text:
Talk:Musical notation

Another Article with Eurocentric Bias?
The history section of the article is almost completely Euro-centric. Can someone expand this section with research from India ( Sama Veda 1700 BC) and China? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demystifiersf (talk • contribs) 19:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think it isn't eurocentric enough. For instance there is no mention of crucial developments of sharp/flat signs, let alone of double sharps. And no mention of the development of equal temperament, one of the fundamentals of modern globe-wide music. If you hadn't noticed, cultural history has indeed been dominated in recent centuries by Europe and particularly the uk. That's just how it is, no need to hypothesise some bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.186.149 (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

subscript b as a flat notation
If anyone knows why a subscript b is used for flat notation it would be greatly appreciated. I think it's funny that a subscript b is used because "B" a whole step higher than "A". I'm sure there was some kind of logic to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chevyfastback (talk • contribs) 05:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hint: in German they use the letter B to mean B flat, but H to mean B natural. In other countries, before the invention of accidental signs, they referred to "B rotundum" and "B quadratum" ("round" and "square"). A rounded B became the flat sign and a squared b became the natural sign. The sign isn't really subscripted; it just descends below the baseline, just like a lower-case "y". —Wahoofive (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

 * The reason we use a "b" is because as western music developed notation, the scales used only needed one accidental. There was a limited number of diatonic scales in use (see modes), and at first the only accidental needed was for B (see also Hexachord), most often as an alteration to the Lydian mode (our article Neume has a good description of how the notation worked for Gregorian chant, which might give you the appropriate background here). It was not until much later that it became necessary to have accidentals for other notes, and for this they borrowed the "soft b" from existing notation. Similarly the natural is the "hard b", which eventually got its right line extended to create its current form, and for a long time the same symbol was used for sharps as well (as the natural, originally applied only to B, meant to raise the pitch a semitone from where it had been as a flat). Eventually when people began to need more precise notation, the sharp became distinguished from the natural. So the short story is that it is a B because we only needed flat Bs when we came up with the idea of flats. - Rainwarrior 04:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Words within music
Can I suggest a need for a section to list and describe common (Italian etc) words used in sheet music? Alternatively a link to where these might be on Wikipedia? Examples could be 'piano', 'crescendo' etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.125.226 (talk) 12:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

 * See List of musical terminology AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Lead Sheet" Image is Incorrect
With a multisyllabic word, dashes are put in between the syllables. Also, when multiple notes are sung over one syllable, an underscore is extended from the end of the syllable to the last note. I think the image should be corrected - it looks amateurish.

If you need a source, check "Music Notation - Preparing Scores and Parts" by Matthew Nicholl and Rich Grudzinski. Also, if you are thinking, "it's a lead sheet, not the score to an opera" or something along those lines, look at any vocal tune in the Real Book or the New Real Book - dashes and underscores without fail.

 * You're right, it's rather a poor example. It's also not really a lead sheet, more a fragment of music in lead sheet style. I'll see if I can make a better version, unless someone beats me to it. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

See: Image talk:Lead Sheet.jpg Hyacinth (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Accidental (music)
See the discussion at Talk:Accidental (music) concerning the definition of "accidental" and its relation to sharp and flat signs and key signatures. Hyacinth (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent notation
Moved from article: "In 2000, a London based composer named Chris Witten began to write compositions that used digital graphic animation programmes to create scores that changed and evolved while they were being performed. Intelligent notation scores can only be read and performed from a computer screen (known as a visual display unit). The first works were written on the programme Microsoft PowerPoint, but Witten and other composers have since used more advanced programmes such as Adobe Flash. Intelligent notation is unique in musical notation history, as it is the first format of notation that necessitates significant interaction between the work and the performer. As computer technology has developed, so have the compositions using the notation, and several techniques are now used within works in order to increase the excitement of performance. Examples include: works incorporating a randomly generated sequence of notes that change on the screen each time the work is 'activated'; works using graphic notation that feature lines changing direction and colour throughout the performance; and advanced graphic notation scores that incorporate moving photographs and silent videos. As well as providing more varied and exciting performance opportunities, intelligent notation also appeases environmental concerns by never having to be printed on paper, similar to computer musical notation.The Intelligent Notation Foundation was set up in 2004 to archive, educate and promote intelligent notation."

Is this notable or citable?--Dbolton (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Dates and Citations
This whole article seems very short on citations, and I find many of the dates - er - surprising. Surely 'barlines' to coordinate parts go back at least to Ars Nova? And what is the source for the four different note durations in 10th century? Even Perotin in c1200 is only using two (or, arguably, three). These are just two of the dodgy and uncited statements. Can some expert go through this and add citations, please?

OldTownAdge (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * It has been tagged with refimprove since since March 2007. I have moved the tag to the top.
 * For specific points, such as those you mention, you can tag them with fact.
 * --Jtir (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What is "Chopin's final special new year concert 1.1.1850"?
This is in the "Further reading" section.
 * Read, Gardner (1978). Modern Rhythmic Notation. Victor Gollance Ltd including Chopin's final special new year concert 1.1.1850

Chopin died in 1849, so this doesn't make any sense to me.

--Jtir (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

 * There is a similar addition to simple:Music that appears to be vandalism. --Jtir (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

JCS notation -- anyone heard of it, or using it?
diff

From what I see on the remarks page of the JCS web site, it looks like a vehicle for the compositions of a single individual. Scarcity of google hits, a focus on computer minutiae on the main site page and a declaration on the remarks page that the intent of "phase two" is basically to take the project underground for an extended time, all lead me to doubt that this is notable encyclopedia material. Besides all that, the notation itself looks like something it would take serious dedication to read fluently, for what benefit? __Just plain Bill (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree it looks non-notable and verging on the spammy. The text was added again, and I've just reverted it. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

DareNotBecause, I'd like to see what you have to say about the notability of the JCS notation system. Do you use it?

A little reading will show you why it was deleted from this article. In addition, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true, or intelligent.

__Just plain Bill (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

 * FWIW, there is a guideline on notability. --Jtir (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Objection to using Image:Chopin Prelude No. 7.JPG
In the "Modern Notation" section, a sheet music sample image is used that purports to be from a Chopin prelude. However, as admitted by the uploader (sic) "This is my own edition and arrangement of the Chopin No. 7 Prelude. It was created Feb. 20, 2007", this image is not from an original composition sheet music written by Frédéric Chopin. Why not use a Chopin's (or any other composer's) original? --AVM (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed unsourced material from the section: Perspectives of musical notation in performance and composition. I did a google search and can't find Effel Publications. It does not seem to exist. This material was the original template used by a spammer who linked an advertisment for webcam piano lessons to this article with links hidden in citations. Juri Koll (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

 * In response to the above comments by AVM and Juri Koll,

 * 1. This is not from a Chopin Prelude; it is the complete Prelude. Ideally, I could have copied directly from a Henle Urtext edition, but this would be an infringement of copyright.  Most other editions usually contain minor changes made by the editor...particular regarding dynamics, fingering, etc., and many of these appear in Wikipedia.  The extent of modifications from the original are:

 * a) The addition of "mp" (bar 9) [an appropriate dynamic change on repeated material].
 * b) The addition of a dynamic accent on a half-note (bar 12) [appropriate at the climax point].
 * c) The addition of agogic accents to three alto notes (bars 13-14) [an important counter-melody].
 * d) The addition of "rit. e dim....." leading to a "pp" and a fermata in the final bar.

 * These minor modifications are based upon valid performance practices in the music of Chopin, and are heard in the interpretation of virtually every pianist. If you can provide better, I am sure it will be welcomed.

 * 2. Juri, the reference to "Brushed With Blue" has stood the test of time. It was included in a major revision of this article in 2007. The revision was the result of untold hours of research by myself and 2 other editors, as the records show. Finally a musician/administrator put the finishing touches on the article, and chose to retain the "Brushed With Blue" reference.

 * The quote is indeed referenced...the composition was published by Effel Publications in 2002. This small publisher was registered with the Canadian government, but upon a name change, allowed the old registration to lapse.

 * Juri, I wonder why you even brought up the subject of "Brushed With Blue" under the heading, "Objections to using Image:Chopin Prelude No. 7.JPG. (???) It would have been appropriate to create a new heading.

 * How on earth can you claim, "This material was the original template used by a spammer who linked an advertisment for webcam piano lessons to this article with links hidden in citations." (???) And PLEASE, stop writing your derogatory essays on my talk page. Your arguments are outrageous and appear to be nothing more than retribution for the stand I have taken on the Richard Kastle article.

