text:
Talk:Herbert Samuel, 1st Viscount Samuel

Untitled
Removed from the text: (the first Jewish leader of a major British political party). In fact this distinction belongs to Benjamin Disraeli. -- Graham :) 02:32, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Disraeli was baptised a Christian. Therefore Samuel is the first unconverted Jew to lead a party.

 * It depends on whether you class Jewishness as a race or religion - it could be either. If the former it's Disraeli, if the latter this guy. -- Graham :) 03:26, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's neither, really: it's an ethnic group (nation, people) which also has a unique religion. Cf. Sikhs.

Now described as the "first unconverted Jew'' to lead a UK party Formeruser-83 03:34, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Now first practicing Jew. Alun 11:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The word is 'practiSing'.

The text says "As such, Samuel was the first Jew to govern the historic land of Israel in 2,000 years" which is kind of misleading since the modern state of Israel did not exist back then and Samuel was not primarily in Mandatory Palestine as a Jew but as a British administrator. The way it's phrased now seems to imply some sort of Jewish control over the land. Shall we change this? RoyalTS

very good
this article is the best article i read about Herbert Samuel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abiedanzig (talk • contribs) 07:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

from Peretz Green
אני החמור המשוח - אוכל הלחם מבית הלחם —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abiedanzig (talk • contribs) 07:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

What is so bizarre?
“This led to the bizarre situation where a Jew, Herbert Samuel, was to appoint the Islamic leader”

I am not sure what is bizarre about this situation? The Sultan was not temporal by religion, he was a Muslim. But his position was temporal. Similarly, if the British High Commissioner were a Christian by religion, it would not matter, since his position was temporal. The same applies to Herbert Samuel.

So what is so bizarre here? Please explain. 75.84.97.215 10:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

