Talk:Treasure Island

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Treasure Island has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
December 18, 2005 Good article nominee Listed
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Stbalbach (talk • contribs • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Tale with a Twist

Wich movie was it where Jim's crew turns out to be greedy backstabbers & he has to team up with Silver to get the treasure & leave the island alive? I believe in this version, Silver takes a bullet for Jim, but doesn't die from it. & in the end, Silver ends up with the treasure on a boat after dropping Jim off on another Island where he could be found, but Jim was thinking about how admirable Silver was. I could also be combining the ends of 2 different versions.... Help!

[edit] Black spot

Was the black spot a real pirate custom?

I suspect it is a literary device. RLS created a bunch of such fictions for the book, and it serves the plot well. But it could be real, dont have evidence either way. Stbalbach 00:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
To my knowledge the black spot was a fictitious plot device created by RLS. HuronKing

[edit] Categories

Should we add Category:Fictional islands? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:54, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead if no one else negatively reponds to this (although this post is half a year later than yours...) The other thing is that although there are no pages for the movies, the article is on the novel. Shouldn't we change the catagories to reflect that?

HereToHelp 21:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

FWIW the fictious island in the book is called Skeleton Island, not Treasure Island. Stbalbach 22:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Its called Skeleton Island by John Silver, to Jim it is known as Treasure Island. HuronKing.

[edit] Prequels and sequels

Article could mention "Porto Bello Gold", prequel to Treasure Island by A. D. Howden Smith. I'm not sure, but I think there was some sequel as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyartep (talk • contribs) 15 Dec 2005

There have been several sequels by other authors than RLS, most contradictory with one another. CFLeon 07:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Currency

At the risk of being over-picky, the stated payment to RLS of '34.7.6p' is in a form that never existed. The old British penny was abbreviated 'd' or 'D'; 'p' is the abbreviation for the post-decimal penny, which has a different value. Possible forms would be '£34 7/6' or '£34 7/6d' or '£34 7s 6d', but clearest to most readers would be '34 pounds seven shillings and sixpence'.Grubstreet 22:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I've updated the article. -- Stbalbach 01:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
And if anyone is wondering, 1p = 2.4d. - Jmabel | Talk 06:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sound = Able-bodied?

Regarding this quotation from RLS: "I will now make a confession. It was the sight of your maimed strength and masterfulness that begot Long John Silver...the idea of the maimed man, ruling and dreaded by the sound [speech], was entirely taken from you". I find the "[speech]" insertion confusing: from the context, I would assume Stevenson here uses "the sound" to mean "able-bodied people", as a contrast to "maimed man". potatoscone 01:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No, he means "by the command of voice alone". Henley was a large strong man, but was also crippled. He was a strong force of a character, who got his way through his "voice" alone, is what RLS is tactfully saying. Long John Silver was the same way (maimed as a peg-legged, but clever in speech and character, he ruled over stronger men in a world ruled by brute force). -- Stbalbach 15:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Gunn and his right to the treasure.

Since Ben Gunn was marooned on the island along with the treasure he was the legal custodian of it. This means that he had sole ownership of the treasure. Yet in the book he only received a small portion of the entire value. If this is the case could it be that the leadership of the expedition had stolen it from him?

You should read the terms that Ben Gunn establishes with Jim in the chapter "The Man of the Island."

In it Ben Gunn promises Jim a share of the treasure because he was the first one to find him. Also, Ben Gunn promises that he would share equally with the gentlemen provided he gets a passage home. So no, nobody "stole" the treasure from him and in fact he probably received more of the treasure than anyone else and he still managed to blow it all gambling in a matter of weeks. HuronKing.

He probably didn't receive the largest share and maybe not even a fair one, as the Squire and (especially, I suspect, given the established characterisation) the Doctor judged him completely incapable of managing money. But after he had proved them right by wasting his share in less than three weeks, the gentlemen saw to it that he would receive a steady though not lavish income for the rest of his days. Captain Pedant 11:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
On rereading, Gunn in the first place was willing to give all the treasure for safe passage home, except that he wanted a thousand pounds for himself. This in itself is evidence of his lack of money wisdom (since the hoard amounted to seven hundred thousand pounds), and as stated he still managed to waste the thousand in nineteen days. This is truly conspicuous consumption given that such a sum would be worth thirty to fifty times as much in modern terms, and there was less to spend it on in the late 1700s. Even Pew (as remarked upon earlier in the story by Silver) got through "only" £1200 in a year.Captain Pedant 14:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Ben Gunn was a pirate and would've been hanged upon return home, so first he established that the Squire was a liberal man and wouldn't turn him in, especially if he surrendered the treasure and assisted in the fight against Long John's pirates. He asked for a 1000 pounds for himself, which was a daring proposition from a pirate, even a reformed one. But he got it and promptly lost it all within 3 weeks (or 19 days to be precise). Too many thimblesful of rum, says I. Not to mention he was a bit crazy, which is absolutely normal for someone who's been alone for 3 years, as Dr. Livesey promptly noted to Jim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.147.192 (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Bones

