text:
Chaim Weizmann

Chaim Azriel Weizmann 27 November 1874 – 9 November 1952) was a Russian biochemist, Zionist leader and Israeli statesman who served as president of the Zionist Organization and later as the first president of Israel. He was elected on 16 February 1949, and served until his death in 1952. Weizmann was instrumental in obtaining the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and convincing the United States government to recognize the newly formed State of Israel in 1948.

As a biochemist, Weizmann is considered to be the 'father' of industrial fermentation. He developed the acetone–butanol–ethanol fermentation process, which produces acetone, n-butanol and ethanol through bacterial fermentation. His acetone production method was of great importance in the manufacture of cordite explosive propellants for the British war industry during World War I. He founded the Sieff Research Institute in Rehovot (later renamed the Weizmann Institute of Science in his honor), and was instrumental in the establishment of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Biography
Chaim Weizmann was born in the village of Motal, located in what is now Belarus and at that time was part of the Russian Empire in 1874. He was the third of 15 children born to Oizer and Rachel (Czemerinsky) Weizmann. His father was a timber merchant. From ages four to eleven, he attended a traditional cheder, or Jewish religious primary school, where he also studied Hebrew. At the age of 11, he entered high school in Pinsk, where he displayed a talent for science, especially chemistry. While in Pinsk, he became active in the Hovevei Zion movement. He graduated with honors in 1892.

In 1892, Weizmann left for Germany to study chemistry at the Polytechnic Institute of Darmstadt. To earn a living, he worked as a Hebrew teacher at an Orthodox Jewish boarding school. In 1894, he moved to Berlin to study at the Technische Hochschule Berlin.

While in Berlin, he joined a circle of Zionist intellectuals. In 1897, he moved to Switzerland to complete his studies at the University of Fribourg. In 1898, he attended the Second Zionist Congress in Basel. That year he became engaged to Sophia Getzowa. Getzowa and Weizmann were together for four years before Weizmann, who became romantically involved with Vera Khatzman in 1900, confessed to Getzowa that he was seeing another woman. He did not tell the family he was leaving Getzowa until 1903. His fellow students held a mock trial and ruled that Weitzman should uphold his commitment and marry Getzowa, even if he later divorced her. Weizmann ignored their advice.

Of Weizmann's fifteen siblings, ten immigrated to Palestine. Two also became chemists; Anna (Anushka) Weizmann worked in his Daniel Sieff Research Institute lab, registering several patents in her name. His brother, Moshe Weizmann, was the head of the Chemistry Faculty at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Two siblings remained in the Soviet Union following the Russian Revolution: a brother, Shmuel, and a sister, Maria (Masha). Shmuel Weizmann was a dedicated Communist and member of the anti-Zionist Bund movement. During the Stalinist "Great Purge", he was arrested for alleged espionage and Zionist activity, and executed in 1939. His fate became known to his wife and children only in 1955. Maria Weizmann was a doctor who was arrested as part of Stalin's fabricated "Doctors' plot" in 1952 and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment in Siberia. She was released following Stalin's death in 1953, and was permitted to emigrate to Israel along with her husband in 1956. During World War I, another sister, Minna Weizmann, was the lover of a German spy (and later Nazi diplomat),, and worked as a spy for Germany in Cairo, Egypt (then a wartime British protectorate) in 1915. Minna was outed as a spy during a trip to Italy, and was deported back to Egypt to be sent to a British POW camp. Back in Cairo, she successfully persuaded the consul of the Russian Czar to provide her safe passage out, and en route to Russia, she managed to reconnect with Prüfer via a German consulate. Minna was never formally charged with espionage, survived the war, and would eventually return to Palestine to work for the medical service of the Zionist women's organization, Hadassah.

Weizmann married Vera Khatzmann, with whom he had two sons. The elder son, Benjamin (Benjie) Weizmann (1907–1980), settled in Ireland and became a dairy farmer. The younger one, Flight Lieutenant Michael Oser Weizmann (1916–1942), fought in the Royal Air Force during World War II. While serving as a pilot in No. 502 Squadron RAF, he was killed when his plane was shot down over the Bay of Biscay in February 1942. His body was never found and he was listed as "missing". His father never fully accepted his death and made a provision in his will, in case he returned. He is one of the British Empire's air force casualties without a known grave commemorated at the Air Forces Memorial at Runnymede in Surrey, England.

His nephew Ezer Weizman, son of his brother Yechiel, a leading Israeli agronomist, became commander of the Israeli Air Force and also served as President of Israel.

Chaim Weizmann is buried beside his wife in the garden of his home at the Weizmann estate, located on the grounds of the Weizmann Institute, named after him.

Academic and scientific career
In 1899, he was awarded a PhD in organic chemistry. That year, he joined the Organic Chemistry Department at the University of Geneva. In 1901, he was appointed assistant lecturer at the University of Geneva.

In 1904, he moved to the United Kingdom to teach at the Chemistry Department of the University of Manchester as a senior lecturer. He joined Clayton Aniline Company in 1905 where the director Charles Dreyfus introduced him to Arthur Balfour, then Prime Minister.

In 1910, he became a British citizen when Winston Churchill as Home Secretary signed his papers, and held his British nationality until 1948, when he renounced it to assume his position as President of Israel. Chaim Weizmann and his family lived in Manchester for about 30 years (1904–1934), although they temporarily lived at 16 Addison Road in London during World War I.

In Britain, he was known as Charles Weizmann, a name under which he registered about 100 research patents. At the end of World War II, it was discovered that the SS had compiled a list in 1940 of over 2800 people living in Britain, which included Weizmann, who were to have been immediately arrested after an invasion of Britain had the ultimately abandoned Operation Sea Lion been successful.

Discovery of synthetic acetone

While serving as a lecturer in Manchester he became known for discovering how to use bacterial fermentation to produce large quantities of desired substances. He is considered to be the father of industrial fermentation. He used the bacterium Clostridium acetobutylicum (the Weizmann organism) to produce acetone. Acetone was used in the manufacture of cordite explosive propellants critical to the Allied war effort (see Royal Naval Cordite Factory, Holton Heath). Weizmann transferred the rights to the manufacture of acetone to the Commercial Solvents Corporation in exchange for royalties. Winston Churchill became aware of the possible use of Weizmann's discovery in early 1915, and David Lloyd George, as Minister of Munitions, joined Churchill in encouraging Weizmann's development of the process. Pilot plant development of laboratory procedures was completed in 1915 at the J&W Nicholson & Co gin factory in Bow, London, so industrial scale production of acetone could begin in six British distilleries requisitioned for the purpose in early 1916. The effort produced 30 000 tonnes of acetone during the war, although a national collection of horse-chestnuts was required when supplies of maize were inadequate for the quantity of starch needed for fermentation. The importance of Weizmann's work gave him favour in the eyes of the British Government, this allowed Weizmann to have access to senior Cabinet members and utilise this time to represent Zionist aspirations.

After the Shell Crisis of 1915 during World War I, Weizmann was director of the British Admiralty laboratories from 1916 until 1919. In April 1918 at the head of the Jewish Commission, he returned to Palestine to look for "rare minerals" for the British war effort in the Dead Sea. Weizmann's attraction for British Liberalism enabled Lloyd George's influence at the Ministry of Munitions to do a financial and industrial deal with Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) to seal the future of the Zionist homeland. Tirelessly energetic Weizmann entered London again in later October to speak for a solid hour with the Prime Minister, propped by The Guardian and his Manchester friends. At another conference on 21 February 1919 at Euston Hotel the peace envoy, Lord Bryce was reassured by the pledges against international terrorism, for currency regulation and fiscal controls.

Establishment of scientific research institutes
Concurrently, Weizmann devoted himself to the establishment of a scientific institute for basic research in the vicinity of his estate in the town of Rehovot. Weizmann saw great promise in science as a means to bring peace and prosperity to the area. As stated in his own words "I trust and feel sure in my heart that science will bring to this land both peace and a renewal of its youth, creating here the springs of a new spiritual and material life. [...] I speak of both science for its own sake and science as a means to an end." His efforts led in 1934 to the creation of the Daniel Sieff Research Institute (later renamed the Weizmann Institute of Science), which was financially supported by an endowment by Israel Sieff in memory of his late son. Weizmann actively conducted research in the laboratories of this institute, primarily in the field of organic chemistry. He offered the post of director of the institute to Nobel Prize laureate Fritz Haber, but took over the directorship himself after Haber's death en route to Palestine.

During World War II, he was an honorary adviser to the British Ministry of Supply and did research on synthetic rubber and high-octane gasoline.

Zionist activism
Weizmann was absent from the first Zionist conference, held in 1897 in Basel, Switzerland, because of travel problems, but he attended the Second Zionist Congress in 1898 and each one thereafter. Beginning in 1901, he lobbied for the founding of a Jewish institution of higher learning in Palestine. Together with Martin Buber and Berthold Feiwel, he presented a document to the Fifth Zionist Congress highlighting this need especially in the fields of science and engineering. This idea would later be crystallized in the foundation of the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology in 1912.

Weizmann met Arthur Balfour, the Conservative Prime Minister who was MP for East Manchester, during one of Balfour's electoral campaigns in 1905–1906. Balfour supported the concept of a Jewish homeland, but felt that there would be more support among politicians for the then-current offer in Uganda, called the British Uganda Programme. Following mainstream Zionist rejection of that proposal, Weizmann was credited later with persuading Balfour, by then the Foreign Secretary during the First World War, for British support to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the original Zionist aspiration. The story goes that Weizmann asked Balfour, "Would you give up London to live in Saskatchewan?" When Balfour replied that the British had always lived in London, Weizmann responded, "Yes, and we lived in Jerusalem when London was still a marsh." Nevertheless, this had not prevented naturalization as a British subject in 1910 with the help of haham Moses Gaster, who asked for papers from Herbert Samuel, the minister.

