text:
Amadu II of Masina

Amadu II of Massina (أحمد بن أحمد حمادي; Amadu Amadu Hammadi; c. 1815 – February 1853), also called Amadu Seku, was the second Almami, or ruler, of the theocratic Caliphate of Hamdullahi or Diina of Hamdullahi in what is now Mali. He held this position from 1845 until his death in 1853. His rule was a short period of relative peace and prosperity between the violent reigns of his father and his son.

Background
Masina is the Inner Niger Delta, a large area where the Niger River divides into separate channels that overflow and flood the land annually. Some time between 1810 and 1818 Seku Amadu Lobbo of the Bari family launched a jihad against the Fulbe chiefs in Masina, tributaries of the pagan Bambara of Segu, whom he accused of idolatry. The goals of the jihad soon expanded to that of conquest of the Bambara and others in the region. Seku Amadu established a large empire based on Hamdallahi, which he had founded as the capital. The empire stretched from just downstream of Segu almost all the way to Timbuktu.

Seku Amadu Lobbo received support from Tukolor and Fula people who were seeking independence from the Bambara, but met resistance when he imposed a rigorous Islamic theocracy based on the Maliki interpretation of Sharia law. The new theocratic state was ruled by a council of forty elders, who gave directions to provincial governors. Most of the governors were related to Seku Amadu.

Rule
Seku Amadu Lobbo died on 19 March 1845 and his eldest son, also Amadu, was elected as almami. Technically, the new almami did not have to be a member of the Bari family, but only someone who was learned and pious. There were several candidates, including Ba Lobbo, the son of Seku Amadu's oldest brother. Election of Ba Lobbo would have followed the Bari family tradition of succession through a collateral line rather than direct succession. Others such as Alfa Nuhum Tayru and al-Hadjdj Mody Seydu were better qualified, although not related to the former almami. However, the council chose the son as almami, while Ba Lobbo became the main leader of the state's army.

At the start of his rule, Amadu II (Amadu Seku) had to suppress internal opposition. He also faced revolts by the Saro Bambara and the Tuareg around Timbuktu, who declared independence. Ba Lobbo defeated the Tuareg with a surprise attack near Lake Gossi early in 1846. In 1847 the local Kunta leader, Sidi al-Bekkai, managed to persuade Amadu to withdraw his military garrison from Timbuktu, but had to accept Masina rule. Amadu was also able to suppress the Bambara revolt.

Amadu's rule was a time of relative peace and prosperity compared to those of his father and his son, building on his father's achievement in persuading the formerly nomadic Fula people to settle, and in establishing a strong legal framework for grazing and transhumance rights. However, Amadu found it hard to maintain the level of enthusiasm for strict Islamic rule that his father had achieved.

Ahmadu II was killed during a raid on the Bambara. He died in February 1853. His tomb may still be seen in Hamdallahi, along with that of his father, in the ruins of the palace.

Succession
Amadu II nominated his son, also Amadu, as his successor. In 1853, Amadu III was elected to the position of Almami in accordance with his father's wishes. Amadu III was handicapped by dissension over his succession within the Bari family, and was never secure in his authority. Ahmadu III was defeated on 15 May 1862 by the jihadist el Hadj Umar Tall, who occupied Hamdallahi. The Masina Empire had lasted little more than forty years.

Notes and references
Notes

Citations

Sources

title: Amadu II of Masina


text:
Talk:Turkish Navy

Objective clean-up is required
The articles about the Turkish Armed Forces should all be cleaned up, because they include controversial arguments and exaggarated numbers. The references should not be forum/blog like web sites which state POV statements. They should be objective and verifiable. The aim is to give correct and concise information, not to make any propaganda or advertising. e104421 14:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is rife with nationalistic chest-beating and ethnic self-promotion. It should be overhauled and made to conform to a neutral, objective POV. I might also suggest limiting the article to the post-Ottoman Turkish navy, Turkey and the Ottoman Empire not being perfectly synonymous or interchangeable terms. Qinshihuangdi 12:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Turkish phrase for "Turkish Navy" must be "Türk Donanması", as "Türk Deniz Kuvvetleri" refers to Turkish Naval Forces

Statements such as "second strongest" have little meaning in the context of a military force. Is this a ranking of specific capabilities? Proven combat-effectiveness? Level of training? Any such statement needs to be substantiated.

In terms of equipment and capabilities, a couple European Navies come to mind, such as the Italian and Spanish navies, (which both have aircraft carriers) which are "stronger" than Turkey's, not to mention the German and Greek navies, which have similar capabilities.

The point is, this is an encyclopedia, in which you should strive to have a neutral POV. Other than that specific statement, it is a very informative article.

 * How is Greek navy stronger than Turkey's, I would like to know. And just numeral or fire power supremacy doesn't make a stronger navy or army; armies are as effective as their officers and generals, not just their weaponry. So first you were right, we can't call Turkish navy second best, just as you can't make a comparison as well unless it is a huge gap as between for example US and Turkish navies.--Kagan the Barbarian 08:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The person above said and he is pretty correct that italian, spanish and should we also say french and english navies include aircraft carriers and are actually stronger navies, when he mentioned the greek navy he mentioned similar capabilities, and in many forms the greek navy is of similar capabilities to the turkish navy. _______________________

Τhe statement that the Turkish navy is the second strongest navy in europe is completely nonsense, how could they be better than the highly modernized French navy or Italian navy?, in addition to that main combat units for the turkish navy are the obsolete Knox class frigate who have been termed by some people are not "fit" for the aegean sea.

 * There is an ongoing large scale modernization in Turkish Army, which includes building of new ships.--Kagan the Barbarian 08:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

 * "Ongoing" and "building" being the operative words here. Future capablities are just that, something for the future, they do not affect the current capabilities of the fighting force. The Royal Navy is ordering 2 new Aircraft Carriers, that has no bearing on its current capabilities, you see my point? sheep21 14:32 7 January 2008

Main Equipment
This section has been copied from my site (http://warriorsoul.4t.com) without permission. In order to adopt a more constructive way of action than removing the whole table, I simply added a link to my site in the "Sources" section. I am a researcher on the defence industries and accurately keep track of the changes in the inventory. I spend a lot of time and effort on updating the information provided and I am happy to see that a growing number of people are making use of it. However, I would highly appreciate it if people who use the information elsewhere would at least provide a link to my web site as the source. Should you wish to contact me personally, kindly follow the "Contact" link in my site.

Thank you.

Warrior Soul

Question
What is the "designation" (for lack of a better word) letters that come before the name of a Turkish ship (i.e for the US USS. Ronald Reagan, Britian HMS Ark Royal, Holland HLMS Tromp)

The "designation" letters before the name of a Turkish navy ship are "TCG" (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Gemisi, in English language: Ship of the Turkish Republic). CeeGee 08:43, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well Turkish navy has no projection equipement. But projection capability does not mean strength. Turkish navy is second in europe after english navy considering purely strength !!

Turkish Navy Motto
It is "Daima Hazır", "Always Ready/Prepared", if someone wants to add it. I think we need to rebuild Turkish military related articles, they are too weak, very few photos and information. I am willing to contribute time and information for this, especially in Navy related articles I can provide photos. Let me know, contact me, don't be lazy.--Kagan the Barbarian 08:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Intro statement
"The Turkish Navy is the third strongest in Europe after the British Royal Navy and Russian Navy."

I apologize, but this is quite an incorrect statement. First of all, the two best navies in Europe are generally recognized to be the British and the French, not British and Russian. Furthermore, Turkey's is not the third best. I would rate the Russian, German, Italian, Spanish, and even the Dutch navies as superior. I think there may be disagreements about the latter three, but I can't foresee any about the first two. I plan to correct this highly POV statement.UberCryxic 04:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Tang Class: 12

 * Hızırreis: 6
 * Pirireis: 6

Atılay Class: 16

 * Atılay: 3
 * Saldıray: 3
 * Batıray: 3
 * Yıldıray: 3
 * Dolunay: 3
 * Doğanay: 1

Preveze Class: 14

 * Preveze: 3
 * Sakarya: 3
 * 18 Mart: 1
 * Anafartalar: 1
 * Gür: 3
 * Çanakkale: 3

Gür Class: 3

 * Burakreis: 3 (1 more is about to be compeleted soon)

Total: 31
Mizrak 19:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Protected
The article is protected due to the edit war (that is not to show endorsement of any particular version). Please solve your differences on talk and then ask any admin (e.g. me) for unprotecting. abakharev 03:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

 * This article requires protection as there are to many people incorrectly editing it removing information that does not agree with :them, such information is for example the general description of the Turkish navy, removal of European ranking in terms of :personnel employed or fleet displacement. If you have a problem with the Turkish navy or if you generally disagree with the Turkish :nation or somehow find that the Turkish nation itself is somehow offensive to your ideal world then Wikipedia through
 * article vandalism is not the place to complain about it. You will find blog sites, government officials & media outlets to voice :your complaint.