 * It's not bizarre at all, since anyone who was High Commissioner at the time would have had this task. The article is actually very thin on the issue of Samuel's work in Palestine and his relationship with the Zionists and the Arabs.  --Zerotalk 12:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Since there is nothing bizarre, I am changing the sentence to "Herbert Samuel was to appoint the Islamic leader. He chose.." 75.84.97.215 10:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Britain didn't "conquer Palestine" as stated
Palestine was not a national entity in the first world war. Britain and its allies conquered the Ottoman empire and Britain received the mandate to govern Palestine. I believe this was confirmed in the Versailles treaty and later by the League of Nations. Shenkin 14:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Britain conquered Palestine, exactly as she conquered Iraq, which wasn't a national entity either. That Britain did not conquer all of the Ottoman Empire does not change the fact of conquest of half of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to “early years”
Palest embered, I have removed your recent edits (again), for the following reasons: (1) you removed a request for a citation, without providing the requested cite. Please don’t do that. (2) The wording you inserted, that Samuel “threatened” Russian refugees is not “better worded”, and not form a better source. It is an inflammatory term. The wording currently in the article is less polemic and just as accurate, and sourced to a respectable, scholarly work (Debating Durkheim), vs. your source, which is a polemical advocacy website – Marxists.de, which should not be used on Wikipedia at all, except in an article about the website itself. (3) The statement that ‘Under the leadership of Jabotinski, the Jews refused to fight for the Tsar's ally, the UK” is not relevant to Herbert Samuel, and is patently false, besides. Jabotinski had no “leadership” over Jews, and there is ample historical documentation that Jews participated in WWI, fighting for both sides, as well as actively campaigning for (and ultimately succeeding) in getting the British to sponsor a Jewish unit to fight on the English side. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Samuel didn't add 'Israel" to the stamps. The British Mandate, under his administration, labeled the coins and stamps of the Mandate in three languages: "Palestine", in English, 'Filastin' in Arabic, and 'Palestina (EI)' in Hebrew, the EI being an abbreviation for "Eretz Israel". In other words, Samuel when to pains to avoid using Israel on the coins and stamps. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The demand for a citation for "practicing Jew" is unnecessary and confusing - I'll happily go along with an unreferenced "non-practicing Jew" if you prefer. I'd rather leave out the "practicing" part completely, but it's entirely up to you. Wasserstein reports that Samuel refused to attend synagogue, but kept kosher, your information may be different and it may be better. Everything I've seen suggests Samuel's Jewishness was considered notable, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was very strong.
 * 2) Lenni Brenner is a respected scholarly historian, author of 4 books and editor of at least two more. "Zionism in the Age of the Dictators" appeared in 5 "versions" (editions?) and is cited at least 6 times. 24 years after it's appearance, it appears to be out of print, but copies change hands for respectable money on Amazon. Brenner (now 70) is publishing it on the web (but retaining his copyright). It's hosted by the Marxists - but that doesn't impact on it's credibility (Karl Marx's own reporting of the American Civil War is highly regarded, so I'm told by a non-Marxist American academic - who points me to and, both on marxists.org).
 * 3) Meanwhile, the essay collection that is "Debating Durkheim" is cited just 3 times. I can't tell whether the essay you want to quote has ever been cited by anybody - I suspect not because they don't seem to be historical uses, they appear to be such works as "Critical Analysis of Organizations: Theory, Practice, Revitalization By Catherine Casey".
 * 4) "Threatened" is the word used in the reference - and it exactly matches what all history tells us about getting people into the trenches. Russian Jews were in the UK because they'd fled the Tsar that they hated - the reference tells us that. With the UK an ally of Russia, and with Jabotinsky as their leader, they refused to fight Russia's enemy, Germany. But they were prepared to fight the Ottoman Empire (because it occupied Palestine?). Hence what I put in - the only part not directly from the reference is that the Zion Mule Corps became the Jewish Legion. Perhaps you'd like that shown as "citation needed"? PRtalk 21:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) I am not the one who inserted the citation request for Samuel being a practicing Jew, so what I think about the need for it is not important. If you think it is unnecessary, you should take it up with the editor who requested that citation, but it is bad form to remove a citation requested by an editor without providing a citation. (2+3) Lenni Brenner is not a historian at all, let alone a “respected scholarly” one. He is, as his Wikipedia article tells us, a Marxist activist, and the author of several popular, non-scholarly books, which put a Marxist-advocacy spin on contemporary politics and historical Zionism. My source, on the other hand, is a scholarly book, published by Routledge, a well known publisher of academic books and journals in the humanities and social sciences. Its authors are an Emeritus Fellow of St Antony’s College, University of Oxford, and a former Lecturer in sociology from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Both sources make the same factual claims regarding Samuel’s legislation affecting Russian refugees – perhaps you can clarify why you prefer inflammatory language from a non-scholarly source to neutral language from a scholarly one. (4) Again, Jews fought on both sides of the trenches in that war. This is amply documented in historical sources. Jabotinsky was not in any way the leader of Russian Jews in the UK, and the very next sentence in the article, which describes his efforts to put together a Jewish fighting unit under British command puts the lie to the claim that the Jews did not want to fight for the UK. In any case, whatever Jabotinsky did or wanted to do, and what the Jews wanted or did is not at all relevant to this biography of Samuel. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Please justify to policy your claim that "practicing Jew " belongs in the article. You can have whatever you like there, but suggesting that we doubt our own article makes no sense, and is against policy.
 * 2) Lenni Brenner is clearly a far better source than "Debating Durkheim", which is never cited for history (nor for much else). The Durkheim book doesn't mention Jabotinsky, doesn't mention WW1 or WWI, and the historical part (which is an appendix) only refers to Samuel concerning Durkheim's interactions with him. Jabotinsky's story is rather well documented, it's likely we can replace Brenner with something better later, but for the moment he's far better than Pickering's "Debating Durkheim".
 * 3) And Debating Durkheim says very much the same thing that Brenner, does anyway! This is a group of refugees from Russia, "nearly all Jews" (Durkheim commentary, not Brenner), who, it was thought, were not volunteering in great numbers and were being shown the white feather (Durkheim, not Brenner). Samuel was the Home Secretary and he dealt with this group very robustly (Durkheim and Brenner, the latter uses the word "threaten"). Jabotinsky and Zionism appear in Brenner only, but then "unlike Durkheim, [Samuel] was a strong supporter of Zionism" (from Debating Durkheim again).
 * 4) Jabotinsky and Samuel later play an inter-connected part in Palestine, so the agreement made here is critical to an understanding of Samuel's part in history, and essential to his bio. PRtalk 13:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) The policy in question is WP:V, which states "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." The statement in question has been challenged, so the options open to you are to provide the requested source, or remove the challenged statement. You do not have the option of simply removing the request for a source, and asserting it is not needed.
 * (2+3+4) You and I seem to agree that "Debating Durkheim" says very much the same thing that Brenner does, so again I wonder why is it that you prefer a non-academic, marginal source self-published on an advocacy web site, which uses inflammatory language, over an academic source published by an academic press which says pretty much the same thing, using neutral language. Canadian Monkey (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As a solution, since you have indicated that you are ok with replacing Brenner with another source, but have a problem with Pickering's "Debating Durkheim", we can source the same material currently in the article to Geoffrey Alderman's 'Modern British Jewry' - published by Oxford University Press, and authored by a recognized British historian of the Jewish community in England in the 19th and 20th centuries. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your insistence on is strange indeed - nobody has challenged "practising Jews" and it's highly unlikely that anyone ever will. Overwhelmingly, people will be surprised that he was even partly distanced from Judaism (which is something I added).
 * Lenni Brenner's writings are historical, referenced and cited, as I've demonstrated (to quite a high standard). By comparison, "Debating Durkeim" is only loosely historical, and neither referenced nor cited. Nevertheless, they agree as far as they concern the same things. Brenner's writing goes on to describe Samuel's early relationship with Jabotinsky, essential to understanding what happened later (and I suspect, very well documented indeed). PRtalk 09:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My insistence on is not at all strange - it is policy, which I quoted to you above. Arguing by repeating your assertions will not us anywhere, and your assertions about  "Debating Durkeim" are pointless,as that source is no longer used. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to claim OWNERSHIP over whether Samuel was a practicing Jew or not, I'd rather treat his religious affiliation as playing an extremely small part in his behavior and policies, impacting only (and that, very unfortunately) on other people's reaction to him.
 * Meanwhile, I'm trying to round out his biography, and point out that Zionism didn't dominate his life. Far from it, he sided against the Zionist (as I understand it) Lloyd George and (as it turned out) permanently lost his place in government as a result. This discussion is highly relevant to the complex, but extremely important part he played in the events that followed. PRtalk 17:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's really any major disagreement between us. His religious affiliation played an extremely small part in his behavior and policies, so there's no need to call out the (contested) claim that he was the first practicing Jew to be elected. Likewise, there's no need to comment that he supported a non-Zionist politician (who was his benefactor) over a Zionist one. Let's just keep those comments out of the article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Make your mind up - either it's contested that he was a practicing Jew or it's not contested, I'm neutral on the subject, except that concocted controversy is described as FRINGE when it appears in articles. I'm far more concerned that Samuel not be painted in some one-dimensional, stereo-typical fashion as a non-typical British politician who acted as a Zionist stooge because of his (apparently wobbly) religious conviction. His affiliation to Asquith (costing him all further part in government of the UK) is near-enough essential to writing a biography that fairly presents his contribution. Samuels dealings with Jabotinsky in 1916 are also highly significant as regards what happened later. Brenner is an excellent reference as regards those dealings - and it's unlikely other sources would conflict much on the significant points.. PRtalk 22:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I've changed my mind at all - rather, you are having difficulty discerning between "contested" (which the claim is), and "important" (which the claim is not). Since we seem to agree that his religious affiliation is not important, and since an editor has questioned this particular statement regarding his religious affiliation and asked for a citation for it, the best course of action is to simply remove the entire statement. I don't think the article is at all portraying him as a stooge, Zionist or otherwise. The only person who keeps trying to add commentary relating to what his Zionist convictions made him do, seems to be you. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen nothing anywhere to suggest that anyone other than yourself (and an editor lost in the mists of time) has ever contested the claim that Samuel was "a practising Jew". Unless you have evidence there is some controversy about this, then the tag needs to come off. We don't invent conspiracy.
 * Meanwhile, we have ample evidence that his background were considered highly significant:
 * 1) The military government of Allenby and Bols called Samuel's appointment "highly dangerous". [Vital, Zionism, p. 83. Also Knox, The Making of a New Eastern Question, p. 153, and Ingrams, Palestine Papers, p. 105.]
 * 2) Bols said the news was received with: 'Consternation, despondency, and exasperation express the feelings of the Moslem Christian population ... They are convinced that he will be a partisan Zionist and that he represents a Jewish and not a British Government.'[Ingrams, Palestine Papers, p. 106.]
