text:
Wikipedia talk:In the news

Currently 2 options: RD or RD/blurb. How about a 3rd option: RD/photo but no blurb?

 * The recent RD posting for William Anders, who took the Earthrise photograph is a good example of option 3 as a good compromise. Why? The photograph (Earthrise) is more famous than the photographer. And because no consensus was reached to blurb the RD for Anders then the photograph of Earthrise could’ve been posted under ITN. Then for the RD posting : William Anders (Earthrise photographer). This is not a blurb. It’s a compromise: halfway between an RD and a RD/blurb. Another example of this 3rd option when opinion is evenly split: post the RD photo at the top of the ITN section, but no blurb. This is already done on the German and French Wikipedia sites. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning oppose because it would be counterintuitive to direct the viewer's attention from a prominent photo in the top left to a far less prominent name slot in the lines below. If someone is important enough for an image associated with them to appear in ITN, they should get a blurb. Otherwise, RD.  Bremps  ...  18:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, the first one could be Donald Sutherland. BilboBeggins (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If he wasn't rolling off this Carousel of Souls in a few hours, yeah, in theory. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Superb InedibleHulk (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is actually a good proposal. I remember proposing it a few years ago. Unfortunately, it did not find too many takers. Ideally I would want to see the admins having a liberty to pick and choose images from blurb articles (which they already do) and the RD carousel. Ktin (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all the previous times it has been rejected. The photo illustrates the most recent blurb that we can illustrate, directing attention to it - RD is a supplement that is less important than a blurb (by definition and design), also RD vs blurb is contentious enough as it is without adding a third option to argue over. Finally, if photos of anything other than the deceased person were permitted, this would make visual artists a super-class of people who are more notable than others contrary to NPOV. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, though it didn't go well when I actually tried to do it once (the overwrought reaction near the bottom was splendid, you'd think I'd replaced the Main Page with porn images). Here is what happened at ERRORS, and here is the discussion at this venue, which ended up around 50% Support/Oppose. Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you read the reaction from readers at errors you will note widespread confusion and objection. Saying that someone whose isn't important enough to blurb is more important than any of the news stories that did get a blurb just doesn't make sense. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I read the link Black Kite provides to the error page. These issues will not be resolved. The problem is that Recent Deaths falls under the In The News section. So usually consensus will not be reached on RD/blurb or RD/photo without creating a logjam. The only way to avoid this logjam is that Recent Deaths should have its own section on the Main Page separate from the In The News section. Just like the German Wikipedia does on their main page (eg. Kürzlich Verstorbene). - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The photo slot is for actual in the news items, not old people who've sadly died. If there were a proposal to start having "sticky" RDs that stay for longer than the usual time slot, and/or. "necrology" section with an optional photo that's separate from the main ITN photo, as fr-wiki has, then I might be on board. But photo RDs in the current setup are a nonstarter. — Amakuru (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * IAR I see no harm in having a photo of an RD whom is reasonably significant (not blurb-level but still more than most run-of-the-mill BLPs featured), but only if the main photo hasn't been rotated in a while (like, 48 hrs) and there's no good photo for the other blurbs that are present or haven't already had a photo. but this is with the expectation that this type of photo would be changed out in a short period of time (24 hr) by other possible photos. --M asem (t) 18:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support An excellent idea. Note that in addition to Black Kite's precedent mentioned above, this also occurred in February 2020. Davey2116 (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Aha! Thank you for that. I didn’t know about the Kirk Douglas photo on ITN. Setting precedent again. I think if we had the option RD/photo, this maybe would quell the excessive rancor amongst us ITN editors/voters. And find a better solution to this process. -Trauma Novitiate (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support because why not try it out. Levivich (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with others above that this is a good idea and so we should try it more often. Shelley Duvall seems a good example – a reasonably famous movie star like Kirk Douglas, with a distinctive face.  I couldn't place the name so easily as I confuse it with other Shelleys like Shelley Winters and Shelley Long.  And a picture is worth a thousand words. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose largely per Thryduulf, though I would not be opposed to a somewhat stricter version of Masem's proposal, namely that in the somewhat rare case that none of the blurbs have an appropriate free image, than an RD photo would be appropriate if there is consensus to do so. Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Criteria for death blurbs?
For context, a death blurb is a blurb in ITN which reports that a notable individual has died. For a recent example: "American baseball player Willie Mays dies at the age of 93.". Because of the existence of the Recent Deaths (RD) section, a death blurb is often paired with an RD entry. Currently, death blurbs are a contentious topic among the editors of ITN. Some editors have expressed full opposition to death blurbs, saying that if there is an RD section then the death blurb is redundant. Another argument against death blurbs is that in Wikipedia's current state, death blurbs form an arbitrary two-tiered system for reporting deaths. However, there are some editors in favour of posting death blurbs, especially for highly notable deaths, such as Henry Kissinger. I suggest that if we are going to publish death blurbs, we should establish a clear set of criteria for when a death blurb should be published. As a starting point, I suggest the following example criteria:

 * If a death meets any of the following criteria, it is sufficiently notable to post a death blurb:
 * The death is of a head of state, head of government, or other notable government official in a position of power, such as Ebrahim Raisi's death by helicopter crash.
 * The death is unusual or notable in itself, such as Aaron Bushnell's death by self-immolation.