Weizmann revered Britain but relentlessly pursued Jewish freedom. He was head of the Democratic Fraction, a group of Zionist radicals who posed a challenge to Herzlian political Zionism. Israel Sieff described him as "pre-eminently what the Jewish people call folks-mensch...a man of the people, of the masses, not of a elite". His most recent biographers challenge this, describing him as a blatant elitist, disgusted by the masses, coldly aloof from his family, callous with friends if they did not support him, despondently alienated from Palestine, where he lived only with reluctance, and repelled by the Jewish immigrants from eastern Europe there.

Gradually Weizmann set up a separate following from Moses Gaster and L.J. Greenberg in London. Manchester became an important Zionist center in Britain. Weizmann was mentor to Harry Sacher, Israel Sieff and Simon Marks (founders of Marks & Spencer), and formed a friendship with Asher Ginzberg, a writer who pushed for Zionist inclusivity and urged against "repressive cruelty" to the Arabs. He regularly traveled by train to London to discuss spiritual and cultural Zionism with Ginzberg, whose pen name was Ahad Ha'am. He stayed at Ginzberg's home in Hampstead, whence he lobbied Whitehall, beyond his job as Director of the Admiralty for Manchester.

Zionists believed that anti-Semitism led directly to the need for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Weizmann first visited Jerusalem in 1907, and while there, he helped organize the Palestine Land Development Company as a practical means of pursuing the Zionist dream, and to found the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Although Weizmann was a strong advocate for "those governmental grants which are necessary to the achievement of the Zionist purpose" in Palestine, as stated at Basel, he persuaded many Jews not to wait for future events, "A state cannot be created by decree, but by the forces of a people and in the course of generations. Even if all the governments of the world gave us a country, it would only be a gift of words. But if the Jewish people will go build Palestine, the Jewish State will become a reality—a fact."

During World War I, at around the same time he was appointed Director of the British Admiralty's laboratories, Weizmann, in a conversation with David Lloyd George, suggested the strategy of the British campaign against the Ottoman Empire. From 1914, "a benevolent goodwill toward the Zionist idea" emerged in Britain when intelligence revealed how the Jewish Question could support imperial interests against the Ottomans. Many of Weizmann's contacts revealed the extent of the uncertainty in Palestine. From 1914 to 1918, Weizmann developed his political skills mixing easily in powerful circles. On 7 and 8 November 1914, he had a meeting with Dorothy de Rothschild. Her husband James de Rothschild was serving with the French Army, but she was unable to influence her cousinhood to Weizmann's favour. However, when Weizmanm spoke to Charles, second son of Nathan Mayer Rothschild, he approved the idea. James de Rothschild advised Weizmann to seek to influence the British Government. By the time he reached Lord Robert Cecil, Dr Weizmann was enthused with excitement. Cecil's personal foibles were representative of class consciousness, which the Zionists overcame through deeds rather than words. C. P. Scott, the editor of The Manchester Guardian, formed a friendship with Weizmann after the two men encountered each other at a Manchester garden party in 1915. Scott described the diminutive leader as"extraordinarily interesting, a rare combination of idealism and the severely practical which are the two essentials of statesmanship a perfectly clear sense conception of Jewish nationalism, an intense and burning sense of the Jew as Jew, just as strong, perhaps more so, as that of the German as German or the Englishman as Englishman, and secondly arising out of that and necessary for its satisfaction and development, his demand for a country, a home land which for him and for anyone during his view of Jewish nationality can be no other that the ancient home of his race."

Scott wrote to the Liberal Party's Lloyd George who set up a meeting for a reluctant Weizmann with Herbert Samuel, President of the Local Government Board, who was now converted to Zionism. On 10 December 1914 at Whitehall, Samuel offered Weizmann a Jewish homeland complete with funded developments. Ecstatic, Weizmann returned to Westminster to arrange a meeting with Balfour, who was also on the War Council. He had first met the Conservatives in 1906, but after being moved to tears at 12 Carlton Gardens, on 12 December 1914, Balfour told Weizmann "it is a great cause and I understand it." Weizmann had another meeting in Paris with Baron Edmond Rothschild before a crucial discussion with Chancellor of the Exchequer Lloyd George, on 15 January 1915. Whilst some of the leading members of Britain's Jewish community regarded Weizmann's program with distaste, The Future of Palestine, also known as the Samuel Memorandum, was a watershed moment in the Great War and annexation of Palestine.

Weizmann consulted several times with Samuel on the homeland policy during 1915, but H. H. Asquith, then Prime Minister, would be dead set against upsetting the balance of power on the Middle East. Attitudes were changing to "dithyrambic" opposition; but in the Cabinet, to the Samuel Memorandum, it remained implacably opposed with the exception of Chancellor Lloyd George. Edwin Montagu, for example, Samuel's cousin was strenuously opposed. Weizmann did not attend the meeting of Jewry's ruling Conjoint Committee when it met the Zionist leadership on 14 April 1915. Yehiel Tschlenow had travelled from Berlin to speak at the congress. He envisioned a Jewish Community worldwide so that integration was complementary with amelioration. Zionists however had one goal only, the creation of their own state with British help.

In 1915, Weizmann also began working with Sir Mark Sykes, who was looking for a member of the Jewish community for a delicate mission. He met the Armenian lawyer, James Malcolm, who already knew Sykes, and British intelligence, who were tired of the oppositional politics of Moses Gaster. "Dr Weizmann ... asked when he could meet Sir Mark Sykes ... Sir Mark fixed the appointment for the very next day, which was a Sunday." They finally met on 28 January 1917, "Dr Weizmann...should take the leading part in the negotiations", was Sykes response. Weizmann was determined to replace the Chief Rabbi as Jewish leader of Zionism. He had the "matter in hand" when he met Sokolow and Malcolm at Thatched House on Monday 5 February 1917. Moses Gaster was very reluctant to step aside. Weizmann had a considerable following, yet was not involved in the discussions with François Georges-Picot at the French embassy: a British Protectorate, he knew would not require French agreement. Furthermore, James de Rothschild proved a friend and guardian of the nascent state questioning Sykes' motivations as their dealings on Palestine were still secretive. Sokolow, Weizmann's diplomatic representative, cuttingly remarked to Picot underlining the irrelevance of the Triple Entente to French Jewry, but on 7 February 1917, the British government recognized the Zionist leader and agreed to expedite the claim. Weizmann was characteristically wishing to reward his Jewish friends for loyalty and service. News of the February Revolution (also known as the Kerensky Revolution) in Russia shattered the illusion for World Jewry. Unity for British Jewry was achieved by the Manchester Zionists. "Thus not for the first time in history, there is a community alike of interest and of sentiment between the British State and Jewish people." The Manchester Zionists published a pamphlet Palestine on 26 January 1917, which did not reflect British policy, but already Sykes looked to Weizmann's leadership when they met on 20 March 1917.

On 6 February 1917 a meeting was held at Dr Moses Gaster's house with Weizmann to discuss the results of the Picot convention in Paris. Sokolow and Weizmann pressed on with seizing leadership from Gaster; they had official recognition from the British government. At 6 Buckingham Gate on 10 February 1917 another was held, in a series of winter meetings in London. The older generation of Greenberg, Joseph Cowen and Gaster were stepping down or being passed over. "...those friends ... in close cooperation all these years", he suggested should become the EZF Council - Manchester's Sieff, Sacher and Marks, and London's Leon Simon and Samuel Tolkowsky. While the war was raging in the outside world, the Zionists prepared for an even bigger fight for the survival of their homeland. Weizmann issued a statement on 11 February 1917, and on the following day, they received news of the Kerensky take over in Petrograd. Tsarist Russia had been very anti-Semitic but incongruously this made the British government even more determined to help the Jews. Nahum Sokolow acted as Weizmann's eyes and ears in Paris on a diplomatic mission; an Entente under the Ottoman Empire was unsettling. The Triple Entente of Arab-Armenian-Zionist was fantastic to Weizmann, leaving him cold and unenthusiastic. Nonetheless, the delegation left for Paris on 31 March 1917. One purpose of the Alliance was to strengthen the hand of Zionism in the United States. Weizmann's relations with Balfour were intellectual and academic. He was genuinely overjoyed to convince the former Prime Minister in April 1917. Just after the U.S. President, Woodrow Wilson, had left, the following morning, Lloyd George invited Weizmann to breakfast at which he promised Jewish support for Britain as the Jews "might be able to render more assistance than the Arabs." They discussed "International Control", the Russian Revolution and US involvement in the future of the Palestine Problem. The complexity of Arab desiderata – "facilities of colonization, communal autonomy, rights of language and establishment of a Jewish chartered company". This was followed by a meeting with Sir Edward Carson and the Conservatives (18 April) and another at Downing Street on 20 April. With the help of George's private secretary Philip Kerr the issue was moved up "the Agenda" to War Cabinet as a matter of urgency.

On 16 May 1917 the President of the Board of Deputies David Lindo Alexander QC co-signed a statement in the Times attacking Zionism and asserting that the Jewish Community in Britain was opposed to it. At the next meeting of the Board, on 15 June 1917, a motion of censure was proposed against the President, who said he would treat the motion as one of no confidence. When it was passed, he resigned. Although subsequent analysis has shown that the success of the motion possibly had more to do with a feeling on the part of Deputies that Lindo Alexander had failed to consult them than with a massive conversion on their part to the Zionist cause, nevertheless it had great significance outside the community. Within days of the resolution the Foreign Office sent a note to Lord Rothschild and to Weizmann asking them to submit their proposals for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The way had been opened to the Balfour Declaration issued in the following November.

Political career
On 31 October 1917, Chaim Weizmann became president of the British Zionist Federation; he worked with Arthur Balfour to obtain the Balfour Declaration. "His Majesty's government view would favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, ...to use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country, 2 November 1917."