 * Can somebody please place a protection on this page and give edit rights to authors who are proven to be bias free. If this
 * arrogant and deliberate mis representation of facts continue then Wikipedia itself would not serve it's intended function but just
 * become another (globally stretching) blog site that mis represents facts and has no credibility to it's brand name association. AussieSkeptic82 (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * AussieSkeptic82, would you mind please placing comments at the bottom of the talkpage? It's difficult to follow if they are half-way up the page answering 2006 queries. Kind regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Sorry about that Buckshot06, still kinda new to Wikipedia editing. AussieSkeptic82 (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

question
I had asked you the source. Kachik 15:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

images
There are too many images in the article. Most of them are not closely related with the subject and reducing the quality of the article. E104421 09:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Military history of Turkey
Please do not remove the information presented in any article without any discussion. The information provided was very informative and there is no reason moving to any other page. You can mention the same staff in any other article. Regards. E104421 11:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved them all to the Military history of Turkey page. These are not staff of the Turkish Navy that were removed. Rather, the names represent admirals who served the Ottoman navy, and most of these names served several hundred years ago. I agree that it is informative, but not in the context of this page, which is about the navy of the modern Republic of Turkey. Hiberniantears 12:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Structural changes should not be done without discussion. These admirals are all served for Turkish Navy, you cannot classify them as Ottoman admirals only as if Ottomans are not related with Turkish people. The name of the article is Turkish Navy not the Navy of the modern Republic of Turkey. Furthermore, the name Military History of Turkey is not a proper choice, the better one would be the Military history of the Turks. Regards. E104421 13:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree that there are some naming convention issues here. I would support your suggestion on the "Military history of the Turks" idea. This article, however represents the link to the Turkish Navy from the Turkish Armed Forces page, which represents the military of the Republic of Turkey. Perhaps we need to clarify the name of this article to more clearly state that? Hiberniantears 13:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hiberniantears, Turkey never ceased to exist. Turkey only changed its political system (was a Monarchy, became a Republic).

Turkey didn't change its flag.

Turkey payed for the Ottoman debts until the 1950s, being the only legal heir to the Ottoman Empire.

The Ottoman Empire was actually called "Turkey" if you read the texts of 19th century treaties such as the Paris Peace Conference (1856) or the Congress of Berlin (1878). Just look at the 19th century caricatures on Punch magazine and you'll see that Turkey was always "Turkey". ;)

With your definition, the Turkish Air Force can't be founded in 1909-1911 (which is its official founding date). 1911 predates the establishment of the Turkish Republic. Similarly, the official founding date of the Turkish Navy is 1081, which also predates the Turkish Republic.

In short, "Turkey was always Turkey" - it only changed its political system. The flag and the institutions remain the same, but the ideology has changed.

Regards. Flavius Belisarius 17:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

@ Hiberniantears
I'm Flavius Belisarius, aka Dragut Barbarossa, Calico Jack Rackham, Shuppiluliuma and many others (I've been around in Wikipedia for a very long time).

1) Turkish Navy related articles that I created using Italian and Turkish archives:

 * Kemal Reis
 * Piyale Pasha
 * Seydi Ali Reis
 * Salih Reis
 * Kurtoğlu Muslihiddin Reis
 * Kurtoğlu Hızır Reis
 * Koca Murat Reis

2) Turkish Navy related articles that I vastly improved using Italian and Turkish archives:

 * Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha
 * Turgut Reis
 * Oruç Reis
 * Uluç Ali Reis
 * Piri Reis (I added all the maps and Kitab-ı Bahriye information on this one)

3) Turkish Navy ship articles that I created:

 * Milgem
 * Kılıç class
 * Yıldız class
 * Rüzgar class
 * Doğan class
 * Kartal class

I also personally wrote every word, comma, sentence, date and event in the Chronological List of Events (battles, treaties, etc.) at the bottom, which took me days of research to complete.

It took me several days to write the Admiral articles alone (each Admiral article took several days to write).

Therefore, if you think that I will leave an incompetent person, with no knowledge on Turkish naval history or its present fleet, and whose only ability is to "copy-paste", "cut-delete" and "change the positions of the pictures" according to his personal tastes (which also "I" uploaded under the name DenizKuvvetleriKomutanlığı), and eventually destroy the article (according to his ignorance), you are dead wrong.

I will be here to guard my efforts FOR EVER AND EVER AND EVER AND EVER.

If you have nothing better to do in life, keep going. But don't trust your "Irish stubbornness" too much, as you probably have no idea on what kind of people the Anatolians (Foolish Galatians) are. :)

Regards. Flavius Belisarius 16:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

FLAVIUS, YOU ARE A RACIST BIGOT. That aside, I have great respect for your efforts in improving Wikipedia, and esspecially for your contributions to the articles you have mentioned above. I shall enjoy our ongoing collaboration, and look forward to working with you on an equal footing. I am fairly certain you are actually a 14 year old, given your affinity for pirates, and penchant for personal insult. Your actions have completely undermined any personal respect I might have had for you. Your style of writing is substandard, and were this encyclopedia not open to everyone, I suspect your nationlist screeds would be consigned to the anonymity of your notepad. Your articles, as you would have them, are a stubborn mix of valuable content (such as your images, and historical details) and useless Turkish nationalist hyperbole.

You are also a cheat, and clearly have issues with sockpuppetry. You ascribe to me all the stubborness, and carelessness that you yourself are solely responsible for. I have taken attack, after attack from you, and continued to try and complete meaningful work. Rest assured I will not back away from these articles, which you claim as your own, simply because you are calling me names, denigrating my intelligence, and insulting my ethnicity. A review of my edits to "your" articles will reveal that I have done nothing save reduce them to objective fact. Your articles are factually incorrect as they present a false view of history which ignore basic facts such as -for example- the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and that state's critical uniqueness from the Republic of Turkey.

I suppose your next step will be for you to come up with some additionally witty insult for Irish people, or for Americans. Shortly thereafter, you will no doubt declare yourself the second coming of Ataturk, or a former general of the Turkish Army, who teaches Turkish to poor, disenfranchised children, while bleeding Turkishness... Look pal, nobody cares who you are. As noted earlier, the only thing you will ever be in my eyes is a racist bigot of an editor.

Yours truly, Hiberniantears 17:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hibernian Tears, I may not be an angel, but I'm definitely more qualified than you regarding Turkish history (general history, history of arts and architecture, and military history). I have proven this with my contributions to numerous articles time and time again.

And I'm an occasional sailor (I have a sailboat in Istanbul) whose maternal family comes from Mytilene, the hometown of Hayreddin Barbarossa. Hence my interest in Turkish sailors and naval history.

Regards. Flavius Belisarius 20:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Compromise
Hey, will you calm down? Otherwise, i shall apply for the page protection. I've added the links to the relevant articles at the very beginning. We can also add short summaries of these into the Turkish Navy article. Any comments/proposals? Regards. E104421 13:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Major Reorganisation Required
This article needs to be reorganised drastically, having a section on Turkish Naval vessels from 1923 onwards is ridiculous,and this, aswell as a History of the Turkish navy article, if this is just a summary I dread to think how long the main article is. As it stands it clutters up the article and leaves it hard to read for the average reader. Someone with more skill than I needs to do something about this. sheep21 14:26 7 January 2008
 * Seeing as there has been next to NO work on making this article easier to read and better laid out I have taken some time out to make some non-drastic changes to improve the flow\content of this article.
 * I have just rewritten the first half of the Interwar period, I hope my edit meets with approval and am more than happy for others to play around with it (unlike some previous and rather short tempered editors it would seem!). I would really appreciate some feedback chaps. Sheep21 05:49, 24 October
 * May I suggest that all some of the information in the inter wars years to the present day be moved? Do we really need to list the names of every single destroyer of the Turkish Navy in this article, despite my efforts to improve the flow of it up to the purchase of the italian destroyers it still feels disjointed.

 * Maybe moving some of this information to the History of the Turkish Navy page would be wise? Sheep21 14:10, 25 October 2008

Inaccurate İnformation
Some information at the Main Equipment is inaccurate.

0 TF-2000 Class Frigates (+16 approved on 12/12/2006)

This is just a plan that is sitting on the shelf for 10+ years. That is why it is named TF-2000.

0 AIP Air-independent propulsion Submarines (+6 approved on 12/12/2006)

Tender is going on. I wonder what has been approved.

0 Milgem Class Corvettes (+12 under construction)

Just 1 ship is under construction. A total of 22 ships are planned.

I tried to edit but the it is restored it back. Projects shouldn't be listed under main arnaments.

Correct me if I am wrong. This is wikipedia not a personal homepage.Things shouldn't stay just as you like. If want to prevent others from changing your own page start a web page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.96.130 (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The plan was shelved after the 2001 crisis, but re-approved with the SSM (Savunma Sanayii Müsteşarlığı) meeting on December 12, 2006.

You can find more information from the 6 AIP subs, 6 TF-2000 frigates and 22 Milgem corvettes from the official link of the Turkish Navy below:

http://www.dzkk.tsk.mil.tr/TURKCE/modernizasyon.asp

Also, read the article. At the end of the Ship classes since 1923 part, you can see the references for each project.

Plans to build a total of six TF-2000 class AAW-C&C frigates, the acquisition of a Landing Platform Dock (LPD) and a total of six Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) submarines were approved by the Turkish Ministry of Defense on 12 December 2006. The RfI issued for the LPD project states that the requirement is for one LPD carrying 4 Landing Craft Mechanics (LCM), 27 Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAV), 2 Landing Craft Personnel Vehicles (LCPV), 1 Commander Boat and 1 Rubber Hull Inflated Boat (RHIB). Turkish Navy also plans to acquire 2 new Tank Landing Ships (LST), 8 new Tank Landing Crafts (LCT) , 16 new Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV) with ASW capability , 2 new Rescue & Towing (R&T) ships and 1 new Submarine Rescue Mother Ship (MOSHIP).

Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a better (more updated) link:

http://www.ssm.gov.tr/EN/Projeler/denizaraclari/prjgrpharpgemisi/Pages/default.aspx

Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If you check your link http://www.ssm.gov.tr/EN/Projeler/denizaraclari/prjgrpharpgemisi/Pages/tf2000__D.aspx there isn't even a filled project status.