Billy Bones redirects here, but is not covered in the article. I think that either the redirect should be removed or he should be mentioned briefly. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 18:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Bill Bones has exactly 0 other articles pointing to it. And it is a minor character in the book, it doesn't need its own article. -- Stbalbach 12:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admiral Benbow

Admiral Benbow also redirects here; but unlike the case above, it's not even a character in the book, it's the name of the inn. And Benbow was a real person. This really should be changed, in case someone does put up a page for the historical figure. CFLeon 07:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St. James Theater

I don't think reasonable material should be deleted without prior discussion. The introduction of the fate of the St. James's Theatre is perhaps a footnote to the fact that "Treasure Island" played there, but I think it belongs, because it draws attention to the importance of that special theatre in the history of London theatres. This was a tragedy for all concerned. If all such references were deleted from Wikipedia, the site would be severely limited in its scope.

Yes, an article would be best, but I don't have time to do it, and it may never happen.

I would be interested in someone else's input on this subject. But summary deletion without discussion is I think is impolite, to say the least. JohnClarknew 19:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It was not my intention to be impolite. It's just that, a lengthy section on the history of a theater that has no real connection to the book is inappropriate for the article. I actually thought about deleting it entirely as being non-notable - Richard Drury, a noted Stevenson scholar, maintains a website with a pretty good collection of derivative works and this play is not mentioned - which makes me think it's not really that important or notable. But, Richard could be wrong, so I left it in. But I thought it went too far to use this article as the place to talk about the history of the theater. No disrespect to you or the theater. It turns out the theatre article is extant at St James's Theatre, so I added the history you wrote there. -- Stbalbach 01:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it looks much better now, so thank you for your explanation, and moving my contribution (I'm a new user, still learning.) Our production was performed during the day, not at night, a long series of daily matinees so school children could get to see it. Which is probably why Richard Drury missed it. He should add it in to his site, though, it belongs. Take care. JohnClarknew 05:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

John, I now see your the same John who starred as Jim Hawkins in the play (I assume). I've emailed Richard Drury and let him know how to contact you on Wikipedia if he needs additional info, I'm sure he'll add it to the list. Thanks! -- Stbalbach 15:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Violations

This is regarding the following sentences paragraphs:

Traditionally considered a coming of age story, it is an adventure tale known for its superb atmosphere, character and action, and also a wry commentary on the ambiguity of morality—as seen in Long John Silver—unusual for children's literature then and now. It is one of the most frequently dramatised of all novels. "The effect of Treasure Island on our perception of pirates cannot be overestimated. Stevenon linked pirates forever with maps, black schooners, tropical islands, and one-legged seamen with parrots on their shoulders."

"The effect of Treasure Island on our perception of pirates cannot be overestimated. Stevenon linked pirates forever with maps, black schooners, tropical islands, and one-legged seamen with parrots on their shoulders. The treasure map with an X marking the location of the buried treasure is one of the most familiar pirate props,", yet it is entirely a fictional invention which owes its origin to Stevenson's original map. The term "Treasure Island" has passed into the language as a common phrase, and is often used as a title for games, rides, places, etc.