A founder of so-called Synthetic Zionism, Weizmann supported grass-roots colonization efforts as well as high-level diplomatic activity. He was generally associated with the centrist General Zionists and later sided with neither Labour Zionism on the left nor Revisionist Zionism on the right. In 1917, he expressed his view of Zionism in the following words, "We have [the Jewish people] never based the Zionist movement on Jewish suffering in Russia or in any other land. These suffering have never been the mainspring of Zionism. The foundation of Zionism was, and continues to be to this day, the yearning of the Jewish people for its homeland, for a national centre and a national life."

Weizmann's personality became an issue but Weizmann had an international profile unlike his colleagues or any other British Zionist. He was President of EZF Executive Council. He was also criticized by Harry Cohen. A London delegate raised a censure motion: that Weizmann refused to condemn the regiment. In August 1917, Weizmann quit both EZF and ZPC which he had founded with his friends. Leon Simon asked Weizmann not to "give up the struggle". At the meeting on 4 September 1917, he faced some fanatical opposition. But letters of support "sobering down" opposition, and a letter from his old friend Ginzberg "a great number of people regard you as something of a symbol of Zionism".

Zionists linked Sokolow and Weizmann to Sykes. Sacher tried to get the Foreign Secretary to redraft a statement rejecting Zionism. The irony was not lost accusing the government of anti-semitism. Edwin Montagu opposed it, but Herbert Samuel and David Lloyd George favoured Zionism. Montagu did not regard Palestine as a "fit place for them to live". Montagu believed that it would let down assimilationists and the ideals of British Liberalism. The Memorandum was not supposed to accentuate the prejudice of mentioning 'home of the Jewish people'. Weizmann was a key holder at the Ministry of Supply by late 1917. By 1918 Weizmann was accused of combating the idea of a separate peace with Ottoman Empire. He considered such a peace at odds with Zionist interests. He was even accused of "possibly prolonging the war".

At the War Cabinet meeting of 4 October, chaired by Lloyd George and with Balfour present, Lord Curzon also opposed this "barren and desolate" place as a home for Jews. In a third memo Montagu labelled Weizmann a "religious fanatic". Montagu believed in assimilation and saw his principles being swept from under by the new policy stance. Montagu, a British Jew, had learnt debating skills as India Secretary, and Liberalism from Asquith, who also opposed Zionism.

All the memos from Zionists, non-Zionists, and Curzon were all-in by a third meeting convened on Wednesday, 31 October 1917. The War Cabinet had dealt an "irreparable blow to Jewish Britons", wrote Montagu. Curzon's memo was mainly concerned by the non-Jews in Palestine to secure their civil rights. Worldwide there were 12 million Jews, and about 365 000 in Palestine by 1932. Cabinet ministers were worried about Germany playing the Zionist card. If the Germans were in control, it would hasten support for Ottoman Empire, and collapse of Kerensky's government. Curzon went on towards an advanced Imperial view: that since most Jews had Zionist views, it was as well to support these majority voices. "If we could make a declaration favourable to such an ideal we should be able to carry on extremely useful propaganda." Weizmann "was absolutely loyal to Great Britain". The Zionists had been approached by the Germans, Weizmann told William Ormsby-Gore, but the British miscalculated the effects of immigration to Palestine and over-estimated German control over the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were in no position to prevent movement. Sykes reported the Declaration to Weizmann with elation all round: he repeated "mazel tov" over and over. The Entente had fulfilled its commitment to both Sharif Husein and Chaim Weizmann.

Sykes stressed the Entente: "We are pledged to Zionism, Armenianism liberation, and Arabian independence". On 2 December, Zionists celebrated the Declaration at the Opera House; the news of the Bolshevik Revolution, and withdrawal of Russian troops from the frontier war with Ottoman Empire, raised the pressure from Constantinople. On 11 December, Turkish armies were swept aside when Edmund Allenby's troops entered Jerusalem. On 9 January 1918, all Turkish troops withdrew from the Hejaz for a bribe of $2 million to help pay Ottoman Empire's debts. Weizmann had seen peace with Ottoman Empire out of the question in July 1917. Lloyd George wanted a separate peace with Ottoman Empire to guarantee relations in the region secure. Weizmann had managed to gain the support of International Jewry in Britain, France and Italy. Schneer postulates that the British government desperate for any wartime advantage were prepared to offer any support among philo-Semites. It was to Weizmann a priority. Weizmann considered that the issuance of the Balfour Declaration was the greatest single achievement of the pre-1948 Zionists. He believed that the Balfour Declaration and the legislation that followed it, such as the (3 June 1922) Churchill White Paper and the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine all represented an astonishing accomplishment for the Zionist movement.

On 3 January 1919, Weizmann met Hashemite Prince Faisal to sign the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement attempting to establish the legitimate existence of the state of Israel. At the end of the month, the Paris Peace Conference decided that the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire should be wholly separated and the newly conceived mandate-system applied to them. Weizmann stated at the conference that the Zionist objective was to "establish such a society in Palestine that Palestine shall be as Jewish as England is English, or America American." Shortly thereafter, both men made their statements to the conference.

After 1920, he assumed leadership in the World Zionist Organization, creating local branches in Berlin, and serving twice (1920–31, 1935–46) as president of the World Zionist Organization. Unrest amongst Arab antagonism to a Jewish presence in Palestine increased, erupting into riots. Weizmann remained loyal to Britain, tried to shift the blame onto dark forces. The French were commonly blamed for discontent, as scapegoats for Imperial liberalism. Zionists began to believe racism existed within the administration, which remained inadequately policed.

In 1921, Weizmann went along with Albert Einstein for a fundraiser to establish the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and support the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology. At this time, simmering differences over competing European and American visions of Zionism, and its funding of development versus political activities, caused Weizmann to clash with Louis Brandeis. In 1921 Weizmann played an important role in supporting Pinhas Rutenberg's successful bid to the British for an exclusive electric concession for Palestine, in spite of bitter personal and principled disputes between the two figures.

During the war years, Brandeis headed the precursor of the Zionist Organization of America, leading fund-raising for Jews trapped in Europe and Palestine. In early October 1914, the USS North Carolina (ACR-12) arrived in Jaffa Harbor with money and supplies provided by Jacob Schiff, the American Jewish Committee, and the Provisional Executive Committee for General Zionist Affairs, then acting for the WZO, which had been rendered impotent by the war. Although Weizmann retained Zionist leadership, the clash led to a departure from Louis Brandeis's movement. By 1929, there were about 18 000 members remaining in the ZOA, a massive decline from the high of 200  000 reached during the peak Brandeis years. In summer 1930, these two factions and visions of Zionism, would come to a compromise largely on Brandeis's terms, with a restructured leadership for the ZOA. An American view is that Weizmann persuaded the British cabinet to support Zionism by presenting the benefits of having a presence in Palestine in preference to the French. Imperial interests on the Suez Canal as well as sympathy after the Holocaust were important factors for British support. Weizmann wrote in 1914: "Should Palestine fall within the British sphere of influence, and should Britain encourage a Jewish settlement there, as a British dependency, we could have in 20 to 30 years a million Jews out there ... they would ... form a very effective guard for the Suez Canal."

Jewish immigration to Palestine

Jewish immigration was consciously limited by the British administration. Weizmann agreed with the policy but was afraid of the rise of the Nazis. From 1933, there were year-on-year leaps in mass immigration by 50%. Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald's attempted reassurance on economic grounds in a white paper did little to stabilize Arab-Israeli relations. In 1936 and early 1937, Weizmann addressed the Peel Commission (set up by the returning Conservative Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin), whose job it was to consider the working of the British Mandate of Palestine. He insisted that the mandate authorities had not driven home to the Palestinian population that the terms of the mandate would be implemented, using an analogy from another part of the British Empire: "I think it was in Bombay recently, that there had been trouble and the Moslems had been flogged. I am not advocating flogging, but what is the difference between a Moslem in Palestine and a Moslem in Bombay? There they flog them, and here they save their faces. This, interpreted in terms of Moslem mentality, means: 'The British are weak; we shall succeed if we make ourselves sufficiently unpleasant. We shall succeed in throwing the Jews into the Mediterranean.'"

On 25 November 1936, testifying before the Peel Commission, Weizmann said that there were in Europe 6 000  000 Jews "for whom the world is divided into places where they cannot live and places where they cannot enter." The Commission published a report that, for the first time, recommended partition, but the proposal was declared unworkable and formally rejected by the government. The two main Jewish leaders, Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion had convinced the Zionist Congress to approve equivocally the Peel recommendations as a basis for more negotiation. This was the first official mention and declaration of a Zionist vision opting for a possible State with a majority of Jewish population, alongside a State with an Arab majority. The Arab leaders, headed by Haj Amin al-Husseini, rejected the plan.

Weizmann made very clear in his autobiography that the failure of the international Zionist movement (between the wars) to encourage all Jews to act decisively and efficiently in great enough numbers to migrate to the Jerusalem area was the real cause for the call for a Partition deal. A deal on partition was first formally mentioned in 1936 but not finally implemented until 1948. Again, Weizmann blamed the Zionist movement for not being adequate during the best years of the British Mandate.

Ironically, in 1936 Ze'ev Jabotinsky prepared the so-called "evacuation plan", which called for the evacuation of 1.5 million Jews from Poland, the Baltic states, Nazi Germany, Hungary and Romania to Palestine over the span of next ten years. The plan was first proposed on 8 September 1936 in the conservative Polish newspaper Czas, the day after Jabotinsky organized a conference where more details of the plan were laid out; the emigration would take 10 years and would include 750 000 Jews from Poland, with 75  000 between age of 20–39 leaving the country each year. Jabotinsky stated that his goal was to reduce Jewish population in the countries involved to levels that would make them uninterested in its further reduction.

The same year, he toured Eastern Europe, meeting with the Polish Foreign Minister, Colonel Józef Beck; the Regent of Hungary, Admiral Miklós Horthy; and Prime Minister Gheorghe Tătărescu of Romania to discuss the evacuation plan. The plan gained the approval of all three governments, but caused considerable controversy within the Jewish community of Poland, on the grounds that it played into the hands of anti-Semites. In particular, the fact that the 'evacuation plan' had the approval of the Polish government was taken by many Polish Jews as indicating Jabotinsky had gained the endorsement of what they considered to be the wrong people.

