text:
Talk:Botanical garden

Herbarium and library requirement
I'd like to see a source for the claim that herbarium and library is a requirement, I've never seen that anywhere. Stan 12:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Where's the botanical garden that you're thinking of, without a library and a germ plasm (usually dried) collection? Not every collection of plants prettily disposed and labelled is a botanical garden. --Wetman 12:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * My belief has always been that a labelled and organized collection of living plants is sufficient to define something as a "botanical garden", but I can't point to a formal definition that says yea or nay. The requirement for a library seems a little arbitrary - does it have to be publicly accessible? Is there a size requirement? If not, would a shelf of books in the director's office qualify? If a labelled collection of plants is not a botanical garden, then how does one distinguish it from a garden that simply exists for esthetic purposes? This is why we're supposed to have an authority to cite, instead of imagining a definition based on our general knowledge. Stan 22:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * But I asked, "Where's the botanical garden that you're thinking of, without a library and a germ plasm (usually dried) collection?"—to which there is no response: compare Heywood et al., ed., International Directory of Botanical Gardens (5th ed. 1990). I'm not going on "my belief": Houghton Mifflin's Dictionary defines "botanical garden: "A place where a wide variety of plants are cultivated for scientific, educational, and ornamental purposes, often including a library, a herbarium, and greenhouses; an arboretum." "Often including a library" is a sop to any possible bookless self-described "botanical garden", of which we have no example. "Would a shelf of books in the director's office qualify?" No: I have more than a shelf-full myself. Is "open to the public" a prerequisite? Then Chelsea Physic Garden is not a botanical garden. "Botanical gardens perform diversified functions, e.g., the collection and cultivation of plants from all parts of the world, experimentation in plant breeding and hybridization, the maintenance of botanical libraries and herbariums, and the administration of educational programs for adults and children." By selective choices, one might say any nature center with a children's program is a "botanical garden". Would that help the Wikipedia reader  asking "What is a botanical garden"?  Unthinking populism endorses so many inflated self-identifications that ideas just collapse in the general cultural rubble. I have added "professionally-staffed" to the description, another generally recognized requirement. --Wetman 09:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So a specific example I'm familiar with (and which has supplied many WP's images) is the The Gardens at the Las Vegas Springs Preserve. I don't think they have a library (haven't asked), not sure about herbarium, but they certainly experiment, educate, and ornament. The dictionary definition puts a lot of caveats in, because some place famous like the San Francisco Botanical Garden transfers its herbarium to SFSU for convenience or financial reasons, it seems unreasonable to insist that it is no longer a true botanical garden. Stan 14:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The Cambridge University Botanic Garden has no library or herbarium. Gdr 22:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The suggestion that the Cambridge University Botanic Garden has no library is a quibble. The library there is for staff use only, and the libraries of the University supplement it with what must be, taken together, one of the prime historical botanical libraries of Europe. A "botanical garden" without a library is like a "college" without a library. Is a Petting zoo a zoological society? In the US particularly, gardens with seasonal themes emphasizing "hands-on" plant experiences for schoolchildren together with attractive pleasure gardens with eco-themes and hobby programs, such as Frederik Meijer Gardens and Sculpture Park recently added to the external links, demonstrate the recently devalued and inflated usage of "botanic garden" in the US. This point needs to be briefly addressed, though not by me, obviously. --Wetman 10:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * This is looking to me like a question of "broad" vs "narrow" definition - from the dictionary definitions you can see that we're not the first to struggle with this. College in fact is a perfect illustration of the difficulties in trying to adopt a narrow definition based on specific criteria; the whole school accreditation concept comes from a desire to better define what is and is not an inflated concept of a college (there are some without libraries, for instance). In the absence of formal "accreditation" for botanical gardens, we're not really in a strong position to be passing judgement on what is and is not. Stan 14:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I am under the impression that the Chelsea Physic Garden is (now?) open to the public, as they wouldn't state admission prices otherwise: []. Am I right there? It might therefore not be appropriate as an example of a closed botanic garden anyway, no matter how you define it. --JustusvV 01:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There has long been discussion of what makes a botanic garden at Botanic Gardens Conservation International. BGCI have made attempts to define them, first in 1989 when the organisation was set up as an IUCN Secretariat, and later refined in the International Agenda for Botanic Gardens in Conservation.

deleted external links
I deleted the external links section as most of these botanical gardens have their own wikipedia-page an are listed in List_of_botanical_gardens ==External links==
 * Padua University Botanical Garden
 * Brooklyn Botanic Garden
 * Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
 * New York Botanical Garden
 * Royal Botanical Gardens, Burlington, Ontario
 * Royal Gardens of Herrenhausen, Hannover
 * Chicago Botanic Garden
 * Hortus Botanicus Leiden
 * United States Botanic Garden
 * Frederik Meijer Gardens and Sculpture Park
 * Botanic Gardens Conservation International
 * Fort Worth Botanic Garden
 * Kirstenbosch National Botanical Garden
 * Royal Botanical Gardens Sydney
 * Royal Botanical Garden Edinburgh
 * Sir Harold Hillier Gardens
 * Botanic Garden of Wales

Botanic or Botanical?
Why the variation in names (nicely illustrated by the list of links above)? Is there any real difference between the two or is it just one of those quirks of language? Lisiate 23:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The earlier term (by two years, 1656 vs. 1658, according to the OED) is botanic, but it notes that it has been "mostly superseded by botanical", except in older institutions such as the Royal Botanic Society. There is no meaningful difference between the two except that botanic used to be used as a noun to describe a botanist. Z iggurat 21:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Scientific Purposes
Why does this article limit botanical gardens to those for scientific purposes? "Botanical gardens grow a wide variety of plants primarily categorized and documented for scientific purposes." There are plenty of botanical gardens that are purely for aesthetic purposes. Are they listed and defined under some other name? Filoli, the Japanese Friendship Garden in San Jose, many others on the California list are not for scientific purposes, yet are listed under Botanical Gardens of the United States. If BG are only scientific, the list must be reduced to probaby about 1/4 of what it is. Some gardens with scientific missions have them secondarily to their primary missions of aesthetic appeal, also. A botanical garden is simply a zoo for plants, and like zoos, they have various missions, some of them are primarily educational, some are research institutes, some are beautiful exhibitions of plants. And some are not well documented at all, much less for scientific purposes. KP Botany 19:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I've tried to broaden the discussion and definition, since the list of botanical gardens clearly doesn't restrict itself to 'scientific' botanical gardens. As of 11 Nov 2009, more is needed on all the activities of botanical gardens, scientific and otherwise. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Modern means ... scientific
Does it really? Please discuss the edit, which appeared to have been made in good faith, rather than reverting. --KP Botany (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I reverted the statement (The first modern botanical gardens were founded in Tenochitlan) because it was inaccurate on several fronts, not for any other reason. Likely it was added in good faith (tho' the only other edit from this ip, made some 20mins later, clearly was not), but at best the statement misrepresents current understanding of the form and function of the gardens like the one(s) at Tenochtitlan and other sites in the Aztec realm.

 * Presumably by "botanical garden" this article has some specific definition in mind, not just any miscellaneous collection of plants grown at some locale. It would be reasonable to regard the definition by BGCI given in the article as an authorative version. If so, it would be a significant stretch to regard the purpose and function of these Aztec gardens as meeting those criteria. Even more so if the qualifier "modern" is used.

 * Aztec gardens such as those in Tenochtitlan proper and elsewhere (like the ones at Itzapalapa famously noted by Cortes) had many functions, but there's little to suggest these included documentation and research purposes. Instead, we have gardens attached to royal residences, for ostentation (laws reportedly dictated only certain sectors of the nobility could maintain them), recreation, pleasure, ritual, ceremony, hunting grounds, etc. It is true that there has been occasional debate in the literature about whether or not these Aztec gardens can validly be described as "botanical" in nature; however to the best of my knowledge the balance of scholarship prefers not to do this, and instead treats them not as "botanical gardens" per se but on their "own terms" (see for eg this paper).

 * Also, among the various gardens of a similar nature known for the Aztec region (or Mesoamerica for that matter), the one(s) in Tenochtitlan itself are not the earliest examples of this type. There were very many throughout the region, and sites such as Huaxtepec and Tetzcoco preceded the ones in Tenochtitlan described by the conquistadors by a century or more.

 * A third point- if "botanical gardens" is to be interpreted here in its broadest possible (and therefore somewhat debased sense, see older comments from others on this talkpage above), then it is quite unlikely that in a global context the Aztec ones would be definitively the earliest such. However as noted it doesn't seem to make much sense to interpret the meaning of this article so broadly.

 * In summary: in the sense of the definitions of the term made in this article, the Aztec ones are not a good fit, and they are not commonly desribed as such in the literature- they are not "modern botanical gardens". Neither are the ones in Tenochtitlan the earliest examples of gardens of a similar type and purpose to be found in the Mesoamerican region. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 05:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we're discussing "scientific" botanical gardens, and that's what you offer? There's no good way to say this, cjllw, but your arguments are nothing.  I can't even find where to hold on to them.  Why don't you define, with references, exactly what you mean by a botanical garden, then maybe I can figure out where you are coming from.  The article you link to simply seems to be saying botanical gardens weren't part of Mesoamerican culture.  This also seems to be way off track of anything.  I will send for it and read it in its entirety, but, really, you've offered nothing but Euro-centricity in its extremest.  --KP Botany (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

 * In terms of the literature on the history of botanic gardens, sources I've read all see the progression being from medieval European physic gardens to 'scientific' botanical gardens. The article reflected this view before my edits, and still does. This doesn't mean that there weren't the equivalent of physic gardens - gardens whose main purpose was to gather and study plants for medicinal purposes - in other cultures. There clearly were, and it would be good to have an article on this. However, they weren't the predecessors of the modern botanic garden.