 * I have therefore restored the material you reverted. Prof.rick 14:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Graphic notation
What about the notation used on games like Guitar Hero? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.62.154 (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See the section on piano roll notation at Graphic notation (music).--dbolton (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Brushed with Blue
Juri, apparently you have not read the above notes. Several other editors and I worked long, tedious hours on this article. Finally, it was reviewed by an Adminstrator, and the reference to "Brushed with Blue" was kept. It does NOT presently link to another website, and cannot possibly be regarded as spam. Again, you are seeing things through your own tunnel vision. I shall therefore restore the information which you deleted, and which is most relevant to the article.

Juri, are you trying to get even for my objective edits on the Richard Kastle page? Prof.rick 04:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You may not be able to find a reference to Effel Publications...it was a small publishing company, registered with the Government of Canada. Effel specialized in "limited edition" publishing, although copies are still available through Remenyi House of Music, Toronto. (UMMMM...better than YUM!!!) I will soon be posting an audio of Brushed with Blue, No. 2, to my own website, and possibly on YouTube. I hope you enjoy it! Cheers, Prof.rick 04:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Verification was asked for and none was given. It is unsourced material. It has to be removed as per Wikipedia rules. Juri Koll (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this link is not appropriate. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

Arab world section
The first two paragraphs don´t tell us anything about musical notation. I think they belong to another article. Should we replace them?--Knight1993 (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph reads "Music notation or musical notation is any system that represents aurally perceived music, through the use of written symbols", and the second begins and ends "The earliest form of musical notation can be found in a cuneiform tablet that was created at Nippur, Iraq in about 2000 B.C. … Although they were fragmentary, these tablets represent the earliest recorded melodies found anywhere in the world". The first one tells us what music notation is (the accepted function of a lede paragraph), the second tells us of the earliest occurrence. In what way do these "not tell us anything about musical notation"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, my apologies. I didn't notice your "headline" identifying your concern with the Arabic music section. Indeed, the first tow paragraphs say nothing at all of relevance to notational systems (at least, not the way the section is presently written). I would advise you to be bold and lop them out. If another editor can see a reason for restoring them, then let him or her provide the necessary connecting threads.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don´t worry, this things happen to me quite often. So, I think I´ll out them in the Arabic music article. Thanks--Knight1993 (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * One assumes you mean the Arabic music section of this article rather than the article Arabic music, and that the misuse of "out" as a verb in this context means "remove". In this case, I endorse your contemplated action.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My Bad, I was trying to say "put", not "out".--Knight1993 (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your typo, I think, since O and P are neighboring keys on a QWERTY keyboard. And that sounds like a good place for the paragraphs: recycle, rather than discard!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Animated and real-time notation
Here is a link to a blog that is about  "Anything to do with animated notation, video notation, real-time notation and basically any kind of "active" musical notation. Links to audio and video examples, articles,papers and discussions, people and groups, tips and tools."    Animated and real-time musical notation meaning information for the performers of a composition; not an animation/visualisation of music/musical sound

http://animatednotation.blogspot.com/

Do you think there is a place for this anywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.201.2 (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at the moment, since it doesn't appear to be authored by a notable expert in the field. Some of the work that blog links to, on the other hand, could be interesting. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional citations
Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Synthesia
Possibly covered in a section I may have skipped. However, Synthesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesia) has a piano notation I believe need to be added to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nborders1972 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion, Simplified music notation
I suggest that the short article on the apparently near-totally non-notable topic of Simplified music notation be merged here. The current sources in that article consist of a local newspaper article and a self-published free hand-out (see Worldcat). I'm aware that this article too is not without its problems; I don't think such a merge would add to them. An article on Alternative systems of Western musical notation might perhaps be one step towards resolving them? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

 * DIsagree on the concept of merging, although agnostic about the notability of the topic in question. Seems like a lot of the "Other systems and practices" are pretty obscure too, but if (if!) the topic is worthy of mention, there's no reason it shouldn't have its own article. And since this is an overview article, no reason to spin the whole "other systems" section off. Love that that article uses the word "whilst", though. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian notation?
Came across an intriguing image of what is presented as a notation system from Egypt c. 400ce.

http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcvdngf2K61r5yt7ko1_1280.jpg

It is described in Theresa Sauer's book, Notations 21, Mark Batty Publisher, USA, 2009 on pages 290-291, as: a Coptic score that demonstrates Ptolemy's theory of Harmonia Mudi; the colored circles represent chromatic tones; their circumference indicates duration and rhythm; at the top is an inscription in Greek that means "spiritual harmony, or more literally "spiritual chord." I can't find a way to verify any of this. I emailed Sauer and asked her if she could tell me where this artifact is kept, etc., but have yet to receive a response. Does anyone know anything about this artifact?Jacques Bailhé (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Musical notation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120524070949/http://www.olga.net/ to http://www.olga.net/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150701200951/http://www.emusician.com/ar/emusic_xml_music/ to http://emusician.com/ar/emusic_xml_music/

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I found a new interesting book on musical notation. Just added the external references — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaudiaSpitz (talk • contribs) 10:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Musical notation. 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/20080609090628/http://www.britac.ac.uk/events/2004/abstracts/2004-bagley.htm to http://www.britac.ac.uk/events/2004/abstracts/2004-bagley.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311024006/http://www.musicmarkup.info/ to http://www.musicmarkup.info/

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) 08:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Should there be a separate article on "Modern Staff Notation"? What do you call it?
I think there should be, because we certainly could use a better description of this important aspect of music in the modern world. It would feel more balanced if there was less here and a great deal more in its own article.

I just don't know what the title of this article would be. Feels like a stupid question, but I don't know the answer. CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Italian words and abbreviations
The article currently lacks an explanation of why what is entitled as 'modern staff notation" has Italian language-specific tempo indications (e.g. Andante, Allegro) and dynamic markings which are Italian language-specific abbreviations (e.g. f = forte, p = piano, mp = mezzo piano).

(I believe this is because Italians pioneered the first mass music notation printing as explained in the article "History of Music Printing": [The father of modern music printing was Ottaviano Petrucci, a printer and publisher who was able to secure a twenty-year monopoly on printed music in Venice during the 16th century.])

Although identified in separate article, this should be referenced within the staff notation explanation paragraphs.

 * For a start, tempo indications are not a part of staff notation, but a supplement to it. Second, Italian-language markings are not the only ones used in music, even if they are more common in English-speaking areas than any other language. In France, French is the usual choice; in Germany and Austria, German is often used, especially after the middle of the 19th century. As far as Petrucci is concerned, tempo indications in his day were non-existent, unless you consider the tempo implications of the various mensuration signs used up until then. In any case, if he had used words, they would more likely have been Latin than Italian in the very early 16th century. The use of such verbal supplements, as well as dynamic markings, only comes into use in the 17th century, and it is almost certainly the Italian dominance of opera that spread the language across the rest of Europe. When the most famous singers in the opera houses, and the most famous virtuoso instrumentalists came from Italy, composers would be very foolish to write performance instructions in Polish, Russian, Swedish, or English. Beyond opera, most of the exciting new musical forms were developed in Italy (the concerto, the sonata, the oratorio). Italian was the international musical language throughout the 17th and 18th centuries so, naturally, musicians of other nations were well-advised to familiarize themselves with it. Also, many of the words that eventually became tempo indications were originally expression marks, with nuances easily comprehended by Italian speakers ("allegro", for example, does not mean "fast" but "merry"; "largo" means "broadly", and so on). The French were the first to resist, as part of the nationalist programme fostered by Louis XIV under the musical oversight of Jean-Baptiste Lully (ironically, an Italian immigrant to France), but by the early 19th century the influence of Italian musicians was on the wane, and Germans became increasingly prominent outside of the German-speaking territories. This story perhaps needs a dedicated section, and certainly should not be bound up with staff notation as such.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

In the byzantine part
It looks Slavic to me, there are some ь, ч, ю and ъ there... א. א. אינסטלציה (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * From the image description: "Book of Hymns at the Lord's Resurrection (Romanian: "Anastasimatar bisericesc"), page #11, translated from Greek and printed in Romanian with Cyrillic characters by Macarie the Hieromonk in 1823 in Vienna. It depicts the Byzantine music notation style."—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