The evacuation of Jewish communities in Poland, Hungary and Romania was to take place over a ten-year period. However, the British government vetoed it, and the World Zionist Organization's chairman, Chaim Weizmann, dismissed it.

Weizmann considered himself, not Ben-Gurion, the political heir to Theodor Herzl. Herzl's only grandchild and descendant was Stephen Norman (born Stephan Theodor Neumann, 1918–1946). Dr. H. Rosenblum, the editor of Haboker, a Tel Aviv daily that later became Yediot Aharonot, noted in late 1945 that Dr. Weizmann deeply resented the sudden intrusion and reception of Norman when he arrived in Britain. Norman spoke to the Zionist conference in London. Haboker reported, "Something similar happened at the Zionist conference in London. The chairman suddenly announced to the meeting that in the hall there was Herzl's grandson who wanted to say a few words. The introduction was made in an absolutely dry and official way. It was felt that the chairman looked for—and found—some stylistic formula which would satisfy the visitor without appearing too cordial to anybody among the audience. In spite of that there was a great thrill in the hall when Norman mounted on the platform of the presidium. At that moment, Dr. Weizmann turned his back on the speaker and remained in this bodily and mental attitude until the guest had finished his speech." The 1945 article went on to note that Norman was snubbed by Weizmann and by some in Israel during his visit because of ego, jealousy, vanity and their own personal ambitions. Brodetsky was Chaim Weizmann's principal ally and supporter in Britain. Weizmann secured for Norman a desirable but minor position with the British Economic and Scientific Mission in Washington, D.C.

Second World War
On 29 August 1939, Weizmann sent a letter to Neville Chamberlain, stating in part: "I wish to confirm in the most explicit manner the declarations which I and my colleagues have made during the last month and especially in the last week: that the Jews stand by Great Britain and will fight on the side of the democracies." The letter gave rise to a conspiracy theory, promoted in Nazi propaganda, that he had made a "Jewish declaration of war" against Germany.

At the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939, Weizmann was appointed as an honorary adviser to the British Ministry of Supply, using his extensive political expertise in the management of provisioning and supplies throughout the duration of the conflict. He was frequently asked to advise the cabinet and also brief the Prime Minister. Weizmann's efforts to integrate Jews from Palestine in the war against Germany resulted in the creation of the Jewish Brigade of the British Army which fought mainly in the Italian front. After the war, he grew embittered by the rise of violence in Palestine and by the terrorist tendencies amongst followers of the Revisionist fraction. His influence within the Zionist movement decreased, yet he remained overwhelmingly influential outside of Mandate Palestine.

In 1942, Weizmann was invited by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to work on the problem of synthetic rubber. Weizmann proposed to produce butyl alcohol from maize, then convert it to butylene and further to butadiene, which is a basis for rubber. According to his memoirs, these proposals were barred by the oil companies.

The Holocaust
In 1939, a conference was established at St James's Palace when the government drew up the May 1939 White Paper which severely curtailed any spending in the Jewish Home Land. Yishuv was put back to the lowest priority. At the outbreak of war the Jewish Agency pledged its support for the British war effort against Nazi Germany. They raised the Jewish Brigade into the British Army, which took years to come to fruition. It authenticated the news of the Holocaust reaching the allies.

In May 1942, the Zionists met at Biltmore Hotel in New York, US; a convention at which Weizmann pressed for a policy of unrestricted immigration into Palestine. A Jewish Commonwealth needed to be established, and latterly Churchill revived his backing for this project.

Weizmann met Churchill on 4 November 1944 to urgently discuss the future of Palestine. Churchill agreed that Partition was preferable for Israel over his White Paper. He also agreed that Israel should annex the Negev desert, where no one was living. However, when Lord Moyne, the British Governor of Palestine, had met Churchill a few days earlier, he was surprised that Churchill had changed his views in two years. On 6 November, Moyne was assassinated for his trenchant views on immigration; the immigration question was put on hold.

In February 1943, the British government also rejected a plan to pay $3.5 million and just $50 per head to allow 70 000, mostly Romanian, Jews to be protected and evacuated that Weizmann had suggested to the Americans. In May 1944, the British detained Joel Brand, a Jewish activist from Budapest, who wanted to evacuate 1 million Jews from Hungary on 10 000 trucks, with tea, coffee, cocoa, and soap. In July 1944, Weizmann pleaded on Brand's behalf but to no avail. Rezső Kasztner took over the direct negotiations with Adolf Eichmann to release migrants, but they came to nothing. Weizmann also promoted a plan to bomb the death camps, but the British claimed that this was too risky, dangerous and unfeasible, due to technical difficulties. On 20 September 1945, Weizmann presented the first official documents to the British, USA, France, and Soviets, for the restitution of property, and indemnification. He demanded that all heirless Jewish property should be handed over as part of the reparations for the rehabilitation of Nazi victims.

In his presidential statement at the last Zionist congress that he attended at Basel on 9 December 1946 he said: "Massada, for all its heroism, was a disaster in our history; It is not our purpose or our right to plunge to destruction in order to bequeath a legend of martyrdom to posterity; Zionism was to mark the end of our glorious deaths and the beginning of a new path leading to life."

First president of Israel
Two days after the proclamation of the State of Israel, Weizmann succeeded Ben-Gurion as chairman of the Provisional State Council, a collective presidency that held office until Israel's first parliamentary election, in February 1949.

On 2 July 1948, a new kibbutz was founded facing the Golan Heights (Syrian) overlooking the Jordan River, only 5 miles from Syrian territory. Their forces had already seized Kibbutz Mishmar Ha-Yarden. The new kibbutz was named (President's Village) Kfar Ha-Nasi.

When the first Knesset met in 1949, Weizmann was nominated as Mapai's candidate for president. The Revisionist Party put forward Prof. Joseph Klausner. Weizmann was elected president by the Knesset on 17 February 1949. On 24 February 1949, Weizmann as president entrusted Ben-Gurion with forming a government. A Coalition was made up of 46 Mapai, 2 Arab Democratic List of Nazareth, 16 of United Religious Front, 5 of Progressive Party, 4 of Sephardi List. Mapam was officially a socialist party with Mapai, but was anti-religious and so remained outside the coalition. On 2 November 1949, the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, the Daniel Sieff Institute, much enlarged and rebuilt, was renamed the Weizmann Institute of Science. The institute was a global success, attracting scientists from all over the Diaspora. In 1949 there were 20 researchers; twenty years later there were 400, and 500 students. Weizmann met with United States President Harry Truman and worked to obtain the support of the United States; they discussed emigration, for the establishment of the State of Israel.

President Weizmann lived at Rehovot, where he regularly received the Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion into his garden. He was denied any actualisation of the political role he had hoped for by the Left, and had to be consoled with the Weizmann Institute's successes.

When Weizmann died on 9 November 1952, he was buried at Rehovot. He was acknowledged as a patriot long before Israel had even begun to exist. "The greatest Jewish emissary to the Gentile world..." was one academic verdict.

title: Chaim Weizmann


text:
Clinton Plaza

Clinton Plaza was a thriving but short-lived nightlife district in Bangkok, Thailand, on Sukhumvit Road between Soi 13 and Soi 15. Its location was excellent, being midway between the Nana Entertainment Plaza to the west and the Soi Cowboy nightlife area to the east.

The plaza, the brainchild of a Dutchman and an American, but then in 1999 was taken over by a New Zealand entrepreneur, began as a collection of beer bars in 1998. The following year it was named after then U.S. President Bill Clinton. A number of lively go-go bars appeared in 2000. Many of the names were tongue in cheek jabs at the president, including Monica Beer Bar, Bill's Coffee House and the White House.

In 2001 the Interior Minister of Thailand, Purachai Piumsombun, began a campaign to enforce his ideas of social order. A 01:00 closing hour for all bars and nightclubs was enforced and employment of nude dancers was discouraged. The shortened hours, combined with contractual disputes related to redevelopment plans, led to the complete shut down of the bar area by May 2003. The existing structures were razed and a hotel has since been built on the location.

The Clinton Plaza bars Checkpoint Charlie and Hollywood-a-Go-Go appear in Jordan Clark's 2005 documentary Falang: Behind Bangkok's Smile which takes a critical view of sex tourism in Thailand.

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

title: Clinton Plaza


text:
Talk:Wounded Knee, South Dakota

Wounded Knee

Battle of Wounded Knee

Seperate article for Massacre
I just did some improving on the article Massacre at Wounded Knee. Personally, I think the info on the massacre should be moved over to Massacre at Wounded Knee, with a link at the bottom of Wounded Knee, South Dakota Pingveno 05:03, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There was a pre-existing article at Wounded Knee Massacre, which I think is the most common name (it might be "Massacre at" but it surely wasn't "Massacre of"). I think everything in the other article was already in that one, so I made it a redirect. - Hephaestos 05:06, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Isn't referring to Crazy Horse's killing as an 'assassination' kind of biased?

title: Talk:Wounded Knee, South Dakota


text:
Wounded Knee

Wounded Knee may refer to

Places

 * Wounded Knee, South Dakota
 * Wounded Knee National Historic Landmark, a U.S. National Historic Landmark site of the 1890 massacre
 * Wounded Knee Creek

Historical events

 * Wounded Knee Occupation of 1973
 * Wounded Knee Massacre of 1890

Music

 * "Wounded Knee", a 1989 song on Nik Kershaw's The Works
 * "Wounded Knee", a 1993 instrumental piece by Primus from the album Pork Soda
 * "Wounded Knee", a 1997 song by Walela
 * "Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee", a 1992 song by Buffy Sainte-Marie
 * "We Were All Wounded at Wounded Knee", a 1973 song by the Native American rock band Redbone

Other arts, entertainment, and media

 * Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, a 1970 book by Dee Brown, which chronicles events leading up to the Wounded Knee Massacre
 * Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (film), a 2007 film adaptation of the Dee Brown book

title: Wounded Knee


text:
Exxon Valdez

Exxon Valdez was an oil tanker that gained notoriety after running aground in Prince William Sound, spilling her cargo of crude oil into the sea. On 24 March 1989, while owned by the former Exxon Shipping Company, captained by Joseph Hazelwood and First Mate James Kunkel, and bound for Long Beach, California, the vessel ran aground on the Bligh Reef, resulting in the second largest oil spill in United States history. The size of the spill is estimated to have been 40900 to 120000 m3. In 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil spill was listed as the 54th-largest spill in history.