 * 3) Allenby said that the Arabs would see it as "as handing country over at once to a permanent Zionist Administration" and predicted numerous degrees of violence. Lord Curzon read this message to Samuel and asked him to reconsider accepting the post. (Samuel took advice from a delegation representing the Zionists which was in London at the time, they told him that these 'alarmist' reports were not justified. That last snippet comes, again according to Huneidi, from Samuel's own memoirs, p.152.)
 * 4) Muslim-Christian Association sent a telegram to Bols: "Sir Herbert Samuel regarded as a Zionist leader, and his appointment as first step in formation of Zionist national home in the midst of Arab people contrary to their wishes. Inhabitants cannot recognise him, and Moslem-Christian Society cannot accept responsibility for riots or other disturbances of peace.
 * 5) The wisdom of appointing Samuel was debated in the House of Lords a day before he arrived in Palestine. Lord Curzon said that no 'disparaging' remarks had been made during the debate, but that 'very grave doubts have been expressed as to the wisdom of sending a Jewish Administrator to the country at this moment'. Parliamentary questions were asked.
 * 6) The Morning Post wrote Sept 1920 that 'Sir Herbert Samuel's appointment as High Commissioner was regarded by everyone, except Jews, as a serious mistake.'
 * All in all, it is beneficial (perhaps essential) to the article (and to Samuel's reputation) that he not appear as a hard-nosed Zionist, the way he was universally regarded in Palestine, from the moment his appointment was announced. (By a population only recently having discovered the Balfour Declaration and already faced with a violent foreign nationalism in their midst). PRtalk 12:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So, it appears that it is you who has to make up his mind, having earlier said that "I'd rather treat his religious affiliation as playing an extremely small part in his behavior " and "I'm trying to round out his biography, and point out that Zionism didn't dominate his life. Far from it", while now you have changed the tune to 'we have ample evidence that his background were considered highly significant'. Anyway, I have no problem with describing the responses to his appointment as High Commissioner, in the relevant section. That section should of course include not just the concerns that he would support Zionist interests to the detriment of Arab ones, but also the actual actions he took, which caused the Zionists great disappointment. None of this has any bearing on the need to provide a citation for a contested statement. That need does not go away just becuase the request was made long ago - indeed, the length of time that has passed without a suitable citation being found is a good indication that one can't be found, and it's best to just remove the contested statement altogether. what you are advocating (removal of the tag without providing a cite) is violation of policy. Don't do it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything I've said is consistent with treating him fairly and providing depth to the picture presented in the article. All of it appears to be based on good sources.
 * I'll be interested to see from you what actions of Samuel's disappointed the Zionists. Every source I've ever seen suggest he opened the gates for making Palestine "as Jewish as England is English". PRtalk 21:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We clearly disagree about your sources. I don't believe a historical biography should be written based on self-published claims by a radical Marxist activist, with no formal training or academic credentials as an historian. To answer your question, the article clearly states he "act[ed] to slow Jewish immigration ", and this was obviously a disappointment to Zionists. This is explicitly spelled out here: "Attempting to appease the Arabs in Palestine, Samuel made several significant concessions. It was he who appointed Hajj Amin al-Husseini, a noted Arab nationalist extremist, to be Mufti of Jerusalem. In addition, he slowed the pace of Jewish immigration to Palestine, much to the distress of the Zionists. In attempting to prove his impartiality, the Zionists claimed that he had gone too far, and had damaged the Zionist cause. Many Zionists were ultimately disappointed by Samuel, who they felt did not live up to the high expectations they had of him." Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm treating Brenner as a 2nd or 3rd tier historian by the same criteria I'd rate any other commentator, the number of (significant) citations of his work and an absence (that I'm aware of) of hate or cheating. Debating Durkheim might have useful elements, but didn't provide anything more than does Brenner - it's a mystery on what grounds you thought it would be seriously useful.
 * I'd not exclude the JVL's article from the category of RS because it's partisan (we often have to use such sources) but because of the fairly gross historical distortion I can see. The first two paragraphs are simply absurd, the natives were throwing stones at Samuel's armoured car as he toured his new possessions. Even when mention is made (in the final paragraph) of the feelings of the 90% native population, their very serious concerns are totally trivialised. Many of the JVL articles (I seem to recall) are reliable, some of them are not even very obviously partisan, but not this one. Immigration didn't slow, it raced ahead. PRtalk 19:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really care how you'd treat other commentators - but Brenner is not a 2nd or 3rd tier historian - he's not a historian at all. He has no formal training as an historian, has no academic qualifications in the field, and has not held any teaching or research position in the filed in any institution of higher learning. He is a Marxists activist. Let me unravel the mystery of the serious usefulness of "Debating Durkheim" - it is an academic work, by two notable academics, holding teaching positions in universities. It is the kind of resources we should be striving for in this encyclopedia. On top of this, it makes the same points as your non-academic source, only it does so using neutral, non-inflammatory language. Why you would prefer a non-academic source, from a self-published web site, by a radical activist, which makes the same point (only using inflammatory language) is a something you have yet to explain. All this is moot, by the way, as the current article version does not use "Debating Durkheim" at all - the material is sourced to yet another academic source, by a noted expert on the history of Jews in the UK.
 * As to the JVL, I'm glad we agree that it is a reliable source. Your personal observations as to the accuracy of the particular article are interesting, but constitute original research. Regardless, there are plenty of other sources who make the same point. The opinions of the non-Zionist population are irrelevant to the question you asked, and to the answer I gave you, which was "What actions by Samuel did the Zionists find disappointing". the answer is that he worked to limit immigration, among other things. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The additions I've made lean heavily on direct quotes from many different sources. It may be necessary to leaven some of this information for readability later on, but we can hardly ignore the documentary evidence of really serious alarm in Palestine at the activities of the Zionists, and at Samuel being made High Commissioner. The restrictions on immigration were implemented for one month only, and, according to Samuel himself, were partly necessary to protect the Zionists from the difficulties and embarrassment of having unemployment on their hand. But I don't appear to have a cite to the original documentation for that, perhaps you can examine your sources and help me out. PRtalk 11:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think most of the recent additions are fine. I've removed one section which was not directly related to Samuel (what you refer to as "documentary evidence of really serious alarm in Palestine at the activities of the Zionists" - this is not an article about the history of the conflict, but a biography of Samuel), and made some minor copy-edits to the rest to make it flow better. you are correct that we may need to pare this down a bit, but for the moment I'll leave it as-is. I have not seen the quote you refer to about unemployment. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference to H.S.'s heritage/religion in opening section
User:Canadian Monkey favored the omission of term 'Jewish' from the intro citing the fact as irrelevant, thus making Right Honourable H.S. "British" instead of "British Jewish"; however this fact should be considered rather germane for following reasons: first of all - the man himself definitely considered this fact to be of more than marginal importance (both in his own life and also in context of his involvements). Second - the article does discuss (in following sections) his adherence to Kashruth, his Zionist views, nuances related to his position as High Commissioner, etc. where all narrative makes sense on implied understanding that he was Jewish; the encyclopedia article should not be written this way, i.e. the facts relevant to the consequent narrative should be introduced explicitly beforehand. Finally, for certain reasons some people consider paying attention to 'historical firsts', precedent setting and so on, and in present case the man was first ever Jewish member of the cabinet. Given all this I would suggest not being squeamish about Herbert Samuel's roots and religion and ackowledge the fact that he was British Jewish. DBWikis (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No one is questioning that he was Jewish, or if he knew he was Jewish - but as he wasn't a central figure in Judaism, his personal belief system is irrelevant to an encyclopedic article, and certainly doesn't not belong in the lead. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your point that only central figures in Judaism should merit reference to as being Jewish is very interesting. Why mention that he was British then? After all he unfortunately was not one of the central figures in Great Britain's culture/history/etc. either. No, we mention that H.S. was British for simple reason... that British he was; same with Jewish, quite simple. If you would say that his eyes were certain color or his favorite meal was such-and-such - I would agree with you because those details are evidently irrelevant, however his background must be considered germane for the encyclopedic article for sure. Please consider my second and third points above too. Then please re-read the article: in section 'Early Years' it says he had religious upbringing. How the reader unfamiliar with H.S. (and every encyclopedic article must be developed in assumption that prior knowledge of the reader on the article's subject is rather minimal) will conclude that religion in subject is Judaism, if we do not bother to indicate his Jewish background? I think we should ask you to substantiate your point that Herbert Samuel's Jewish heritage is 'not pertinent' in better details, if possible, please. DBWikis (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The practice on Wikipedia is to mention religion only if it is central to the person's notability. In contrast, nationality is mentioned in every case. Please edit in accordance with current practice, as described here, or make a case for changing it on the appropriate Talk page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Bensalem
Is the stuff about searching for Bensalem true as it doesn't seem in keeping with the rest of his life? Can anyone give references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.238.35 (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Help
Hi, I knew nothing about Herbert Samuel until reading this page. Unfortunately, I am now confused. In the text it says he renounced all religious belief. In the box it states his religion as Jewish. Should the box say None or Atheist or ...? As it stands, this is definitely confusing and contradictory. Can someone who knows the subject bring these into line. Many thanks. 86.146.12.57 (talk) 09:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Renouncing religious belief does not erase a person's Jewishness. Even actively converting to another religion won't help (see Nazi Germany).--Geewhiz (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Bit Thrown Away
Lloyd George famously said of Samuel "when they circumcised him, they threw away the wrong bit", a witty way of making an anti-Semitic jibe at his expense. Anyone know when he said it?Paulturtle (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead section
Per WP:LEAD, in a developed article the lead section should be a summary of the most important aspects. I can't even find his being the first Jewish leader of a major British party in the body of the article. January ( talk ) 21:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your revertion to remove Jewish from the intro needed addressing and I felt that if this description was to be re-introduced then it needed significant context. The statement could easily be inserted into the article to satisfy your concerns. Graemp (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the edit I reverted that changed British to Jewish-British was what needed addressing, biographies begin with the subject's nationality not ethnicity (and why did you remove diplomat?). Your edit needs addressing too, it is unsourced and lacks the appropriate context. January  ( talk ) 13:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've just spotted from a previous discussion that this statement was removed several years ago as incorrect (see Untitled thread at the top of this page). I'll revert the lead back to the stable version. January  ( talk ) 14:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you could have accommodated the edit of another editor in a collaborative way to address the concern.

