error, please write it at here - we don't have to revert edit multiple times. It's far better to reach agreement at here.

221.140.153.170 (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the edit. It would be good go add sources if you can. The difficulty with the PRK is that it proclaimed a lot of things but didn't last long.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:People's Republic of Korea


text:
Talk:First Daughter (2004 film)

Katie Holmes
I've completely reworked the article on Katie Holmes and have posted it on WP:PR in the hopes of advancing it to WP:FAC. I would be grateful for your comments at Peer review/Katie Holmes/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 19:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

First Kid
For those looking, the 1996 movie First Kid has a similar premise. The Vital One (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:First Daughter (2004 film)


text:
GURPS Uplift

GURPS Uplift is a sourcebook for a science fiction themed role-playing game. It is a part of the extensive GURPS "generic" roleplaying system.

Contents
GURPS Uplift is based on a fictional universe envisioned by David Brin in his influential Uplift Universe series, where biological uplift of animals has become common.

Publication history
GURPS Uplift was written by Stefan Jones and published by Steve Jackson Games in 1990.

It was long out of print, but a 2nd edition was published in September, 2003 (ISBN 1-55634-427-9).

A revised edition was reported to be in preparation in 2018.

title: GURPS Uplift


text:
1954 in Norwegian football

The 1954 season was the 49th season of competitive football in Norway.

Championship final
June 27: Fredrikstad-Skeid 2-1

Play-off Sørland/Vestland
Flekkefjord - Bryne 1-0

Brann - Flekkefjord 6-0 (agg. 7–0)

Brann promoted.

Play-off Møre/Trøndelag
Ranheim - Molde 2-0

Ranheim promoted.

District I
1. Rapid (Promoted) 2. Greåker 3. Torp 4. Hafslund 5. Mysen 6. Sprint 7. Østsiden 8. Rakkestad

District II; Group A
1. Vestfossen (Play-off) 2. Drammens BK 3. Mjøndalen 4. Drafn 5. Steinberg 6. Jevnaker 7. Strømsgodset 8. Kongsberg

District II, Group B
1. Spartacus (Play-off) 2. Aurskog 3. Sandaker 4. Stabæk 5. Aasen 6. Grei 7. Kongsvinger 8. Funnefoss

District III
1. Gjøvik/Lyn (Play-off) 2. Hamar IL 3. Fremad 4. Brumunddal 5. Mesna 6. Vang 7. Vardal 8. Einastrand

District IV, Group A
1. Tønsberg Turn (Play-off) 2. Skiens BK 3. Borre 4. Sem 5. Kragerø 6. Brevik 7. Borg 8. Flint

District IV, Group B
1. Storm (Play-off) 2. Herkules 3. Urædd 4. Rjukan 5. Drangedal 6. Ulefoss 7. Tollnes 8. Skiens-Grane

District V, Group A1 (Aust-Agder)
1. Grane (Arendal) (Play-off) 2. Arendals BK 3. Nedenes 4. Rygene 5. Risør 6. Dristug

District V, Group A2 (Vest-Agder)
1. Mandalskam. (Play-off) 2. Vigør 3. Farsund 4. Torridal 5. Vindbjart

DistrictV, Group B1 (Rogaland)
1. Ulf (Promoted) 2. Klepp 3. Egersund 4. Varhaug 5. Randaberg 6. Vigrestad

District V, Group B2 (Rogaland)
1. Vidar (Promoted) 2. Haugar 3. Jarl 4. Torvastad 5. Vaulen 6. Brodd

District VI, Group A (Bergen)
1. Nymark (Play-off) 2. Laksevåg 3. Hardy 4. Trane 5. Bergens-Sparta 6. Viggo 7. Minde

District VI, Group B (Midthordland)
1. Florvåg (Play-off) 2. Erdal 3. Fana 4. Ålvik 5. Eidsvåg (Åsane) 6. Dale (Dalekvam) 7. Kjøkkelvik

District VII, Group A (Sunnmøre/Romsdal)
1. Sykkylven (Promoted) 2. Spjelkavik 3. Aksla 4. Hovdebygda 5. Skarbøvik 6. Volda 7. Velledalen 8. Åndalsnes

District VII, Group B (Nordmøre/Romsdal)
1. Clausenengen (Promoted) 2. Braatt 3. Træff 4. Goma 5. Nordlandet 6. Averøykam. 7. Sunndal 8. Olymp

District VIII, Group A1 (Sør-Trøndelag)
1. Hommelvik (Play-off) 2. Heimdal 3. Steinar 4. Leik 5. Flå 6. Melhus

District VIII, Group A2 (Sør-Trøndelag)
1. Troll (Play-off) 2. Orkanger 3. Løkken 4. Svorkmo 5. Dalguten 6. Oppdal

District VIII, Group B (Trondheim og omegn)
1. Rosenborg (Play-off) 2. Tryggkameratene 3. National 4. Nidar 5. Trond 6. Ørn (Trondheim) 7. Strindheim

District VIII, Group C (Fosen)
1. Opphaug (Play-off) 2. Beian 3. Stadsbygd 4. Lensvik 5. Rissa 6. Fevåg (withdrew)

District VIII, Group D (Nord-Trøndelag/Namdal)
1. Nessegutten 2. Verdal (Play-off) 3. Stjørdal 4. Malm 5. Namsos 6. Varden (Meråker) 7. Skogn 8. Blink

Play-off District II/III
Spartacus - Vestfossen 1-2

Vestfossen - Gjøvik/Lyn 2-2

Gjøvik/Lyn - Spartacus 1-1

Championship District II
Spartacus - Vestfossen 1-2

Play-off District IV
Tønsberg Turn - Storm 2-0

Storm - Tønsberg Turn 0-1 (agg. 0–3)

Tønsberg Turn promoted.

Play-off District V
Grane - Mandalskameratene 3-0

Mandalskameratene - Grane 1-1 (agg. 1–4)

Grane (Arendal) promoted.