Using words like "superb" and "wry" to describe the book is cleary POV. Also, saying its influence on our perception of pirates can not be overestimate cleary violates the guidelines as well. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 156.34.211.20 18:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  1. Taking POV to mean we can't comment on the artistic merit and style of a work is inaccurate - I mean, if there was some reason to disagree with these descriptions, then we can present those views also, but TI is widely known as a classic work. I've never seen anyone with any credentials or of literary significance pan it. All of these statements are easily supportable with citations if you really must.
  2. Quoting scholars with citations is allowed and encouraged on Wikipedia. In particular when that scholar is the leading researcher of pirate lore and whose book Under the Black Flag is one of the best known in the field. You make it seem like it is "controversial". It has nothing to do with the POV rule, this is what the experts say about the book.
  3. That line about "widely known as the best adaptation" which you keep adding back in is bunk. I looked up the reviews of that show on MRQE and not only could find no reviewer who called a faithful adaptation, most everyone said just the opposite, that it sucked. Please stop adding that back unless you have a cited quote to support it.
  4. The brit lit template was removed based on a prior agreement with another user, please stop adding that back in.

Finally - please login with your account - why are you using an anon IP? -- Stbalbach 19:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Good point. : )
2. Good point. : )
3., 4. Sorry, I didn't actually add those back in, I use the article history and edit a previous version so I didn't know. I'm sure that I added a {{Fact}} for #3 in case the user that added that has proof. #4 Oops. That was automatically added back in. 156.34.212.240 03:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
"cannot be overestimated" is an unclear idiom, often used in hyperbole, and literally incorrect ... whether this is POV or not, let's change it to something simpler and clearer. Stumps 06:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
also, directly quoting a source in a lead section is highly unusual ... is there a style guideline against this? ... can't we use our own (better) words and simply refer to the source in the footnote ... why do we need to quote this?? Stumps 06:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I quoted it because David Cordingly's opinion really does count for something about this, it puts a strong emphasis on the point being made to include Cordingly's "overestimated". Style guidelines would not apply to direct quotations. Your right about quotes (and footnotes) in the lead section, I've summarized it. -- Stbalbach 14:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Charles Johnson

A number of web pages say Stevenson took the name of Israel Hands and the references to the real life pirates from a book called A General History of the Robberies and Murder of the Most Notorious Pyrates (1724) by Captain Charles Johnson. Can anyone verify this?Count de Ville 14:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The book Treasure Island and the Pirates of the Eighteenth Century (2004; ISBN 0823945073) is a good place to start. It does say this is "probably" the case. See Page 7 (and other pages). Historical connections with Treasure Island appears to be a book-length topic in and of itself. -- Stbalbach 16:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead (Man's) Chest

Mostly as an aid to useful cross-referencing, may I suggest that in the geography section a brief addition is made that Norman Island (already mentioned) is only a mile or two from the island that I'm sure is called Dead Chest on my nautical charts but is known in these pages as Dead Man's Chest, a possible inspiration for the song in Treasure Island (which has its own Wikipedia entry).Grubstreet 00:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm need a source, unclear if Stevenson knew the island by that name, or if it was a later name. -- Stbalbach 15:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, as the article links off to another about the shanty, and the latter links off to one about the island, keen people are going to find their way to it eventually anyway, so my suggestion is, on reflection, not a very valuable one. FYI, though, the island has been called Dead Chest since at least 1775, as the scan of an antique Virgin Islands chart at http://www.davidrumsey.com/maps6438.html indicates. But with only legend to support the uncle bringing home tales of the Virgin Islands, I guess the real question is not whether RLS knew of Dead Chest by another name (why should he?), but whether he knew of it at all. Grubstreet 18:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Seems like a reasonable and interesting idea, never heard of it before, but for Wikipedia purposes we would need some kind of reference. Stevenson is probably one of the most bio'd authors in history, maybe in some of the 100s of bio's it has been mentioned. Maybe Google Books could help, or once they have more books scanned online. -- Stbalbach 15:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Hawkins

I added a bit to the information about Captain Hawkins from PotC2 being Jim Hawkins' "lost father". Seeing how he was never lost, but ill, and dies in chapter three rather than at the hands of the East India Company, I figured I'd point out the error in their thinking. 82.92.150.193 14:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. I changed it from "impossible" to "contrary", anything is possible in fiction :) -- Stbalbach 16:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Perfect. I like your way of wording it better anyway. Why, by the way, do neither of our edits show up for me in the original article? I can see them on the history page, but the article remains the same for me. 82.92.64.247 09:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


What about the 1973 animated version???

What about it? 82.92.150.193 21:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Where did the year the story took place in mentioned in this article come from? My copy of the book states the year as 17--. 82.92.150.193 21:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What date? -- Stbalbach 15:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Under "Plot Summary" it says:
In 1761, an old and menacing sea captain referred to as Billy Bones appears...