 * Actually, a more ambiguous and incorrect statement was removed, re-read untitled discussion at the top of the page and you will see that a consensus was reached. However, it seems as if someone, subsequently removed this from the article and it was not re-instated. I'll revert back and provide a source. Graemp (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

 * The OP in that discussion was clearly correct, Disraeli was leader of a major party long before Samuel. We now have an incorrect statement in the lead. January  ( talk ) 17:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No we don't. Please re-read both the discussion and the source material. Graemp (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Guardian is ambiguous, and the synagogue source does not support "first Jewish-born". January  ( talk ) 18:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to make the disclaimer that I am no expert in the subject. However, Disraeli was undoubtedly born a Jew - claims to the contrary are simply ludicrous. He was baptised a Christian at his father's insistence at the age of 13 to try and support him in his education and future career (shows how seriously the Disraeli family took religion)! Samuel is regarded, so far as I can judge from what literature I have read, as the first practicing Jew to lead a major political party. Of course, the article states he only followed a couple of bits of it and therefore kind of discounts his Jewishness. However, I'm slightly dubious about that claim - while there is no evidence he had any particular religious beliefs, he seems to have remained an active member of a synagogue for most of his life (check out the ODNB article here) if only to please his wife. Now that obviously begs a question - does somebody who attends religious services and undergo religious rituals despite not believing a word of it count as a 'practicing' religious person? Or not? But if not, what is the definition?
 * Regardless of that, the lead is simply not correct, because he was certainly not the first Jewish born leader of a political party. I entirely agree with January on that basis.86.181.139.203 (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of what you write, though you overstate the case a bit. The question of whether he was "praticising" or not has no objective answer, imo. He claimed to eat kosher and not work on Shabbat (a weaker restriction than a religious Jew would obey), not from principle but because he considered them "good hygienic regulations".  Similarly, though he remained an official member of a synagogue congregation as a compromise with his family, he declared that he would never actually enter a synagogue and almost never did. (Source for both of these: Wasserstein's book, pages 20, 21, 55). Zerotalk 18:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair points Zero, especially on practicing/synagogue membership. However, even being a detached member of the Jewish religion did make him exceptional and may be worth a mention - even if it didn't, would he have been the first avowed atheist to lead a political party (discounting closet atheists Lloyd George, Bonar Law, Derby, Grey and Pitt)? Any ideas for a compromise? I altered the lead on the basis that what was there was simply plumb wrong and highly misleading but if you're not happy with it please by all means go ahead and improve it!86.181.139.203 (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

High Commissionner
Hello,

Does some know why he left his position of HC in 1926 ? Pluto2012 (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Not 1926, but 1925. Bernard Wasserstein, Herbert Samuel and the Palestine Problem, The English Historical Review, Vol. 91, No. 361. (Oct., 1976), pp. 753-775.  I think he was appointed for a period of five years. I didn't find an explicit statement of that, but Wasserstein in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says "mid-1925, when his period of office ended".  Wasserstein says that he wanted to remain in Palestine as a private citizen but this was prevented by his successor (Lord Plummer) and the Colonial Secretary (Leo Amery). Zerotalk 09:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thx !
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Kept Kosher
The expression "Kept Kosher" is jargon possibly understood only by Jewish people. An alternative (or an explanation) would be better. e.g. Observed Jewish food rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkesselman (talk • contribs) 17:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Nominally practising Jew?
He was the first nominally practising Jew ...

What does that mean? Either he did actually practise the Jewish religion, or he did not. And if he did, how does that square with his atheism? I'm confused. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Herbert Samuel, 1st Viscount Samuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725185715/http://cojs.org/cojswiki/Palestine_Correspondence_with_the_Palestine_Arab_Delegation_and_the_Zionist_Organization_%28Cmd._1700%29_%28White_Paper_of_1922%29_%E2%80%93_June_1%2C_1922. to http://cojs.org/cojswiki/Palestine_Correspondence_with_the_Palestine_Arab_Delegation_and_the_Zionist_Organization_%28Cmd._1700%29_%28White_Paper_of_1922%29_%E2%80%93_June_1%2C_1922.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060930234101/http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=16&item=biography to http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=16&item=biography

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


text:
Hezbi Islami

Hezb-e-Islami (also Hezb-e Islami, Hezb-i-Islami, Hezbi-Islami, Hezbi Islami), lit. Islamic Party, was an Islamist organization that was commonly known for fighting the Communist Government of Afghanistan and their close ally the Soviet Union. Founded and led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, it was established in Afghanistan in 1976.

It grew out of the Muslim Youth organization, an Islamist organization founded in Kabul by students and teachers at Kabul University in 1969 to combat communism in Afghanistan. Its membership was drawn from ethnic Pashtuns, and its ideology from the Muslim Brotherhood and Abul Ala Maududi's Jamaat-e-Islami. Another source describes it as having splintered away from Burhanuddin Rabbani's original Islamist party, Jamiat-e Islami, in 1976, after Hekmatyar found that group too moderate and willing to compromise with others.

In 1979, Mulavi Younas Khalis split with Hekmatyar and established his own Hezbi Islami, known as the Khalis faction, with its power base in Nangarhar. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's faction is since then referred to as the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin, or HIG.

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

title: Hezbi Islami


text:
Voiced velar plosive

The voiced velar plosive or stop is a type of consonantal sound used in many spoken languages.

Some languages have the voiced pre-velar plosive, which is articulated slightly more front compared with the place of articulation of the prototypical velar plosive, though not as front as the prototypical palatal plosive.

Conversely, some languages have the voiced post-velar plosive, which is articulated slightly behind the place of articulation of the prototypical velar plosive, though not as back as the prototypical uvular plosive.

IPA symbol
The symbol in the International Phonetic Alphabet that represents this sound is ⟨ɡ⟩, and the equivalent X-SAMPA symbol is. Strictly, the IPA symbol is the so-called single-storey G, but the double-storey G is considered an acceptable alternative. The Unicode character renders as either a single-storey G or a double-storey G depending on font; the character  is always a single-storey G, but it is generally available only in fonts with the IPA Extensions Unicode character block.

Features

Features of the voiced velar stop:

Occurrence
Of the six stops that would be expected from the most common pattern worldwide—that is, three places of articulation plus voicing — and are the most frequently missing, being absent in about 10% of languages that otherwise have this pattern. Absent stop is an areal feature (see also Voiceless bilabial stop). Missing, (when the language uses voicing to contrast stops) on the other hand, is widely scattered around the world, for example /ɡ/ is not a native phoneme of Belarusian, Dutch, Czech, or Slovak and occurs only in borrowed words in those languages. A few languages, such as Modern Standard Arabic and part of the Levantine dialects (e.g. Lebanese and Syrian), are missing both, although most Modern Arabic dialects have in their native phonemic systems as a reflex of $⟨ق⟩$ or less commonly of $⟨ج⟩$.

It seems that is somewhat more difficult to articulate than the other basic stops. Ian Maddieson speculates that this may be due to a physical difficulty in voicing velars: Voicing requires that air flow into the mouth cavity, and the relatively small space allowed by the position of velar consonants means that it will fill up with air quickly, making voicing difficult to maintain in for as long as it is in  or. This could have two effects: and  might become confused, and the distinction is lost, or perhaps a  never develops when a language first starts making voicing distinctions. With uvulars, where there is even less space between the glottis and tongue for airflow, the imbalance is more extreme: Voiced is much rarer than voiceless.

In many Indo-Aryan languages, such as Hindustani, plain [g] and aspirated [gh] are in contrastive distribution.

title: Voiced velar plosive


text:
Douglas SBD Dauntless

The Douglas SBD Dauntless is a World War II American naval scout plane and dive bomber that was manufactured by Douglas Aircraft from 1940 through 1944. The SBD ("Scout Bomber Douglas") was the United States Navy's main carrier-based scout/dive bomber from mid-1940 through mid-1944. The SBD was also flown by the United States Marine Corps, both from land air bases and aircraft carriers. The SBD is best remembered as the bomber that delivered the fatal blows to the Japanese carriers at the Battle of Midway in June 1942. The type earned its nickname "Slow But Deadly" (from its SBD initials) during this period, along with a rarely-used accompanying nickname of "Furious D."