 * I've now discovered a couple of relevant references which suggest a possible influence of Mesoamerican gardens on the history of botanical gardens, so I've added a short paragraph on this. I can't discover any source which documents a direct influence between the conquistadores' knowledge and the creation of the North Italian gardens in the second half of the 16th century. If there is any evidence, then of course this should be added. In terms of maintaining a NPOV, the article has to start from the definition of a botanical garden out there in the sources, and all those I've seen are unanimous in pin-pointing Pisa/Padua as the pivotal point between physic gardens (which the Mesoamerican ones could certainly be called) and botanical gardens. I agree that there needs to be a fuller article on physic gardens/medicinal gardens. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Call for the definitions of botanic garden and botanical garden
To my knowledge, one is scientific and another not. Which is which???--222.64.219.122 (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Botanists please clarify the concepts of Botanical garden and Botanic garden--222.64.219.122 (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I believe that they are synonyms, and have edited the article to say this. See also the section below headed "Rewrite/re-structure". Peter coxhead (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite/re-structure
This appears to be quite an important page, since it's linked to by many separate articles on botanic(al) gardens. I think that the previous version was rather weak in relation to the importance of the topic. I've made an attempt to rewrite/re-structure it. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that "botanic" and "botanical" are synonyms in the context of gardens. Because the oldest such gardens in most English-speaking countries appear to use the term "botanic", this perhaps conveys more prestige and more sense of being scientific, but this isn't an important distinction.
 * It's clear to me that it's not possible to legislate on what is or isn't a botanical garden. On the other hand, the BGCI represents some 1,800 botanic gardens in almost 150 countries, so its agreed definition should have some force.
 * I've suggested subsections to the section "Activities" based on the four given in the BGCI accepted definition. Is this sensible?

 * I've gone through all the articles linking to botanic garden and changed to use botanical garden. I have tried to use judgment whether to pipe to botanic garden. In particular Australian and Scottish seem more to prefer botanic, and articles on a specific garden so-named I have tried to give preference to botanic. Hope this makes sense, but it cuts down the double redirect problem. Si Trew (talk) 12:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation page
Given that 'botanic garden' and 'botanical garden' (and indeed the same phrases with 'gardens') are synonyms, I think it's very odd to have one title as a disambiguation page and one as a topic page.

Proposal: Peter coxhead (talk) 07:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Searching for 'botanic garden' and 'botanical garden' should both lead to the topic page.
 * The topic page should have a standard top link to the disambiguation page, which should have '(disambiguation)' in the title as normal.

 * Support. All sounds reasonable to me. To be concrete,I would suggest:
 * 'Botanic garden' is the main topic title, as the shorter of the two.
 * It should have a hatnote to the dab page, Botanic garden (disambiguation)
 * 'Botanical garden' should be a redirect to this page.
 * I would say it is unnecessary to have Botanical garden (disambiguation) redirect to this.
 * Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Support - largely as per Si Trew.
 * I have no firm opinion about which should be THE main page, and will support the "best" arguement. (Note, "Best" is deliberately undefined at this stage.)
 * At the moment, and in the absence of any other suggestion, "best" = "shortest" seems good ... (Note that I am not firmly wed to this pov and am open to persuasion, perhaps even bribery.)
 * So, to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s, if we agree Botanic garden is to be the main page:
 * Main page: Botanic garden with hatnote to Botanic garden (disambiguation)
 * Botanical Garden, Botanical garden, Botanical Gardens, Botanical gardens, Botanic Gardens, Botanic gardens, and Botanic Garden ALL redirect to Botanic garden
 * Botanical Garden (disambiguation), Botanical garden (disambiguation), Botanical Gardens (disambiguation), Botanical gardens (disambiguation), Botanic Gardens (disambiguation), Botanic gardens (disambiguation), and Botanic Garden (disambiguation) ALL redirect to Botanic garden (disambiguation).
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your quick responses. I'm making the changes at present. For now, I've left 'Botanical garden' as the main topic title, rather than 'Botanic garden'. I have to say that my personal preference is for the latter, but:
 * The Wiktionary entry, and most of the other dictionaries I've looked at, refer 'botanic garden' to 'botanical garden', which kind of establishes the latter as the 'prime' term.
 * 'Botanical' does seem to be the more modern usage, in that if you look at recently created gardens, this is the word normally used rather than 'botanic'.
 * But like you I don't have a strong opinion about this. I think it's ok as it is. (Although you could say it's illogical to have the main topic as 'BotanicAL garden' and the disambiguation page as 'Botanic garden (disambiguation)'.) Peter coxhead (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Another issue is that there are many more links from other articles to 'botanical garden' than to 'botanic garden'. This seems a good reason to keep things as they are. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm quite happy with "botanical garden" as main, given the arguments above. Si Trew (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I've gone through all the articles linking to botanic garden and changed to use botanical garden. I have tried to use judgment whether to pipe to botanic garden. In particular Australian and Scottish seem more to prefer botanic, and articles on a specific garden so-named I have tried to give preference to botanic. Hope this makes sense, but it cuts down the double redirect problem. Si Trew (talk) 12:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

 * So, to be unambiguous, we have agreed:
 * Main page: Botanical garden with hatnote to Botanical garden (disambiguation)
 * Botanical Garden, Botanical Gardens, Botanical gardens, Botanic Gardens, Botanic gardens, Botanic garden, and Botanic Garden ALL redirect to Botanical garden
 * Botanical Garden (disambiguation), Botanical Gardens (disambiguation), Botanical gardens (disambiguation), Botanic Gardens (disambiguation), Botanic gardens (disambiguation), Botanic garden (disambiguation), and Botanic Garden (disambiguation) ALL redirect to Botanical garden (disambiguation).
 * Yes? On that basis, I'll "move" the "wrong" ones, and create the red ones. OK? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Agreed. I'll work a bit more on relinking articles to Botanical garden, but leave the DABs to you. Note as redirects I think they should not, themselves, be categorised as DABs. Si Trew (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Done. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Post Script: Thank you gentlemen. I wish everything on wikipedia could be resolved that amicably! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Um, it's early days yet – objections and reversions are still possible. :-) But it's good to see this sorted out; thanks for your assistance to a relative newcomer. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Articles using [Botanic Garden relinked. Si Trew (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You may wish to review WP:NOTBROKEN. Hesperian 01:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Duly done. But many were broken, either because the title referred to a "botanic garden" and the text linked to "botanical garden", or vice versa, or other things like that. So, frequently, the user ended up at the DAB page as was instead of at this article. Thus it made sense, as part of the process of reducing the DABs to DABs and so forth, to go through and point them at the right article, not the DAB. It's a matter of judgment, as I put on the edit summary when making the change, to allow other editors quickly to see, and revert if necessary, what I was doing. Si Trew (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I support Si Trew in this matter. Previously, all links to Botanic garden went to a DAB page; now they go via a redirect to the article Botanical garden. So it was necessary to check every old link to see whether it should go to the newly re-named DAB page or to the article. I agree that, in principle, those which should go to the article could have been left to go via the redirect, but given that every one needed to be checked, it seems pointless not to change them. This also alerts editors of those pages to the changed nature of the links to 'Botanic garden' and 'Botanical garden'. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

 * To emphasise the point (to Hesperian), links were not changed/piped etc just to avoid a link to a redirect. They were not a link to a redirect in the first place, they were links to a DAB. The choice then was to change the name and pipe it, or simply to change the name anyway, since in many articles the name of the garden was "botanic" but the article text or link said "botanical", or a mix of both. This is more a question of using consistent terminology (see consensus agreements ibidem ad nauseam) than just wikignoming. For example, Irish, Scottish and Australasian articles seem to prefer "botanic"; US and English usually "botanical" (not sure about Welsh as I can't remember any problematic cases there offhand). Peter is quite right in saying that every article was checked to make sure that its use was consistent, as much for terminology as for anything else. That is why, for example, articles linking to the redirects botanic gardens and botanical gardens are largely left alone, as their use was correct. It's really a matter of judgment, and I am sure in some cases I jumped the wrong way, which is why, as always, I left a meaningful edit summary. Also, taking WP:OWNFEET, Peter, Pdfdf and I managed this whole business in one morning without breaking anything along the way. That is why sometimes there are several edits to an article in what would seem to be able to be done in one, but then some articles WOULD have been broken along the way (because if the three point turns one has to make when moving articles about). Careful planning and cooperation between us made sure that nothing broke along the way. Si Trew (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite
I realize that replacing an article with a "rewrite" can be extremely frustrating as it seems to ignore the work and thought that has gone into the existing article. However, sometimes an "all-at-once" change is much more efficient than gradual editing. I have been working on an update to this page for some time and invite editors to comment on what I've done. I will await comment for a week or so - and if none is forthcoming will put the "revised version" up in real time. Please let me know what you think - the proposed rewrite (still being worked on) is here. Granitethighs 03:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Can you be more specific about "a week or so"? I don't think it's long enough; a month would probably be more reasonable. My guess is if you do a massive rewrite, it will get immediately reverted. See perhaps WP:OWNFEET for some reasoning behind making small, incremental improvements.

