text:
Talk:Corset

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MaxBaker1123, Chilogan, Madisonappel. Peer reviewers: Caithurwitz, Ansilvern.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Men beginning to wear corsets?
How common was the use of corsets by men during the Empire style period (1790 – 1830)? I can’t remember any contemporary depictions showing men with any exaggeratedly narrow waist. If you compensate for the typical three to five layers of clothes their waists become comparable to those of indigenous peoples living in areas so hot that humans don’t need any clothes. Consequentially, these peoples ether practice natural nudity or wear only a loincloth or a clothing item comparable to present Western underpants. Since they wear very little – if anything at all – their waists probably represent the natural state of the male body. It was not until after 1830 that Western men begun to be portrayed with an exaggeratedly narrow waist. Then I can imagine them wearing corsets but before that it would have been superfluous. Anyone who can verify?

2009-08-23 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.155.69 (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I know many books which tell about the use of corsets by men during the Empire style period (1790 – 1830), but the only primary source is a printed joke by a lace scene. I have two photos of men by exaggeratedly narrow waist. Haabet 20:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/haabet/3335966311/in/set-72157608328223268/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/haabet/3336797276/in/set-72157608328223268/

I consider these to be exceptions from the norm of indigenous peoples in hot climates having natural waists.

2010-02-17 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.71 (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think even if they are exceptions to the norm, they are still important to include in the article. This way people can know about, consider, and discuss it. Paigee33 (talk) 11:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Are the Nude pictures really nessesary?
Do we have to have those? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.84.8.67 (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is not censored. --Qsaw (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL pwned. 24.251.33.38 (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Nude pictures are important to show of the effect of corsets.Haabet 16:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

image display
Would it make sense to move the column of images on the right, which randomly illustrate corsets, into a gallery section? As they are now they muck up the "edit" buttons for about 5 sections. Huw Powell (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the "History" section have need to move to the Corset History article.Haabet 07:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

is the image of the 'corset made by corseteirre in 2005' etc etc really needed? it seems like someone is using wikipedia as a free edvertising place...121.208.89.168 (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Corset vendors
I've removed the sections containing links to corset vendors, per WP:SPAM. I do not believe that links to vendor web sites are appropriate. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corset. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051129004136/http://www.fathom.com/course/21701726/index.html to http://www.fathom.com/course/21701726/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Bum link
In the Notes section the fourth bullet- "History of Tightlacing". Retrieved August 11, 2015- doesn't link to anything, or it is expired. Without reference to more scholarly work, or anything to back up the claim, no one can trace the work. I don't know what the original site was so I cannot go out to find it but updating sources so that people can follow the thought process.Kennedke (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

 * I have tagged the deadlink at both occurrences. GrindtXX (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

New Idea!
My ideas would be to inform readers how the corset evolved over time. I can add some sort of timeline that allows readers to visually see the evolution of the corset and how they are viewed.Chilogan (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review Suggestions and Questions
This overall article is very objective and encyclopedic in its language. Can more be added to the medical section? This may be a work in progress still, but it seemed quite short. Perhaps the fact the men claimed their corsets helped alleviate back pain could be mentioned in that section. With the Fetish section, "tightlacing" was never explicitly mentioned but it seemed appropriate to either move the explanation of it there or at least mention it to tie the article together. The distinctions between the types of corsets is very interesting and well detailed.Ansilvern (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Western view hatnote
The hatnote states that the article "deal[s] primarily with Western Europe and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject." Weren't corsets almost exclusively worn by women in Western society? I'm unable to find any sources for the time period when corsets were culturally popular that indicate women from Asia, Africa, or other non-European cultures wore corsets. The article Corset controversy states, "Corsets were worn by European women from the late 16th century onward." I think the hatnote is inaccurate and should be removed. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 21:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Shortline custom-made overbust corset.png

Addition of historical content to article
Hello! In hopes of aiding this article's content, particularly with reference to it's status as vital, I have added referenced content relating to early bodies, stays, and corsets. Image added to illustrate (stays), and links to related Wikipedia articles also made.

Hope to make it back here soon to add more concerning nineteenth century use of the corset. Many thanks to @Urbanracer34 for suggesting work here! Diary of a Dress Historian (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 * @Diary of a Dress Historian I'm glad you took my suggestion to heart. Your support for these articles is appreciated. Urbanracer34 (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Corset


text:
City of London Corporation

The City of London Corporation, officially and legally the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London, is the local authority of the City of London, the historic centre of London and the location of much of the United Kingdom's financial sector.

In 2006, the name was changed from Corporation of London as the corporate body needed to be distinguished from the geographical area to avoid confusion with the wider London local government, the Greater London Authority. It is a corporation in the sense of being a municipal corporation rather than a company; it is deemed to be the citizens and other eligible parties acting as one corporate body to manage the City's affairs.

Both businesses and residents of the City, or "Square Mile", are entitled to vote in corporation elections. In addition to its functions as the local authority (analogous to those undertaken by the 32 boroughs that administer the rest of Greater London) the City of London Corporation takes responsibility for supporting the financial services industry and representing its interests. The corporation's structure includes the Lord Mayor, the Court of Aldermen, the Court of Common Council, and the Freemen and Livery of the City. The "Liberties and Customs" of the City of London are guaranteed in Magna Carta's clause IX, which remains in statute.

History
In the Anglo-Saxon period, consultation between London's rulers and its citizens took place at the Folkmoot. Administration and judicial processes were conducted at the Court of Husting and the administrative part of the court's work evolved into the Court of Aldermen.

There is no surviving record of a charter first establishing the corporation as a legal body, but the City is regarded as incorporated by prescription, meaning that the law presumes it to have been incorporated because it has for so long been regarded as such (e.g. Magna Carta states that "the City of London shall have/enjoy its ancient liberties"). The City of London Corporation has been granted various special privileges since the Norman Conquest, and the Corporation's first recorded royal charter dates from around 1067, when William the Conqueror granted the citizens of London a charter confirming the rights and privileges that they had enjoyed since the time of Edward the Confessor. Numerous subsequent royal charters over the centuries confirmed and extended the citizens' rights.

Around 1189, the City gained the right to have its own mayor, later being advanced to the degree and style of Lord Mayor of London. Over time, the Court of Aldermen sought increasing help from the City's commoners and this was eventually recognised with commoners being represented by the Court of Common Council, known by that name since at least as far back as 1376. The earliest records of the business habits of the City's chamberlains and common clerks, and the proceedings of the courts of Common Council and Aldermen, begin in 1275, and are recorded in fifty volumes known as the Letter-Books of the City of London.

The City of London Corporation had its privileges stripped by a writ quo warranto under Charles II in 1683, but they were later restored and confirmed by Act of Parliament under William III and Mary II in 1690, after the Glorious Revolution.

With growing demands on the Corporation and a corresponding need to raise local taxes from the commoners, the Common Council grew in importance and has been the principal governing body of the City of London since the 18th century.

In January 1898, the Common Council gained the full right to collect local rates when the City of London Sewers Act 1897 transferred the powers and duties of the Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London to the Corporation. A separate Commission of Sewers was created for the City of London after the Great Fire in 1666, and as well as the construction of drains it had responsibility for the prevention of flooding; paving, cleaning and lighting the City of London's streets; and churchyards and burials. The individual commissioners were previously nominated by the Corporation, but it was a separate body. The Corporation had earlier limited rating powers in relation to raising funds for the City of London Police, as well as the militia rate and some rates in relation to the general requirements of the Corporation.

The Corporation is unique among British local authorities for its continuous legal existence over many centuries, and for having the power to alter its own constitution, which is done by an Act of Common Council.

Local authority role
Local government legislation often makes special provision for the City to be treated as a London borough and for the Common Council to act as a local authority. The Corporation does not have general authority over the Middle Temple and the Inner Temple, two of the Inns of Court adjoining the west of the City which are historic extra-parochial areas, but many statutory functions of the Corporation are extended into these two areas.

The chief executive of the administrative side of the Corporation holds the ancient office of Town Clerk of London.

High Officers and other officials
Because of its accumulated wealth and responsibilities, the Corporation has a number of officers and officials unique to its structure who enjoy more autonomy than most local council officials, and each of whom has a separate budget: There are others: 1. The three Esquires at the Mansion House: The City Marshall, the Sword Bearer and the Mace Bearer (who is properly called 'the Common Cryer and Sergeant-at-Arms') run the lord mayor's official residence, his office, and accompany him on all occasions (they are usually senior military officers with diplomatic experience).
 * 1) The Town Clerk, who is also the chief executive.
 * 2) The Chamberlain, the City Treasurer and Finance Officer.
 * 3) The City Remembrancer, who is responsible for protocol, ceremonial, and security issues as well as legislative matters that may affect the Corporation and is legally qualified (usually a barrister).
 * 4) The City Surveyor, who is responsible for the central London commercial property portfolio
 * 5) The Comptroller and City Solicitor; legal officer.
 * 6) The Recorder of London, the senior judge at the Central Criminal Court 'Old Bailey' who is technically a member of the Court of Aldermen; but without precedence, he processes between the senior aldermen, i.e. former lord mayors, and the junior aldermen.
 * 7) The Common Serjeant, the second senior judge at the Central Criminal Court ('Old Bailey'), technically the legal adviser to the Common Council (i.e., Serjeant at Law to the Commoners).

