text:
Talk:Hugh Jackman

Movies in preparation
(source http://www.allocine.fr/personne/fichepersonne-33385/filmographie/ )

YEAR TITLE ROLE

2020 Apostle - Paul Paul -

2020 Real Steel 2 - Charlie Kenton -

2019 The Front Runner - Gary Hart -

2018 Enzo Ferrari: The Man, the Cars, the Races - Enzo Ferrari -

2017 The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian - -

2017 The Greatest Showman - P.T. Barnum (this title is already in Wikipedia article, contrary to preceding list) (see interviews about spectacular advance-screening/early-preview, linked to the world of circus)

Movies already done and released (visible in pictuers rooms, in fact they already have a note on allocine) :

YEAR TITLE ROLE / note by allociné-users (sometimes different from "press" note ; also compare medium "speednote" and medium "websurfer taking time to redact a critique" note)

2017 Barbra: The Music…The Mem’ries…The Magic! Himself 3,2

2017 Logan Logan / Wolverine 4,2 (this title is already in Wikipedia article, contrary to preceding)

... I have clicked only till 2017. (Who?) should click from 2016 till oldest to check if Wikipedia was so exhaustive than French movie database. ( http://www.allocine.fr/personne/fichepersonne-33385/filmographie/ Sorry to be a bit lazzy i have not read nor compared to IMdb)

Magnon86 (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)magnon86

Split proposal
Could we please split the discography section into its own article, and then we can resolve any further disputes there? I think there's enough content there to not only warrant its own article, but also be separate from the screen and stage article.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs) 13:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please tell me regarding the Hugh Jackman Discography dispute, how I am the one making the change?. If you look in the edit history you'll find that I'm reverting it back to the original which is where it should say until a discussion has been concluded. Mn1548 (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

 * No need to ping me, as I am watching this page. As the person who added the entire section, if someone reverts you in whole or in part, that's WP:BRD. If you weren't already, you're now getting into edit warring territory.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs) 05:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

 * According to WP:BRD because I am reverting it back to the original I am in the right and any discussion should occur with the original table still on the page. I am still waiting for a proper discussion from the person who wants the change to be made and until he/she is willing to partake in one, the table will and should remain in its original form until the discussion is concluded. Mn1548 (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

We could rename Hugh Jackman on screen and stage to List of Hugh Jackman performances and move the discography section to that page. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * alternate proposal

Having said that, it's not necessary to have such a detailed discography section for an actor's page. Jackman is not a professional singer, and neither is Michelle Williams (in context to this addition to her page). Hence, something similar to the discography section in Amy Adams' page would be more suitable in both cases. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

 * Hugh Jackman is a professional singer. Michelle Williams, Nicole Kidman etc cases are totally different. They are not professional singers they just appeared on the soundtrack but singing is part of Jackman's career, he's had concerts around the world. CerberaOdollam (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. In that case a split might be warranted if the list of songs is significant enough. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that just mentioning the albums where the actor has been accredited is enough. The rest of the information can be found in their respective articles, such as the positions in the lists, the production and the rest. Last year I proposed this here, and there was consensus on the part of the most active editors of that article.-- Philip J Fry   Talk  17:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think if the list of songs is significant enough then a split is warranted. A similar thing needs to occur with Zac Efron as like Jackman, singing is a significant part of his career. Mn1548 (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

 * Split: There is enough content and although listed as a singer I think Jackman is far more notable for his international acting career, at this point anyway, and a split could prevent a lowering of the article's classification. Otr500 (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Don’t split All of these performances are for characters... not an actual recording artist career. These are not his albums, they’re movie soundtracks. Doesn’t make sense.Trillfendi (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Article issues
Likely unchecked additions but as this is a B-class article would someone please take a look at the following issues?:
 * Reference structure. At a point, and many later additions, the structure of the references have degraded.
 * "External links": There are too many as to have already entered the realm of linkfarming. Otr500 (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2018
Could an online citation please be added to footnote Jackman's birthdate, in addition to the offline citation? It would make it easier for most users than having to find a library to look up a back issue of EW. For example:. --2604:2000:1382:C5DD:C068:CE9D:D43F:C9C (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done programming Geek (talk, contribs) 16:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2019
Add more content to the section titled "Charity Work" to include Jackman's work with Laughing Man Coffee, a foundation that supports coffee farming communities by investing in programs that clear the way to health, growth, and success for coffee farmers and their families.

In 2009, Hugh Jackman traveled to Ethiopia to visit a community development project and met a young coffee farmer named Dukale, working to lift his family out of poverty. Inspired by Dukale’s story, Jackman launched Laughing Man Coffee in 2011 to provide a marketplace for farmers in developing countries to sell their goods to consumers in the U.S. As part of his ongoing commitment, Hugh contributes 100% of his profits to the Laughing Man Foundation, which he created to support educational programs, community development and social entrepreneurs around the world. MarkSebarrotin (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done NiciVampireHeart 16:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2020
Hugh Jackman is also the CEO of laughing man coffee 2.55.188.225 (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — KuyaBriBri Talk 16:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

RFC about listing singer in lead sentence
Should singer be included in the lead sentence? JDDJS ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 18:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Include He has sung in many films and stage shows and even won a Grammy award for singing on The Greatest Showman (soundtrack). The biggest evidence of his notability as a singer though, is that he has had many concerts, including a world tour. He clearly is notable as a singer and the lead should reflect that. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 18:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't Include. This may be fine to acknowledge in the lead, but not in the first sentence. The evidence for inclusion seems to be largely based on OR. The fact that he had some singing roles in a couple of films does not automatically make him notable as a singer. Even winning a Grammy for best Compilation Soundtrack for Visual Media does not automatically make someone a notable singer. Sources have to consistently refer to him as a singer before we can. I see a bevy of sources that refer to him as an actor (and sometimes as a performer or producer) but I'm struggling to find sources don't refer to him as a singer. If a healthy number of sources can be produced, then I'm willing to change my !vote. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Include He has performed in various venues, Broadway, films, etc. His latest Grammy award for singing in The Greatest Showman (soundtrack) is recent and relevant to this topic. For these reasons, I believe that the lead should include "singer".  Jurisdicta m Talk
 * Don't Include. per logic of Dr.Swag Lord, he simply isn't referred to as such. The limited coverage appears to sometimes refer to him as a performer in musicals, rather than a singer and deserves mention as such in the lead, but not in sentence one as a 'singer'. Pincrete (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Lead yes, lead sentence no. per above. — Ched (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Include. He is known for his singing performances in musicals on Broadway and worldwide (and in films) and in his own concerts (like Carnegie Hall) and concert tours. He is definitely an "actor and singer". -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Exclude Not supported by WP:RS. Even if he "sings" on stage or film, he is moreso an actor. ~ HAL  333  00:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't include - Per above, not enough sources referring to him as a singer to warrant inclusion. Don't have a problem with the lede mentioning his tours or whatever. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Exclude He is an actor who can sing and does so on acting roles that require it. He doesn't have a notable singing career that is independent of his acting career. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I did a quick search for citations on your points and came to a different conclusion. Here are a five citations that are different than your assertion that he doesn't have a notable singing career independent of his acting:
 * 1. Playbill: https://www.playbill.com/article/why-hugh-jackman-hated-his-own-voice-until-the-greatest-showman
 * 2. Playbill: https://www.playbill.com/article/how-broadways-most-in-demand-vocal-coach-kept-ben-platt-neil-patrick-harris-and-more-healthy
 * 3. Variety: https://variety.com/2017/film/features/hugh-jackman-the-greatest-showman-logan-1202629864/
 * 4. New York Vulture: https://www.vulture.com/2012/12/hugh-jackman-on-les-miz-and-his-javert-past.html
 * 5. Express (UK) https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/905671/The-Greatest-Showman-Hugh-Jackman-Michelle-Williams-really-sing-dance.
 * While this is not the most important topic in the world, I believe his career in musical theatre, which spans over a couple of decades, is sufficient to be notable and belong in the lead. And I believe there are enough citations to support it. Cheers, Pistongrinder (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Exclude as per Geraldo Perez – YA example of "resume bloat" in the lede on Wikipedia. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Exclude Regardless of his musical performances, he is recognized as an actor. There are no reliable sources describing him as a singer. Sea Ane (talk) 05:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs no further explanation. Ridiculous RFC ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Exclude, but the lead should also mention that he is notable for his musical performances within his acting roles. Responding to Ssilvers, his broadway and world tour are directly an inextricably related to his being an actor, specifically for acting in "The Greatest Showman".  His singing IS relevant to the lead, and should absolutely be included, but he is an actor who sings, or a singing actor, not an actor and singer as two separate items. Fieari (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Include. I just re-read his Wikipedia article, and his many singing performances are scattered throughout it. An actor can't play Jean Valjean from Les Mis, PT Barnum in The Greatest Showman, Harold Hill in The Music Man on Broadway without being recognized as a top actor AND singer. He won a Grammy for his musical performance. He has performed extensively on Broadway, such as Broadway to Oz, in 2015 and Hugh Jackman: Back on Broadway in 2011-2012. More recently, he went on an 88 city tour to perform songs in The Man. The Music. The Show. in 2019. He began his career in musical theatre by playing Curly in a 1998 production of Oklahoma! He sings extensively in the a few of the movies where he stars, and he sings on the world's stages. There are plenty of sources that reference Jackman's singing, and here is one that discusses Jackman's voice and ongoing performances: https://www.classicfm.com/discover-music/can-hugh-jackman-sing/ That is the very definition of a successful singer, which is why I encourage consensus to add this title to the lead.  Pistongrinder (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Longest marvel superhero record
Hi I think someone needs to remove the longest marvel superhero record part on Mr Jackmans wiki, as I believe that Tobey M and William D broke that last year in Spiderman NWH. I know that some people may say that he might be Wolverine in the upcoming Dr Strange film but there is no confirmation of that, and until there is (or isn't) then I think this should be removed. My thanks.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2022
is an Australian actor with Greek ancestry. 2A02:214C:8638:3700:619C:DF11:CA3A:6BF4 (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: We don't generally include ancestral history in the opening sentence of the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Height
He was never 6'3''. Hugh himself claimed to be 6'2'' tall. 2804:1810:E779:D200:1C9C:31F8:F737:A881 (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2023 (2)
Please Change His parents divorced when he was eight, and Jackman remained in Australia with his father and two brothers, while his mother moved back to England with Jackman's two sisters (above is not true! hugh jackman parent didn't divorvce when he was 8, the mother left and went back to england without saying good bye. She never returned to australia, Later the mother remarry and has 2 daughter

to

(copyright violation removed)

Yvonnewong96 (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This would be a copyright violation of this article. Additionally, it's not clear what part you believe to be false – the article you copied this from seems to support what is already there, no? Tollens (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hugh Jackman


text:
Phi1 Cancri

Phi1 Cancri, Latinised from φ1 Cancri, is a solitary, orange-hued star in the constellation Cancer. It is faintly visible to the naked eye with an apparent visual magnitude of +5.57. Based upon an annual parallax shift of 8.74 mas, it is approximately 370 light-years from the Sun.

