text:
Talk:Richard Warman

Untitled
We should probably add that Richard Warman first gained attention with his actions against conspiracy theorist and fellow Green Party member David Icke.

Reference here:

Prior to his complaints against alleged "hate" sites, Warman was involved in legal wranglings and human rights complaints with individuals who are not "white supremacists" per se. The case with Icke is at least one of these which is still ongoing. Some of the people he has launched human rights complaints against and/or sued include non-racists such as David Icke and Tom Kennedy and people in the anti-tax movement such as Fred Kyburz and Eldon Warman.

There is some lengthy debate within the Green Party regarding whether advocating the banning of books and threatening litigation against bookstores and libraries, as has been done by Warman, is conduscive to the Libertarian-type approach to freedom of expression in the Green Party.

Further info on this matter here:

Icke
I don't know a lot about the Icke stuff. Feel free to write something and put it in the article. Homey 12:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone should post the youtube link to "David Icke - Secret Rulers of the World", which has coverage of Richard Warman, his actions and comments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0ROs7n17Yg&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.253.202 (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

3RR
I should inform "Imstillhere" that the three-revert rule mandates that posters not revert pages more than three times in a 24 hour period. CJCurrie 22:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation by I'm still here
Here is how the 3 Revert Rule works.
 * I posted something
 * CJCurrie reverted it (1)
 * I reverted it (1)
 * CJCurrie reverted it (2)
 * I reverted it (2)
 * CJCurrie reverted it (3) <-- 3 times. Learn how to count

Furthermore, the information reverted was valid information with a documentation link that seemed to displease CJCurrie.

 * 1) (cur) (last)  22:08, 10 January 2006 Imstillhere m
 * 2) (cur) (last) 20:41, 10 January 2006 Imstillhere (Whether or not you think it was frivolous, Richard Warman was charged and that is a real even that is documented and verifyable. Whether or not the charges stuck is irrelevant)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 20:38, 10 January 2006 Imstillhere (and a lot of the list of names in the list at the top are still in the complaint phase. Complaint can be found here: http://yourrights.bravehost.com/Federal_Human_Rights_Complaint-Richard_Warman.pdf)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 20:35, 10 January 2006 Imstillhere (You are in violation of the three-revert rule. You reverted me 3 times. And the complaint is verifiable by contacting the CHRC.)
 * 5) (cur) (last) 20:26, 10 January 2006 CJCurrie (I repeat: anyone can file a complaint, and this is not in itself noteworthy; btw, you'll be in violation of the three-revert-rule if you return the section)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 20:24, 10 January 2006 Imstillhere
 * 7) (cur) (last) 20:22, 10 January 2006 CJCurrie m (Reverted edits by Imstillhere (talk) to last version by CJCurrie)
 * 8) (cur) (last) 20:20, 10 January 2006 Imstillhere
 * 9) (cur) (last) 19:12, 10 January 2006 CJCurrie (anyone can file a complaint; I've seen no evidence that this is credible and/or noteworthy)
 * 10) (cur) (last) 17:38, 10 January 2006 Imstillhere m
 * 11) (cur) (last) 17:37, 10 January 2006 Imstillhere

Notice the history of changes. I did not end up reverting a 3rd time, but CJCurrie did. I just posted links that are related and verifiable. And by the way, CJCurrie, some of the names in the list of Warman's cases are just in the complaint phase as well, so if you say "anyone can file a complaint" please feel free to remove the names from the list as well.

* I reverted it (2) ''* CJCurrie reverted it (3) <-- 3 times. Learn how to count''

My point is that reverting the page a third time isn't contrary to Wikipedia policy; reverting it more times than that is. CJCurrie 22:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

And, for the record, I've noticed that listing your initial post as a revert was obviously a mistake. CJCurrie 22:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted this because the user who is insisting on adding these links is making no effort to respond to CJCurrie's concerns by, for example, providing context or explanation, or by identifying whether these complaints have been upheld, rejected, or are pending. "Whether or not the charges stuck is irrelevant." Of course it is relevant. I could accuse User:Imstillhere of being a pedophile and a rapist, and the fact that I have absolutely no evidence to support that accusation is very, very important. This does seem to be a case of drive-by character assassination. Ground Zero | t 02:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The link User:Imstillhere has provided to the official complaint makes it fairly clear that the charge is frivolous. In one instance, Warman's accuser castigates him for reposting someone else's bigoted material prior to responding to it.  CJCurrie 02:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Imstillhere has also been playing around in the Alex Kulbashian entry. AnnieHall 04:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I did provide an explanation, however it was removed by CJCurie. I had the story and the links. She kept removing them. Check the revision history.
 * IMSTILLHERE

To CJCurrie
Whether or not you are an administrator, you cannot use your administrative access to censor people on the site or use your access level to make politically motivated edits to pages. Keep doing this and I will report you. Imstillhere 21:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I can remove information which I judge to be trivial (particularly when you haven't given me a reason why I shouldn't do so in this instance). CJCurrie 23:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

-

Richard is living in hiding for fear of retalitaion from the numerous enemies he has created. Reference here:

"Warman expected a strong reaction from white supremacists. His family is worried about the threats and Ottawa police have developed a security plan for him, which he will not discuss.

"You have to walk a fine line between being concerned and being paranoid."" Plasticman

Criticism
To CJCurrie:

You removed what I believe were valid entries in support of the of criticism of Richard Warman.

You claim that the entries are not "encyclopedic". Please explain what you mean, provide an example, and a Wikipedia reference in support of your position. Note also that one of the references was to another article in Wikipedia.

I am going to assume for the moment that you are acting in good faith, and will not censor valid criticism. Then there should not be too much difficulty in finding criticism of which you approve, since Richard Warman's complaints before the CHRC are currently one of the most widely discussed topics on Canadian blogs. I provided just two references, whereas there are hundreds of others.

The entries you removed are:

Critics have charged that Warman abuses the intent of the Canadian Human Rights Act by personally appearing as the plaintiff in the majority of CHRA section 13 "hate speech" cases which have been brought before the Commission, a former employer of Warman.  -   - Critics further charge that many CHRC "hate speech" complaints such as Warman's have had a chilling effect on the human right to freedom of expression.

I look forward to your prompt, reasoned response. Thank you. Freedom Fan (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I should first apologize for the brevity of my last statement. I didn't have time to explain myself, but will do so now.

 * My problem with the first entry has to do with the choice of language. I do not believe it is appropriate for a Wikipedia article to include the following statement:

 * Critics have charged that Warman abuses the intent of the Canadian Human Rights Act by personally appearing as the plaintiff in the majority of CHRA section 13 "hate speech" cases which have been brought before the Commission, a former employer of Warman.

 * Drawing attention to Warman's past employment with the Commission in this manner implies that there is an inherent conflict-of-interest to his actions. As this is by no means so, the statement violates NPOV.
 * ''Mark Steyn has charged that

 * In the second instance, it is not appropriate to cite other Wikipedia articles as sources. Linking to Wikipedia's article on Censorship in Canada is, as such, not encyclopedic.

 * I hope this goes some way to explaining my motivations. Given the nonsense that has been posted on this page in the recent past, a bit of extra vigilance doesn't hurt.  CJCurrie (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have edited the criticism section accordingly. Freedom Fan (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I restored the Criticism section again. Richard Warman is a controversial figure as can be demonstrated with a quick Google of "Richard Warman".  The criticisms found in this section are but a small sample of the many available from prominent individuals.  Please do not remove this section again without discussion and consensus.

Freedom Fan (talk) 06:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Bias in article maintenance and corrupt admins
This article is being maintained by politically motivated individuals trying to protect the information from being changed at all costs by removing any reference to well-sourced articles that don't shed good light on this individual. These same individuals and admins have engaged in slander in other articles Imstillhere 07:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, isn't that the rule here on Wikipedia? Isn't Wikipedia the spearhead of neo-Stalinist thinking? Aqualung 19:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of evident corruption at work on the Wikipedia site. Apotheosization of individuals like Warman, while vilifying individuals like Glenn Bahr. I'm wondering if a Wikipedia admin would like to volunteer a proper channel of redress for those offended by the anti-White undercurrent manifest in these instances of bias? - Bill Noble

The neutrality in this entire artile is disputed. It is clearly biased in favor of Warman. Edward Nyhouse —Preceding comment was added at 07:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

 * For example? Also, is insinuating someone is gay without evidence supposed to be neutral (or even very mature)? --Mista-X (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights Lawyer?
"Human Rights" lawyer isn't a real designation. And even if it was, it would be referring to when he was working with the Human Rights Commission, which he no longer is. A lawyer who files human righst complaints is not a human rights lawyer. So officially he is just a lawyer. Refer to the - Law Society of Upper Canada for more information on the certified specialist program. Imstillhere 17:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Lawyers can certainly be identified as practicioners in an area without being a certified specialist. Samaritan 16:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Warman not Jewish
"Mr. Warman testified that he was not Jewish. In our view, the fact that Mr. Warman was not himself Jewish does not detract in any way from the viciousness of the attacks launched against him by Mr. Kyburz. These attacks were clearly motivated, at least in part, by Mr. Kyburz' perception that Mr. Warman was Jewish. Based upon this belief, Mr. Kyburz ascribed very negative character traits, as well as criminal behaviour to Mr. Warman. Mr. Warman, quite understandably, found this conduct to be very hurtful. In our view, Mr. Warman is a victim of the discriminatory practice."Richard Warman and Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and Fred Kyburz, Reasons for decision, May 9, 2003. 70.28.159.194 05:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