Championship District V
Ulf - Vidar 2-0

Vidar - Ulf 1-5 (agg. 1–7)

Grane - Ulf 0-2 (in Flekkefjord)

Play-off District VI
Nymark - Florvåg 2-1

Nymark promoted.

Championship District VIII
Sykkylven - Clausenengen 3-0 (in Molde)

Play-off District VIII
Rosenborg - Verdal 1-0

Hommelvik - Opphaug 2-1

Verdal - Hommelvik 3-0

Opphaug - Rosenborg 0-3

Rosenborg - Hommelvik 1-2

Verdal - Opphaug 7-0

Relegation play-off District II
Grei - Jevnaker 1-3

Jevnaker - Grei 2-1 (agg. 5–2)

Grei relegated.

Relegation play-off District IV
Borg - Tollnes 3-2

Tollnes relegated.

National team
Note: Norway's goals first

title: 1954 in Norwegian football


title: File:Trainables2.jpg


text:
Talk:RF (disambiguation)

Countries?
It's unclear if Russian Federation and France really belong here, since it doesn't seem likely anybody would enter "RF" if they were looking for either of those. I'm leaving them in for now, but if anybody's got opinions one way or the other, I'd like to hear them. RoySmith 14:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe, someone could appreciate the little RF in the French euros and try to guess what it is by entering it in WP... --euyyn 23:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Primary topic
Radio frequency is the primary topic and should have this title. The existing page should be moved to RF (disambiguation). Does anyone object to this happening?  Spinning Spark  07:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Since no one has objected, Ihave moved the article.  Spinning Spark  15:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 21 July 2022

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No consensus after extended discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