--MtPenguinMonster (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. is already the case.
 * We have a "transformative" criterion, which no one knows what it means. BilboBeggins (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The "transformative" criterion has been removed for a while. It is "major figure" which is still subjective, but less so, in that it should be readily apparent from sources used within the content of the article that themselves explain why the person is a great figure within their field. — M asem (t) 14:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I missed the removal, as far as I remember it was always transformative. Was it removed as the result of the discussion we started last year? BilboBeggins (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well before then. I also had thought it had been there (as it definitely was in our guidelines at one point) but was removed at least 2 or more years ago. M asem (t) 17:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it was still used last year in discussion as an argument. BilboBeggins (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Lots of arguments are used, even if they are not mentioned at WP:ITNCRIT or WP:ITNRDBLURB. Its absence means an admin should not apply any extra weight to the argument —Bagumba (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We've been blurbing upper-tier deaths since 2016, there's no time to start now. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am strongly against the proposed criteria in particular, and against narrowly-specified criteria in this area more generally, as a form of instruction creep. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I simply can't see this working. Are we not going to blurb Messi or Ronaldo when they pass? Besides, it would result in a lot of non blurb worthy deaths being posted. We don't need every repetition of the Enumclaw horse sex case to be posted.  Bremps  ...  18:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Change to ITNELECTIONS
WP:ITNELECTIONS currently reads: "Changes in the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government.. Back in March, there was clear consensus to change this so it wasn't only restricted to changes in the holder of office, though no amendment seems to have been implemented. I suggest changing it to "Changes in or reappointments of the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government...", which seems to have had the most support in the previous discussion. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per my earlier suggestion, though probably a better wording would be "changes in, reelections or reappointments..., as reappointment may exclude reelection, usually being non-elective. Brandmeistertalk  08:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This does eliminate some ambiguity over what "reappointments" mean, though I think it would be ideal to try to find some catch-all phrase for ways in which someone could come to gain executive power, something like: "Decisions on who holds the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government..." though this still seems somewhat ambiguous to me. Gödel2200 (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Really we should just bump the old section back out of the archive and continue said discussion. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the entire discussion (with all three proposed amendments) or just the first section of it? Gödel2200 (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well you're saying there was consensus but no closure. Honestly, looking back there seemed to be consensus AGAINST said amendments, but I'm obviously not going to stop you if you believe discussion should continue. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There was consensus for some amendment to not restrict ITNR to only changes in the holder of the executive, but there wasn't an agreed upon solution, while the other two proposals didn't have consensus. Gödel2200 (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Seems reasonable. Even authoritarian extensions of rule are notable.  Bremps  ...  19:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Old man dies?
Common refrain whenever a person of disputed importance kicks the bucket at a ripe old age, sometimes well past their peaks. We would unambiguously benefit from a WP:OLDMANDIES, since the argument is repeatedly deployed, but I want all of your thoughts on whether the policy states that this is a valid or invalid argument. I'm leaning towards the latter.  Bremps  ...  02:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Pinging @User:GenevieveDEon and @User:InedibleHulk as the two editors whose dispute inspired me to propose this.  Bremps  ...  03:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We need a way of preventing the inevitable pile-on of American editors (our largest cohort) telling us how wonderful a person every dead basketballer, bseballer and American footballer was. Give Ron Barassi a chance. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As I've suggested before, there is a mostly objective start to evaluating the "great figure" blurbs, that being the article has clear, in-depth coverage of the person's importance, legacy, and/or impact, sourced to good quality RSes, and clear to a reader outside the field in place within the article, and that doesn't mean just simply being famous or a household name, nor simply having a lot of awards, nor simply having impressive stats from their sport. That should eliminate the bulk of the vague handwaving that many attempted blurbs noms get. It is not fully objective as there could be such content but considered thin, or the content doesn't exist but editors are working to expand it with long-form obits, etc. I will note the last several blurbs over the last month have had this type of feature, so it seems to be on the right track. M asem (t) 04:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Notable non-American Ismail Kadare is what got us here. Maybe lose the blinders. Jessintime (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Or that sports person last week who no-one had heard of? Secretlondon (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've said it for dozens of people, some American, some wonderful, some neither. For me, at least, none of that matters. What matters is whether the proposed blurb goes Nationality-Job-Name dies at Age. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your repeated assertion that no-one had heard of Willie Mays, in the teeth of the evidence, is not helping your position. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Valid That's exactly what happens, most of the time. Sometimes it's a woman and sometimes we know a place and/or cause of death, but it's never much more than Old Someone Dies. I don't think I'm the sort of old man who needs some Mandy-lookin' guideline to tell me he has a point, though, so Oppose Codification Error. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:OMD is the quicker, less shouty and less likely to be misread as dirty laundry option, if something must sprout from this at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good call.  Bremps  ...  06:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's always room for more 80s synthpop. Black Kite (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Or just redirect to WP:HUMOR. —Bagumba (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's (usually) nothing newsworthy or funny about an old person dying. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've always AGFed that it was an attempt at humor. Otherwise it seems just plain insensitive. —Bagumba (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That really is the other issue - the more we see blurb shouts for RDs, the more insensitive comments we see while trying to argue the importance of a life/death, and in the immediate aftermath. Perhaps for that reason, having OMD link to a reasoned explanation would be valuable. Kingsif (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, either there is an "Old Man Dies" policy, and we all agree not to post the likes of Queen Elizabeth II dying, or there is no such policy, and we have to go through the grind of finding consensus via the ITN process - as for any other nomination to ITN. Option 3 would be to create a separate RD section, as several other Wikipedias have done, which would delegate the whole issue to those editors really caring about obituaries - but sadly this option has so far failed to gain traction. Khuft (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've definitely shifted to "only blurb if the death is the story", so I'd say OMD is a valid argument summary. Every concept has exceptions, so I don't think Khuft's all or nothing is a concern for when actual legends do pass. Kingsif (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: I've just wracked my brain to come up with a currently-living legend who I think should incontrovertibly be posted just for dying, and the only one I could think of is Dolly Parton. So make of that what you will. Kingsif (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Paul McCartney? HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Mick Jagger. Or Patrick Stewart. Actually, probably William Shatner, too. BD2412  T 00:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * David Attenborough? Jimmy Carter? Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For a real surprise, Keith Richards. HiLo48 (talk)
 * He, Hulk Hogan and anyone else dubbed "The Immortal" have some potential shock value. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Professional wrestling is a bit, erm, fake though. Secretlondon (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not an endorsement, but so is acting. —Bagumba (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * thatsbait.gif Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So the issue with all of these is that they 1) would need better arguments for opposing than merely "old man dies." We know it's normal for old men to die, but so are lots of things. But 2) do we really want to have a discussion on each of these, just after they died, just how significant their work/role was? I don't think a WP:OMD page could really help all that much, as it doesn't solve this second issue at all. At least when people currently post "oppose-old man dies," we can just ignore them and read the messages with meat to them instead. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree with Maplestrip that the underlying issues are the need for better arguments, and the difficulty of having a well-sourced and concise discussion of someone's significance in the immediate aftermath of their death. Stylistically, I dislike the use of 'Old Man Dies' in place of a !vote in particular. It harms the readability of the discussion - broadly speaking, we expect editors' initial submissions in this discussion to start with 'Oppose', 'Neutral', 'Support', or similar. Starting it with a terse and slightly flippant summary of the story is less helpful. "'Old Man Dies' is a routine story and doesn't need to be given a blurb" is fine as an argument, and I sometimes agree with it, but it would be conducive to good, readable debate if we all acted like sensible editors rather than daytime talk show guests trying to pull out 'zingers'. Related to this is the problem that conducting our debates in clichés is a process with diminishing returns. I've argued against references to the journalistic 'bus plunge' concept in the past for the same reason - we should be treating stories on their merits, not on how they relate to canned concepts which encode a lot of cultural bias. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment The old-man-dies argument is equivalent to opposing an item relating to a single country, which is listed on WP:ITNCDONT. Perhaps we can consider adding this as well in order to easily dismiss such unproductive votes in the future.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're similar, much less equivalent. OMD isn't in the Oppose family. It means someone wants an RD nom posted as a regular RD, if at all. Something like EXAMPLIANSGOHOME is nowhere near as Neutral, largely because there's no other place for uninational news. I think it's possible you might just want these sorts of votes more easily dismissed in the future because they've been producing results you don't like (not that there's anything wrong with that). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Why not just follow the aforementioned WP:MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY precedent where we have two opposing essays? I'd be willing to help draft NOTOLDMANDIES, and even OLDMANDIES though I don't agree with it.. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You mention WP:MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY; but putting those in the same paragraph as the proposed WP:NOTOLDMANDIES and WP:OLDMANDIES draws my attention to the problem we get when words are converted to all-capitals run together without spaces, in that where do we imagine the missing spaces should be? Consider WP:OLDMANDIES - this might be construed as "Old Mandies", referring to several people named Mandy who are now drawing their pensions. Or perhaps Gary Oldman is no longer with us. You get the same thing with web domains except that it's all lowercase. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think InedibleHulk brought that point up above, referring to the proposal as some Mandy-lookin' guideline. Either way, this is why Template:About exists and WP:OMD would circumvent this issue, while also sounding more respectful. Sincerely, Dilettante 23:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to think that having a page titled WP:OMD is not actually a bad idea. All it has to say is "this is not a fully-formed argument." That's pretty much the full text we should put on this page. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Oppose OMD is a thought-terminating cliché and so encourages the opposing camps to chant such slogans at each other rather than presenting evidence and intelligently analysing it. It also seems deliberately rude and unpleasant, contrary to the ancient precept, de mortuis nil nisi bonum. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I mightn't change how it seems to you or anyone else, but I can promise you all I've never deliberately used it dickishly. When presented with evidence of news that a man or woman has died at the age of 70-120 and nothing else, it's just beyond my poor brain to summarize any plainer.
 * It is intended to terminate any immediate thought of posting everyday news of some old people dying and nothing else while using RD for other old people who too simply die. It has never stopped the next voter from weighing in with either reasonable counterargument or a contrary cliché ("global icon", "living legend", "one of the best") and sometimes leads to longer talks in less constrictive venues like this.
 * All that aside, it's not clear (to me) whether you're supporting or opposing the creation of an OMD guideline. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ... but I can promise you all I've never deliberately used it dickishly: As I said earlier, I had always AGfed on this.  Now that there's been discussion on OMD, individiuals can decide if WP:RESPONSIBLE applies or not. —Bagumba (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You said you AGFed it as an attempt at humour, not dickishness. I tried to clarify then, as I'm about to try now, it's not funny. If you're the sort of person who tends to view plain insensitivity as dickishness rather than distant objectivity, yes, I can see how this makes me look like the sort of person who'd do (what I consider) truly dickish things in an RD nom, like bring up the subject's moral, legal or artistic failings from years ago or oppose for all of their moral, legal or artistic ventures having been (arguable) failures. Sorry for that. From here on, rather than risk offensively amusing, bemusing or demusing anyone, I'll cast such votes as "OMD" alone, then follow up with anything else (if applicable). My Covered By Ongoings will also now appear CBO. If someone asks, another regular can explain how it's short for something. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The relevant bullet point at WP:ITNRDBLURB is "Major figure", so "not a major enough figure" (it's unfortunate the community doesn't have more objective criteria) could be a counter. —Bagumba (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but it's just not for me. I think a major figure (as I understand that crew) can die just as plain and simple a death as anyone. It's that I "go not gently" against, never the "hills and valleys" of life itself (as "a major dick" might). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If I am understanding what "Old man dies" here means correctly, it is just a shorthand way of saying: "While this persons life may have been very notable, their death in and of itself was not, and I think that means this should not be blurbed." According to WP:ITNRDBLURB: "The death of major figures may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis through a discussion at WP:ITNC that determines there is consensus that the death merits a blurb." This in no way invalidates the argument "The death was not notable in and of itself" as a reason to oppose (as some editors claim). All this says is that blurbs will be decided when "there is consensus" to post. Essentially, this allows two opposed viewpoints to have equal validity, which I think is a sub-optimal situation. Ideally, I think it would be best to hold a discussion on whether this status-quo should change. In the meantime, I don't have much of a stance one way or another on the use of "Old man dies", but it certainly could be misinterpreted, so I personally would refrain from using it. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The death was not notable in and of itself: Is this referring to the cause of death, or the overall reaction after the death? —Bagumba (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Basically the cause of death or whatever effects the death may have, but some editors would also use the argument regardless of the reaction after the death. Gödel2200 (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think people who argue that the major figure criteria was met accept that the cause of death was not notable. Perhaps you are arguing that their obituaries and coverage of their death is not prominent, and conclude that they must not be a major figure? —Bagumba (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the people who support RD blurbs usually accept that the cause of death was not notable. But other people can use this exact point, that the cause of death was not notable, as a reason to oppose, and both viewpoints are perfectly valid. What I am saying is that it is not ideal to let both opposed viewpoints have equal validity. Gödel2200 (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But other people can use this exact point, that the cause of death was not notable, as a reason to oppose, and both viewpoints are perfectly valid.: I don't believe they are both valid. As written, WP:ITNRDBLURB allows blurbs for "Death as the main story" or "Major figures"; it does not require that both are necessarily met. Thus, "non-notable cause of death" arguments should be discounted, as it's not the only path to blurbing a death. (This is somewhat similar to how "not WP:ITNR" is not an accepted reason to oppose blurbing a recurring event".) —Bagumba (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNRDBLURB of course allows for the deaths of major figures to be posted, but it does not require that discussion focus on whether the person has a large enough legacy to be posted. All it says is that the deaths of major figures "may" merit a blurb, and says that they are usually posted if "there is consensus that the death merits a blurb." This "consensus" certainly could include arguments in opposition due to something similar to "the death was not notable in and of itself"; there is nothing explicitly disallowing this. Gödel2200 (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Whi h is essential why there is this huge issue, because we make no attempt (inadvently I believe) to define how to treat a BLP as a major figure. We're it to me, my metric starts with the existence of a substantial, well sourced Legacy or Impact section, as to make it clear to the reader coming from the main page if why this person was listed as a blurb. But in plenty of ITNC nominations for urbs, some think that just bring famous or well known is sufficient, which I think has major bias problems and is far from objective. We likely should should try to put some reasonable expectations of what a great figure should demonstrate rather that leaving that nebulous term out there. M asem (t) 20:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ...we make no attempt (inadvently I believe) to define how to treat a BLP as a major figure: There have been plenty of attempts—its a perrenial topic. They just haven't led to a consensus more objective than the "sui generis basis" status quo.—Bagumba (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's be honest - the REAL issue here is we have more or less no criteria at all for who qualifies as worthy of a blurb when it isn't a "death as the main story" situation. I will say, again, for the umpteenth time, the best solution is to just allow such blurbs for when death is the main story. We have RD, we can list most deaths there. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if there is no scope for multiple paragraphs of sourced prose (excluding quotes) about the person's death then that's a good sign that the death shouldn't be blurbed. Thryduulf (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless the death is the main story (like an assassination), there's no requirement to have multiple paragraphs about the deaths for a blurb. There should be multiple paragraphs to justify the "great figure" reasoning for a blurb posting (which likely will include reactions from others in that field on news of the death to justify why the person was a great figure), and there of course should be an update to source the death, but many great figures die absent a prolonged battle with health or the like, giving no reason to have a huge block of text about the death specifically. M asem (t) 12:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And if it were a requirement, some would try to game the system with an WP:EXAMPLEFARM of thoughts and prayers from social media posts. —Bagumba (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the major figures criteria of WP:ITNRDBLURB says that it is determined on a sui generis basis. —Bagumba (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And this then means that it becomes a vote by the handful of editors that post their opinions at ITN. with the admins getting a supervote.
 * The clear fix for this is to give all such deaths a short description, as other languages do. The blurb/no blurb issue then largely disappears.  Without any description, RD entries such as Ismail Kadare are useless because they are just a name that most of us don't recognise.  His short description is just two words: "Albanian writer".  How hard is that? Andrew🐉(talk) 19:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good idea to me. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Aye. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly surprised we don't do that.  Bremps  ...  05:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for an article quality test for ITN
If an article about an event can't account for who, what, where, when, why and how, then it cannot be posted. Exceptions would include where a) one factor is inherently unknowable quickly and has been described by WP:RS as such, and b) WP:IAR. This would be a purely exclusionary test, passing it would just be one hurdle (along with notability). Call it WP:5W1H. Any thoughts?  Bremps  ...  03:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are RDs (the usual kind) exempt? Because I have no idea where, how or why Sika died, and I'm the guy who knows Sika stuff. This newfangled hurdle would surely be too much for a great many others. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was more thinking of fires and tornadoes and insurgencies. Yes, usually a family would want to keep some privacy so RD should be exempt.  Bremps  ...  05:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Insurgents will tend to want keep certain things quiet, too, I suspect (as will counterinsurgents). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, the cat's out of the bag after the attack. I don't think ITN has the capability to unearth something still being planned.  Bremps  ...  06:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The Whatcat's out after the what-have-you, but the question of whodunnit often remains indefinitely, even if sources generally link them to a named group. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And while ITN certainly can't unearth a plot (WP:NOR), it can certainly relay it, as it did with the 2022 German coup d'état plot. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In terms of Bremps point, there is a far larger problem beyond ITN with excessively detailed treating of news with editors creating articles on any random news event that fails NOTNEWS and NEVENT, which in turn creates all this ITNCs about disasters (natural and man-made). Such articles are usually hastily made and lack context and impact. It goes back to the fact we're supposed to be summarizing for the long-term, not trying to capture everything in the short-term. That's what Wikinews is for. — M asem (t) 12:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 * De facto I think this already exists. Stubs and articles lacking basic details are almost never posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We should apply the principle to such proposals and !votes. If people don't present evidence and examples to back up their ideas and opinions then they should be discounted.  See evidence-based practice and an essential guide for further information. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. I’m with you here. We need to do it that way. Especially if RD’s aren’t given their own section separate from ITN. Meanwhile, Ismail Kadare was not posted as a blurb even though there was consensus to do so from the very beginning. From day one. Instead the RD/Blurb proposal was closed down because it was stale. Without making an unfounded accusation, I have to seriously wonder if that’s because no administrator was going to put their neck on the line without indisputable consensus. The blowback would’ve been huge. Man this is silly. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That Kadare wasn't posted because of, in reviewing, a few editors basically using "old man dies" and not acknowledging that we have the "great figures" allowance, thus throwing doubt into support for posting, is a major major problem. Those !votes should have been outright ignored. One could talk to that they didn't feel Kadare was a great figure which is a reasonable opinion to express in a !vote, but the opposition here was limited to nonworkable arguments, and this is where we need posting admins to be far more aggressive in ignoring unworkable !votes. M asem (t) 12:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "unworkable" or "nonworkable" means to you, but we all seem to agree that OMD worked as intended in this case and the major/great/whatever figure votes did not. In other cases, vice versa. That suggests both angles still have the potential to win some and lose some, as they have in the past, and neither should be disqualified now or give up in the long run. There are hundreds of notable people most of us might outlive, each with their own intricate life story and circumstances of death. Case-by-case, coworkers. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's also entirely possible too many Problurbers admitted never reading nor even hearing of the guy during his lifetime, rather admitting to only reading what Wikipedia had to say about him, then mulling it over for minutes or (maybe) hours. A bit counterproductive to convincing anyone else unfamiliar of someone's lasting impact. In an edit summary last week, I'd asked you all to ask yourselves in a month if anyone's read a Kadare book yet, given what y'all "know" now, and I'll ask the same again. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't matter if !voters have heard or haven't heard of a person to recognize if the article supports the information for posting a blurb. Otherwise, if we expect !voters to only support blurbs for people that they recognize, that further feeds into systematic bias, given that the bulk of the editor population on WP are English and from Western countries. It is great if people can see a suggested blurb and the article in great shape and with a significant amount of coverage why either death blurb criteria apply, instead of seeing only famous or well-known persons get those !votes. M asem (t) 00:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We can (and probably will) argue till the cows come home on what should matter. But when a broad group of English voters are trying to convince a narrower group of available English administrators that a piece of English writing on any recently dead celebrity is worthy of promotion to the Main Page on "Majorly Great Significance" (or whatever) alone, then yeah, not breaking the suspension of disbelief does matter. Maybe not to this stage of you, maybe not even to Old Masem, but to people in general once they've let themselves almost "buy into" a good promotional story (GPS). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is why we should be asking for evidence-based demonstration (eg: sourced material that discusses this within the bio article) of when someone is being blurbed for being a "great figure" and not handwaving this and providing no evidence, nor dismissing the claim without considering what evidence has been given. Going by whom people have or haven't heard of as a !vote is a terrible process. M asem (t) 12:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's reasonable that a few people won't have heard of any given celebrity (even Michael Jordan), but when the majority of voters declare they had no idea someone existed, that's the prevailing consensus. There might also be a concurrent nominal agreement to blurb in the bold text, but the plain text evidence negates that, since the idea of a major figure whose life was even noticed by about 5% of respondents is fundamentally preposterous. A sourced article describing facts and opinions is great for learning after the fact, but does nothing to change the Generally Obscure Figure status a person demonstrably had at the time of nomination. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The "great figure" criteria is applied to the specific field, not to the area of global knowledge. We don't pander to the lowest common denominator of popular culture. Any ITN blurb nomination that is rejected due to the weight of not voters says they have no idea who the person is, and who have made no effort to read the article to understabd who that person was and what their significance to their field was, is a huge problem, just as the pileons we get for "famous" people with little contributions towards their field. This is why any argument strictly based on presence or lack of fame, alone, should be immediately discarded. If you see a blurb nomination of a name you don't recognize, the minimum expected before you should comment is to read the article and then access if the person does or doesn't rise to the level of being a great figure on their field, and eliminate any personal bias or knowledge from the equation. M asem (t) 21:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no "great figure" criterion. You referring to it fifteen times on this page won't change that. There's a "major figure" criterion and none of us know how it's applied or to whom. I don't think the author wanted us to know, rather argue forever in vain.
 * Anyway, I was talking about the weight of voters who did make an effort to read the article. They learned something, they said, but their general admission of not having recognized the name before the unremarkable one-sentence death told the truth about how little an Albanian novelist's life did impact their worlds.
 * You may consider the people, places and things our regular group of English-language volunteers know the lowest common denominators of popular culture, but to us, they're just regular common denominators. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * that is a very elitist sentiment, and should not be at all accepted. We are a global work and not limited to what editors know well. In the same vein, those editors read the article, learned something, and most agreed that the "major figure" criterion was met with it. That's how evidence based demonstration should be done, not this IDONTLIKEITBECAUSEINEVERHEARDOFIT nonsense. M asem (t) 22:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a populist sentiment. You're the one who seems to think he's "above it all" and keeps telling people who regularly decide things he deems problems how they should have done instead. You try to sell it as what the non-English world wants, as if to "take the wheel" of a righteous globalist agenda, but I don't buy it. I've seen your edit history. You prefer American video games too much to convincingly pull it off. I don't say this to be unkind and have no reason to dislike the unknown after getting to know it, mind you; a major figure can just never be a widely and previously unknown figure (in my books), nor can any single person represent an entire unrepresented people. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said in my reply in the preceeding discussion, there is nothing that disallows the OMD argument in WP:ITNRDBLURB, so it is not "unworkable". Unless WP:ITNRDBLURB is changed, little is specified about what the consensus for posting the blurb needs to contain. OMD could be a part of it, as could many other different viewpoints. Gödel2200 (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * OMD right now is unworkable because until we explicitly define what that !vote means, it could be taken as "I don't think this person qualifies for death-as-the-story or great figure", or "I don't think we should post any blurbs", or a range of other options. It is equivalent to the support !votes that go "Very famous person". It's not explicitly addressing either of the two reasons we allow for blurbs even if the intent is towards that direction (and if one don't want blurbs, that's where an RFC on this talk page should be placed). Meanwhile, most of the support !votes for Kadare explained their rational why they believed the person merited the great figure rationale for a blurb, so those oppose !votes with zero rationale should have been discounted and the blurb posted in time. M asem (t) 00:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It means: ''', InedibleHulk (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's what it might mean to you, but in context there's no way to tell what other possible meanings it could be to others. What you state it means is a valid !vote to oppose a blurb, but the shorthand "Old man dies" doesn't necessarily imply that. That's why its always better to have some guideline-based reason with any !vote for any ITNC (including RD blurbs) to support or oppose, so that the admin closure can better judge the consensus. M asem (t) 12:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You've all cast OMD at different noms in recent months; does it mean something else where you're from? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To me, it's this person's death as an event is not notable. E.g. when Pinera died in a helicopter crash, the helicopter crash is itself an uncommon event. I don't think "great figure" should qualify for a deathblurb. E.g. with any sports person dying, whatever importance they had to sports, the event of the death is "old man dies", unless they like, die during a game. Basically this means that only serving heads of state/government meet the threshold, short of an unusal manner of death like assassination. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Which, to that argument, is like trying to complain about a topic being listed at ITNR while commenting on an ITNC. If one does not like the "great figure" criteria, the right place to argue that is on this talk page to change consensus for its conclusion, not to disrupt an ITNC about it. M asem (t) 22:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are currently no rules about who qualifies for a death blurb. It would be good for us to establish some This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not a "great figure" criterion, but a "great figure" allowance. As Orbitalbuzzsaw said, WP:ITNRDBLURB does not specify any rules for a death blurb, which includes not saying: "One can't oppose solely because they think "great figures" on their own should not qualify for a death blurb." The crucial line is that death blurbs for major figures are decided "through a discussion at WP:ITNC that determines there is consensus that the death merits a blurb." The position that the event of the death needs to be notable for the death to merit a blurb absolutely could be a part of that consensus. Gödel2200 (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