 * Can you explain perhaps why you think a total rewrite is necessary? 10:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Si Trew (talk)

 * Simon: (I added your signature above which I guess you forgot. Hope this is ok.) if you look at the rewrite so far I think you'll agree that it's a massive improvement. This is an important topic in both botany and horticulture and deserves a top quality article. My only slight growse is that it would have been nice to have been warned a little earlier; only yesterday I collected a book from the library which I was going to use today to add some stuff myself. However, what's been done is, in my view, extremely good. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks, I forgot to sign. I have some big problems with this. First, I have some problems with the English in the article; if it is going to be done, it should at least try to meet the gist of WP:MOS (I realise that is a moving target but there are obvious howlers as it stands right now). Second, I have a bigger problem that none of the edits to the article in the sandbox have an edit summary. So, I simply cannot see the direction of change at all here. I just can't see why it could not be incrementally edited instead of a massive rewrite.

 * User talk:Granitethighs is now asking for opinions about the changes when it is essentially impossible to see the changes as the difference is just "everything has changed" and there is no edit summary on any edit in the sandbox to explain the reason for the change. This makes reviewing the changes an extremely tedious process. See WP:ES. I dislike being presented with a fait accompli when consensus at least on the principle that a total rewrite was necessary could have achieved consensus here first.

 * So I come from a very oppositional viewpoint here, not for this article in particular, but I dislike monolithic rewrites by one author instead of incremental improvements by several. That does not mean I have already made my mind up, but the onus is on the person making the change to justify it, not on the person disliking the change to justify his dislike. Since there are no edit summaries and no explanation here of why a rewrite is needed, I am rather antipathetical to this change right now, and need to be persuaded.

 * The argument "it deserves a top quality article" is rather weak, so really does every article if we accept that it is worthy of inclusion at all. I simply do not agree that it is "extremely good", there are lots of typos and nonstandard uses but since the author already says it is a work in progress, i.e. a moving target, it is difficult for me to discuss any individual change – which of course is another way of saying, I dislike monolithic rewrites because I can't suggest small, incremental improvements, and it is hardly worth my giving examples because they may have the lifetime of a mayfly.

 * For example let's take the opening sentence.

Botanical gardens from a public perspective are generally attractive well-tended parks displaying a wide range of plants that are usually labeled with their botanical names.

 * Why "from a public perspective"? Why "generally attractive"? POV. Why not just put "Botanical gardens are well-tended parks cultivating and displaying a wide range of plants that are usually labeled with their botanical names." That is more NPOV to me. Some may not be well-tended, of course, but I think it is intended that they are and not, for example, a wildlife reserve that may be left to grow wild.

 * Why are the glasshouses "spectacular"? POV again. Why the hyphen in "world-wide" (and then used as "worldwide" later)?

 * In the first picture (Pisa botanical garden) why the abbreviation "est."? It's not as if the caption is short anyway.

 * Why the mix of use of en dashes, em dashes and hyphens? e.g. ("- mostly botanic gardens –"). See WP:DASH.

 * There is a mix of British and American spelling. (e.g. "colour" but "labeled"), "medieval" and "mediaeval" — I think the former is usually preferred even in British English these days.

 * The refs are good, but there are still some duplicate refs that need to be telescoped.

 * You will say these are picky, or that they exist in the original. well then fix the original in those regards, then decide on moving sections about. Or, I am quite happy to sub this for review, but it seems pointless to do so until then. But I think it's just too much to do it all at once, and I can't see the meat for the potatoes. Si Trew (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

 * OK, I appreciate the feedback and understand the concern. I thought this might happen and am aware that WP has two approaches - rewrite or incremental editing. IMO a rewrite is warranted when the article is in the earliest stages of development, which I think is where the current article is. However, when it is, say a B or GA then a rewrite is clearly an affront to the work already done and it is better to edit a bit at a time. Frankly I was not prepared to edit the current article word by word when there was so much that needed adding and adjusting. Also, as the changes I am suggesting are so substantial IMO there is little value in having the entire edit history. I take on board all the comments about editing - but think the "guts" of the article is more important at this stage than what kind of hyphens are being used, spelling etc. I am not suggesting what i have written is "finished" but I do think it is a substantial improvement. I am happy to delay putting this up as long as necessary - choose a time.  You probably  think I am both extremely presumptive and arrogant in this approach but the alternative is an extremely long and tedious process. I have incorporated virtually all of what is currently in the article. IMO better to work on improving what I have offered. Anyway - could you suggest a way forward Simon? If you find what I've done really offensive then I am happy to simply withdraw it.  `  00:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Simon, when I said that the new version was very good, I meant in terms of the content. I think that 'botanical garden' is a topic worth a substantial (i.e. relatively lengthy) article. All articles should be good in terms of being well-researched, well-written, within all WP policies, etc., but not all should be substantial (e.g. I developed James Eustace Bagnall – in my view a sufficiently notable person for Wikipedia, but he shouldn't have a substantial article). I agree with you about the style of the English in the current draft. You may not be aware that Granitethighs has also been working on History of botany in much the same way, i.e. a total re-write. I've been watching the quality of the writing on this article improve over a couple of weeks (though I think it needs a bit more copy-editing). So I'm in favour of letting 'botanical garden' develop some more; be moved out of user space; then we can all descend and copy-edit if we want. If you look at an article that's in a mess – usually because lots of editors have added little bits at different times without paying any attention to the overall structure -- then it's very difficult to improve it incrementally. Natural history is another article that I think needs to be more substantial. Look at the version at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=315065902, particularly the section "Description". In my view, it's just a mess. I completely re-wrote it for the current version Natural history. (The rest of the page needs a lot of work to IMHO.) I tried incremental improvements (offline) but it didn't work. But I agree (as I've already said) that it would have been useful for Granitethighs to have discussed a complete re-write first, because there were some active editors on this page, and I for one was gathering material to add sections. However, this doesn't detract from the substantialness and solidity of the re-draft. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree, actually, having time to look at it more, the revised version is a very substantial improvement on what we already have. I have been bound up the last few days with people adding essentially empty articles, claiming they have created them (which technically they have), which then editors like me have to go and either actually make at least into a respectable stub. User:Granitethighs probably got the result of that frustration, for which I can only apologise.

 * May I suggest Granitethighs not to worry too much about my picky complaints, get on with making great content, and I am more than happy to sub it for silly things like that, as I am sure Peter will want to do, too. But I do appreciate you have made a very substantial improvement to what we already have, and all power to you. Si Trew (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Thank you both for your understanding - I realise that wading in like this is confronting and not a very satisfactory process. A longer time line and less intrusive approach would have been better. I'm still learning. Would it be OK if I keep working on the article in my Sandbox for say ?week or fortnight and then let it loose in real time? I realize that it is then likely to be mercilessly edited, which is fine by me, as it still needs a lot of work and that is what WP is all about. Granitethighs  23:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I've done as much work as I want to do on the article for now. Can I put it up for others to edit? Granitethighs  03:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Please do! Peter coxhead (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Go ahead! I am no expert in this subject, but I'll happily sub it as best I can. Si Trew (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(oudent) well done Granitethighs for moving it. I watched that Peter had made lots od small edits and so I left be while he did so. I should like to make a few myself, very minor, but wanted it to settle rather than run in with a porbeagle. Did I say porbeagle? I meant bargepole. It is an anagram.

So if Peter is done I will sub it a bit too, and this is an absolutely excellent article Granitethighs and a vast vast improvement. Thank you so much for your hard work here. I just sub it for slips then I would reccommend GA

18:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your tolerance of my porbeagle Simon, and for helping to clean it up. Granitethighs  22:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've now subbed the article, all minor stuff. The main points:
 * I've removed pipes to the names of gardens. In my opinion, the name of the garden should not hide under the name of a place, since the link does not go to the place, it goes to the garden. This should simply be made apparent.
 * Except where context would make it ludicrious, I've changed "botanic" to "botanical", since I thought we had consensus to call it a botanical garden.
 * I've fixed for WP:DASH.
 * I split the America and Russia sections in 19th Century, since they seemed to be rather arbitrarily conjoined.
 * I've renameed "Oceania" to "Southern hemisphere" since South Africa is not really in Oceania.
 * I've made a few spelling changes to use British English, since the article seems mostly to be in that variant. I've left verbs ending in -ize though, see Fowler.
 * I've added (and checked) lots of links. Some may think I have WP:OVERLINKed, but they are easier to take out than put in.
 * I've occasionally rephrased surrounding text so that the link can stand without an elaborate pipe. I've no objection to piping simply to change a singular to a plural form and things like that, but I don't think a pipe should go to a completely different topic from what it says. See Principle of least astonishment.
 * I've added a few (three) redlinks. I'm not scared of redlinks, and simply getting rid of redlinks by not linking at all is, to me, the wrong solution.

The main thing I want to do, now, is just separate the notes from the refs, i.e. a separate group for "notes". I don't think there are many. Otherwise the refs all look good. So I am more or less done. With the redlinks I realise this would probably fail a GA review or something, but my solution to that is, write a stub article for each of them, don't just remove them. In fact they are the names of three gardens in China.