RF (disambiguation) → RF – The base name RF is being used as a redirect to radio frequency, which is not the primary topic for the acronym. There are 27 different "RF" articles listed at the dab page. Dr. Vogel (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support. It is nearly impossible for a two-letter combination to have a primary topic, and this is not one of these rare cases. BD2412  T 00:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For every rule there's an exception. There's evidence this is an exception. ~Kvng (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. There's no clear primary topic for this two-letter combo — so the safest bet is to move the disambiguation page to the basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. This will just revert an undiscussed move from 2013. Station1 (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose "RF" is most likely referrant to "radio frequency" as in radio frequency radiation (radio). A basic GOOGLE search shows dominance of radio frequency topics in the first 100 results. And in Google Books, almost all the results are about radio-frequency topics. And in Google Scholar , almost all the results are about radio frequency topics. Thus there is a marked and massive predominance of radio-frequency topics meaning "RF" in long term significance and scholarly work. -- 05:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.88.43 (talk)
 * Weak support this may be the most common abbreviation but it doesn't seem primary[].  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please review Crouch's evidence. The pageswap necessary to perform the move jumbles up the massviews results, making it look like nonsense post-swap, but it should now more clearly show his no-primary argument now. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that now, but I still don't see how that is evidence that the abbreviation is not primary. It's true that France has massively more pageviews than Radio frequency and Random forest has slightly more, but that is not evidence that RF is a common abbreviation for France or random forest.  In fact, the articles for both of those fail to make the claim that RF is an abbreviation at all so by the rules of dab pages they should not be on the page in the first place. SpinningSpark 07:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A further comment on France – RF is not an abbreviation for France, it is an abbreviation for République française, so even if this were a valid method of measuring primacy of an abbreviation (which it is not) we should be looking at République française pageviews which has 26 last month (+seven from Republique francaise) compared to 17,489 for radio frequency. SpinningSpark 07:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging to discuss further. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My views was for the fact that Radio frequency has 17,489, Random forest has more (22,985), Rheumatic fever has 15,222, Respiratory failure has 10,137 and Russian Federation has 7,000.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just comparing pageviews is irrelevant. The vast majority of users who go to the page France were not searching for "RF". The same is probably true for Random forest. --Srleffler (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Relist comment Relisting the RM after an oppose voter (who didn't manage to vote during the RM itself) complained on my talk page that Crouch's evidence made no sense to them because the massviews gets jumbled when a pageswap happens. I've tentatively reverted the pagemove so that the evidence makes more sense again. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are multiple claims here that radio frequency is not the primary meaning, but precious little evidence that this is so. I agree that "most common" meaning does not necessarily mean it is primary if there is one or more other widely found uses.  However, the google books results show that not only is radio frequency the most common usage, it is overwhelmingly so.  The first hundred results are all for radio frequency (with the exception of a couple of person's initials and non-abbreviations). SpinningSpark 07:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How does the fact that it's the most common meaning found on Google Books prove that it's primary? Dr. Vogel (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * When over 99% of usages are for one meaning then it's primary by any sensible definition of the term. That's fully in line with WP:DPT. How are you defining primary? SpinningSpark 09:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That is in one place. Books are not the only source of information. What evidence do you have that this generalises so much that radiofrequency should be the primary topic for the acronym RF over and above all 27 other articles listed at the dabpage? Dr. Vogel (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's already been stated that similar results are obtained from gscholar and a general google search. Similar results from all other browsers I tried, in fact both Google and Chrome are so sure that is what I am looking for that that is what is displayed in their infoboxes. Let's turn it around – do you have any evidence that any of them even come close? SpinningSpark 16:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ...and what is wrong with books anyway? They are generally a better source of information than rubbish chatter on the general internet.  Also, the first three suggestions in WP:DPT for testing by reliable sources are ngrams (which guess what - uses book corpora), gbooks and gscholar. SpinningSpark 16:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In line with what has shown, RF is clearly primary. Merriam-Webster shows only RF meaning radio frequency and Rf meaning rutherfordium; Collins adds a few other things (right field and right fielder) for rf, but for RF it's only radio frequency; Oxford English Dictionary first attests RF as radio frequency to 1918 with no other meanings (R.F. is attested for "representative fraction" in cartography.) —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Beyond the dictionary definitions, looking at what links to RF and RF (disambiguation), everything in an admittedly quick check that links to RF is referring to radio frequency; the only things linking directly to RF (disambiguation) are radio frequency and lists of acronyms. It's clear when someone puts RF in an article they are, 99% of the time, referring to "radio frequency." —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that RF had even more incoming links for "radio frequency" until dozens of them were bypassed in the time between this discussion being closed and reopened. SpinningSpark 22:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also note that dab pages normally aren't supposed to have incoming links, and if indeed most of the incoming links to the redirect RF intend the radio frequency article this only means that editors haven't been inserting a whole lot of blatantly incorrect links. When we have more direct data about usage on Wikipedia (as I've shown below), we don't need to bother with incoming links, but if we're going to look at them at all, we need to make more meaningful comparisons. For example, there at most 400 articles where a link to "RF" intends the radio frequency article, and at least 750 istances where the term "RF" is a piped link to something else . Uanfala (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And within that second search more than 400 of the results are linking to Right fielder. This means there are more RF links piped to right fielder than to radio frequency. -- Fyrael (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Where is the evidence that isn't not the primary meaning? Other articles may have more pageviews, but that doesn't mean they more commonly use the RF acronym. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Use of the acronym "RF" for radio frequency is overwhelmingly common. I don't see any other use of the acronym on the dab page that rivals it. Radio frequency is a clear primary for RF.--Srleffler (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. More than enough evidence has been presented that "Radio Frequency" is the primary topic. PianoDan (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. In June, the redirect RF was followed 212 times ; for the same period, the redirect target's hatnote link to RF (disambiguation) was clicked 108 times . This means that slightly under half of readers were happy with the existing primary topic, and that number would get even lower if you consider that many of them probably came via incoming links rather than searches. As far as I'm concerned, this settles the issue about usage. Distributions of web search results and the like tell you nothing about what readers seek on Wikipedia. What other sources do could be relevant in deciding how we should title our articles, but that question's not being discussed here: all that's at stake is the fate of a redirect and a dab page, and there's no reason why we should be patterning those after external websites. Uanfala (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just seeking clarity here, you're saying that the linked tools show 212 people clicked on RF in June and then 108 of them used the hatnote on Radio frequency to find some other target on RF (disambiguation). Is that correct? I'm not sure either tool is showing that exact path or relationship, but the WikiNav chart you linked to does clearly show that most of the people leaving RF (disambiguation) head to Radio frequency (with a smaller number heading to Russia). In a case where there isn't a primary topic, I would expect that chart to look more like the one for Cabal (disambiguation) where the clicks away from the disambig page are more diverse and not as concentrated on a single target. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There are two links above. One is https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2022-06-01&end=2022-06-30&pages=RF and it shows the pageviews for the redirect RF: you can see the relevant numbers in the pane on the right: 212 total for the period, and a daily average of 7. The second link is from Wikinav https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=RF_%28disambiguation%29. It shows the sources and destinations of traffic for the dab page. Look at the left-hand side of the first graph: these are the sources, the size of the "pipe" for each source is proportional to the traffic coming from there. You can see the absolute numbers for each source by hovering yoru mouse over it. That's where the figure of 108 comes from. You're commenting on the right-hand side, which shows the desinations of traffic from the dab. While it is true that the radio frequency article tops this list, you need to notice that it only gets a tiny proportion of the outgoing traffic (you don't see any of the other targets apart from Russia because source-destination pairs with fewer than 10 monthly hits don't make it into the dataset). Uanfala (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, I see where the numbers come from, but your comment above was that "slightly under half of readers were happy with the existing primary topic" because of the number of people who went from the RF redirect ended up using the hatnote to get to RF (disambiguation). I don't think that's completely accurate. It's two different data sets. One showing the number of people who got to Radio frequency via RF and the the other showing the number of people who got to RF (disambiguation) from Radio frequency. Are there some who did the two actions sequentially? Probably, but certainly not everyone did. The 108 clicks on the hatnote are from the 22,076 visitors to Radio frequency, not those who got to the page from the RF redirect. My point about the right-hand side of the Wikinav data was that there's a clear indication in that that Radio frequency is the primary topic for RF. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a valid observation. The unspoken assumption of my brief analysis above was that the hatnote link was followed primarily or exclusively by the people it's aimed at. Otherwise, why would any other reader of an article be interested in the unrelated meanings of a random abbreviation? Of course, you can't completely rule out misclicks or readers with pathologically exhasutive curiosity, but I don't think it's at all reasonable to assume that their numbers would be significant. If an article has a hatnote that says "Foo redirects here, for other uses see Foo (disambiguation)", then all, or almost all, of the readers who click on the link to the dab page would be ones who have followed the redirect "Foo" without landing at the article they wanted. As for the right-hand side of the Wikinav graph: that would be what we'd be looking at if the dab page were at the base title, but it isn't, so it isn't of much use in our case (other than as a sanity check in case of extreme data). The crucial bits you appear to be missing here are: 1) the link for the radio frequency article gets followed by merely 13% of visitors to the dab page, and 2) the guidelines require a primary topic with respect to usage to get more usage than all the other topics combined, not just more usage than the next most popular topic. Uanfala (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That "only" 13% of visitors to the dab page followed the link to "Radio frequency" is not at all evidence in your favour. It is surprising that anyone at all followed that link.  One has to ask why anyone seeking "Radio frequency" has ended up on the dab page given that "RF" redirects to "Radio frequency".  Perhaps they misclicked on the choices in the search box, or perhaps they first went to "Radio frequency" looking for something specific, saw that there was a disambiguation page, went there to see if there was a better choice, then came straight back to "Radio frequency" on seeing there was not.  In any event, the occurences should be extremely rare.  That they are not is because "Radio frequency" has a large readership. And they're not by a wide margin – "Radio frequency" is 70% of the outgoing pageviews of the dab page when it should be more or less zero.  That's evidence of primary topic if there ever was. SpinningSpark 17:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it's partly for the reasons that you set out that those righ-hand-side figures are useless here. But you brought them up, so I had to respond with clarifications. And I'm going to have to correct you again. The radio frequency does not account for 70% of the outgoing traffic from the dab: that figure is only relative to the total of two taret articles with 10 or more monthly clicks. Those with fewer than 10 clicks aren't recorded in the dataset. There are a large number of entries on the dab page and you're effectively assuming that all of them got zero clicks and that the vast majority of visitors to the dab page arrived then and just did nothing. We don't know exactly how much of the outgoing traffic was for your article, but we do know that only 13% of the visitors to the dab page followed the link to it. And as clear from all the above, this is an entirely irrelevant number! When you state that the clicks for the radio frequency article should be expected to be zero, you're assuming that 100% of the traffic to the dab page will come from the hatnote in that article. That's also not correct. As shown by Wikinav, that percentage is 23%. Three quarters of dab visitors don't arrive from there, so naturally some of them will be seeking that article. Uanfala (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't assume that all the incoming traffic is from the hatnote. I said as much in my analysis by mentioning the search box.  That's the only way incoming links can come from the main page for instance, and probably applies to other pages as well since we do not deliberately link dab pages in article text.  The biggest categories of incoming links are search engines and empty referers.  Again, one has to ask how users are arriving from search engines.  If I type "RF" into Google, it jsut doesn't offer the dab page as a possible target.  The fact that there are so many incoming links just screams bot and crawler activity to me.  That is, not human activity so ignore. Yes, pages with fewer than ten clicks are not in the statistics, but it's a stretch to think that every unlisted target got ten clicks (probably most did not get any) and in any case ten is still only 12% of what "Radio frequency" got. SpinningSpark 09:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did mention traffic from the search box, sorry I missed that. Still, you're making the assumption that all this traffic would be down to misclicks, and that's extremely unrealistic. At the very least, you need to observe that radio frequency doesn't appear in the search suggestions for "RF" at all, so any reader looking for it through the drop-down box will likely have to pass through the dab page, which is at the top of the list when you type RF. Bots and crawlers are supposed to be excluded from the dataset (see its documentation), though undeclared bots may account for some of the empty referrers. Anyway, I think I've provided all the input I reasonably could, so I'll be leaving it here. By this point it should be obvious to anyone (at least anyone who hasn't already bet on a horse in this game) that the data is impossible to reconcile with the hypothesis of a primary topic. Uanfala (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Radio frequency" does not appear in the drop down for "RF" but neither does "RF (disambiguation)". The top result is "RF" which is the redirect to "Radio frequency".  Users cannot get to the dab page that way unless they explicitly seek it out by typing some more of its title, otherwise they are going to land on the "Radio frequency" page either by clicking "RF" of just pressing enter.  So it is untrue that users are forced through the dab page by the drop down menu.  I'm not hearing any credible mechanism either, whereaby users can get to the dab page from a search engine other than by explicitly seeking it out. SpinningSpark 10:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * When readers see "RF" in the drop-down box they have no way of knowing this will lead to the radio frequency article. Typing "RF " (RF + space) shows the dab page at the top. Typing "Rf" (notice the lower-case "f") brings out Rf at the top, which is a redirect to the dab page. 12:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanfala (talk • contribs)
 * "RF " doesn't show me the dab page at the top, but "RF (" does. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ooops, I had been looking at "rf ". Uanfala (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Same with "rf ", the only way I can get the dab page to appear in the dropdown is including the opening bracket. Making me wonder if it's browser or location dependant... -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried three browsers (Firefox and MS Edge on desktop, Chrome on mobile) and whenever I type "Rf " I get the dab page at the top of the drop-down box. This discrepancy is interesting, and I guess I'd need to learn more about how those search suggestions work. But we're going way off on a tangent here. The point was that there are legitimate navigation paths to the dab page (say, you type "rf", with or without space, and hit enter: no matter how the search suggestions work, you'll immediately get taken to the dab), so there's no need to try explaining away the traffic that it gets. Uanfala (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Mostly what Uanfala said. When deciding primary topics I think Wikipedia usage data is much more important than any Google searches and it looks to me like that data doesn't show a clear primary topic. -- Fyrael (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Reasonable points have been made on both sides. It's either a toss-up or a decision without major significance to readers. In these cases, we should trust past work and leave things as they are. ~Kvng (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems to be an appeal to the status quo. I believe something like that makes sense if we're dealing with articles (as long as they're at least minimally watched), but not here: dab pages and redirects tend not to receive much attention, so I don't think there can be much of an implicit consensus here. Besides, the dab page has spent equal periods of time on and off the primary title (with only a bold move in 2013 separating the two), so the present discussion had better come up with consensus one way or the other. Uanfala (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Seems a fairly clear case of Andrew's principle to me. So it doesn't really matter which way we go. Andrewa (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SpinningSpark ... who basically stated my intended rationale better than I ever could. Steel1943  (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:RF (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Tom Driberg