This is an evolved K-type giant star with a stellar classification of K5 III. The measured angular diameter of this star, after correction for limb darkening, is $25.25$. At the estimated distance of Phi1 Cancri, this yields a physical size of about 17 times the radius of the Sun. It is radiating 121 times the Sun's luminosity from its photosphere at an effective temperature of $−0.134$.

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

title: Phi1 Cancri


text:
Phi2 Cancri

Phi2 Cancri (φ2 Cancri) is a binary star in the constellation Cancer, about 280 light-years from Earth. Both components are white A-type main-sequence dwarfs with apparent magnitudes of +6.3. They are separated by 5.126 arcseconds on the sky, and their mean apparent brightness is +5.55 magnitudes.

title: Phi2 Cancri


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doha, Urdu

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. a ndroid 79  03:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Doha, Urdu
Problem: Content is 'hello'  Molotov    (talk)

Hope you dont mind, but ill go and delete the entire article now; it meets the criteria for speedy deletion. Or an  e    (t)   (c)   (@)  03:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Proposed decision/Archive

Frankly, I'm surprised that a temporary de-sysopping is on the table in the first place. Given that the issue present is community confidence, I can't see how that remedy would solve anything. Either an administrator has community confidence, or he doesn't. A temporary desysopping would be a purely punitive measure. Mackensen (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Consider that we have lots of other good admins and lots more editors willing to be promoted who would do well. When a bad admin is identified, warned, and continues to unapologetically misuse those abilities, those abilities should be removed straight-away. A "re-affirmation" is just a waste of time. Obviously, he will not be re-affirmed - who are we fooling? ArbCom needs to show that they have the will to remove admin powers straight-away. Anything else makes this body unnecessary for dealing with problem admins - we could just develop a community process of re-evaluating admins. That idea fails, for whatever reasons, but largely because people want problem admins to come through ArbCom. Short version: remove his admin status directly and set a specific minimum time period during which he cannot re-apply based on the severity of his transgressions. Do this for every problem admin that reaches this stage. -- Netoholic @ 17:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * While I appreciate all the compliments, I dont think either of you knows much of anything about the specific case. IAC, Im looking for some direct AC treatment of my first point: an improper application of WP:3RR means that all blocks were improper, and my self-unblocks were not improper. Though my self-unblockings were certainly a hasty reaction, and certainly may have pissed some people off, is it in interest of WP to shaft an eloquent, npov-devoted, third-year contributor with somewhere around 20K edits merely on the basis of inflated claims kind of "abuse"? Anyone who's read T:VW it knows theres no basis in there for any sanction, and the seminal impropriety issue was the original and improper block on me, as well as the lack of Assume good faith in the manner in which it was reflexively re-applied. There are also outstanding and related philosophy/bias issues (T:VW, ethnocentrism WP:"IAR", basic fairness - even WP:TFD) that are contentious enough that one can be reasonably suspicious of "rules-lawyering" for sake of personal sentiment. Certainly the system of ruling-by-vote (with only limited discussion of the actual findings and how each AC views them) only encourages such lack of openness, and effectively means that individual points by the case parties will go unattended in any direct way. Ideally, the AC would respond with findings for each separate claim, and this would expose the thinking process of the AC. Not doing so gives an appearance of unity, but also hides any internal disagreements. This is just my point of view, and others are free too see things differently. Sincerely, -St|eve 22:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It should hardly be necessary to rehash Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Evidence, but you reverted 12 times, and three separate admins saw fit to block you for this 3RR violation, yet you continue to state that these blocks were "improper". It appears that if you had to do it all over again, you would.

 * In its findings of fact, could the Arbitration Committee address the issue of whether the 3RR blocks were properly or improperly applied? I don't think it would suit either side to leave this important point unresolved. -- Curps 01:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

1
I believe that it's essential that admin misconduct is taken very seriously by the ArbCom because this is an issue that affects the entire community. It's nearly two months after the incident that lead to arbitration and Stevertigo begins his statement with "While I appreciate all the compliments, I dont think either of you knows much of anything about the specific case." This is almost identical to the sarcastic and dismissive response Stevertigo gave in his RfC. In this entire process, there has never been any acknowledgement of misconduct other than perhaps the unblocking was a "hasty reaction" or such. I have no reason to believe that such behavior wouldn't occur again.

In my opinion, the proper remedy would be to de-sysop Stevertigo and allow him to apply for adminship through RfA at any time. Thus, he'll regain adminship when/if the community decides that it's regained trust. Carbonite | Talk 03:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Stevevertigo says While I appreciate all the compliments, I dont think either of you knows much of anything about the specific case. One of the two people he is addressing is the very admin (User:Mackensen) that he placed a retaliatory block on (!) and the other (User:Netoholic) provided evidence at Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Evidence, as did Mackensen.  Unbelievable. -- Curps 03:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Im sorry, but was the case filed on the basis of my smarty-pants attitude or on my actual actions in the context when they were made? Mackensen was in the process of reflexively re-blocking me (based on an assumption that the original block was properly imposed), and Netholic is someone whom Ive crossed horns with in the past regarding his deletion tendencies toward certain templates. They do indeed come out of the woodwork. Feels like Im in the Thriller video. "It's an issue that effects the entire community" is a bit of a lark, considering how big WP has gotten. -St|eve 16:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Admin misconduct is an issue that affects the entire community. We have serious problems if admins aren't trusted by the community as a whole (I'm not talking about a few trolls here or there). The case was filed because you violated numerous policies and misused admin powers in order to gain an advantage in a dispute. The fact that you're not taking it seriously and would prefer to blame everyone but yourself makes it even worse. I would not expect "an eloquent, npov-devoted, third-year contributor with somewhere around 20K edits" to act in this manner. Carbonite | Talk 16:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I've already requested above that the Arbitration Committee issue a finding of fact regarding whether or not the 3RR blocks against Stevertigo were proper or improper. I hope you will agree this is a key point to be resolved. -- Curps 16:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * In case the Arbitration Committee isn't following this talk page discussion, I've now left a message at User talk:Fred Bauder asking for a finding of fact to be issued to resolve this important point. -- Curps 16:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * In the interest of fairness (since Fred Bauder is only one member of the Arb Committee, and possibly more "hawkish" than some of the others), I'm now leaving the same message at the talk pages of the other Arb Committee members who have edited the proposed decision page so far. -- Curps 17:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The finding of fact was that Stevertigo was edit warring and got blocked for a 3RR violation. I don't think it matters whether there was an actual 3RR violation; even if there wasn't it was likely a close question (and for others to decide) Fred Bauder 17:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, see the discussion above. Stevertigo stands by his action (unblocking himself) on the grounds that the initial 3RR blocks against him were improper, so unblocking himself was not improper. I think it speaks to the heart of the case, and based on his message to my talk page I think Stevertigo himself would like it resolved one way or the other. -- Curps 17:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It is wrong to use admin powers to unblock yourself. It doesn't matter if the block was fair or not, valid or not, appropriate or not. Admins must not use powers to their own advantage. Non admins have to go to the mailing list if they believe they are blocked unfairly. Admins must do the same. I am sure that I have the community behind me on that one, and the overwhelming majority or admins. If we rule on whether the 3RR block was right or wrong in the first place we will be sending a message that it's ok to unblock yourself if you feel justified in doing so, and that is not a message I want to send. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Is it morally wrong, procedurally wrong, an ethical violation, or a technical matter? "Wrong" can refer to anything from war crimes (part of the seminal issue discussion) to 2+3=4. Apologies if I havent read any recent fine print regarding self-unblocking, but I can think of at least one case where self-unblocking is not a case for blocking, banning, etc., namely if I block and then unblock myself. That fact at the very least shows that the issue is not one that can be decided by simplistic absolutes, but requires some degree of care for the detail of particular cases. Im sorry if this means that you might have to spend more time, read more material, and write more expositively about your views on matters. That said I nevertheless greatly appreciate your writing more expositively now, although I dislike the prospect of being made an example of simply because a due care for facts and detail "is not a message you want to send." -St|eve 19:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. "Non admins have to go to the mailing list" - the mailing list was out that day, coincidentally enough. Sincerely -St|eve 20:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's morally wrong. It states "I am better than non admins" which leads the community to believe that admins set themselves above others. Admin powers are there to serve the community. Yeah if you block yourself then unblock yourself that would probably be OK - it depends (it has been argued that admins blocking themselves is itself an abuse of admin powers, but it's not the sort of abuse that get's the community in a tizz). But that's not what happened here so it's irrelevent. Let's stick to the facts of this case. You were blocked by another admin. You undid that block and that was wrong and you know it. You are not being made an example of because I don't want to take due care for facts and detail. You are being made an example of because you abused your admin powers by using them in such a way that you have no authority to use them. Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 21:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, I... certainly have been holding to an entirely different notion of "morality." The closest thing to a wiki-applicable principle I could even come up with was "civility", and I was self-absorbed enough to sort of quote myself in what has been (for about two years now) pgph 2 of that policy ("We cannot expect..." etc.) But I digress. I will eagerly await for your treatment for this principle of wikimorality at... well Morality. IAC, WATS, I certainly dont want to tell you how to do your job. Peace,-St|eve 22:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. "you are being made an example of" is a common faux pas of corrective institutions, which tend to rely on the notion that it can enforce some kind of justice (more principles!) via a slippery slope of increasingly authoritarian measures. Maybe it can actually work in the virtual/wiki world, who knows?