2. The Chief Commoner who is elected by the full Common Council and serves for one year. The Chief Commoner holds office for one year and acts as a counsellor when required and takes the lead in relation to the scrutiny of training and development opportunities offered to councillors. They actively promote the aims, values and responsibilities of the City of London Corporation internally - and externally in support of the Lord Mayor and the Policy Chairman and also takes the lead in relation to all matters of City Corporation hospitality.

3. The ward beadles are each responsible to the ward by which they are elected, they give largely ceremonial support to their respective ward aldermen, and also perform a formal role at ward motes.

Elections
The first direct elections to Common Council took place in 1384. Before that date the representatives of the wards had been elected by the livery companies; originally they were merely appointed by the aldermen.

The City of London Corporation was not reformed by the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, because it had a more extensive electoral franchise than any other borough or city; in fact, it widened this further with its own equivalent legislation allowing one to become a freeman without being a liveryman. In 1801, the City had a population of about 130,000, but increasing development of the City as a central business district led to this falling to below 5,000 after the Second World War. It has risen slightly to around 9,000 since, largely due to the development of the Barbican Estate. As it has not been affected by other municipal legislation over the period of time since then, its electoral practice has become increasingly anomalous.

Therefore, the non-residential vote (or business vote), abolished in the rest of the country in 1969, became an increasingly large part of the electorate. The non-residential vote system used disfavoured incorporated companies. The City of London (Ward Elections) Act 2002 greatly increased the business franchise, allowing many more businesses to be represented. In 2009, the business vote was about 24,000, greatly exceeding residential voters.

Voters
Eligible voters must be at least 18 years old and a citizen of the United Kingdom, or a Commonwealth country, and either:
 * A resident;
 * A sole trader, or a partner in an unlimited partnership, or;
 * An appointee of a qualifying body.

Each body or organisation, whether unincorporated or incorporated, whose premises are within the City of London may appoint a number of voters based on the number of workers it employs. Limited liability partnerships fall into this category.

Bodies employing fewer than ten workers may appoint one voter, those employing ten to fifty workers may appoint one voter for every five; those employing more than fifty workers may appoint ten voters and one additional voter for every fifty workers beyond the first fifty.

Though workers count as part of a workforce regardless of nationality, only certain individuals may be appointed as voters. Under section 5 of the City of London (Ward Elections) Act 2002, the following are eligible to be appointed as voters (the qualifying date is 1 September of the year of the election):
 * Those who have worked for the body for the past year at premises in the City;
 * Those who have served on the body's board of directors for the past year at premises in the City;
 * Those who have worked in the City for the body for an aggregate total of five years;
 * Those who have worked mainly in the City for a total of ten years and still do so or have done within the last five years.

Voters appointed by businesses who are also entitled to vote in a local authority district other than the City, due to their residence in that district, maintain the right to vote in their 'home' district.

Wards
The City of London is divided into twenty-five wards, each of which is an electoral division, electing one alderman and a number of councilmen based on the size of the electorate. The numbers below reflect the changes caused by the City of London (Ward Elections) Act and a recent ward boundary review.

Livery companies
There are over one hundred livery companies in London. The companies originated as guilds or trade associations. The senior members of the livery companies, known as liverymen, form a special electorate known as Common Hall. Common Hall is the body that chooses the lord mayor, the sheriffs and certain other City officers.

Court of Aldermen
Wards originally elected aldermen for life, but the term is now only six years. Aldermen may, if they so choose, submit to an election before the six-year period ends. In any case, an election must be held no later than six years after the previous election. The sole qualification for the office is that aldermen must be Freemen of the City; candidates are not required to be a resident, leaseholder or freehold owner of land in the ward in which they seek to run, nor even of the City of London.

Alderman serve on the Court of Common Council concurrent with their service on the Court of Alderman. Additionally, they select the Recorder of London, the senior Circuit judge on the Central Criminal Court, who sits on the Court of Alderman, and serve of boards as governors and trustees for various institutions with connections to the city. Alderman are also ex officio justices of the peace.

Court of Common Council
The Court of Common Council, also known as the Common Council of the City of London, is formally referred to as the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the City of London in Common Council assembled. The "Court" is the primary decision-making body of the City of London Corporation and meets nine times per year, though most of its work is carried out by committees.

The Common Council is the police authority for the City of London, a police area that covers the City including the Inner Temple and Middle Temple and which has its own police force – the City of London Police – separate from the Metropolitan Police, which polices the remainder of Greater London.

Each ward may choose a number of common councilmen. A common councilman must be a registered voter in a City ward, own a freehold or lease land in the City, or reside in the City for the year prior to the election. The individual must also be over 21; a Freeman of the City; and a British, Irish, Commonwealth or EU citizen. Common Council elections are held every four years, most recently in March 2022. Common councilmen may use the postnominals CC after their names.

The Chief Commoner
Each year, the common councilmen elect one of their number to serve as Chief Commoner, an honorific office which 'serves to recognise the distinguished contribution the office holder is likely to have made to the City Corporation over a period of years.' The Chief Commoner is expected to champion the Court of Common Council, to work to uphold its rights and privileges, and to offer advice and counsel to its members. They also represent the court on various different committees, support the lord mayor in the business of the Corporation and are prominently present on ceremonial occasions. The Chief Commoner is elected in October of each year and holds office for one year from the following April.

List of Chief Commoners (since 1970)

 * 1970 George Mesban Vine, C.B.E.
 * 1971 Leslie Barnett Prince, C.B.E., Deputy
 * 1972 Charles Henry Fuller Fairweather, J.P.
 * 1973 Norman Lancelot Hall, C.B.E.
 * 1974 John Trevor Yates, M.B.E.
 * 1975 Wallis Glynn Gunthorpe Hunt
 * 1976 James Mansfield Keith, C.B.E., T.D.
 * 1977 Frank Nathaniel Steiner
 * 1978 Bernard Loweth Morgan, C.B.E., J.P., Deputy
 * 1979 Gerald Maurice Stitcher, C.B.E., Deputy
 * 1980 Colin Frederick Walter Dyer, E.R.D., Deputy
 * 1981 Bernard Joseph Brown, C.B.E., J.P.
 * 1982 Norman Harry Harding, O.B.E.
 * 1983 John Steven Henderson, O.B.E. Deputy
 * 1984 Henry Duckworth C.B.E., J.P., Deputy
 * 1985 Gordon Robert Alexander Wixley, C.B.E., T.D., D.L., Deputy
 * 1986 Esmond Patrick Thomson Roney, C.B.E., Deputy
 * 1987 Edwina Olwyn Coven, C.B.E., J.P., D.L., Deputy
 * 1988 Arthur Brian Wilson, C.B.E.
 * 1989 Peter Anning Revell-Smith, C.B.E.
 * 1990 George Hubert Challis, C.B.E.
 * 1991 Terence Alfred Donnelly, M.B.E. (deceased during office)
 * 1991 George Hubert Challis, C.B.E.
 * 1992 Peter Philip Rigby, C.B.E., J.P.
 * 1993 Cecil Douglas Woodward, C.B.E., Deputy
 * 1994 John Holland, C.B.E., J.P., D.L., Deputy
 * 1995 John Leslie Bird, O.B.E.
 * 1996 Philip John Willoughby, O.B.E., J.P.
 * 1997 Frederick Michael Bramwell
 * 1998 Richard Gordon Scriven, C.B.E., J.P.
 * 1999 Barbara Patricia Newman, C.B.E.
 * 2000 Robin Anthony Eve, O.B.E., Deputy
 * 2001 Anthony Noel Eskenzi, C.B.E., Deputy
 * 2002 Jonathan Philip Charkham, C.B.E.
 * 2003 Joyce Carruthers Nash, O.B.E., Deputy
 * 2004 Laurence St John Thomas Jackson
 * 2005 Christopher Robert Mitchell, O.B.E., Deputy
 * 2006 Gerald Albert George Pulman, J.P., Deputy
 * 2007 Pauline Ann Halliday, O.B.E., Deputy
 * 2008 John Alfred Barker, O.B.E.,
 * 2009 William Barrie Fraser O.B.E., Deputy
 * 2010 Michael Robin Castle Sherlock, Deputy
 * 2011 Richard David Regan, O.B.E., Deputy
 * 2012 Kenneth Edwin Ayers, M.B.E., Deputy
 * 2013 George Marr Flemington Gillon, M.B.E.
 * 2014 John Alfred Bennett, M.B.E., Deputy
 * 2015 William Harry Dove, O.B.E., J.P., Deputy
 * 2016 Michael Welbank, M.B.E.
 * 2017 Wendy Mead, O.B.E.
 * 2018 John George Scott, J.P.
 * 2019 Tom Hoffman, MBE, Deputy
 * 2020 Brian Desmond Francis Mooney, B.E.M., Deputy
 * 2021 Brian Desmond Francis Mooney, B.E.M., Deputy (Due to the restrictions of COVID during his year of office the Court of Common Council exceptionally voted to elect Brian Mooney for a second term of office)
 * 2022 Simon D’Olier Duckworth, O.B.E., D.L., Deputy
 * 2023 Ann Holmes
 * 2024 Peter Gerard Dunphy, Deputy