Untitled
T E Lawrence died in 1935. So the story of him meeting Driberg in 1940 suggests a typo.

Quote needed
I once read the following (the words are to the best of my memory): "To write an obituary of Tom Driberg without mentioning homosexuality would be like writing an obituary of Maria Callas without mentioning opera". Google has proved fruitless in my search for its author. Can anyone help? -- JackofOz 08:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Got it. The exact quote is: "To have published an obituary of Tom Driberg without mentioning homosexuality would have been like publishing an obituary of Maria Callas without mentioning opera".  It was in the Times obituary.  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Great Work
The link to Great Work redirects to Magnum Opus, a multi-concept page. Should the Alister Crowley section be extended to specify/link to Thelema or Thelemic mysticism? Please Note - I write from a position of complete ignorance, as my casual attempt to link and learn ended in confusion. Perhaps ''... solemnly pledged himself to the Thelemic mystical concept of the Great Work in the presence of the Beast 666.'' Autodidactyl (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Insufficient referencing?
"He is the man who brought pederasty into disrepute" is referenced only to Wikiquote's page on Winston Churchill, and on that page we discover that the quote is listed under the "Unsourced" heading. I can't see that this is a good enough reference, therefore, for a Wikipedia article. 86.143.48.55 (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is important to state hear, the extent to which Driberg participated in his homosexual proclivities. He was a keen cottager and any book on the man would link him to the most depraved acts of perversion, including many of the infamous gatherings set up by Ronny Kray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlVKrish (talk • contribs) 23:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality disclosed before his death
We say However after his death, it was revealed that he had been ... a [sic] undisclosed homosexual".
 * Well, it was certainly generally known well before he died that he was a homosexual. Churchill, who died in 1965, said that Driberg gave sodomy a bad name; that was at least 11 years before Driberg died, and probably quite a bit longer than 11 years.   So the word was out there, even if Driberg did not personally ever publicly acknowledge it.  But what does "publicly" even mean?  Gay people when they come out do not put an ad in the Public Notices of newspapers telling all and sundry about their sexual orientation.  They tell their family and friends, and the word spreads.  Just because he didn't have "homosexual" on his resume, doesn't mean it was only disclosed after his death.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sodomy was illegal, as was any gross indecency in public. Importuning was illegal, that is just offering to perform sexual acts, for money or not. The police concentrated on venues likely to be hosting these activities. Being gay per-se was not indictable as there was no evidence.203.194.47.168 (talk) 05:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Article expansion
I am beginning an expansion of this article into a comprehensive biography. I will shortly post a revised structure, and new sections and text will be added. Comments on the new material will be welcome, though I ask at this stage that these be made on this talkpage, rather than by alteration to the text. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

 * That's all to the good, but my preferred MO when doing a major re-write is to work with what's already there, rather than to remove existing information entirely, even pro tempore. After all, people are still looking at the article, while you're working on it. Be that as it may, though, I particularly look forward to seeing again all the points of information found in the following paragraphs, from the former "Legacy" section:

"He was created a life peer, as Baron Bradwell, of Bradwell-on-Sea in the County of Essex, shortly before his death at Paddington, London. His autobiography, Ruling Passions, was published posthumously in 1977 and disclosed the conflict between the three passions that drove his life: his homosexuality, his left-wing political beliefs and his allegiance to the High Church tendency of the Church of England. Winston Churchill, who died in 1965, had said of him, 'Tom Driberg is the sort of person who gives sodomy a bad name.' Driberg's will insisted that at his memorial service, the reader excoriate him for his sins rather than praise him for his virtues.

Driberg set the crosswords for Private Eye for some years, under the pseudonym 'Tiresias'. Peter Cook, who provided financial backing to Private Eye, refers to him in a Derek and Clive recording from 1977 as 'Lord Driberg, or Lord Bradwell I think he's called', and has him wearing 'fine fishnet stockings' and accompanied by a 'chicken'."

 * Some of this information is already back, I think, and some will obviously re-appear; but I think it would be a great shame to lose the Churchill quote, details of his involvement with Private Eye, and the cultural reference by Peter Cook. Apart from anything else, this sort of information makes an article more interesting, I think; and, when it is clearly RS, it's perfectly valid. I note, on the other hand, that the information regarding Driberg's will was unsupported - perhaps you can fix that? Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I have temporarily restored most of the "legacy" information, though not the Derek and Clive stuff which is pure trivia. The other material removed (re KGB, honeytraps etc) was not reliable information; the whole question of Driberg's purported relations with the KGB, other agencies and MI5 needs presenting with the utmost care. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

 * That's great, thanks! I have to differ on the Peter Cook/Derek and Clive information, though - I think it's fascinating to see what someone like Cook made of Driberg's interests, as, through his satirical works, he was a prominent social and political commentator at the time; and, is it really any more trivial than the Churchill quote? Peter Cook is hardly unknown and without influence. Otherwise, keep up the good work. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Churchill quote is in a different league. Quite apart from the mordant wit, it usefully demonstrates that Driberg's sex life was well known, at least in parliamentary circles. As to the other, mockery of the recently-dead should not be confused with satire. Brianboulton (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I see what you mean. But it's not as though Cook confined himself to commenting on the recently dead; and, the comment is fiercely satirical, from someone outside parliamentary circles, which, I think, makes it all the more interesting. So, I don't think I am confusing "mockery of the dead" with satire, frankly. A dictionary definition of "satire" which I have in front of me reads, "the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues." This was a speciality of Cook's, and he was a well-known satirist of the time; but I think the main point is that his remarks provide a contemporary commentary specifically on Driberg and his legacy, from someone who clearly was well aware of Driberg's place in politics. But, that's where I'll leave it for now, thanks for reading! Nortonius (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Well, to my mind Peter Cook himself is notable, had a clear affect on culture (*especially* British culture) and so what he said/wrote about others seems worthy of inclusion in WIkipedia to me. A sourced quote of what he thought of Driberg is pertinent to our understanding of how Driberg was regarded at the time.  Regardless of what we might think of the tone of his 'Derek and Clive' script/performance, if we think it is satire or if we think it is mockery...he wrote the words, he said the words, the words are verifiable.  I think that the quoted material should probably be kept. Shearonink (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I do agree that we should endeavour to preserve information from earlier versions; it isn't just a matter of respect for the "recent dead" (although surely 35 years is pushing that term somewhat), there is also the matter of respect for the many editors who have contributed to this article.

 * For the Churchil quote, I found what I think is a better reference - a book from 1974 . I think quoting from that Evening Standard piece is less than idea, given the somewhat discursive nature of the piece.

 * I also feel that we should include the quote from Peter Cook. I think it is entirely appropriate; it shows contemporaneous attitudes from a well-known source, and I feel it adds to encyclopaedic understanding of the topic. I do not consider it 'trivial'.