And just 1 MILGEM corvette is under construction. 12 ships are planned. There are no definitive contracts for +11 ships construction. They are just planned. http://www.dzkk.tsk.mil.tr/turkce/modernizasyon/MilgemProjesi.asp

The nearest project is the new submarine and even that is at tender status.

Basically planned equipment shouldn't be stored under main equipment as they haven't even been contracted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.96.130 (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Here's some extra news for you, since you seem to be interested: The last four Milgem will be named F-100 and will be classified as frigates instead of corvettes (so it will be 8 corvettes + 4 frigates). They will be equipped with the Mk.41 VLS and ESSM, along with other enhanced capabilities. F-100 and F-2000 are different by the way, don't confuse them. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Planned does not mean they will be built. The Royal Navy planned to build two new fleet carriers in the 1960's, they were canceled at the last minute. Likewise the planned number of ships changes, the UK Government planned originally to construct 12 Typer 45 Destroyers, now the final number is 6. The ships you are listing do not count as capability until they are in the water and comissioned. Perhaps a section titled Current Projects of the Turkish Navy or some such should be used? Sheep21 03:19, 24 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheep21 (talk • contribs)

Strange information
"Supported by its replenishment ships, the Turkish Navy can participate in international operations and exercises on every major sea and ocean of the world. Submarines can individually navigate up to 15000 nmi and return to their home bases" Why is this even included, it's essentially saying the Turkish Navy are a blue water navy yet it's not got a citation. I've added a tag and it's got the usual time period to be cited. G.R. Allison (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Replenishment ships of the Turkish navy allow for the capability for Turkish naval ships that are able to operate in the required

sea state of the oceanic theater to operate for an extended period of time. This extended period of time is enough for those ships to operate across the globe. AussieSkeptic82 (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Article & Info Box show conflicting fleet size
The info box and the navy fleet by class of ship at the end of the page is conflicting. The info box shows less then 150 ships but the calculations I am coming up with excluding the ordered but not delivered or under construction ships is coming up as 192 ships.

The submarines list alone is more then ten submarines but the info box lists it as only 10 submarines are in the Turkish navy.

Furthermore lack of information of the MRTP ship types active in the Turkish navy are missing as well as the 'New Patrol Type Boat' are missing. Im sorry I would do the corrections myself but I am very new to wiki.AussieSkeptic82 (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * not all the fleet size is written there. didnt want to make it too long. There are 10 submarines that are active, planned 6 Type 214 submarines didn't even start their building progress.--Cerian (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

POV and Cleanup
In first sentence contains POV pushing and sourceless information. This article is only the list of ships that served for Turkish Navy doesn't explain Turkish Navy itself. Takabeg (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It explains the Turkish navy decently in my opinion. G.R. Allison (talk) 12:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Article needs Protection
This article requires protection as there are to many people incorrectly editing it removing information that does not agree with them, such information is for example the general description of the Turkish navy, removal of European ranking in terms of personnel employed or fleet displacement. If you have a problem with the Turkish navy or if you generally disagree with the Turkish nation or somehow find that the Turkish nation itself is somehow offensive to your ideal world then Wikipedia through article vandalism is not the place to complain about it. You will find blog sites, government officials & media outlets to voice your complaint.

Can somebody please place a protection on this page and give edit rights to authors who are proven to be bias free. If this arrogant and deliberate mis representation of facts continue then Wikipedia itself would not serve it's intended function but just become another (globally stretching) blog site that mis represents facts and has no credibility to it's brand name association. AussieSkeptic82 (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * AussieSkeptic, this page is currently barred to IP address-users only. I am reluctant to restrict it only to administrators. Currently User:Takabeg is working on this article and I am watching it closely. I am losing patience with people who vandalise this page and will be handing out blocks if necessary. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Gauge of relative size.
I have restored the text "Today, the Turkish Navy ranks eighth in the world in terms of number of personnel, with 51,000 active personnel and third largest in in terms of the displacement of the total fleet, with 258,948 tons" as it is present on most (thus is not strange), if not all, navy articles to give the reader a gauge of size as to how big the navy in question may be. Just a heads up. G.R. Allison (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have. I noticed. Would you like to justify in detail why you did so? This type of data is extremely difficult to keep up to date, to verify, because different countries report with differing degrees of quality at different times. It is also a vandal magnet because of its' potential to annoy nationalists of various stripes. If people wish to compare navy to navy, it's much better to do a finer-degree comparison between single navies. Therefore, if you do not justify this in detail, I will remove it again. All others watching this page are invited to give their opinions. What do people think? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I re-included it simply to show the relative size of the Turkish navy, there isn't really much detail which can be applied to justifying this. As I mentioned, this kind of information forms part of the way navy articles are filled out and can be found on nearly every decent sized navy article and in my experience rarely cause problems. I'm an experienced member of the 'Power in International Relations' wikiproject and help maintain many naval related articles and in my opinion the sources here check out, they perhaps may be slightly out of date but there doesn't appear to be any problematic errors. Perhaps the location of the text should be changed but removing this sourced and relevant information would appear to detract from the usefulness of the article. Now let's just see what the consensus on this is. G.R. Allison (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I have reworded and adapted to decrease the possible issues that may attract vandals. It now reads "Today, the Turkish Navy numbers 48,600 active personnel; and is third largest in Europe in terms of the displacement of the total fleet, with 258,948 tons". G.R. Allison (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. Thanks for your ammendments Mr Allison. The other issue involved with these comparisons is WP:RS and WP:OR. What source gives the assessment that the Turkish NAvy is the 'third largest in Europe in terms of the displacement of the total fleet'? If we cannot find a reliable source stating this, we are engaging in WP:SYNTH. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I think more about this, is it really correct to say "in Europe" with regards to the Turkish fleet? Also, I can't seem to find a direct quote on tonnage in the sources given, therefore the fleet size claim will likely have to be removed if nothing can be found. G.R. Allison (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Turkey is in NATO but not in the EU. Could you find a NATO tonnage list? That would enable the claim to stay. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Just a note: User:ColMilGem has been blocked indef as a sock of banned User:Shuppiluliuma. All and any of edits may be undone at users' discretion. Athenean (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Appreciate that Athenean. Thanks for the heads-up. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking for a direct quote on the tonnage figure listed, I can't find it in the sources given. I suggest it be removed unless someone gets a source that doesn't need every ships weight to be added up just to roughly verify the figure. G.R. Allison (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Emblem

 * Does the Turkish Navy use this emblem ? I cannot find in official page of the Turkish Army. Existing image may have copyright.

 * I don't know details but in Turkish Wikipedia, such flags and emblems are uploaded as non free image. As long as I know, it can be assumed as public domain in the United States law. But Turkish law is different, even national anthem (İstiklâl Marşı) became a public domain with the amendment in December 2010.

Takabeg (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have tried explaining this to Takabeg so many times. The file here on Wikipedia, File:TurkishNavySeal.png is marked as non-free because it was taken from a website. He thinks however that it being marked as non-free means any other versions of it are also non-free. That simply isn't the case. File:DZKK emblem.svg IS free on Commons because the only copyrightable part of it is the shield in the middle (which can be seen on the Turkish Navy's website). The rest of it was taken from other free seals on Commons. Being a shield, every independently-made different version carries different rights. In this case, the uploader on Commons created it himself and has released it. That is why it is free.  Fry1989  eh?   01:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

 * We cannot use unsourced emblems, and according to the application in Turkish Wikipedia, we'd better think that is not a public domain. For example, emblem of the Turkish Army was uploaded as a non free fair use image in Turkish Wikipedia. And uploaders don't have any right of falsification and deformation. Takabeg (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * IT IS SOURCED, I just gave you 4 on your talk page.  Fry1989  eh?   02:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

In the homepage of the Turkish Navy, we can see File:TurkishNavySeal.png but, we cannot find File:DZKK emblem.svg. Takabeg (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And in this photo OWNED by the Turkish Navy(http://www.patricksaviation.com/photos/ta1283/21762/), we see the whole seal. That is proof it is real.  Fry1989  eh?   02:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.patricksaviation.com/photos/ta1283/21762/ is also copyrighted. I cannot understand why you won't try to files as non-free image. Takabeg (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the Turkish Navy copyrighted the photo, but that doesn'tmake the seal copyrighted. The seal would carry it's own copyright when it was made. God why can't you understand that? http://i.imgur.com/a3mkw.png It also is on their website, in the multimedia section, in the upper part with the changing pictures. More proof it's real, so you can no longer claim it isn't.  Fry1989  eh?   02:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

 * In Turkey, public institutions also hold copyrights (http://mevzuat.meb.gov.tr/html/26412_0.html). Copyright doesn't belong to uploaders (Wikipedia users). Takabeg (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It does when they make it themselves. Every different version has a different copyright. There is hundreds of examples of this on Commons.  Fry1989  eh?   02:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

In Turkey, the sites of governmental institution are protected by copyright, unless specified. (the Copyright law of the Republic of Turkey, tr:Vikipedi:Kamu malı kaynaklar in Turkish Wikipedia). So this file shouldn't be uploaded on Commons as a public domain. Some institutions specify that documents and regulations etc. of them are public domain. For example, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey specifies. But in the case of the Turkish Navy, we can find "Türk Deniz Kuvvetleri © Turkish Naval Forces" in its site and it doesn't specify exceptions. I think we can upload it in each Wikipedias as a non free image. Uploaders don't have any rights to deformation. Takabeg (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Turkish Navy Website being copyrighted changes nothing. The Turkish Copyright law says copyright for government works expires 70 years after first publication. This seal would have to have been first published or designed after 1941 for copyright to still apply.  Fry1989  eh?   03:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You must prove that this emblem was used even in 1941. I don't have any sources to support it. And the "Türk Deniz Kuvvetleri" was not in 1921. Remnants of the Ottoman fleet was organized under the Directorate of Naval Affairs on July 10, 1920. "Türk Deniz Kuvvetleri" was formed in 1949. Emblems used in the Turkish Armed Forces are considerable new, and they were changed several times. Takabeg (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not bothering with you anymore.You just don't get it.  Fry1989  eh?   18:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The files were kept. As I told you they would be. Next time, listen when people try and help you understand how copyright works.  Fry1989   eh?   18:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

order for six turkish corvettes cancelled
I'm not familiar with this article but I did come across a news article where it said "Defense Minister Ismet Yilmaz's statement also said a contract to produce six corvette ships by Koc Holding, Turkey's biggest conglomerate, had been cancelled. A contract to build two ships would be awarded to the Turkish naval shipyard. The construction of four remaining ships will be put out to tender later, Yilmaz said." I hope this helps somehow, —  - dain   omite    03:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

About name.
The name of this page actually refers to Turkish Naval Forces, Turkish Navy means Türk Donanması. This have to be changed.