When did Warman work for the Human Rights Commission?
This article really needs more details on when Warman worked for the CHRC. Was it two years? When specifically? I was reading Warman v. Winnicki and there is an allegation quoted in the decision stating that some of Warman's complaints were made while he was working for the CHRC. Isn't that conflict of interest? --Chris Thompson 19:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

To CJCurrie
As an administrator, you seem to be doing very little about JB15 who has been removing sourced content with no explanation. Imstillhere 15:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Warman's attempt
The section that's been occasionally added titled "Warman's attempt to have Canada Block hate sites" has too much detail about a minor proceeding in a larger court case. Quoting the judgement at length doesn't help. The motion doesn't appear notable enough to even mention. Further, the referncing is partly from a blog, which we don't normally accept as reliable sources. I think the shorter, one sentence version that simply says he's still active is more appropriate. -Will Beback 08:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Obvious bias and Hypocrisy
Inconsistencies: There were articles in papers Nation-wide about Warman's attempt at censorship with the CRTC but I was told that a paragraph about the issue is too much information. The paragraph that included part of the CRTC decision was removed. So I edited the existing sentence and changed "ongoing attempt to "failed attempt". I also removed the Bernie Farber quote calling it a "murder warrant" because that's not more relevant that the CRTC decision. That was edited and reverted by User:CJCurrie.

And then, a paragraph (re: death threat that on VNN forum) that from my knowledge only received mention in one small community paper, has a paragraph dedicated to it?

This isn't your wiki. If you set a standard for editing, stick by it. You idiots are trying to say that an issue that had 1 community paper article warrants a paragraph and a 10-day multi-faceted event with national coverage only needs a sentence? Your bias and motivations are blatant. 69.199.64.4 17:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Prominence of Richard Warman
Warman is certainly a prominent human rights lawyer. A simple Google search of his names yields valuable information on his contributions to conferences, seminars, and talks - which which he is regularly invited to school NGO leaders and police officials on his style of combating online hatred. Furthermore, simple Factiva or InfoMart searches provide dozens of articles in which Warman is quoted by reporters, being the first source they go to for an opinion on matters of online extremism. Prominence is not a matter of opinion. Random House Dictionary refers to prominence as being:

1. standing out so as to be seen easily; conspicuous; particularly noticeable 2. standing out beyond the adjacent surface or line; projecting. 3. leading, important, or well-known: a prominent citizen.

Based on the above-noted definitions, and the plethora of information on Warman which can be found online and offline, I am hereby reinstating my previous mention of him as a "prominent" person in his Wikipedia biography.-unsigned

 * Virtually everybody who has an article on Wikipedia is prominent, otherwise they wouldn't be here. I'd hate to think we'd have an article that started "John Doe is an obscure lawyer..." See also peacock terms. Rather than asserting that the subject is prominent we should demonstrate his prominence. -Will Beback · † · 20:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Reason why "award-winning" does not belong in lead
The lead sentence should not say Warman is an "award-winning" such and such. Almost all people who have Wikipedia articles written about them have won at least one or two awards during their lifetimes, but I've never seen a lead sentence in those articles describing them as "award-winning", especially when — like in the case of Warman — the article only mentions them winning one award. Phrases like "award-winning" are suitable for press releases, book covers or other promotional materials, not neutral encyclopedic articles. As Will Beback mentioned above, see peacock terms for Wikipedia's guidelines on matters such as this. Spylab (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Who has availed themselves of the "human rights" protected by Section XIII? In its entire history, over half of all cases have been brought by a sole "complainant," one Richard Warman. Indeed, Mr. Warman has been a plaintiff on every single Section XIII case before the federal "human rights" star chamber since 2002 — and he's won every one. That would suggest that no man in any free society anywhere on the planet has been so comprehensively deprived of his human rights." 83.61.2.236 (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Problems with recent anonymous edits
I've decided to remove a series of recent anonymous edits via the provisions of WP:BLP. As I mentioned in my edit, (i) the information seems dubious in some cases, and (ii) the presentation is unquestionably slanted. I could add that Ezra Levant's editorials tend not to be worthy of citation at times. CJCurrie (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Sadly however, Richard Warman did testify in the Warman v. Winnicki hearing that he created the Axetogrind account on the vnnforum where most of his racist posts appeared. Those aren't up for discussion. The Senator Cools comment is of note considering it was an unsolicited comment posted on a website that he filed a complaint against in its entirety. A "human rights" lawyer and professional serial complainer who does that.... well that's definitely of note. The evidence was presented during the course of the Warman v. Lemire hearing by an expert witness. Richard Warman isn't guaranteed a "pleasant" page on wikipedia more than anyone else is. Stop trying to protect him. 99.236.225.74 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Anne Cools information
So when you run out of excuses to suppress information that's bad about warman, what's next? The article is valid and so is the link. If there is an issue with the wording of the segment, edit it, don't remove the information. A serial complainer posting racist messages on the websites he complains about is very notable. Imstillhere (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I've reverted the latest anon edit and sprotected, because I understand the allegation was withdrawn by the National Post. A different source would be needed if this is to stand.  SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 17:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

 * You must be quite dense. The Post simply didn't want to get involved in a lawsuit.  They folded out of fear.  This is obvious to anyone with an iota of familiarity with the case.  SlimVirgin is a cretin. ThVa (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

 * No doubt. I've undone the semi-protection because it had been in place since February, but I'll reinstate it if any BLP violations are added, so please play nice. You can review the BLP policy here. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 07:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Steyn
I was asked to comment about the removal of the material sourced to Mark Steyn. Frank Pais, could you say what you feel is wrong with it, in terms of our content policies? SlimVirgin talk| edits 08:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. Steyn is a opinion-piece author. His work is based overwhelmingly on his own political beliefs, and is not anywhere near being objective, unbiased journalism. The quote from him that is being touted by FreedomFan is completely backwards, ignorant, and factually wrong. His portrayal of the CHRC and Mr. Warman's use of it isn't an opinion based on facts, but an opinion based on fallacy. It is near impossible to find an entirely unbiased source, but the insults and barbs put out by Steyn aren't even based on any legitimate knowledge of what he is critiquing. Frank Pais (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree in principle with FrankPais regarding the appropriateness of including Steyn's commentary. One writer's personal opinion of a subject really doesn't belong here. The other paragraph (from the Gillis article) merits consideration though and I don't think should be lumped in with the Steyn quote. 007blur007 (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Thank you Slim Virgin. I disagree that criticism from Mark Steyn, a prominent media personality, political pundit, and CHRC victim, somehow violates some unspecified Wiki policy, but I have restored only the Gillis criticism as a compromise. The Gillis article also includes quotes from Keith Martin, a member of Canadian Parliament. If this criticism is removed by an administrator, I will expect that administrator to assist me in removing similar criticism from all other Wiki bio articles for consistency. However, if the criticism once again is removed by someone other than an administrator, I will simply revert it as vandalism. Thank you.

Freedom Fan (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ezra Levant
Hi, Frank. Please stop adding your opinion of Ezra Levant into the Warman article. The adjective "controversial" is subjective and does not add to the article in any way. Please discuss here or on your talk page before doing another revert. 007blur007 (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

richardwarman.com
I'm wondering if we should mention http://richardwarman.com specifically to warn readers that it is written by Warman's opponents, not by Warman. I see that Googling for "Richard Warman" gets this article then that page as the first two hits. What do other editors think? Also, can anyone come up with a good way to describe this web site accurately without giving it undue prominence?
 * Unless the website provides any insight into the subject (which would seem doubtful), I don't think that it belongs in the article. Perhaps a seperate article about the website (as opposed to Warman) might be appropriate?  007blur007 (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

While I'm here: am I the only one who hates using nationalvanguard.org as a source, especially in this article? In fact, Wikipedia policy is to prefer secondary sources, so I for one would be grateful if someone found a better source for that claim. CWC 15:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a tricky issue. We don't normally go out of the way to label sources as unreliable; we just don't mention them. To make a positive assertion about something, like the website, we should have a source. The owners of the website are hidden, so we can't use those records as a primary source. I agree about your second point. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The link was dead and, as there was already another reference for the material, I've gone ahead and deleted it. 007blur007 (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Lustig's 2009/03/13 ruling
I've just removed the following text, which was recently added by user :
 * In 2009 the CHRT discovered that Warman was a frequent poster on Neo-Nazi web forums he complained about.<ref>http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/view_html.asp?doid=964&lg=_e&isruling=0#1002062</ref>

I agree with the anon that this incident should be covered in our article, but I played it safe for some rather technical reasons: That is, I think we revise and expand the text shown above, but there's no need to hurry. Does anyone have additional information, suggestions, comments etc? Should we put the deleted text back until we construct a better version? CWC 16:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a primary source. Secondary sources are better, especially in articles about living people. Here are two newspaper items: Ottawa Citizen (in the sports section???), National Post. There are probably others. I have no idea which would be best for this article.
 * Getting picky: "the CHRT discovered" probably should be "the CHRT ruled that" or similar.
 * If Warman said anything in reaction to this ruling, we need to cover that as well. The Ottawa Citizen said that "Warman said posting the messages 'provided useful information' that helped him identify individuals involved in the Canadian neo-Nazi movement", but leaves plenty of doubt about when Warman said that. Does anyone know?