Committees of the City of London
The work of the City of London Corporation is primarily carried out through a range of committees:
 * Audit and Risk Management Committee
 * Barbican Centre Board
 * Barbican Residential Committee
 * City Bridge Foundation Board
 * Board of Governors of the City of London Freemen's School
 * Board of Governors of the City of London School
 * Board of Governors of the City of London School for Girls
 * Board of Governors of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama
 * Community & Children's Services Committee
 * Culture, Heritage and Libraries Committee
 * Education Board
 * Epping Forest & Commons Committee
 * Establishment Committee
 * Finance Committee
 * Freedom Applications Committee
 * Gresham (City Side) Committee
 * Hampstead Heath, Highgate Wood and Queen's Park Committee
 * Health and Wellbeing Board
 * Investment Committee
 * Licensing Committee
 * Livery Committee
 * Local Government Pensions Board
 * Markets Committee
 * Open Spaces and City Gardens
 * Planning and Transportation Committee
 * Police Committee
 * Policy and Resources Committee
 * Port Health & Environmental Services Committee
 * Standards Committee
 * West Ham Park Committee

The lord mayor and the sheriffs
The Lord Mayor of London and the two sheriffs are chosen by liverymen meeting at Common Hall. Sheriffs, who serve as assistants to the lord mayor, are chosen on Midsummer Day. The lord mayor, who must have previously been a sheriff, is chosen on Michaelmas. Both the lord mayor and the sheriffs are chosen for terms of one year.

The lord mayor fulfills several roles:
 * Chairs the Court of Aldermen and the Common Council
 * Represents the City to foreign dignitaries
 * Heads the Commission of Lieutenancy of the City
 * Chief Magistrate of the City
 * Admiral of the Port of London
 * Chancellor of the City University
 * President of Gresham College
 * Trustee of Saint Paul's Cathedral

The ancient and continuing office of Lord Mayor of London (with responsibility for the City of London) should not be confused with the office of Mayor of London (responsible for the whole of Greater London and created in 2000).

Policy chairman
The role of Lord Mayor of London is largely ceremonial. Political leadership on the corporation is instead provided by the chair of the policy and resources committee (also known as the policy chairman), who is sometimes described as the "de facto political leader". The policy chairman represents the City on the leaders' committee of London Councils, alongside the leaders of the 32 London Boroughs.

Since 1984, the policy chairmen have been:

Ceremonies and traditions
Stuart Fraser, the Corporation's Deputy Policy chairman wrote in 2011 "it is undoubtedly the case that we have more tradition and pageantry than most", for example the yearly Lord Mayor's Show.

There are eight formal ceremonies involving the Corporation:

 * 1) Midsummer Common Hall for the election of the sheriffs (24 June or nearest weekday);
 * 2) Admission of the Sheriffs, their oath-taking (the nearest weekday to the Michaelmas date);
 * 3) Michaelmas Common Hall for the election of the lord mayor (29 September or nearest weekday);
 * 4) Admission of the Lord Mayor, the so-called "Silent Ceremony" (Friday before the Lord Mayor's Show);
 * 5) Lord Mayor's Show; formally, "the Procession of the Lord Mayor for Presentation to the Lord Chief Justice and King's Remembrancer at the Royal Courts of Justice" (the Saturday after the second Friday in November);
 * 6) The Ward Motes; elections in the City wards and general meeting of the ward in non-election years (third Friday in March);
 * 7) The Spital Sermon; literally a sermon given in the Guildhall church (St Lawrence Jewry next Guildhall), delivered by a senior cleric on behalf of the Christ's Hospital and Bridewell Hospital (now King Edward's School, Witley) (a day in school term between March and May);
 * 8) United Guilds Service involves all of the livery company masters, the lord mayor, sheriffs, the aldermen and high officers. This is the newest having been instituted in 1943, it is the responsibility of a special trust fund operating from Fishmongers' Hall (usually in March but so long as not conflicting with Holy Week).

Temple Bar Ceremony
The historic ceremony of the monarch halting at Temple Bar and being met by the lord mayor, also called the Pearl Sword Ceremony, has often featured in art and literature. It is commented on in televised coverage of modern-day royal ceremonial processions.

Tax journalist Nicholas Shaxson described the ceremony in an article in the New Statesman: "Whenever The Queen makes a State entry to the City, she meets a red cord raised by City police at Temple Bar, and then engages in a colourful ceremony involving the Lord Mayor, his Sword, assorted Aldermen and Sheriffs, and a character called the Remembrancer. In this ceremony, the Lord Mayor recognises The Queen's authority, but the relationship is complex: as the corporation itself says: 'The right of the City to run its own affairs was gradually won as concessions were gained from the Crown."

Both the Guildhall Historical Association and Paul Jagger, author of The City of London Freeman's Guide and City of London: Secrets of the Square Mile explain that it is incorrect to say that this is a symbol of the submission of the Crown to the City, with Jagger writing:

"The Sovereign does not ask to be admitted. The carriage bearing the King or Queen does not halt without the bar, but drives straight across the boundary and halts just within the City. [...] Can the Press be deflected from their story of the Sovereign asking permission to enter the City! It has been repeated for well over a century. [...] The ceremony is an acknowledgement by the Mayer of the Queen's sovereignty in the City and may take place at the point of entry where it may be. It so happens the entry is most usually at Temple Bar. Wherever the Lord Mayor meets the Sovereign, if the sword is present, it should be surrendered."

"Of all the myth and lore that envelopes the Square Mile perhaps none is more persistent than the idea that the Monarch has to ask to enter the City of London and may not do so without the permission of the Lord Mayor. [...] The genesis of this myth is likely to be the Ceremony of the Pearl Sword which has, from time to time, been held at the former site of Temple Bar on Fleet Street. During the ceremony the Monarch's carriage procession draws up, the City Police pull a red cord across the street where Temple Bar once stood, the royal procession stops, the Lord Mayor approaches the carriage and presents the hilt of the City's Pearl Sword to the Monarch who touches it and symbolically returns the sword to the Lord Mayor. This is act of feudal fealty in which the Lord Mayor surrenders his principal symbol of authority to the Monarch, who in turn (assuming she finds him suitably qualified to continue in office) returns the sword."

Conservation areas and green spaces
The City of London Corporation maintains around 10000 acre of public green spaces – mainly conservation areas / nature reserves – in Greater London and the surrounding counties. The most well-known of the conservation areas are Hampstead Heath and Epping Forest. Other areas include Ashtead Common, Burnham Beeches, Highgate Wood and the City Commons (seven commons in south London).

The Corporation also runs the unheated Parliament Hill Lido, in Hampstead Heath which the London Residuary Body with the agreement of the London Boroughs gave into the safekeeping of the City, for the benefit of the public, in 1989.

The City also owns and manages two traditional inner city parks: Queen's Park and West Ham Park as well as over 150 smaller public green spaces. All these green spaces are funded principally by the City of London.

Education
The City of London has a single primary school, The Aldgate School (ages 4 to 11), which is voluntary aided by the Church of England and maintained by the Education Service of the City of London.

City of London residents may send their children to schools in neighbouring local education authorities (LEAs). Some secondary school children enrol in schools in Islington, Tower Hamlets, Westminster or Southwark. Children who are permanent residents of the City of London are eligible for transfer to the City of London Academy, Southwark, a state-funded secondary school sponsored by the City of London located in Bermondsey. The City of London Corporation also sponsors City Academy, Hackney and City of London Academy Islington.

The City of London controls three other private schools – the City of London School (for boys), the City of London School for Girls, and the co-educational City of London Freemen's School. The Lord Mayor also holds the posts of Rector of City University and President of Gresham College, an educational institution for advanced study.

The Guildhall School of Music and Drama is owned and funded by the Corporation.

Criticism
Writing in The Guardian, George Monbiot claimed that the corporation's power "helps to explain why regulation of the banks is scarcely better than it was before the crash, why there are no effective curbs on executive pay and bonuses and why successive governments fail to act against the UK's dependent tax havens" and suggested that its privileges could not withstand proper "public scrutiny".

In December 2012, following criticism that it was insufficiently transparent about its finances, the City of London Corporation revealed that its "City's Cash" account – an endowment fund built up over the past 800 years that it says is used "for the benefit of London as a whole" – holds more than £1.3bn. , it had net assets of £2.3bn. The fund collects money made from the corporation's property and investment earnings.

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

title: City of London Corporation


text:
Harry S. Truman's 1949 inaugural address

Harry S. Truman's inaugural address, known as the Four Point Speech, was delivered by United States president Harry S. Truman, on Thursday, January 20, 1949.

In a world only recently emerged from the shadow of World War II, in which freedom and human rights seemed under threat from many sides, this was Truman's response.

He challenged both Democrats and Republicans to assist people around the world struggling for freedom and human rights; to continue programs for world economic recovery; to strengthen international organizations; and to draw on the expertise of the United States to help people across the world help themselves in the struggle against ignorance, illness and despair.