Carrier
The tanker was over 301 meters long, 51 meters wide, and 26 meters deep (987 ft x 166 ft x 88 ft), with a deadweight of 214,861 long tons and a full-load displacement of 240,291 long tons. The ship was able to transport up to 235000 m3 at a sustained speed of 30 kph, powered by a 23.60 MW (31,650 shp) diesel engine. Her hull design was of the single-hull type, constructed by National Steel and Shipbuilding Company in San Diego, California. She was a relatively new tanker at the time of the spill, having been delivered to Exxon on 16 December 1986.

Oil spill
At the time of the spill, Exxon Valdez was employed to transport crude oil from the Alyeska consortium's pipeline terminal in Valdez, Alaska, to the lower 48 states of the United States. At the time it ran aground, the vessel was carrying about 201000 m3 of oil. After the spill, the vessel was towed to San Diego arriving on 10 June 1989, and repairs were started on 30 June 1989. Approximately 1,600 tons of steel were removed and replaced that July, totaling US$30 million of repairs to the tanker. Its single-hull design remained unaltered.

The Exxon Valdez spill occurred under President George H. W. Bush, whose Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, William K. Reilly, reportedly played a significant role in mobilizing presidential support for action to contain and clean up the spill.

Litigation
Litigation was filed on behalf of 38,000 litigants. In 1994, a jury awarded plaintiffs US$287 million in compensatory damages and US$5 billion in punitive damages. Exxon appealed and the Ninth Circuit Court reduced the punitive damages to US$2.5 billion. Exxon then appealed the punitive damages to the Supreme Court which capped the damages to US$507.5 million in June, 2008. On 27 August 2008, Exxon Mobil agreed to pay 75% of the US$507.5 million damages ruling to settle the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill off Alaska. In June 2009, a federal ruling ordered Exxon to pay an additional US$480 million in interest on their delayed punitive damage awards.

Return to service
After repairs, Exxon Valdez was renamed Exxon Mediterranean, then SeaRiver Mediterranean in the early 1990s, when Exxon transferred its shipping business to a new subsidiary company, River Maritime Inc. The name was later shortened to S/R Mediterranean, then to simply Mediterranean in 2005. Although Exxon tried briefly to return the ship to its North American fleet, it was prohibited by law from returning to Prince William Sound even though her sister ship with the same design, Exxon Long Beach, never left that route. It then served in Europe, the Middle East and Asia. In 2002, the ship was again removed from service. In 2005, it began operating under the Marshall Islands flag of convenience. Since then, European Union regulations have also prevented vessels with single-hull designs such as the Valdez from entering European ports. In early 2008, SeaRiver Maritime, an ExxonMobil subsidiary, sold Mediterranean to the Hong Kong-based shipping company, Hong Kong Bloom Shipping Ltd., which renamed the ship, once again, to Dong Fang Ocean, under Panama registry. In 2008, she was refitted and converted from an oil tanker to an ore carrier.

Hong Kong Bloom Shipping, is a subsidiary of Chinese government-owned company China Ocean Shipping (Group) Corporation (COSCO).

Collision with MV Aali
On 29 November 2010, Dong Fang Ocean collided in the South China Sea with the Malta-flagged cargo ship, Aali. Both vessels were severely damaged in the incident, and Aali was towed to Weihai and Dong Fang Ocean was towed to Longyan Port in Shandong.

Retirement
In March 2012, Dong Fang Ocean was purchased by Global Marketing Systems, Inc. for scrap at an estimated US$16 million and sailed under her own power to a ship breaker in Singapore. She changed hands again among scrap merchants (a common occurrence) and was eventually routed to Alang, India, under the ownership of Priya Blue Industries and at some point renamed Oriental Nicety. Before being beached, some tried to halt the action, arguing that the vessel was in breach of the Basel Convention. On 30 July 2012, the Supreme Court of India granted permission for the owners of Oriental Nicety to beach her at Gujarat coast to be dismantled. She was then beached at Alang on 2 August 2012.

title: Exxon Valdez


text:
Talk:Air Force One

Short Distance Air Force One?
I was noticing a photo from a recent stop in Ohio from the Obama campaign and it seems as though he is flying in a 737 (perhaps a 777? I don't know airplanes enough to spot the differences, but I am smart enough to not see a second level). http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-air-force-one-20121025,0,891073.story Image: http://www.trbimg.com/img-5089eb12/turbine/la-pn-obama-air-force-one-20121025-001/600

Obviously any military craft the president is flying in becomes "Air Force One" but is this a part of the AF1 fleet? ☠ Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea  ☠ - (T)(C) 08:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

 * It is a Boeing C-32, which is a 757. See this photo, and compare it to the image you linked to. The 757 can fly into smaller airports than a 747, which is the main limiting factor with the 747, not range as such. To my knowledge, the president flys on the 747 for even short hops like Washington DC to New York City. See the Air Force One section of the article for more info on the use of other aircraft as AF1, and this article on ABC for a full picture of the 757 at the event you mentioned. - BilCat (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

 * From the ABC article, the airport is Cleveland Burke Lakefront Airport, which does appear to be too small for a 747. - BilCat (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, C-32. Boeing 757 is mentioned in the linked article (C-32 is US military designation for 757-200).  This does not seem like a big deal given other smaller aircraft have also been used by the President at times. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

News video and a documentary showed Obama being flown from Chicago to Washington for his first inauguration in 2009 and described him as flying on "Air Force One"; it was a C-32 not the VC-25 and it couldnt have been AF-1 since he wasnt President yet. Another example of the clueless media.Bob80q (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

 * On some rare occasions the President also flies on a C-40 (737) or C-37 (Gulfstream). I seem to recall seeing TV footage of Obamas arrival for a summer vacation at Marthas Vineyard and he was deplaning from a C-40; they sometimes use smaller aircraft due to shorter runways and also out of concern for cost effectiveness.Bob80q (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

VC-9C was another aircraft that served as a both an Air Force One but more commonly as an Air Force Two. This aircraft is rear engined and appears similar to a Super 80 model. It would be great to add more on this to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.229.211 (talk)

 * It's already in the article, but thanks anyway. BilCat (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Date format
The U.S. military indeed uses DMY format, but Air Force One is a subject that goes beyond the U.S. military, concerning the presidency. Articles relating to the presidenchy and the rest of the country uses MDY. Per MOS:DATETIES, I believe this article should be in MDY. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 * It's called "Air Force One", so I think it's logical to use the military format. However, if the consensus is to change to MDY format, that would be fine too, but it does need to be discussed here first per RETAIN. - BilCat (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 * This falls under "articles on the modern U.S. military,... use day-before-month, in accordance with U.S. military usage." at MOS:DATETIES. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well this "technicality" BS is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia editorship is at its lowest level in years and why the website is down to just a few select "stewards" of the wiki. Most of us are just giving up under the constant arrogance.-- JOJ Hutton  02:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Seconding - the president is a civillian but one who uses military aircraft, and throughout the body, dates use conventional US style ("On October 11, 1910..."). This is also seen in Air Force One photo op incident. In my eyes, I see it as a US government article. This is obviously not a hill to die on, I know.-Ich (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

 * The article should be consistent one way or the other. But to this point, there's been no consensus for changing to MDY. The issue in general is a contentious one on military articles, with many American editors being unaware of MOS:DATETIES. That's especially true for this article. Probably the best way forward is to run an RFC to get broad community input one way or the other. BilCat (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistency
The article says in section "Boeing 707s and entry to jet age":

"Toward the end of Eisenhower's second term, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles commented that Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and other senior Soviet officials had begun using the technologically advanced Tupolev Tu-114 aircraft for their travels, and it was no longer dignified for the president to fly in a propeller-driven aircraft."

In this form the argument makes no sense because the Tu-114 is a propeller plane (and this was also the case for the one Khrushchev used). 83.93.38.219 (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Air Force One


text:
Viperinae

Viperinae, or viperines, are a subfamily of vipers endemic to Europe, Asia and Africa. They are distinguished by their lack of the heat-sensing pit organs that characterize their sister group, the subfamily Crotalinae. Currently, 13 genera are recognized. Most are tropical and subtropical, although one species, Vipera berus, even occurs within the Arctic Circle. Like all vipers, they are venomous.

The common names "pitless vipers", "true vipers", "Old World vipers", and "true adders" all refer to this group.

Description
Members of this subfamily range in size from Bitis schneideri, which grows to a maximum total length (body and tail) of 280 mm, to the Gaboon viper, which reaches a maximum total length of over 2 m. Most species are terrestrial, but a few, such as those of the genus Atheris, are completely arboreal.

Although the heat-sensing pits that characterize the Crotalinae are clearly lacking in the viperines, a supernasal sac with sensory function has been described in a number of species. This sac is an invagination of the skin between the supranasal and nasal scales and is connected to the ophthalmic branch of the trigeminal nerve. The nerve endings here resemble those in the labial pits of boas. The supernasal sac is present in the genera Daboia, Pseudocerastes and Causus, but is especially well developed in the genus Bitis. Experiments have shown that strikes are not only guided by visual and chemical cues, but also by heat, with warmer targets being struck more frequently than colder ones.

Geographic range
Viperinae are found in Europe, Asia, and Africa, but not in Madagascar.

Reproduction
Generally, members of this subfamily are ovoviviparous, although a few, such as Pseudocerastes, Cerastes, and some Echis species are oviparous (egg-laying).