See Turkish Land Forces for example. It is not called Army, But Land Forces. KazekageTR (talk) 08:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Turkish Navy


text: User talk:82.44.177.129

title: User talk:82.44.177.129


text:
Talk:Mobile browser

Requested move
Fdavis99 17:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Disscuss renaming "Microbrowser" to "Mobile browser"
 * Support if mobile browser really is the more common term (I've never heard of "microbrowser" but I have heard of a "mobile browser") then it should be renamed. This article seems like it's perpetuating the name by virtue of existing, it is the top result for Microbrowser on Google. Unless someone objects I'm going to move the page soon. -- Gudeldar 03:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 07:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Just a note about the evolution of the terms

I was involved in writing browsers for phones in the very early days. Microbrowser is a historical term and was what we used to call browsers on phones back in the 90s and into the early 00s. They were designed when such platforms had extremely limited resources (8MHz CPU and <128KB RAM was not uncommon) and could not hope to run the same code which desktop browsers were using. Almost all of the old microbrowser platforms would have been built with proprietary engines.

IMO the 'Mobile Browser' we have now is a different thing. Today's mobile browser is different from a desktop browser only in the UI and the user agent strings. Otherwise, they almost all support the same set of W3C specs and features. Mobile hardware is now sufficiently advanced that we largely run the same code on them that we do on desktop systems. Certainly this is the case for Android, iOS, Palm, BB & Symbian. In that environment, mobile browsing as a separate topic to web browsing is becoming a pointless distinction (apart for historical information) and should probably eventually be combined with the general article about web browsing. Mobile browsers are anyway largely consolidating around the same engines that desktop browsers are using, excepting Opera Mini and arguably the use of compressing web proxies for browsers such as the new Amazon Fire browser. Perhaps compressing web proxies used for bandwidth and CPU reduction on the client end ought to be discussed along with other proxy technology.

Since a lot of the pioneering companies no longer exist and those that do no longer support or sell their old system, it's very hard to dig up information on them nowadays and we ought to retain some of the history captured here during the times when such companies did exist.

It would be nice to have a better structured article with 'history of browsing on mobile devices' clearly separate from what is effectively 'current state of browsing on mobile devices' which is not so different from 'current state of browsing'.

217.140.96.21 (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

FOSS and NPOV
In the browser table, why does FOSS=yes mean green (connotation: good/safe) and FOSS=no mean red (connotation: bad, warning) ?

Personally I prefer FOSS... BUT, that is not objective - it is an opinion. In the interests of NPOV this colour-scheme should be removed.

For me you could scrap the whole column, which anyway overlaps with "Software license". 92.42.225.141 (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I made the thing without colors so it wouldn't connote good thing or bad thing, just a relative choice.--Rafaelluik (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"First true microbrowser"
What does "true" mean here? The article says that NetHopper was the first microbrowser, but in reality it was PocketWeb (then called NewtonWWW), also for the Newton platform. HorvatM 17:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HorvatM (talk • contribs)
 * The NetHopper may be the first mobile browser available as a product, but it is not the first browser. Perhaps that is what is meant with "true"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawooga (talk • contribs) 14:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we need def. more reasearch in this area. Feel free to help me with my stale draft at User:mabdul/Microsoft Mobile Explorer to getting live. mabdul 13:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"License"
While browser applications might be closed source, many browser engines (what really matter) are not which makes the license column very confusing. BlackBerry's old engine is closed source, its new one is open source is a good example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.73.200 (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

 * The list of browsers is a list of browser applications, and each field therefore relates to the applications and not to the engine (which is another field, and therefore redundant). I'm not sure why the average reader, who is a user and not a developer, would consider the engine license to be more important than the application license. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Mobile page
I understand many Web pages, including articles in Wikipedia, have a "Mobile" version especially designed for the small screen and slow access of a mobile phone and presented by default after automatically identifying the browser as mobile. Where is the Wikipedia article about that? Jim.henderson (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do we need an extra article about that? It should be explained in here why Wikipedia and other sites are doing this... mabdul 13:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Additional User Installable Browser Suggestions
You should consider including Puffin in the list of user installable browsers. It runs on IOS and Android and it is seriously FAST at rendering - even rendering big Flash files on older smart phones. You can find them here - http://www.puffinbrowser.com/ if you need more info. I think they're in rev 2.0 right now but until I find out something horrible about it, its the best mobile browser I've used. It even lets my kool-aid drinking Apple brethren commit the heresy of playing Flash.

129.119.81.135 (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Lisa Simpson129.119.81.135 (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Atomic Browser?
No mention of the Atomic Web Browser for iOS? It's pretty popular. Should be listed. www.atomicwebbrowser.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.17.125.32 (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Phone number for pmlightinthebox
I would like phone number for lightinthebox 2600:6C44:217F:ED33:9CBF:1188:B908:C4AB (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is not an information desk. Talk pages are only for discussing improvements to the associated article. Largoplazo (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Propose splitting into History of mobile browsers and List of mobile browsers
Right now this article is in a bit of an interesting state—the prose content mostly covers pre-smartphone era mobile web browsers, while the Popular Mobile Browsers section is essentially a list of mobile browsers running on smartphone platforms (List of mobile browsers redirects to it, as well). Meanwhile Web browser doesn't have any content about phone browsers at all. I propose splitting this article up as follows:
 * Move prose content to a new page, History of mobile browsers (or maybe "mobile browsing," no strong preference). This page can be expanded with more content and I can clean up the prose here a bit.
 * Move the list content to List of mobile browsers removing the non-notable ones (Aloha and Polaris, as far as I can tell) to give us a notability-only WP:CSC. ( inclusion criteria will be discussed separately )
 * Expand Web browser to have a section on mobile browsers, with a see also hatnote of the new History of mobile browsers page. Redirect Mobile browser to go there first.

It's clear to me all of these topics are notable (and important!), and I think this composition will work better for organizing the information. Anyone have thoughts or concerns here? Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 21:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure about the split yet.

 * All browsers that are named, should be kept. I'll count a browser as non-notable, if it's no longer maintained, and not available for major mobile platforms, such as Android/iOS. Opera and Opera Mini are notable. Notable are also all browsers that originate from countries that are not democracies, as privacy-conscious users have the right to be aware about these in order to avoid using and installing them. The non-maintained item should then be moved into the proposed history page. This would prevent loss of information, and would keep the new page current. - Mardus /talk 00:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Never suggested that Opera wasn't notable, it definitely is. Notable are also all browsers that originate from countries that are not democracies, as privacy-conscious users have the right to be aware about these in order to avoid using and installing them strikes me as running a bit afoul of WP:NOTGUIDE, not to mention being politically contentious (it's also certainly not WP:NSOFT, but I get that "notable" here is meant to mean "worthy of inclusion on a list" and not "meets standards for article notability"). If a product isn't otherwise noteworthy I don't think it merits mention on Wikipedia just because some users might be suspicious of its country of origin. This is an encyclopedia, not VirusTotal. (It also strikes me a little WP:BEANS if your goal is to mention them so people avoid them; is there actually anyone who is thinking "I'm going to install this, but first I'll check Wikipedia (and nowhere else)" as opposed to "I saw this on Wikipedia, maybe I'll install it"?)
 * At any rate, it seems like my proposal to introduce a stricter inclusion criteria isn't unobjectionable, so it definitely merits further discussion. I'll amend this proposal to just be the split; the list can be kept as is for the moment and inclusion criteria can be discussed separately. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 19:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