For the love of god, when was the western standard form of music notation that we use today invented? EDIT: apologies for my tone
I can not find an answer to this question!? CrickedBack (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's because it wasn't "invented" at all. It developed over a period of centuries. It's like asking when the English language was invented. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "English is a West Germanic language that originated from Ingvaeonic languages brought to Britain in the mid-5th to 7th centuries AD by Anglo-Saxon migrants from what is now northwest Germany, southern Denmark and the Netherlands." CrickedBack (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @CrickedBack: you might find better answers if not somewhere on Wikipedia, on dedicated places like the Music section on StackExchange. Talk pages of Wikipedia articles serve for discussing the articles themselves. –Vipz (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The question should also say what is considered the "standard form" of music notation. I presume that it may involve staves of five lines; but how many? With barlines crossing several staves? Keyboard scores, with two staves (often but not always of five lines) and with barlines, appear in the 16th century at the latest. See W. Apel, The Notation of Polyphonic Music 900-1600, Cambridge, Mass., The Mediaeval Academy of America, 1953. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Today there are some musical notations that you can use to reproduced a piece of music. There are others that you can not use to reproduce a piece of music.
 * The difference marks the formation of standard music notation.
 * That is such a phenomenal paradigmatic shift that it was taught to be in highschool, and I thought it would be common knowledge to anyone talking on a page about musical notation.
 * You can criticise the above for being implicitly enthnocentric, but apart from that - unless my highschooling education was not correct - I think my position is pretty reasonable. CrickedBack (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * My point is that it would be normal for an article about a thing to contain information about when that thing started to exist in it's current form. This article does not. CrickedBack (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You should first define what you call the "standard" form of notation: If you consider the variety of fonts that come with notation softwares (Finale, Sibelius, etc.), you might even say that notation is not standardized today. So, once again, what do you call "the standard form of notation"? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You probably mean staff notation, i.e. notes written on, or between, parallel horizontal lines. This appears in the 11th century, I think, but the number of lines was limited to the needs of each particular melodic line. On the other hand, polyphony at times was written on one staff of often ten or more lines. I think that writing on staves of five lines became common in the 16th century, but along staves with more (or less) lines. Let's assume that five-line staves became "standard" in the end of the 16th or early 17th century.
 * Note shapes determining their duration appear in the late 13th century, but with a variety of shapes and significations. Once again, it is difficult to say when this became "standardized" – perhaps in the 16th century, maybe linked with the apparition of music printing.
 * Then there are additional points to consider: time signatures, key signatures, barlines, etc. Even in the 17th century, for instance, key signatures were not fully standardized, key signatures with flats often lacking one flat compared to our modern usage.
 * Even in the 19th century, the usage was not fixed as to where the notes would be written in the bar: we tend to group them according to the point of attack, for instance a whole note in one voice written above or below the first of four quarter notes in another voice. In the 19th century, one finds scores where the whole note is written in the middle of the bar. Do you consider this important for the "standardization"?

title: Talk:Musical notation


text:
Hydronium

In chemistry, hydronium (hydroxonium in traditional British English) is the cation [H3O]+, also written as, the type of oxonium ion produced by protonation of water. It is often viewed as the positive ion present when an Arrhenius acid is dissolved in water, as Arrhenius acid molecules in solution give up a proton (a positive hydrogen ion, H+) to the surrounding water molecules. In fact, acids must be surrounded by more than a single water molecule in order to ionize, yielding aqueous H+ and conjugate base. Three main structures for the aqueous proton have garnered experimental support: the Eigen cation, which is a tetrahydrate, H3O+(H2O)3, the Zundel cation, which is a symmetric dihydrate, H+(H2O)2, and the Stoyanov cation, an expanded Zundel cation, which is a hexahydrate: H+(H2O)2(H2O)4. Spectroscopic evidence from well-defined IR spectra overwhelmingly supports the Stoyanov cation as the predominant form. For this reason, it has been suggested that wherever possible, the symbol H+(aq) should be used instead of the hydronium ion.

Relation to pH
The molar concentration of hydronium or H+ ions determines a solution's pH according to

 * pH = -log([H3O+]/M)

where M = mol/L. The concentration of hydroxide ions analogously determines a solution's pOH. The molecules in pure water auto-dissociate into aqueous protons and hydroxide ions in the following equilibrium:

 * H2O <-> OH-(aq) + H+(aq)

In pure water, there is an equal number of hydroxide and H+ ions, so it is a neutral solution. At 25 C, pure water has a pH of 7 and a pOH of 7 (this varies when the temperature changes: see self-ionization of water). A pH value less than 7 indicates an acidic solution, and a pH value more than 7 indicates a basic solution.

Nomenclature
According to IUPAC nomenclature of organic chemistry, the hydronium ion should be referred to as oxonium. Hydroxonium may also be used unambiguously to identify it.

An oxonium ion is any cation containing a trivalent oxygen atom.

Structure
Since O+ and N have the same number of electrons, is isoelectronic with ammonia. As shown in the images above, has a trigonal pyramidal molecular geometry with the oxygen atom at its apex. The H\sO\sH bond angle is approximately 113°, and the center of mass is very close to the oxygen atom. Because the base of the pyramid is made up of three identical hydrogen atoms, the molecule's symmetric top configuration is such that it belongs to the C_{3v} point group. Because of this symmetry and the fact that it has a dipole moment, the rotational selection rules are ΔJ = ±1 and ΔK = 0. The transition dipole lies along the c-axis and, because the negative charge is localized near the oxygen atom, the dipole moment points to the apex, perpendicular to the base plane.

Acids and acidity
The hydrated proton is very acidic: at 25 °C, its pKa is approximately 0. The values commonly given for pKaaq(H3O+) are 0 or –1.74. The former uses the convention that the activity of the solvent in a dilute solution (in this case, water) is 1, while the latter uses the value of the concentration of water in the pure liquid of 55.5 M. Silverstein has shown that the latter value is thermodynamically unsupportable. The disagreement comes from the ambiguity that to define pKa of H3O+ in water, H2O has to act simultaneously as a solute and the solvent. The IUPAC has not given an official definition of pKa that would resolve this ambiguity. Burgot has argued that H3O+(aq) + H2O (l) ⇄ H2O (aq) + H3O+ (aq) is simply not a thermodynamically well-defined process. For an estimate of pKaaq(H3O+), Burgot suggests taking the measured value pKaEtOH(H3O+) = 0.3, the pKa of H3O+ in ethanol, and applying the correlation equation pKaaq = pKaEtOH – 1.0 (± 0.3) to convert the ethanol pKa to an aqueous value, to give a value of pKaaq(H3O+) = –0.7 (± 0.3). On the other hand, Silverstein has shown that Ballinger and Long's experimental results support a pKa of 0.0 for the aqueous proton. Neils and Schaertel provide added arguments for a pKa of 0.0

The aqueous proton is the most acidic species that can exist in water (assuming sufficient water for dissolution): any stronger acid will ionize and yield a hydrated proton. The acidity of H+(aq) is the implicit standard used to judge the strength of an acid in water: strong acids must be better proton donors than H+(aq), as otherwise a significant portion of acid will exist in a non-ionized state (i.e.: a weak acid). Unlike H+(aq) in neutral solutions that result from water's autodissociation, in acidic solutions, H+(aq) is long-lasting and concentrated, in proportion to the strength of the dissolved acid.

pH was originally conceived to be a measure of the hydrogen ion concentration of aqueous solution. Virtually all such free protons are quickly hydrated; acidity of an aqueous solution is therefore more accurately characterized by its concentration of H+(aq). In organic syntheses, such as acid catalyzed reactions, the hydronium ion is used interchangeably with the H+ ion; choosing one over the other has no significant effect on the mechanism of reaction.

Solvation
Researchers have yet to fully characterize the solvation of hydronium ion in water, in part because many different meanings of solvation exist. A freezing-point depression study determined that the mean hydration ion in cold water is approximately H3O+(H2O)6: on average, each hydronium ion is solvated by 6 water molecules which are unable to solvate other solute molecules.

Some hydration structures are quite large: the H3O+(H2O)20 magic ion number structure (called magic number because of its increased stability with respect to hydration structures involving a comparable number of water molecules – this is a similar usage of the term magic number as in nuclear physics) might place the hydronium inside a dodecahedral cage. However, more recent ab initio method molecular dynamics simulations have shown that, on average, the hydrated proton resides on the surface of the H3O+(H2O)20 cluster. Further, several disparate features of these simulations agree with their experimental counterparts suggesting an alternative interpretation of the experimental results.

Two other well-known structures are the Zundel cation and the Eigen cation. The Eigen solvation structure has the hydronium ion at the center of an H9O4(+) complex in which the hydronium is strongly hydrogen-bonded to three neighbouring water molecules. In the Zundel H5O2(+) complex the proton is shared equally by two water molecules in a symmetric hydrogen bond. Recent work indicates that both of these complexes represent ideal structures in a more general hydrogen bond network defect.

Isolation of the hydronium ion monomer in liquid phase was achieved in a nonaqueous, low nucleophilicity superacid solution (HF(-)SbF5SO2). The ion was characterized by high resolution ^{17}O nuclear magnetic resonance.