Taxonomy
Until relatively recently, two other genera were also included in the Viperinae. However, they were eventually considered so distinctive within the Viperidae, that separate subfamilies were created for them:

 * Genus Azemiops — moved to subfamily Azemiopinae by Liem, Marx & Rabb (1971).
 * Genus Causus — recognition of subfamily Causinae Cope, 1860 was proposed by Groombridge (1987) and further supported by Cadle (1992).

Nevertheless, these groups, together with the genera currently recognized as belonging to the Viperinae, are still often referred to collectively as the true vipers.

Broadley (1996) recognized a new tribe, Atherini, for the genera Atheris, Adenorhinos, Montatheris and Proatheris, the type genus for which is Atheris.

title: Viperinae


text:
Rician fading

Rician fading or Ricean fading is a stochastic model for radio propagation anomaly caused by partial cancellation of a radio signal by itself — the signal arrives at the receiver by several different paths (hence exhibiting multipath interference), and at least one of the paths is changing (lengthening or shortening). Rician fading occurs when one of the paths, typically a line of sight signal or some strong reflection signals, is much stronger than the others. In Rician fading, the amplitude gain is characterized by a Rician distribution.

Rayleigh fading is sometimes considered a special case of Rician fading for when there is no line of sight signal. In such a case, the Rician distribution, which describes the amplitude gain in Rician fading, reduces to a Rayleigh distribution. Rician fading itself is a special case of two-wave with diffuse power (TWDP) fading.

Channel characterization

A Rician fading channel can be described by two parameters. The first one, $$K$$, is the ratio between the power in the direct path and the power in the other, scattered, paths:
 * $$K = \frac{\nu^2}{2\sigma^2}$$

The second one, $$\Omega$$, is the total power from both paths, and acts as a scaling factor to the distribution:
 * $$\Omega=\nu^2+2\sigma^2$$

The received signal amplitude (not the received signal power) $$R$$ is then Rice distributed with the following parameters:
 * $$\nu^2 = \frac{K}{1+K}\Omega$$
 * $$\sigma^2 = \frac{\Omega}{2(1+K)}$$

The resulting Probability density function is:

f(x) = \frac{2(K+1)x}{\Omega} \exp\left(-K-\frac{(K+1)x^2}{\Omega}\right) I_0\left(2\sqrt{\frac{K(K+1)}{\Omega}}x\right) ,$$ where $$I_0(\cdot)$$ is the 0th order modified Bessel function of the first kind.

title: Rician fading


text:
HTMS Chakri Naruebet

HTMS Chakri Naruebet (911) (เรือหลวงจักรีนฤเบศร, meaning 'Sovereign of the Chakri Dynasty', the Thai monarchy's ruling family) is the flagship of the Royal Thai Navy (RTN), and Thailand's first and only aircraft carrier, although the RTN refers to her as an "Offshore Patrol Helicopter Carrier". Based on the Spanish Navy's SPANISH AIRCRAFT CARRIER Príncipe de Asturias design and constructed by Spanish shipbuilder Bazán, Chakri Naruebet was ordered in 1992, laid down in 1994, launched in 1996, and commissioned into the RTN in 1997. The ship is the smallest functioning aircraft carrier in the world.

The aircraft carrier was designed to operate an air group of V/STOL fighter aircraft and helicopters, and is fitted with an aircraft ski-jump. Initial intentions were to operate a mixed air group of ex-Spanish AV-8S Matador Harrier V/STOL aircraft and Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk helicopters. However, by 1999 it was reported that only one Matador was operational due to parts, training, and fiscal limitations,  although three Matadors were spotted on the ship during a show of force after the 29 January 2003 Phnom Penh riots in Cambodia. Her entire Harrier V/STOL jet fleet was removed from service in 2006. Although Chakri Naruebet was intended for patrols and force projection in Thai waters, a lack of funding brought on by the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis meant the carrier has spent most of her career docked at the Sattahip naval base.

Chakri Naruebet has been deployed on several disaster relief operations, including in the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, and in response to separate flooding incidents in late-2010 and early-2011.

Design
The original plan was to acquire a 7800 LT vessel from Bremer Vulcan, but the Thai government cancelled this contract on 22 July 1991. A new contract for a larger warship to be constructed at Bazán's shipyard in Ferrol, Spain was signed by the Thai and Spanish governments on 27 March 1992. The proposed vessel was based on the design of the Spanish Navy aircraft carrier SPANISH AIRCRAFT CARRIER Príncipe de Asturias, which in turn was based on the United States Navy's Sea Control Ship concept. The design is formally referred to by the RTN as an "Offshore Patrol Helicopter Carrier".

Chakri Naruebet while still operating with Matadors was the smallest aircraft carrier with a fixed wing air group in operation in the world. She displaces 11486 LT at full load. The carrier is 164.1 m long between perpendiculars, and 182.65 m overall. She is 22.5 m wide at the waterline, with a maximum beam of 30.5 m, and a draught of 6.12 m. The warship has a ship's company of 62 officers, 393 sailors, and 146 aircrew. Up to 675 additional personnel can be transported, usually from the Royal Thai Marine Corps.

Chakri Naruebet is propelled by a combined diesel or gas (CODOG) system. Each of the two, five-bladed propellers is connected to a Bazán-MTU 16V1163 TB83 diesel engine (providing 5600 bhp, used for cruising speed), and a General Electric LM2500 gas turbine (providing 22125 shp, used to reach top speed for short periods). Chakri Naruebet has a maximum speed of 25.5 kn, although she can only reach 17.2 kn with the diesels alone. She has a maximum range of 10000 nmi with a constant speed of 12 kn, and 7150 nmi at 16.5 kn.

Armament and aircraft
Chakri Naruebet is fitted with two .50 caliber machine guns, and three Matra Sadral sextuple surface-to-air missile launchers firing Mistral missiles. The missile launchers were installed in 2001. The vessel is also fitted for but not with an 8-cell Mark 41 vertical launch system for Sea Sparrow missiles, and four Phalanx close-in weapon systems. The carrier reportedly does not have a functioning anti-aircraft defense system installed.

The carrier was designed to operate an air group of up to six AV-8S Matador V/STOL aircraft, plus four to six S-70B Seahawk helicopters. Chakri Naruebet is also capable of carrying up to fourteen additional helicopters; a mix of Sikorsky Sea King, Sikorsky S-76, and CH-47 Chinook. There is only enough hangar space for ten aircraft.

The Matador was a first-generation export version of the Hawker Siddeley Harrier, acquired secondhand from the Spanish Navy in 1997. The nine Spanish aircraft (seven standard versions plus two TAV-8S trainer aircraft) were refurbished by Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA firm before delivery. By 1999, only one aircraft was operational, and the RTN was looking for other first-generation Harriers to cannibalize for spares. In 2003, the navy attempted to acquire several second-generation, ex-Royal Navy Sea Harrier FA2 aircraft from British Aerospace, but the deal did not go ahead. The inoperative Matadors were finally eliminated from service lists in 2006.

The flight deck measures 174.6 by. A 12° ski-jump assists V/STOL aircraft to take off. There are two aircraft lifts, each capable of lifting 20 tons.

Sensors and countermeasures
The sensor suite of Chakri Naruebet consists of a Hughes SPS-52C air search radar operating on the E/F band, and two Kelvin-Hughes 1007 navigational radars. There are provisions to install an SPS-64 surface search radar and a hull-mounted sonar, but neither has been fitted as of 2008. Fire control facilities are also yet to be fitted.

The carrier is equipped with four SRBOC decoy launchers, and an SLQ-25 towed decoy.

In April 2012 Saab won a contract to upgrade Chakri Naruebet's command and control systems. This will include fitting a 9LV Mk4 command and control system to the ship as well as a Sea Giraffe AMB radar and improved datalinks.

During a network-centric exercise of the Royal Thai Navy in March 2021 networked data links were established between Gripen fighters and HTMS Chakri Naruebet, HTMS Naresuan and HTMS Taksin for the first time.

Construction
Work on the Thai carrier commenced in October 1993, although it was not until 12 July 1994 that the hull was laid down. Chakri Naruebet was launched on 20 January 1996 by Queen Sirikit. Chakri Naruebet cost US$336 million to build.

Sea trials were conducted from October 1996 to January 1997, the latter part of which was in coordination with the Spanish Navy. This was followed by aviation trials at Rota, Spain. The carrier was handed over on 27 March 1997, when she was commissioned into the RTN. She arrived at Phuket on 4 August 1997 following a 42-day voyage from Spain, and formally entered service on 10 August.

Role and operational history
Chakri Naruebet is the first aircraft carrier to be operated by a Southeast Asian nation. She is assigned to the Third Naval Area Command, and her intended duties include operational support of the RTN's amphibious warfare forces, patrols and force projection around Thailand's coastline and economic exclusion zone, disaster relief and humanitarian missions and search-and-rescue (SAR) operations. However, at the time the carrier entered service, the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis prevented the necessary funding to operate the ship from being available. Consequently, Chakri Naruebet was usually only operational for a single day per month for training, with the rest of the time spent alongside as a "part-time tourist attraction". The struggles continued for years, but it is increasingly common for her to participate in a maritime exercise or joint forces exercise; these have included PASSEX, CARAT, Guardian Sea and Cobra Gold. She was also sent for a fleet review such as the 2017 International Maritime Review in Singapore.

Between 4 and 7 November 1997, Chakri Naruebet participated in disaster relief operations following the passage of Tropical Storm Linda across the Gulf of Thailand and the Kra Isthmus. The carrier's main task was to search for and assist any fishing vessels affected by the storm.

Flooding in the Songkhla Province resulted in the carrier's mobilisation in late November 2000. Chakri Naruebet was anchored at an island marina off Songkhla, and used as a base for helicopters and small boats transporting food, supplies and the wounded.

In January 2003 after the burning of the Royal Thai Embassy in Cambodia, she was sent for her only "show of force" type mission to date; as an "insurance" policy for the Pochentong-1 evacuation plan.