 * I agree that it could be usefully fleshed out, though it's fine to use the primary source so long as we stick closely to what it says (mainstream secondary sources are welcome too, of course). I also agree that we should say "ruled," not "discovered." SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

 * The main problem I had with the way the sentence was framed is that it was too vague only saying that "Warman was a frequent poster" which a reader could interpret as saying he is a closet nazi so to speak, or that there is some other dubious reason for his postings other then for the purposes of collecting intel on the far-right, neo-nazis and fascists. If the information is to be re added it needs to be more descriptive. As well, the source really only showed Warman made two posts on the forums, which were actually replies to threads started by others, which hardly shows "frequent" postings nor makes Warman look like a heavy contributor to those forums. --Mista-X (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

 * The CHRT did cast doubt on Warman's statement that he was posting to gather intelligence. They said:

 * "[59] During his cross-examination, Mr. Warman admitted (after initially denying) that he had participated in communicating messages on Internet Websites similar to the Northern Alliance Website utilizing pseudonyms such as "Pogue Mahone" and "Axetogrind".
 * "[60] In one of several such communications that was entered into evidence during his cross-examination that Mr. Warman admitted having made, Mr. Warman using the name as "Pogue Mahone Forum Member" posted the following on the stormfront.org/forum Website on July 18, 2004: (The bolded words are Mr. Warman's. The italicized words are a quote that he has included from a previous post made by a "S88")

 * ... [snip examples of Warman posting as if in agreement with antisemitic posts]...

 * "[62] Mr. Warman stated that the communications quoted in the previous two paragraphs did not "cross the line" into hate messaging nor did they provoke hate messages by others. He stated that the inclusion in his postings of possible hate messages from others were inadvertent slips by him in sending messages over the Internet. He further stated that his postings were intended to assist him in his quest for information about persons using the Internet to communicate discriminatory hate messages.
 * "[63] I do not see any acceptable reason for Mr. Warman to have participated on the Stormfront or Vanguard sites, since there appears to be ample easily obtained messages on these sites available without his involvement. Moreover, it is possible that his activity in this regard, could have precipitated further hate messages in response. His explanation for including other hate messages in his postings by mistake seems very weak to me.
 * "[64] Mr. Warman has, with the assistance of the Commission, instituted most of the s. 13 (1) complaints under the Act that have come before the Tribunal. He has been very successful in these cases and has garnered accolades for his work in this regard. The evidence in this case of his participation on Internet sites similar to the Northern Alliance site is both disappointing and disturbing. It diminishes his credibility."

 * SlimVirgin talk| contribs 07:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Fair enough, and that sure can be stated in the article. But as the sentence was there was no context.--Mista-X (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

 * How about (to be added to the CHRT section):

 * "The CHRT criticized Warman in March 2009 for having posted pseudonymously — using the names Axetogrind and Pogue Mahone — to neo-Nazi sites such as Stormfront and Vanguard News Network, as if in agreement with racist and antisemitic messages posted there. In one post, in response to a comment in January 2005 about American neo-Nazi leader Jeff Schoep, Warman wrote, 'Keep up the good work Commander Schoep!'. The CHRT ruled that Warman's posts, which he initially denied were his, could have precipitated further hate messages from forum members, and that he had undermined his credibility. In his defence, Warman said his posts had helped him identify members of the neo-Nazi movement, and that at the time there was no 'road map' for such investigations. 'With hindsight, he said, 'things might have been done differently today.'"

 * SlimVirgin talk| contribs 15:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Any thoughts about whether this is a fair summary and should be added? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Looks good to me. --Mista-X (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about lead
An account with one edit changed the lead from saying Warman had initiated complaints against a wide range of people, including white supremacists, to "best known for initiating complaints against white supremacists and neo-Nazis for Canadian Human Rights Act violations ..."

Has Warman initiated complaints regarding human rights violations against anyone other than white supremacists and neo-Nazis? SlimVirgin 19:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Marc Lemire vigorously denies being either of those, saying that no-one has ever produced any evidence that he is a white supremacist, let alone a neo-Nazi. Assuming (as he certainly does) that the differences between white supremacy and white separatism/nationalism are significant, he is right AFAIK: the reports calling him a white supremacist or neo-Nazi that I've read show no sign of understanding that there is any difference between (say) white nationalism and neo-Nazism. (Of course, the major difference is that white nationalism is a much better business model ...)
 * I've just changed the lede to say "... best known for having initiated complaints against people such as white supremacists and neo-Nazis ...". I think this is safer than the anon's version but shorter and more accurate than the "wide range" working. Cheers, CWC 21:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
I've just reverted a large edit by while tweaking the lede for reasons explained above.

Here's my list of the changes in that edit, with my comments in italics: I've numbered these points for convenience in discussion. Any comments? Cheers, CWC 22:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Changed "against a wide range of people, including white supremacists and neo-Nazis" to "against members of the white supremacist and neo-Nazi movements". I've changed that to "against people such as white supremacists and neo-Nazis".
 * 2) Dropped sentence about "criticism, particularly from Maclean's" and parliamentary hearings. The claims about criticism and Maclean's are substantiated in the article. The bit about parliamentary hearings seems overstated to me, and should be substantiated or dropped per WP:BLP.
 * 3) Dropped ref to http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1375. Yep, it's irrelevant. I'll delete it.
 * 4) Dropped quote from Macleans. I think we need to report some detail of what Macleans said.
 * 5) Changed "The CHRT criticized Warman" to "A member of the CHRT criticized Warman". It was a CHRT ruling, so it was the CHRT which made that criticism.
 * 6) Removed details of the CHRT criticism. I say those details are important.

Layout
I found the layout of the 'advocacy' section to be difficult to follow. So I've gone through and added new headings, and re-organized to put information under the correct headings. I didn't remove any information, and only added a brief linking sentance.

Suggestions on other ways to improve the structure of this article are welcome.

Turquoise swan (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This guy is cool - insite a comment then sue you for it, wow a genius. A person with a little money could sue him and tie him up for decades - return the favor so to speak. He seems to have the knack - or he purposely hunts them out - to find the easiest targets too. Is he on exclusive retainer?I could use him occasionally. 159.105.80.122 (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia - spectator or participant?
In an international context this sentence is insidious: "He [Richard Warman] is best known for having initiated complaints against people such as white supremacists and neo-Nazis for Canadian Human Rights Act violations related to Internet content". It indirectly insinuating that Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn is white supremacists or neo-Nazis. Why? To an international audience, Richard Warman is best known for having sued Ezra Levant and for his involvement in the notorious Canadian "Human Rights Commission" that runs the politically correct "courts" that among other things charged Mark Steyn with "flagrant Islamophobia". And now Richard Warman is even suing blogger Blazing Cat Fur for linking to the web site of "Far Right" Mark Steyn! The English Wikipedia should not be a participant in this Canadian type of leftist social exorcist political correctness gone mad! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.21.61 (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. I slightly changed the lead sentence that you quote, because I think Warman is better known as the leading instigator of Section 13(1) actions, but it doesn't seem to me that the article violates neutrality OR insinuates that Levant and Steyn are white supremacists or neo-Nazis.  I don't believe Steyn is even mentioned.  Frankly, as an American myself, it doesn't matter much to me why Warman is best known "in an international context," especially if it misrepresents him.  And there is nothing posted in this article about the lawsuit against Blazing Cat Fur (which I assume is a defamation suit), so I have no idea where your information about that comes from.  Do you have a Wiki-suitable source (not a blog) that we can cite to add this lawsuit to the article? -- AyaK (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed it further. We need to differentiate between Warman's roles as (1) the section 13(1) complainer and (2) the serial strategic "libel" litigant. The first role has lots of Wiki-Reliable sources, the second has only a few. Hence, I feel, we should keep the second out of the WP:LEDE until/unless he gets declared a vexatious litigant or something. Cheers, CWC 08:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. AyaK (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa?