(losing indent) Actually I'm not trying to enforce "Justice". I'm trying to make you see that your actions were wrong. I've always argued that admins are human and should be allowed to make mistakes. That is why I voted for a temp de-admining rather than throwing you to the wolves at RFA (which is what i think it would be). But the thing is - instead of making sarcastic comments, you'd really be much better off admitting that you did make a mistake, apologise for it, and look big. You do not have community support in this. The RFC has made that very clear don't you think. You need to rethink your approach. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah I see -- this is an educational process. I appreciate your attempt to find a compromise. I have already apologised BTW, so Im a bit unclear on how much that will have a positive bearing. Should I be more profuse? Where? IRC?? To whom should I apologise? Those who's blocks I undid? (That would seem a bit odd, as an unblock doesnt seem to be quite as much a personal offense as the block itself, which IMHO is exacerbated by the fact that the original block had some... problems.) Is there a penalty for an improperly placed block?
 * As for the RFC, AIUI, much of bad energy apparently came from people quickly and one-sidedly complaining on IRC, which, as Catherine put it (on my talk) "has always been toxic." "Wolves" as you say. I dont generally fear the buzz, but I do think officers in positions such as yours should be reasonable, though those who are willing to be direct and responsive (and not merely dictatorial) are much less vulnerable to this criticism. Thanks.-St|eve 23:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * For reference, here is the link to the archived 3RR report. Carbonite | Talk 17:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Is this better? Fred Bauder 18:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC):

1) while in the course of an edit war at  during which he violated the Three revert rule (Reverts are in history at August 5 and 6, see )
 * Abuses by Stevertigo

Its certianly short. -St|eve 19:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

2
I am quite disappointed to see that temporary desysopping with automatic reinstatement of powers is even being considered. This is the by far the worst case of abuse of administrative powers I've seen in my short time on Wikipedia. Under other circumstances I might favor leniency, but the chronic nature of this abuse (little things before; I remember being surpised by his protection of the mathematical constant "articles" and his lack of apology when this was pointed out) suggests that these problems are not an isolated incident. Far more worrisome, however, is the lack of contrition and the lack of understanding over why these issues are problematic. To date, I don't believe I've seen a true apology from Steve, such as that he realizes he was over the line and will not do it again. In his RfC, he suggests that the problems are with the policies and not with him ("It would seem that there are problems with certain policies and how they are enforced...") and in his statement he suggests that he only technically violated policies for more important purposes. The only process for removing adminship from someone is through an Arbitration Committee case. From time to time people propose processes for de-adminship, but in general people feel that the Arbitration Committee can handle any problematic administrators. People's standard for adminship already seems to be tightening; I know that I would be even more hesitant to support a candidate and more likely to oppose if I realize that even administrators who abuse their powers to this degree can remain administrators. It is hard to imagine a more clear-cut case: extensive abuse of administrative powers despite being warned many times by different editors, blocking out of spite (TBSDY, Mackensen), refusal to accept blame, and no indication that he will act any differently in the future. Requests for comment/Stevertigo shows a very strong, united community consensus; rarely have I seen so many in agreement with no one disagreeing or suggesting that we are overreacting. The Arbitration Committee cannot have failed to notice the impressive number of editors supporting the RfC, including very many longtime and well-respected Wikipedians. If, in the face of such clear-cut evidence and such community support, the Arbitration Committee is not willing to desysop Stevertigo or at least let a community discussion decide, how can it be effective in dealing with problematic administrators? — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

 * First of all, the purpose of the Arbcom isnt merely to issue punitives -- it's primary duty is to enforce corrective measures, which include a review of lesser policies as they reflect or conflict with our core principles. This can be done in the "findings of fact" process. Second, Im a bit skeptical about anyone with a "short time on Wikipedia" claiming that someone such as myself has been a "worst abuser". For one, I was among the first to support the 3RR idea, and actually remember the context in which it came about --relative to other policies/practices in use. In an original interpretation of its meaning, 1) it was never intended as a punitive measuse, but rather as a protection of pages 2) it was never intended to be enforced in a manner which shows favoritism to a party or majority - simply to enforce a protection 3) Blocking is a last resort wheras temporary page protection is preferred, because it forces discussion.

 * Noone chose to intevene with mediation or arbitration on the dispute at Talk:Vietnam War. Ed came in briefly, but I had to call him on what I percieved to be a POV interpretation of a statement. I admit being sarcastic, but he apparently couldnt take it and he left. ( Of course, as a last resort, after losing much of the argument, my varied opposition typically claimed "this is the not the place for discussion on the rights or wrongs." This despite holding to writing the article in accord with plainly US-centrist/localist interpretations of that history. Like an old edit war at IPF, this was largely a struggle between writing styles which either elevated the human element and favored the term "independence" and one which was deferential to detached, US-centered realpolitik-based words and concepts. Fie.

 * You can say "Stevertigo is the worst ever" all you want to. That doesnt make it the least bit true, and it doesnt change the fact that there is an extreme disparity between the usefulness of someone intervening helpfully in a dispute (which did not happen) and voting in favor of a complaint on RFC in support of a one-sided interpretation of 3RR! ((CJK has for some reason even "archived" *all the discussion at T:VW. Tjive, though reasonable, chose not to correct any misstatements by others, and all of my opponents in the dispute showed clues as to a right-wing ideological bias, and often resorted to pejoratives, calling me "Stalinist" etc. All of this was ignored in the original block, which again was unilateral and was suspect of a bias. Wikien was down.))

 * ATS, Im quite happy to offer an apology, and In fact I have already apologised to TBSDY, for one. But this works both ways: an improper block is a violation of the rules, is it not? The tendency to claim situational-infallibility is quite universal, and Ive only continued this to get the facts out, so that others, by coming to admit *their culpability, would allow me to admit mine, and not simply tuck tail and run. Arbcom cases are not decided as popularity contests, or at least they shouldnt be. Of course, Im "a troll" for even arguing the point. -St|eve 21:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

 * This case isn't about your 3RR violation. I repeat: This case isn't about your 3RR violation. You've spent paragraph after paragraph, here, there and everywhere proclaiming the evils of the 3RR rule and its misapplication, but this is NOT what this case is about. This case is about what happened after you were blocked by Geni for violating the 3RR. Even if the original block was 100% wrong, you don't unblock yourself. Even assuming that particular part of the blocking policy was unfamiliar, you certainly don't unblock yourself after being re-blocked and warned by multiple admins. I don't want to say "Stevertigo is the worst ever", but you do need to say "I really messed up on that one." Carbonite | Talk 21:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

When Stevertigo applies for confirmation as an administrator he can take that opportunity to apologize and explain. I probably will not vote one way or the other as I haven't followed his work closely. Those who do edit in the same areas or who have closely watched his behavior as a general matter (as opposed to one incident) can offer input regarding administrative status. We have demonstrated one incident, not a general pattern of abuse. POV editing is not a measure of general worth, in fact, I don't see much value in anyone who does not have strong points of view about vital issues. Fred Bauder 21:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your responsiveness, and want to make it clear that I dont hold a preference for either of the proposed punitive measures. I also want to make it clear that my comments here have been directed only at questions of process. Since this process is now applied to me personally, im naturally a bit interested in the subject. So, while I understand the Arbcom's limited capacity for treating matters with perfect depth, I also share Theresa Knott's concerns that one of the two proposed remedies appears to contradict the rather valid observation above that reviewers have "closely watch[] [my] behaviour in a general manner." The other, though limited, is at least more definitive. IAC, I have tried to be brief in limiting my concerns to understanding the process used here, and I do apologise if some of my comments have appeared to be disrespectful. Sincerely, -St|eve 22:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Chungmuro station

Chungmuro Station is a station on Line 3 and Line 4 of the Seoul Subway system. Platforms for both Line 3 and Line 4 are located in Chungmuro-4-ga, Jung-gu, Seoul.

This station is named after the road under which it passes, in honor of the Chosun general Yi Sunsin, who was also known by the title of Chungmugong.

Cinema
Chungmuro is considered the best place to view Korean movies. Just outside the exit by the rear entrance to Dongguk University is Daehan Cinema (대한극장), where Chungmuro Film Festival in Seoul was first held.

title: Chungmuro station


text:
14 Cancri

14 Cancri is a star in the northern zodiac constellation of Cancer. It can be referred to as ψ Cancri, very occasionally as ψ2 Cancri, to distinguish it from 13 Cancri which is sometimes called ψ1 Cancri. It is just barely visible to the naked eye, having an apparent visual magnitude of +5.73. Based upon an annual parallax shift of 24.18 mas as seen from Earth, it is located 135 light years from the Sun. It may be a member of the Wolf 630 moving group of stars.