During its combat service, the SBD proved to be an effective naval scout plane and dive bomber. It possessed long range, good handling characteristics, maneuverability, potent bomb load, great diving characteristics from the perforated dive brakes. By the middle months of 1943 the bomber was considered by pilots to be too vulnerable for service owing to its armament and slow speed, and was relegated to non-combat roles. One land-based variant of the SBD – omitting the arrestor hook — was purpose-built for the U.S. Army Air Forces, as the A-24 Banshee.

Design and development
Design work on the Northrop BT-1 began in 1935. In 1937, the Northrop Corporation was taken over by Douglas, and the active Northrop projects continued under Douglas Aircraft Corporation. The Northrop BT-2 was developed from the BT-1 by modifications ordered in November 1937, and provided the basis of the SBD, which first entered service in mid-1939. Ed Heinemann led a team of designers who considered a development with a 1000 hp Wright Cyclone engine. The plane was developed at the Douglas El Segundo, California, plant, and that facility, along with the company's Oklahoma City plant, built almost all the SBDs produced. One year earlier, both the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps had placed orders for the new dive bomber, designated the SBD-1 and SBD-2 (the latter had increased fuel capacity and different armament). The SBD-1 went to the Marine Corps in late 1940, and the SBD-2 to the Navy in early 1941, replacing the SBU Corsair and Curtiss SBC Helldiver squadrons on US carriers. Distinctive perforated split flaps or "dive-brakes" had been incorporated into the BT-1 to eliminate tail buffeting during diving maneuvers. Unusual for carrier aircraft, folding wings were not chosen for the design, opting instead for structural strength.

The next version was the SBD-3, which began manufacture in early 1941. It had increased armor, self-sealing fuel tanks, and four machine guns. The SBD-4 provided a 12-volt (up from 6-volt) electrical system, and a few were converted into SBD-4P reconnaissance aircraft.

The next (and most produced) version, the SBD-5, was produced mostly in the Douglas plant in Tulsa, Oklahoma. This version was equipped with a 1200 hp engine and an increased ammunition supply. Over 2,400 of these were built. A few of them were shipped to the Royal Navy for evaluation. In addition to American service, the SBD saw combat against the Japanese Army and Navy with No. 25 Squadron of the Royal New Zealand Air Force—but the RNZAF soon replaced them with the larger, faster, heavier and land-based Vought F4U Corsairs.

Some SBDs were also flown by the Free French Air Force against the German Heer and Luftwaffe. SBDs were also sold to Mexico.

The final version, the SBD-6, had more improvements, but its production ended during the summer of 1944.

The U.S. Army Air Force had its own version of the SBD, called the A-24 Banshee. It lacked the tail hook used for carrier landings, and a pneumatic tire replaced the solid tail wheel. First assigned to the 27th Bombardment Group (Light) at Hunter Field, Georgia, A-24s flew in the Louisiana maneuvers of September 1941. There were three versions of the Banshee (A-24, A-24A and A-24B) flown by the army to a very minor degree in the early stages of the war. The USAAF used 948 of the 5,937 Dauntlesses built.

U.S. Navy and Marine Corps
U.S. Navy and Marine Corps SBDs saw their first action at Pearl Harbor, when most of the Marine Corps SBDs of Marine Scout Bombing Squadron 232 (VMSB-232) were destroyed on the ground at Ewa Mooring Mast Field. Most U.S. Navy SBDs flew from their aircraft carriers, which did not operate in close cooperation with the rest of the fleet. Most Navy SBDs at Pearl Harbor, like their Marine Corps counterparts, were destroyed on the ground. On 10 December 1941, SBDs from USS Enterprise (CV-6) sank the Japanese submarine I-70. In February–March 1942, SBDs from the carriers USS Lexington (CV-2), USS Yorktown (CV-5), and USS Enterprise (CV-6), took part in various raids on Japanese installations in the Gilbert Islands, the Marshall Islands, New Guinea, Rabaul, Wake Island, and Marcus Island.

The first major use of the SBD in combat was at the Battle of the Coral Sea where SBDs and TBD Devastators sank the Japanese light aircraft carrier (CVL) JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER Shōhō and damaged the Japanese fleet carrier JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER Shōkaku. SBDs were also used for anti-torpedo combat air patrols (CAP) and these scored several victories against Japanese aircraft trying to attack Lexington and Yorktown. Their relatively heavy gun armament with two forward-firing .50 in M2 Browning machine guns and either one or two rear flexible-mount .30 in AN/M2 machine guns was effective against the lightly built Japanese fighters, and many pilots and gunners took aggressive attitudes to the fighters that attacked them. SBD pilot Stanley "Swede" Vejtasa was attacked by three A6M2 Zero fighters; he shot down two of them and cut off the wing of the third in a head-on pass with his wingtip.

The SBD's most important contribution to the American war effort came during the Battle of Midway in early June 1942. Four squadrons of Navy SBD dive bombers attacked and sank or fatally damaged all four Japanese fleet carriers present, disabling three of them in the span of just six minutes (JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER Akagi, JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER Kaga, JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER Sōryū) and, later in the day, JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER Hiryū. They also caught two straggling heavy cruisers of the Midway bombardment group of four, heavily damaging them, with JAPANESE CRUISER Mikuma eventually sinking.

At the Battle of Midway, Marine Corps SBDs were not as effective. One squadron, VMSB-241, flying from Midway Atoll, was not trained in the techniques of dive-bombing with their new Dauntlesses (having just partially converted from the SB2U Vindicator). Its pilots resorted to the slower but easier glide bombing technique. This led to many of the SBDs being shot down during their glide, although one survivor from these attacks is now on display at the National Naval Aviation Museum and is the last surviving aircraft to have flown in the battle. The carrier-borne squadrons were effective, especially when they were escorted by Grumman F4F Wildcats. The success of dive bombing resulted from one important circumstance:

"Unlike American squadrons that attacked shortly before one at a time, allowing defending Japanese Zero fighters to concentrate on each squadron to shoot them down or drive them away from the carriers, three squadrons totaling 47 SBDs (VS-6, VB-6, and VB-3), one squadron of 12 TBD torpedo aircraft (VT-3), and six F4F fighters (from VF-3) all arrived simultaneously, with two of the SBD squadrons (VS-6 and VB-6) arriving from a different direction from the other squadrons. Without central fighter direction, the approximately 40 Zeros concentrated on the TBDs, with some fighting the F4Fs covering the TBDs, leaving the SBDs unhindered by fighter opposition in their approach and attack (although most of the TBDs were shot down)."

SBDs played a major role in the Guadalcanal campaign, operating off both American carriers and from Henderson Field on Guadalcanal. SBDs proved lethal to Japanese shipping that failed to clear New Georgia Sound (The Slot) by daylight. Losses inflicted included the carrier JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER Ryūjō, sunk near the Solomon Islands on 24 August. Three other Japanese carriers were damaged during the six-month campaign. SBDs sank a cruiser and nine transports during the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal.

In the Atlantic Ocean the SBD saw action during Operation Torch, the Allied landings in North Africa in November 1942. The SBDs flew from USS Ranger (CV-4) and two escort carriers. Eleven months later, during Operation Leader, the SBDs saw their European debut when aircraft from Ranger attacked Nazi German shipping around Bodø, Norway.

By 1944 the U.S. Navy began replacing the SBD with the more powerful SB2C Helldiver. During the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June 1944, a long range twilight strike was made against the retreating Japanese fleet, at (or beyond) the limit of the combat radius of the aircraft. The force had about twenty minutes of daylight over their targets before attempting the long return in the dark. Of the 215 aircraft, only 115 made it back. Twenty were lost to enemy action in the attack, and 80 were lost as one by one they expended their fuel and had to ditch into the sea. In the attack were 26 SBDs, all of which made it back to the carriers.