 * I am surprised that we do not have a section headed "Homosexuality" (as there was previously), or perhaps "Sexuality". Lumping this in with "Allegations of treachery" is quite odd. I note the quotation mentioned at the top of this page, "To have published an obituary of Tom Driberg without mentioning homosexuality would have been like publishing an obituary of Maria Callas without mentioning opera". I cannot verify that specific quotation, and nor am I suggesting we use it; however, I do agree with the meaning of it. A simple web-search for "Driberg" (in standard Google, or news, or books) clearly demonstrates that a massive amount of published information about this person concerns his sexuality, sexual predilections and the allegations of various scandals. So whilst I am certainly not advocating tabloidesque content, I feel that in order to present the subject with due balance and weight, we really must cover these areas in more detail.  Chzz  ► 22:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

On the various issues raised above
 * Peter Cook quote: I still consider it trivial Daily Star quality abuse, but now that the article is developing into a fully rounded form, the quote can be included as part of  the general appraisal of Driberg's life.
 * Churchill quote: It would be useful to see what the rest of the page says, to see if it actually clarifies when Churchill made the statement. This could easily be a Churchill myth - something he's supposed to have said, but no one can place it. I agree it is a better source than Wilson, which it predates by 27 years - it may indeed have been Wilson's source.
 * Homosexuality: I agree with the Maria Callas quote, and if you study the article you will see that Driberg's sexuality is a consistent theme throughout, as it was through his life. There is no need for a "Homosexuality" section, as the theme is discussed or at least referred to in all the following sections: lead, Lancing, Oxford, William Hickey, Independent member, Labour member, Marriage, Out of parliament, Barking, and Allegations of treachery. It will be discussed further in the Appraisal section when this is drafted. Several scandals are presently included: the "three-in-a-bed" romp that Beaverbrook rescued Driberg from, the Edinburgh blowjob, the Krays, etc. The reader is constantly being reminded of this sordid aspect of Driberg's life, which certainly isn't being, as you say, "lumped in" with the "Allegations of treachery" section. My fear has been, rather, that I was possibly overdoing this angle; as biographer Wheen says, "Readers might get the idea that Tom Driberg's only interest in life was sucking men's cocks" (Wheen, p. 4).  Brianboulton (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Peter Cook, "trivial Daily Star quality abuse"?! As a doctor (which I am), I recommend you listen to the Derek and Clive corpus ten times, and then we can disuss your thoughts in detail ;o) - all joking aside, though, no, I don't think you're overdoing that aspect in your revision, and, thanks for the considered response, on the basis of which I have restored the Peter Cook quote to the article, under your "Appraisal" subheading. I fully understand that it may be "tweaked" for style, or to fit in with future editions of the section, but I shall expect its essence to remain part of the article, as it was before. Regards. Nortonius (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Appraisal section should be in place later today, and will include a reference to the D & C item, suitably contextualised.  I am quite familiar with the Derek and Clive corpus, which was big stuff when I was a student. How we laughed. Now, it seems to have all the wit of little boys farting in class. Still, each to his/her tastes, I've run out of analogies. Brianboulton (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Again, that's great, thank you very much! Interesting, what you say about having laughed at D & C as a student: I also laughed, the first time around. Then, some 20 years later, I found myself listening again, and re-appraised D & C: the second time around, what I found absorbing was not so much the content, as the interplay between Cook and Moore - the mental sword-play, the comic timing, the erudition, and, most definitely, the wit! It was well worth the re-listening; but, as you say, "each to his/her tastes"! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Article title
I have moved the article title to "Tom Driberg" (from "Tom Driberg, Baron Bradwell). This is the normal practice in Wikipedia for articles where the subject received a peerage late in life, having been known by their true names through their main years of achievement and noteworthiness. See, for example, Benjamin Britten, Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, Laurence Olivier, Harold Macmillan and many others. The references to Driberg's title in the text and infobox remain unchanged. Brianboulton (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I can't find any reference to him being a Privy Counsellor so I've removed that. Brianboulton (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Monday 9 December 1941
Pearl Harbor was attacked on Sunday 7 December 1941; President Roosevelt's famous speech asking Congress for a declaration of war against Japan and beginning "Yesterday — December 7th, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States was wantonly and deliberately attacked ...", was on Monday 8 December 1941. The regular (non-special edition) morning newspapers that reported the Dec. 8 speech and declaration of war were dated Tuesday, December 9, 1941; for example a facsimile of The New York Times front page that I have before me. Now it's possible that Tom Driberg was in Washington on Tuesday the 9th but not Monday the 8th; it's also possible that the source cited (Tom Driberg) confused the days of the week (his report of Monday's events was no doubt published on the 9th). But the anomaly needs to be resolved somehow, because to anyone who knows anything about the attack on Pearl Harbor, one of the memorable elements (with a dramatic contrast, used in countless later portrayals, of sudden war with innocent weekend relaxation or worship) is that it happened on a Sunday (U.S. and Hawaiian time). The Sunday newspapers had already been printed and delivered, so Americans first got the startling news either by word of mouth or from radio reports while expecting to hear athletic, religious or musical programming. [The only afternoon paper that day, and thus the only U.S. newspaper to report Pearl Harbor on December 7th, was The Westerly Sun in Rhode Island, published by Seventh-Day Adventists who took Saturday for their Sabbath and treated Sunday as a weekday.] —— Shakescene (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right; the date of Roosevelt's "infamy" speech was clearly 8 December. I have corrected the text, and changed the source to Wheen, who gets it right. Brianboulton (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Another piece of self indulgent of crap
jeez I have read some booring articles on here, but this one takes the biscuit as the first choice for the main page. I mean just out of interest I went back to 2009. That short article then told me everything I needed to know. He was a labour MP who was a shameless homosexual who probably betrayed his country for some "rough trade". This article on the other hand is the work of an apologist. The old article hits the tone immediately whereas this one drowns out his scurrilous reputation with narrative that is both verbose and boorish. Very clever! Who ever thinks this is a good article needs their head examined?!!!