 * Support moving out the list to List of mobile browsers. The section at Web browser can be created independently, and not necessarily as part of the split. I would prefer to the history to continue to be here, unless if gets really long. Jay  💬 12:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the list is quite long, would it be more useful to have 2 lists, e.g. Current mobile browsers and Historical mobile browsers? I recognize this would require more maintenance: deciding when to move a browser when it is no longer in use. A possible criterion for moving to the historical list: the browser cannot function today, e.g. a proxy browser that is no longer supported. Another could be if it runs only on devices that use obsolete network technologies. Maybe this is more work than the value it would provide. Perhaps a simpler solution would be a column with a mark to indicate obsolete / unsupported / dead? Fdavis99 (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing two separate list articles, or two sections of lists within the current article? Whether it is two different lists or a column in the table, a decision can be taken once we move out the existing list to a List of mobile browsers. Jay  💬 19:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Question: Would splitting not be a hassle when you can get all the information in one place? A split is to what benefit? The size of the article doesn't appear to have been a problem. Javan009 (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My original proposal here was a WP:CONTENTSPLIT, not a WP:SIZESPLIT. At the time I proposed it, the prose contents of the article almost exclusively described pre-2007 mobile browser technology, when mobile and desktop browsers were far more distinct software than they are today. My concern was that the list of modern mobile browsers and the prose describing HDML, WML, and XHTML WP browsers were distinct (but similarly termed) topics. Since then the article has been improved (huge thanks to the editors who did so).
 * I still think the list is probably overly exhaustive for the topic (I imagine a fully realized version of this article would look closer to what we have at Web browser now) but I concur with Jay above that we should not move the history contents to a separate page, especially with the incorporated improvements. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 16:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mobile browser


text: Template:First Nations on Vancouver Island


text:
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore

BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case limiting punitive damages under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Facts
The plaintiff, Dr. Ira Gore, bought a new BMW, and later discovered that the vehicle had been repainted before he bought it. Defendant BMW of North America revealed that their policy was to sell damaged cars as new if the damage could be fixed for less than 3% of the cost of the car. Dr. Gore sued, and an Alabama jury awarded $4,000 in compensatory damages (lost value of the car) and $4 million in punitive damages, which was later reduced to $2 million by the Alabama Supreme Court. The punitive damages resulted not only from Dr. Gore's damages, but from BMW's egregious behavior across a broad spectrum of BMW purchasers over a multi-year period of time in which BMW repaired damaged vehicles and sold them as new to unsuspecting buyers as a matter of routine business operation. The decision of the Oregon Supreme Court was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Issue
Whether excessively high punitive damages violate the Due Process clause of the Constitution.

Opinion of the Court
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Stevens, found that the excessively high punitive damages in this case violate the Due Process clause. For punitive damages to stand, the damages must be reasonably necessary to vindicate the State's legitimate interest in punishment and deterrence. Punitive damages may not be "grossly excessive" – if they are, then they violate substantive due process.

The Supreme Court applied three factors in making this determination:
 * 1) The degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct;
 * 2) The ratio to the compensatory damages awarded (actual or potential harm inflicted on the plaintiff); and
 * 3) Comparison of the punitive damages award and civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed for comparable misconduct.

Using these factors, the Court found that BMW's conduct was not particularly reprehensible (no reckless disregard for health or safety, nor even evidence of bad faith). The ratio of actual or potential damages to punitive damages was suspiciously high. Finally, the criminal sanctions available for similar conduct were limited to $2,000, making the $2 million assessment the equivalent of a severe criminal penalty.

The Court noted, however, that these three factors can be over-ridden if it is "necessary to deter future conduct".

Dissenting opinions were written by Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg, both contending that the Constitution was not implicated here, raising principles of federalism.

Aftermath
On remand, the Supreme Court of Alabama ordered a new trial unless plaintiff accepted a remittitur of all but $50,000 of the punitive damages awarded. The court reasoned that it may not have given sufficient weight to the degree of reprehensibility of BMW's conduct, and selected the $50,000 as in the range of other Alabama verdicts in cases of repaired cars being sold as new.

Federalism questions
In an academic article, following the arguments raised by the dissenting justices, Patrick Hubbard has questioned the appropriateness of federal courts reading substantive rights into the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution in order to preempt the role of state courts and legislatures. These same people say the Court should not spend its time as a "super jury", second-guessing jury verdicts, but rather, "[T]he court should be more deferential to state courts and legislatures, and more concerned with developing a coherent framework."

title: BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore


text:
Talk:PopMart Tour

Title of tour
I'm under the impression that the correct title of the tour was PopMart, not Popmart. This article may need to be moved.

Note the spelling from U2.com: --Madchester 21:26, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Profitability of Popmart
Presently, the article asserts:

''Like Zoo TV, Popmart was another huge success in terms of revenue, although it was not profitable for the band. Despite taking $80 million in revenue, the show cost $100 million to run. Drummer Mullen Jr. said that the only thing that saved the band from financial ruin was T-shirt sales.''

I am pretty sure this is untrue, but as I do not have any sources at hand right now, I haven't edited the article just yet (instead, I posted the factual dispute template). One problem is the often conflicting information about Popmart.

This is what I understand to be true:

1. The t-shirt sales comment was made about ZooTV.

2. U2 actually made a considerable profit out of Popmart. Their promoter promised the band US$100 million and if there was a shortfall, U2 would still receive that figure, with some money coming straight out of the promoter's pocket - in other words, U2 were not going to make a loss and all the risk went to the promoter. The tour cost a significant amount of money to run (I believe somewhere in the vicinity of US$200,000-$250,000 a day regardless of whether or not there was a concert) and lasted just under eleven months. The gross was US$171 million, the total operating costs were $70 million, and thus U2 received their $100 million and the promoter received the remaining million. - Axver 07:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to 1.

 * If Larry made such a statement, surely the interview (print or tape) can be found and cited. The onus is on the person asserting that he made such a statement -- we can never prove he didn't say it.  (I have also only ever heard the T-shirt story in relation to ZooTV and suspect the individual is misinformed -- this would not be the only U2 article on Wikipedia to contain bogus, uncited information.)  Recommend: removing the statement until such time as a verifiable citation is provided -- [| per Wikipedia policy]. 68.50.193.137 00:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to 2.
68.50.193.137 00:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.u2world.com/news/article.php3?id_article=14720: Link to a Rolling Stone article discussing the "$250,000 a day" figure and saying the band was guaranteed $115 million by the promoter, Michael Cohl.
 * http://www.u2world.com/news/article.php3?id_article=14505: Link to Guardian article discussing cost of tour as 100 million pounds per week, with an expected tour return of 300 million GBP.
 * http://www.u2world.com/news/article.php3?id_article=14640: Link to Boston Globe article also mentions a $115 million guarantee from the promoter (although it claims U2 will make $50-$80 million, which seems at odds with the prior statement); also states the first U.S. leg (spring 1997) made $48 million. Add the European, second North American, and "Rest of World" legs and $150-$200 million gross seems reasonable.)
 * http://www.atu2.com/news/article.src?ID=313&Key=&Year=2000&Cat=12: Link to atu2 article says PopMart only grossed $138 million, the $100 million figure for what the promoter paid U2, but still uses the $250,000 per day operating expense, leaving just over $50 million in overall profit to be split between the promoter and U2, however they worked it out.
 * Clearly, most of these conflict. What are the sources for your figures (knowing that most of the sources above are not themselves explicitly cited in the stories linked to above..but are at least verifiable).

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . 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.

Popmart Tour → PopMart Tour — The correct spelling of the tour was "PopMart," such as in its video release, PopMart: Live from Mexico City. The tour's logo (Image:popmart.gif) featured "MART" written small in the middle of the "O" in "POP," which should indicate its proper spelling. The spelling is also visible in this article. Crashintome4196 14:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:

 * Not sure what the .gif demonstrates, as "Mart" is written all in caps. The spelling isn't an issue. U2's official site seems to shout it all in caps as well, and obviously we won't be doing that. There's a case to be made for CamelCase spelling given that it's in support of an album called "Pop", but I see plenty of references to it which don't capitalize the M, including 6-4 in in favour of a small "m" on the first page of a GoogleSearch (for "popmart u2" without the quotes). The U2 article also refers to it in lower case. No strong feelings, but if obliged to choose, would leave it where it is. --DeLarge 08:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * lol - wikipedia is so big that there are so many more important things to spend time on. Eds' time should really be spent on more important things. Merbabu 12:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 14:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Help with article layout
I'm working on this article, hoping to get it to GA-status soon, and I'm running into a bit of a problem. I have all my references and information, but I just can't decided on the best way to structure the article layout. There are a lot more topics that need to be addressed into this article, and I'm not sure how to sort them all, or what order to put them in. Usually, I base articles I'm writing off of featured articles of a similar subject, but I can't find any concert tour articles above B level status. I feel as if I can't continue writing this article until I get somewhat of a solid structure formed, because recently all my updates have been constantly shifting around the article, and I feel like its just going to become one big mess. If I could get some help on this, I would really appreciate it. – Dream out loud (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Height
If the table says that the height of the set is 98 feet, why does it go on to mention that the cocktail stick is 100ft?--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Chewing
Please anyone let Y2kcrazyjoker4 kind of understand the original text in Russian to not be deleted.

«Многие пребывали на концерте и уходили после него в полнейшей растерянности — как так, пришли, понимаешь, отдохнуть, поразвлечься, ожидали агрессии, лобовой атаки на устои, сатиры и откровенного неприсоединения, как на "ZOO–TV", а вместо этого предлагают подождать жевать.»

“Many were at the concert and went after it in utter confusion – how so, they come, you know, to relax, have fun, expected aggression, a frontal attack on foundations, satire, and frank non-alignment, like on “Zoo TV”, but it being offered to wait to chew instead of that,” raised the issue Alexandr Khrap from the newspaper “Muzykalnaya Gazeta” in the Warsaw concert review.

title: Talk:PopMart Tour


text:
Kim Severson

Kim Marie Severson (born September 12, 1961) is a reporter for The New York Times. She won a Pulitzer Prize for public service in 2018 as part of The New York Times coverage of sexual harassment and abuse and is a four-time James Beard award–winner for food writing. Severson has published multiple cookbooks and a cooking themed memoir.

Severson wrote for the Anchorage Daily News 1991–1998 as a features writer''.  She wrote for the San Francisco Chronicle'''s food section from 1999 to 2004. She joined the New York Times in 2004. Severson covered sexual harassment in the restaurant industry for the New York Times; the paper received the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for coverage on sexual harassment.