The only specific dates I know of associated with the story are the 1750 and 1754 on the treasure map. 1761 is a plausible date, but not AFAIR supported directly by the book; we only know that Flint died more than three years earlier than the events described. The dates and references in the book, however, although all referencing the 18th century, are not particularly consistent with each other. Silver is said to have sailed with England before Flint, but England died in 1720, and Silver would have had to have been extremely young at the time -- if the book were indeed set in 1761, he would have been only 9, and Silver suggests that his career in piracy commenced only thirty years earlier. The latest date - actually, the only date - specified in the book itself (not the map) is 1745, though it's implied that that's several years earlier. The Battle of Fontenoy, also in 1745, is referenced. A plausible reading of the text itself is that the action takes place c. 1750 (with Silver born c. 1700, and commencing his piratical career not far from 1720). But this is inconsistent with the map.RandomCritic 22:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

I have a copy of this book in my hands with the title "The Curse of Treasure Island".

Ahh the cursed version. -- Stbalbach 23:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "under pretense of payment for his inn tab"

Actually, Mrs. Hawkins wasn't operating under any pretense. The text makes it clear that she was anxious to claim no more than her just dues, and was too stubborn to take less, which caused Jim much anxiety especially since most of the coinage was foreign and she could only make her reckoning in English guineas, frustratingly the rarest coins in Bones's collection. It was the untimely arrival of the pirates that led her to flee with what she had and Jim (the tally still being short) to take the interesting sealed packet as a makeweight. Captain Pedant 11:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC) This story is marvelous all over years —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.10.40.94 (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The main character is not a radio presenter

The main characters section links to Jim Hawkins which is an article on a British radio presenter and not the main character.

[edit] Different ending?

  • In the begining of the novel the directions on the map are not only for the main cache of treasure-but also for a second cache of silver treasure and of "arms" {Cannon}-could Stevenson have intended the "treasure hunters" to have found this second cache and arms as well while begining to write this novel? Or could he have just included these tidbits of information to make the reader think that additional treasure was going to be found?
I'm not sure what Stevenson intended by that (the dates on the map are also hard to reconcile with the dates in the novel). But Hawkins says at the beginning that there is still treasure on the island waiting to be "lifted," so the answer to your first question is no and the second one is yes. Pirate Dan 13:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ALternative Confused/Dates?