Nice job Granitethighs. Best wishes and Happy Christmas Si Trew (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks Si - all those changes have "polished" the article nicely - and by noting what you've done I've learned some general principles of editing in Wikipedia too. Granitethighs  21:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Oh, there is also a redlink to the Linnaean B. G. in Philadelphia. I also overlooked removing the pipes for New Zealand and South Africa under WP:ASTONISH, duly done now. Happy New Year. Si Trew (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see the rating until I clicked on the talk, I think we should go to a GA review. A few bits need to be brushed up, little fiddly details, but it is a damned good article and take it to GA I reckon.

Si Trew (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Hi Simon - not sure how to do this but sounds a good idea to me. Granitethighs  10:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Of any interest?
By chance, well "Random Page", I found René_Louis_de_Girardin, who seems to have had quite a hand in the development of the French landscape garden. I cleared up the English a bit but it still needs more work on it, I imagine it was written by a Francophone who has quite good English but slips on prepositions and articles and stuff, just in the way that French and English rather differ that way. I just note it here because I think it may be of interest, and I am sure you can follow the links. Certainly that article needs more work; I hope I have just made it a little better.

My sincere best wishes as always Si Trew (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

First sentence
I'm confused. It mentions having the plants labelled by their scientific names. What exactly would you then call a garden using the common names? How is it any different? Correctron (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

 * I agree that labelling by their scientific names is not a requirement, although it's doubtful that any garden that would be called a "botanical garden" wouldn't use scientific names in addition to any vernacular names. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Botanical garden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080123222721/http://202.127.158.171/eabgn/english/index.htm to http://202.127.158.171/eabgn/english/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100731004007/http://www.rbg.vic.gov.au/horticulture/environmental-management to http://www.rbg.vic.gov.au/horticulture/environmental-management

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) 22:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Who was the international association of botanic garden established
Nice 2409:4042:38A:3AE4:93D2:4940:67F8:B844 (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

 * As we don’t have an article for it yet I don’t think that will go into this article either. Invasive Spices (talk) 29 December 2021 (UTC)

University of California Botanical Garden
Hello I think 's addition is appropriate despite the COI. Invasive Spices (talk) 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * if you think it is appropriate, I am more than happy for you to add it back. I'd encourage to follow WP:COI advice and propose changes on talk pages so independent editors like you can make those decisions in future. Thanks Melcous (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This all seems a lot of work when I can add these onto our web pages with little trouble. Are you saying that if I fill out this and post it where? then I can add important info about the UC Botanical Garden.

 * . Andrewdoran (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * of course you can add whatever content you like to your own web page with little trouble, but wikipedia is not your web page and as has been explained to you multiple times now, requires you to abide by its policies, which yes, may mean it takes more time or indeed what you would like to be included here will not be. The paid disclosure you have posted here should instead go on your own user page. Melcous (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that Andrewdoran should do that. Invasive Spices (talk) 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , promotional editing of any kind is absolutely prohibited. The emphasis on articles needing to be predominantly based on a secondary source is to discourage the type of editing you are suggesting Making edits for the purpose of shoe-horning references that are authored by your colleagues or your institution to increase their academic prominence falls under WP:CITESPAM. Graywalls (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This has been resolved quite some time ago. Invasive Spices (talk) 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the re-addition. Graywalls (talk) 04:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't revert when there is a Talk: agreement between other users. You should have participated here first. You can't make that decision alone. To your edit summary it should not be an indiscriminate list of anything that has a website.  is not a website. That is a wikilink. It indicates WP:NOTABILITY. Additionally I don't understand Given that it was already added by a COI, the idea to add it is now no longer totally unconnected. Invasive Spices (talk) 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that whether that would have been added by an uninvolved editor if a COI/U promotional editor did not edit it. If all a COI/U editor had to do was add it, risk it, and hope that they find at least one other who finds it appealing, they're going to keep doing it. While you did have some yay sayers, there was at least one nay sayer besides me and the presence of objection suggests consensus has not been reached. Graywalls (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to note,, I was focused on the COI issue, and my intention was to indicate that if a neutral editor thinks the content is appropriate then the COI issue is overcome. I was not making any comment on the substance of the content itself. If one or more editors dispute it as promotional, then there should be some consensus reached here before it is included and I have no comment to make on that. Thanks Melcous (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Graywalls someone else having a coi does not somehow infect me. I do not have a coi. I am free to edit. This is a repetition of the reasons to have suspicion about Andrewdoran's edits. I have yet to hear a reason to to revert a different, unconflicted editor 11 days after this discussion. It is normal to include one of the older and larger botanical gardens in the world and one which is sufficiently notable to have a . Invasive Spices (talk) 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Origins
Just ran across this interesting passage in America's First Cuisines (1994, 2005) by Sophie D. Coe:

 * It is sometimes said that the idea of the botanical garden came to Europe in the letters of Cortés to Charles V, in one of which he described the botanical gardens of the Aztec emperor Motecuhzoma (Cortés 1986: 196). These letters were published in Latin in 1522 and in Italian in Venice in 1524. Navagero left Venice in October 1524 and when he arrived in Spain wrote to his friend Giovanni Battista Ramusio, promising to send him all the written material he could find on the New World if Ramusio would see to tending his two gardens, one on the mainland at La Selva and the other on the island of Murano. This last, supposedly the first private botanical garden in Europe, had been planted in 1522. The earliest public botanical gardens in Europe were in Pisa and Padua, founded respectively in 1544 and 1545. If Ermolao Barbaro really founded, or even thought of founding, a private botanical garden in Padua in 1484 this of course predates any possible New World influence. The last decade of the fifteenth century saw the republication in Venice of many of the botanical works of antiquity—interest in the world of plants was part of the Renaissance ferment. The best conclusion about the origin of the botanical garden is to consider it a joint effort, with the Old World and the New cooperating to add this weapon to the armament of science.

It looks like this article sidesteps the controversy, but it would be of interest to include it or whatever the current thought on the matter is, as this text is somewhat dated. Viriditas (talk) 03:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Botanical garden


text: User talk:217.121.147.246

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

title: User talk:217.121.147.246


text:
Bill Jenkings

William Charles Jenkings (1915 – 12 May 1996) was an Australian writer, newspaper reporter, and a well known Bondi Beach personality.

Career
Jenkings was a news and crime reporter for the Sydney newspaper The Daily Mirror, having joined the paper in 1944. The Daily Mirror was then owned by Ezra Norton and was later owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd. Jenkings worked as a reporter there until his retirement in 1991. Jenkings made and maintained legendary contacts both in the underworld and the police force, and was regarded as the foremost crime reporter in Sydney for over 50 years. He covered high-profile cases during the 1950s and 1960s, including the Graeme Thorne kidnapping, the Bogle-Chandler case, and the Wanda Beach Murders. One of his sources, Detective Ray "Gunner" Kelly, benefited greatly from the publicity, becoming one of Australia's best-known policemen.

Jenkings was also unabashed at his support for several of the men he'd met in his working life. He had known Rupert Murdoch when Murdoch controlled The Daily Mirror, and Jenkings insisted that he was "a great boss". He also refused to believe allegations about the involvement of Sydney policemen Ray Kelly, Fred Krahe and Frank Farrell in corrupt activities, saying that he had also known them personally.

Author
Jenkings published two books. The first, Crime Reporter, was a pulp-paperback about some of his highest-profile reporting cases. His second, As Crime Goes By.., covered his life story, which was mostly ghost-written for him just after he retired, and became a best-seller. The book featured interesting accounts of the lives of many famous Sydney criminals such as Kate Leigh, Tilly Devine, John 'Chow' Hayes, William 'Joey' Hollebone, Nellie Cameron, "Pretty" Dulcie Markham, Robert "Pretty Boy" Walker, Richard "Dick" Reilly, "Greyhound" Charlie Bourke, Stewart John Regan and Darcy Dugan. In it he suggested that he knew the solutions to the Bogle-Chandler and Wanda Beach cases, although the suspect he named for the latter commenced legal action against Jenkings for the allegation. This litigation was not finalised, and it ceased with Jenkings' death.

Personal life
Jenkings married Noreen Cecilia Simpson at St. Anne's Catholic Church, Bondi, New South Wales, on 30 March 1940. He lived with his family for most of his life in Bondi, and was known to many people as "Bondi" Bill Jenkings, and was a life member of the Bondi Surf Lifesaving Club. He died on 12 May 1996, was cremated at the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park at Botany, and was survived by his wife and four children.

title: Bill Jenkings


text:
Environmental journalism

Environmental journalism is the collection, verification, production, distribution and exhibition of information regarding current events, trends, and issues associated with the non-human world. To be an environmental journalist, one must have an understanding of scientific language. The individual needs to put to use their knowledge of historical environmental events. One must have the ability to follow environmental policy decisions and environmental organizations. An environmental journalist should have a general understanding of current environmental concerns, and the ability to communicate information to the public in a way that is easily understood.

Environmental journalism falls within the scope of environmental communication. Its roots can be traced to nature writing. One controversy in environmental journalism is, how to distinguish the genre from its allied disciplines.