---I believe I saw him there personally in May of 2010. [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by M555333555M555333555M (talk • contribs) 01:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Richard Warman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080807081046/http://ezralevant.com:80/2008/07/my-statement-of-defence-richar.html to http://ezralevant.com/2008/07/my-statement-of-defence-richar.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 04:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Richard Warman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120611071615/http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t869_11903de.pdf to http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t869_11903de.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120611071615/http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t869_11903de.pdf to http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t869_11903de.pdf

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Richard Warman


text:
Thalassa

Thalassa (Θάλασσα; Attic Greek: Θάλαττα, Thálatta ) was the general word for 'sea' and for its divine female personification in Greek mythology. The word may have been of Pre-Greek origin.

Mythology
According to a scholion on Apollonius of Rhodes, the fifth-century BC poet Ion of Chios had Thalassa as the mother of Aegaeon (Briareus, one of the Hecatoncheires). Diodorus Siculus (fl. 1st century BC), in his Bibliotheca historica, states that "Thalatta" is the mother of the Telchines and the sea-nymph Halia, while in the Orphic Hymn to the Sea, Tethys, who is here equated with Thalassa, is called the mother of Kypris (Aphrodite).

The Roman mythographer Hyginus (c. 64 BC – AD 17), in the preface to his Fabulae, calls Mare (Sea, another name for Thalassa) the daughter of Aether and Dies (Day), and thus the sister of Terra (Earth) and Caelus (Sky). With her male counterpart Pontus, she spawns the species of fish.

Literature
Two rather similar fables are recorded by Babrius. In one, numbered 168 in the Perry Index, a farmer witnesses a shipwreck and reproaches the sea for being “an enemy of mankind”. Assuming the form of a woman, she answers by blaming the winds for her turbulence. Otherwise, “I am gentler than that dry land of yours.” In the other, a survivor from a shipwreck accuses the sea of treachery and receives the same excuse. But for the winds, “by nature I am as calm and safe as the land.”

In yet another fable, Perry’s number 412 and only recorded by Syntipas, the rivers complain to the sea that their sweet water is turned undrinkably salty by contact with her. The sea replies that if they know as much, they should avoid such contact. The commentary suggests that the tale may be applied to people who criticize someone inappropriately even though they may actually be helping them.

In the 2nd century CE, Lucian represented Thalassa in a comic dialogue with Xanthus, the god of the River Scamander, who had been attacked by a rival Greek deity for complaining that his course was being choked with dead bodies during the Trojan War. In this case he had been badly scorched and asks her to soothe his wounds.

Art
While the sea-divinities Tethys and Oceanus were formerly represented in Roman-era mosaics, they were replaced at a later period by the figure of Thalassa, especially in Western Asia. There she was depicted as a woman clothed in bands of seaweed and half submerged in the sea, with the crab-claw horns that were formerly an attribute of Oceanus now transferred to her head. In one hand she holds a ship's oar, and in the other a dolphin. In 2011, Swoon created a site-specific installation depicting the goddess in the atrium of the New Orleans Museum of Art. In fall 2016, the installation was erected once more in the atrium of the Detroit Institute of Arts.

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

title: Thalassa


text:
Singapore Chinese Girls' School

Singapore Chinese Girls' School (SCGS) is an independent girls' school in Bukit Timah, Singapore, located opposite Stevens MRT station. Founded in 1899, it is one of the oldest institutions in Singapore. It offers a six-year primary education in its primary school section, as well as a four-year secondary education in its secondary school section, which was among the first secondary schools in Singapore to be accorded independent school status in 1989. Since 2013, it has partnered with Eunoia Junior College for a six-year Integrated Programme, which allows its secondary school students to proceed to Eunoia Junior College for Years 5 and 6 and take the Singapore-Cambridge GCE Advanced Level examinations at the end of Year 6.

History
In 1899, Lim Boon Keng, Song Ong Siang, Khoo Seok Wan, along with others, actively promoted a school for Chinese girls and in April 1899, SCGS was established. Lew Luk Lin was elected president but offered to vacate his seat to Lim who declined.

On 3 July 1899, SCGS opened at Hill Street with an enrolment of seven girls and Mary Geary as headmistress. Lim's wife, Margaret Wong, also gave lessons in Chinese. Due to general resistance of the local conservative population who was not in favour of girls having a formal education, transportation between the school and the students' homes has to be provided by SCGS.

In December 1906, SCGS relocated to another site on Hill Street due to high rental costs of the original site. On 13 July 1908, SCGS relocated again further down to the junction of Hill Street and Coleman Street with land given by the government.

In 1923, the school left its premises at Hill Street (the site later became the Central Fire Station) and moved to Emerald Hill. The premises at Emerald Hill cost S$60,000. The school building was a two-storey block with 12 classrooms, an assembly hall, a staff room, and a principal's office.

From 1905 to 1936, the school admitted a handful of male students, but afterwards reverted to being an all-girls school. After 1946, newly created government laws forced the school to accept girls of all races. By 1950, SCGS had an enrolment of 700 girls, which rose to 900 in 1952.

Attainment of Independent Status
In 1989, SCGS celebrated its 90th birthday and became an independent school, with more latitude to expand the curriculum. On 4 July 1994, after 70 years at Emerald Hill, the school moved to a newly built campus at Dunearn Road.

In 2011, SCGS was presented the School Excellence Award, part of the Ministry of Education's (MOE) Masterplan of Awards, which recognises schools for excellence in both education methods and results. In addition, SCGS received the Best Practice Award for all three categories (Student All-Round Development, Teaching and Learning, and Staff Well-being) and the Outstanding Development Award for National Education. These achievements affirm the school's holistic education for the pupils as well as the capacity and commitment of the staff.

Introduction of Joint Integrated Programme
In 2012, the Ministry of Education announced that SCGS and five other schools would offer the Integrated Programme (IP). However, SCGS would continue to offer the Singapore-Cambridge GCE Ordinary Level Programme to existing and incoming students. In January 2013, SCGS accepted the first batch of IP students in the Secondary One intake alongside new students on the 'O' Level programme. After four years at SCGS, IP students will bypass the 'O' Level examination and move on to Eunoia Junior College. The junior college was newly created as part of a Joint Integrated Programme (JIP) to accept IP students from SCGS, CHIJ Saint Nicholas Girls' School and Catholic High School starting from 2017. Besides IP students, Eunoia Junior College will also accept students from other secondary schools with 'O' Level qualifications. All students enrolled in Eunoia Junior College will sit for the Singapore-Cambridge GCE 'A' Level examination after a two-year programme.

Crest
The colours of the school crest are jade and gold. This reflects her time-honoured tradition, because jade and gold in Hokkien (Kim Gek), which is the colloquial name for SCGS girls and alumni, and in Mandarin (JinYu) connotes a young Peranakan girl brought up and educated in the best manner.

The school motto is "Sincerity, Courage, Generosity and Service."

The Yin and yang aspects of the traditional Chinese culture symbol of balance are in jade and gold respectively. This symbol, which represents the universe, light, darkness, life and death, lies at the heart of the many branches of classical Chinese sciences, philosophy and medicine.

Notable alumnae

 * Jennie Chua, businesswoman
 * Halimah Yacob, eighth President of Singapore
 * Janice Koh, actress and former Nominated Member of Parliament
 * Susan Lim, general surgeon
 * Rui En, actress and singer
 * Thio Li-ann, law professor and former Nominated Member of Parliament

title: Singapore Chinese Girls' School


text:
User talk:Victorc.rodrigues~enwiki

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Please, follow instructions: Uploading images and Image copyright tags or your images will be deleted: Image:Recife10.jpg. Thanks in advance. Patrick-br 11:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Victorc.rodrigues. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Victorc.rodrigues~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 03:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Victorc.rodrigues~enwiki


text: Wikipedia:Picture of the day/August 21, 2005


text:
Ane Brun

Ane Brun (born Ane Brunvoll on 10 March 1976) is a Norwegian songwriter, guitarist, and vocalist of Sami origin. Since 2003, she has recorded eleven albums, eight of which are studio albums of original material (including a collection of duets), an acoustic album, and two covers albums; she has also released three live albums, two compilations, one live DVD, and four EPs. She has lived in Stockholm, Sweden, since 2001, where she writes, records, and runs her own label (Balloon Ranger Recordings).

Early life and education
Ane Brunvoll is the daughter of lawyer Knut Anker Brunvoll (b. 1945) and jazz singer and pianist Inger Johanne Brunvoll (b. Kvien 1945). She grew up in a musical family in Molde, Norway. Her younger sister is singer Mari Kvien Brunvoll (b. 1984). Her older brother is photographer Bjørn Brunvoll (b. 1973).

In 1995, she moved to study at the University of Bergen, jumping between courses in Spanish, law, and music. In Bergen, she began writing her own material. She spent the next few years moving between Barcelona, Oslo, and Bergen while making a living working in record shops and bars.

Career
After playing a few minor shows and recording her first demos in Bergen in 1999, she moved to Sweden, first to Uppsala and then to Stockholm in 2001, where she started to take her musical career seriously.