This object has a stellar classification of G7 V, which would suggest it is a G-type main-sequence star. However, Jofré et al. (2015) consider it to be a more evolved subgiant star due to a surface gravity of log g = 3.87. As such, it has an estimated 1.5 times the mass of the Sun and 3.2 times the Sun's radius. The star is 2.4 billion years old with what appears to be a leisurely rotation rate, judging by a projected rotational velocity of 0.98 km/s. It is radiating eight times the Sun's luminosity from its photosphere at an effective temperature of 5,311 K.

title: 14 Cancri


text:
Talk:J-Wave

Song of the Year
I'm not sure where the songs on this list are coming from. If you're basing it on the Tokio Hot 100, none of the songs correspond with the Number One's on the "for the year" list on the J-Wave site. Paladin.cross (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Name of the station
In Japan, Sony has itself referred to in adverts as "SONY". For all I know, J-Wave has itself referred to as "J-WAVE". If so, this would be merely its typographic preference: "WAVE" does not stand for anything and the station is referred to in conversation not as ジェイ・ダブリュ・エイ・ヴィ・イー (jei daburyu ei vi ii) or similar but instead as ジェイ・ウェイヴ (jei weivu). Thus the capitalization of "WAVE" can be disregarded as a mere matter of corporate vanity, and I've moved the article -- which of course requires a huge amount of improvement -- from "J-WAVE" to "J-Wave". Hoary 03:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

"Features"
It seems as if the page was a computer generated translation of the original Japanese text. Makes most of the time no sense. So I tried to make sense of the "features" section with the help of the original. Can somebody check wether the content is okay? FMB 12:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I've done that, other than for the last section, whose Japanese version I don't understand (perhaps in part because I haven't yet had my first coffee of the day).

 * As somebody who has frequently been subjected to the saccharine sound of "Jeeeey Weeeeebu", I'm inclined to delete the whole article and write something very much terser and less reverent. ("Supplier of advertising, creepy jingles, inane chat, and the blandest imaginable music to Japan's less discriminating hairdressing salons"?) I'll try to resist the temptation. -- Hoary 22:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Now the section looks much better. I was so confused by it that I didn't really know how to come up with the right words. FMB 08:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It sounds confusing to me, a Canadian radio listener. But I tried my best to make things look readable at best. Phil-hong 08:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've had another quick look at it. The trouble is, the original looked like an retreat of PR-talk. Really, this is just yet another radio station that puts out commercials, jingles, and commercial pap muzak. -- Hoary 09:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm not too sure about the statements this article has (like being "rebellious") but I made the article at least a little more neutral. The translation from the Japanese Wikipedia article as I can see made these statements and it's probably commercial banter. But no matter what if these statements are correct or not, they're probably part of the station image, like for CHFI 98.1 in Toronto, which is the next place I'll try to fix they consider themselves as "Toronto's Light Music" to the chagrin of rival stations. Phil-hong 05:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Phil, what you write is a bit ambiguous, leaving open the possibility that you think it's OK to describe a radio station according to its own image of itself, regardless of truth value. I guess and hope that this is not your intended meaning. Anyway, I removed the reasoning (?) for the use of the term nabigeeta because that reasoning made no sense even on its own terms. -- Hoary 07:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Ambiguous or not, that's not my writing. Actually, it was my interpretation of whatever was on there before I started editing it which was, ambiguous to English-speakers. What I know is there is commercial branding, but I didn't say that the whole article should be based on it. I have no idea if what the Japanese Wikipedia lists under this article is a PR-type biography, but I gave my benefit of the doubt and just translate the stuff the best I can. It doesn't form the whole article, of course, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be putting in what the subject thinks of itself. All about balance. I don't believe in commercialism, but I don't think I should force my opinion on others in what is supposed to be a neutral article. Phil-hong 07:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:J-Wave


text:
Treaty of Balta Liman

The 1838 Treaty of Balta Liman, or the Anglo-Ottoman Treaty, is a formal trade agreement signed between the Sublime Porte of the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain. The trade policies imposed upon the Ottoman Empire, after the Treaty of Balta Liman, were some of the most liberal, open market settlements that had ever been enacted during the time. The terms of the treaty stated that the Ottoman Empire will abolish all monopolies, allow British merchants and their collaborators to have full access to all Ottoman markets and will be taxed equally to local merchants. These agreements did not constitute an equal free trade arrangement, as Britain still employed protectionist policies on their agricultural markets.

Leading up to the Treaty of Balta Liman, in the fall of 1831 the Governor of Egypt, Muhammad Ali of Egypt, retaliated against the Ottoman Empire. Mehmet Ali had not been given the territory that Ottoman Sultan, Mahmud II, had promised him, after he showed military expertise in defeating Greek rebels in 1824. In response Ali Pasha's son, Ibrahim Pasha, led the Egyptian army to storm Lebanon and Syria, quickly defeating Ottoman forces. Mahmud II appealed to Britain and France for help, though neither would intervene. Reluctantly the Empire turned to Russia for help, which in turn stopped Ali Pasha's advancements. After a round of negotiations Egypt was able to retain most of the conquered land, though neither party was truly satisfied with the outcome. Tensions between Egypt and the Ottoman Empire, along with fears of Russian intervention, gave London an incentive to negotiate with Constantinople, to gain the upper-hand in trade agreements. Britain took advantage of the unrest and offered its hand in helping the Ottoman Empire defeat Mehmet Ali Pasha, in exchange for complete access to Ottoman trade markets.

Background

 * Greece was recognized as a fully independent and sovereign kingdom in the London Protocol.

Rise of Muhammad Ali Pasha
Between the years 1803 and 1807 civil war broke out in Egypt among the Ottoman Turks, Egyptian Mamluks, and Albanian mercenaries. Mehmet Ali Pasha emerged victorious from the battle. Egypt was still under Ottoman control, so when Sultan Mahmud II recognized him as the official Egyptian Governor, his rule was legitimized. During his reign, Mehmet Ali Pasha gained much recognition for industrial and economic reforms in Egypt. Irrigation systems were repaired which led to a booming cotton industry. His administration also tackled important infrastructure issues, including the construction of the Mahmoudiya Canal, which allowed water access to the port of Alexandria from the Nile River. Mehmet Ali's economic policies relied heavily on the use of monopolies to control market prices of goods. During his reign, Mehmet Ali gained considerable favor in the European world, specifically with France, due to his westernized reforms. He promoted education reform, specifically in the fields of arts and sciences. Also, with much European benefit, Mehmet Ali strengthened trade from India to the western nations; though, still capitalized on middle-man transactions.

Mehmet Ali was nominally loyal to the Ottoman Empire and led an invasion against the Saudis in 1811 at the request of the Sultan. While abroad he became suspicious that the Ottomans were planning to overthrow his rule in Egypt, so he returned to Cairo. Mehmet Ali was prone to act autonomously and made important decisions without first gaining approval from the authorities of the Ottoman Empire. During the time under Mahmud II, reformist efforts were being made to centralize the government and punish peripheral states which acted outside the Porte's will. However, Egypt amassed so much regional power that the Sultan could not take any simple measures to cut back Mehmet Ali's power.

Mehmet Ali was well aware of Mahmud's efforts to cut back regional power and had always been suspicious of the rule of the Sultan. In precautionary steps, the Egyptian Governor had been building up his army and naval fleets with the help of French instructors. With his well-trained army, Mehmet Ali was able to suppress a revolt of Albanian troops in Cairo. Mahmud II acknowledged the skills of Mehmet Ali's army and offered him the pashaliks of Syria and Morea (which was the name for the Peloponnese peninsula of Greece), in return for aid in suppressing Greek revolts. Mehmet Ali and his son Ibrahim agreed and led a fierce campaign in the Mediterranean Sea, which began in 1824.

After a few years of fighting, Mehmet Ali was never granted the land promised to Egypt after helping aid Ottoman efforts to end the Greek rebellion. At this point, Ali Pasha knew his army was superior to the Ottoman's army and he was angry with Mahmud for denying him the promised territory. He had a growing ship industry and needed more natural resources in order to meet demand, and he felt the Ottomans would soon attempt to exert their power over him. These factors led Mehemet Ali to storm the Ottoman territories. In 1831 he sent troops through Lebanon and up to Syria along the shores of the Mediterranean; and conquered Ottoman lands all the way to Konia, which is in the heart of Anatolia. Sultan Mahmud II quickly realized that he would need an ally in order to defend himself against the forces of Mehemet Ali. First, he turned to Britain and France for support, though he was promptly turned down. The Ottoman Empire had no other choice than to seek the help of a known enemy, Russia.

The Hunkar Iskelesi Treaty of August 1833
Russia Czar, Nicolas I, agreed to help Mahmud, and immediately sent troops to stop Egypt's advance into Anatolia. It was not an easy move to make on Mahmud's part; public unrest ensued after forming an alliance with Russia. Many were disturbed by the alliance considering that just a few years before, the Ottoman Empire lost land in the Balkans to Russian encroachments.

The looming Russian force encouraged negotiations between the Sublime Porte and Egypt in the spring of 1833. Ultimately, Mehemet Ali came out of the peace negotiations – agreed upon at the Convention of Kütahya – with all of Egypt, Syria, Jeddah, Crete, Adana and Sudan. He was also promised that his sons could keep his lineage alive as rulers of Egypt, indefinitely. On the other hand, as payment for Russian support, the Ottoman Empire had to agree to close the Dardanelles, the passage between the Sea of Marmara and the Mediterranean, to warships if Russia was ever attacked.

The British and the French were not happy with the Hunkar Iskelesi Treaty. The French had all along quietly been backing the reign of Mehemet Ali in Egypt and would have been happy to see the Ottoman Empire crumble. France had taken an interest in North Africa and seized Algeria from weak Ottoman rule, just prior to the treaty. France also had strong diplomatic ties with Mehmet Ali Pasha. The British now feared Russia's growing influence over the Ottoman Empire. The UK could not permit Russia to take over the Ottoman Empire, because that expansion would pose as a major threat to Western Europe. After the Hunkar Iskelesi treaty, England considered the survival of the Ottoman Empire a worthwhile cause.