Following an undersea earthquake in the Indian Ocean, tsunamis struck multiple regions around the Indian Ocean, including the Andaman Sea coast of Thailand. The personnel of Chakri Naruebet were part of a 760-strong response by the Thai military to the disaster. This task force was involved in search-and-rescue around Phuket and the Phi Phi Islands, treatment of wounded and handling of dead and repair work to schools and government facilities.

In November 2010, the ship was involved in flood relief operations following the 2010 Thai floods; anchored off Songkhla Province, relief supplies and food were airlifted to people in the region, while hospital patients were evacuated by the ship's helicopters. Chakri Naruebet was sent to Ko Tao in late-March during the 2011 Southern Thailand floods, as the heavy storms causing the flooding had isolated the island, requiring the evacuation of tourists and local citizens.

On 11 January 2021, the RTN reported two sailors from Chakri Naruebet were confirmed positive for COVID-19 after visiting the Pah Daeng beer house in the Sattahip district.

In 2021 it was reported that Chakri Naruebet usually spends only a day each month at sea, though it had recently sailed through the Singapore Strait. The ship is open to tourists when it is docked at its home port.

title: HTMS Chakri Naruebet


text:
Multi-function printer

An MFP (multi-function product/printer/peripheral), multi-functional, all-in-one (AIO), or multi-function device (MFD), is an office machine which incorporates the functionality of multiple devices in one, so as to have a smaller footprint in a home or small business setting (the SOHO market segment), or to provide centralized document management/distribution/production in a large-office setting. A typical MFP may act as a combination of some or all of the following devices: email, fax, photocopier, printer, scanner.

Types of MFPs

MFP manufacturers traditionally divided MFPs into various segments. The segments roughly divided the MFPs according to their speed in pages-per-minute (ppm) and duty-cycle/robustness. However, many manufacturers are beginning to avoid the segment definition for their products, as speed and basic functionality alone do not always differentiate the many features that the devices include. Two color MFPs of a similar speed may end in the same segment, despite having potentially very different feature-sets, and therefore very different prices. From a marketing perspective, the manufacturer of the more expensive MFP would want to differentiate their product as much as possible to justify the price difference, and therefore avoids the segment definition.

Many MFP types, regardless of the category they fall into, also come in a "printer only" variety, which is the same model without the scanner unit included. This can even occur with devices where the scanner unit physically appears highly integrated into the product.

, almost all printer manufacturers offer multifunction printers. They are designed for home, small business, enterprise and commercial use. Naturally, the cost, usability, robustness, throughput, output quality, etc. all vary with the various use cases. However, they all generally do the same functions; Print, Scan, Fax, and Photocopy. In the commercial/enterprise area, most MFP have used laser-printer technology, while the personal, SOHO environments, utilize inkjet methods. Typically, inkjet printers have struggled with delivering the performance and color-saturation demanded by enterprise/large business use. However, HP has recently launched a business-grade MFP using inkjet technology.

In any case, instead of rigidly defined segments based on speed, more general definitions based on intended target audience and capabilities are becoming much more common. While the sector lacks formal definitions, it is common agreed amongst MFP manufacturers that the products fall roughly into the following categories:

All-in-one
An All-in-one is a small desktop unit, designed for home or home-office use.

These devices focus on scan and print functionality for home use, and may come with bundled software for organising photos, simple OCR and other uses of interest to a home user. An All-in-one will always include the basic functions of Print and Scan, with most also including Copy functionality and a lesser number with Fax capabilities.

In the past, these devices were usually not networked, and were generally connected by USB or Parallel. even inexpensive all-in-one devices support ethernet and/or Wi-Fi connections. In some cases the wireless devices require connection to a host computer by wire (usually USB) to initialize the device, and once initial setup is done, support wireless operations for all the work performed thereafter.

All-in-one devices may have features oriented to home and personal use that are not found in larger devices. These functions include smart card readers, direct connection to digital cameras (e.g. PictBridge technology) and other similar uses.

The print engine of most All-in-one devices is based either on a home desktop inkjet printer, or on a home desktop laser printer. They may be black-and-white or colour capable. Laser models provide a better result for text while inkjet gives a more convincing result for images and they are a cheaper multifunctional.

Some of these devices, like the Hewlett-Packard Photosmart C8180 printer, have a DVD burner and LightScribe functionality where the user could burn DVDs and create an image on a special Lightscribe DVD, or CD using special software like Roxio or Nero AG Software Suite to create the image. To create a Lightscribe image takes about 10 to 25 minutes.

SOHO MFP
A large desktop or small freestanding unit, designed for Small Office/Home Office use. Often, the form factor of the MFP (desktop or freestanding) depends on the options added, such as extra paper trays.

Generally a SOHO MFP will have basic Print, Copy, Scan and Fax functionality only, but towards the larger end of the scale, may include simple document storage and retrieval, basic authentication functions and so on, making the higher end of the "SOHO" scale difficult to differentiate from the lower end of the "Office" MFP scale.

SOHO MFPs are usually networked, however may also be connected via USB or, less frequently, parallel. SOHO MFPs may have basic finishing functionality such as duplexing, stapling and hole-punching, however this is rare. In general, document output offset, sorting and collation are standard capabilities.

By comparison to an All-in-one product, a SOHO MFP is more likely to have an automatic document feeder, greater fax capabilities and faster output-performance. Most SOHO MFPs have their history in low-end black and white photocopiers, and the print engine is accordingly based around this type of technology.

Office MFP
A mid-sized free-standing unit, designed as a central office system.

These units are usually the most fully featured type of MFP. They include the basic Print, Copy and Scan functions with optional Fax functionality as well as networked document storage with security, authentication using common network user credentials, ability to run custom software (often a manufacturer will supply a Software development kit), advanced network scan destinations such as FTP, WebDAV, Email, SMB and NFS stores, encryption for data transmission and so on.

Office MFPs usually have moderately advanced finishing functions as options such as duplexing, stapling, holepunching, offset modes and booklet-creation.

Office MFPs are almost always networked, however some have optional or standard (but infrequently used) USB and parallel connections. Most Office MFPs have their history in mid-range photocopiers (both colour and black-and-white), and the print engine is therefore based around this type of technology, however, Hewlett-Packard recently introduced two Office MFPs based on fixed-head inkjet technology.

Production printing MFP
A large free-standing unit, designed as a central printing-device or reprographic-department device.

These devices, while far larger and more expensive than Office MFPs, generally do not have all of the advanced network functionality of their smaller relations. They instead concentrate on high-speed, high-quality output, and highly advanced finishing functionality including book creation with cover insertion (including hot-glue binding) and so on. Production printing itself is often further divided into "light" production printing and "heavy" production printing, with the differentiating factor being the speed. A 100ppm device for example, falls into the light production printing category by the standards of most manufacturers.

Because of the focus on printing, while most Production Printing MFPs have a scanner, it is infrequently used and often only has very basic functionality.

There are a variety of different print engines for Production Printing MFPs, however in the "light" end of the Production Printing market, most are based on the large Office MFPs, which themselves are based on photocopier technology as described above. Production Printing MFPs may also be known as "Print on demand" devices, or "Digital presses". This latter term can also be used to refer to the print controller controlling the MFP, however.

Characteristics
It is useful to consider the features and functions of an MFP before integrating it into a home or office environment. It is possible to have an MFP with almost all of the features and functions listed below, however a typical AIO or SOHO MFP is unlikely to incorporate many of these.

An (incomplete) list of features that an MFP may offer or will vary depending on the MFP under consideration (in any segment):

Print features/functions

 * Input
 * Network print types available (Raw, LPR, IPP, FTP printing, print via email etc.)
 * Network, USB, Parallel or other connection types
 * PDLs (PostScript, PCL, XPS etc.) and direct interpreters (PDF, TIFF, etc.) supported
 * Printer drivers available for different operating systems
 * Output
 * Ability to print directly to the MFP's internal storage function
 * Capability of using the MFP's finishing functions (see below under Copy features/functions)
 * Direct CD/DVD Label Printing (usually only available on some InkJet AIO models)
 * Duplex printing capability - Whether the MFP can print on both sides of a sheet of paper without manual intervention by the user
 * Paper formats (what kind of paper sizes and stocks the MFP can output)
 * Printer technology (e.g. InkJet/Laser/Color Laser)
 * Printing speed (typically given in pages per minute or ppm)
 * Resolution DPI - this is an important metric for both printing and scanning quality. (Note that print DPI is rarely greater than 600dpi actual. Some MFPs use a system similar to sub-pixel rendering on computer displays to give "enhanced" resolutions of 1200x600 or 1800x600, however it is important to note that this is not a true resolution)

Scan features/functions

 * Input
 * Ability to retrieve a document from internal storage and send it as if it was a new "scan"
 * Automatic document feeder (ADF) - this allows multiple sheets of paper to be input without manually placing each piece of paper on the platen glass.
 * Duplex scanning capability (depends on the ADF) - Whether the MFP can scan both sides of a sheet of paper without manual intervention by the user.
 * Output
 * Scan file formats available (e.g. PDF, TIFF, JPEG, XPS, etc.)
 * Scan transfer methods available (e.g. FTP, WebDAV, Email, SMB, NFS, TWAIN)
 * Security of scanned documents - such as PDF encryption, digital signatures and so on.