Brun recorded her debut album, Spending Time with Morgan, in 2002 in both Stockholm and back in Uppsala, with engineers and producers Katharina Nuttall, Cécile Grudet, and Kim Nelson. It was released on the DetErMine label, which she formed with Ellekari Larsson from the Swedish band The Tiny. The album was released in 11 European countries in 2003 through a licence/distribution deal with V2 Music.

Touring, 2002–2007

After releasing her first album, Brun toured around Europe but soon took some time out. She had been working intensively for two years and felt somewhat burnt out and in need of a break. After a six-month breather, she started touring around Europe again and within the next year had her second album ready. A Temporary Dive was again produced by Katharina Nuttall and was released in 2005 throughout Europe, followed by the UK and the US in 2006, and in Japan in 2007. This album took the darker themes of Spending Time With Morgan further, through songs like "The Fight Song" and title track "A Temporary Dive", but there was also space for the lighter "Song No. 6", a duet with Ron Sexsmith.

A Temporary Dive was well received all over the world, picking up good reviews in magazines and newspapers from Time magazine to The Independent. She received award nominations from all over Europe too, and that year took home the Spellemannpris, the Norwegian equivalent of the Grammies, for Best Female Artist.

After enjoying the collaboration on the previous few duets she had recorded, Brun was inspired to ask some artists whom she adored to sing with her on a full album called Duets. This album was released in November 2005 and besides another recording with Ron Sexsmith, it also included songs with artists such as Syd Matters and Teitur. The collaboration with the band Madrugada on the single "Lift Me" gained her another Norwegian Grammy.

Brun spent much of the next couple of years touring the world in many different stage arrangements. She has played with a full band including string section, just herself and string section at times, sometimes just a cello, and one backing vocalist or three. She often ends up coming back to solo acoustic guitar performances. "There is something about the focus in playing by myself that fascinates me", she says. "There’s nothing to hide behind when I'm alone on stage and it becomes almost meditative for me when I play."

One of her tours was with a string quintet, recorded and released as Live in Scandinavia (2007) and featured Nina Kinert and the guitarist Staffan Johansson. It includes songs from Brun's first two albums with new string arrangements by Malene Bay-Foged.

Later work, 2008–2013

In 2008, Brun released her third studio album, Changing of the Seasons, which was produced by Valgeir Sigurðsson. It included string arrangements by American composer Nico Muhly (Antony and the Johnsons, Grizzly Bear, The Reader soundtrack). Later the same year came the album Sketches, which included acoustic demo versions of the songs from Changing of the Seasons. The Sketches tour featured a stripped down, sparse sound, this time touring with musicians Rebekka Karijord, Jennie Abrahamson, and Linnea Olsson; there were memorable gigs in places such as the Union Chapel in London.

Back on the road, a concert at the Stockholm Concert Hall was filmed and released as an album and live DVD in 2009. Later that year, Brun organised the No More Lullabies concert to bring attention to the issues of climate justice. She assembled 24 well-known Swedish artists such as Robyn, Loney, Dear, Titiyo, and Benny Andersson of ABBA to take part in seven hours of live music and visuals to mark the International Day of Climate Action on 24 October 2009. They succeeded in drawing attention to the issue before the upcoming COP15 conference.

Brun featured as one of the guests on Peter Gabriel's 2011 studio album New Blood, singing Kate Bush's part on the re-recorded version of "Don't Give Up", recorded in 2010. She was subsequently invited to perform with him as support act and back-up singer on the New Blood tour throughout 2010.

In late 2011, Brun released her sixth studio album, It All Starts with One, produced by Tobias Fröberg.

On 11 March 2013, Brun performed her own adaptation of Dido's Lament, from Dido and Aeneas by Henry Purcell, at The Roundhouse in London.

In May 2013, Brun released a 32-track collection of songs from her first 10 years in the music industry, entitled Songs 2003–2013, which included four new songs. In October 2013, she released a 20-track collection of covers and outtakes entitled Rarities without pre-promotion.

2015–2020
In 2015, Brun released her seventh studio album, titled When I'm Free. This was followed in 2017 by Leave Me Breathless, a collection of covers of songs by diverse artists including Foreigner, Mariah Carey, and Radiohead. In 2020, the artist released two albums of original material in close succession. At first intended to be a double album, they were issued separately as After the Great Storm in October and How Beauty Holds the Hand of Sorrow in November. The two albums were nominated for IMPALA's European Independent Album of the Year Award.

Personal life
Brun was diagnosed with lupus erythematosus at the age of 27, and a lupus flareup in 2012 had her cancel a North American tour with Peter Gabriel.

Albums
Studio albums

Live albums

Compilations

EPs

 * 2001: What I Want
 * 2001: Wooden Body
 * 2004: My Lover Will Go
 * 2012: Do You Remember

DVDs

 * 2009: Live at Stockholm Concert Hall (also released as an album in Sweden)

Also appears on

 * Songs of the Siren (Starbucks Hear Music, 2013)
 * Beginner's Guide to Scandinavia 3-CD album (2011)
 * "Don't Give Up" New Blood (Peter Gabriel, 2011)
 * "Don't Give Up" Live Blood (Peter Gabriel, 2012)
 * In My Last Life (Andrew Bayer, 2018)''

title: Ane Brun


text:
Talk:Peter D. Mitchell

Untitled
Well, Saier's biography of Peter Mitchell has many good pictures in it, and I did consider to take some pictures from there. But the problem is that they are relatively recent (after 1923 anyway), so I decided against that because of copyright issues. If you want to look into that, perhaps send an email to Saier to ask him about it, be my guest. JdH 10:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Can this be merged with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Mitchell_%28Chemist%29 ?

Yes. If you need help, let me know. --JWSchmidt 16:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Completed merge JDH 9:45, 28 January 2006

The Older Article Was Better
The present version of this article gives an entirely false account of the history of science. The article begins “... the mechanism by which ATP was created in the [sic] mitochondria was assumed to be by [sic] substrate-level phosphorylation.” Grammatical quibblings aside, this statement is factually incorrrect.

The actual situation in the 1960s was summarized by Nicholls and Ferguson (Nicholls DG, Ferguson SJ. Bioenergetics 2. Academic Press, 1992) as follows:

 * By analogy to the only reactions in which a detailed mechanism of ATP synthesis was available, namely the phosphorylations (traditionally known as substrate-level phosphorylation) in glycolysis and the citric acid cycle in which thioesters participate as reaction intermediates, it was reasonable to expect that the common energy-transducing entity would be a chemical ‘high energy’ intermediate, usually referred to by the short-hand ‘squiggle’. Despite a number of false starts, no 'squiggle' was ever found.

In other words, the mechanism by which ATP was created in mitochondria was entirely unknown.

The article goes on “...At the time, oxidative phosphorylation was unknown as a biochemical mechanism to make ATP.” Actually, oxidative phosphorylation was well-known at the time. It was, in fact, was the central focus of biochemical research at the time. Biochemists knew that mitochondria did this thing, but they didn’t know how they did it. It was the mechanism that was unknown, not the phenomenon.

Nicholls and Ferguson continue:

 * As so often in science, the solution was simple and elegant. Peter Mitchell...

and they go on to discuss Mitchell’s unique, original, and extremely controversial “chemiosmotic theory.” Readers who would like additional information about Mitchell’s almost fairy-tale story (a young biochemist discovers the secret of life, is universally scorned and neglected by organized science but continues to pursue his vision at great personal expense, and 20 years later is vindicated and receives the Nobel Prize) should consult Gilbert and Mulkay’s sociological analysis (Gilbert GN, Mulkay M.  Opening Pandaora’s Box. Cambridge University Press, 1984). The book contains extensive quotations from the “grand old men” of biochemistry at the time, all of whom are now thoroughly discredited.. It is a wonderful cautionary tale about the importance of keeping an open mind in science.

This Wikipedia article is about Peter Mitchell and the history of science. It is not an article about oxidative phosphorylation or modern biochemistry. Nevertheless, Mitchell’s “theory” ( and it is a “theory” in the same sense that evolution is a “theory”) can be explained in modern terms to the interested reader. Unfortunately, the article as it stands presents an incorrect and misleading explanation.

The article says “...the movement of ions across a membrane had an electrochemical potential to do work that could be utilized to produce ATP.” Of course, this is nonsense. It is the charge separation and difference in the concentration of ions that has the potential to do work, not the movement of ions. The exact mechanism by which this electrochemical (“chemiosmotic”) potential is used to produce ATP is another story (also a Nobel Prize winner) that can be pursued by looking up “ATP synthase” in Wikipedia.