French and British diplomats were even more alarmed at Russia's involvement in the Ottoman Empire when the Munchengratz Agreement was signed in 1833. The Munchengratz Agreement was authorized by Prussia, Austria and Russia; and it stated that each nation would stand alongside one another in any future decisions, especially any decisions concerning the state of the Ottoman Empire. This agreement did not state any new treaties, though it made a public display of the nations' unity on issues concerning the Ottoman Empire, which appeared to be in its final decline.

Timeline of events

 * 1830- The Ottomans lose the war to the Greeks; Greece gains independence from the Ottoman Empire.
 * 1830- The French seize Algeria from the Ottoman Empire and begin to colonize Northern Africa.
 * 1833- The Hunkar Iskelesi Treaty defensively align Russia and the Ottoman Empire. The Munchengratz Agreement publicly reasserts Russian, Austrian and Prussian unity. The Convention of Kütahya ends war between Ottoman and Egyptian forces, and grants Egypt land won during battle.
 * 1834- Mehmet Ali Pasha, now in control of Syria, experiences troubles. The Syrians had once welcomed the Egyptian Governor, championing him as the “pioneer of European civilization in the east”; nevertheless, the Syrian economy is hurt under the monopoly policies of his regime. Syrians revolt against Ali Pasha, but are quickly defeated and terrorized shortly after.
 * 1834- Trade Capitulations between the Ottoman Empire and the Britain expire after 14 years. After taking into account the increases of international prices, customs duties would have to be raised to make up for inflation. The UK is unwilling to renew the agreement with raised customs duties. The Secretary at the British Embassy in Constantinople, David Urquhart, begins to draft a new trade agreement.
 * 1835- British diplomats attempt to work with Ali Pasha, in the hopes of building more trade infrastructure throughout new Egyptian territories. At the request of Lord Palmerston, England wants to build rail lines connecting the Syrian coast to the Euphrates and on to the Persian Gulf. Mehmet Ali denies this request, as well as a less extravagant one for another rail line.
 * 1838- The Treaty of Balta Liman is signed by the Britain and the Ottoman Empire. The relations between the Sultan and Egypt are extremely volatile. The Treaty would thwart Russian power over the Ottoman Empire and benefit British producers significantly. Though the Ottomans would gain slightly from increased trade, the main incentive is to bring down Mehmet Ali by abolishing monopolies, Egypt's primary source of income.

Intended outcomes of the treaty
In 1820 the U.K. and the Ottoman Empire had established a Trade Tariff that would expire in 14 years. After 1834 neither party wanted to renew the original agreement as it stood; so, Reşit Pasha (advisor to the Sultan), David Urquhart (an English diplomat), Lord Posonby (the British Ambassador) and Counsel General John Cartwright, worked to form the Treaty of Balta Liman. David Urquhart was sent to Istanbul to befriend Reşit Pasha and convince him the treaty would be of benefit to the Ottoman State. Urquhart worked hard to convince Ottoman notables that the treaty was in their favor. He published articles in Istanbul's newspapers, listing the benefits of free trade markets; his propaganda influenced the capital city deeply. France and Russia watched the negotiations of the treaty closely. Russia feared losing its newfound Ottoman interests, and the French may have had to consider switching sides if Britain aligned itself with the Sultan against Mehmet Ali Pasha of Egypt.

'British Aims:' The UK was leading the world in the industrial revolution and needed a bigger market and more resources in order to expand. So, it would benefit England the most to engage in as much trade with the Ottoman Empire as possible, with very little restrictions on the open market. Further, the British wanted the Ottomans to accept the treaty as quickly as possible. England needed to strike the deal while the Ottoman Empire was in a tight spot with Egypt so it would have less room to negotiate. England had to convince Mahmud II that the treaty would end Mehmet Ali's reign. Egypt's economy was largely controlled through the use of monopolies; if monopolies were abolished, Egypt's economy would crumble. Also, opening Egyptian markets, with no protections, to the UK's industrial goods market would crush its infant industries. England did not want to see the Ottoman Empire fall into the hands of Russia either. Russia would not engage in free trade with Britain, and there would be no benefits of market inequalities that would form between the Ottoman Empire and England after the treaty.

The balance of trade up until the mid 19th century was in favour of the Ottoman Empire which, in the years 1820–22, exported goods worth £650,000 to Britain. By 1836–38, that figure had reached £1,729,000. Given that the majority of the share of trade was made by Ottoman merchants, the Europeans, especially the British and the French, became irritated and unhappy with this trade arrangement and pushed for intervention and transformation of the economic policies of the Middle East. Indeed, the French foreign ambassador posted a letter to Louis-Mathieu, Comte de Mole in 1837 stating: I realized with pleasure that for our merchants the main question was not so much the amount of the new duties as their equality and stability. For what our merchants are requesting is, as far as possible, the abolition of monopolies and prohibitions that have diverted almost the whole export trade into the hands of a small number of favored Barataries.

'Ottoman Aims:' The Ottoman Empire was offered a deal that would have been hard to resist. Mahmud was never happy with the 1833 land negotiations, and wanted to see Egypt crumble. Tensions between Egypt and the Ottoman Empire clearly suggested the possibility of war. With new British alliances, fostered through the treaty's economic policy, Mahmud should receive help in ending the Mehmet Ali Pasha regime before the Empire was destroyed. Also, the Ottoman Porte may have been overly naive to the full implications of a liberal, free trade, market. Without infant industry protections the Ottoman Empire had little hope in becoming a fully industrialized economy, as the other world powers were. England was not offering to also freely open its markets up to the Ottoman Empire, so markets could never come to a true equilibrium. It is unclear whether the Porte would have understood these consequences due to the concerted efforts of British diplomats lobbying for the policies in the treaty.

1838
The Treaty of Balta Liman was a commercial treaty signed in 1838 between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain, regulating international trade. Duties were set at 3% on imports; 3% on exports; 9% on transiting exported goods; and 2% on transiting imported goods. Given the tradition of the "Most Favored Country Status," these conditions were extended to France. The Ottomans also agreed to the abolition of all monopolies. Factors that helped shape the treaty included the writings of David Urquhart, who had advocated for the abolition of monopolies (of which opium was the most prominent outside of Egypt) in order to bolster further trade with the Ottoman Empire and decrease British dependency on Russian raw materials. There were also numerous complaints by British businessmen who were subject to duties levied on goods transshipped across the Ottoman Empire and arbitrary levies by local pashas. These duties were mainly confined to the realm of exports, while imports could be traded at ports for the traditional rate of 3%. Turkish historian Candan Badem writes: "The Ottomans levied 3% custom duty on imports and 12% on exports, doing exactly the opposite of other states to protect their industries and their domestic markets".

Convention of Commerce, 1838, Balta Liman

 * Article 1. All rights privileges, and immunities which have been conferred on the suspects or ships of Great Britain by the existing Capitulations and Treaties, are confirmed now and for ever, except in as far as they may be specifically altered by the present Convention: and it is moreover expressly stipulated, that all rights, privileges, or immunities which the Sublime Porte now grants, or may here after grant, to the ships and subjects of any other foreign Power, or which it may suffer the ships and subjects of any other foreign Power, or which it may suffer the ships and subject of any other foreign Power to enjoy, shall be equally granted to, and exercised and enjoyed by, the subjects and ships of Great Britain.
 * Article 2. The subject of Her Britannic Majesty, or their agents, shall be permitted to purchase, at all places in the Ottoman Dominions (whether for the purposes of internal trade or exportation), all articles, without any exception whatsoever, the produce, growth, or manufacture of the said Dominions; and the Sublime Porte formally engages to abolish all monopolies of agricultural produce, or of any other articles whatsoever, as well as all Permits from the local Governors, either for the purchase of any article, or for its removal from one place to another when purchased; and any attempt to compels the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty to receive such Permits from the local Governors, shall be considered as an infraction of Treaties, and the Sublime Porte shall immediately punish with severity and Viziers and other Officers who shall have been guilty of such misconduct, and render full justice to British subject for all injuries or losses which they may duly prove themselves to have suffered.
 * Article 3. If any article of Turkish produce, growth, or manufacture, be purchased by the British Merchant or his agent for the purpose of selling the same for internal consumption in Turkey, the British merchant or his agent shall pay, at the purchase and sale of such articles, and in any manner of trade therein, the same duties that are paid, in similar circumstances, by the most favored class of Turkish subject engaged in the internal trade of Turkey, whether Mussulmans [Muslims] or Rayas.
 * Article 4. If any article of Turkish produce, growth, or manufacture, be purchased for exportation the same shall be conveyed by the British Merchant or his agent, free of any kind of charge or duty whatsoever, to a convenient place of shipment, on its entry into which it shall be liable to one fixed duty of nine per cent, ad valorem, in lieu of all other interior duties.
 * Subsequently, on exportation, the duty of three per cent, as established and existing at present, shall be paid. But all articles bought in the shipping ports for exportation, and which have already paid the interior duty at entering into the same, will only pay the three per cent, export duty.