Biography
Severson worked for the Anchorage Daily News from 1991 to 1998 as a features writer. Severson wrote for the San Francisco Chronicle's food section around 1999 –2005. She joined The New York Times in 2004. In 2010, she became the Atlanta bureau chief for the Times. In 2014, she joined the Times's new digital cooking initiative and began reporting on national food news and trends.

At present, Severson's New York Times author profile says that Severson reports on national food news and culture, and contributes to NYT Cooking.

Severson's most recent book, Cook Fight, was co-authored with Julia Moskin, a New York Times food writer, and was published by Ecco Press, an imprint of HarperCollins, in 2012. Her memoir, Spoon Fed: How Eight Cooks Saved My Life, was published by Riverhead Press on April 15, 2010. A new edition of her first cookbook, The New Alaska Cookbook, came out in June 2009. Her first book, The Trans Fat Solution: Cooking and Shopping to Eliminate the Deadliest Fat from Your Diet, was published by Ten Speed Press in 2003.

Severson served as vice-president of the National Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association. She has written about the economic and cultural impact of being a lesbian without the benefits of legal marriage.

Awards
Severson's James Beard awards are for:

 * 1) 2000 Winner in Newspaper Feature Writing About Restaurants and/or Chefs. "The Rise and Fall of a Star: How the King of California Cuisine Lost an Empire"
 * 2) 2003 Winner in Newspaper Series: "The Most American of Meals Draws Rookies: The Bay Area’s Worst Cooks Vie for a Chance to Learn with a Pro", "The Challenge Begins: Our Winner Learns to Plan, Shop, and Prep", "Countdown to Thanksgiving: Our Training Camp Recruit Tackles the Turkey"
 * 3) 2003 Winner: Newspaper Feature Writing Without Recipes. San Francisco Chronicle.  "High Stakes: Bay Area at the Forefront of the Big-Bucks Battle Between Backers of Grass-Fed Beef and Traditional Cattlemen"
 * 4) 2004 Winner: Newspaper Feature Writing Without Recipes. San Francisco Chronicle. "A Lot of Cooks in the MRE Kitchen"
 * 5) 2018 Nominee in Investigative Reporting, New York Times: "Ken Friedman, Power Restaurateur, is Accused of Sexual Harassment"

Severson won a Pulitzer Prize for public service in 2018 as part of The New York Times coverage of sexual harassment and abuse in the spheres of Hollywood, politics, the media and restaurants. She has won four James Beard awards for food writing. She also won the Casey Medal for Meritorious Journalism for her San Francisco Chronicle work, along with fellow reporter Meredith May, on childhood obesity in 2002.

Personal
As of 2016, Severson lives in Atlanta, Georgia, and has one child.

Severson affirmed her partnership with Katia Emilia Hetter in 2006. The two divorced in 2012.

title: Kim Severson


text:
Talk:Travelling funfair

Canadian Fair
I've never heard of a fair being called an exhibition, and this wasn't cited so I removed it: Canada has a long tradition of fairs, most take place in the summer months. The term 'fair' is almost always referred to as 'exhibition'. Virtually every Canadian city has an exhibition that is a combination of midway rides, games, shows, and local culture (such as agricultural exhibits, local talent, and arts & crafts). CDClock 02:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki link
Would an interwiki link to Kirchweih be appropriate, or are the two entities too different? --Angr/undefined 21:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Possibly, I read a little German, but not enough to be sure and the articles on the English wiki aren't quite straight yet.
 * Essentially there is a medieval concept on the medieval fair which fuck primarily a large temporary market, but also had entertainments. Frequently the fair was associated with religious celebrations, most particular the carnival, and often would include livestock and horse trading. As time goes by, elements of the fair diverge becoming;

 * 1) ) a ceremonial/religious precession
 * 2) ) the sideshows elaborate to become the travelling circus, also encompassing the menageries, although due to social pressure, few modern circuses include animal acts.
 * 3) ) the travelling funfair - containing the rides and sidestalls
 * 4) ) some funfairs become static permanent attractions (particularly at seasides) and eventually enlarge to become amusement parks
 * 5) ) fêtes - small scale local fairs, usually put on by local towns people for local towns people, but mimicing many of the attractions of larger fairs.
 * 6) ) the agricultural show, county show and in America state fair - incorporates the display of livestock and often has an associated funfair, but rarely involves trading
 * 7) ) world's fairs and trade shows continue the trade elements of the traditional fair, and displaying unique national products
 * The critical element of the funfair as described here, is that the stalls, rides and attractions should all be transportable and the showmen constantly travel around the country from show to show. In contast, static fairs are either fairgrounds or larger amusement parks. In many ways the travelling funfair carries the strongest heritage of the medieval fair in Europe. I hope that helps. -- Solipsist 23:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, looking at it again, I suspect the Kirchweih is closer to the village fête which in England is often centred on common land next to the church, and frequently includes elements of raising money for charities organised by the church. In France and Italy the fête would always include communal dancing, but England is usually too resevered for that. -- Solipsist 23:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The German word that actually occurred to me as the closest correspondent to funfair was Kirmes, but Kirmes is just a redirect to Kirchweih. --Angr/undefined 00:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

What about Morris dancers, Solipsist??? Arent they dancers associated with fetes in England? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.125.196 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 15 May 2006
 * Yes to some extent that's true, but I think that Morris dancing is a separate and distinct tradition in the UK. I'm not sure that there are any dances associated with major funfairs in the UK today, although it is possible they might have been in the past. Most modern morris dancing was resurrected and reinvented in the early 19C, mainly in an attempt to preserve the old traditions, but some of its associations may have been lost. I was at Ickwell May Day celebrations earlier this year (one of the oldest traditional May Day celebrations in the UK), and as well as dancing around a maypole they also had dances organsied by a morris troupe and a village fête which mostly consisted of stalls selling produce for charity. In many other village fêtes today you are likely to find the combination of Morris dancing and some smaller rides, such as a merry-go-round, swing boats or a coconut shy. But I'm not sure that many of those rides are run by the travelling showmen who set up the main funfairs.

Does anyone know whether morris dancers were a feature of medieval fairs? One of the complications of this subject is that the main elements of the medieval fair - market, funfair, circus, parade, minstrels and players - have fragmented and developed in their separate ways. -- Solipsist 10:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Article merge
In my opinion, Funfair and  Traveling carnival should be seperate articles. While they are similar in appearance, the origins and history are different enough to warrant seperate pages. Shinerunner (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Plus of course the suggested merge is completely the wrong way round. Not only do European funfairs predate American travelling carnivals, this article predates the travelling carnival article by several years. There are supposed to be Wikipedia guidelines on respecting precedence on article naming. The fact that so many American authors ignore those guidelines and try to impose their own views on spelling and article naming, is one of the reasons that I rarely contribute to Wikipedia anymore. -- Solipsist (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Origin?
This article does not say anything about the origin of funfairs. Does it have links with Sinti (where it is shown in the 'See also' section)? Wiki-uk (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sidestalls and games section needs references
I tagged this section due to the lack of references. While the claims may be true it's presented in an apocryphal manner. Shinerunner (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

North American creep in article
There were previous discussions about merging funfair and traveling carnival and consensus at the time was that due to the differences in the origins between funfairs and traveling carnivals (or North American fairs) to keep the articles seperate as noted above. There is an article dealing with the North American fair. Rather than blend the information we might want to move the North American information to the other article and make sure it's linked. Shinerunner (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, as nobody in North America would ever use the word "funfair." 71.236.242.147 (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Biggest Fair
This is a thorney toppic! Newcastle, Nottingham and Hull all claim this title through various means. On the last count of machines, I believe Hull is largest but I will be counting in the latest "World's Fair" newspaper. Pica pica (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Showmen Travellers
There needs to be a complete article on Showmen travelers of the UK. Showmen are one of the older main types of travelers of the UK Having their own language and cultural ways. Some have become quite influential local families in certain areas such as along the south coast or the Isle of Sheppey.

Travelers families such as Ripley, Harris, Ball, Penfold & Arnold I believe such older family names and many have a strong history as good boxing families due to bare knuckle boxing being an important feature in old fairs. Men of the Showmen family would compete against the locals. Nowadays many older Showmen families have separated from the showmen lifestyle and ties and intermarried with travelers of other backgrounds and are often mistaken as having "Gypsy" (Romani) ancestry Tsigano (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC) (sorry I keep forgetting to sign)
 * Actually some Showmen families in the UK have Romani ancestry its not that common but its there the family of Ian Hancock who's grandmother married a member of an English West Country showman family.Uthican (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

miami link
The link too the miami  ride  goes too   the city Miami not the actual ride. --Stephendwan (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Traveling carnival
100% same subject —Loginnigol (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

 * As the current merge tags link to Talk:Traveling carnival, this proposal should be debated there, the discussion should not be duplicated here. 223.205.240.135 (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Travelling funfair


text:
User talk:Gamesmasta2000

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will be removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Joe D (t) 21:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gamesmasta2000


text:
Paul Check

Paul Ramon Check is a New Zealand political candidate. He is the leader of Outdoor Recreation New Zealand, a party based around the hunting and fishing lobbies.

Check initially worked as a marine engineer in the Royal New Zealand Navy, and then served in the United States Merchant Marine in Brazil. He later worked as an engineer in other parts of Latin America and in New Zealand. He currently manages a company in Taupō.