History
While the practice of nature writing has a rich history that dates back at least as far as the exploration narratives of Christopher Columbus, and follows tradition up through prominent nature writers like Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau in the late 19th century, John Burroughs and John Muir in the early 20th century, and Aldo Leopold in the 1940s, the field of environmental journalism did not begin to take shape until the 1960s and 1970s.

The growth of environmental journalism as a profession roughly parallels that of the environmental movement, which became a mainstream cultural movement with the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring in 1962 and was further legitimized by the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964. Grassroots environmental organizations made a booming appearance on the political scene in the 1960s and 1970s, raising public awareness of what many considered to be the "environmental crisis", and working to influence environmental policy decisions. The mass media has followed and generated public interest on environmental issues ever since.

The field of environmental journalism was further legitimized by the creation of the Society of Environmental Journalists in 1990, whose mission "is to advance public understanding of environmental issues by improving the quality, accuracy, and visibility of environmental reporting." Today, academic programs are offered at a number of institutions to train budding journalists in the rigors, complexity and sheer breadth of environmental journalism

Risks and Challenges
Environmental journalism plays a vital role in addressing global crises like climate change and biodiversity loss, educating the public and holding policymakers accountable. However, it is a high-risk profession, as journalists often face threats while reporting from remote and hazardous locations on issues such as deforestation and pollution.

Over the past 15 years, the 2024 UNESCO report documents a concerning rise in attacks on environmental journalists worldwide, with 749 incidents, including 44 murders, of which only five resulted in convictions. The report identifies state and private actors, as well as criminal groups, as major sources of these threats, which severely undermine the dissemination of essential environmental information. This situation is further exacerbated by the spread of climate-related disinformation on social media. Additionally, a survey involving more than 900 environmental journalists revealed that 70% had experienced threats related to their work, highlighting the grave and widespread challenges facing journalists in this field.

Advocacy debate
There exists a minor rift in the community of environmental journalists. Some, including those in the Society of Environmental Journalists, believe in objectively reporting environmental news, while others, like Michael Frome, a prominent figure in the field, believe that journalists should only enter the environmental side of the field if saving the planet is a personal passion, and that environmental journalists should not shy away from environmental advocacy, though not at the expense of clearly relating facts and opinions on all sides of an issue. This debate is not likely to be settled soon, but with changes in the field of journalism filtering up from new media being used by the general public to produce news, it seems likely that the field of environmental journalism will lend itself more and more toward reporting points of view akin to environmental advocacy.

Environmental communication
Environmental communication is all of the forms of communication that are engaged with the social debate about environmental issues and problems.

Also within the scope of environmental communication are the genres of nature writing, science writing, environmental literature, environmental interpretation and environmental advocacy. While there is a great deal of overlap among the various genres within environmental communication, they are each deserving of their own definition.

Nature writing
Nature writing is the genre with the longest history in environmental communication. In his book, This Incomparable Land: A Guide to American Nature Writing, Thomas J. Lyon attempts to use a "taxonomy of nature writing" in order to define the genre. He suggests that his classifications, too, suffer a great deal of overlap and intergrading. "The literature of nature has three main dimensions to it: natural history information, personal responses to nature, and philosophical interpretation of nature" (Lyon 20). In the natural history essay, "the main burden of the writing is to convey pointed instruction in the facts of nature," such as with the ramble-type nature writing of John Burroughs (Lyon 21). "In essays of experience, the author's firsthand contact with nature is the frame for the writing," as with Edward Abbey's contemplation of a desert sunset (Lyon 23). In the philosophical interpretation of nature, the content is similar to that of the natural history and personal experience essays, "but the mode of presentation tends to be more abstract and scholarly" (Lyon 25). The Norton Book of Nature Writing adds a few new dimensions to the genre of nature writing, including animal narratives, garden essays, farming essays, ecofeminist works, writing on environmental justice, and works advocating environmental preservation, sustainability and biological diversity. Environmental journalism pulls from the tradition and scope of nature writing.

Science writing
Science writing is writing that focuses specifically on topics of scientific study, generally translating jargon that is difficult for those outside a particular scientific field to understand into language that is easily digestible. This genre can be narrative or informative. Not all science writing falls within the bounds of environmental communication, only science writing that takes on topics relevant to the environment. Environmental journalism also pulls from the tradition and scope of science writing.

Environmental interpretation
Environmental interpretation is a particular format for the communication of relevant information. It "involves translating the technical language of a natural science or related field into terms and ideas that people who aren't scientists can readily understand. And it involves doing it in a way that's entertaining and interesting to these people" (Ham 3). Environmental interpretation is pleasurable (to engage an audience in the topic and inspire them to learn more about it), relevant (meaningful and personal to the audience so that they have an intrinsic reason to learn more about the topic), organized (easy to follow and structured so that main points are likely to be remembered) and thematic (the information is related to a specific, repetitious message) (Ham 8–28). While environmental journalism is not derived from environmental interpretation, it can employ interpretive techniques to explain difficult concepts to its audience.

Environmental literature
Environmental literature is writing that comments intelligently on environmental themes, particularly as applied to the relationships between man, society and the environment. Most nature writing and some science writing falls within the scope of environmental literature. Often, environmental literature is understood to espouse care and concern for the environment, thus advocating a more thoughtful and ecologically sensitive relationship of man to nature. Environmental journalism is partially derived from environmental literature

Environmental advocacy
Environmental advocacy is presenting information on nature and environmental issues that is decidedly opinionated and encourages its audience to adopt more environmentally sensitive attitudes, often more biocentric worldviews. Environmental advocacy can be present in any of the aforementioned genres of environmental communication. It is currently debated whether environmental journalism should employ techniques of environmental advocacy.

Topics
The field of environmental journalism covers a wide variety of topics. According to The Reporter's Environmental Handbook, environmental journalists perceive water concerns as the most important environmental issue, followed by atmospheric air pollution concerns, endocrine disruptors, and waste management issues. The journalists surveyed were more likely to prioritize specific, local environmental issues than global environmental concerns.

Environmental journalism can include, but is not limited to, some of the following topics:

From The Reporter's Environmental Handbook:

 * Air pollution (Outdoor)
 * Air pollution (Indoor)
 * Animal waste management
 * Biodiversity
 * Brownfields ("former industrial and commercial sites" (104))
 * Cancer and other disease cluster claims
 * Chemical emergencies
 * Chemical weapons (Disarmament)
 * Children's health (Asthma)
 * Children's health (Lead)
 * Cross-border environmental issues (U.S.-Mexico)
 * Dioxin
 * Disposal of dredged materials
 * Endocrine disruptors ("also called a hormonally active agent, [it] is a chemical that interferes with the functioning of the endocrine system" (172))
 * Environmental justice and hazardous waste
 * Food irradiation
 * Genetically modified crops
 * Global warming and climate change
 * Groundwater pollution
 * Naturally occurring and technology-based disasters
 * Occupational health
 * Ozone depletion
 * Pesticides
 * Population growth
 * Sprawl and environmental health
 * Surface water quality
 * Water supply

From EnviroLink:

 * Agriculture
 * Air quality
 * Climate change
 * Ecosystems
 * Energy
 * Environmental disasters
 * Environmental economics
 * Environmental education
 * Environmental ethics
 * Environmental legislation and environmental policy
 * Forests
 * Ground pollution
 * Habitat conservation
 * Natural history
 * Outdoor recreation
 * Population
 * Sciences
 * Social Sciences and humanities
 * Sustainable development
 * Sustainable living
 * Transportation
 * Urban issues
 * Vegetarianism
 * Waste management
 * Water quality
 * Wildlife

title: Environmental journalism


text:
Jatayu

Jatayu (जटायु, ) is a demigod in the Hindu epic Ramayana, who has the form of either an eagle or a vulture. He was the younger son of Aruṇa and his wife Shyeni, the brother of Sampati, as well as the nephew of Garuda. He was also an old friend of King Dasharatha, Rama's father.

Flight towards the Sun
During their youth, Jatayu and his elder brother, Sampati, under a wager, flew towards Surya, the solar deity. Jatayu, careless due to his youthfulness, outflew his brother, and entered the Sūryamaṇḍala, the orbit of the Sun, during noon. Due to the blazing heat of Surya, his wings started to get scorched. In a desperate bid to rescue his brother, Sampati flew ahead of him, spreading his wings wide open to shield him. As a consequence, it was Sampati who had his wings burnt, descending towards the Vindhya mountains. Incapacitated, he spent the rest of his life under the protection of a sage named Nishakara, who performed a penance in the mountains. Jatayu never met his brother again.

Battle against Ravana
The Araṇya-Kāṇḍa of the Ramayana mentions that Jatayu is the "King of Vultures"(gṛdhrarāja). According to the epic, the rakshasa Ravana was abducting the avatar of Lakshmi, Sita, when Jatayu tried to rescue her. Jatayu fought valiantly with Ravana, but as Jatayu was very old, Ravana soon defeated him, clipping his wings, and Jatayu descended upon the earth. Rama and Lakshmana, while searching for Sita, chanced upon the stricken and dying Jatayu, who informed them of the battle with Ravana, and told them that Ravana had headed south. Jatayu then died of his wounds and Rama performed his final funeral rites.