A 2007 calculation of the enthalpies and free energies of the various hydrogen bonds around the hydronium cation in liquid protonated water at room temperature and a study of the proton hopping mechanism using molecular dynamics showed that the hydrogen-bonds around the hydronium ion (formed with the three water ligands in the first solvation shell of the hydronium) are quite strong compared to those of bulk water.

A new model was proposed by Stoyanov based on infrared spectroscopy in which the proton exists as an H13O6+ ion. The positive charge is thus delocalized over 6 water molecules.

Solid hydronium salts
For many strong acids, it is possible to form crystals of their hydronium salt that are relatively stable. These salts are sometimes called acid monohydrates. As a rule, any acid with an ionization constant of or higher may do this. Acids whose ionization constants are below generally cannot form stable  salts. For example, nitric acid has an ionization constant of, and mixtures with water at all proportions are liquid at room temperature. However, perchloric acid has an ionization constant of, and if liquid anhydrous perchloric acid and water are combined in a 1:1 molar ratio, they react to form solid hydronium perchlorate (H3O+*ClO4(-)).

The hydronium ion also forms stable compounds with the carborane superacid H(CB11H(CH3)5Br6). X-ray crystallography shows a C_{3v} symmetry for the hydronium ion with each proton interacting with a bromine atom each from three carborane anions 320 pm apart on average. The [H3O] [H(CB11HCl11)] salt is also soluble in benzene. In crystals grown from a benzene solution the solvent co-crystallizes and a H3O*(C6H6)3 cation is completely separated from the anion. In the cation three benzene molecules surround hydronium forming pi-cation interactions with the hydrogen atoms. The closest (non-bonding) approach of the anion at chlorine to the cation at oxygen is 348 pm.

There are also many known examples of salts containing hydrated hydronium ions, such as the H5O2(+) ion in HCl*2H2O, the H7O3(+) and H9O4(+) ions both found in HBr*4H2O.

Sulfuric acid is also known to form a hydronium salt H3O(+)HSO4(-) at temperatures below 8.49 C.

Interstellar H3O+
Hydronium is an abundant molecular ion in the interstellar medium and is found in diffuse and dense molecular clouds as well as the plasma tails of comets. Interstellar sources of hydronium observations include the regions of Sagittarius B2, Orion OMC-1, Orion BN–IRc2, Orion KL, and the comet Hale–Bopp.

Interstellar hydronium is formed by a chain of reactions started by the ionization of H2 into H2(+) by cosmic radiation. can produce either OH(-) or through dissociative recombination reactions, which occur very quickly even at the low (≥10 K) temperatures of dense clouds. This leads to hydronium playing a very important role in interstellar ion-neutral chemistry.

Astronomers are especially interested in determining the abundance of water in various interstellar climates due to its key role in the cooling of dense molecular gases through radiative processes. However, does not have many favorable transitions for ground-based observations. Although observations of HDO (the deuterated version of water ) could potentially be used for estimating abundances, the ratio of HDO to  is not known very accurately.

Hydronium, on the other hand, has several transitions that make it a superior candidate for detection and identification in a variety of situations. This information has been used in conjunction with laboratory measurements of the branching ratios of the various dissociative recombination reactions to provide what are believed to be relatively accurate OH(-) and  abundances without requiring direct observation of these species.

Interstellar chemistry
As mentioned previously, is found in both diffuse and dense molecular clouds. By applying the reaction rate constants (α, β, and γ) corresponding to all of the currently available characterized reactions involving, it is possible to calculate k(T) for each of these reactions. By multiplying these k(T) by the relative abundances of the products, the relative rates (in cm3/s) for each reaction at a given temperature can be determined. These relative rates can be made in absolute rates by multiplying them by the [H2]^{2}. By assuming $T = 10 K$ for a dense cloud and $T = 50 K$ for a diffuse cloud, the results indicate that most dominant formation and destruction mechanisms were the same for both cases. It should be mentioned that the relative abundances used in these calculations correspond to TMC-1, a dense molecular cloud, and that the calculated relative rates are therefore expected to be more accurate at $T = 10 K$. The three fastest formation and destruction mechanisms are listed in the table below, along with their relative rates. Note that the rates of these six reactions are such that they make up approximately 99% of hydronium ion's chemical interactions under these conditions. All three destruction mechanisms in the table below are classified as dissociative recombination reactions.

It is also worth noting that the relative rates for the formation reactions in the table above are the same for a given reaction at both temperatures. This is due to the reaction rate constants for these reactions having β and γ constants of 0, resulting in $k = α$ which is independent of temperature.

Since all three of these reactions produce either or OH, these results reinforce the strong connection between their relative abundances and that of. The rates of these six reactions are such that they make up approximately 99% of hydronium ion's chemical interactions under these conditions.

Astronomical detections
As early as 1973 and before the first interstellar detection, chemical models of the interstellar medium (the first corresponding to a dense cloud) predicted that hydronium was an abundant molecular ion and that it played an important role in ion-neutral chemistry. However, before an astronomical search could be underway there was still the matter of determining hydronium's spectroscopic features in the gas phase, which at this point were unknown. The first studies of these characteristics came in 1977, which was followed by other, higher resolution spectroscopy experiments. Once several lines had been identified in the laboratory, the first interstellar detection of H3O+ was made by two groups almost simultaneously in 1986. The first, published in June 1986, reported observation of the J$vt K$ = 1$− 1$ − 2$+ 1$ transition at $307,192.41 MHz$ in OMC-1 and Sgr B2. The second, published in August, reported observation of the same transition toward the Orion-KL nebula.

These first detections have been followed by observations of a number of additional transitions. The first observations of each subsequent transition detection are given below in chronological order:

In 1991, the 3$+ 2$ − 2$− 2$ transition at $364,797.427 MHz$ was observed in OMC-1 and Sgr B2. One year later, the 3$+ 0$ − 2$− 0$ transition at $396,272.412 MHz$ was observed in several regions, the clearest of which was the W3 IRS 5 cloud.

The first far-IR 4$− 3$ − 3$+ 3$ transition at 69.524 μm (4.3121 THz) was made in 1996 near Orion BN-IRc2. In 2001, three additional transitions of in were observed in the far infrared in Sgr B2; 2$− 3$ − 1$+ 3$ transition at 100.577 μm (2.98073 THz), 1$− 1$ − 1$+ 1$ at 181.054 μm (1.65582 THz) and 2$− 1$ − 1$+ 1$ at 100.869 μm (2.9721 THz).

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

title: Hydronium


text:
Talk:American Airlines Flight 11

Timing
The source for the time of 08:46:40 is the NTSB Flight Path Study from February 2002. The 9/11 commission report (July 2004) repeats this, citing the NTSB. The source for 08:46:30 is NCSTAR 1-9 (November 2008). This is both more thorough and more recent. It discusses the times in detail in section 5.2.3, Timing of Key Events. This presents the times of various events, uncertainties in timing, and the process used to determine when things happened to how many significant figures. This source, both more detailed and more recent, is the one we should use. Alternatively, we should stop fussing with 08:46:40/08:46:30 and report the time as 8:46. If reliable sources make an issue of 08:46:40/08:46:30 then we can look at that, but mainstream sources don't really take this up. If this all seems incomprehensibly fussy and obsessive, do a Google search for "8:46:40" "8:46:30" and see who does take this up. (posted at Talk:Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks and Talk:American Airlines Flight 11.) Tom Harrison Talk 13:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Number of videos that captured it
It says in the lead "Many in the streets witnessed the strike; several video recordings show the initial impact, the most well known being that recorded by Jules Naudet."

"Several" is a little inaccurate. There is some guy who was going into a tunnel that got kind of like the explosion, there was a time-lapse shot, or whatever they are called, where it is only like 3 or 4 pictures of it, then there is the Naudet footage. So really there is only one shot showing the impact, not just the explosion. So the word "several", at least to me isn't really accurate.

I propose the minor change to this or something similar:

"Many in the streets witnessed the strike; however few video recordings captured the moment. Documentary film maker Jules Naudet captured the only known footage of the initial impact." Zdawg1029 (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to change this article.
This is a featured article. I assume it was reviewed very carefully. I respect that.

How about this proposal? The actions of Betty Ong should be separated from the article and put at the very end.

I think such proposal is bad but it is consistent with what other editors are suggesting in the 2015 Thalys train attack article talk page (last section). They want to separate the actions of the crew and stick it at the end. Maybe they want to hide it?

I will do it for this article to see how it looks then revert it back within a minute. By looking at the diffs, you can see if it improves it.

What do you think? Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Article should be left in the original order. Experimenting with position of paragraphs should only be made when consensus is gained from editors who have worked hard to make this a featured article. David J Johnson (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Usage of Plastic Handcuffs
"Some workers found bodies strapped to airplane seats and discovered the body of a flight attendant with her hands bound, suggesting the hijackers might have used plastic handcuffs."