 * This is a fine article quality check, but I don't think it's necessary. A speedy close of an unfinished article could be unhelpful, and arguments about whether an article meets the requirements even moreso. If we assume that all good-faith !voters actually check the quality of the article before !voting, there shouldn't be a need for specific rules like these. As a sidenote, I am not worried about what kind of text "counts" for this; I think zero available information on why a terrorist attack happened would be sufficient for "why," for example. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

ITN archives are ready
Hello. ITN archives are now fully ready at In the news/Posted/Archives. But the older archives look a little different because of the style/method/MOS of those days. If you guys want to make some changes to that, let me know, if possible I will do it with AWB or create some new program. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Thank you very much!! M asem (t) 15:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Thank you very much for your work. A follow-up question: do we really need all updates of the posted blurbs?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that was an acceptable false positive to make the algorithm easy to capture all major changes to the template. M asem (t) 13:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Crisis of Confidence
There is a general crisis of Confidence in Wikipedia. "In the News" embodies this. People are coming to doubt the legitimacy and independence of wikipedia, and are coming to believe that editors are "activist" editors who have agendas to pursue. Wikipedia should take steps to move in a different direction.

I respectfully submit this for your consideration. I thank you for reading and welcome your open comments. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In exactly what way? Examples are necessary because this claim is not obvious. — M asem (t) 19:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is generally well know. If you go on social media platforms you will see it. I have written wikipedia articles, but I write them no longer. This is because even if you're writing an article about history, people swoop in and make edits.
 * This is evidence.
 * https://x.com/RonK3l/status/1804859092869243038
 * Please review and reflect on how you want to improve wikipedia.
 * I respectfully submit this request. I thank you. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * When I say "people swoop in and make edits" I mean that in the sense of, they go into articles and edit them towards a particular bias. It's not appropriate.
 * There was a Chinese Olympic Team that was awarded several gold medals, and they were subsequently caught doping. I went into represent this in their article, and it kept being edited back.
 * I urge you to do your own research, that is to say, go on google and type in, "Wikipedia Bias" and see what you find. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a full blown crisis. Wikipedia is better than this. But it is what it is. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Googling "Wikipedia bias" seems like a bad use of time.
 * Maybe we should consider the source, a Twitter user with "America First, ProLife" in their bio, and the methodology used by Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a conservative think tank, that obtains their desired conclusion before we start getting hyperbolic.
 * Maybe, just maybe, two different politicians have different biographies and it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. (For instance, "No Drama Obama" versus four years of the reality show president. I expect the negatively connotated words "indictment" and "conviction" will appear on more than one than the other.)
 * And ITN is not the venue for this anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * contempt prior to investigation does not demonstrate a willingness investigate. I would urge you to open your mind.
 * There is a clear crisis of confidence that must be addressed. I thank you. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My mind is open. My contempt came after investigation revealed the biased source of your information and the lack of information it provides. All that tweet demonstrates is that RonK3I knows how to use powerpoint. If there's a study with actual methodology, it can be examined, but its source should still be noted. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless there are related points regarding "In the news", this seems like the wrong forum.—Bagumba (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:In the news


text:
Midway-class aircraft carrier

The Midway-class was a class of three United States Navy aircraft carriers. The lead ship, USS Midway (CV-41), was commissioned in September 1945 and decommissioned in 1992. USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV-42) was commissioned in October 1945, and taken out of service in 1977. USS Coral Sea (CV-43) was commissioned in April 1947, and decommissioned in 1990.

1940s
The CVB-41-class vessels (then unnamed) were originally conceived in 1940 as a design study to determine the effect of including an armored flight deck on a carrier the size of the Essex-class aircraft carrier. The resulting calculations showed that the effect would be a reduction of air group size—the resulting ship would have an air group of 64, compared to 90-100 for the standard Essex-class fleet carriers. As it progressed, the design also became heavily influenced by the wartime experience of the Royal Navy's armored carriers: "As a result of study of damage sustained by various British carriers prior to our entry into the war, two important departures from traditional U.S. Navy carrier design were incorporated in the CVB Class, then still under development. HMS Illustrious (87) in an action off Malta on 1 January 1941 was hit by several bombs, three of which detonated in the hangar space. Large fires swept fore and aft among parked planes thereby demonstrating the desirability of attempting to confine the limits of such explosions and fires by structural sectionalization of the hangar space. On the CVB Class the hangar was therefore divided into five compartments separated by 40 and 50-pound Special Treatment Steel (STS) division bulkheads extending from the hangar deck to the flight deck, each fitted with a large door suitable for handling aircraft. It is hoped that this sectionalization, in conjunction with sprinkler and fog foam systems, will effectively prevent fires from spreading throughout the hangar spaces, as occurred on USS Franklin (CV-13) on 30 October and 19 March. The damage experiences of several British carriers, which unlike our own were fitted with armored flight decks, demonstrated the effectiveness of such armor in shielding hangar spaces from GP bombs and vital spaces below the hangar deck from semi-armor-piercing (SAP) bombs. Accordingly, the CVB Class was designed with an armored flight deck consisting of 3-1/2-inch STS from frames 46 to 175 with a hangar deck consisting of two courses of 40-pound STS between frames 36 and 192. Although none of the CVB Class carriers were completed in time to take part in war operations, the effectiveness of armored flight decks against Kamikaze attacks was demonstrated by various carriers attached to the British Pacific Fleet ..."

The concept went to finding a larger carrier that could support both deck armor and a sufficiently large air group. The weight-savings needed to armor the flight deck were achieved by removing the planned cruiser-caliber battery of 8 in guns and reducing the 5-inch antiaircraft battery from dual to single mounts. Unlike the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers, for which the armored deck was part of the ship structure, the Midway class retained their "strength deck" at the hangar deck level and the armored flight deck was part of the superstructure. They would be the last USN carriers to be so designed; the immense size of the succeeding Forrestal-class aircraft carrier supercarriers would require a new deep-hulled design carrying the strength deck at the flight deck level to produce a stronger and lighter hull.

The heavily subdivided arrangement of the machinery spaces was based on that of the Montana-class battleship, while the two inner propeller shafts were partially enclosed in skegs, similar to contemporary battleship construction. While the Essex-class carriers had eight main engineering compartments, the Midway-class had 26, including twelve boiler rooms well off the centerline and four widely separated engine rooms. More extensive use of electric arc-welding than in previous warships reduced the weight by about 10 percent of what would have been required for riveted structural assembly.