On the whole, I think that the article should be reverted to an earlier version. I also think that the biography of Peter Mitchell should be expanded, not deleted. Earlier versions of this article contained a lot more biographical information, and this is precisely the information I would expect in an article about Peter Mitchell. Btarski 21:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I see no gross factual errors in the section on the Chemiosmotic hypothesis; perhaps some minor semantic issues, but that is all. David D. made some editorial changes a few months back, and I thought that those changes were really improvements. He took out some peacock words, and made some other improvements, but the basic story did not change. I take it that you disagree with the sentence Mitchell realised that the movement of ions across a membrane had an electrochemical potential to do work that could be utilised to produce ATP. That sentence is correct in that ions do have to move across the membrane in order to mobilize the electrochemical energy to synthesize ATP; however, the words electrochemical potential are somewhat confusing in this context. Some minor editing of that sentence should fix that. The bigger issue really is that the paragraph on electrochemical potential has a lot of overlap with the articles on electrochemical potential, membrane potential, and oxidative phosphorylation. So I think that all what should be mentioned in this article is a couple of sentences summarizing Mitchell's contribution to the field, with proper wikilinks to those other articles. Most of the paragraph on electrochemical potential can be merged into the article on electrochemical potential. I agree that this article should focus on Mitchell's biography; this is not the proper place for an in depth discussion of membrane potentials and all that. But AFAIK little or no biographical data has been removed since I merged Peter Mitchell (chemist) into this article, back in January. Unfortunately, little was added since then either. So yes, I wholeheartedly agree that the biographical section needs extension; the question is who is going to do that. Milton Saier's . Peter Mitchell Biography contains a lot of good information. JdH 22:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

My changes were more to get rid of the POV and the stylistic language. I removed this following sentence, for example:
 * "it was well known in the 1960s that ATP was the energy currency of life, but the mechanism by which ATP was created ("oxidative phosphorylation") was entirely unknown and quite mysterious."

Froim what you have written above i don't think this is the version you want to revert to. Which is your preferred version? Why don't you just go in and correct the current version? Some of your issues mentioned above would be quite trivial edits. For the record i dod not remove any of his biographical information. i look forward to see how you improve this article. David D. (Talk) 22:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Btarski, what i find very strange is that you added the sentence I mention above. Do you think that stylistically "entirely unknown and quite mysterious" is appropriate language? I also think you are making a big deal over the substrate level phosphorylation. The paragraph from Nicholls and Ferguson that you quote above seems to confirm that the scientists of the time were doing experiments to try and find evidence for substrate level phosphorylation.  The fact they had not found them does not mean they had stopped looking does it? I assume what stopped them looking was Mitchell's hypothesis that did a much better job of accounting for all the available data.  I acknowledge that I have not read a single Mitchell biography but it is not that far from what your own preferred position. Do we know for sure that they had absolutely ruled out substrate level phophorylation as a mechanism before the 60's? Again, i am open to any changes you wish to make.
 * While you are here, do you plan on working on the ETC article? You mentioned six weeks ago that you wanted to reorganise the article but I have not seen any edits since then? David D. (Talk) 23:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: Btarski
Let me try to make my comments perfectly clear. It is important to distinguish between the history of science, on the one hand, and modern scientific understanding on the other.

For example, in reading about Copernicus, it is important to understand that most people at the time believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth. It was self-evident. In order to appreciate Copernicus you have to understand the historical context. Otherwise, it’s like “duh, everybody knows that”.

The present article is historically incorrect. It confuses modern understanding with the historical context. I supplied a few references, but this is just the tip of the iceberg. Peter Mitchell was one of those rare geniuses who produced a paradigm shift in his own lifetime. The only comparable biologists I know of are Barbara McClintock, Watson & Crick and Lorente de No.

The main point of my comments has to do with the history of science, not with “Science” itself. History is a specialized field, and unless one claims to be an expert, one should leave it to the experts.

I regret quibbling about the description of Mitchell’s theory, which is framed in modern terms in the article. The article’s description is preposterous from a thermodynamic viewpoint, but the number of Wikipedia readers who know anything about thermodynamics, or who could care less, is probably vanishingly small. It makes very little difference how a summary of chemo-osmosos is presented in a Biography of Peter Mitchell. The point should be historical accuracy.

I learned a long time ago that Wikipedia readers with a degree in chemistry experience an overwhelming compulsion to revise chemistry articles in order to fit them into (or to force them to conform with) their own personal knowledge of chemistry. In general, this is a good thing, one of the main strengths of Wikipedia. However, such revisions are entirely inappropriate in an article on the History of Science, such as a biographical article on Peter Mitchell. The emphasis should be on the historical context, not on modern understanding.

I do not want to get involved in a discussion of how stupid it is to consider ion movements, as opposed to electrochemical potential gradients, in a discussion of the Mitchell Hypothesis. Peter Mitchell knew a lot more about thermodynamics than I ever will (it was his field of specialization) and I would recommend that technical descriptions of Mitchell’s proton-motive force be relegated to other articles. There is no sense in quibbling about thermodynamics in this article.

My point is that the article is supposed to be a biography of Peter Mitchell, not a forum for discussion and endless revisions of the modern viewpoint. It is an historical article, and Mitchell’s Nobel-Prize-winning insight should be acknowledge for what it was: a landmark discovery in the history of science. It should be prsented in its proper historical context.

I very much appreciate your kind words, but I am not willing to undertake a major revision of this article. My suggestion is to revert it to an earlier, more historically accurate version.

Btarski 00:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Which version are you wishing to revert too? And what about the substrate level phosporylation? That is definitely important from a historical context since it was the working hypothesis for many in the field at the time. I am still not clear if you saying that most people had already discounted it as a mechanism and were searching for the 'mysterious', or whether they were still seeking alternative high energy metabolites. David D. (Talk) 04:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

 * If the purpose of that section is to place Mitchell's contribution in a historical context then I believe it misses the most important point. Which is that the "scientific establishment" of the time did not accept his ideas, and Mitchell had a hard time to get his papers published in peer reviewed journals. Saier's biography on Mitchell has the following about that issue:
 * Because Peter's scientific ideas were not in general acceptance by the scientific community, the peer review system utilized for evaluation of submitted manuscripts for publication in scientific journals sometimes resulted in harsh criticism of the ideas and experimental results generated at Glynn. Additionally, the scientific journals sometimes had rigid requirements of style and length which proved annoying. In response, Peter, who had written lengthy treatises on his ideas regarding oxidative and photosynthetic phosphorylation had his own articles and books privately printed, sending these primarily to friends and colleagues who were favorably inclined to his ideas.
 * and
 * The more important and novel a theory is, the more it is likely to be attacked and berated. Two of the more vociferous critics of the first chemiosmotic hypothesis were Britton Chance in Philadelphia who for a long time believed in direct chemical coupling as an explanation for oxidative phosphorylation and Paul Boyer in Los Angeles who first believed in chemical coupling and then switched to a "conformational" model in which electron flow through the electron transfer chain was suggested to induce membrane protein conformational changes.
 * The controversy was resolved in the well-known joint publication (Boyer, P.D., B. Chance, L. Ernster, P. Mitchell, E. Racker and E.C. Slater. 1977. Oxidative phosphorylation and photophosphorylation. Ann. Rev. Biochem. 46:955-1026.), in which the general acceptance of the essential principles of Mitchell's chemiosmotic hypothesis was announced. JdH 10:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree.

ATP was discovered in the 1940s. In the 1950s, the mechanisms of substrate-level phosphorylation were discovered. Unfortunately, these accounted for only a small fraction of the energy produced by the cell. The vast majority of ATP is produced by oxidative phosphorylation. It was initially assumed that the mechanism of oxidative phosphorylation would be similar to the mechanism of substrate-level phosphorylation (These and subsequent quotations are from Gilbert and Mulky's Opening Pandora's Box):

 * They were quite convinced that electron transport was going to be just as easy a thing to sort out as glycolysis in solution. You had to have a series of carriers.  Admittedly these things were not readily purified, but it became apparent that they reacted in an orderly sequence in the membrane.  The game was spot the missing factor.

 * I think at the time the general view in the field was that you could make ATP in a soluble system, so all you had to do was throw in some cytochrome C, take ADP and phosphate, and then take a proposed intermediate enzyme, which made ATP.

In the 1960s it became apparent that this approach was not working, and that some other mechanism must be involved:

 * I worked on that system for the better part of three years . . . and the net result is that we could never really show any specificity of the enzyme in terms of its interaction with cytochrome C . . . It never occurred to me that people could say things like this, very important people, and turn out to be completely wrong . . . I thought well, the field is really screwed up . . . and I didn’t believe half the stuff that was published, because I saw that we were dealing in this field with people who had very strong egos, who were trying to get an answer very rapidly, and who weren’t cautious about what they were trying to do

 * During this same period, two other theories to explain oxidative phosphorylation were proposed . . . [the] “conformational coupling” hypothesis, formulated in 1964, suggested that the energy necessary for the formation of ATP was not stored as a chemical intermediate or as an electrochemical gradient, but as changes in the conformation or shape of the molecules in the mitochondrial membrane . . . [In another theory] the coupling between the respiratory chain and ATP synthesis was conceived in terms of mechanical movements of the membrane.