Veneration

 * According to local lore of Kerala, it is believed that Jatayu fell on the rocks in Chadayamangalam in the Kollam district of Kerala after his wings were clipped off by Ravana. The name "Chadayamangalam" is said to be derived from "Jatayu-mangalam". Jatayu Earth's Center Nature Park in Chadayamangalam features a 61 m wide statue of Jatayu, which is credited as the world's largest bird sculpture.
 * Lepakshi in Andhra Pradesh is also attributed as the place where Jatayu fell after being wounded by Ravana. Rama is said to have commanded the bird to rise, saying Le Pakshi (literally: "Get up, Bird" in Telugu), hence the name for the village.
 * Vijayaraghava Perumal temple in Thiruputkuli, Tamil Nadu is associated with Jatayu because the presiding deity, Vijayaraghava Perumal (a form of Rama), is believed to have performed the last rites of Jataya at this place. The water body where Jatayu fell is called Jatayu Tirtham.
 * Thirupullabhoothangudi Temple in Pullabhoothangudi, Tamil Nadu is also claimed as the location of Jatayu's last rites.

title: Jatayu


text:
Talk:Cupressus sempervirens

Inaccurate name
'In some areas, particularly the US, it is inaccurately known as "Italian Cypress"; although the species is very commonly cultivated in Italy, it is not native there.' I've removed 'inaccurately'. The turkey doesn't come from Turkey, but no one seriously wants to rename it 'the Mayan'. 'Italian cypress' is by far the most common vernacular name for the tree (currently 42,700 to 963 ghits). What about renaming the article to reflect that? Kalebeul 12:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant. It is perfectly reasonable to point out that such and such a name is inaccurate, with the reasons why. The Turkey (bird) article has the same. And google (or other search engine) hits are not a valid way of counting. - MPF 15:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ on a couple of things. Let's start with counting. If you don't accept the huge predominance of "Italian cypress" over "Mediterranean cypress" on Google and Google Print - it would be good if you'd say why - then maybe you'll accept the usage adopted in standard works. For example, Latymer and Grassi's Mediterranean gardener uses the former term and omits the latter, as does Taylor's Guide to Trees. Secondly, the turkey article doesn't say that its name is inaccurate, merely that it reflects confusion as to its origins. That seems to me a more useful approach. For example, I'm sure you know that Cupressus refers to the island, where (Blondel, Biology and Wildlife of the Mediterranean Region) the tree was once native. Do you think we should change the Latin name now that it is no longer so?Kalebeul 14:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I removed 'inaccurately' as 1) No WP:RS was given for that this name is inaccurate. 2) It appears to be a common name. For example, Google Books gets 11,000 hits. A scan of the Google Books hits shows that books are using the term "Italian cypress" and never mention it is incorrect or inaccurate. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Termite resistance
How risistant is Mediterranian Cypress wood to termites?ZadSki 18:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)ZadSki

Range map
Hello. I'm not as familiar with botany as I am zoology so I'm have a bit of trouble sussing out the map. What do the colors mean exactly? Could we add a legend for the reader, please and thank you? WarpSpeedRainbowRead (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

 * it's most simple at all, just do click the small map-icon to see the map itself including added legend. Stamnariophilus 19:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamnaria0568 (talk • contribs)

 * No, it really doesn't explain what the colors mean. WarpSpeedRainbowRead (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cupressus sempervirens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040722055416/http://www.makersmark.com/Tour.aspx to http://www.makersmark.com/Tour.aspx

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) 14:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Probably misleading info and link by error
Cupressus_sempervirens tells: "Cypress used to be used in distilleries as staves to hold mash ferments to make alcohol before the invention of stainless steel", followed by meanwhile archived (see section above) link to Maker's Mark. The archived page says: "Cypress, which grows in the swamps of Florida and Louisiana, is the best wood to use because it is naturally water-resistant and doesn't rot like other woods", thus indicating it is about wood of Bald Cypress and/or Pond Cypress, Taxodium distichum, including syn. T. ascendens. The links does concern another species, got to be removed for being misleading by error. I am not aware if Cupressus sempervirens has ever been used to produce fermenting barrels, thus won't remove the unproved statement by now. Does anybody now about the issue to cite reliable source? Kind regards, Erwin Stamnariophilus 09:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamnaria0568 (talk • contribs)

Wiki Education assignment: Organismal Diversity
— Assignment last updated by Jweave23 (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cupressus sempervirens


text:
Talk:Cat's in the Cradle

An infobox was requested for the 1974 Harry Chapin version of "Cats in the Cradle" at WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/List_of_notable_songs/3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InnocuousPseudonym (talk • contribs) 06:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC) This song was NEVER recorded by Guns N Roses!!! As a cover song, or an original!!! Yes, he is right. Guns N' Roses never recorded this song, or even played it live. It has just been falsely renamed on p2p networks and such. Jim Croce never recorded this song. I've removed them, and Cat Stevens (again), per. Frencheigh 20:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC) I had to remove Jim Croce, again. Jim Croce died in 1973, but Verities and Balderdash (the album which the song was on) wasn't released until a year later. Let's hope Jim Croce doesn't show up on there again. MrCheshire 08:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC) Removed the mention of Cat Stevens yet again. Anyone who disagrees can check out number 12 on this FAQ- http://catstevens.com/faq/index.html I have searched the Internet thoroughly and I have found nothing to suggest that Guns N' Roses ever recorded this song. DJMalone 10:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC) I added a mention about Guns N' Roses. The misconception that it's their song is, I think, quite common. I really don't see why we can't metion that there is a parody of the song, I do not see what is wrong with that info, but it keeps getting deleted.

Origin of the phrase (not the song)
What is the origin of the phrase "Cats in the Cradle"? Does it refer to the situation where a baby has grown past cradle age, and therefore the cat is free to sit in the cradle? The other lyrics make sense: --70.57.151.211 03:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Silver spoon
 * Little Boy Blue
 * Man in the moon
 * I always thought that it was a cliche which I just did not know... but I've asked around and nobody knows, either! Anyway, it's a heck of a stretch, but maybe it's a reference to Cat's Cradle? -- Doc Sigma  (wait, what?)  03:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

My name is Chuck; my email is ckrauseesq@aol.com. To my knowledge, "Cat in the cradle" is a 2 person game(usually a parent at first) played with string...a tied loop of string(about 24"diam) is wound around the upheld palms of the 2 hands and held taut..then wound around each hand..then the middle finger of each hand engages and pulls out the string circle from the opposite hand. This creates a sort of "cradle"; the other person can then participate by taking the "cradle" from the first by removing the loops from the hands of the first person in varous ways, etc, etc. Typically, a parent and child will play this game after the child is taught this game of skill.

Incorrect
This is all very wrong as I have the GNR cover of cats in the cradle and I am listening to it right now!! it has been recorded by them!! Use the force 15:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC) @

lol...idiot, your the one thats actually wrong! Insaneassassin247 17:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Under 'covers and use in popular culture', the first bullet point says cat stevens covered the song... the second says he didn't. I don't know whether Cat Stevens sang it (and the faq link above doesn't work), but it's kind of silly for the wikipedia article to contradict itself. Inhahe 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I can believe that P2P networks have falsely labelled the song by GNR (it wouldn't be the first person) however it states in this article that this is often confused with the Ugly Kid Joe version. I remember once downloading a terrible cover that sounded akin to GNR and it was certainly not the glorious UKJ one as it was much more rock/metal influenced and had an Axl Rose like sheering voice. There must be another version of this song that it is confused with.Tony2Times (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It was quite a long time ago but I swear I've seen this song labeled as Cat Stevens on VH1 in the 90's. I, as well as quite a few people I know, because of this have thought that this song was Cat Steven's long before mp3s were popular or Napster was even invented. This was also before pop-up video Whether he did a cover that was played on VH1, or it was mislabeled, or other reason, the origin of the confusion being due to Mp3 mislabeling on peer to peer programs is not accurate. I wish there was some way to find that instance where I saw the mislabeling, but for now it's just my word. Oh well. 75.145.39.162 (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Kids have the flu?
These lyrics are mentioned in the article. I could swear I've always heard Harry Chapin sing, "the kids are the flu" rather than have the flu. This could mean that the kids were a handful and it took lots of patience to deal with them. I think back in the 70's the term "the flu" did have a popular meaning aside from the sickness, maybe to mean that something was undesireable and it might have caused you great disappointment or hardship.

Also, I'm not sure any dads aside from single parent dads ever did much to take care of sick kids, as they have traditionally been the breadwinners. So he could've left the kids with his wife to go spend time with his dad.

-- The line is definitely "and the kids have the flu". Don't you think the line "the kids are the flu" is a little unlikely in a song with this message? Of course, no one would put that in a song!! And if they did it wouldn't be on the charts.

To spell it out, the importance of these lines is that the son is now the one making the same kind of excuses for not spending time with his father, and probably isn't spending much time with his own kids either- whether they have the flu or not. Overall, the song reflects on our society's (and our own) priorities: that we focus on money, work, etc. thinking these are the most important things in our lives, but eventually we look back and realize that, although we didn't see it then, relationships with people were much more important and sadly neglected. I think the song is something of a lament, because once we realize this, it's too late. Prosebuster 23:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
Have a look at the infobox, does it seem wierd that its a cover version rather than the original which seem to be occupying the infobox.KTo288 20:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that box should be replaced with information for the original... 60.242.88.86 19:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Title
There seems to be some incongruity between the title of the article and the title of the song. Is it Cat's In The Cradle (suggesting there is one cat) or Cats In The Cradle (suggesting mutliple cats)?Tony2Times (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Song in Married with Children
I remember the song being played in Married with Children. I dont know which episode but i remember the scene: Al sits in the garage and listens to the radio when the song is played. He then starts to cry due to the sad lyrics. It might be a cover version (probably by UKJ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.41.65.2 (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Lyrics
There is no mention in significant change in lyrics from Chapin's original song to some of the most present versions. In Chapin's version, the first two periods of time end with:

When you coming home, dad? I don't know when, but we'll get together then, son. You know we'll have a good time then.