The resulting Midway-class carriers were very large, with the ability to accommodate more planes than any other carrier in the U.S. fleet (30–40 more aircraft than the Essex class). In their original configuration, the Midway-class ships had an airwing of up to 130 aircraft. It was soon realized that the coordination of so many planes was beyond the effective command and control ability of one ship. However, their size did allow these ships to more easily accommodate the rapid growth in aircraft size and weight that took place in the early jet age. The forward flight deck was designed for launching 13-ton aircraft; and the aft flight deck was designed for landing 11-ton aircraft, assuming in-flight expenditure of fuel and ordnance.

While the resulting ships featured excellent protection and unprecedented airwing size, they also had several undesirable characteristics. Internally, the ships were very cramped and crowded. Freeboard was unusually low for such large carriers; in heavy seas, they shipped large amounts of water (only partially mitigated by the fitting of a hurricane bow during the SCB-110/110A upgrades) and corkscrewed in a manner that hampered landing operations. The follow-up Forrestal-class featured a deeper hull that had more freeboard and better seakeeping.

In contrast with the earlier Lexington-class aircraft carrier, Yorktown-class aircraft carrier and Essex-class aircraft carrier-classes, the beam (width) of the Midway-class carriers meant that they could not pass through the Panama Canal.

Although they were intended to augment the US Pacific fleet during World War II, the lead ship of the class, USS Midway (CV-41), was not commissioned until 10 September 1945, eight days after the Surrender of Japan.

While Midway and Coral Sea followed the US Navy's policy of naming aircraft carriers after battles (two Casablanca-class escort carriers gave up their names for the larger ships) USS Franklin D. Roosevelt inaugurated the policy of naming aircraft carriers after former US Presidents that the US Navy generally follows today.

1950s
None of the class went on war cruises during the Korean War. As the three ships became essential to the Navy's strategic nuclear weapons role in Europe, they were mainly deployed to the Atlantic and Mediterranean. Until the availability of the Forrestal class, they were the premier commands sought by senior naval aviators. They were "admiral makers" for many of their commanding officers including future CNOs George Whelan Anderson Jr. and David L. McDonald.

During the 1950s, Midway and Franklin D. Roosevelt underwent the SCB-110 modernization program (similar to SCB-125 for the Essex class), which added angled flight decks, steam catapults, mirror landing systems, and other modifications that allowed them to operate a new breed of large, heavy naval jets. Coral Sea had a variant modernization program called SCB-110A with an angled deck 3 degrees greater than the other two.

1960s
All three of the Midway class made combat deployments in the Vietnam War. USS Coral Sea (CV-43) deployed to the Gulf of Tonkin six times, USS Midway (CV-41) deployed on three occasions, and USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV-42) made one combat deployment before returning to the Mediterranean.

In the late 1960s, Midway underwent an extensive modernization and reconstruction program under SCB 101.66, which proved to be controversial and expensive and thus was not repeated on the other ships. While $82 million had been budgeted for the modernization, the actual cost was $202 million, in comparison to $277 million for simultaneous construction of the brand-new USS John F. Kennedy (CVA-67).

1970s
By the 1970s, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Coral Sea were showing their age. All three retained the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in their air wings, being too small to operate the new Grumman F-14 Tomcat fleet defense fighter or the S-3 Viking anti-submarine jet. In 1977, Franklin D. Roosevelt was decommissioned. On her final deployment, Roosevelt embarked AV-8 Harrier jump jets to test the concept of including VSTOL aircraft in a carrier air wing.

1980s
Coral Sea was rescued from imminent decommissioning by the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Reagan's proposed 600-ship Navy gave the remaining ships a new lease on life. Coral Sea underwent extensive refits to address the ship's poor condition. When the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet became operational in the mid-1980s, the Navy quickly deployed them to the Midway and Coral Sea to replace the older F-4s. A 1986 refit for Midway removed her 6" armor belt and bulged her hull to try to increase freeboard. While successful in this regard, the bulges also resulted in a dangerously fast rolling period that prevented Midway from operating aircraft in heavy seas. The bulging was therefore not repeated on Coral Sea.

1990s
The Reagan era reprieve could not last. In 1990, Coral Sea, which had long since earned the nickname "Ageless Warrior", was decommissioned. Midway had one last war in which to participate, and was one of the six aircraft carriers deployed by the U.S. against Iraq during Operation Desert Storm. A few months after the campaign, the last of the class left Navy service.

Coral Sea was slowly scrapped in Baltimore as legal and environmental troubles continually delayed her fate. Midway spent five years in the mothball fleet at Bremerton, Washington before being taken over by a museum group. The ship is now open to the public at the USS Midway Museum in San Diego, California.

Ships in class
Hull codes;
 * CV – Fleet/Multi-purpose carrier
 * CVA – Attack carrier
 * CVB – Large carrier

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

title: Midway-class aircraft carrier


text:
Marutei Tsurunen

Marutei Tsurunen (ツルネン・マルテイ or 弦念 丸呈) is a Finnish-born Japanese politician. He is the first foreign-born Japanese of European origin to serve as a member of the Diet of Japan. He is a member of the Democratic Party of Japan, where he served as Director General of the International Department. He served in the House of Councillors from 2001 to 2013.

Biography
Tsurunen was born Martti Turunen in the village of Höntönvaara in Lieksa, Finland, and grew up in nearby Jaakonvaara. Near the end of the Continuation War, Tsurunen (then four years old) and his family were among the few survivors of a Soviet partisan attack on the village.

In 1967, at the age of 27, Tsurunen traveled to Japan as a lay missionary of the Lutheran Church, accompanied by his first wife, who was also a Finn; they later divorced. Having decided to become Japanese, he gained his Japanese citizenship in 1979. He moved to Yugawaramachi in Kanagawa Prefecture in 1981.

Political career
He first ran for city council in 1992 in Yugawaramachi and won a seat, coming in fourth place with 1,051 votes.

He ran for a seat in the Upper House for Kanagawa without party backing in 1995. He received 339,484 votes, coming in fourth (the top three candidates were elected), losing a seat to the Socialist candidate who won 371,889 votes. He ran again in 1998 and took 502,712, just 8,000 short of winning a seat, telling voters "Please vote for me and send the first Japanese citizen with blue eyes to the upper house" and "Let's change Japan from an economic power into a citizen-friendly nation, where you don't need to worry about old age and pollution". He also proposed "sexual quotas for legislative bodies, so that from 40% to 60% of parliament and local assemblies would be female". In 2000, he ran as a candidate of the Democratic Party of Japan for a seat in the Lower House, and again in 2001 for a seat in the Upper House, both unsuccessfully. In 2001, he garnered 159,920 votes, 14,036 short of what he needed to win a seat. However, in 2002, an incumbent, Kyosen Ohashi, resigned from the house and he won a seat by "kuriage" replacement, by which he took the seat because he had the largest number of votes after the winner.

He was directly reelected in 2007 with 242,742 votes, the 6th-highest in his party, but lost his seat in the 2013 election after garnering only 82,858 votes (finishing in 12th place).

Family
Tsurunen is married to Sachiko Tanaka, and they have two children. He also had three children with his Finnish wife.

In the media
Finnish media personality Markus Kajo interviewed Tsurunen in Finnish for the third episode of the documentary series Nousevan auringon Kajo in 2006.

Tsurunen published his autobiography Sinisilmäinen samurai ("The blue-eyed samurai") in 2015 via Gummerus.

title: Marutei Tsurunen


text:
Talk:Spithead

Untitled
You just know the vandals are going to find this page sooner or later... ;) Tualha 22:02, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * :-) 18.252.5.166 08:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't see a three mile long sandbank on google earth. It is under water? Perebourne 12:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Spithead


text:
Talk:Peerage of Great Britain

Duke of Portland not listed?
Is there any reason why the Duke of Portland (1716) is not listed? --80.1.241.104 22:03, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * The last Duke of Portland died in 1990, and the title is extinct. Some of his lesser titles were inherited by a distant relative, who is now the Earl of Portland. Proteus 23:31, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Where are extinct peerages being listed then? I just ran across the new article Viscount Sackville which also isn't listed here. The introduction to this page seems to say that it should include all peerages created between that set of years mentioned. Rmhermen 13:57, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * List of Dukedoms, List of Marquessates, List of Earldoms, List of Viscountcies and List of Baronies list both extinct and extant titles. (The lower grades probably aren't entirely complete, mainly because there have been more of them.) Proteus (Talk) 20:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Then this page (and the related ones should clearly state that extinct titles are not on the list. As it is it starts by saying the "the peerage of Great Britain includes all titles..." which may be true but is not what the list contains. Rmhermen 00:26, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Localization
Is it possible to further edit this list to designate where the title is origionated? For instance, the Barony of Aberganvenny is in Wales yes? so can we have a distintion between those of England and those in Wales? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drachenfyre (talk • contribs) 08:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

This needs divided up into each unique country. In Alphabetical order as it's english biased at the moment.

Nick

title: Talk:Peerage of Great Britain


text:
Baron Hindlip

Baron Hindlip, of Hindlip in the County of Worcester and of Alsop-en-le-Dale in the County of Derby, is a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It was created in 1886 for the businessman and Conservative politician Sir Henry Allsopp, 1st Baronet. He was head of the brewing firm of Samuel Allsopp & Sons of Burton upon Trent, and he also represented East Worcestershire in Parliament.

Allsopp had already been created a baronet, of Hindlip Hall in the Parish of Hindlip in the County of Worcester, in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom on 7 May 1880. His son, the second Baron, was also head of the family firm and sat as Conservative Member of Parliament for Staffordshire East and Taunton. His son, the third Baron, was a junior Unionist whip in the House of Lords from 1907 to 1914; and awarded Order of the British Empire in 1919. The third Baron's younger son, the fifth Baron (who succeeded his elder brother), was a Deputy Lieutenant of Wiltshire. , the titles are held by the latter's grandson, the seventh Baron, who succeeded in 2024.