In the 2002 election, Check was third on Outdoor Recreation New Zealand's list, but the party did not win enough votes to enter Parliament. Later, the party affiliated itself with United Future, a larger party. In the 2005 election, Outdoor Recreation stood candidates under the United Future banner. Check, as the new leader of Outdoor Recreation, was placed seventh, the highest position for an Outdoor Recreation candidate. He contested the Taupō electorate and achieved 2.06% of the votes.

title: Paul Check


text:
N14 road (Ireland)

The N14 road is a national primary road in the Republic of Ireland. The entirety of the route is located in the northwest of Ireland, in County Donegal, connecting Manorcunningham (approx. 10 kilometres outside Letterkenny in the centre of the county) to Lifford in the east. Here it connects to the N15 near the border with Northern Ireland and along the A38 to Strabane in County Tyrone.

Route
The route commences at the Manorcunningham Roundabout just outside Letterkenny, where the N13 continues north-east towards Derry. The N14 continues south-east past the hamlet of Drumoghill, crosses the R236, continuing through the townlands of Drumbeg and Rossgeir, crossing the Burn Dale, a burn or small river also known as the Burn Deele, at Mulrine's Bridge on the north-western outskirts of Lifford.

At Rossgeir, the N14 joins the R265 (connecting St Johnston) and entering into Lifford from the north. The N15 comes to an end at the western side of a junction with the N14 in the town centre. The latter route, having entered the junction from the south, turns east to end at Lifford Bridge, between Lifford and Strabane (the A38 road continues into Strabane).

Previously, the section of road between the Polestar Roundabout (also known as the Port Roundabout) and the Dry Arch Roundabout (which is now classified as the N56) was a part of the N14. Before this, the N56 stretched out to Stranorlar from Letterkenny.

Upgrades
At present, the section between where the N14 begins and where it ends in Lifford, has not been upgraded. However, a cross-border project has been in the planning since at least 2006, with 18 km of 2+1 road planned between the N13/N14 junction and Strabane. This includes work across the border in County Tyrone in Northern Ireland, providing an upgraded route onto the current A5.

The route is to commence at the N13/N14 junction near Manorcunningham, just south-east of Letterkenny, and proceed southeast, bypassing Lifford to the south and crossing the N15. It will proceed across the River Finn (and international border), to meet the Strabane Bypass portion of the A5.

The Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the route was expected to be published in 2006. Following this, oral hearings were expected to be organised by An Bord Pleanála (the Republic of Ireland's planning board) in 2007 as part of the CPO/EIS procedures. It was expected that the design and tender/procurement process would continue into 2008, with construction beginning later that year and ending in 2010.

As of 2008, on the National Roads Authority website "road scheme activity" section, the N14 is stated to be still at "Preliminary Design" stage.

title: N14 road (Ireland)


text:
List of storms named Orla

The name Orla has been used for two tropical cyclones in the Eastern Pacific Ocean:

 * Tropical Storm Orla (1961)
 * Tropical Storm Orla (1968)

title: List of storms named Orla


text:
1990 Conservative Party leadership election

The 1990 Conservative Party leadership election was called on 14 November 1990 following the decision of Michael Heseltine, former defence and environment secretary, to challenge Margaret Thatcher, the incumbent Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, for leadership of the Conservative Party.

In the months leading up to the election, Thatcher's position was slipping due to her increasingly divisive and confrontational approach in the United Kingdom. Her Community Charge had proven to be highly unpopular and resulted in widespread riots across the country, while her Euroscepticism had begun to become a detriment to the Conservatives. The economy, which was booming, had started to enter the early stages of a recession due to high inflation. The tipping point came in October when Thatcher infamously refused the European Community's plans for further integration, prompting her longest serving minister Geoffrey Howe to resign. Immediately following his resignation, Heseltine challenged Thatcher to a contest in November.

Thatcher failed to win outright on the first ballot, missing the threshold by just four votes, and was persuaded to withdraw from the second round of voting to avoid a potential defeat. She announced her pending resignation on 22 November 1990, ending more than fifteen years as Conservative leader on 27 November 1990 and eleven years as prime minister on 28 November 1990.

Background to the contest
Discontent with Margaret Thatcher's leadership of the Conservative Party had been growing over the latter years of her tenure, particularly following the Westland affair. There were differences within the Cabinet over Thatcher's perceived intransigence in her approach to the European Economic Community. In particular, many leading Conservatives wanted the United Kingdom to join the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), a move which Thatcher did not favour. In June 1989, the then-Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe and Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson forced Thatcher to agree to the "Madrid Conditions", namely that Britain would eventually join the ERM "when the time was right". In July 1989, Thatcher retaliated by removing Howe from the Foreign Office, while making him Deputy Prime Minister (in theory a promotion but in reality removing him from a key post).

Whereas Thatcher had presided over an economic boom at the time of her third general election victory in 1987, by the autumn of 1989 interest rates had to be raised to 15% to cool inflation, which was now pushing 10%. Rates would remain at that level until October 1990. Lawson, who had clashed with Thatcher over "shadowing the Deutsche Mark" early in 1988, resigned as Chancellor in October 1989, unable to accept Thatcher publicly taking independent advice from the economist Alan Walters. The beneficiary was John Major, little known to the public hitherto, who had briefly been promoted to succeed Howe as foreign secretary in July before succeeding Lawson as Chancellor in October, putting him in pole position to succeed Thatcher.

In December 1989, Thatcher was challenged for the leadership for the first time since her election to that position in 1975, by the little known 69-year-old backbench MP Sir Anthony Meyer. Thatcher faced no serious threat of losing to this stalking horse challenger, but her political credibility was undermined by the fact that 60 members of the parliamentary Conservative party had not supported her, 33 voting for Meyer, 24 spoiling their ballot papers, and three not voting at all. The non-voters were reported by the next day's Glasgow Herald to include Michael Heseltine, with the same newspaper ominously reporting that Heseltine's supporters predicted that unless the Prime Minister changed "her style of leadership", she would "be on her way out next year".

Throughout 1990, the popularity both of Thatcher and her Conservative government waned considerably. The introduction of the deeply unpopular Community Charge (which opponents labelled the "poll tax") had been greeted with widespread non-payment and even a riot in Trafalgar Square in March 1990. Labour had held a lead in most of the opinion polls since mid-1989, and at the height of the poll tax controversy, at least one opinion poll had shown Labour support above 50%, a lead of more than twenty points over the Conservatives, although the Conservative parliamentary majority still stood at nearly 100 seats.

By this time European leaders were discussing merging Europe's currencies to form a single currency, a move which Thatcher also did not favour, and in June Major suggested that this should be a "hard ECU", competing for use against existing national currencies; this idea was not in the end adopted. In October 1990, Major and the Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, finally obtained agreement from a reluctant Thatcher that Britain should join the ERM. By late 1990 the economy was in the first stages of recession, leading to inevitable concerns among Conservative MPs that their party might not win the next election, due by summer 1992 at the latest.

Howe's resignation triggers contest
By October things had reached a fever pitch. In her Party Conference Speech early in that month, Thatcher mocked the Liberal Democrats' new "bird" logo in language lifted from the famous Monty Python "Dead Parrot sketch". Only days later, the Liberal Democrats took a seat from the Conservatives at the Eastbourne by-election. The defeat only reinforced the fear that the Conservatives could lose the next election due in eighteen months. On 30 October, Thatcher spoke out firmly in the House of Commons against the vision of European integration, including a single currency, espoused by the European Commission under Jacques Delors at the recent Rome Summit, characterising it as the path to a federal Europe and declaring that her response to such a vision would be "No! No! No!" This led to the resignation of Howe as deputy prime minister on 1 November. However, Howe did not make his resignation speech immediately, because he had temporarily lost his voice.

Heseltine, the pro-European former minister, had resigned from the Cabinet over the Westland affair in January 1986 and had been conducting himself as a prime minister in waiting, critical of Thatcher's leadership, ever since. He now wrote a six-page public letter to his local Association chairman, calling for more regard for the wide range of opinions in the party before leaving for a trip to the Middle East. His Association officers sent him a 97-word reply on 5 November saying that they supported Thatcher's leadership. The party's regional agent had been present at their meeting, although they insisted he had not interfered with their reply. At about the same time, Thatcher's press secretary Bernard Ingham briefed journalists that Heseltine had "lit the blue touch paper then retired", although he denied having demanded that Heseltine "put up or shut up"; Heseltine was also taunted along similar lines by the pro-Conservative press, including the Daily Mail and The Times. Thatcher brought the annual leadership election forward by a fortnight.

At the Lord Mayor's Banquet on 12 November, Thatcher dismissed Howe's resignation by employing a cricketing metaphor:

"I am still at the crease, though the bowling has been pretty hostile of late. And in case anyone doubted it, can I assure you there will be no ducking the bouncers, no stonewalling, no playing for time. The bowling's going to get hit all round the ground. That is my style."

The next day, 13 November, Howe made his resignation speech from the backbenches, addressing his dismay at Thatcher's approach and responding to her recent cricketing metaphor by employing one of his own. Explaining how, in his opinion, her approach made it hard for British ministers to negotiate for Britain's interests in Europe, he declared:

"It is rather like sending your opening batsmen to the crease only for them to find, the moment the first balls are bowled, that their bats have been broken before the game by the team captain."

Howe's dramatic speech received cheers from the opposition benches and reinforced the change in general perception of Thatcher from the "Iron Lady" to a divisive and confrontational figure. The next morning, 14 November, Heseltine announced that he would challenge her for the leadership of the party.

Contest rules
The rules for Conservative leadership elections had been introduced for the first such election in 1965, and modified in 1975, the occasion of Thatcher's own victory over the incumbent leader Edward Heath. There would be a series of ballots of Conservative MPs, conducted by the 1922 Committee, with that committee's chairman, Cranley Onslow, as Returning Officer.