The four points

 * First, "we will continue to give unfaltering support to the United Nations and related agencies, and we will continue to search for ways to strengthen their authority and increase their effectiveness."
 * Second, "we will continue our programs for world economic recovery."
 * Third, "we will strengthen freedom-loving nations against the dangers of aggression."
 * Fourth, "we must embark on a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas."


text:
M69 motorway

The M69 is a 15.7 mi dual three lane dual carriageway motorway in Leicestershire and Warwickshire, England. It runs between junction 21 of the M1 near Leicester and junction 2 of the M6 near Coventry. It opened in 1977.

History
The motorway, also known at the time as the 'Coventry – Leicester Motorway' was completed in 1977 following a public inquiry in 1972. It took traffic from the A46, which was subsequently downgraded.

Route
Starting at the north-eastern suburbs of Coventry at junction 2 of the M6, the motorway crosses the Coventry Canal and then continues north-east past Bulkington and west of Wolvey before turning more easterly to run south of Hinckley (junction 2, known locally as 'Reacharound Island' because of the limited slip roads). It then crosses the Birmingham to Peterborough railway line terminating in the vicinity of suburban Enderby and Braunstone to the south-west of Leicester junction 3, where it meets the M1 with continuation along the A5460/A563 towards Leicester.

The M69 has no motorway service area given that this function is fulfilled at present by Leicester Forest East services and Corley services in close proximity to the start and end points of this relatively short motorway.

Proposed developments
There is an aspiration to construct a new slip road and road bridge for traffic travelling southbound on the M1 to join the M69.

Plans for a service station were announced in November 2023, to be located at junction one at the Stretton Baskerville roundabout. Welcome Break's application will be the first service station for the route. The route has been without services for over 50 years and currently has a 26-mile unserviced stretch, which exceeds the government's maximum recommendation of 14 miles between heavy goods vehicle stations.

Junctions
{| class="plainrowheaders wikitable" !scope=col|County !scope=col|Location !scope=col|mi !scope=col|km !scope=col|Junction !scope=col|Destinations !scope=col|Notes
 * rowspan="2" |Warwickshire
 * Coventry
 * 0
 * 0
 * bgcolor="#ddffdd" |M6 J2
 * bgcolor="#ddffdd" | – Birmingham, Manchester – Coventry  – Coventry
 * bgcolor="#ddffdd" |road continues south as A46
 * rowspan="2" |—
 * 6.2
 * 10.0
 * 1
 * – Tamworth, Rugby B4109 – Hinckley
 * rowspan="2" |Leicestershire
 * 8.9
 * 14.3
 * bgcolor="ffdddd" |2
 * bgcolor="ffdddd" |B4669 – Hinckley, Sapcote
 * bgcolor="ffdddd" |No Northbound entrance or Southbound exit
 * Leicester
 * 15.7
 * 25.3
 * M1 J21
 * – Nottingham, Northampton, London – Leicester
 * Leicester
 * 15.7
 * 25.3
 * M1 J21
 * – Nottingham, Northampton, London – Leicester

 * Coordinate list

title: M69 motorway


text:
Nike Hercules

The Nike Hercules, initially designated SAM-A-25 and later MIM-14, was a surface-to-air missile (SAM) used by U.S. and NATO armed forces for medium- and high-altitude long-range air defense. It was normally armed with the W31 nuclear warhead, but could also be fitted with a conventional warhead for export use. Its warhead also allowed it to be used in a secondary surface-to-surface role, and the system also demonstrated its ability to hit other short-range missiles in flight.

Hercules was originally developed as a simple upgrade to the earlier MIM-3 Nike Ajax, allowing it to carry a nuclear warhead in order to defeat entire formations of high-altitude supersonic targets. It evolved into a much larger missile with two solid fuel stages that provided three times the range of the Ajax. Deployment began in 1958, initially at new bases, but it eventually took over many Ajax bases as well. At its peak, it was deployed at over 130 bases in the US alone.

Hercules was officially referred to as "transportable", but moving a battery was a significant operation and required considerable construction at the firing sites. Over its lifetime, significant effort was put into the development of solid state replacements for the vacuum tube-based electronics inherited from the early-1950s Ajax, and a variety of mobile options. None of these were adopted, in favor of much more mobile systems like the MIM-23 Hawk. Another development for the anti-ballistic missile role later emerged as the much larger LIM-49 Nike Zeus design. Hercules would prove to be the last operational missile from Bell's Nike team; Zeus was never deployed, and Hercules' replacements were developed by different teams.

Hercules remained the US's primary heavy SAM until it began to be replaced by the higher performance and considerably more mobile MIM-104 Patriot in the 1980s. Patriot's much higher accuracy allowed it to dispense with the nuclear warhead, and Hercules was the last US SAM to use this option. The last Hercules missiles were deactivated in Europe in 1988, without ever being fired in a military conflict.

Project Nike
During World War II, the US Army Air Force (USAAF) concluded that existing anti-aircraft guns, only marginally effective against existing generations of propeller-driven aircraft, would not be effective at all against the emerging jet-powered designs. Like the Germans and British before them, they concluded the only successful defence would be to use guided weapons.

As early as 1944 the US Army started exploring anti-aircraft missiles, examining a variety of concepts. They split development between the Army Air Force or the Ordnance Department based on whether or not the design "depend[ed] for sustenance primarily on the lift of aerodynamic forces" or "primary on the momentum of the missile". That is, whether the missile operated more like an aircraft (Air Force) or a rocket (Ordnance).

Official requirements were published in 1945; Bell Laboratories won the Ordnance contract for a short-range line-of-sight weapon under Project Nike, while a team of players led by Boeing won the contract for a long-range design known as Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft, or GAPA. GAPA moved to the US Air Force when that branch was formed in 1947. In 1946, the USAAF also started two early research projects into anti-missile systems in Project Thumper (MX-795) and Project Wizard (MX-794).

In 1953, Project Nike delivered the world's first operational anti-aircraft missile system, known simply as Nike. Nike tracked both the target and the missile using separate radars, compared the locations in a computer, and sent commands to the missile to fly to a point in the sky to intercept the target. To increase range, the missile was normally boosted above the target into the thinner air and then descended on it in a gliding dive. Nike was initially deployed at military bases starting in 1953, especially Strategic Air Command bomber airfields, and general deployment then followed at US cities, important industrial sites, and then overseas bases. Similar systems quickly emerged from other nations, including the S-75 Dvina (SA-2) from the USSR, and the English Electric Thunderbird in the UK.

Ajax and Hercules
Even as the Nike was undergoing testing, planners grew concerned about the missile's ability to attack formations of aircraft. Given the low resolution of the tracking radars available at the time, a formation of aircraft would appear on the radars as a single larger return. Launched against such a formation, the Nike would fly towards the center of the composite return. Given the Nike warhead's relatively small lethal radius, if the missile flew into the middle of the formation and exploded, it would be highly unlikely to destroy any of the aircraft.

Improving performance against such targets would require either much higher resolution radars or much larger warheads. Of the two, the warhead seemed like the simplest problem to address. Like almost any thorny military problem of the 1950s, the solution was the application of nuclear bombs. In May 1952, Bell was asked to explore such an adaptation to the Nike. They returned two design concepts.

"Nike Ajax" used a slightly modified Nike missile, largely a re-arrangement of the internal components, making room for the 15 ktonTNT WX-9 "gun-type" warhead also being developed as an artillery round. The WX-9, like all gun-type designs, was long and thin, originally designed to be fired from an 11 in artillery piece, and easily fit within the Nike fuselage.

The competing implosion-type design is considerably more efficient and uses much less nuclear fuel to reach any given explosive power. Bell proposed a much more modified design known as "Nike Hercules" with an enlarged upper fuselage able to carry the XW-7 warhead of up to 40 ktonTNT that wouldn't fit in the existing fuselage. In spite of the greatly increased explosive power, the WX-7 was only slightly heavier than the WX-9, about 950 lb for common XW-7 versions, as opposed to 850 lb for the XW-9.

At the same time, there were increasing concerns that higher speed aircraft would be able to launch their warheads at the extreme range of the Nike bases. This was a common complaint by the Air Force, who noted that bombers had the ability to attack from as much as 50 miles while the Nike was only comfortable launching at about 25 miles. This could be increased even further using stand-off missiles, like those currently under development by all of the nuclear-armed forces for just this reason. A larger Nike with greatly improved range would not only help address this sort of attack, but also allow a single base to defend a much larger area, lowering the overall costs of deploying a widespread defensive system.

As the larger Hercules would be easier to adapt to a longer-range form, the Army selected it as the winning design. Bell began working on the new design in concert with the Nike partners, Western Electric and Douglas Aircraft Company. Instead of the basic W-7, development of an improved 20 ktonTNT boosted fission design known as W31. This used much less fissile material and was thus considerably less expensive. Developed by Sandia Laboratories in Albuquerque and at Los Alamos, it was given 1A priority by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in March 1953.