 *  Article 5. The regulations under which Firmans are issued to British Merchant vessels for passing the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus shall be so framed as to occasion to such vessels the least possible delay.
 * Article 6. It is agreed by the Turkish Government, that the Regulations established in the present Convention shall be general throughout the Turkish Empire, whether in Turkey in Europe or Turkey, in Asia, In Egypt, or other African possessions belonging to the Sublime Porte, and shall be applicable to all the subjects, whatever their description, of the Ottoman Dominions; and the Turkish Government also agree not to object to other foreign Powers settling their trade upon the basis of this present Convention.
 * Article 7. It having been the custom of Great Britain and the Sublime Porte, with a view to prevent all difficulties and delay in estimating the value of articles imported into the Turkish Dominions, or exported therefrom, by British subjects, to appoint, at intervals of fourteen years, a Commission of men well acquainted with the traffic of both countries, who have fixed by a Tariff the sum of Money in the coin of the Grand Signor, which should be paid as duty on each article; and the term of fourteen years, during which the last adjustment of the said Tariff was to remain in force, having expired, the High Contracting Parties have agreed to name, conjointly, fresh Commissioners to fix and determine the amount in Money which is to be paid by British subjects, as the duty of three per cent, upon the value of all commodities imported and exported by them; and said Commissioners shall establish an equitable arrangement for estimating the interior duties which, by the present Treaty, are established on Turkish goods to be exported, and shall also determine on the places of shipment, where it may be most convenient that such duties should be levied.
 * The new Tariff thus established, to be enforce seven years after it has been fixed, at the end of which time it shall be in the power of either of the parties to demand a revision of that Tariff; but if no such demand be made on either side, within the six months after the end of the first seven years, then the Tariff shall remain in force for seven years more, reckoned from the end of the preceding seven years, and so it shall be at the end of each successive period of seven years.

 * Article 8. The Present Convention shell be ratified, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Constantinople within space of four months.

One factor that helped the British push the treaty through was the military dispute between rogue Ottoman Governor Mehmet (also known as Muhammed or Mehmed) Ali of Egypt and the Ottoman Imperial Center that dated back to 1831. In 1831, Mehmet Ali of Egypt's son Ibrahim Pasha led a successful military expedition into Syria, and established himself as governor. This invasion led to Ottoman retaliation and the eruption of hostilities that culminated in 1833, at which point Ibrahim's troops were within striking distance of Istanbul. Russian intervention, however, ended Ibrahim's advance. In spite of this, Mehmet Ali continued to govern Syria, and in May 1838 informed both British and French Consulates of that he resolved to declare independence from the Ottoman Empire. This move was opposed by both the Great Powers and the Ottoman Empire, which, under Mahmud II, began preparing for military action to prevent secession. In the midst of this dispute, on 16 August 1838, the Treaty of Balta Liman was passed. While there was no clear quid pro quo agreement, the treaty's passage helped to ensure British support of Ottoman territorial integrity, a position which had in actuality already been held by Palmerston, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, but was formally declared the following month. When Muhammad Ali refused to implement the agreement because of the threat this posed to his nascent industrialisation project, Sultan Mahmud II gave him a year's grace period, after which Muhammad Ali still refused to comply. Based on the terms of the 1840 Convention of London, the Ottomans, with British assistance, soon attacked and reasserted control over Syria. The effects of the treaty are disputed, but many contend that it opened Ottoman markets to increased British imports and was detrimental to Ottoman producers.

Effects of the treaty
The economic effects of the treaty would not be immediately realized in Ottoman markets. Politically however, the Treaty of Balta Liman had serious consequences on the outcome of the Ottoman-Syrian War. After signing the treaty with the British, the Ottomans knew that Britain was heavily invested the future of the Ottoman Empire. With the British on his side, Sultan Mahmud II would no longer passively stand by while Mehemet Ali of Egypt held Ottoman territory in Syria. In 1839, a year after the Treaty of Balta Liman was signed, the Ottoman Empire declared war on Egypt. On 29 June 1839 Ibrahim Pasha, the son of Mehemet Ali, defeated the Ottoman army in the Battle of Nezib. This crushing defeat offered an opportunity for Mehemet Ali Pasha to potentially take control of Constantinople and essentially the entire Ottoman Empire. Shortly after the defeat Mahmud died leaving his 16-year-old heir Abdülmecid in power. Britain, Russia, and Austria all had a considerable stake in the Ottoman Empire, and so they quickly came to the aid of the young Sultan, which led to the 1840 Convention of London.

1840 Convention of London
The Convention of London of 1840 was a treaty with the formal title of Convention for the Pacification of the Levant, signed on 15 July 1840 between the European Great Powers of Great Britain, Austria, Prussia and Russia on the one hand, and the Ottoman Empire on the other. The treaty offered the Egyptians complete rule over Egyptian territories and parts of Sudan as "privileged Ottoman provinces," but they would have to give up captured territories in Syria and Greece. Egypt did not respond to the treaty in the given amount of time because it believed France would back it in further conquest. Muhammad Ali's non-cooperation led to the Oriental Crisis of 1840. Russian and British forces attacked Egyptian forces in Acre and quickly defeated Mehemet Ali's forces. France also did not anticipate entering into war with England. After the crisis France switched sides, and Muhammad Ali realised he would have to accept the offer contained in the treaty.

Economic consequences
There are no official trade records for the Ottoman Empire before the year 1878, though it is clear that amount of imports and exports rose shortly after the Treaty of Balta Liman. Although the treaty undeniably increased trade, imports into the country increased exponentially more than exports, and this crippled Ottoman industry. An 1866 Ottoman report claimed that the number of textile looms in Istanbul and Uskar fell from a reported 2,730 to only 23. Similarly brocade looms went from a previous 350 to only four, and cotton or "nankeen" looms went from 40,000 to only 5,000 in Aleppo. The rapid influx of cheap British textiles and no protectionist policies would make industrializing a near impossible task for the Ottoman Empire after the Treaty of Balta Liman.

title: Treaty of Balta Liman


text:
Talk:HMS Rodney (29)

Torpedoing the Bismarck?
From where is the statement that Rodney actually torpedoed Bismarck successfully derived from? Neither Raven and Roberts' British Battleships or Bercuson and Herwig's The Destruction of the Bismarck mention it at all, and Ludovic in Pursuit says that Rodney fired 8 torpedoes, none of which hit (p.197-199 of the 1975 Pinnacle Books edition). 68.20.4.14 (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

 * The quote regarding the number of torpedoes fired and the one that hit and exploded comes from "Reports of Proceedings 1921-1964" by Rear Admiral Galfrey, George, Ormond, Gatacre RAN who was the Navigator on the bridge of  Rodney  throughout the Bismarck sinking. He was in fact a Lt. Cmdr. at the time and served as Navigator on HMS's Devonshire, Norfolk, Edinburgh, Renown and Nelson before joining Rodney in 1940-1, leaving in 1942 to become Commander of HMAS Australia and much later Flag Officer Commanding HMA Fleet. The Dart (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Considering that Ludovic Kennedy was a junior Lieutenant in HMS Tartar, a destroyer which had returned to it's duties escorting the convoy that HMS Rodney had left to pursue 'Bismarck', he was not actually present at the sinking of her. The written words of 'Rodney's' Navigator who was actually there obviously have far more credence than his!The Dart (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And we all know how reliable eyewitnesses are. AFAIK, there's no evidence of any torpedo damage to the hull seen by any of the expeditions to the wreck of the Bismarck.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well Sturmvogel 66 perhaps you need to see David L. Mearns DVD "The Battle of Hood and Bismarck" of 2009. The claim that the German crew make that 'Bismarck' was scuttled is highly disputed by several Naval historians of high regard, Antony Preston for one.The Dart (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've got the book that he did on that, although it's inaccessible for the nonce. I was more interested in his comments on Hood at the time, but I'll pull it out and take a look at it whenever I can. Evidence from the wreck, if it's clear enough, will trump everyone's opinion's about the torpedoing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Funny you should ask about that. David Mearns, who discovered the wreck of the Hood and surveyed the Bismarck on the same expedition, reported visible torpedo holes, as well as large-calibre shell holes, in what remains of the Bismarck. https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129972&page=1 Mearns can't be doing with the childish 'scuttled' theory of the Bismarck's demise, or the pretence that she was somehow invulnerable to shells and torpedoes.

'"I have a real problem with that," says David Mearns, an explorer and author who has also examined the Bismarck wreck.

Mearns says the damage is there if one looks closely enough, and more may be hidden by the mud on the sea floor. He adds that sailors' accounts from the time — both British and German — agree that the British got the revenge they sought.

"It is only when you start getting closer and closer," he says, "that you see that this beautiful hull is actually peppered with torpedo holes and large-caliber shell holes, that she was actually sort of beaten to death by all this British gunnery."'

Bismarck is full of holes, including torpedo holes, probably more holes than we can see because she's half-buried in mud. People who claim otherwise are being disingenuous. Rodney fired 378 16-inch shells at Bismarck, just one of them in the fourth salvo disabling the forward armament and wiping out the entire bridge crew including the captain and the admiral, and those 16s could penetrate Bismarck's belt armour, anywhere, at any range from point blank to 23km. It is evident that KG5 and Rodney shot Bismarck to pieces in fairly short order, and for good measure Rodney scored the only torpedo hit ever gained by one battleship against another. It is not possible that Bismarck was sunk by scuttling, because she rolled over and went under only 20 minutes after the supposed detonation of the charges on the seawater feedpipe in the engine room, and that method would take at least six hours to sink a ship the size of the Bismarck, and probably more, and might never succeed in sinking her at all. (Over twenty of the German ships 'scuttled' at Scapa Flow in 1919 failed to sink, including a capital ship. It was 40 minutes before even one ship in the fleet started to list visibly, and six hours before the last ship to sink went down -- and this was after days of preparation with holes made in all the bulkheads to speed the flooding process.) Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Per Ballantyne p.142, Rodney's Torpedo Officer, Lt Cdr Lewis, said, 'I always claimed that one of the last three torpedoes I fired, at a range of 3,000 yards by then, did hit the Bismarck and in several circles this has been accepted.' Rodney's battle observer recorded a torpedo hit on Bismarck at 9.58am. ERA Ken George, in the starboard engine room, said he heard Dalrymple Hamilton say over the Tannoy, 'We have made history in hitting another battleship with a torpedo.' Dalrymple Hamilton had a fairly good view. Bismarck's surviving gunnery officer apparently claimed the hit was 'doubtful', but, given what was happening to Bismarck at the time, with Rodney, KG5, Devonshire and Norfolk all in action, it is unlikely that the German officer was in full possession of his faculties.