Television presenters Kirstie and Sofie Allsopp are daughters of the sixth Baron.

Allsop baronets (1880)

 * Sir Henry Allsopp, 1st Baronet (1811–1887) (created Baron Hindlip in 1886)

Baron Hindlip (1886)

 * Henry Allsopp, 1st Baron Hindlip (1811–1887)
 * Samuel Charles Allsopp, 2nd Baron Hindlip (1842–1897)
 * Charles Allsopp, 3rd Baron Hindlip (1877–1931)
 * Charles Samuel Victor Allsopp, 4th Baron Hindlip (1906–1966); elder son of the 3rd Baron
 * Henry Richard Allsopp, 5th Baron Hindlip (1912–1993); younger son of the 3rd Baron
 * Charles Henry Allsopp, 6th Baron Hindlip (1940–2024)
 * Henry William Allsopp, 7th Baron Hindlip (born 1973)

The heir apparent is the 7th Baron's eldest son, Jasper James Allsopp (born 2017).

title: Baron Hindlip


text:
Fruit wine

Fruit wines are fermented alcoholic beverages made from a variety of base ingredients (other than grapes); they may also have additional flavors taken from fruits, flowers, and herbs. This definition is sometimes broadened to include any alcoholic fermented beverage except beer. For historical reasons, mead, cider, and perry are also excluded from the definition of fruit wine.

Fruit wines have traditionally been popular with home winemakers and in areas with cool climates such as North America and Scandinavia. In subtropical climates, such as in East Africa, India, and the Philippines, wine is made from bananas.

Labeling
Fruit wines are usually referred to by their main ingredient (e.g., plum wine or elderberry wine) because the usual definition of wine states that it is made from fermented grape juice.

In the European Union, wine is legally defined as the fermented juice of grapes.

In the United Kingdom, fruit wine is commonly called country wine; the term should not be conflated with the French term vin de pays, which is grape wine. In British legislation, the term made wine is used.

Production
Fruit wine can be made from virtually any plant matter that can be fermented. Most fruits and berries have the potential to produce wine. There are a number of methods of extracting flavour and juice from the fruits or plants being used; pressing the juice, stewing and fermenting the pulp of the fruits are common. Few foods other than grapes have the balanced quantities of sugar, acid, tannin, nutritive salts for yeast feeding, and water to naturally produce a stable, drinkable wine, so most country wines are adjusted in one or more respects at fermentation. However, some of these products do require the addition of sugar or honey to make them palatable and to increase the alcoholic content (sugar is converted to alcohol in the fermentation). Two commonly produced varieties are elderberry wine and dandelion wine. A wine made from elderberry flowers is called elder blow wine.

The amount of fermentable sugars is often low and needs to be supplemented by a process called chaptalization in order to have sufficient alcohol levels in the finished wine. Sucrose is often added so that there is sufficient sugar to ferment to completion while keeping the level of acidity acceptable. If the specific gravity of the initial solution is too high, indicating an excess of sugar, water or acidulated water may be added to adjust the specific gravity down to the winemaker's target range.

Many kinds of fruit have a natural acid content which would be too high to produce a savory and pleasant fruit wine in undiluted form; this can be particularly true, among others, for strawberries, cherries, pineapples, and raspberries. Therefore, much as to regulate sugar content, the fruit mash is generally topped up with water prior to fermentation to reduce the acidity to pleasant levels. This also dilutes and reduces overall fruit flavor; a loss of flavor can be compensated for by adding sugar again after fermentation which then acts as a flavor enhancer (known as a back-sweetener), while too much acid in the finished wine will always give it undesired harshness and pungency.

Many fruit wines suffer from a lack of natural yeast nutrients needed to promote or maintain fermentation. Winemakers can counter this with the addition of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium available commercially as yeast nutrient. In the opinion of one wine writer fruit wines often do not improve with bottle age and are usually meant to be consumed within a year of bottling.

Plum wine
Plum jerkum is made from fermented plums in a manner similar to the use of apples for cider. It was often associated with the north Cotswolds and was once a product of the city of Worcester.

Umeshu (梅酒), sometimes known as "plum wine", is a beverage popular in both Japan and Korea, made by steeping ume, or Japanese plums, in shōchū or another clear liquor such as sake. It is not a true fruit wine, as the plums are not fermented. It is commonly drunk mixed with soda or in a cocktail.

Pomegranate wine
Pomegranate wine is a type of fruit wine. A commercial pomegranate wine product was developed in Israel, and is marketed abroad as Rimon. Since then, commercial pomegranate wine has also started also to be made in Cyprus, Turkey, Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan.

Pineapple wine
Pineapple wine is made from the juice of pineapples. Fermentation of the pineapple juice takes place in temperature-controlled vats and is stopped at near-dryness. The result is a soft, dry, fruit wine with a strong pineapple bouquet. Pineapple wine is popular in Thailand and other SE Asian countries, where it is made using traditional practices and is not available commercially. In Mexico, fermented pineapple beverages are very popular and given the name tepache.

Commercial examples from around the world include Maui's Winery in Hawaii and Jacobs Wines of Nigeria, the first pineapple winery in Africa. It is also made in Dominican Republic by Vinicola Del Norte, its alcohol content is 10%. Several varieties of pineapple wine are made in Okinawa, Japan, from local produce. Its alcohol content is 11.5% ABV.

Dandelion wine
Dandelion wine is a fruit wine of moderate alcohol content that is made from dandelion petals and sugar, usually combined with an acid (such as lemon juice).

While commonly made as a homemade recipe, there are a handful of wineries that commercially produce Dandelion wine, including Bellview Winery of New Jersey, Breitenbach Winery of Ohio, Hidden Legend Winery of Montana and Maple River Winery of North Dakota.

Rose hip wine
Rose hip wine is a fruit wine. It can be made from fresh or dried rose hips. To produce this beverage, the rose hips are fermented in syrup with yeast and citric acid, creating an extract. This technique is used with only a few other types of fruit wine, including blackthorn (sloe), hawthorn, and rowan.

Redcurrant and whitecurrant wines
Redcurrant and whitecurrant fruit wines are beverages that are usually produced in northerly cool areas, where it is hard to grow high-quality grapes. They are simple to produce. Their natural chemical balances are such that they can be self-clarified without any additional substances. Redcurrants and whitecurrants contain only a small amount of carbohydrates; this necessitates the addition of sugar or honey.

Cherry wine
Cherry wine is a type of fruit wine made with cherries,   usually tart cherries that provide sufficient acid. Cherry wines can be used to make fortified wines and liqueurs. Michigan wine makers, located in the leading tart-cherry-producing region of the United States, produce several varieties of cherry wine, including spiced versions and cherry-grape blends. "Cherry Kijafa" is a fortified fruit wine that is produced in Denmark from cherries with added natural flavors, and usually contains 16% alcohol by volume. Among cherry liqueurs Maraska, a cherry wine made from Marasca cherry from Croatia, is among the best known. The last couple of years Fredriksdal Cherry Wine (partly invented by distinguished restaurant owner Jan Friis-Mikkelsen) has been produced in Denmark. Cherry wine production is becoming popular in China, where cherry production is high.

Orange wine
Fruit wine can be made from oranges. This should not be confused with orange wine, also known as amber wine, which is made from grapes, but is orange/amber in color. Wine made from oranges, although not commercially widely available, is produced in White River, South Africa, and by home wine makers. The taste is a light bodied wine, pale or golden in color, dry, thin in body, alcoholic. Outcome is reliant on the yeast used. Recipes are few and far between. Typically a home wine maker is receiving the bounty of their own orange tree or from a neighbors tree. The wine can be difficult to make because the fruit is very acidic, and the pH must be adjusted up. Further complications are encountered by a type of Penicillium mold that can stop the fermentation and spoil the wine. Great care must be taken to clean and sanitize the fruit. The remainder of the process is straightforward. The US government Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau has a standard for orange wine.

Other fruit wines

 * Banana wine
 * Lychee wine
 * Fruit wine can also be made from Blackberry, Blueberry, Blackcurrant, Redcurrant, Cranberry, Elderberry, Gooseberry, Mulberry, Seaberry, or Raspberry.

Fruit dessert wines
There is also the option of producing fruit dessert wines. Many homemade country wines and fruit wines are made in a dessert wine style with more or less residual sugar and high alcohol content. But dessert wines don't have to be sweet, e.g. the sherry fino. In Germany fruit dessert wines are fruit wines with more than 12.0% vol. In Austria they need an alcohol content of at least 13.0% vol. to a maximum of 22.0% vol. The total alcohol content may be increased by adding alcohol, fruit spirits, sugar, fruit juice and fruit juice concentrate to the fruit wine or cider. Fruit dessert wines can thus resemble classic dessert wines such as sherry or port wine. In US these wines are often labelled as fruit port and resemble fruit liqueur. It is also possible to produce fruit vermouth or other fruit wines flavored with herbs and spices.