Solid fuel

Soon after design work started, the Army requested that the existing liquid fuel engine be replaced with a solid fuel design, for a variety of reasons. Primary among these was that the Ajax fuels were hypergolic, igniting on contact. Due to the nature of these fuels, extreme caution had to be used whenever the missiles were moved or unloaded for maintenance. This was carried out in a protected area behind a large berm, in order to protect the rest of the site from an accidental explosion during fueling. This complexity added enormously to the cost and time required to maintain the missiles.

Solid fuel rockets can remain stored for years and are generally very difficult to ignite without an extended period of applied flame. This means they can be manhandled safely and maintained with the rocket motor installed. However, the lower specific impulse of these engines, combined with the requirement for longer range, demanded a much larger fuselage to store the required fuel. Hercules, still known officially as Nike B at this point, grew to become a much larger design. This, in turn, required a much larger booster to loft it, but this was solved by strapping together four of the existing Nike boosters to form a cluster known as the XM-42, with the only modification to the original M5 engine design being the addition of new holes to bolt them together, creating the M5E.

During this period, some effort was put into a frangible booster for the Ajax. Ajax's boosters were housed in steel tubes that fell near the base, presenting a serious range safety concern. Martin produced the T48E1 and E2 designs for Ajax used a fiberglass casing that was destroyed by small explosives, but this proved overweight and did not boost the Ajax to the required speed. Redstone Arsenal then presented the T48E3 which was somewhat larger and longer to reach reasonable performance, but only at the cost of having to modify all of the Ajax launcher rails. The Army eventually decided not to proceed with any Ajax modifications as Hercules would be arriving shortly anyway. Similar experiments for Hercules boosters led to the XM-61 single-chamber booster, but when the XM-42 cluster proved to be even less expensive than expected, this effort was also dropped.

As part of the upgrade project, the original missile became known as Nike I. On 15 November 1956, the new missile was officially renamed as the Nike Hercules, as part of DA Circular 700-22, while the Nike I becoming Nike Ajax.

The new design ultimately provided effective ranges on the order of 75 mi and altitudes ranging from 20000 to 100000 ft. Minimum range had a ground radius of approximately 10000 yd and an altitude of approximately 20000 ft 20,000 ft.

Bomarc / Hercules controversy
Throughout the early Nike evolution, the then-new Air Force had been encouraged by the deployment of the missile systems. They saw this as an extension of the Army's existing "point defence" role, and as a valuable backup to their own manned interceptors. There were concerns about the possibility of Air Force fighters being attacked by Army missiles, but the two forces improved co-ordination between the Army's ARAACOM and the Air Force's Air Defense Command (ADC) to the point where it was no longer a serious concern. Nevertheless, when the Army first released information about Ajax to the press in 1953, the Air Force quickly responded by leaking information about BOMARC to Aviation Week, and continued to denigrate Nike in the press over the next few years.

Things changed dramatically with the development of Hercules. By the early 1950s, the Air Force was still struggling with their own long-range weapon systems, originally started in the 1940s in the GAPA project. The project had moved several times, and was now in late development as the BOMARC. BOMARC proved extremely expensive, difficult to maintain in operational readiness, had questionable performance, and was displaying a continued inability to reach operational status. Instead of de-emphasizing BOMARC in favor of Hercules, inter-service rivalry became rampant, and the Air Force began a policy of denigrating Hercules and the Army using policy by press release.

In a famous event, the Air Force interviewed for an article that appeared in the New York Times entitled "Air Force Calls Army Nike Unfit To Guard Nation". This was answered most forcibly not by the Army, but the Defense Secretary Charles Erwin Wilson, who wrote in Newsweek that "one hard solid fact remerges above them all: no matter what the Nike is or isn't, it's the only land-based operational anti-aircraft missile that the U.S. has." By the time early Hercules deployments were starting in 1958, BOMARC was still nowhere near operational.

All of this was part of a larger fight going on over the Army's Jupiter missile, which the Air Force stated should be their mission. Wilson attempted to address the inter-service rivalries by enforcing a strict limit on the range of Army systems. In his 26 November 1956 memorandum, he limited the Army to weapons with 200 mi range, and those involved in ground-to-air defense to only 100 mi. This forced the Army to turn its Jupiter IRBM systems to the Air Force, and to limit the range of their ABM developments.

This did not do much to stop the squabbling, nor did it solve the problems that led to the issues in the first place – the fight over Hercules and BOMARC and related anti-missile developments. Nor did it stop the fighting in the press. Army Colonel John C. Nickerson Jr. publicly denounced Wilson, while leaking details of their latest missile design, the Pershing missile. The resulting flap led to calls for Nickerson to be court-martialed and was compared to the Billy Mitchell court-martial in the 1920s.

It did, however, allow development of Hercules to continue, and the system was soon preparing to deploy. In 1958 an article appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times in which various Air Force officials complained that the Hercules was ineffective. Chicago was slated to shortly begin receiving its Hercules upgrades. Similar articles began appearing in papers around the country, invariably just before that city was to begin receiving their missiles. This prompted ARAACOM commander Charles E. Hart to petition the Secretary of Defense to order the Air Force to stop the well organized campaign against Hercules. The Army then began its own series of press releases under what they called "Project Truth".

Eventually, in November the new Secretary of Defense, Neil H. McElroy announced both systems would be purchased. Both forces, and their congressional supporters, realized that splitting the budget would mean neither force would be funded to the level required to fulfill the defence mission. In 1959 both the House and Senate debated the systems, with the Senate recommending cutting funding for Hercules and the House stating the opposite. The House eventually came to support the Defense Secretary's position as stated in the Master Air Defense Plan, retaining Hercules while reducing BOMARC and SAGE.

Meanwhile, the Air Force scrambled to bring BOMARC to operational status, and on 1 September 1959 declared the 46th Air Defense Squadron at McGuire Air Force Base operational. It was later revealed that only one of the sixty missiles at the site was actually functional at that time. Engineers continued work on getting a second missile operational at McGuire, but the Air Force went ahead with plans to open the Suffolk County Missile Annex by 1 January 1960. In January, only four missiles were operational at Suffolk, and during House appropriation hearings that month, the DoD proved rather subdued when Congress attacked the design, especially in light of several failed tests of the BOMARC B missile. In February, Air Force Chief of Staff Thomas D. White shocked everyone when he requested that BOMARC deployments be reduced to eight US and two Canadian sites, essentially killing the program.

In the aftermath of the Hercules/BOMARC debates, retired Army Brigadier General Thomas R. Phillips wrote an article for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that BOMARC and SAGE had been the "most costly waste of funds in the history of the Defense Department."

Operation SNODGRASS
Plans had been made to test the Hercules' W-7 warhead in a live-fire exercise in 1959 as part of "Operation SNODGRASS". However, as rumours of a ban on atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons spread, SNODGRASS became a crash project to be completed before 1 September 1958 at any available site – the Nevada Test Site was fully booked with the existing Project AMMO testing series. Part of the rush was due to the newly evolving understanding of the effects of nuclear weapons on radar systems, which led to serious concerns about various weapon's systems ability to operate after nearby nuclear explosions. Testing of the W-7 was put into AMMO, while the SNODGRASS series was moved to an Army-Air Force test at Eglin Air Force Base with tests of both the conventional T45 and nuclear W-7 warheads. A variety of problems, including one found in the W-7 warhead, caused delays in the testing programs, so a single launch of the T45-equipped Hercules was also added to the AMMO project.

The AMMO shot took place on 1 July 1958, successfully intercepting a simulated 650 kn target flying at an altitude of 100000 ft and a slant range of 79 mi. The first SNODGRASS round was launched on 14 July with its warhead replaced by an instrument package and launched against a 350 kn Q2A Ryan Firebee I drone. A similar test on 17 July against a 300 kn Q2A destroyed the target with the T45. A dual-launch followed on 24 July, with the first round destroying its target with the T45, and the second with the instrument package flying one second behind. A similar test on 29 July launched two missiles against three F-80 Shooting Star drones flying in formation, the first missile destroyed the lead aircraft while the second passed within lethal range of a second. Testing was unexpectedly cancelled before the W-7 could be fired.

Deployment
Hercules was designed from the start to operate from Ajax bases. However, as it protected a much greater area, not as many sites were needed to provide coverage of potential targets. Early deployments starting in 1958 were on new sites, but Ajax units started converting as well. Conversions were largely complete by 1960, leaving only a few Ajax sites in use. The last active Nike Ajax batteries were relieved of their mission in December 1961, followed by the last Army National Guard unit in May 1964.

Nuclear-armed Nike Hercules missiles were deployed in the United States, Greece, Italy, Korea and Turkey, and with Belgian, Dutch, and U.S. forces in West Germany. Conventionally armed Nike Hercules missiles also served in the United States, Spain, Germany, Denmark, Japan, Norway, and Taiwan. The first deployments in Europe began in 1959.

Improved Nike Hercules

Even before deployment of Hercules began, studies on improvements to the system had been identified. A 23 October 1954 report stated that "Concurrent with the prosecution of the NIKE I and NIKE B programs, studies and research and development must be conducted to insure that the NIKE equipment is modernized to the maximum extent within the limits of current technology and economics of improvement as compared to investment in a new system ...". Three key elements were identified; the need to attack formations without nuclear warheads, operations against low-altitude targets, and better traffic-handling capabilities to handle larger raids.