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but this paragraph casts some doubts.Here, it says that some workers found a body of a flight attendant of Flight 11 at Ground Zero with her body bound to the seat, suggesting that the hijackers used plastic handcuffs.

If it is the case, it should have reported by Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney, that a flight attendant is tied to a seat by the hijackers or she is held by the hijackers.

Can someone help me answer this oddity?? Books Nash (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Hello Books, I really don't see any problem at all here. Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney made calls at a very stressfull time and couldn't have reported everything. In any case had one of them done so, it does not add anything to the outcome. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Magic Passport
"Suqami's passport survived the crash and landed in the street below. Soaked in jet fuel, it was picked up by a passerby who gave it to a New York City Police Department (NYPD) detective shortly before the South Tower collapsed."

Something is really fishy.How come passport, made up of the most fragile and combustible object, PAPER, managed to survive a fiery explosion and inferno of the impact of Flight 11 on North Tower and land unscathed on the ground, so much that we can even easily read and identify that it belonged to hijacker Satam al Suqami.

Can someone explain this oddity?? Books Nash (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Oh dear, we are straying into "conspiracy theory" territory again! It is certainly not "fishy" or an "oddity". Firstly, when the aircraft hit the Trade Center tower, the impact sent debris over a large area of ground - documents included. Secondly, a passport (and I speak from many years experience of the production of passports and other high-security items) does have a hard card cover, which is not a fragile or quickly combustible. In fact passport covers are designed to protect the pages of the document from damage - however caused. Also please do not use caps - it is considered shouting. David J Johnson (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

David J Johnson, I did not meant to shout.I meant to emphasize the point.I hope you understand. Books Nash (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Frankly, I don't understand. You are attempting to add conspiracy theories to Wikipedia on the 9/11 attacks and this will not work, as you need reliable sources and references, which you seem unable to supply. David J Johnson (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Books Nash merely made a point of information and you immediately attack his question as conspiracy-oriented? I think that is a personal attack and completely inappropriate. Leaving out that personal attack and just providing the information requested would have been the most appropriate thing to do. Let's avoid that sort of thing in the future, shall we? Jtpaladin (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Books Nash...basically, things happen. Had three or four passports belonging to hijackers been recovered and no passports from any passengers, then that might be odd.--MONGO 02:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Papers --some singed, some unburnt-- were visible on news footage and amateur video wafting out of the burning towers from impact to collapse. Some drifted in the wind as far as Brooklyn. Cramyourspam (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Passenger Manifest
Does anyone have a reliable and verifiable passenger manifest for AA Flt. 11? The side box states, "92 (including 5 hijackers)". What is the source for this data? Earlier I deleted an external source that no longer worked so we need a source for this or that needs to be changed to "unknown" or removed as an item of information. My scissor-clock has begun to tick on this item, so can anyone help with this? Jtpaladin (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The link that you removed is not broken. The template that forms it is. If you go directly to the link itself it works fine. The template seems to be adding something that breaks the URL. I'm looking into it. --Majora (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All fixed. --Majora (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks Majora. I kept playing with it and couldn't figure out what the problem was so I deleted it. I appreciate the revert.
 * Majora, I'm requesting your assistance on the list of people on board this flight. The article states, "Passengers 81 (including 5 hijackers), Crew 	11, Fatalities 	92 (including 5 hijackers). Here's the problem: The link that we are discussing list 11 crew members and 76 passengers. That's a total of 87, not 92. Further, where are the names of the hijackers on this list? They are missing. So, the totals are off and the names are wrong since the F.B.I. has provided the names of the hijackers. Where are they on this list? Also, the website that maintains this information, NEVER FORGET FOUNDATION (I sent them a message requesting their help), has apparently permanently deleted this list. Why? Was the list inaccurate? I would appreciate your help in figuring this out. Perhaps we can find another source for the list of people aboard this flight. If you are not interested in helping, please let me know and I'll try and find another list myself. Thank you. Jtpaladin (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

 * If you check page 4 of The 9/11 Commission Report, you will see the total of persons onboard AA Flight 11: nine flight attendants, eighty-one passengers (including terrorists) and two flight deck crew; making a total of 92 fatalities. The report also notes that reference 22, concerning numbers onboard, was obtained from American Airlines. David J Johnson (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

 * David, thank you for that info. As you suggested I checked out that source but although we're given a number, we're not given the names. We have no idea ultimately who was on that plane. The reference number 22 does not give enough detail to determine whether the number is correct or whether it actually came from AA. I know it says that it came from AA but how do we verify that? I realize that this is not our job but it would have been nice to be able to verify the info. But since Wikipedia accepts the 9/11 Commission Report as a solid source despite issues with it, I have to agree that number given of the total passengers is valid. Again, I appreciate your help. Jtpaladin (talk) 05:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on American Airlines Flight 11. 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/20080517155430/http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/07/20/wtc.police/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/07/20/wtc.police/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100807204647/http://www.gpoaccess.gov//911/index.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html

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) 06:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

AA Flight 11 vs UA Flight 93 films
The events of both flights have been memorialized on film. For unclear reasons, some apparently consider film of AA Flight 11 "trivia" while film of UA Flight 93 is OK. I see both events of both flights are interesting, impactful, and films of their final hours as worthy of note in the articles. This includes Zero Hour (2004 TV series), made by the same folks behind Mayday (Canadian TV series). PLawrence99cx (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You should have kept your comments here and not on my personal Talk page. However, I have answered your query there. David J Johnson (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your logic: United 93 is based on factual events and based on passengers conversations with relatives and also with a some of the actual persons involved. My logic: Zero Hour S1 E3 is based on factual events and based on passengers conversations with relatives and also with a some of the actual persons involved. There is no logical distinction between them. PLawrence99cx (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Bodies?
"Some workers found bodies strapped to airplane seats and discovered the body of a flight attendant with her hands bound, suggesting the hijackers might have used plastic handcuffs." I find this a little hard to believe, given the fact that the occupants of the plane were subjected to 465-MPH impact forces, raging fires and explosions, and the collapse of the building.76.0.130.8 (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not "hard to believe". The impact of Flight 11 sent debris; including bodies, seats, passports (see discussion above) and engine parts over a wide area - not just on the WTC building. David J Johnson (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

"Investigators have recovered a pair of severed hands bound together with plastic handcuffs from the World Trade Center debris, police sources said Friday." Hmmmmmm76.0.130.8 (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That has two references so you could read those for further verifications.--MONGO 22:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Airlines Flight 11. 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/20080530151722/http://www.911myths.com/images/5/55/Hijackers_Timeline_OCR.pdf to http://www.911myths.com/images/5/55/Hijackers_Timeline_OCR.pdf

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) 22:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Airlines Flight 11. 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/20161027055949/https://www.flightr.net/aa166 to https://www.flightr.net/aa166

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) 16:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Improper description of how aircraft radios operate
In the Hijacking section of the article, there was a line stating

"Before dying, Ogonowski managed to engage the aircraft's radio system to allow air traffic control to listen to the terrorists' conversations in the aircraft's cabin."

This does not properly express how aircraft radios operate, since the frequency would have been blocked by a stuck mic. Any pilot (including myself) would already know this, but you don't have to take my word for it: this phenomenon is described by the FAA here:

BLOCKED- Phraseology used to indicate that a radio transmission has been distorted or interrupted due to multiple simultaneous radio transmissions.

It's also described on the Carrier-sense multiple access page.

Other information on the American 11 page seems to express that Atta was keying the microphone himself, thinking he was addressing the passengers. This is similar to what is described as occurring with United 93.

The reference provided from the original statement is a Telegraph news article from two days after the attack. I have not seen any other reference stating this as such, and I think it's clear that the Telegraph article is not a good enough source for this claim.

With these things considered, I think the line should not be included in the article.

--Tkbrett (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 * I've reverted to the earlier version for the time being pending a resolution here. I agree that the Telegraph may not be an ideal source, and that there are some technical concerns here, but they should be resolvable by reference to the 9/11 report and other sources. There are a number of references to ATC being able to hear cockpit conversations, whether deliberately done or not. I'll look around and see if we can address your concerns without, perhaps, attributing a specific act.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 * Apologies for being so eager to remove it! I'll keep making the case on the talk page here and leave the sentence there until everyone here is convinced. Anyway, so I've looked through the 9/11 Commission Report and have come to some more conclusions:

 * The report references radio transmissions being made by American 11, but it does not say anything more specific than that the messages were coming from the aircraft:

 * At 8:24:38, the following transmission came from American 11:
 * American 11: We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you’ll be okay. We are returning to the airport.