As noted above, someone said he was a well-known gay man who did not care that homosexuality was illegal. Churchill even said Driberg gave sodomy a bad name (whatever that meant!). The bottom line is this that this article far from accurate. Imagine the uproar if an article about Adolf Hitler was written in the same self-serving manner, there would be little room for any mention of anti-Semitism then!

From the intro down, there is little but dull narrative prose about he did this and he did that, yeah he did plenty of this and that with little care for the consequences, too! This article is piss poor with capitals. There should be tags that could be added to these articles warning all those college plagiarists that they would not be getting an a good grade if they copied this drivel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.90.201 (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your comments. If I may: while I can't comment on the remarkably quick comparison with the article about Adolf Hitler, ;o) I'm sure that there are many experienced Wikipedia editors who would beg to differ with your comments about this article. This article is patently encyclopedic, so it is bound to include material which is considered encyclopedic. As a featured article it will have been subjected to quite rigorous examination, for example concerning bias, by which I mean your description of the article as "the work of an apologist." As well as looking back through older versions of the article, you are free to read only the opening section, or "lead", and skip the rest: in a way, it could be said that this is what the lead is for. You might also wish to make further constructive contributions to Wikipedia as you did here, to match the hard work that has gone into creating this article. Best wishes. Nortonius (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am surprised by your comments,I came here because I wanted to say that I think this is actually one of the very best Wiki articles I have ever read. It gets to the heart of the man and shows that he was much loved by his friends and even fondly loathed by his enemies. A truly remarkable,unique and very individual character and this article does him great justice. Frglee (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Thank you. When I was told the article would be on the main page, I anticipated an explosive rant from someone – Driberg tends to affect people like that, even 36 years after his death. If all we have is the rubbish at the top of this thread, then I think we've got off lightly. Now I must get busy on my next piece of self-indulgent crap. Brianboulton (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"to get off later charges"
"to get off later charges" should be replaced with something NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.117.208 (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Common law widow
I suggest that the reference to "Ena Mary Binfield, née Lyttelton, the common law widow of Joe Binfield" should be changed to "Ena Mary Binfield, née Lyttelton, the former mistress of Joe Binfield". There is no such thing as a common law widow.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would avoid the somewhat loaded term "mistress" unless there is multiple WP:RS that uses that term for the relationship (googling I don't see them). Was Joe Binfield married - the term would certianly be wrong if he wasn't married to another. Rwendland (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tom Driberg. 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/20110514220452/http://www.puseyhouse.org.uk/house/history/ to http://www.puseyhouse.org.uk/house/history

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) 16:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Gay sexual orientation
Please explain why "gay sexual orientation" is better than "homosexuality", why "Oxford" (the city) is synonymous to the university in that city and most of all what on earth you mean by "given the retrograde social and political context of the times" and what exactly are the sources for that claim. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead image
The longstanding lead image, under a fair use rationale, was recently replaced by an image which purported to be "free". If that image is to be used it needs to be demonstrated that it is free in the US, not just in the UK. I have restored the original image until the US copyright status of the proposed replacement is established. Brianboulton (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The lead image was again replaced by Thomas Drieburg.jpg, but I have again restored the former image pending clarification that the latter is free from copyright in the US. Since the IP is unwilling or unable to investigate, I will do so and report accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I've received an informed opinion that the proposed replacement is free fro US copyright law, and can therefore be used here in place of the non-free image. Brianboulton (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead image caption
The main caption reads "Chairman of the Labour Party", as though this was some form of high dignified public office. It isn't and wasn't: the party chairmanship was awarded yearly, on the basis of Buggins' turn, to whoever had sat on the National Executive the longest. No honour whatever - about 90% of the holders were nonentities, and Driberg was unusual in that many people had actually heard of him. Of course, the pompous jackass tried to pretend to his foreign friends that it was an importsnt office, and some of the Soviets might have believed him... I'm not sure what if anything ought to be done to clarify the position, but it looks annoyingly misleading at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Tom Driberg.jpg

Opposition to abuse of Jews in the Polish army
One of Driberg's main political activities in 1943-1945 was opposing the abuse of Jews in the Polish army in the UK. This led to hearings in parliament, inquiries, and was a factor in the dissolution of the Polish army in the west. This page should at least mention this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semper honestus (talk • contribs) 03:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC) - (ArbCom banned user)

 * I concur. A brief statement to that effect would be fine, I think. The first two sentences above, suitably polished and referenced in the form in use in the article would suit the case, I think. Any other views?  Tim riley  talk   09:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 * I have concerns whether this minor incident is WP:UNDUE. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

More sources:
 * "Polish Forces, Great Britain (Anti-Semitism)". Hansard. 06 April 1944, vol. 398, cols. 2010–2014.
 * "Antisemitism in Polish Army: Members from all parties express their concern". The Manchester Guardian. 8 April 1944.