It was during this period that Mitchell formulated his chemiosmotic hypothesis. The first paper outlining his ideas in relation to oxidative phosphorylation was published in 1961. The initial reaction to Mitchell’s theory was less than enthusiastic:

 * It was during this period of time when I came in 1964 that everybody was thinking of chemical mechanisms for how ATP would be made in a soluble system. And it was only then, at that stage of the game, that [Mitchell] came out with his early papers in Nature, and then finally those two little books that he sent me, in which he emphasized that all biological systems that carry out the synthesis of ATP are membrane systems and they are all closed systems and that nobody had ever isolated a chemical intermediate before and so maybe they didn’t exist.  Which was a little far-fetched, because you’ve got to have chemical intermediates to make ATP.

 * When I came here, I knew nothing. All the seminars they had here were just incomprehensible, but it was clear that everybody was against [Mitchell] heavily at that time and he wasn’t doing too well.  There was a lot of evidence against his ideas.  The movement toward accepting it . . . was due to a lot of young people coming in.

 * Until the 70s, at least in some of the major labs in the field, nobody had made the effort to understand the chemiosmotic hypothesis. It’s pretty obvious from the kind of things that they were saying at conferences or in papers, and a number of people who “disproved” the chemiosmotic hypothesis that they were just making trivial physical-chemical mistakes, that sort of thing.

In 1978, Mitchell was awarded the Nobel Prize.

Btarski 20:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

 * We are making some progress :-) But I believe that there is more behind those "Oxphos Wars" that raged for 15 years from 1961 to 1975. Part of what was going on is that Mitchell's background was different: he was a microbiologist who was interested in membrane physiology, while his major opponents were biochemists or biophysicists. So Mitchell knew that there were differences in ion concentrations across cell membranes, and from basic thermodynamic principles one has got to conclude that it is going to take energy to maintain those concentration differences. From those considerations Mitchell came up (late 1950s, hence preceeding his chemiosmotic hypothesis) with something he called Vectorial chemistry. This is a generalized concept of how he thought that enzymes might work: substrates come in at one side of the enzyme, move through a channel, and the enzyme products come out at the other end. A fundamental coupling of transport and chemistry so to speak. Ion pumps which are embedded in a cell membrane are a special case of this vectorial chemistry. AFAIK Mitchell believed in this vectorial chemistry until the end, see eg,  and  The really interesting issue is that this vectorial chemistry is totally wrong: That is not how enzymes work. So the  'grand old men' were absolutely right in opposing that. Recent work has demonstrated that F0F1-ATP synthase in fact works like a nanoscale protein motor, see: e.g.  and  So here is the real kicker: Out of a hairbrained idea that was totally wrong (=vectorial chemistry) came something that was absolutely right (=chemiosmotic hypothesis) JdH 14:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. ..

Your characterization of Peter Mitchell as being right for the wrong reasons is new to me. It is a delightful insight into history, and my initial reaction is that you are probably right.

My own personal take on Mitchell is much more in the realm of hero worship. I regard him as one of the great geniuses in the history of science.

Before getting in to my personal views, however, I would like to take a brief digression into the Wikipedia article on Peter Mitchell. I started off by saying that the previous versions were better, and I think that I can now support this assertion when it comes to the subject of oxidative phosphorylation:

REVISION 1.0.0
The present version:

 * In the 1960s, ATP was known to be the energy currency of life, but the mechanism by which ATP was created in the mitochondria was assumed to be by substrate-level phosphorylation. Mitchell’s chemiosmotic hypothesis was the basis for understanding the actual process of oxidative phosphorylation.

The previous version:

 * It was well known in the 1960s that ATP was the energy currency of life, but the mechanism by which ATP was created (“oxidative phosphorylation”) was entirely unknown and quite mysterious.

I think that the current Wikipedia version states the facts incorrectly, and that the previous version states the facts more accurately. It is true that the state of the art in the 1950s (not the 1960s) was that “substrate-level phosphoylation” was assumed to be the only possible mechanism of ATP synthesis. By the 1960s, however, it had became obvious that this “theory” was a dead end, and that a new theory was needed.. The mechanism of ATP synthesis was quite mysterious. One experiment after another failed to find any trace of the classical “high-energy intermediate” (also known as “squiggle”) that would explain oxidative phosphorylation. This is where Peter Mitchell came in.

I can see how a teacher might, for didactic purposes, simplify history for his students by saying that the ongoing theory at the time was substrate-level phosphorylation. But in fact there was no ongoing theory at the time. To say that substrate-level phjosphorylation was “assumed to be” the mechanism of ATP synthesis is a mischaracterization of the “Oxphos Wars.” Students who have been taught this incorrect piece of historical trivia need to learn a little more about the subject before they start revising Wikipedia articles.

I recommend reversion to a previous version of the article.

 * Too be frank your criticism of my edits is getting very personal. I am happy to work with you here but can you stop with this kind if stuff: "need to learn a little more about the subject before they start revising Wikipedia articles."? This is an ad hom argument and is pretty unwarranted given the subtlty of your criticism. I think what I wrote can be improved but i think if we are going to work towards improvement, just reverting to your old version does not cut it. There were good reason i made the edits throughout the article, primarily because your admitted hero worship was obvious.  It was too POV for an encylopedic content.

 * With regard to the sentence you discuss above. The facts as stated in your own version seem to be unclear, for example: "but the mechanism by which ATP was created (“oxidative phosphorylation”)". This gives the impression that all ATP comes from oxidative phosphorylation. Obviously this is not what you meant but it's how it comes across. The following part of the sentence continues, "was entirely unknown and quite mysterious." In my opinion this is too much hyperbole and should be toned down. Some thing along the lines of: "by the 1960's scientists had failed to discover a ............ and were struggling to identify the mechanism for the ATP produced during aerobic respirtation".  That is just off the top of my head, but it seems a more appropriate style for an encylopedia. David D. (Talk) 03:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Thinking a bit more about this: I think the problem in the early 1960s was that the field of ox phos had been subdivided into little pieces. There were people who were interested in the bioenergetics; they wanted to understand how the energy is transduced for synthesizing ATP. Then there were enzymologists, who wanted to understand the protein structure and the mechanism of the specific enzymes involved. And then there were microbiologists who were interested in membrane physiology and transport processes. So all the pieces were in place, and all the right questions were being asked, but what was lacking was the big picture, the vista so to speak. People couldn't see the forest through the trees. Biochemists and biophysicists like to analyze the problem in separate little pieces, and after they understand the little pieces integrate it into a big picture. But that analytical approach does not work for ox phos. Mitchell's chemiosmotic hypothesis provided the big picture, but people had a hard time to recognize that because he did not provide the answer for the specific sub-questions they were interested in. JdH 15:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion (Cont’d)
Peter Mitchell may have been right for the wrong reasons, but this in no way detracts from his genius. You mention his background. I think that his background is well worth knowing about in more detail.

As a graduate student at Cambridge, Peter Mitchell

 * . . . would carry out a large number of small, rather inconclusive experiments which enabled him to develop his theory of what was occurring. Then he would design one massive all-inclusive experiment based on the results of all the preliminary tests – and that, if it worked, was that.  To any one outside of the department, much of his early work seemed to be incomplete because he left out those tests or controls which were discarded during the preliminary work.  I well remember sitting next to Hans Krebs at a meeting of the Biochemical Society when Peter first gave a major paper on his work on energy transfer . . . Krebs steadily became more and more incensed and muttered  “But in he hasn’t done the controls.”

Mitchell submitted a PhD thesis that was rejected. He flunked Cambridge.

Apparently only a few pages of his original thesis survive, but I think they are extremely telling:

 * In the second paragraph, Mitchell cites Heraclitus, along with Seneca’s comments on Heraclitus’s famous dictum that one cannot step into the same river twice.  He notes that the same is true of a human, whose identity persists but whose substance is constantly being changed.  In the same paragraph he cites Walter de la Mare’s little verse about Miss T. that includes the lines “Whatever Miss T. eats, turns into Miss T.” . . . This was followed by a mathematical theory of diffusion and distribution of substances within cells . ..

During his philosophical period, Mitchell sought the professional opinion of the Department of Philosophy at Cambridge. He is quoted as saying

 * There was a man called Wisdom in those days who more or less told me I was a nit.

In other words, Mitchell was a serious contender from the outset, a fact which a number of the Grand Old Men in science at the time came to appreciate only in retrospect, to their everlasting regret.

The above quotations are from Wandering in the Gardens of the Mind, a 324-page biography of Peter Mitchell by John Prebble and Bruce Weber (Oxford University Press, 2003). This, together with Opening Pandora’s Box, contains essentially all of the original source material that is available to the general reader (e.g. yours truly). If I get around to it I would like to make a further case regarding the description of Mitchell’s theory in the present version of the Wikipedia article, but for the moment I stand by my original assertion that the entire article should be reverted.