The controller only heard something unintelligible; he did not hear the specific words "we have some planes." The next transmission came seconds later:
 * American 11: Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you’ll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.

[...]

At 8:34, the Boston Center controller received a third transmission from American 11:
 * American 11: Nobody move please. We are going back to the airport. Don’t try to make any stupid moves. (p. 19)

 * These are the extent of the transmissions received from American 11. There is no reference to Captain Ogonowski or the First Officer keying the microphone, like the Telegraph article alleges. I thought maybe they meant that as the hijackers began to storm the cockpit, the microphone was keyed, as was the case with United 93:

 * The hijackers attacked at 9:28. While traveling 35,000 feet above eastern Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet. Eleven seconds into the descent, the FAA’s air traffic control center in Cleveland received the first of two radio transmissions from the aircraft. During the first broadcast, the captain or first officer could be heard declaring "Mayday" amid the sounds of a physical struggle in the cockpit. The second radio transmission, 35 seconds later, indicated that the fight was continuing. The captain or first officer could be heard shouting: "Hey get out of here—get out of here—get out of here." (p. 11)

 * The report then specifically says that later on, a hijacker attempted to address the passengers but keyed the wrong microphone and so the message was instead broadcast to ATC:

 * At 9:32, a hijacker, probably Jarrah, made or attempted to make the following announcement to the passengers of Flight 93: "Ladies and Gentlemen: Here the captain, please sit down keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb on board. So, sit." (p. 12)

 * In other words, the mic was not hot the entire time. If this were the case, then all discussion in the cockpit would have been heard. We know this is not the case, given that the that the cockpit voice recorder was found for United 93 and the transcript was released to the public. I supposed the Telegraph article may have been saying that a pilot keyed the microphone as the hijacking was beginning, just as happened on United 93, but there are no references to the struggle being heard by ATC in the report.

 * I have to conclude that this is another case of the media getting something wrong regarding aviation. To summarize, my key points against the sentence being included is would be:

 * 1. It does not align with the description of events as laid out in the 9/11 Commission Report; this point makes up the bulk of my post here.

 * 2. The article was written without significant detail being known; The article came out on shortly after the attack (two days) in the subsequent confusion where little was known by the public and media.

 * 3. The article is not a reliable enough source; I would trust the Telegraph or other respectable newspapers normally, but I would not trust any newspaper to accurately depict the technology or mechanisms used on an aircraft unless the article was of great depth with significant research being conducted for its writing.

 * 4. The description does not accurately describe how aircraft radios operate; This is the point that started my suspicion, but it is not my main driving argument given that I know this from my own personal experience as a commercial pilot, and I do not have any references for this point that directly refute the article, given the ambiguity of the articles language.

 * This is my position, and so obviously I would vote for REMOVE regarding the sentence. Let me know your thoughts or if you have any major problems with my argument. Thanks!

 * --Tkbrett (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you have some technical background and first hand knowledge. No reason to ask you to prove a negative but to exhaust the other options, can we locate any references that support the current wording or any similar wording, or do we need a better clarification?--MONGO 16:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * One problem of Wikipedia is that experts are frowned upon in favor of reliable sources and consensus, even if the consensus is among non-experts. I value experts but have seen this problem with Wikipedia experts. Experts can locate reliable sources to cite, however, even if they, themselves, potentially carry little weight when voting with non-experts, which greatly outnumber experts. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia needs subject matter experts so long as they are willing and able to not cite their own expertise and instead provide reliable sources outside their own knowledge base. I am an degreed and am certified by a governing body expert on one subject matter but I do not edit those articles, but that's just a personal choice. Since this article is a Featured Article any changes aside from a typo usually brings folks in to make a hasty revert, perhaps to force a talkpage discussion, which in this case seems to be nearly in favor of adopting the proposed changes, and that demonstrates that we are not totally closed minded if adequate explanation is provided. This however may not be the case site wide depending on who is watching the store and that is a shame.--MONGO 15:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * One problem with the source may be that the reporter might have imagined "cabin" to be the cockpit, as opposed to the normal use of "cabin" as the passenger cabin - this often happens with laymen reporting on aviation topics. I made a quick review of the 9/11 Report and haven't found a reference to this either, and right now I'm inclined to support Tkbrett's position. I'd like to check a couple of other potential sources to see if there's something better than that of-the-moment report. If ATC heard something from Flight 11, it should be well-documented, but I'm not finding anything that I'd call reliable so far.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 * I too have had a quick check through my 9/11 sources and cannot find any reliable quotes for the present text. If we cannot find any confirmed sources, then I suggest we adopt Tkbrett's corrections. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * At what point do we actually remove the line? I feel that I have raised enough doubt that until a more reliable source can be found, the sentence should be removed from the article entirely. (Though I don't think that there will ever be a source that allows it to remain, given that the sentence describes an impossibility.) Of course, that's my own perspective, so I'd also like to hear what editors more experienced than myself think. --Tkbrett (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This conversation has gone off track. The source says explicitly that the pilot was pushing the 'push-to-talk' button intermittently, i.e. holding it down but not speaking into it. It's quite clear what the source means and that what the source says is not accurately reflected in the article text. I have amended. DrKay (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That does address point four (4) from my argument since this description makes more sense now within the technical aspects of an aircraft radio.
 * With that said, I am still unsatisfied with the line as it is written now, given that it does not address the main thrusts of my argument. The re-written line now says:

Before dying, Ogonowski had managed to intermittently engage the aircraft's radio system to allow air traffic control to listen to part of the terrorists' conversations.
 * This re-write still does not address problems one through three (1-3), namely that
 * 1. It does not align with the description of events as laid out in the 9/11 Commission Report. Reading through the first chapter of the report, specifically pages 18-19, it simply states that the aircraft was completely silent and did not respond to any radio calls, up until the transmission from the cockpit. There are no references to intermittent taps on the push-to-talk key.

 * 2. The article was written without significant detail being known; The article came out on shortly after the attack (two days) in the subsequent confusion where little was known by the public and media.

 * 3. The article is not a reliable enough source; I would trust the Telegraph or other respectable newspapers normally, but I have not seen any other sources present the information the sentence is describing.
 * Are there any corroborating sources that are perhaps more reliable? As a few others pointed out above, if this did occur, then it would be readily apparent in the relevant material. Thanks. --Tkbrett (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I made a change, quoting the NYTimes. This is the latest rendition.--MONGO 17:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The New York Times article is plagued with the same problems as the Telegraph article though: it came out two days after the attack, and both make reference to information we know isn't true. For example, one quotation: Don't do anything foolish; you won't be hurt, the newspaper reported that the hijacker said, quoting air controllers. We have more planes. We have other planes.
 * We know that this does not corroborate with the more reliable sources (e.g. 9/11 Commission Report, NTSB recordings, etc.) so we don't use the newspaper article as a source in the other sections of the article. But the same could be said of the keying of the microphone from AAL11: the more reliable sources do not corroborate it, so why should we use it in this article? Making reference to the National Transportation Safety Board's Air Traffic Control Recording, they cite the last transmission received from the AAL11 pilots as 1213:31 AAL-11: twenty right American eleven.
 * The next transmission they cite from AAL11 come around ten minutes later: 1224:36 AAL-11: **

1224:38 AAL-11: we have some planes. just stay quiet and you'll be okay we are returning to the airport.
 * Again, no reference to any mic-keying while the hijacking was taking place.
 * I apologize if this is coming off as needlessly pedantic, but I think that it is important to correct this given that this is a feature article. --Tkbrett (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I am removing it; unfortunately, I was the one who put it on this article all those years ago, as I wanted to keep the myth of some of the heroism of 9/11, especially the flight crew. Flight 11’s pilot’s didn’t keep an open mic so that the hijacker’s voice could be heard. From what I have gathered, that was just early news articles misinterpreting why hijacker pilot Atta mistakenly transmitted to ATC when telling the passengers to stay in their seats. I’m not impeaching or downplaying the bravery of the Flight 11 crew, but that doesn’t seems to have been what happened. Regardless, I’m sure the pilots tried to fight back, but it would have been over quickly. We never know if they were killed or incapacitated, but we hope it was over quick.

 * No, "from what I have gathered" is WP:OR and is not acceptable. The admittedly early reports and shown in the references and there is a much later report from the Daily Telegraph. The para stays as it is properly sourced with dates etc; we just don't know what exactly happened and will never know. Also please sign any contribution you might make in the accepted manner. Thank you and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the testimony of passengers on that plane (& by extension on the other three planes too as a descriptive general pattern of attack) stating the hijackers were armed with knives and had stabbed passengers and the pilots to gain access to the cockpit means that is virtually certain what happened to the pilots on this plane too.