There are different production methods for fruit dessert wines. In Canada you can find apple icewine, which is produced by cryo-extraction (freeze concentration) of apple juice or apple cider (ice cider). Oxidative vinification (sherrisation) is used, for example, in apple dessert wine. Adding alcohol (port wine method, fortification) can be found with French pommeau or with cherry wine and other fruit dessert wines, for example, from Denmark. For fortified wines that are legally between wine and spirits, a tax is usually paid in accordance with the country-specific regulation.

title: Fruit wine


text:
Death in the Afternoon

Death in the Afternoon is a non-fiction book written by Ernest Hemingway about the history, ceremony and traditions of Spanish bullfighting, published in 1932. It also contains a deeper contemplation on the nature of fear and courage. While essentially a guide book, there are three main sections: Hemingway's work, pictures, and a glossary of terms.

Contents
Hemingway became a bullfighting aficionado after seeing the Pamplona Festival of San Fermín in the 1920s. He wrote about the tradition in the novel The Sun Also Rises. In Death in the Afternoon, Hemingway explores the metaphysics of bullfighting—the ritualized, almost religious practice—that he considered analogous to the writer's search for meaning and the essence of life. In bullfighting, he found the elemental nature of life and death. Marianne Wiggins has written of Death in the Afternoon: "Read it for the writing, for the way it's told... He'll make you like it [bullfighting]... You read enough and long enough, he'll make you love it, he's relentless".

In his writings on Spain, Hemingway was influenced by the Spanish master Pío Baroja. When Hemingway won the Nobel Prize, he traveled to see Baroja, then on his death bed, specifically to tell him he thought Baroja deserved the prize more than he.

Death in the Afternoon was published by Scribner's on 23 September 1932 to a first edition print run of approximately 10,000 copies.

title: Death in the Afternoon


text:
Baron Hamilton of Dalzell

Baron Hamilton of Dalzell, in the County of Lanark, is a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It was created in 1886 for the Liberal politician John Hamilton. He had previously represented Falkirk and Lanarkshire South in the House of Commons and after his elevation to the peerage served under William Ewart Gladstone as a Government Whip from 1892 to 1894. His eldest son, the second Baron, was a Government Whip from 1905 to 1911 in the Liberal administrations of Henry Campbell-Bannerman and H. H. Asquith and also served as Lord Lieutenant of Lanarkshire. His nephew, the third Baron, was Lord Lieutenant of Surrey. the title is held by the latter's grandson, the fifth Baron, who succeeded his father in 2006.

The territorial designation is pronounced as in the usual pronunciation of the Scottish surname. The ancient family seat, Dalzell House in Motherwell, Lanarkshire, was sold in 1952. The third Baron lived in Bramley, Surrey.

In 1980, James Hamilton, later to become the 4th Baron, inherited the Apley Hall estate of some 8,500 acres in Shropshire and the Betchworth estate in Surrey on the death of his cousin Major General E. H. Goulburn. The village hall at Betchworth is named the Hamilton Rooms after the family. As of 2004 the estate is divided into the land portion still owned by the current baron.

The Conservative politician Archie Hamilton, Baron Hamilton of Epsom (born 1941), is the second son of the third Baron Hamilton of Dalzell.

Barons Hamilton of Dalzell (1886)

 * John Glencairn Carter Hamilton, 1st Baron Hamilton of Dalzell (1829–1900)
 * Gavin George Hamilton, 2nd Baron Hamilton of Dalzell (1872–1952)
 * John d'Henin Hamilton, 3rd Baron Hamilton of Dalzell (1911–1990)
 * James Leslie Hamilton, 4th Baron Hamilton of Dalzell (1938–2006)
 * Gavin Goulburn Hamilton, 5th Baron Hamilton of Dalzell (born 1968)

The heir apparent is the present holder's son, the Hon. Francis Alexander James Goulburn Hamilton (born 2009).

title: Baron Hamilton of Dalzell


text:
Johannes Schmidt (linguist)

Johannes Friedrich Heinrich Schmidt (July 29, 1843 – July 4, 1901) was a German linguist. He developed the Wellentheorie ('wave theory') of language development.

Biography
Schmidt was born in Prenzlau, Province of Brandenburg. He was educated at Bonn and at Jena where he studied philology (historical linguistics) with August Schleicher and specialized in Indo-European, especially Slavic, languages. He earned a doctorate in 1865 and worked from 1866 as a teacher at a gymnasium in Berlin.

In 1868 Schmidt was invited by the University of Bonn to accept a professorship of German and Slavic languages. In Bonn he published the work Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen ('The Relationships of the Indo-Germanic Languages', 1872), which presented his Wellentheorie ('wave theory'). According to this theory, new features of a language spread from a central area in continuously weakening concentric circles, similar to the waves created when a stone is thrown into a body of water. This should result in convergence among dissimilar languages. The theory was directed against the doctrine of sound laws introduced by the Neogrammarians in 1870, and contrasted with Schleicher's phylogenetic model.

From 1873 to 1876 Schmidt was a professor of philology at the University of Graz in Austria. In 1876 he returned to Berlin, where he worked as a professor at Humboldt University. He died in Berlin at the age of fifty-seven.

title: Johannes Schmidt (linguist)


text:
Baron HolmPatrick

Baron HolmPatrick, of HolmPatrick in the County of Dublin, is a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It was created in the 1897 Diamond Jubilee Honours for the Lord Lieutenant of County Dublin and former Member of Parliament for County Dublin, Ion Hamilton. Both his father, James Hans Hamilton, and grandfather, Hans Hamilton, had represented this constituency in the British Parliament.

From 1991 to 2024 the title is held by the first Baron's great-grandson, the fourth Baron, who succeeded his father. He was active on the Labour benches in the House of Lords prior to the House of Lords Act 1999 but the House of Lords website shows him as a Conservative.

The family seat was Abbotstown House, near Castleknock, County Dublin.

Barons HolmPatrick (1897)

 * Ion Trant Hamilton, 1st Baron HolmPatrick (1839–1898)
 * Hans Wellesley Hamilton, 2nd Baron HolmPatrick (1886–1942)
 * James Hans Hamilton, 3rd Baron HolmPatrick (1928–1991)
 * Hans James David Hamilton, 4th Baron HolmPatrick (1955–2024)
 * Ion Henry James Hamilton, 5th Baron HolmPatrick (born 1956)

The heir presumptive is his nephew, Ross Andrew James Hamilton (born 1990).

title: Baron HolmPatrick


text:
Tish Hinojosa

Leticia ("Tish") Hinojosa (born December 6, 1955, San Antonio, Texas) is a folksinger recording in both Spanish and English. Hinojosa was the youngest of 13 children. Hinojosa's parents were Mexican immigrants. Known for singing both traditional Mexican folksongs and her own original songs, both in Spanish and English, Hinojosa accompanies herself on guitar, which she plays right-handed although she is naturally lefthanded. Influenced by traditional Mexican, folk, Tejano, conjunto, and country musics, Hinojosa considers her music to be music of the US/Mexico border.

Hinojosa has recorded numerous albums and has charted twice on the Billboard country charts. Her 1992 album Culture Swing won the National Association of Independent Record Distributors (NAIRD) Indie Folk Album of the Year.

Using music to bring awareness to cultural issues, Hinojosa hopes to bring into focus the plight of migrant workers and children of the poor. Additionally, she often performs children's music of her culture to help children develop an understanding of the Southwest's Hispanic traditions.

As of 2021, Hinajosa lives in both Austin, Texas and Tubac, Arizona. In the 1970s and 1980s she also lived in Taos, New Mexico and Nashville, Tennessee. In 2005, Hinojosa moved to Germany, and in 2013 returned to Austin.

Awards and honors

 * White House performance for President Bill and Hillary Clinton
 * NAIRD Indie Folk Album of the Year Culture Swing
 * Las Primera (The Firsts) award from MANA, the largest organization of Latino women
 * Performances at presidential and gubernatorial inauguration events.

Television

 * VH 1
 * ABC-TV special: Alma Awards
 * MTV
 * The Nashville Network
 * Austin City Limits (three separate appearances)
 * Fox Television Bravo Awards
 * Good Morning America
 * Onyx TV Germany
 * WDR TV Germany
 * SWR TV Switzerland
 * VPRO TV Netherlands

Humanitarian activities

 * Spokesperson, National Latino Children's Agenda
 * Spokesperson, National Assoc. Of Bilingual Education
 * United Farm Workers of America

Self

 * 1987 Taos to Tennessee, Self-release; re-released 1992;
 * 1989 Homeland, Fonatana A&M Records, re-released 2006? w/ bonus track
 * 1990, 1991 Memorabilia Navideña, EP: self released cassette; Watermelon Records re-released CD 1992
 * 1991 Aquella Noche, Watermelon Records
 * 1992 Culture Swing, Rounder Records
 * 1994 Destiny's Gate, Warner Bros. Records
 * 1995 Frontejas, Rounder Records
 * 1996 Cada Niño/Every Child, Rounder Records
 * 1996 Dreaming From The Labyrinth/Soñar del Laberinto, Warner Bros. Records
 * 1996 Soñar del Laberinto, Warner Bros. Records
 * 1997 The Best of the Sandia: Watermelon 1991–1992, Rounder Records compilation
 * 1998 ...a Music and Information Digest, Warner Bros. Records promotion-only CD
 * 2000 Sign of Truth, Rounder Records, Rounder Records
 * 2003 Best of Tish Hinojosa – Live, Rounder Records
 * 2003 From Texas for a Christmas Night re-release of 1990-1991 Memorabilia Navideña, with five additional newly-recorded songs; Lone Star Records/Texas Music Group
 * 2005 A Heart Wide Open, Valley Entertainment
 * 2006 Retrospective, Varèse Sarabande
 * 2008 Our Little Planet, CRS (Varèse Sarabande)
 * 2013 After the Fair, Varèse Sarabande
 * 2018 West, Tish Records
 * 2019 My Homeland, Tish Records

The Texicana Mamas (Patricia Vonne, Tish Hinojosa, Stephanie Urbina Jones)

 * 2020 The Texicana Mamas, self-released, internet only

Further reading and listening

 * Ragland, Cathy, "South Texas culture: Austin's Tish Hinojosa has made the jump to a major label", Folk Roots; Nov. 1994, pp. 42–43
 * Dexter, Kerry, “A Home in Music." Dirty Linen: Folk & World Music, no. 141 (May 2009): 24–27.
 * Hansen, Liane. "Interview: Tish Hinojosa, Singer-Songwriter, Discusses Her Life, Music and New CD". 2000. National Public Radio.
 * Rodemann, Katharyn. 2005. "Tish Hinojosa." Texas Monthly 33 (12): 124–26.

title: Tish Hinojosa


text:
Forrestal-class aircraft carrier

The Forrestal-class aircraft carriers were four aircraft carriers designed and built for the United States Navy in the 1950s. The class ship was named for James Forrestal, the first United States Secretary of Defense. It was the first class of supercarriers, combining high tonnage, deck-edge elevators and an angled deck. The first ship was commissioned in 1955, the last decommissioned in 1998. The four ships of the class were scrapped in Brownsville, Texas, between 2014 and 2017.