SarahSV (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Aren't 1944 sources a tad old? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough to cite Hansard and the contemporary press, I 'd say, but let's see if anyone else has views.  Tim riley  talk   10:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Bradwell Lodge
Am in the process of working up an article on Bradwell Lodge. A, quite nice, 21st-century image of the lodge can be found there. We could replace the 1960s image currently here with that one. However, it may be felt that the current image is more suitable, particularly as it purports to show Driberg, although he’s close to unrecognisable! I’d be interested in others’ thoughts. KJP1 (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Two related queries:
 * Surely there is space for WSC’s other famous Driberg witticism - on seeing a picture of Ena, “buggers can’t be choosers”;
 * Is Osbert Lancaster’s “Wedding Ode to Tom Driberg” available as a free source anywhere? KJP1 (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As one of several editors who keep an eye on some of the 100 articles taken to FA by Brian Boulton I quite often wade into discussions, confident I know what BB might have thought of a proposed change, but here I'm not confident − can't begin to guess. For my own part, I prefer the suggested coloured picture to the present black and white one, in which Driberg is, as you say, not conspicuously distinguishable, but I'd be happier knowing what other editors think.
 * As to your two supplementaries, a WP:RS for the first? And not a clue about the second (though pleased to see a link to an article BB suggested he and I should take to FAC, though he left it to me in the end, flagging a bit by then, alas).  Tim riley  talk   14:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Afterthought: ungracious of me not to have added that your new article on the lodge is a pleasure to read.  Tim riley  talk   15:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You’re very kind. I also personally prefer the more recent image of the lodge, and think it gives a clearer view of what the building actually looks like. That said, the older image does have some nice detailing, although not of Driberg! Let’s see whether anyone else has a view. KJP1 (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. KJP1 (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tom Driberg


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Riley

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Matthew Riley
Vanity, I couldn't find anything remotely encyclopedic (or any mention at all that I could see) while searching for him. Delete Rx StrangeLove 14:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Vanity. KeithD 15:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete no claim to notability -Harmil 15:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. He appears to be a commercial director of BAA plc, but isn't notable. David | Talk 15:54, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Category:Muscogee people

This is a category for individual Muscogee Creek people.

title: Category:Muscogee people


text:
Talk:Eng (letter)

Invented by Benjamin Franklin?
According to David Crystal (in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language), eng has been designed by Alexander Gill the Elder in 1619.
 * Meanwhile, the page on Benjamin Franklin's phonetic alphabet implies he invented it. I'm not sure which is right, but there seems to be good online evidence that BF did at least use it in his designed alphabet, with its current IPA meaning, so it seems it was not invented for IPA use. --Rschmertz 04:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks guys. I've created a "History" section with the information you provided.  -- TimNelson (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Wiktionary notes a mediæval Icelandic ligature as the ultimate origin or inspiration for the letter, though no source is given. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Which page of The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language says Alexander Gill designed the letter eng? I found this facsimile of Gill’s Logonomia Anglica of 1619 printed in 1972. On page 12 we can see an uppercase G with a descender hook and a lowercase ŋ close to how we know it today. This copy of Logonomia Anglica printed in 1621 and this facsimile printed in 1972? show a capital letter G with a sort of descender hook but a lowercase digraph ng. There are other differences between the first facsimile and the copy or the second facsimile, like the lowercase omega in the first as a ö in the other two, the h with a hook or loop as a ħ int the other two, or several others. --Moyogo/ (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Votes

 * Oppose Eng should be a DAB page. 132.205.45.110
 * Comment You don't think it would be better to have a dab page at Eng (disambiguation), with Eng being about the letter? I think putting a dab page at Eng would only be appropriate if there were multiple things actually called "eng", not just sometimes abbreviated to "eng". --Ptcamn 03:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There;s at least one; see Chang and Eng. Septentrionalis 04:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not moved, for now. — Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

aboriginal languages map
it is used quite a bit in this 1940 aboriginal map --Astrokey 44 06:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Merging with "Velar nasal"?
Oppose:
 * Not clear that this makes sense. The velar nasal sound is represented by other means also (ng, sometimes nh). What is done with other Latin letters and the names for sounds they represent? --A12n (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: one is a letter, the other is a sound. FilipeS (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The letter eng precedes the IPA, so merging it is kind of like merging k with voiceless velar plosive. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  21:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Eng not in Latin alphabet box
Why is the letter eng not included among the list of "Letter N with diacritics" such as one sees on Ɲ and Ñ? Why does the Latin alphabet box in this article not have that list? (Not sure how to edit the box, which is another question.)--A12n (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a combination of a letter with a diacritic, but a character in its own right. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article says "Lowercase eng is derived from n with the addition of a hook to the right leg, ..." which sounds a lot like the how one would describe some of the other "n" variant forms in the abovementioned box. Whether one calls a modification of the letter form a "diacritic" (see for example Hook (diacritic)) or something else seems to be a valid question. But either way, doesn't it seem like ŋ logically belongs in the same category as ɲ, ƞ, etc.? Maybe they (including ŋ)should be called something else rather than "N with diacritics" (which applies unambiguously to ñ, ṅ, etc.)? The eng may have a longer history(?) and seems to have wider use than many other extended Latin characters, but it's still part of the same group and users should be able to easily find it with the others.--A12n (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 * The eng is a modified n, no question about that. As for the "derived from n with the addition of a hook to the right leg" bit, I don't think that should be taken too literally. It's more a graphic description of the form of the character. Notice the difference between the "trunk" of the ŋ, and the hooks used by Vietnamese, in the Hook (diacritic) page. FilipeS (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Eng or engma (majuscule: Ŋ, minuscule: ŋ) is a letter of the Latin alphabet"  This is a spurious assertion ?   Its not in the Latin alphabet and thats why it isnt in the box.Eregli bob (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Not only a letter, but also a sound
Eng or engma (majuscule: Ŋ, minuscule: ŋ) is a letter of the Latin alphabet, used to represent a velar nasal (as in English singing) in the written form of some languages and in the International Phonetic Alphabet.

It seems to me that the name eng is also used by phoneticians to denote the sound [ŋ] (and the phoneme /ŋ/, of course).

Cfr ash:

both the symbol and the sound are commonly referred to as "ash". 62.98.75.91 (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Alt code for eng?
Is there an alt code for eng? The Unicode code doesn't help me type it. If anyone knows it, can they include it in the article, please? DBlomgren (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Fall from common usage
When did it fall out of common usage? I feel like that would be useful info in the article, but I’m struggling to know where to look to find well sourced information rufioh talksign 01:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Accents with n
Ŋŋ Ňň ʼ Nŉ Ņņ Ññ Ńń 173.69.12.44 (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Eng (letter)