In early 1956, Bell began studies of the Improved Nike Hercules (INH) concept by considering the predicted threat for the 1960-65 period. This was aircraft with speeds up to Mach 3, a wide range of radar cross sections, and powerful electronic countermeasures. IRBMs and ICBMs were also a consideration, but these were being addressed by the Nike Zeus concept, leaving only short-range weapons as an issue Hercules might need to address. To address this whole range of issues, Bell proposed a series of changes:

 * 1) improvements to the X-band TTR/MTR radars to increase range
 * 2) the addition of the long-range L-band "High Power Acquisition Radar" (HIPAR) to detect small, high-speed targets
 * 3) the addition of the wide-frequency Ku-band Target Ranging Radar (TRR) to provide ranging in a heavy ECM environment
 * 4) the addition of an active seeker on the missile to improve performance against low-altitude targets

The addition of the TRR solved a problem with early pulse radar units. It is relatively easy to jam a conventional radar by sending out additional pulses of radio signal on the same frequency. Unless the transmitter has encoded some additional form of information in the signal, the receiver cannot determine which pulse it sent out and which is from the jammer. Note that this has no effect on the determination of the direction to the target, which is the same for both the original and jammer pulses. However, it makes the determination of range difficult or impossible. The TRR solves this problem by providing a separate ranging system on another frequency. By making the signal wide-frequency, the jammer has to likewise broadcast across a similar bandwidth, limiting the energy in any one frequency and allowing the operator to tune the receiver to find an unjammed band. Combining range from the TRR and direction from the TTR provided complete information on the target.

The changes were designed to be upgradable without major changes to the deployed system – the TTR/MTR could be replaced at any time, the HIPAR used its own displays and therefore required no changes in the missile launch equipment, the TRR was slaved to the TTR and simply updated range readings, and the new seeker could be retrofitted at any time. The original Ajax detection radar retroactively became known as LOPAR, and remained in use as the main target selection radar in the missile control van. HIPAR would detect targets separately and "hand off" to the LOPAR and TTR so those systems could remain largely unchanged and able to launch either Hercules or Ajax.

These changes were presented on 24 August 1956, and accepted by both CONARC and ARADCOM. The active seeker system was later dropped to lower costs. Engineering was complete in 1958 and entered low-rate production in May 1959. The first HIPAR was tested at White Sands between 14 April 1960 and 13 April 1961, starting with two Ajax launches that passed 14 yards and 18 yards from the drone targets, and a further 17 Hercules launches that were generally successful. Among the various test targets were a Mach 3 Lockheed AQM-60, a drone, and a Corporal missile. Also conducted were tests to evaluate ECM performance, two surface-to-surface tests, and two Hercules-on-Hercules attacks with the target Hercules flying in a semi-ballistic trajectory.

Deployment of the INH upgrade kits began on 10 June 1961 at the BA-30 site in the Washington–Baltimore defense area, and continued into September 1967. HIPAR was a large system and generally deployed under a dome on top of a concrete platform that raised it above any local obstructions. To provide the same range of view, the tracking radars were also often placed on concrete platforms of their own, although these were much smaller.

The Hercules missile systems sold to Japan (Nike J) were subsequently fitted with upgraded internal guidance systems, the original vacuum tube systems being replaced with transistorized ones.

Anti-missile upgrades

Although Hercules had demonstrated its ability to successfully engage short-range missiles, the capability was not considered very important. During development the Air Force continued its Project Wizard while the Army started its Project Plato studies for dedicated anti-missile systems. By 1959, Plato was still very much a paper project when news of large deployments of short-range missiles in the Warsaw Bloc became a clear threat. Plato was cancelled in February 1959, replaced in the short term by further upgrades to Hercules, and in the longer term by the FABMDS program. FABMDS would have performance against any credible "theatre" ranged missile or rocket system, as well as offer anti-aircraft capabilities, the ability to attack four targets at once, and be relatively mobile.

The Hercules system was compared to threats ranging from the relatively short-range Little John, Honest John and Lacrosse through medium-range systems like Corporal, Sergeant and Lance, and finally the long-range (for battlefield concerns) 200 miles Redstone. Of these threats, Redstone was considered just within the Hercules' capabilities, able to defend against such a target over a relatively limited range. Increasing performance against these longer-range "theatre" weapons would require more extensive upgrades that would have pushed the time-frame out to the range when FABMDS was expected.

The primary change to create the resulting "Improved EFS/ATBM Hercules" was a modified version of the HIPAR. The antenna was modified to give it the ability to see higher angles, while the Battery Control Console was upgraded with dual PPI displays for short- and long-range work, and the data link to the missile van was upgraded. Additionally the radar was given the "Electronic Frequency Selection" (EFS) system which allowed operators to quickly switch between a selection of operating frequencies at about 20 microseconds, while the earlier system required manual switching that took about 30 seconds.

The first EFS sets arrived at White Sands late in 1962 and started testing in April 1963. In testing the system was successful against all manner of short-range rockets and missiles, and successfully tracked the Redstone on 23 September and 5 October 1963, but failed to achieve a "kill" in either test due to unrelated problems. A test against the much higher performance Pershing was carried out on 16 October 1963, and while the HIPAR was able to detect the missile, the tracking system was unable to track it.

The first deployment of the EFS/ATBM HIPAR was carried out between February and 20 April 1963, but during this time the Army decided not to deploy these systems in the United States. Further deployments to allied units and US units in Alaska were carried out between November 1963 and the summer of 1965.

Mobile Hercules
As Hercules had evolved from the fixed-base Ajax system, early deployments offered no mobility. However, both Ajax and Hercules systems in Europe had to be able to move as US forces shifted. This led to the use of semi-trailer systems for the fire control systems, which could be easily moved and re-positioned as required. LOPAR was relatively small, and the TTR/MTR were always trailer based, so these systems were also fairly mobile. The problem was the missile launcher itself, and especially the large HIPAR radar, which presented a formidable mobility problem.

Starting in April 1960, considerable effort was put into a fully mobile "Cross-Country Hercules" launcher based on the M520 Goer vehicle, an articulated prime mover that saw considerable service during the Vietnam War. This system was successfully tested at White Sands on 1 October 1961. In spite of this success, the GOER-based Hercules would not be used operationally.

Efforts to mount the HIPAR on the same platform between March and December 1962 were not nearly as successful, and on 18 December 1962 the concept was abandoned in favor of an "airmobile" solution using conventional M52 trucks and modified trailers. The resulting system used six semi-trailers: four to carry HIPAR electronic gear, one to carry the antenna, and one to carry the generators. General Electric demonstrated a prototype on 11 February 1964. The AN/MPQ-43 Mobile HIPAR was made part of Hercules Standard A in August 1966 and began operational deployment in Europe on 12 April 1967.

Deactivation
Soviet development of ICBMs and the de-emphasis of their bomber force decreased the value of the Hercules system. Beginning around 1965, the number of Nike batteries was reduced. Thule's air defense was reduced during 1965, and SAC air base defense during 1966, reducing the number of batteries to 112. Budgetary cuts reduced that number to 87 in 1968, and 82 in 1969. Nike Hercules was included in SALT I discussions as an ABM.

All CONUS Hercules batteries, with the exception of the ones in Florida and Alaska, were deactivated by April 1974. The remaining units were deactivated during the spring of 1979. Dismantling of the sites in Florida – Alpha Battery in Everglades National Park, Bravo Battery in Key Largo, Charlie Battery in Carol City and Delta Battery, located on Krome Avenue on the outskirts of Miami – started in June 1979 and was completed by early autumn of that year. The buildings that once housed Delta Battery became the original structures used for the Krome Avenue Detention Facility, a federal facility used primarily to hold illegal aliens awaiting immigration hearings. In Anchorage, Alaska, Site Point (A Battery) was converted into a ski chalet for Kincaid Park. Site Summit (B Battery) still sits above Eagle River, its IFC buildings and clamshell towers easily visible when driving towards Anchorage. Site Bay (C Battery), across Cook Inlet from the others, has been mostly demolished, with only burned out shells of the batteries remaining, as well as a few storage bunkers. The large airstrip remains, and is often used by locals for flight instruction and practice.

Hercules remained a major front-line weapon in Europe into the 1980s. Over the years, the vacuum-tube guidance system, as well as the complex fire control systems' radars, suffered from diminishing manufacturing source (DMS) issues. In part because of less parts supportability, Western European (Fourth Allied Tactical Air Force (4 ATAF) and Second Allied Tactical Air Force (2 ATAF) sites essentially became fixed sites and were no longer considered capable of a mobile role. During the last years of their deployment in Europe, the issue at hand was more about maintaining security of the nuclear capable missiles, rather than mobility. The DoD invested considerably in upgrading the security of the storage areas of the launcher sections, ultimately installing significant towers that were capable of watching over all three sections within the "exclusion area".

The U.S. Army continued to use Hercules as a front-line air defense weapon in Europe until 1983, when Patriot missile batteries were deployed. NATO units from West Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Norway, Greece and Turkey continued to use the Hercules for high-altitude air defense until the late 1980s. With the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, the units were deactivated in 1988. The last Hercules missile was launched in the Sardinian range of Capo San Lorenzo in Italy on November 24, 2006.