Fax features/functions

 * Answering machine
 * Cordless telephone (generally only a consideration for AIO or smaller SOHO products)
 * Color Fax capability
 * PC Fax send and receive capability
 * Sent / Received Faxes Forwarding to E-mail capability (via SMTP)
 * TCP/IP Fax methods such as SIP Fax (Fax over IP), Network Fax (via SMTP), Internet Fax and so on

Copy features/functions

 * Document Finishing capabilities
 * Duplex output
 * Stapling
 * Single point
 * Staple positioning
 * Two point
 * Hole punching
 * International standard ISO 838 2-hole
 * Swedish "triohålning" 4-hole
 * US 3-hole
 * "888" 4-hole
 * Folding
 * Cover binding (generally only available on production printing models) - differs from "cover insertion", in that a cover is physically bound to the book instead of simply placing it around the other pages. Cover binding often uses hot glue to bind the cover to the finished book.
 * Cover insertion for booklets
 * Fold and centre staple (for Booklet pagination)
 * Half fold / crease
 * Tri-fold / Envelope-folding
 * Trimming for folded documents to avoid "creep"
 * Document editing modes
 * Booklet pagination / "perfect binding" booklet pagination
 * Image scaling / rotation
 * n-in-one (2 in 1, 4 in 1 etc.)
 * Page numbering / text & image stamping / watermarking
 * Plus, see items under "Print features/functions" output and "Scan features/functions" input

Document storage features/functions

 * Documents storage capability the MFP
 * Storage (HDD) capacity
 * User authentication for the stored document, and any relationship to the user authentication of the MFP (e.g. Network authentication with a server or custom software, internal only, etc.)

Network features/functions

 * Active Directory or other authentication functionality
 * Data encryption
 * IPv6 support
 * SNMP support - both private and public MIB specifications
 * Wireless network capability

Other features/functions

 * SDK availability and licensing model
 * Software - Many MFPs support advanced functionality through third party software such as optical character recognition. In some cases, these software components are not specific to the MFP being used, however it is important to determine this, as in other cases proprietary technologies are used that effectively tie the software to the platform.
 * User interface - By their nature, MFPs are complex devices. Many MFPs now include LCD screens and other user interface aids. Generally, AIO and SOHO products contain simple LCD displays, while Office MFPs contain advanced LCD panels resembling a custom computer-like user interface (some MFPs also offer optional keyboard and mouse attachments).

Hardware
MFPs, like most external peripherals that are capable of functioning without a computer, are essentially a type of computer themselves. They contain memory, one or more processors, and often some kind of local storage, such as a hard disk drive or flash memory. As mentioned in the Types of MFP section, the physical print engine may be based on several technologies, however most larger MFPs are an evolution of a digital photocopier.

Security
When disposing of old printers with local storage, one should keep in mind that confidential documents (print, scan, copy jobs) are potentially still unencrypted on the printer's local storage and can be undeleted. Crypto-shredding can be a countermeasure.

Software
MFPs also run a set of instructions from their internal storage, which is comparable to a computer's operating system.

Generally, as the size and complexity of an MFP increases, the more like a computer the device becomes. It is uncommon for a small AIO or even a SOHO MFP to use a general purpose operating system, however many larger MFPs run Linux or VxWorks.

Additionally, many print controllers, separate, but integral to the MFP, also run computer operating systems, with Linux and Microsoft Windows (often Windows NT 4.0 Embedded, Windows XP Embedded ).

On top of the core operating system and firmware, the MFP will also provide several functions, equivalent to applications or in some cases daemons or services.

These functions may include (amongst many others):
 * Bytecode interpreters or virtual machines for internally hosted third party applications
 * Image conversion and processing functions
 * MFP Panel control for user input
 * Network service clients for sending of documents to different destinations
 * Network service servers for receiving documents for print or storage
 * Raster image processing functions (although, often this task is handled by a separate print controller unit instead)
 * Web server for remote management functions

Software
Computer systems equipped with the proper software must be able to take advantage of the MFP's capabilities, an important requirement to research when considering integrating an MFP with an existing office. Some or all of the following functionality might be provided:

 * Device administration and configuration
 * Document imaging, such as ad hoc scanning
 * Document management such as remote scanning, document type conversion from text to PDF, OCR, etc.
 * Document type/paper input mode selection
 * Monitoring of print quotas, toner/ink levels etc.

Software development kits
In addition to specific software packages, many vendors also provide the ability for the user to develop software to communicate with the MFP through a Software development kit. Different vendors have different licensing models, from completely "closed" proprietary systems (often with large costs involved) to open strategies with no direct cost involved. An incomplete list of these technologies is:
 * Nuance OmniPage
 * Canon MEAP (Multifunctional Embedded Application Platform)
 * HP Open Extensibility Platform (OXP)
 * Konica Minolta OpenAPI
 * Lexmark Embedded Solutions Framework (eSF)
 * Ricoh’s Device SDK
 * Samsung XOA - eXtensible Open Architecture
 * Sharp OSA (Open Systems Architecture)
 * Toshiba OPA (Open Platform Architecture)
 * Xerox EIP (Extensible Interface Platform)

In general, these technologies fall into one of two technical models - Server based, or MFP internal software.

Server based technologies use a method to communicate information to and from the MFP (often SOAP/XML based), running the operating code on a suitably powered computer on the network. This method has the advantage of being very flexible, in that the software is free to do anything that the developer can make the computer do. The only limit from the MFP itself is the capability of the MFP to display a user interface to the workings of the application. As many of the applications are based around custom printing, scanning and authentication requirements, the MFP manufacturers that use this method gravitate towards these core technologies in the user interface.

MFP internal software, by comparison, has the advantage of not requiring anything outside of the MFP. The software runs within the MFP itself and so even a complete network outage will not disrupt the software from working (unless of course the software requires a network connection for other reasons). MFP internal software is often, but not always, Java based and runs in a Java virtual machine within the MFP. The negative side to this kind of software is usually that it is much more limited in capabilities than Server based systems.

Manufacturers
MFP manufacturers/brands include

 * Brother
 * Canon
 * Dell
 * Epson
 * Hewlett-Packard
 * Kodak
 * Konica Minolta
 * Kyocera
 * Lexmark
 * Océ (Canon)
 * Okidata
 * Olivetti
 * Panasonic
 * Ricoh
 * Samsung
 * Sharp
 * Sindoh
 * Toshiba
 * Utax
 * Xerox
 * Infoeglobe

Note that not all of these manufacturers produce all types of MFP - some may only focus on AIO products, whilst others may only focus on Production Printing, while yet more may cover a wider range.

title: Multi-function printer


text:
User talk:Arpingstone/Notes

DO NOT FORGET A SPACE HERE <br. DO NOT FORGET A SPACE HERE,br.

END,br. If no large version, remove the tr td under the italic reference.

title: User talk:Arpingstone/Notes


text:
User talk:Erzengel

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

-

New Imperialism

 * Article length (15 April)

 * I’m sorry that the entry on New Imperialism was a bit lengthy, but this was a very complex era of history and very much a global phenomenon that cannot be explained by easy answers. The language is already dense and succinct as well. A shorter version would be left laden with reductionisms, sweeping generalizations, and over-simplifications (a twice-banned user tried that, and the results were horrendous). Or it would just be a basic chronology of myriad disparate events, trends, and developments that would not seem, to any lay reader, interconnected with each other or even related to the subject matter of New Imperialism. Or it would just give an overview of what happened without illuminating why it happened or giving readers prerequisite background and context needed to be able to judge for themselves why this epoch of history unfolded the way it did. While I’m sure that there’s room for improvement, a brief offhand criticism on the basis of length will do little to enhance the readability of the article.

 * 172

 * That would be far too drastic. As it is, each section of the article builds on the previous section. If you spit the article up you’d end up having much more content. Some development explained at the beginning of the page would have to be re-explained in a new article not containing that content. For instance, references the "breakdown of the concert for Europe" or the "breakdown of Pax Britannica" would have to be explained over and over again in many separate articles that would make references to these developments. I’m sympathetic to your cause, but it would be a far better idea to focus on readability rather than length.

 * Sadly, the article would probably be more readable if it were longer, which would mean that the prose wouldn’t have to be so dense.

 * 172

Beat to me updating the FA Cup by 2 minutes Mintguy 16:11 17 May 2003 (UTC)

 * Beat me by less (mumble-grumble-edit conflict)! -- sannse 16:14 17 May 2003 (UTC)

Hi! Your NASA logo is now on NASA. I only had to downsize it to 250 pixels wide, put some code around the filename (which is now nasa.logo.250pix.png) and push my Florida pic down the page a bit to get it out of the way. Hope you like it! Adrian Pingstone 18:15 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining your deletions at planetesimal? Pizza Puzzle

It is not editing that annoys me, but rather the lack of communication which often accompanies editing.

 * Planetesimals are relatively large asteroids (with diameters of ~10km);
 * Asteroids are a type of planetesimal, which still orbits around the sun.
 * I have texts which state that planetesimals are asteroids, you apparently have texts which state that asteroids are planetesimals. I strongly suspect that its better to refer to planetesimals as large asteroids since it doesnt seem too correct to refer to a small space rock (your typical asteroid) as a "tiny planetesimal". If you can provide a source for your view, we could rewrite the article to state that X states this, but Y states that.
 * It would seem that you are implying that there is a type of planetesimal which is not an asteroid, clarification on that would be useful. In any case, the author I have been reading was quite clear that he considered space rocks to be asteroids which eventually "grew" into planetesimals and then protoplanets and then planets.

It is estimated that a typical early solar nebula may have billions of such objects.
 * I can provide a source for this and will do so.

 * Changed Terran to Sol simply because I've never heard of Terran being used to describe our solar system. Sol makes more sense anyway since our planetary system revolves around the sun, not earth.
 * I agree. I think the text had originaly said "Earth System" which I didn't like. Sol System is much better. The reason I didnt use it, I think, was that I at first tried Sol Solar System which was too corny, in some of my edits somewhere I know I had started using Sol System.

Pizza Puzzle

I strongly agree with your comments regarding New Imperialism and beg you to overhaul that page. Pizza Puzzle

Axolotl
Hey there, I was just wondering, do you have a higher-resolution version of your axolotl photo?--Margareta (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for getting back to me.--Margareta (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Germany national football team

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Germany national football team. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Germany national football team. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Germany national football team – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. - MrX 12:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game)
Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. λ Negative  MP1  05:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of 2014 Pathum Thani building collapse for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2014 Pathum Thani building collapse is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/2014 Pathum Thani building collapse until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 03:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Erzengel