In addition, the source (if you read it) doesn’t mention that the pilot was killed when he activated the radio was but was alive and that Atta’s words were to him and not the passengers, which makes no sense. The article refers to a pilot, this is very inaccurate even if one considers the source. The article continues to write in the text with affirmative language that the pilots were alive and somehow trying to interfere. Why does this continue to haunt this page?

 * Once again, you are not signing any contribution you might make and it is essential that you do so. The comments you make are still your own personal opinion, see WP:OR and this is not acceptable. You are also edit warring on the article page, again this is not acceptable and you will be blocked if you continue in this matter.  You have also been told that their was no consensus for removing the paragraph from the article.  Nothing is "haunting" the page, only your refusal to accept that WP:OR is not acceptable and their is no consensus for the paragraph removal.  I repeat, please abide by Wikipedia conventions: do not edit war, sign your Talk page contributions and - if you wish to continue on Wikipedia, consider opening an account - rather than editing from an IP address. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

First Officer Thomas McGuinness?
What happened to him while he was in the plane? Was he stabbed to death or did they use Mace to gain control? I would think that the pilot wouldn’t just voluntarily give up control of their flight without a fight to the death. Any help? He’s only mentioned once in the article and I can’t find any sources for how he died anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1322:8149:85A9:A3CA:6A89:7C5 (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Death of Ogonowski
The article quotes the "pilot of the first aircraft to hit New York's World Trade Centre was told that he was "not going to get hurt" as Arab hijackers stabbed air stewardesses at the rear of the plane to lure him out of the cockpit... Ogonowski...had the presence of mind to activate a "push-to-talk" button intermittently so that the authorities on the ground could listen to the horrific events unfolding on board American Airlines Flight 11. Ogonowski was told: "Don't do anything foolish. You're not going to get killed." But even as this was happening, the pilot and his co-pilot, Tom McGuinness, knew that their stewardesses were being attacked with knives at the back of the aircraft."

This makes no sense, the article makes it sounds like Ogonowski was heard on some (unreleased) transmissions: Atta grabbed the ATC radio (which we were told he probably thought was the PA system) and made his statements and then put the ATC radio back. When Ogonowski pushed the yoke mic button whatever he and Atta said could be heard. Addtinoaly, the article makes it sound like Atta was saying his infamous words to the pilots, when from the recording he is clearly saying it (at least he thought) to the passengers.

I was the one who actually uploaded this source (at least the Telegraph one) on 13:32, 21 January 2017. from Ogonowski`s article. It was removed from the Ogonowski article by Tkbrett, and ironically, David J Johnson who is resolute to keep it removed it previously on 09:09, 13 July 2016, saying and I quote "Telegraph article did not name reliable sources and was filed in immediate events after 9/11".

The fact is, Flight 11's captain did not key the microphone. As Tkbrett mentioned, the article suggesting he did was written immediately during the confusion of 9/11 and I had (due to my young age, was wanting to perverse the myth of some of the herosim on 9/11) wanted to make it look like it did happen.

Like it or not, the fact is it did not happen.

 * Again, this is an example of an IP (?sock) not signing any contribution they might make on a article Talk page. This contribution is full of personal opinion and you should read WP:OR.  Whilst it is true that my personal contribution was originally to keep the Telegraph quote removed, my contention now is that the original discussion had no consensus and therefore should stand, per Wikipedia convention. Please consider opening an account. David J Johnson (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

AA11 Crash Time
I have been checking several sources like the LA Times which have the crash time at 8:46:40 A.M. And I find it and the Commission report which has the same time to be the most accurate timestamp. Anyone want to give me feedback on this, I would appreciate it, thanksMiked1992 (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Miked1992Miked1992 (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Bodies Found In Plane Seats
There are no credible articles written after 2001 claiming that passengers were found strapped in their seats from Flight 11. It was a rumor at the time but has been debunked countless times. Why is it not removed? AML11998877 (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Video of Osama Bin Laden taking responsibility is removed
"In a recording, a few months later in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, took responsibility for the attack. The attack on the World Trade Center exceeded even bin Laden's expectations: he had expected only the floors above the plane strikes to collapse."

The "videos" have been removed from the original page as evidenced in the Talk page, should this segment exist on this page? Should that page have a reference still added? Shadowjonathan (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is engine information "far too much detail" ?
Since @David J Johnson reverted. I have a question.

EVERY SINGLE Aircraft accident, incident article on wikipedia contains information about aircraft engines, the year of manufacture and so on. On this particular incident, the aircraft engines played a major role in the crash as they were ejected out of the opposite ends of WTC 1 and WTC 2 as debris and landed on the streets below and people took photos of them, and that is how particular aircraft partly was identified and the debris that belonged to them.

How exactly Aircraft engine information is not relevant ("far too much detail") to an article about AIRCRAFT INCIDENT?

It seems there an organized effort by @David J Johnson to get rid of important and relevant information for some reason, which is concerning. This just undermines wikipedia as a platform for getting crucial and important information. And you are just helping conspiracy theories to thrive, because there are tons of people and growing in numbers who actually believe planes didn't crash in WTC and never seen the engines because this information is withhold (for some reason). When it comes to such incidents, every detail matters and engines are integral part to aircraft operation.

So, why @David J Johnson even removed photos of engine wreckage? Maybe maps must be removed too because average person can't read a map anymore in 2024 and that is also "far too much detail" for the average mind who needs to be fed dumbed down information only? YitzhakNat (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Exactly what does the engine type have to do with an event that did not involve an aircraft deficiency? Readers who want to know what kind of engines a 767 has can go to the article on the airplane, rather than the article on the terrorist incident. Whether they're P&W or GE engines has no bearing on any of the events, including the debris. For the same reason, the aircraft is described as a 767-200, not a 767-223, since readers looking for the event will not be concerned with the Boeing customer code, and people for whom that matters will already be aware of the coding. It's an encyclopedia article, not an NTSB report, a summation of the matters relevant to events. As for the pictures, there might be grounds for inclusion if they're relevant to the event, as opposed to showing engines for the sake of engines.
 * Your complaint about David J. Johnson is verging on a personal attack. Stick to the subject, not the editor, and read WP:SUMMARY.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:American Airlines Flight 11


text:
Methylchloroisothiazolinone

Methylchloroisothiazolinone, also referred to as MCI, is the organic compound with the formula S(C2HCl)C(O)N(CH3). It is a white solid that melts near room temperature. The compound is an isothiazolinone, a class of heterocycles used as biocides. These compounds have an active sulphur moiety that is able to oxidize thiol-containing residues, thereby effectively killing most aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. MCI is often used in combination with methylisothiazolinone, a mixture known as Kathon. The isothiazolinones have attracted attention because they can cause contact dermatitis. Methylchloroisothiazolinone is effective against gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, yeast, and fungi.

Application
Methylchloroisothiazolinone is found in many water-based personal care products and cosmetics. Methylchloroisothiazolinone was first used in cosmetics in the 1970s. It is also used in glue production, detergents, paints, fuels, and other industrial processes. Methylchloroisothiazolinone is known by the registered tradename Kathon CG when used in combination with methylisothiazolinone.

Methylchloroisothiazolinone may be used in combination with other preservatives including ethylparaben, benzalkonium chloride, bronopol and phenoxyethanol.

Hazards
Methylchloroisothiazolinone can cause allergic reactions in some people. The first publication of the preservative as a contact allergen was in 1988. Cases of photoaggravated allergic contact dermatitis, i.e. worsening of skin lesions after sun exposure, have also been reported.

In pure form or in high concentrations, methylchloroisothiazolinone is a skin and membrane irritant and causes chemical burns. In the United States, maximum authorized concentrations are 15 ppm in rinse-offs (of a mixture in the ratio 3:1 of 5-chloro-2-methylisothiazol 3(2H)-one and 2-methylisothiazol-3 (2H)-one). In Canada, methylchloroisothiazolinone may only be used in rinse-off products in combination with methylisothiazolinone, the total concentration of the combination may not exceed 15 ppm.

title: Methylchloroisothiazolinone


text:
USS Winston S. Churchill

USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG-81) is an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer destroyer of the United States Navy. She is named after Sir Winston Churchill, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. This ship is the 31st destroyer of her class and the 18th ship of be built at Bath Iron Works in Bath, Maine. Construction began on 7 May 1998, and the vessel launched and christened on 17 April 1999. On 10 March 2001, she was commissioned during a ceremony at Town Point Park in Norfolk, Virginia.