The final two time periods end with:

When you coming home, son? I don't know when, but we'll get together then, dad. You know we'll have a good time then.

However, the version I'm accustomed to listening to has only one chorus:

When you coming home, son? I don't know when, but we'll get together then. You know we'll have a good time then.

I find it rather significant that the chorus fits in Chapin's song as would be expected, while present versions seem to ignore what question is asked because it doesn't make sense in the first two stanzas. Bravosfan567 (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

 * That is Ugly Kid Joe's version. It makes sense because they changed a line break and cut a word:

 * When you comin' home?
 * Son, I don't know when
 * We'll get together then
 * You know we'll have a good time then.

 * See? In this case, it is always the kid asking and his dad replying. -- Stormwatch (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If that is always the chorus, it only makes sense in the early part of the song. If the chorus doesn't change, then it misses the entire point. Richjhart (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Interpretation of lyrics
I have a different interpretation of the lyrics to that presented here. To me, it seems that the song is about a father who would like to spend more time with a son who finds the demands of life make it difficult for him to give time to his father; only after his retirement does the father appreciate that he was once like this. This is indicated in the final verse, and seems to be how the programme Something Understood took the programme.ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree with this. I obviously have no citations for this (as it is OR), but yeah, I always had a much more optimistic/positive view of both father and son than portrayed in the description of the song - both truly want to see each other, but let life get in the way. Not saying they are blameless, but I dunno, the description in the article makes it seem like the father is just making excuses so he doesn't have to spend time with his son, rather than honestly wanting to but not having time.

 * I'd also comment that this song is easily among the saddest I have ever heard. --DragoonWraith (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Song’s impact, then and now.

In 1980, I worked a bartending job at the college town Madison Wisconsin, where the students played “Cat’s in the Cradle” on the pre-iPod jukebox at least twice a night. It was mostly guys behind the bar and it spoke to us, even though we were supposedly “cool” twentysomethings. Maybe this was how we expressed our homesickness? Unlike today, during the Eisenhower and Johnson years Dads relegated child-rearing to mothers, as Chapin laments in his lyrics. It also echoes the notion of apples not falling far from trees.

Since then, more than one Dad has told me it changed his fatherhood, and yesterday I overheard two seven-year-old boys singing along in the back seat of a car. It still resonates and teaches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.175.191.130 (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Cat's or Cats?
Is it Cat's in the Cradle or Cats in the Cradle? The Harry Chapin article says Cat's, but this says Cats. Looking at the lyrics, I'd assume Cat's, but it could be plural. KeithD (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're NOT wrong. Take a look here: http://www.discogs.com/Ugly-Kid-Joe-Cats-In-The-Cradle/release/1756642 This shows that the Ugly Kid Joe version does INDEED omit the apostrophe (but they did leave it in on some releases). I've now added this information to the article because, with no doubt, this will change the meaning a bit, since one cat and multiple cats is not the same kind of thing. -andy 92.229.75.192 (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Cat Stevens
This song is VERY often attributed to Cat Stevens, even though on his website he states he did not sing it. Should this be mentioned at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.17.231.119 (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I just removed a reference to this, in my opinion, it's worth mentioning. Here's a link to Stevens' site, explaining he has no attachment to the song: Scarborough Res (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Funnily enough, apparently Decca released a compilation album for Cat Stevens entitled Cat's Cradle in 1977 https://catstevens.com/media/albums/cats-cradel/ (for some reason that link has it misspelled).

Hey, Diddle Diddle? WRONG!
"Silver Spoon" is not a reference to "Hey, Diddle Diddle." In the nursery rhyme, the line is "And the dish ran away with the spoon." No reference to the spoon being silver, wooden, metal or whatever else spoons were made of. "Silver spoon" refers to children born to affluent families. A child born to a privileged upbringing is said to be born "with a silver spoon in his mouth." Probably a reference to the father narrating the song being a workaholic and not having time for his son. 70.126.99.61 (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Guns n Roses
Pretty sure they never covered this. Every reference to Guns n Roses covering it is actually the Ugly Kid Joe cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.148.18 (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I heard it was because Ugly Kid Joe on YouTube is blocked in Germany, so if people wish to hear this song or other songs by UKJ they need to listen to the "mislabelled" YouTube videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.139.210 (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

 * The mix-up probably precedes YouTube and stems, somewhat likely, from a mislabelled MP3 that was (and supposedly still is) in circulation in the dawn of peer-to-peer filesharing. Back in the nineties, making a mistake like simply mislabelling a song could cause quite a lot of confusion because it was harder to find out whether it was correct or not as well as there simply not being as many sources to acquire a song from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.48.18 (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Simpsons
Has anyone mentionned this? There was an episode in The Simpsons "Saturdays of Thunder" (I think) where Homer feels like a loser father and so he calls fathers anonymous (or something) and he is put on hold and the hold music is Cat's in the cradle, and then I think he starts bawling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gljsd (talk • contribs) 23:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

References: Mass Effect
Mass Effect 2 contains an Achievement called "Cat's in the Cradle" awarded for completing a mission where an assassin is trying to prevent his estranged son from following in his footsteps. Considering it is a bit more of an oblique reference and doesn't actually feature the song, I'm not sure if it should be thrown in here as one of the popular culture references. Thoughts? --Forgottenlord (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I think it should be added. While the song itself isn't played, Thane's and son's strained relationship is a fitting reference.

--Apz (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Northern Ireland
Source for use in PSA:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/eerily-prophetic-troubles-ad-that-shocked-us-in-1993-gets-500000-views-in-one-day-34407900.html

©Geni (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cat's in the Cradle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160602084720/http://australian-charts.com/forum.asp?todo=viewthread&id=35092 to http://australian-charts.com/forum.asp?todo=viewthread&id=35092

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Cat's cradle and silver spoon
It should be noted that there is a Dutch fairy tale called [The Cat And the Cradle](http://childrens-stories.edigg.com/Ethnic_Fairy_Tales/Dutch_Fairy_Tales/The_Cat_And_The_Cradle.shtml). This seems like a more likely source of "cat's in the cradle" than the story about cats sucking the breath out of infants.

As to "silver spoon", it was once common even in families of modest means for some relative (generally a grandparent) to award a new infant with a silver spoon engraved with the name and birth date of the child. This is the sort of "keepsake" which tends to get lost over the years, a fact that would feed into the theme of the song. drh (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cat's in the Cradle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090315065918/http://www.fretbase.com/songs/1917-cats-in-the-cradle to http://www.fretbase.com/songs/1917-cats-in-the-cradle

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) 15:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Johnny Cash version
Hi everyone,

I've noticed that the Johnny Cash version of the song (present on his album Boom Chicka Boom), which was a single, is not mentioned on the article.

Is it a matter of notoriety or could information be added?

See y'all, 21stCenturySloth (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding the genre 'Glam Metal' to the Ugly Kid Joe version?
For the Ugly Kid Joe cover of this song. There are multiple references to this song being a part of this genre.

1. https://www.hairandflannel.com/ugly-kid-joe/

"A California band that can best be described as the bridge between hair metal and 90s rock. Their big hits include Neighbor and Everything I Hate About You, a song that made its way into movies. Sporting original hits like Neighbor and Everything About You, and a near chart topping version of Cats in the Cradle, Ugly Kid Joe gained a fair share of popularity in the early 90s."

2. https://www.pajiba.com/miscellaneous/latestage-hair-metal-was-a-hell-of-a-thing.php

"There was also a band called Ugly Kid Joe, whose biggest hit was a bad remake of “Cats in the Cradle." AgentKozak (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cat's in the Cradle


text:
User talk:Danrobbins

Image:Daniel-c-robbins-small.jpg
Please use this image on your user page or it will be deleted as an orphan. Thanks Nv8200p (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

File:Daniel-c-robbins-small.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Daniel-c-robbins-small.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Kelly hi! 04:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Small change to your user page
Hello Danrobbins. Please [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADanrobbins&diff=592653870&oldid=45936084 this edit I made to your user page]. The Wikipedia article on the other Daniel Robbins has been moved to Daniel Robbins (computer programmer). Please revert my change if you disagree. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

title: User talk:Danrobbins


text:
Masaki Sumitani

Masaki Sumitani (住谷 正樹) is a Japanese comedian, retired professional wrestler, and tarento ("talent") also known under his performing name of Razor Ramon HG (レイザーラモンHG), which he adopted from Razor Ramon. His act was featured on the Bakusho Mondai no Bakuten! (Daibakuten) Saturday variety show on TBS Television in Japan, in 2005. While HG used to stand for "Hard Gay", in 2021, the meaning was changed to "Hot Guy".

Early life
Masaki Sumitani was born December 18, 1975, in Harima, Hyōgo Prefecture, Japan. After graduating from Hyogo Prefectural Kakogawa Higashi High School, he entered Doshisha University and majored in Commerce.