The Battle of the Philippine Sea was the last major engagement of the carrier-borne SBDs. Marine squadrons continued to fly SBDs until the end of the war. Although the Curtiss Helldiver had a more powerful engine, a higher maximum speed and could carry nearly a thousand pounds more in bomb load, many of the dive bomber pilots preferred the SBD, which was lighter and had better low-speed handling characteristics, critical for carrier landings.

The Dauntless was one of the most important aircraft in the Pacific War, sinking more enemy shipping in the Pacific than any other Allied bomber. Barrett Tillman, in his book on the Dauntless, claims that it has a "plus" score against enemy aircraft, meaning it was credited with more victories over enemy planes than losses from enemy action. This is considered to be a rare event for a nominal "bomber".

A total of 5,936 SBDs were produced during the war. The last SBD rolled off the assembly lines at the Douglas Aircraft plant in El Segundo, California, on 21 July 1944. The Navy placed emphasis on the heavier, faster and longer-ranged SB2C. From Pearl Harbor through April 1944, SBDs had flown 1,189,473 operational hours, with 25% of all operational hours flown off aircraft carriers being in SBDs. Its battle record shows that in addition to six Japanese carriers, 14 enemy cruisers had been sunk, along with six destroyers, 15 transports or cargo ships and scores of various lesser craft.

United States Army Air Forces
The USAAF sent 52 A-24 Banshees in crates to the Philippines in the fall of 1941 to equip the 27th Bombardment Group, whose personnel were sent separately. However, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, these bombers were diverted to Australia and the 27th BG fought on the Bataan Peninsula as infantry. While in Australia the aircraft were reassembled for flight to the Philippines, but their missing parts, including solenoids, trigger motors and gun mounts delayed their shipment. Plagued with mechanical problems, the A-24s were diverted to the 91st Bombardment Squadron and designated for assignment to Java instead.

Referring to themselves as "Blue Rock Clay Pigeons" (after a brand of trap shooting targets), the 91st BS based at Malang attacked the enemy-held harbor and airbase at Bali and damaged or sank numerous ships around Java during the Dutch East Indies campaign. After the Japanese downed two A-24s and damaged three so badly that they could no longer fly, the 91st received orders to evacuate Java in early March 1942.

The A-24s remaining in Australia were assigned to the 8th Bombardment Squadron of 3d Bombardment Group, to defend New Guinea. On 29 July 1942, seven A-24s attacked a convoy off Buna, but only one survived: the Japanese shot down five of them and damaged the sixth so badly that it did not make it back to base. Regarded by many pilots as too slow, short ranged and poorly armed, the remaining A-24s were relegated to non-combat missions. In the U.S., the A-24s became training aircraft or towed targets for aerial gunnery training. The more powerful A-24B was used later against the Japanese forces in the Gilbert Islands. From December 1943 until March 1944, the 531st Fighter Squadron of the 7th Air Force flew A-24Bs from Makin Island in the Gilbert Islands against Japanese controlled islands in the Marshall Islands. The A-24Bs were then withdrawn from combat.

The A-24B (equivalent to the U.S. Navy SBD-5, with the omission of the arrestor hook) arrived in 1943 with the more powerful 1,200-hp Wright R-1820-60 Cyclone engine, a more powerful engine than either the A-24 or A-24A. As a result, the A-24B could fly slightly faster and higher than the earlier models. The A-24B lacked the small air intake on the top of the engine cowling present on the earlier models and that is an easy way to distinguish the B model. The 407th Bomb Group, assigned to the 11th Air Force, flew A-24Bs against the Japanese held island of Kiska, Alaska, during July and August 1943.

A handful of A-24s survived in the inventory of the USAAF long enough to be taken over by the Air Force (USAF) when that service became independent of the Army in September 1947. The USAF established a new designation system for its aircraft, eliminating the "A-" (for attack) category (through 1962); all of the single-engined "A-" aircraft were given "F-" (for fighter) nomenclature (or were determined to be obsolete and scrapped); thus the few remaining A-24 Banshees became known as F-24 Banshees, soldiering on in a reserve role until 1950 when they were scrapped.

French Air Force and Naval Aviation (Aeronavale)
The first production Dauntless sent into action was the "SBD-3", which was produced for the French Naval Aviation. A total of 174 Dauntlesses were ordered by the French Navy, but with the fall of France in the spring of 1940 that production batch was diverted to the U.S. Navy, which ordered 410 more.

The Free French received about 80 SBD-5s and A-24Bs from the United States in 1944. They were used as trainers and close-support aircraft.
 * Free French squadrons received 40 to 50 A-24Bs in Morocco and Algeria during 1943.
 * French Naval Aviation (Aeronautique Navale) received 32 in late 1944 for Flotilles 3FB and 4FB (16 SBD-5s for each).

Squadron I/17 Picardie used a few A-24Bs for coastal patrol. The most combat-experienced of the Banshee units was GC 1/18 Vendee, which flew A-24Bs in support of Allied forces in southern France and also experienced how deadly German flak was, losing several aircraft in 1944. This squadron flew from North Africa to recently liberated Toulouse to support Allied and French resistance troops. Later, the unit was assigned to support attacks on cities occupied by the Germans on the French Atlantic coast. In April 1945 each SBD-5 averaged three missions a day in the European theater. In 1946 the French Air Force based its A-24Bs in Morocco as trainers.

French Navy Dauntlesses were based in Cognac at the end of 1944. The French Navy Dauntlesses were the last ones to see combat, during the Indochina War, flying from the carrier Arromanches (the former Royal Navy carrier Colossus). In late 1947 during one operation in the Indochina War, Flotille 4F flew 200 missions and dropped 65 tons of bombs. By 1949, the French Navy removed the Dauntless from combat status although the type was still flown as a trainer through 1953.

Royal New Zealand Air Force
The Royal New Zealand Air Force received 18 SBD-3s and 23 SBD-4s and No. 25 Squadron RNZAF used them in combat over the South Pacific. Under the original plan, four Squadrons (25, 26, 27 and 28) of the RNZAF were going to be equipped with the Dauntless but only 25 Squadron used them. The RNZAF soon replaced them with F4U Corsairs.

Variants

 * XBT-2: prototype, airframe was a production Northrop BT-1 heavily modified and redesignated as the XBT-2. Further modified by Douglas as the XSBD-1.
 * SBD-1: Marine Corps version without self-sealing fuel tanks; 57 built.
 * SBD-1P: reconnaissance aircraft, converted from SBD-1s.
 * SBD-2: Navy version with increased fuel capacity and different armament but without self-sealing fuel tanks, starting in early 1941; 87 built.
 * SBD-2P: reconnaissance aircraft, converted from SBD-2s.
 * SBD-3: began to be manufactured in early 1941. This provided increased protection, self-sealing fuel tanks, and four machine guns; 584 were built.
 * SBD-4: provided a 24-volt (up from 12 volt) electrical system; In addition, a new propeller and fuel pumps rounded out the improvements over the SBD-3. 780 built.
 * SBD-4P: reconnaissance aircraft, converted from SBD-4s.
 * SBD-5: The most produced version, primarily produced at the Douglas Aircraft plant in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Equipped with a 1,200-hp engine and an increased ammunition supply. A total of 2,965 were built, and a few were shipped to the Royal Navy for evaluation. In addition to American service, these saw combat against the Japanese with No. 25 Squadron of the Royal New Zealand Air Force which soon replaced them with F4Us, and against the Luftwaffe with the Free French Air Force. A few were also sent to Mexico.
 * SBD-5A:
 * as A-24B, for USAAF but delivered to USMC; 60 built.