Ludovic Kennedy's ship HMS Tartar was in fact present. Only Eskimo had been detached to escort Britannic. Earlier in the morning, Tovey in KG5 had asked Tartar and Mashona for their fuel state and signalled, 'On receipt of executive signal, proceed as convenient to refuel at Plymouth or Londonderry.' Later, he sent, 'Proceed in execution of previous orders.' According to Kennedy, 'Tovey's original signal had said to proceed to refuel as convenient -- "and what I'm going to find convenient," said the captain, "is to stick around for a bit and watch." ' Rodney opened fire 'a moment later'. Kennedy wrote, 'In all my life I doubt if I will remember another hour as vividly as that one.' But he was perhaps not best positioned to see which torpedoes hit and which did not. (Ludovic Kennedy, On My Way To The Club, Harper Collins 1989, extracted in Mordecai Richler ed., Writers on World War II, Chatto & Windus 1992, p.154.) Tartar and Mashona withdrew once the Bismarck sank. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Picture
A good color image exists at World War 2 in color

Cherry Tree Class
I am reading a little book about Cromarty, written by someone who remembers the RN activity in the area during the 1930s. He says that the Nelson and Rodney were known in the Royal Navy as the ''Cherry Tree Class" because of being "cut down by Washington". --jmb 08:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is supported by another source too: Antony Preston and John Batchelor, "Battleships 1855-1977," Chartwell Books (Phoebus Publishing Co., London, 1977), Page 71: "They were known as the 'Cherry Tree' class--cut down by Washington--but the unkindest cut was the sailors' nickname for them--'Nelsol' and 'Rodnol'--in memory of a group of fleet oilers whose names ended in 'ol': this was a reference to the position of the funnels so far aft." 'Washington' referring to the naval arms limitation treaty. Unfortunately Preston and Batchelor don't cite their source.Naaman Brown (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

4 inch guns
Rodney had her 6 x 4.7 inch guns replaced by 8 x 4 inch guns in twin mounts. Does anybody know: which 4.7 inch mounts were replaced, and which were not? Was it number 1 and 2 on each side (abreast the superstructure) were replaced, and number 3 (on the fantail) left open? Or was it numbers 1 and 3 replaced, and number 2 left open? Anybody know? 76.112.65.31 (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Although it was one of several modifications to the A/A weapons considered, it was never carried out.The Dart (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Steering
Both these ships were notorious for bad steering at low speeds. Both ships leaving Portsmouth harbour frequently ran aground on the Hamilton Bank. A standing naval joke was "Nelson on Hamilton again".AT Kunene (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Not under the navigation of G.G.O. Gatacre. Besides HMS Warspite did exactly that several times and Ray Burt states in "British Battleships 1919-1945" pg.154 Handling and Manoeuvrability, "it is on record that several of the Royal Sovereigns 'played up' especially at slow speeds". To level such a criticism specifically at the 'Nelson's' as though they were uncommonly difficult to navigate is absurdly unfair! In Burt's book on pg.350 he quotes Capt. T.H. Binney with regard to Nelson's manoeuvrability "In the early stages of the ship's 1st commission, there was a general misconception in 'the service' that the 'Nelson' class were unhandy & difficult to manoeuvre", followed by " both my predecessor & myself, however, very soon discovered that this opinion was ENTIRELY FALLACIOUS"."In calm weather, the ship's manoeuvring capabilities are in no way inferior to those of 'Queen Elizabeth' or 'Revenge'." Also matelots who never served in the 'Nelson's' were always deriding this class of battleship because of jealousy relating to the comfortable accommodation & amenities that Nelson & Rodney's crews enjoyed compared to any other battleship in the RN. The criticisms directed at these two ships is mainly based in ignorance of the radical design concepts they embodied which other navies such as the French and with respect to the all-or-nothing armour, the U.S. were later to emulate.The Dart (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)The Dart (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the US invented the concept of all-or-nothing armor back in 1916 with the Nevada-class battleship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, what I was refering to in particular was "the length of the armoured citadel was reduced to a minimum in order to maximise armour thickness; this ran counter to accepted practice in other navies, notably the US Navy, which saw the armoured belt as a protector not only of the ships vitals but also of its bouyancy and stability." cite. John Jordan & Robert Dumas, French Battleships 1922-1956, ISBN 978-1-84832-034-5 The Dart (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's entirely different. IIRC, the American concept dropped things like the upper strake of armor and similar thinly-armored places to concentrate most everything except the conning tower protection on thickening the waterline belt and the main deck armor.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Rodney (29). 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://www.webcitation.org/6BCbi4H90?url=http://www.wrightmuseum.org/explore-world-war-ii/the-archive/97-nh-connection-to-the-sinking-of-the-bismarck.html to http://www.wrightmuseum.org/explore-world-war-ii/the-archive/97-nh-connection-to-the-sinking-of-the-bismarck.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

a task for a computer wizard
Above there has been discussion on the replacement of the 4.7 in guns with 4 in ones. I feel that in the photo of the Rodney shelling Caen the stern heavy AA guns are different from those appearing in the photos at earlier times. At least they have been enclosed. Is a computer wizard able to say something? Perhaps the top-quality photo to do this is in www.world-war.co.uk. pietro151.29.86.54 (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Photos are not normally considered reliable sources.SovalValtos (talk) 10:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Seaworthiness
I'm white-washing nothing. Did you miss these bits?

"The ship encountered a strong storm with gale-force winds on 6–8 December that caused leaks in her hull plating with a moderate amount of flooding. Repairs at Rosyth began on the 18th that included structural reinforcement of the hull plating and general reinforcement of the forward hull structure."

"While at sea with the French battleship Richelieu to conduct a night gunnery exercise on 29 December, Rodney suffered weather damage during a severe storm that caused extensive flooding forward."

"heavy weather further stressed the steering motors and exacerbated her many leaks."

What you persist in defending is far too detailed and is not encyclopedic, i.e. summarized. If you have helpful suggestions on what should be added to the excerpts I gave above, I'm perfectly willing to discuss them with you. But nothing will be used verbatim, I can tell that to you right now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Raven and Roberts, the highest quality source we have on British battleship in World War II, devote no less than ten pages to discussing the weaknesses and limitations of the Rodney. They note, for example, that as a result of emphasizing lighter machinery weight in its construction the ship "was continually beset by machinery problems" (124).  The single quote by an officer above that the Rodney handled fine is biased and it is undue to take this quote as the definitive statement on the issue.  Regarding Rodney's endurance, Raven and Roberts note that during its trials, the ship made 23.8 knots consuming 16 tons per hour which gave an endurance of 5,500 nautical miles.  However, by 1941 the ship's performance had dramatically declined (table reproduced from page 267) :
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Speed: ! 12 knots ! 14 knots ! 16 knots ! 18 knots ! 19.5 knots
 * Endurance (nautical miles)
 * 8,160
 * 7,336
 * 6,060
 * 4,820
 * 3,910
 * Fuel consumption (tons per hour)
 * 5.5
 * 7.1
 * 9.8
 * 13.8
 * 18.5
 * }
 * 18.5
 * }

 * So there is no question that information about the ship's limitations and faults should be given better weight than is currently present in this article. The other issue is the way that this information is presented.  Rather than a straight chronological narrative of the ship's history that presents a simplistic story-telling, there should be topical organization as well.  I am happy to expand the 'questions of seaworthiness' section and rename it, perhaps to 'limitations and flaws'.  In terms of encyclopedic content, it is important to include such information rather than present a hagiography of a ship.  Indeed, that the Rodney was almost a hulk makes its action against the Bismarck all the more impressive.  AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Calling Rodney "almost a hulk" at the time of the battle with the Bismarck is a gross exaggeration of her deficiencies, especially since she exceeded her trials speed during the pursuit. I'm willing to expand the coverage of her problems as an additional paragraph in the description, to avoid "simplistic story-telling", but the existing text remains too detailed and is very close to a copyright infringement of Raven & Roberts in its existing form. I'd suggest dialing down the rhetoric and hyperbole as neither aids in achieving consensus.
 * The problems common to both Nelson and Rodney should be most fully covered in the class article, notably the 16-inch turret and steering at low speeds issues, but can be briefly mentioned here. I'll add a paragraph summarizing the issues to the article and you can tell me where I've gone wrong.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The flaws of the Rodney merit a sub-heading. Its current location, 2.2 is fine, but it could also be placed as 2.1.  Second World War becomes 2.2.  I'll have time tomorrow to add additional detail.AugusteBlanqui (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've started it inside the description section where everything is theme based, not chronological.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Made a few tweaks, but you did a very nice job of summarizing her issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers! AugusteBlanqui (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to wade in here, but I think more needs to be said in the 1943–1948 section now. Design deficiencies ends with the statement "The ship never received the necessary upgrades and as a result was unfit for service by the end of 1944" but, other than some mentions of damage, this is not explained in 1943–1948, which continues to record various operations until Rodney was placed in reserve at the end of 1945 (I assume this was a matter of necessity, but nothing is said to this effect) Cavie78 (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

"Spammy Author"
@: Please explain your deletion of the Buxton reference Source Buxton (2019) with the allegation in the summary that the author, Ian Buxton, was a "Spammy Author" in the edit summary. Additionally this left the article syntax broken in a "good article" with citation to Buxton p. 114 being left with no associated reference source, and I've reverted from that inconsistent broken state for that reason. Referring to 's thread at Talk:Chichester it is possible the gripe is with the book editor MacDougall. Per that thread, and especially as the citation seems added by in good faith on 30 November 2021 at  &, albeit temporarily removed by an IP on 9 December 2020, , please explain your actions and allegations. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Djm-leighpark Kindly (and very bluntly) unwatch my talkpage and stay the fuck out of things that do not concern you. If I wanted your opinion I would've asked for it. – Davey 2010 Talk 10:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Colorized Rodney May 1942.jpg

title: Talk:HMS Rodney (29)


text:
13 Cancri

13 Cancri (abbreviated to 13 Cnc) is a K-type giant star in the constellation Cancer. It has an apparent magnitude of +6.41 and is approximately 970 light years from Earth.