Professional wrestling career
While at college he picked up wrestling as a hobby and soon joined the Doshisha Professional Wrestling Alliance (DWA). Under his performing name "GiveUp Sumitani", he won the heavy class Kyoto pro-wrestling championship co-hosted by DWA and the Ritsumeikan Wrestling Alliance (RWA) of nearby Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto. Former IWGP Champion Hiroshi Tanahashi and fellow comedian Makoto Izubuchi were also participants of these events.

Sumitani continued his pro-wrestling aspirations in late 2005, working in the comedically off-beat HUSTLE promotion and defeating Yinling the Erotic Terrorist in his debut match; he has since gone to a team with Naoya Ogawa and Yoshihiro Tajiri in leading the HUSTLE Army against Generalissimo Takada’s Monster Army. In early 2006, he started working with manzai partner Izubuchi again, with Izubuchi taking the name Razor Ramon RG ("RG" meaning "Real Gay"). Izubuchi's character was not nearly as well-received as Sumitani's but was an active pro-wrestler in HUSTLE, even teaming up with The Great Muta. Sumitani's character was that of an underdog face that had a never say die attitude and used his quickness to defeat his larger opponents. Daily Sports in Japan reported that Razor Ramon HG retired from pro wrestling after Hustle Mania, which took place November 23, 2006, at Yokohama Arena with Sumitani being defeated by The Esperanza. However, as with most retirements in pro-wrestling, Sumitani returned to action, pro wrestling at Hustle 21 on March 18 and Hustle 22 on April 21.

Hard Gay rose up to become one of the top faces of the HUSTLE promotion, but his pro wrestling career came to an abrupt end in July 2009 when he shattered his left foot while diving from the ring during an event at Korakuen Hall. He needed 12 bolts to put his foot back together. Upon his recovery, he hoped to return to TV comedy.

In 2019, Hard Gay made his pro wrestling return being defeated by Super Delfin in a 3-way match.

Comedy
It was through pro wrestling in their college years, that Sumitani met Makoto Izubuchi, with whom he would later form the comedy duo "Razor Ramon", the name inspired by the character portrayed by professional wrestler Scott Hall, which debuted in the WWF (WWE) in 1992. During their college years, Razor Ramon won the Fukuwarai award in the Imamiya Kids’ Ebisu Manzai Contest and gained experience on the stage through the audition live performance SABUKI at 2chome-gekijo, an Osaka comedy club opened by the Yoshimoto Kogyo comedy troupe at which many comedians from the Kansai area start their career.

After completing his degree at the prestigious Doshisha University, Sumitani got a job at CO-OP KOBE, as a grocery delivery man. His desire to pursue a career as a professional comedian led him to quit his job after four months, when he joined Yoshimoto Kogyo with his partner Makoto Izubuchi. Razor Ramon made their TV debut in 1999 and won the Judges Special Award in the ABC Owarai (Comedy) Grand-Prix in 2000. Both Sumitani and Izubuchi joined the Yoshimoto Kogyo-produced program Yoshimoto Shin-kigeki in 2001, often playing yakuza, salaryman, udon restaurant owners, construction workers, and others.

Hard Gay
A character (introduced in 2002) developed and portrayed by Sumitani is Hard Gay (ハードゲイ). The term "Hādo Gei" is a Japanese reference to American gay subculture in similar fashion to "punk". In Japan, gender subculture with distinct dress style is referred to as "Gei ゲイ". In turn, the term "hard gay" became the reference to more masculine oriented "drag" seen to be prevalent in America. The fact that Hard Gay does not portray any Japanese gay subculture also explains why the sketch was allowed to be aired on Japanese TV, which has its own code of political correctness. The official name is Razor Ramon HG. Dressing in a tight black PVC gay fetish outfit, he performed acts of charity (yonaoshi, “social improvement”) for unsuspecting bystanders while performing trademark pelvic thrusts and vocalizations, often accompanied by "Livin' la Vida Loca" by Ricky Martin.

According to some accounts, the name "Hard Gay" was the suggestion of Sumitani's senior comedian in the Yoshimoto Kogyo group, Kendo Kobayashi, in reference to his hard dancing. The name has also been described as a pun on 芸, gei, which means "skill" or "art." However, to develop his character, Sumitani visited gay bars in Doyama-cho, Osaka’s biggest gay area, and his costume, which consists of hot pants, a small vest, and cap, all in black PVC, along with aviator sunglasses, was purchased at a shop called VFTQ in Minami-Horie, Osaka, which specializes in gay fashion. Hard Gay makes regular use of a number of catchphrases in his act; he usually makes his entrance in front of the camera shouting "Dōmō Haadogei desu" ("Hello, it's Hard Gay"), with arms thrust out and a spin afterwards. His self-introduction is then followed by his dance moves. He often shouts "Hoooooo" (フゥ～!) or "Foohhhh!" (フォー！), a running joke in his performances. He often stops people saying unfavorable things to him by shouting "Sei sei sei sei sei" with his palm in front of the person's face. Whether this means anything is debatable, although Sumitani has commented that "sei sei" is something that comes out from his mouth when he is not happy, and that he does not mean "say" as in to speak something, although one might compare this action to the "talk to the hand" gesture. A possible interpretation might be that the origin lies in the word urusai (lit. "noisy," meaning "Be quiet!"), which is often pronounced urusē うるせー in Kansai dialect, shortened to sei. Another theory is the word sei written by kanji 静, meaning "quiet."

Sumitani's supposed homosexuality was exposed as a gimmick when he was caught in the midst of a date with Japanese actress and swimsuit model Anna Suzuki, whom he has since married. He has been criticised for his stereotypical depiction of gay men and for building a career on using bizarre and extreme antics to "parody" a social minority. A spokesperson for the Hokkaido Sexual Minority Association Sapporo Meeting, a support group for gay, lesbian and transgender people, has said: "Hard Gay’s acceptance by the Japanese public shows me that there is a strong tendency here to see homosexuality as something to be laughed at. That is sad."

He then announced that he would start to reappear on television as Masaki Sumitani instead of Razor Ramon HG. His first reappearance as Masaki Sumitani was April 18, 2008, in a theatrical production of the jidaigeki take, HAKANA.

Prior to his transition back to television comedy, Sumitani revealed that during his hiatus between his career-ending wrestling injury and his impending TV return that he has fallen on hard times and has been making the equivalent of $70 USD a month. He is planning to reinvent himself because he does not want to go down in Japanese television history as a "one-hit wonder". Whether this entails a new neta (comic hook) for his HG character or a brand new character altogether for Sumitani remains to be seen.

Sumitani once reprised his role as Hard Gay for a teaser for the video game Devil's Third. Unlike his early appearances, he wears a suit but retains his signature cap and glasses.

Other media
Razor Ramon HG made a small cameo in the May 2006 chapter of Gantz (chapter 233), shown on television in Kurono Kei's apartment. He also made a small cameo in episode 12 of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya, at 2:29, with Akihiro Miwa. A picture of him is shown in Ğ. In addition, a reference to Razor Ramon HG is made in Chapter 2 of the manga "Asu no Yoichi", with a character attempting to silence someone much like HG would with "Sei!"

Sumitani released his first single entitled "Young Man" on 8 February 2006; it is a Japanese rendition of the Village People’s song "YMCA."

He has also appeared in several television programs. HG (as himself) portrayed a gym teacher in the high school episode of the batsu game series from the Japanese variety show Gaki no Tsukai. He also did a cameo on the set of Hana Yori Dango. Razor Ramon was a contestant on Viking: The Ultimate Obstacle Course, even making it to the final and finished in 2nd place. He was featured on The Soup’s "Souper Fantastic Ultra Wish Time." He was featured on Lost in Tokyo, a Dutch and Flemish game show. He has also appeared in multiple episodes of Jonathan Ross' Japanorama on the BBC. In May 2009, he made an appearance in the comical Drama, Atashinchi no Danshi, where his character was in love with one of the male characters named Fuu. There were repeated shoots of his catchphrase "Fuuuu!" while he walked around the family house in search of Fuu. In 2016, Sumitani appeared in Gantz: O, voice acting as the character George Shimaki.

Hard Gay, dressed differently, makes a cameo as a construction worker in the game Freshly-Picked Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland. After he fixes one of the bridges for Tingle, he proceeds to do his trademark pelvic thrusts while a smooth jazz style song plays in the background.

Once again dressed in his wrestling outfit, Sumitani makes a cameo as Hard Gay in the 2016 Netflix drama Hibana: Spark. In this appearance, he takes part in the same comedy television show as the main character.

Seeking to shed his former image and strike out on his own, he's turned to modelling. He is now the new male face for boots retailer Luan.

Personal life
He married Anna Suzuki on November 27, 2006, only four days after his initial retirement. Suzuki ended her modelling career after her commitments were finished and concentrated on starting a family. The couple had their first child in 2008.

Championships and accomplishments

 * Pro Wrestling Illustrated
 * Ranked No. 129 of the top 500 singles wrestlers in the PWI 500 in 2006
 * Tokyo Sports
 * Newcomer Award (2006)

Filmography

 * Uchu Sentai Kyuranger the Movie: Geth Indaver Strikes Back (2017) - Ommo Indaver

title: Masaki Sumitani


text: User talk:81.137.54.205

title: User talk:81.137.54.205