Design
The Forrestal class was the first completed class of "supercarriers" of the Navy, so called because of their then-extraordinarily high tonnage (75,000 tons, 25% larger than the post-World War II-era Midway-class aircraft carrier), full integration of the angled deck, very large island, and most importantly their extremely strong air wing (80–100 jet aircraft, compared to 65–75 for the Midway class and fewer than 50 for the Essex-class aircraft carrier).

Compared to the Midway class, the Forrestals were 100 ft longer and nearly 20 ft wider abeam, resulting in a far more stable and comfortable aircraft platform even in very rough weather. When commissioned, the Forrestal-class ships had the roomiest hangar decks and largest flight decks of any carrier ever built. Because of their immense size they were built to a new, deep-hulled design that incorporated the armored flight deck into the hull (previous American design practice was to design the flight deck as superstructure). This was a very similar structural design as used on British "armored" carriers, and grew out of the requirement for such a very large carrier, because carrying the strength deck at the flight deck level produced a stronger and lighter hull. The Midway-class ships sat very low in the water and were poor sea boats through their long careers; they were very wet forward and their aviation characteristics were poor. The deeper Forrestal hull allowed the ships more freeboard and better seakeeping. The Forrestal-class carriers, like the Midway class that preceded it, were designed with armored flight decks. Forrestal-class ships were the first examples of supercarriers and thus not quite a perfected design; their elevators in particular were badly arranged for aircraft handling. The portside elevator, a relic of the original axial-deck design, was especially poorly sited, as it was located at the fore end of the angled deck, in the landing path as well as the launch path of aircraft from the No. 3 and No. 4 catapults. The subsequent Kitty Hawk-class aircraft carrier moved the portside elevator to the aft end of the angle and reversed the position of the island and the second starboard elevator, vastly improving aircraft handling. The sponson-mounted guns suffered from poor range and complicated firing arcs, and were located in very wet and thus nearly useless positions in the bow and stern. They were removed after only a few years and were later replaced by missiles and much later by close-in weapon systems (CIWS). The aft guns in Forrestal lasted until the fire in 1967, then were removed and eventually replaced by missiles in the mid-70s.

The original design of the Forrestal-class ships would have had a very small, retractable island; this design had numerous problems (the mechanism to raise and lower the island was never perfected before the angled deck was added to the design) and smoke fouling of the deck was expected to be a severe problem due to lack of adequate venting. The redesign to an angled deck allowed a very large island, much larger than on previous carriers, giving unprecedented flexibility and control in air operations.

USS Forrestal (CV-59) and USS Saratoga (CV-60) were designed under project SCB 80 and laid down as axial deck carriers and converted to angled deck ships while under construction; USS Ranger (CV-61) and USS Independence (CV-62) were laid down as angled deck ships and had various minor improvements compared to the first two. The most visible differences were between the first pair and second pair: Forrestal and Saratoga were completed with two island masts, an open fantail, and a larger flight deck segment forward of the port aircraft elevator; Ranger and Independence had a single island mast, a more closed fantail (as seen in all carriers since), and a smaller flight deck segment forward of the port aircraft elevator.

History
In the late 1990s, the US offered Brazil a Forrestal-class carrier, but the offer was declined on the grounds of significant operating costs; Brazil instead purchased the French aircraft carrier FRENCH AIRCRAFT CARRIER Foch, which was renamed BRAZILIAN AIRCRAFT CARRIER São Paulo. All four ships have been struck from the Naval Vessel Register and have all since been scrapped.

title: Forrestal-class aircraft carrier


text:
Kitty Hawk-class aircraft carrier

The  Kitty Hawk-class supercarriers of the United States Navy were an incremental improvement on the Forrestal-class aircraft carrier vessels. Three were built, all in the 1960s, USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) (1961–2009), USS Constellation (CV-64) (1961–2003), and USS America (CV-66) (1965–1996), as well as the variant USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) (1967–2007). All are now decommissioned.

Improved Forrestal carriers
The biggest differences from the Forrestals are greater length, and a different placement of elevators; two are forward of the island, one is aft of the island and another on the portside stern. The movement of the No. 4 elevator from the forward to the after end of the angle made it useful for aircraft movement, since the forward-end elevator in the Forrestals was sited in both the landing path and in the launch path of the waist catapults.

Three different shipyards were used to construct the ships. Kitty Hawk was built at New York Shipbuilding Corporation, Constellation at New York Naval Shipyard, America and John F. Kennedy at Newport News Shipbuilding. John F. Kennedy is similar to the earlier units in flight deck arrangement and propulsion, but has enough differences that she is placed in her own class. Propulsion consisted of four Westinghouse geared turbines, 280000 shp, four shafts with eight 1200 psi Foster Wheeler boilers.

Construction and design differences
The initial design for the class was known as SCB 127, and Kitty Hawk and Constellation were completed to design SCB 127A.

The first three units were constructed with a Terrier surface-to-air missile system. The supporting missile launchers and AN/SPG-55 radars consumed a large amount of space, while at the same time duplicating the capabilities of the air defence escorts, and were later removed. John F. Kennedy did not have Terrier and was built with the shorter ranged Sea Sparrow, Basic Point Defense Missile System (BPDMS). All were eventually equipped with NATO Sea Sparrow (NSSM) and Phalanx CIWS for self-defense. In 2001, Kitty Hawk received two Rolling Airframe Missile launchers replacing the forward Sea Sparrow and Phalanx CIWS equipment. The SLQ-32 Electronic Warfare Suite was added as part of the Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) on Kitty Hawk and Constellation.

America was designed under project SCB 127B and so had several differences from the lead units of the class. Instead of two forward anchors, one on each side, America had no port side anchor and an additional anchor astern, a change made to accommodate the AN/SQS-23 sonar. America was the only post-World War II U.S. carrier to be built with sonar, which was however removed in the early 1980s. She also had a narrow smokestack compared to prior units.

John F. Kennedy class
USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) was originally scheduled to be the fourth Kitty Hawk-class carrier, but because she received so many modifications under project SCB 127C, she formed her own ship class and is often listed as a single-vessel class. Kennedy had similar design changes regarding the anchors to accommodate a sonar array, but the sonar was never installed. There was also a proposal to make her nuclear powered under competing project SCB 211A, but since Congress would not authorize it, Kennedy was constructed as a conventionally powered carrier. Her smokestack is also different and tilts outboard to send stack gas away from the flight deck. The angled end of the waist is also different from the other Kitty Hawks, bearing a closer resemblance to that of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. Kennedy is also 17 ft shorter in length than the other Kitty Hawk-class carriers.

Decommissioning
From 1987 to 1991 Kitty Hawk was overhauled for $785 million under the Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. From 1990 to 1992, Constellation received her $800 million service life extension also in Philadelphia. The program was intended to add 15 years to the life of the ships. John F. Kennedy was not overhauled as part of SLEP. Instead, from 1993 to 1995, she received a $491 million overhaul. It was the final project of Philadelphia Naval Shipyard prior to its closing. America had been scheduled to be overhauled under the service life extension program after Constellation, but she was decommissioned 9 August 1996 instead, during a time of budget cuts after the Cold War. America was in very poor condition when she was decommissioned, and therefore despite her historical significance was not held as a donation asset. She was expended as a live-fire target and sunk on 14 May 2005.

Constellation was decommissioned 7 August 2003. John F. Kennedy was decommissioned on 23 March 2007. Only Kitty Hawk remained in service as of early 2008 and was replaced by USS George Washington (CVN-73) as the forward-deployed carrier in Japan. Kitty Hawk returned to the United States after the turnover. She was decommissioned on 12 May 2009.

title: Kitty Hawk-class aircraft carrier


text:
Talk:Death in the Afternoon

Untitled
Damn it! I wrote up this page after linking from the list of cocktails, not noticing that the title was ambiguous. I'll go ahead and create a new page --- Death in the Afternoon (cocktail) --- and make this one into a stub on the Hemingway book (won't be a very good stub either; I haven't read it). Sara 22:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

it seems that an encyclopedia article should cover only one subject. this article covers two, Hemingway's book and the drink that he invented. they should be separated.

title: Talk:Death in the Afternoon