Its designation is unusual as it is one of a very few stars which have a Bayer designation and are not in the Bright Star Catalog, although the designation ψ1 Cancri is rarely used. It is one of the few stars with a Flamsteed designation that are not listed in the Bright Star Catalogue.

title: 13 Cancri


text:
Omega1 Cancri

Omega1 Cancri, which is Latinized from ω1 Cancri, is a yellow-hued star in the zodiac constellation of Cancer. It is a faint star near the lower limit of visibility to the naked eye, having an apparent visual magnitude of 5.85. Based upon an annual parallax shift of $17.91$ as seen from Earth, this system is roughly 628 light years from the Sun. At that distance, the visual magnitude of the star is diminished by an extinction factor of 0.10 due to interstellar dust. It is receding from the Sun with a radial velocity of +2 km/s.

At an estimated age of 270 million years, this is an evolved G-type giant with a stellar classification of G8 III. With the supply of hydrogen at its core exhausted, the star has cooled and expanded to 18 times the girth of the Sun. It has 3.4 times the mass of the Sun and is radiating 224 times the solar luminosity from its photosphere at an effective temperature of 5,070. The surface metallicity of this star – what astronomers term the abundance of elements other than hydrogen and helium – is 41% higher than in the Sun.

title: Omega1 Cancri


text:
User:Kyle Andrew Brown/Archive3

{| align="right" cellspacing="3" width="45%" ''' Tracking American News... ''' Okay, so the news media was out in front of the hurricane storys and they are all falling over themselves as Brownie takes a dive off the deep end from the White House pool while keeping a $140 thousand dollar a year "consultancy". And then those dicey comments from Barbara Bush totally lacking compassion. We're told that the New Orleans disaster was long foretold. But back to the media. Video in real time vs. the storys within people's lives. Who's to blame: the media?, the politicos? or personal responsibility? Hasn't the media given all the politicos a free pass in an era of soft news coverage? And those folks on FOX with all their attack energy directed at people, not problems. Did you follow the snickering in the foreign press about America's Great Racial Divide? Opps, sorry, maybe it's really America's Great Leadership Incompetence. Cause visiting the local Wal Mart, see lotsa tension among the Americans working and shoping there? Back to video in real time: Truckloads of stuff pouring into the Gulf Coast. Volunteers and soldiers and Coasties, and policemen and policewomen. Looks like in these times of sorrow Americans are stepping up to the plate. Even tho we'll all remember that first Air Force One flyby over the devastation. Had it been Austin, would the President have stopped to console the locals? To "learn how the different branches of government work?" Oh, Clara Barton, America truly needs you now.
 * - valign="top"
 * style="border:1px solid #c6c9ff; padding:1em; padding-top:.5em; color: #000; background-color:#f0f0ff"|

title: User:Kyle Andrew Brown/Archive3


text: User talk:68.44.153.140

title: User talk:68.44.153.140


text:
Lavalette, West Virginia

Lavalette is a census-designated place (CDP) in Wayne County, West Virginia, in the United States. As of the 2010 census, its population was 1,073. Lavalette is located at the intersection of West Virginia Route 152 and West Virginia Route 75, eight miles south of Huntington. The town is near Beech Fork Lake, a popular location for boating and fishing, and Twelvepole Creek. Lavalette was named after Lavalette Miller, the daughter of a Norfolk & Western Railway official.

Lavalette is a part of the Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH, Metropolitan Statistical Area. As of the 2010 census, the MSA had a population of 287,702.

Lavalette has two 18-hole public golf courses - Sugarwood Golf Club and Creekside Golf Course. Lavalette also has a paid EMS ambulance service with two emergency response squads and one transport unit. The 35 member volunteer fire department has four engine companies, a rescue boat, and a mobile disaster response trailer.

title: Lavalette, West Virginia


text:
User talk:Dana murty

Please keep in mind Wikipedia is not a web directory. --fvw *  03:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Please stop posting links that don't comply with External links or you will be blocked from editing. --fvw *  03:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This is your final warning. Please stop. --fvw *  03:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. --fvw *  03:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dana murty


text:
Six levels

In Traditional Chinese medicine, the Six Levels, Six Stages or Six divisions is a theory used to understand the pathogenesis of a illness through the critical thinking processes of inductive and deductive logic utilising the model of Yin and Yang. This theory originated from Shang Han Lun (translated into "On Cold Damage") by Zhang Zhongjing in 220 CE or about 1800 years ago.

The Six Stages
The six stages are
 * Tai Yang or Greater Yang
 * Yang Ming or Bright Yang
 * Shao Yang or Lesser Yang
 * Tai Yin or Greater Yin
 * Shao Yin or Lesser Yin
 * Jue Yin or Terminal Yin

As can be seen the names of the levels are the same as the names of the head and foot pairs of acupuncture meridians. The order is roughly the order that a disease takes as you go from health to death. In some disease levels are skipped or the order can change.

Tai Yang stage
(related to Urinary bladder/Small intestine channels) is started when a person is exposed to an exterior cold pathogen. The symptoms are Fever and maybe small chills, aversion to cold, pain in the back of the neck and head, Tongue has not yet changed, Pulse is floating. This stage has two sub stages.

1. Attack by wind.

2. Attack by cold.

3. Water Amassment

4. Blood amassment

Treatment in this stage to release the exterior (sweating)

Yang Ming stage
(related to the stomach and large intestine channels) has high fever, profuse sweating, aversion to heat, thirst, red face, restlessness. The tongue has a red body and dry coating. Pulse Rapid, flooding (until the fluids are injured, then it becomes xi (deficient) and rapid. This stage is called the 4 greats (great pulse, fever, great thirst, great sweat)

Treatment-clearing, draining

Shao Yang stage
(related to the San Jiao and Gallbladder channels) channel symptoms- loss of hearing, red eyes, dizziness, visual distortion, headaches and hypochondriac pain, alternating cold and hot. bowel symptoms-bitter taste, nausea or retching, irritability, anxiety Tongue-Thin, thin coat (that could be white or yellow) pulse-wiry

Treatment-Harmonize

Tai Yin
(related to Lung and Spleen) chronic watery diarrhea, vomiting, loss of appetite, no thirst, abdominal pain Tongue-white coating Pulse-xu (deficient) unless severe pain, then xu and wiry

Treatment-warm

Shao Yin
(related to the Heart and Kidneys) 2 subsections—constant fatigue in either situation Hot- fever, irritability, insomnia, dry mouth and throat, scanty and dark urine. This is a xu (deficient) heat, meaning the treatment is nourishing yin and not clearing heat

Cold-frequent urination with clear urine, cold extremities, aversion to cold, perhaps the body has aching joints and diarrhea. treatment method is warming and supportive.

Tongue-Red if hot pattern, pale if cold pattern Pulse-faint and weak -rapid with heat

Jue Yin
(related to the liver and pericardium channels)Primary symptoms-thirst, qi surging into chest with burning pain, hunger with no desire to eat, cold extremities. heat patterns-diarrhea with burning sensation, rectal heaviness, abdominal cramps, thirst or cold extremities with interior heat cold patterns- cold limbs, diarrhea with undigested food, vomiting, headaches on vertex, spasm Upper heat, lower cold-severe vomiting-case relates to roundworms

title: Six levels


text:
User talk:Armingoldenman

سلام
. من آرمین حاجی خانی هستم و خیلی خوشحالم که در این سایت عضو شدم. من علاقیه زیادی دارم که به این سایت ( سایته خودمون ) کمک کنم تا در قسمت هایی که من در مورد آنها اطلاعات دارم کمی کامل تر بشه ...

ان شاء اللاه

IRAN

 Armin Hajikhani

title: User talk:Armingoldenman


text:
Giuseppe Pitrè

Giuseppe Pitrè (22 December 1841 – 10 April 1916) was an Italian folklorist, medical doctor, professor, and senator for Sicily. As a folklorist he is credited with extending the concept of folklore to include all manifestations of popular life. He is also considered a forerunner in the field of medical history.

Pitrè was born in Palermo. After serving as a volunteer in 1860 under Garibaldi, and graduating in medicine in 1866, he threw himself into the study of literature, and wrote the first scientific studies on Italian popular culture, pioneering Italian ethnographic studies. He founded the study of "folk psychology", in Sicily, teaching at the University of Palermo.

Between 1871 and 1913, he compiled the Biblioteca delle tradizioni popolari siciliane ("Library of Sicilian popular traditions"), a collection of Sicilian oral culture in twenty-five volumes.

Pitrè's Fiabe, novelle e racconti popolari siciliani ("Sicilian Fairy Tales, Stories, and Folktales"), 1875, documenting Sicily's rich folkloric heritage derived from both European and Middle Eastern traditions, is the culmination of the great European folklore scholarship that began earlier in the 19th century. Against the cultural grain of his times, Pitrè championed the common people of Sicily and their customs, and his scholarship of oral narrative tradition is arguably as significant as that of the Brothers Grimm.

In 1880 Pitrè co-founded the folk traditions journal Archivio per lo studio delle tradizioni popolari (English: Archive for the Study of Popular Traditions), which he edited until 1906, and in 1894 he published a basic bibliography of Italian popular traditions. He was made an honorary member of the American Folklore Society in 1890. Palermo's Museo Antropologico Etnografico Siciliano was founded in his memory.

title: Giuseppe Pitrè