Btarski 03:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I find it hard to find objective evaluations of Mitchell's contributions; the people who write the histories were too much personally involved. In particular, I would like to hear the story from "the other side", i.e. from Chance and Boyer, if it exists. Be that as it may, there is a highly unusual comment from Bo G. Malmström in Nature . Unusual in the sense that Malmström was the chairman of the committee that recommended to award the 1978 Nobel Prize for Chemistry to Peter Mitchell. I always thought that the Nobel prize committees never give a public justification for their recommendations, but in this case they made an exception. The bottomline: The committee was well aware of the fact that Mitchell was wrong about how the proton gradient is created (proton pumps rather than redox loops) and how it is utilized to make ATP (conformational coupling rather than mass action). This is why the academy's citation read rather vaguely "for the contribution to the understanding of energy transfer through the formulation of the chemiosmotic theory". JdH 07:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Peter Mitchell was right for the wrong reasons.

This of course makes a description of the original chemiosmotic hypothesis rather difficult. We have to distinguish between what was right (his Nobel-winning insight into the role of membranes in biological systems) and what was wrong (almost all of the details).

Now for a brief digression. ..

Revision 1.0.1
One way around this is to avoid any detailed description of the theory. This was the approach taken in a previous version:

 * It was also well known in the 1960s that all living cells had a membrane potential, interior negative to the environment, such that both electrical forces (the attraction of plus to minus charges) and thermodynamic forces (the tendency of a substance to diffuse downhill from regions of higher concentration) had the potential to do work, to produce energy.

 * Peter Mitchell wondered why this was so. Why do all living cells have membrane potentials?

 * He went on to prove that ATP was created by this electrochemical gradient.

An alternate approach is to describe Mitchell’s theory in detail (bearing in mind that this article is supposed to be a biography of Peter Mitchell, not a scientific treatise). The present version of the article takes the second approach:

 * Mitchell realized that the movement of ions across a electrochemical membrane potential could provide the energy needed to produce ATP. His hypothesis was derived from information that was well known in the 1960's.  He knew that living cells had a membrane potential; interior negative to the environment.  The movement of charged ions across a membrane is thus affected by the electrical forces (the attraction of plus to minus charges).  Their movement is also affected by thermodynamic forces, the the tendency of substances to diffuse from regions of higher concentration.  He went on to prove that ATP synthesis was coupled to this electrochemical gradient.

Unfortunately, this description is wrong, both in terms of Mitchell’s original theory and in terms of modern versions of the theory.

Lehninger (Principles of Biochemistry, 4th ed., 2005) provides the following summary of chemiosmosis:

 * The electrochemical energy inherent in the difference in proton concentration and separation of charges across the inner mitochondrial membrane – the proton-motive force – drives the synthesis of ATP as protons flow passively back into the matrix through a proton pore associated with ATP synthase.

 * Although ATP synthase equilibrates ATP with ADP + Pi, in the absence of a proton gradient the newly synthesized ATP does not leave the surface of the enzyme. It is the proton gradient that causes the enzyme to release the ATP formed on its surface . . . For the continued synthesis of ATP, the enzyme must cycle between a form that binds ATP very tightly and a form that releases ATP.

In general I would recommend the former approach in a Wikipedia article intended for the general public. The subject rapidly becomes very technical and very complicated. I think it would be better to link to a discussion of chemiosmosis rather than to attempt one in this article.

I recommend reversion to a previous version.

 * flow passively back into the matrix!!?? I find it hard to believe that Lehninger said a silly thing like that. Unfortunately I don't have the 2005 version of Lehninger's book, so I can't check out what the context is of that statement; he is got to be smarter than that! Please check out Capaldi's and Aggeler's review: for an explanation of the mechanism of F(1)F(0)-type ATP synthase. The emerging consensus is that the enzyme is constructed as two rotary motors, one in the F1 part that links catalytic site events with movements of an internal rotor, and the other in the F0 part, linking proton translocation to movements of this F0 rotor. What those protons do when they flow back is turn the F0 rotor which then turns the F1 rotor; i.e: The electrochemical energy is used to drive the conformational changes of the F1 subunit during ATP synthesis. If those protons were to flow passively back the electrochemical energy would be lost, and no ATP would be synthesized. JdH 06:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I don’t think it’s as bad as all that. I took it to mean that Lehninger was contrasting “active transport” (the proton pump) with “passive transport” (movement down electrical and concentration gradients).  An old distinction, to be sure, but then Lehninger is no spring chicken.

 * “Passive” movements also have an associated Gibbs free energy change that can be coupled (by a clever enzyme) to a conformational change. Btarski 12:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

 * That is muddled language; can we at least agree that we will use unambiguous language to explain what is going on? The version you want to restore states "He went on to prove that ATP was created by this electrochemical gradient." That is sentence is ambiguous at best, and plain wrong at worst. "Gradients" or "potentials" don't create ATP or anything else for that matter. Neither do apples that hang in trees: it is only after they fall from the tree on somebody's head that they perform mechanical work, and trigger a response. JdH 12:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Good point. How about "He went on to show that the energy of this electrochemical gradient was used to make ATP." ? Btarski 19:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion (Cont’d)
I think that the essence of Mitchell’s theory was the recognition that biological membranes (and hence “vectors” across membranes) play a central role in all living organisms.

In the 1960s, the controversy over Hodgkin and Huxley’s theory of the action potential had finally been resolved in their favor. Every biologist in the1960s knew about this, but only one (Peter Mitchell) took the next logical step. Why do all cells, not just neural cells, have a membrane potential?

Mitchell’s “vectorial” theories supplied the missing piece in what was then the main conundrum in an entirely separate area of science, the biochemistry of ATP synthesis. To find the “squiggle,” the high-energy intermediate, the biochemists needed to look no further than cell membrane itself, which already had a built-in energy potential.

Btarski 20:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Peter D. Mitchell


text:
Gornji Hrašćan

Gornji Hrašćan (Drávacsány) is a village in Međimurje County in northern Croatia. It is located six kilometres west from the county seat Čakovec, approximately halfway between the city and the Croatian-Slovenian border-crossing point in Trnovec. The village is part of the municipality of Nedelišće and its population in the 2011 census was 910.

The name Hrašćan is derived from hrast, the Croatian word for oak, while gornji means upper and is included in the name to distinguish the village from Donji Hrašćan, a smaller village also located in Međimurje.

Dražen Ladić, former goalkeeper of the Croatia national football team and won the bronze medal at the 1998 FIFA World Cup in France, grew up in the village.

In 2008, a memorial-cross was raised to honour those killed by the Yugoslav Partisans in 1945. In 2009, the remains of some of the victims were discovered by chance during a commercial excavation in the area. The remains of between 30 and 40 people were exhumed and have been temporarily reburied in Čakovec.

title: Gornji Hrašćan


text: Wikipedia:POTD/August 21, 2005

title: Wikipedia:POTD/August 21, 2005


text:
Bog snorkelling

Bog snorkelling is a sporting event where competitors aim to complete two consecutive lengths of a 60 yds water-filled trench cut through a peat bog in the shortest time possible, wearing traditional snorkel, diving mask and flippers. They complete the course without swimming, relying on flipper power alone.

The women's world record stands at 1 minute 22.56 seconds by Kirsty Johnson in 2014. The men's world record was set by Neil Rutter in 2018, with a time of 1 min 18.81 seconds. Both were set at the Waen Rhydd bog, Llanwrtyd Wells in Wales.

Rules

 * A water-filled trench 60 yds in length must be cut through a peat bog by the organisers.
 * Competitors must wear snorkels, masks and flippers.
 * A wetsuit is not compulsory, but is often worn.
 * Bog snorkelling competitors must traverse two consecutive lengths totalling 120 yds in the shortest time possible.
 * The course must be completed without using conventional swimming strokes, relying on flipper power alone.

World Bog Snorkelling Championship
The World Bog Snorkelling Championship, first held in 1985, takes place every August Bank Holiday in the dense Waen Rhydd peat bog, near Llanwrtyd Wells in mid Wales. Competitors travel from as far afield as Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, England, Finland, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Wales and the US.

Other bog snorkelling events take place, particularly in Wales, but also in Australia, Ireland, and Sweden. These include the Bog Snorkelling Triathlon, which consists of a 120 yd snorkel, a 19 mi bike ride and a 7+1/2 mi run.

Proceeds from the World Championship go to a local charity each year. Past recipients include the Cystic Fibrosis Trust (2005) and the Motor Neurone Association (2006). The 2006 charity was chosen in memory of the Green Events treasurer, Ron Skilton, who died in December 2005.

In popular culture

 * 2019 - Royal Mail issue a collectable stamps edition of UK Weird and Wonderful Customs which includes Bog snorkelling at Llanwrtyd Wells, World Gurning Championship at Egremont, Up Helly Aa in Lerwick, Burning the Clocks in Brighton, 'Obby 'Oss festival in Padstow, Samhain Celtic festival (Halloween) at Derry, Horn Dance at Abbots Bromley and Cheese-Rolling at Cooper's Hill.

title: Bog snorkelling


text: Category:Volcanoes of Tonga

title: Category:Volcanoes of Tonga


text: User talk:85.99.157.95

title: User talk:85.99.157.95