To win in the first round, as Thatcher had done one year before, a candidate needed not just to win an absolute majority, but also to have a lead over the runner-up of 15% of the total electorate (not just those who actually voted, as had been the case until the 1975 review, but including those who abstained or spoiled their ballot papers). There were 372 Conservative MPs in November 1990 (taking into account by-election losses since 376 Conservative MPs had been elected in the June 1987 general election). Therefore, a majority of at least 56 votes was required.

If no candidate achieved a sufficient majority, nominations would be re-opened, so new candidates could come forward, and a second ballot would take place one week later, at which only an absolute majority would be required. If necessary, the top three candidates from the second round would then go forward to a third and final round held under the alternative vote system.

Many speculated that if Thatcher did not achieve outright victory in the first round, she would either be forced to step down (opening up the field to her supporters who had previously been prevented from standing by their personal loyalty) or else might suffer further challenges from heavyweight figures. Although Heseltine was a serious leadership contender in his own right, many saw him (correctly, as it turned out) as a "stalking horse" like Meyer in 1989, who might weaken Thatcher only to pave the way for victory by a new candidate in a later round.

First ballot
Heseltine was proposed by Neil Macfarlane (who had been a leading Thatcher backer in the 1975 contest) and Peter Tapsell. His campaign was run by Keith Hampson, Michael Mates and Peter Temple-Morris. He proposed a complete review of the poll tax but rejected Thatcher's proposal of a referendum on British membership of the mooted single European currency. Thatcher gave an interview to The Times in which she attacked his corporatist views, which made her appear extreme. Heseltine canvassed hard around Parliament whilst Thatcher was away at the Fontainebleau summit.

The first ballot in the election took place on Tuesday 20 November 1990. Thatcher herself was still in France on the night of the election and therefore voted by proxy, perhaps anticipating a better result than she actually achieved.

Although Thatcher had obtained a clear majority, she was four votes short of the required 15% margin, so the election had to move to a second ballot. Thatcher gave a short statement in Paris following the announcement of the result, declaring that she intended to contest the second ballot, and on her return to London the following morning declared, "I fight on; I fight to win".

After the first ballot result the Heseltine team boasted of momentum, which was tactically foolish in the view of his biographer Michael Crick. He argues that they should have encouraged Thatcher to remain in the contest by downplaying Heseltine's support, much as the then-challenger Thatcher and her campaign manager Airey Neave had done prior to the first ballot of the 1975 contest.

Hurd and Major pledged their support for Thatcher, as did Cecil Parkinson, Kenneth Baker and ex-Cabinet minister Nicholas Ridley. Norman Tebbit, another ex-Cabinet minister, was part of her campaign team, along with John Wakeham. Thatcher's campaign manager, Peter Morrison, advised her to consult Cabinet members one by one on 21 November. Cabinet ministers had decided before consulting Thatcher the line they would each take: though they would support her in the second ballot, they thought that she would lose. Peter Lilley, William Waldegrave, John Gummer and Chris Patten stuck to this line. Kenneth Clarke, the Secretary of State for Education, became the first of her ministers to advise her that she could not win but that he could support her as prime minister for another five or ten years. Malcolm Rifkind said she would not win and was unsure whether he could support her in the second ballot. Peter Brooke said he would support Thatcher whatever she chose to do and that she could win "with all guns blazing". Michael Howard doubted whether she could win but said he would campaign vigorously for her.

Thatcher therefore decided to withdraw her candidacy on the morning of 22 November 1990 (she remained in office as Prime Minister until the election had been concluded). As a result of this, two further candidates allowed themselves to be nominated: Hurd and Major.

Second ballot
The Cabinet agreed that if Heseltine became party leader, it would divide the party even further; and that one of its present members should succeed Thatcher. The only Cabinet member to endorse Heseltine for the second ballot was the Welsh Secretary, David Hunt, who had not been party to the agreement as he had been away in Tokyo. Four junior ministers openly backed Heseltine: the Welsh Office ministers Wyn Roberts and Ian Grist, and David Trippier and David Leigh. Heseltine was also endorsed by a number of senior ex-ministers including: Howe, Lawson, Lord Carrington (who as a peer had no vote), Peter Walker, David Howell, Ian Gilmour, Norman Fowler, Geoffrey Rippon, Jim Prior, Norman St John-Stevas and Paul Channon, but he had less support among younger MPs amongst whom he had done little to canvass support. Heseltine's campaign chairman Michael Mates was away for five days in the Middle East with the Defence Select Committee, of which he was chairman, so Heseltine's campaign did not have the cohesion of Major's, which was run by Norman Lamont. Heseltine's supporters, besides being older than those of the other candidates, tended to be pro-Europeans with a few populist backbenchers like David Evans, Tony Marlow and John Wilkinson.

Heseltine, a self-made multi-millionaire, was photographed at his country mansion Thenford House, Northamptonshire, which played poorly when set beside the stress which Major placed on his humble origins in Brixton. Major was soon seen as having the potential to lead the Conservatives to another consecutive general election victory; especially after he matched Heseltine's pledge to review the poll tax. Although ordinary members did not then have a vote in party leadership elections, they made their views known: 485 local Conservative Associations backed Major, whilst only 65 backed Heseltine and 22 backed Hurd. Several MPs who backed Heseltine later faced attempts to deselect them as candidates. Thatcher lobbied hard, urging MPs who supported her to vote for Major. Hurd's Eton College education was a disadvantage, twenty-five years after Iain Macleod's allegation of an Etonian "magic circle" conspiracy. Around a third of the Conservative parliamentary party were the "payroll vote", ministers and PPSs, who could normally be expected to support the "official" line in votes.

The second round of voting took place on Tuesday 27 November 1990.

Major, seen as relatively new blood in the government, secured a commanding lead (although with fewer votes than Thatcher had obtained in the first ballot) of 185 votes to Heseltine's 131 votes and Hurd's 56.

Researchers later found that around twenty MPs had voted for Thatcher in the first ballot then for Heseltine in the second. However, around thirty of Heseltine's first ballot supporters, including Jerry Hayes and David Mellor, had switched to Major, and about ten, including Steven Norris, had switched to Hurd, for a net loss of twenty-one votes.

Third ballot
Major was two votes short of an overall majority. Under the rules then in force, a third and final round was to be held on 29 November 1990. The third round was open to the top three candidates from the second round, thus none of the second round contenders were automatically eliminated. Had all three candidates opted to continue, the final round would have been conducted using the alternative vote.

Nevertheless, within minutes of the second round result being announced, both Heseltine and Hurd withdrew from the election in Major's favour. It was therefore announced by the Chairman of the 1922 Committee, Cranley Onslow, that no voting would be necessary and that Major was elected unopposed.

Reaction
The Sun, a firm supporter of Thatcher and her party since her election campaign in 1979, marked her resignation with the front-page headline "MRS T-EARS" on 23 November 1990, in reference to her breaking down in tears in front of her ministers after announcing her resignation. The accompanying photo also showed her in tears whilst being driven away from 10 Downing Street.

Labour opposition leader Neil Kinnock (whose party had been ascendant in the opinion polls since the announcement of the poll tax more than a year earlier) described Thatcher's resignation as "good, very, very good indeed" and called for an immediate general election.

Henry Kissinger rang Downing Street "in a very emotional state" saying her decision to resign was "worse than a death in the family" and, according to notes by Charles Powell, "Gorbachev had sent Shevardnadze [his foreign minister] out of a high level meeting in the Kremlin to telephone him, to find out what on earth was going on and how such a thing could be conceivable. The ambassador said that he had indeed found it very hard to explain. Indeed, there was a certain irony. Five years ago they had party coups in the Soviet Union and elections in Britain. Now it seemed to be the other way round".

Outcome
Major was declared the leader of the party on the evening of Tuesday 27 November 1990. Following Thatcher's formal resignation as prime minister, Queen Elizabeth II invited Major to form a government the next day. Hurd was re-appointed as foreign secretary and Heseltine returned to the Cabinet as environment secretary, a post he had held in the early 1980s. Both Hurd and Heseltine remained key figures during the Major government, Heseltine eventually rising to become deputy prime minister in 1995.

Major's premiership began well, and he was credited with restoring a consensual style of Cabinet government after the years of forceful leadership under Thatcher. The success of the First Gulf War in early 1991 contributed to strong public support. He secured some foreign policy successes in Europe, negotiating the Maastricht Treaty after securing an opt-out from the Social Chapter and the single currency, and he sprung a surprise victory in the 1992 election, albeit with a significantly reduced majority of only 21 seats.

Nevertheless, the political tides soon turned. The Major government's reputation for economic competence was destroyed by Britain's ejection from the ERM in September 1992. A notable protest came from Thatcher's former cabinet minister Norman Tebbit at the 1992 Party Conference, that the Conservatives had been wrong to ignore Thatcher's wishes to stay out (whether Britain entered the ERM at too high an exchange rate has been debated ever since). Apart from a brief period during fuel protests in 2000, the Conservatives would not again enjoy an opinion poll lead until after the election of David Cameron as leader in 2005. The ongoing rebellion in the first half of 1993 by Conservative backbenchers against the passage of the Maastricht Treaty through the House of Commons was also deeply damaging to the government. Many of the Maastricht rebels were Thatcher supporters, and one of them, Teresa Gorman, devoted the opening chapter of her memoir of the incident to an account of the 1990 leadership contest.

The massive Conservative defeat in 1997 at the hands of Tony Blair and New Labour was thus attributable, at least in part, to the perception of internal division over Europe which had first been exposed by the 1990 leadership election. The Conservatives would not achieve the most seats in another general election until 2010, under Cameron, and would not win a large majority again until 2019, more than three decades after last doing so in 1987.

Popular culture
The leadership contest was the subject of the 1991 TV movie Thatcher: The Final Days.