 * SBD-6: The final version, providing more improvements, including a 1350 hp engine, but production ended in the summer of 1944; 450 built.
 * A-24 Banshee (SBD-3A): USAAF equivalent of the SBD-3 without arrestor hook; 168 built.
 * A-24A Banshee (SBD-4A): USAAF equivalent of the SBD-4; 170 built.
 * A-24B Banshee (SBD-5A): USAAF equivalent of the SBD-5; 615 built.

Operators

 * Chilean Air Force operated A-24B Banshees.
 * French Air Force
 * French Navy
 * Mexican Air Force
 * Moroccan Desert Police
 * Royal New Zealand Air Force
 * No. 25 Squadron RNZAF
 * Royal Air Force received aircraft for evaluation from the nine originally tested by the Fleet Air Arm.
 * Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm received nine former United States Navy SBD-5s for evaluation.
 * United States Army Air Forces
 * 339th Bombardment Group (Dive), as operational training unit in 1942-1943
 * United States Marine Corps
 * United States Navy
 * Royal Air Force received aircraft for evaluation from the nine originally tested by the Fleet Air Arm.
 * Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm received nine former United States Navy SBD-5s for evaluation.
 * United States Army Air Forces
 * 339th Bombardment Group (Dive), as operational training unit in 1942-1943
 * United States Marine Corps
 * United States Navy
 * United States Navy

Notable accidents

 * On 7 December 1943, during a joint U.S. Navy–U.S. Marine simulated close air support exercise near Pauwela, Maui, Territory of Hawaii, the pilot of a U.S. Navy SBD-5, BuNo 36045 of squadron VB-10, initiated a slight right-hand turn and deployed dive brakes in preparation for a bomb run, but his aircraft was struck by a second VB-10 SBD-5, 36099, that did not have dive brakes deployed. Both aircraft crashed, and a bomb knocked loose from 36045 fell in the midst of a group of marines and detonated, killing 20 and seriously injuring 24. Both SBD pilots parachuted to safety, but both SBD gunners died, one after an unsuccessful bailout attempt. The collision was attributed to poor judgment and flying technique by both pilots. Aviation Archaeology Investigation & Research gives the date of this accident as 6 December.

Surviving aircraft
The hyphenated numbers are original U.S. Army Air Forces Serial Numbers (AAF Ser. No.); four or five digit numbers are original U.S. Navy Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) Bureau Numbers (BuNo).

New Zealand

 * On display
 * SBD-4
 * 06853 – Royal New Zealand Air Force Museum in Christchurch.

Solomon Islands

 * On display
 * SBD-?
 * Unknown – Vilu Military Museum in Guadalcanal.

United States

 * Airworthy
 * A-24A
 * 42-60817 – based at the Erickson Aircraft Collection in Madras, Oregon as an SBD-3.
 * A-24B
 * 42-54682 – based at the Lone Star Flight Museum in Houston, Texas as an SBD-5.
 * SBD-4
 * 10518 – based at the Yanks Air Museum in Chino, California.
 * 10694 – based at the National Museum of World War II Aviation in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
 * SBD-5
 * 28536 – based at the Planes of Fame in Chino, California.
 * 54532 – based at the Commemorative Air Force – Airbase Georgia in Peachtree City, Georgia
 * On display
 * A-24B
 * 42-54582 – National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio.
 * 42-54654 – Pima Air & Space Museum, adjacent to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Tucson, Arizona.
 * SBD-2
 * 02106 – National Naval Aviation Museum at Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida. Veteran of the Pearl Harbor attack and the Battle of Midway.
 * 02173 – Pearl Harbor Aviation Museum at Ford Island, Hawaii.
 * SBD-3
 * 06508 – National World War II Museum in New Orleans, Louisiana.
 * 06583 – National Museum of the Marine Corps at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia.
 * 06624 – Air Zoo in Kalamazoo, Michigan. It is on loan from National Naval Aviation Museum at Naval Air Station Pensacola.
 * 06694 – USS Lexington (CV-16) museum in Corpus Christi, Texas. It is on loan from National Naval Aviation Museum at Naval Air Station Pensacola.
 * SBD-4
 * 06833 – National Naval Aviation Museum at Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida in its recovered condition in a simulated underwater exhibit.
 * 06900 – San Diego Aerospace Museum in San Diego, California. It is on loan from the National Naval Aviation Museum at Naval Air Station Pensacola.
 * 10575 – Battle of Midway Memorial at Midway Airport in Chicago, Illinois.
 * SBD-5
 * 36173 – USS Yorktown (CV-10) at the Patriot's Point Naval and Maritime Museum in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina.
 * 36176 – Palm Springs Air Museum in Palm Springs, California.
 * 36291 - Valiant Air Command Warbird Museum in Titusville, Florida. It is on loan from the National Naval Aviation Museum at Naval Air Station Pensacola.
 * 36711 - American Heritage Museum in Hudson, Massachusetts. Long term loan from the National Naval Aviation Museum at Naval Air Station Pensacola. Formerly on display at Pearl Harbor Aviation Museum at Ford Island, Hawaii.
 * SBD-6
 * 54605 – National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C.
 * 54654 – USS Midway Museum in San Diego, California.
 * Under restoration or in storage
 * SBD-1
 * 1612 – for display at the Air Zoo in Portage, Michigan.
 * SBD-4
 * 10508 – for display at the Castle Air Museum at the former Castle Air Force Base in Atwater, California.
 * SBD-5
 * 36175 – to flightworthiness at the Military Aviation Museum in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

title: Douglas SBD Dauntless


text:
Meritorious Unit Commendation

The Meritorious Unit Commendation (MUC; pronounced muck) is a mid-level unit award of the United States Armed Forces. The U.S. Army awards units the Army MUC for exceptionally meritorious conduct in performance of outstanding achievement or service in combat or non-combat, the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps award units the Navy MUC for valorous or meritorious achievement or service in combat or non-combat, and the U.S. Coast Guard awards units the Coast Guard MUC for valorous or meritorious achievement or service not involving combat.

Army
The Army MUC emblem worn to represent award of the MUC is 1 $7/16$ inches wide and $9/16$ inches in height. The emblem consists of a $1/16$ inch wide gold frame with laurel leaves which encloses a scarlet 67111 ribbon. The previously authorized emblem was a gold color embroidered laurel wreath, 1 $5/8$ inches in diameter on a 2 inches square of olive drab cloth.
 * Army Meritorious Unit Commendation:

The Army MUC (previously called the Meritorious Service Unit Plaque) is awarded to units for exceptionally meritorious conduct in performance of outstanding services for at least six continuous months during the period of military operations against an armed enemy occurring on or after 1 January 1944. Service in a combat zone is not required, but must be directly related to the combat effort. Units based in CONUS are excluded from this award, as are other units outside the area of operation. The unit must display such outstanding devotion and superior performance of exceptionally difficult tasks as to set it apart and above other units with similar missions. The degree of achievement required is the same as that which would warrant award of the Legion of Merit (LOM) to an individual. Recommendations for units larger than a brigade will not be submitted. For services performed during World War II, awards will be made only to service units and only for services performed between 1 January 1944 and 15 September 1946.

The Meritorious Service Unit Plaque was originally established by War Department Circular No. 345 on 23 August 1944. The circular provided that members of units which received the Plaque were entitled to wear the Meritorious Service Unit Insignia, a two-inch square olive drab patch with an image of a golden wreath on the right sleeves of their service coats and shirts, four inches from the end of the sleeve. A gold star placed inside the wreath on the insignia represented additional awards, until War Department Circular No. 54, 1946, provided that additional awards would be shown by placing a gold numeral on the inside of the wreath. In December 1946, the Meritorious Service Unit Plaque was eliminated, replaced with the issue of the Meritorious Unit Commendation.