  • Certainly the novel while fine reading has a confused chronology regarding dates:
  • Date on map August 1, 1750
  • Date map given by Flint to Bones July 20, 1754
  • Silver claims Pew spent all his money in one year and that two years before his death Pew was straving and killing.
  • If Flint's crew was disbanded 1754 {Flint dies and Map given to Bones}+ 3 years=1757. Thus the Odius "French" Could refer to the Seven Years War.
  • HOwever Sliver also claimed that the same broadside in which he lost his leg-Pew was blinded-and that both he and Pew came back to England-which according to the chronolongy would have been about 1721 or 1722 when Robert's men were hanged. A confusion arises because Silver also claims he and Pew were with Flint at the time of their wounding-yet the treasure was buried in 1750 {Map date} and Pew had turned to begging three years-presumedly after 1754-when Flint gave map to Bones and died!
  • If 1757 was the correct date-and Silver was 50-this ment he was a Pirate Quartermaster at the age of 14/15-if the 1721/22 date is when he lost his leg!
  • ALso when Silver defends Hawkins in the stockade from the other mutineers-Silver claims its been nearly 30 years since he last faught anyone! This would jibe well that he was in his twenties when he sailed with Flint and when he lost his leg. Prehaps the confusion lies in the fact that the dates on the map are given as "1750" and "1754"--preahps it would have been more correct-if Stevenson {or whoever drew the map} had replaced these dates as "1720" and "1724"-and thus the novel chronology works out as:
    • John Silver born later 1699s/1700.
    • 1717-1720 Silver is a pirate with England and then with Flint
    • 1720-1721 Silver loses his leg and returns to England and opens a tavern in Bristol
    • 1724 Flint dies in Savannah and gives map to Bones
    • 1749-1750 Silver sails on Hispaniola to retrieve Flint treasure-and escapes to Spanish America
  • LAstly there is an indiret hint that even if the munity had gone the Silver wanted it to-going halfway home before starting it-it would have failed. Silver himself admits that while the mutinous seamen can sail the ship-Smollet is the only one who could navigate it correctly!!
It's pretty hard to reconcile the map and the text without assuming some sort of error or exaggeration on the part of one or the other. One doubtful assumption that you make, however, is that following their wounds, Silver and Pew would have had to have retired from piracy; though in fact Silver specifically states that "I was quartermaster, along of my timber leg", implying that he was one-legged most of the time that he served with Flint, which leads us to the inescapable conclusion that Pew must have been blind for the same duration. It's hard to imagine what Flint would have done with a blind pirate on board the Walrus, but perhaps Pew got by on sheer viciousness.
We can get a 1757 date if we doubt Silver's veracity, which is easy enough; he could have been inserting himself into stories that he'd heard from other pirates, and maybe even come to believe them to some extent. Alternatively, he really could have been 13 or younger when he turned to a life of piracy -- Jim Hawkins was hardly much older, and Silver says that he "always wanted [Hawkins] to jine and take your share, and die a gentleman", perhaps seeing a bit of himself in Jim. But Silver is very little likely to have "laid by nine hundred [pounds] safe, from England" if he were just a cabin boy -- he'd have had to have been a more senior member of the crew.
The other possibility is that the dates on the map are wrong, and instead of "1750" and "1754" they should read something like "1740" and "1745".
Silver claims its been nearly 30 years since he last faught anyone! -- I don't think that's really what he means. Not in this quote anyway: Cross me, and you’ll go where many a good man’s gone before you, first and last, these thirty year back—some to the yard-arm, shiver my timbers, and some by the board, and all to feed the fishes. There’s never a man looked me between the eyes and seen a good day a’terwards, Tom Morgan, you may lay to that.”
And yes, the mutineers, ex-pirates and others were an unusually incompetent lot! As Silver says, "I've a sick heart to sail with the likes of you!" RandomCritic 12:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you really believe anything Silver says? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.147.192 (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple of points. Silver's quote re 30 years surely means that it is 30 years since he started killing people who crossed him. The last thing he is suggesting is that he has ever stopped! "Watch out! I'm a man who used to murder people who crossed me, but I don't any more," would be a pretty feeble threat! And the matter of Smollet being the only qualified navigator is far from intractable. Although it would have required require considerable skill to navigate from a mid-voyage point to, say, Bristol, it would have been the most rudimentary matter to sail either directly east or directly west. If Smollet was taking a fairly direct route back to England, for example, by waiting until the voyage was well under way, the mutineers would have allowed him to handle the trickiest bits (leaving the Antilles and not crashing into the Bahamas) just leaving them to steer west for the Carolinas. A bit risky, perhaps, but not the sort of thing to terrify seasoned pirates, I wouldn't have thought. Grubstreet (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I downloaded a copy of Stevenson's map, that he drew (2nd copy, becuase his publishers lost the first one). However, it states on it "William Bones Savannah 1745". Possibly I am wrong, but if Flint spent 20 years plundering the Spanish Main, then he would have begun pirating at LEAST by 1725, because he died in 1745. If Flint died 3 years before the story of Treasure Island begins, then Silver was Born in 1698. All dates from the book can be figured from the date on the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.249.101.172 (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who was marooned?

The list of members of Flint's crew (in the "Backstory" section) misplaces the description "marooned on Treasure Island". It is placed next to the name of Morgan, but he is seen by Jim in Silver's establishment before taking ship. It was Ben Gunn who was marooned, listed just before Morgan. Cpgray 18:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • In the end of the story-its Dick Johnson, Morgan and a third unamed mutineer who are marrooned on Treasure Island after the Hispanola leaves witht the treasure.

[edit] Historical timeframe

This section reads like original research. As far as I know there is nothing from Stevenson himself on this subject, it is pure conjecture. Has anyone written about this, besides on Wikipedia? -- 71.191.36.194 05:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The rescue at the rifled cache

I have corrected this. Only the Doctor, Ben Gunn and Abraham Gray arrived to rescue Silver and Hawkins. Smollett was still incapacitated, and Trelawny stayed behind to guard him and the treasure. Captain Pedant 12:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Treasure.Island.Cover.jpg

Image:Treasure.Island.Cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've address the fair-use rational to the best of my abilities. The original uploader appears to be dormant, so I could not state with confidence the source of the image. I am posting here, maybe someone will know where the image came from. In the mean-time, I've removed the disputed tag. Yngvarr 17:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)