Approximately 25,000 Nike Hercules were manufactured. Early models cost about US$55250 each, while most recent cost estimate, from Japan, was US$3.0 million.

Description
The Nike Hercules was a command-guided, long-range, high-altitude anti-aircraft missile. It was normally deployed in fixed bases with a central radar and control site (Integrated Fire Control area or IFC) separated from the launcher area (LA). Hercules batteries in the US were generally placed in older Ajax bases, using their underground storage and maintenance buildings. 145 missile batteries were deployed during the cold war.

Sites
Each Nike battery consisted of two or three areas; IFC, LA and general. The LA consisted to a maximum of four launching sections, each section consisted of an underground storage area, an elevator to move missiles to and from the surface launchers, and four aboveground firing locations. One of these locations was directly above the elevator, the others were reached by manually pushing the missiles off the elevator to the launcher along rails. The LA also had a control van to control and monitor the LA activities and maintenance facilities.

The IFC contained the search and tracking radars and control center (operators, computer, etc.), and various related offices and communications centres for general operations. To operate the Nike Hercules system on the IFC the crew consisted of about nine operators under command of the Battery Control Officer (BCO). The crew on the LA, also under command of the BCO, was responsible for preparing and erecting the missile. On both the IFC and the LA maintenance people were available.

The battery crew was housed on-site, either at the IFC, or sometimes, together with administrative offices and general services on a separate area.

Any single battery could only launch a single missile at a time, due to the limited number of radars, computers and operators. Four Nike batteries were normally organized into a single battalion.

Missile
When mounted on its booster pack, the Hercules missile was 41 ft long with a wingspan of 6 ft (one side only). The upper stage alone was 24 ft long. The fuselage had a bullet-like shape (Sears–Haack body), but this was difficult to make out due to the presence of the four large delta wings running almost the entire length of the fuselage. Each wing ended with a control flap which was separated from the wing by a short distance, leaving a gap. The back of the controls were even with the extreme rear of the missile. Smaller deltas in front of the main wings, and blended into them, provided roll control with very small flaps mounted to pivot along a line roughly 45 degrees from the line of the fuselage. These smaller wings also housed the antennae of the transponder.

The booster was formed from four of the earlier Ajax M5E1 boosters held together in a frame. Each of these was a steel tube, and held together in this fashion they presented a considerable range safety issue when they fell back to the ground after launch. The boosters were equipped with four large swept-wing fins at the extreme rear, behind the rocket exhaust, using a diamond cross-section suitable for supersonic lift.

Hercules could carry either a nuclear warhead or a conventional high-explosive warhead (T-45 fragmentation type). Initially the nuclear-armed version carried the W-7 Mod 2E nuclear warhead, with yields of 2.5 or 28 kt. Beginning in FY 1961 the older warheads were replaced by W-31 Mod 0 warheads, with yields of 2 kt (Y1) or 30 kt (Y2). The last versions carried the W31 Mod 2 warhead, with yields of 2 or 20 kt.

Approximately 25,000 Nike Hercules were manufactured. Three versions were produced, MIM-14A, B and C. The differences between these versions are not known. There are slight differences in dimensions as reported in different sources, it is not known if this is due to different versions.

Detection and tracking
Interceptions with the Hercules system would typically start with targets being detected and identified on the HIPAR system, if this was in use. Otherwise the LOPAR was used. In order to simplify the upgrades at Ajax sites, HIPAR did not replace the earlier ACQ radar from Ajax, which was retained and now known as LOPAR. HIPAR used its own displays and operators, and forwarded targeting information to the LOPAR operators who would then pick up those same targets on their own display.

Once a target was found on the LOPAR, it could be identified with aid of an Identification friend or foe system. The LOPAR provided rough range, azimuth and limited altitude or elevation information to the operators of the Target Tracking Radar (TTR), who would manually slew the TTR onto the target. Once locked-on, tracking was automatic.

New to the Hercules system was the Target Ranging Radar, or TRR. It is relatively easy to jam range information on monopulse radars like the TTR by sending out false return signals. The radar can continue to locate the target in elevation or azimuth because all of the signals come from the same location, but the receiver cannot easily determine which pulse was sent by the radar and which was sent by the electronic countermeasures (ECM) on the target aircraft, which is needed to measure the time-of-flight. The TRR system combatted this by allowing switching between two very different set of frequencies. This signal would be very difficult to jam because the jammer would have to broadcast across a wide set of frequencies in order to ensure they were returning on the frequency the receiver had actually selected. Meanwhile, the TTR can continue offering location information, and in the case that is also jammed (difficult but possible), was upgraded to offer a home-on-jam mode that used the ECM system's own broadcasts as a location source. Skilled operators could also try to track the target in a manual tracking mode.

Guidance
As soon as the TTR was locked on to a target, an analog computer (later digital) continually computed a suitable intercept point in the sky and an expected 'time to fly' of the missile based on information from the TTR and basic performance information about the missile. This information was displayed on plotting boards.

Prior to launch, the Missile Tracking Radar (MTR) locked on to the transponder in the selected missile. Like the Ajax, the Hercules used a transponder in the missile. A short period after launch the actual location, i.e. azimuth, elevation and range of the missile were displayed on the plotting boards. The firing or launch command was given manually by the Battery Control Officer based on orders or Rules of Engagements. To ensure the MTR could see and track the missile during its initial rapid ascent as it launched, the IFC was normally located about 1 mile from the "Launching Area" (LA). In the case of Hercules, all of the radars were typically mounted on (concrete) elevated platforms to improve their line-of-sight.

Information from the MTR and TTR continued to be fed to the computer for updating the intercept point based on any actual changes in either the missile or the target location, speed or direction. The guidance commands were sent to the missile by modulating the MTR transmit signal. When the missile neared the intercept point a command signal was sent to the missile to explode.

Launch sequence
Hercules missiles were normally stored in a "safe" mode, using various keys and pull-to-arm pins. During an alert, the site would go on "blue alert", at which time the LA crew would arm and erect the missiles and then retreat to safety. As the missiles were brought to readiness, a light board in the LA control van lit up with a series of amber lights for each launcher area, and green lights for each missile. On the IFC the status of the selected missile was given.

When the battery was given orders to attack a target, the alert status lamp changed from blue to red. When the TTR and MTR radars were locked, the computer had a firing solution and the missile reported active, the LA lamp changed from amber to green, indicating the ability to fire. At this time the target information and the intercept point were displayed on the plotting boards and the BCO selected the right time to manually fire.

The entire sequence of events from decision to launch to actual launch normally took about 36 seconds. This included about 30 seconds to develop a track for a target; 4 seconds for computer to develop a firing solution, and 2 seconds between the initial fire order command and missile launch. There was a 5-second allowance for the missile to launch, if it failed to do so it was marked "rejected" and another missile selected. A new missile could be launched about 11 seconds after detonation or rejecting the previous missile. Based on the 'time to fly' of the missile this limited overall battery rates to about one launch every couple of minutes.

Surface-to-surface mode
Hercules also offered the ability to attack pre-located ground targets, after feeding in the coordinates in an operation that took about five minutes. For these missions the computer used the MTR to guide the missile to a point above the target, then commanded it to dive vertically while measuring any changes in trajectory as it fell. The missile would eventually pass out of line-of-sight with the MTR, so final arming information was provided during the dive, and the warhead was triggered by a barometric fuse.

Accidental launches

 * Naha AFB, Okinawa June or July 1959, an incident occurred concerning a Hercules anti-aircraft missile on Okinawa which according to some witnesses, was complete with a nuclear warhead, and was accidentally fired from the Nike site 8 battery at Naha Air Base. While the missile was undergoing continuity testing of the firing circuit, known as a squib test, stray voltage caused a short circuit in a faulty cable that was lying in a puddle and allowed the missile's booster to ignite with the launcher still in a horizontal position. The Nike missile left the launcher and smashed through a fence and down into a beach area skipping the warhead out across the water "like a stone." The exhaust blast killed two Army technicians and injured one.
 * Inchon, South Korea. Reported in The Washington Post of December 5, 1998, the missile inadvertently launched from a Nike missile site near the summit of Mount Bongnaesan where it exploded above some reclaimed land off Songdo (now Songdo International Business District), showering residential areas with debris, destroying parked cars and breaking windows.

Former operators

 * 🇮🇹 Italy
 * 🇪🇸 Spain
 * 🇹🇼 Taiwan
 * 🇮🇹 Italy
 * 🇪🇸 Spain
 * 🇹🇼 Taiwan
 * 🇪🇸 Spain
 * 🇹🇼 Taiwan
 * 🇪🇸 Spain
 * 🇹🇼 Taiwan
 * 🇹🇼 Taiwan

title: Nike Hercules


text:
Water gun

A water gun (or water pistol, water blaster, or squirt gun) is a type of toy gun designed to shoot jets of water. Similar to water balloons, the primary purpose of the toy is to soak another person in a recreational game such as water fight.