Naming
On 29 November 1995, on a visit to the United Kingdom, President Bill Clinton announced to their Parliament that the new ship would be named after Sir Winston Churchill, a former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. She was the first destroyer and only the fourth U.S. Navy warship named after a British citizen, and the first since 1976 named after a non-U.S. citizen (that being USS Comte de Grasse), though Churchill was an honorary U.S. citizen and his mother was American.

Other U.S. warships named after Britons were USS Alfred (1774), an armed merchantman named after King Alfred the Great; USS Raleigh (1776), a continental frigate, named after Sir Walter Raleigh (though three later USS Raleighs—and two Confederate warships—would be named after the North Carolina city, which did not exist at the time); and USS Effingham (1777), named after The 3rd Earl of Effingham who resigned his commission rather than fight the colonists during the American Revolutionary War. The former frigate USS Harold E. Holt (FF-1074) was also named after a person from a country in the Commonwealth of Nations, Harold Holt, the Australian Prime Minister, who disappeared, (presumed drowned), while still in office just a year before Harold E. Holt was laid down. Winston S. Churchill is the first ship to be named after a British citizen or British Prime Minister of the modern era.

Winston S. Churchill is the only U.S. Navy vessel to have a Royal Navy exchange officer permanently assigned to the ship's company (usually a Navigation Officer). The U.S. Navy had a permanent U.S. Navy Officer on the Royal Navy ship, HMS Marlborough (F233), until her decommissioning on 8 July 2005. Winston S. Churchill is also the only U.S. Naval vessel to fly a foreign ensign. Being named after a Briton, the Royal Navy's White Ensign is honorarily flown on special occasions from the ship's mast, on the port side, whereas the U.S. flag is flown from the starboard side. However, during normal operations, only the U.S. flag is flown on the center of the main mast.

Design
The ship is the first of the Flight IIA variants fitted with the 62-caliber Mark 45 Mod 4 naval gun system. The guns' longer barrels allow more complete combustion of the propellant, reducing barrel flare and improving projectile velocity and firepower against ship and shore targets; additionally, the Mk 45 mod 4 uses a modified gun-house, designed to reduce its radar signature. Winston S. Churchill is armed with Tomahawk, Standard and ASROC (VLA) missiles.

The vessel additionally contains two hangars, not present in earlier destroyers; these can house Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System (LAMPS) Sikorsky SH-60B or MH-60R Seahawk helicopters. These LAMPS can be fitted with air-to-surface missiles for surface ship attacks, and torpedoes for submarine attacks.

The ship is also fitted with the AN/SPY-1D phased array radar—this represents a significant advancement in the detection capabilities of the Aegis weapon system and provides enhanced resistance to electronic countermeasures. The radar can guide more than one hundred missiles at once to targets as far as 600 nmi.

Service history
The contract to build Winston S. Churchill was awarded to the Bath Iron Works Corporation on 6 January 1995, and the keel was laid down on 7 May 1998. Winston S. Churchill was launched on 17 April 1999, delivered 13 October 2000, and commissioned 10 March 2001. The launch and christening of the ship was co-sponsored by Lady Soames, the daughter of Winston Churchill, and Mrs. Janet Cohen, wife of the Secretary of Defense. Her first commanding officer was Commander (and future Vice Admiral) Michael T. Franken.

During May–June 2001, Winston S. Churchill underwent shock trials 100 nautical miles off the coast of Naval Station Mayport, Florida. These trials subjected the ship to various close-range underwater detonations, and were performed to collect data concerning ship survivability and damage resistance in a modern threat environment. Winston S. Churchill sustained minor damage during these three tests. The tests costed 20 million dollars. On 14 September 2001, (three days after the 11 September 2001 attacks), the German Navy destroyer GERMAN DESTROYER Lütjens passed close abeam Winston S. Churchill and rendered honors by manning the rails, flying the Stars and Stripes at half-mast, and the display of a banner reading "We Stand By You". An e-mail sent by an ensign on board Winston S. Churchill described the occasion.

In January 2003, Winston S. Churchill deployed with the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) battle group in support of the Iraq War's Operation Iraqi Freedom, firing several Tomahawk missiles. Winston S. Churchill returned to Norfolk at the end of May 2003. On 22 August 2005, Winston S. Churchill was involved in a minor collision with the destroyer USS McFaul (DDG-74) off the coast of Jacksonville, Florida. Both ships suffered minor damage, and no injuries were reported. Both ships returned to their homeport at Naval Station Norfolk under their own power. On 22 January 2006 Winston S. Churchill captured a suspected pirate vessel in the Indian Ocean as part of an ongoing effort to help maintain law and order in the region.

On 26 September 2010, Winston S. Churchill came across a disabled skiff in the Gulf of Aden. After attempts to repair the skiff's engines failed Winston S. Churchill took the vessel under tow towards Somalia. On 27 September the skiff sank when the 85 passengers rushed to one side of the skiff during a food delivery causing the vessel to capsize. Winston S. Churchill was able to rescue 61 of the passengers and continued towards Somalia on 28 September.

Her homeport was formerly Naval Station Norfolk became Naval Station Mayport, Florida on 19 July 2021. She is currently a part of Carrier Strike Group 12.

On 11–12 February 2021, Winston S. Churchill seized thousands of weapons from two stateless dhows off the coast of Somali.

Awards

 * Arizona Memorial Trophy – (2019–2020)

Shield
The shield features an inescutcheon of his ancestral coat of arms and the cross of St. George. The traditional Navy colors were chosen for the shield because dark blue and gold represents the sea and excellence respectively. Red signifies sacrifice and valor. The cross of St. George and the fleur-de-lis are from Churchill's augmentation from his ancestor's coat of arms. The red cross on the white field is a reference to the flag of St. George. The gold lion over the field of red is a reference to the heritage of Great Britain. The lion shows strength, courage and determination. The nebuly is representative to the sky and clouds, which recall Britain enduring German airpower in the Battle of Britain. Winston Churchill's reputation of an inspiring war leader, talented statesman, orator and author is referred to by the stylized book.

Crest
The crest consists of a trident encompassed by a chevron, laurel and oak. The trident is a symbol for sea prowess and represents the ship's vertical launch capabilities. The tridents tines denote air, surface, and anti-submarine warfare capabilities. A chevron divides the trident which suggests a "V" to signify victory in way and strength of defense in peace. The laurel symbolizes honor and achievement while the oak represents strength and resolve.

Motto
The motto is written on a double scroll of red that has a white reverse side. The ship's motto, "In war: Resolution. In peace: Good Will", is taken from the epigraph of Churchill's The Second World War.

Seal
The coat of arms in full color as in the blazon, upon a white background enclosed within a dark blue oval border edged on the outside with a gold rope and bearing the inscription "USS Winston S. Churchill" at the top and "DDG 81" in the base all gold.

title: USS Winston S. Churchill


text:
Talk:Coup d'état

Current definition is flawed
There are a number of academic datasets and publications that define coup d'état. None of them define it as being merely "a seizure and removal of a government and its powers", which is so vague and general that it's basically any transfer of government. This edit should be reverted. What most common academic definitions of coup have in common is that it's an "an illegal and overt attempt by the military or other government elites to unseat the incumbent leader." Thenightaway (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is how the main coup datasets define a coup:
 * # Powell and Thyne: "To summarize, our definition of a coup attempt includes illegal and overt attempts by the military or other elites within the state apparatus to unseat the sitting executive."
 * # Chin, Carter and Wright: "A coup d ́etat occurs whenever the incumbent ruling regime or regime leader is ousted from power (or a presumptive regime leader is prevented from taking power) as a result of concrete, observable, and unconstitutional actions by one or more civilian members of the incumbent ruling regime and/or one or more members of the military or security apparatus."
 * Why exactly does the lead uses a vastly different definition, which isn't even supported by all the sources in the lead or the article? As far as I can tell, the only citation that supports the flawed definition in the current lead is a generalist dictionary authored by someone who does not study coups (Robertson, David (2004). The Routledge Dictionary of Politics. Routledge). Thenightaway (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's because during extensive discussions last year on the List of Coups article Talk, editors were simultaneously changing the definitions in this article (as well as the WP:MOS). The purpose was entirely, by the stated purpose of editors, to ensure that January 6 would be listed as a coup, despite it being included in no academic dataset. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. After purchasing several first edition books on Napoleon and reaching out to the Morning Chronicle for assistance in locating the specific article referencing January 7th as the “day after” the attempted unseating of Napoleon, I did not find anything in the year cited. I also believe the new and expanded definition was concocted to support a conspiratorial narrative unsupported by historical facts. 2600:8805:4605:1400:A9C8:52C3:10CA:90F4 (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

2021 Bouvet Island coup
I have not heard about it before and google knows nothing about it... Is it just a joke, a political in-joke perhaps? 80.208.64.101 (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Just vandalism. CMD (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Coup d'état