Historically, water guns were made of metal and used rubber squeeze bulbs to load and propel water through a nozzle like a Pasteur pipette. While the oldest surviving example of a squirt gun dates to J.W. Wolff's June 30, 1896 patent, the oldest known reference to a squirt gun is dated thirty-five years prior, with General William T. Sherman's 1861 quote regarding the effort to quell secession: "Why, you might as well attempt to put out the flames of a burning house with a squirt-gun."

For several years in the United States and Canada, import regulations and domestic laws have required squirt guns to be made of clear or tinted transparent plastic to make them harder to mistake for actual firearms.

Squeeze bulbs
Akin to water droppers, the oldest known manufactured water guns utilized a simple rubber squeeze bulb into which water could be drawn, then forcibly expelled out the nozzle by squeezing the bulb rapidly. This design has inherent limitations regarding the amount of pressure that one can achieve (fully dependent on the user's hand gripping strength) as well as the need to refill after each shot.

Piston/squirt gun
Many early small water guns used the same trigger based pumping mechanism used for spray bottles. In this type of device, the trigger actuates a positive displacement pump shaft. With the aid of two check valves, often using small ball bearings, fluid is drawn into the pump from a reservoir, then forced out the nozzle upon squeezing the trigger. The simplicity of the spraying mechanism allowed these toys to be manufactured cheaply, and allowed the majority of the body to be used as the reservoir. The primary limitation with this design is the volume of water that can be effectively moved per pump. Increasing pump volume would require more user effort to push the fluid out, making larger designs impractical. However, this technology remains widely used today both in spray bottles as well as small water guns that can be found in a wide variety of shapes and colors.

A piston pumper is another version of this system. They are generally bigger than squirt guns and spray bottles. Piston pumpers do not have triggers. Instead, they fire by moving the pump back and forth. Although the piston pumper has greater output than squirt guns, they tend to be less powerful than pressurized water guns.

Syringe/piston
Another simple method employed is a syringe or piston type. In essence, the water gun is made up primarily (sometimes exclusively) of the pumping mechanism that comprises an outer pump shaft with an inner pump-rod and water-tight seal. This allows water to be drawn into the pump as the pump is extended, then forcibly ejected out as the pump is compressed. Stream performance is dependent on the user's strength. Some models, like the Super Soaker Power Soaker Jr. and Stream Machines draw in and expel water from their nozzles. This design requires a bucket-type filling source. Other models, like the Super Soaker Power Soaker Mighty Cannon and Water Warriors Steady Stream, have check valves and a reservoir for portability.

Motorized small piston
During the 1980s, the motorized water gun was perhaps at its most prolific. Companies such as Entertech and Larami created water guns modeled after guns popularized in movies such as Rambo. At the heart of these devices was a small motor and crankshaft that converted a rotary motion into a forward-backward pumping motion to drive a small pump akin to those found in the small spray bottle-type squirt pistols. Stream performance was often not improved, but the motor removed the need to pump, which made the toys popular. The greatest fallbacks were that they wore out batteries quickly and that many trigger action blasters could outdo them, making motorized blasters the lowest class. However, their main strength—and consequent reason for dismissal—was their realistic styling. After some of these realistic-shaped water guns caused accidental shootings by police, stricter rules regarding shapes and coloring of water guns were drafted in the United States.

Air pressurized reservoir
This type was made famous by the Super Soaker brand of water guns, actually first employed by the Cosmic Liquidator. In this device, a pump is used to push air into a partially water-filled reservoir. The reservoir is otherwise air-tight, but it has one valve to let the incoming air in from the pump as well as a manually controlled valve operated by the user, commonly activated by pulling on a trigger. As more air is pumped in, the air in the reservoir is compressed, increasing in pressure; the water is under pressure by the now compressed air. Upon opening the nozzle valve, the water is pushed out through the nozzle as the pressurized air attempts to re-equilibrate with atmospheric pressure. This system allows pumping energy to be stored and used as needed. As well, unlike the methods noted above, this air pressure system allows production of a uniform, continuous stream of water.

The limitation of this design is the need for a large number of strokes to pressurize a larger reservoir. As well, poorly sealed reservoirs would render a water gun useless. Moreover, these water guns cannot be refilled unless emptied and depressurized. Opening a pressurized reservoir blaster while there is pressure remaining in the system can result in copious local water spray or even an unexpected launch of the water gun and/or reservoir out of one's hands.

Air separate pressure/firing chamber
The air-based separate pressure chamber or firing chamber system works on the same physical principle as the pressurized reservoir system, but instead of pressurizing the reservoir, a separate, fixed volume chamber is included on the water gun into which water is pumped, compressing the air inside. This technology was first used on the Super Soaker SS 100. This allows the reservoir to be removed/opened at any time for refilling since the reservoir is not pressurized. As well, the typically smaller size of the pressure chamber and the fact that water is typically pumped, as opposed to air, reduces the average number of pumps needed to achieve functional pressure. For improved performance, some users opt to pre-pressurize the firing chamber by pumping in some air first. This increases the starting pressure within the chamber, thus increasing the overall average pressure experienced by the water when it is pumped into the pressure chamber.

Split air vs water pressure chamber
While air based, the split air vs water pressure chamber has a sliding plunger that separates the compressed air from the water. This technology has so far only been seen on the Water Warriors Aqua Master PreCharger Series. A button or lever is used to toggle whether the pump is priming/pre-pressurizing the pressure chamber with air or whether the pump is moving water into the pressure chamber. Akin to pre-pressurizing the Separate Pressure Chamber water guns, the split air/water pressure chamber takes this one step further by preventing the accidental, undesired release of the pre-pressurized air by keeping it separated from the water by a sliding piston divider. After all the water is expelled from the pressure chamber, the sliding piston prevents loss of the pressurized air, thus reducing the number of times the water gun must be pumped in order to achieve optimal firing pressure.

Rubber diaphragm/hydro power
"Hydro Power" is a term coined by Buzz Bee Toys, referring initially to their series of water guns that employed an elastic rubber bladder to pressurize water. Similar to the Larami Constant Pressure System (CPS), the rubber diaphragm system can be considered basically half of a CPS-pressure chamber. A sheet of elastic material (typically rubber) is clamped against a housing unit. Water is pumped into the chamber, expanding the bladder that pressurizes the water within. However, due to the shape of the bladder, its expansion is not as uniform as in the CPS system, thus it experiences more significant pressure dropoff as the pressure chamber empties. Spyra GmbH uses an elongated bladder in its water blasters which, in combination with a special valve, enables shooting short bursts of water providing the impression of water bullets. The cylindrical bladder shape allows the pressure to be kept constant.

Springs
Another means of pressurizing or propelling water used in some water guns is the use of metal springs. Though uncommon, there are blasters that utilize this technique. The Waterball series has a spring-based catapult mechanisms for launching balls of water out of its nozzle. The Water Warriors Steady Stream uses a spring-based mechanisms as a sort of water capacitor to allow this otherwise piston-based water gun to produce a constant stream of water so long as the user pumps quickly enough. Additionally, the Super Soaker Quick Blast employs a spring-based firing chamber to propel its stream forward.

Peristaltic pumps
Peristaltic pump systems have also been used in some water guns models, most notably the original Shield Blaster water guns by Mattel In this system, a rotary pump is used to move rollers along a compressible piece of tubing. As the rollers move, they push water along the tubing. The force exerted by the pump is dependent both on the speed of rotation as well as the thickness of tubing used. True continuous streams cannot be produced since the physical presence of the rollers means there will be partial gaps in the flow. However, if pumping is done quickly enough, the end result is a virtually smooth stream.

Hybrid systems
There are also a number of water guns that employ a variety of pressurization systems to propel water.

title: Water gun


text:
Talk:Elliot Lake

References in popular culture
The song "Muckin' Slushers" by Stompin' Tom Connors is directly about the mines, miners and town of Elliot Lake.

The population is a typo should be 11,549 rather than 15,549 per Stats Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.243.125.61 (talk) 19:47, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Rename page
move. Rename: Elliot Lake, Ontario → Elliot Lake

Per WP:CANSTYLE, the article about the city should be at the undisambiguated name. All online references using this term refer to, or are related to, the city. The undisambiguated title currently redirects to the city. There is also an Elliot Lake Airport in BC, but it's existence shouldn't prevent this page move. Mind matrix  19:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Support as nominator. Mind  matrix  19:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per CANSTYLE, cities take precedence over airports. -Royalguard11 (T·R!) 21:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per CANSTYLE DigitalC (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC).
 * Support as per the naming convention. Since the airport, were it ever to become subject of its own article, is not a candidate to ever to be moved to the plain Elliot Lake title, it does not give rise to a need for disambiguation.  A hatnote would suffice. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Algo Centre Mall Disaster
I've added a current event tag to the top of the article. Remember to link to sources and not use wikipedia as a source of official information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kzgagne (talk • contribs) 14:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's got its own page now: Algo Centre Mall. --  Zanimum (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elliot Lake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709012735/http://www.denisonenvironmental.com/en/rehab/Content/PDF%20Folder/Elliot%20Lake%20Info%20Package.pdf to http://www.denisonenvironmental.com/en/rehab/Content/PDF%20Folder/Elliot%20Lake%20Info%20Package.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Elliot Lake