A new design of the Meritorious Service Unit Emblem, a solid red ribbon bordered by a golden wreath to be worn on the right breast of the service coat immediately above the pocket, was approved in April 1947. This replaced the sleeve insignia and was to be effective 1 January 1949. On 16 May 1947, Army Regulation 260-15 announced the MUC, granted the wear of the MUC emblem, and provided for the display of the scarlet MUC streamer, with the name of the applicable theater of operations in white letters. On 11 April 1949, The Adjutant General advised D/PA that the stock position was such that the sleeve patch would not be exhausted prior to 1959. By Comment 2, 1 March 1960, Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel (G-1) stated that for planning purposes, the new Meritorious Service Unit emblem would be authorized for wear on or after 1 January 1961, with wear of the old one prohibited after 30 June 1962. However, the stock level was still so high that the ribbon was not introduced into the supply system until 14 July 1966.

Effective 1 March 1961, the MUC was authorized for units or detachments of the armed forces of the United States for exceptionally meritorious conduct in performance of outstanding services for at least six continuous months (a month is considered 30 calendar days) during military operations against an armed enemy without regard to duties performed or the type of unit performing the duties. Such service is interpreted to relate to combat service support type activities and not to the type of activities performed by senior headquarters, combat, or combat support units.

Effective 11 September 2001, the MUC is authorized for units and/or detachments of the Armed Forces of the United States for exceptionally meritorious performance for at least six continuous months (a month is considered 30 calendar days) during military operations against an armed enemy without regard to type of duties performed or the type of unit performing the duties.

All members of the unit cited for the award are approved to wear the emblem of the MUC. The emblem is thought of as an individual decoration for those in connection with the cited acts and is approved to be worn if they continue as members with the unit or not. Other personnel serving with the unit are approved to wear the emblem to show that the unit is a recipient of the MUC.

The Army Meritorious Unit Commendation is worn after the Valorous Unit Award and before the Superior Unit Award. Additional awards of the Army MUC are denoted by bronze oak leaf clusters.

Navy and Marine Corps
The Navy MUC was authorized by SECNAV Notice 1650 on 17 July 1967 and is awarded by the Secretary of the Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, or Commandant of the Marine Corps to any unit of the Navy or Marine Corps that has distinguished itself, under combat or non-combat conditions, by either valorous or meritorious achievement, which renders the unit outstanding compared to other units performing similar service, but not sufficient to justify award of the Navy Unit Commendation. This award may also be conferred upon units of the other branches of the U.S. Armed Forces, and the armed forces of friendly foreign nations serving with U.S. Armed Forces, provided such units meet the standards established for Navy and Marine Corps units. To justify this award, the unit must have performed service of a character comparable to that which would merit the award of a Bronze Star Medal, or achievement of like caliber in a non-combat situation, to an individual. Normal performance of duty or participation in many combat missions does not, in itself, justify the award. An award will not be made to a unit for actions of one or more of its component parts, unless the unit performed uniformly as a team in a manner fully justifying collective recognition. The Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation is worn after the Navy Unit Commendation and before the Navy "E" Ribbon. Additional awards of the Navy MUC are denoted by $3/16$ inch bronze stars.
 * Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation

Coast Guard
The Coast Guard MUC was established in November 1973, and is awarded in the name of the Commandant of the Coast Guard. The MUC may be awarded to any unit of the Coast Guard that has distinguished itself by either valorous or meritorious achievement or service in support of Coast Guard operations not involving combat. The Commandant may also bestow the award upon a unit of another branch of the Armed Forces of the United States, provided the unit meets the standards established for Coast Guard units. To justify the award, the service performed as a unit must be comparable to that which would meet the award of a Coast Guard Achievement Medal (CGAM) to an individual. Normal performance of duty or participation in a large number of operational missions does not in itself justify the award. A Coast Guard MUC will not be awarded to a large unit for actions of one or more of its sub-units unless the entire unit performed as a team.
 * Coast Guard Meritorious Unit Commendation

The Coast Guard MUC is worn after the Coast Guard Unit Commendation and before the Coast Guard Meritorious Team Commendation. Additional awards of the Coast Guard MUC are denoted by $5/16$ inch gold stars. The MUC may also be awarded with the Operational Distinguishing Device, denoted by a $1/4$ inch silver letter "O" centered on the ribbon.

title: Meritorious Unit Commendation


text:
The Sonics

The Sonics are an American garage rock band from Tacoma, Washington, that formed in 1960. Their aggressive, hard-edged sound has been a major influence on punk and garage music worldwide, and they have been named inspirations to the White Stripes, LCD Soundsystem, Nirvana, The Hives, and other musical artists.

The band performed several early rock standards such as "Louie, Louie", and "Skinny Minnie" as well as original compositions like "Strychnine", "Psycho", and "The Witch". Their catalogue is generally based around simple chord progressions, often performed with a speed and tonal aggression that was novel for the time, making the band a notable influence on later punk rock bands, such as the Stooges and the Cramps.

1960s
The Sonics were formed in 1960 in Tacoma, Washington by teen-aged guitarist Larry Parypa, with the encouragement of his music-loving parents. The earliest lineup included Parypa, drummer Mitch Jaber, and guitarist Stuart Turner; Parypa's brother Jerry briefly played saxophone, and their mother occasionally filled in on bass at rehearsals. In 1961, Parypa's older brother Andy became the bass player, and Tony Mabin took over as their new saxophone player.

When Turner left for the army, Rich Koch (who had previously played with the Wailers) joined as lead guitarist, and Marilyn Lodge became their first singer, the band having been an instrumental combo up to that point. A new drummer, Bill Dean, replaced Jaber.

Koch and Lodge left the band in 1963. Local star Ray Michelsen became the band's singer after having sung with several other popular bands on the local scene. Larry began looking for a drummer to replace Dean, who he felt was uncommitted to the band, and found Bob Bennett playing in a band called the Searchers, with keyboardist Gerry Roslie and sax player Rob Lind. Ray Michelsen was looking to leave the band, so the Parypas hired Bennett, Roslie, and Lind, and let their previous saxophonist Mabin go. The well-known lineup was in place, but the Sonics' career did not begin in earnest until 1964, when Gerry Roslie started singing lead vocals. With Roslie as lead singer, the band started playing gigs at local venues such as the Red Carpet, Olympia's Skateland, the Evergreen Ballroom, Perl's (Bremerton), the Spanish Castle Ballroom, and St. Mary's Parish Hall.

They soon were scouted by Buck Ormsby, bassist for popular Northwest band the Wailers, and signed to Etiquette Records, the Wailers' own record label. Their first single was "The Witch" (with Little Richard's "Keep a-Knockin'" as the B-side) in November 1964. The record was popular with local kids, and went on to become the biggest selling local single in the history of the Northwest despite its radio airplay being restricted because of its bizarre subject matter.

Early in 1965 Etiquette released the Sonics' debut LP, Here Are The Sonics, which was produced at Audio Recording in Seattle, Washington with famed Pacific Northwest recording engineer Kearney Barton. It was recorded on a two-track tape recorder, with only one microphone to pick up the entire drum kit. It was here that they began to pioneer some of their infamously reckless recording techniques. A second album, Boom, followed in February 1966. During the recording, the Sonics ripped the soundproofing off the walls at the country and western-oriented Wiley/Griffith studio in Tacoma to "get a live-er sound." The covers of both albums feature the photography of Jini Dellaccio.

Their heyday began to come to a close when the band transferred to Jerden Records in late 1966, and headed to Hollywood to record the poorly selling album Introducing the Sonics with Larry Levine at Gold Star Studios. Although it has been rumoured that Jerden executives pushed the Sonics into a more polished sound, the band itself had decided to follow new influences in modern music, resulting in songs that were quite different from their raucous early recordings. The band, however, was not satisfied with the material on Introducing the Sonics, calling the cleaner, slicker recordings "the worst garbage".

The original band fell apart between 1966 and 1968, with members leaving to attend university or join other bands; saxophonist Rob Lind became a fighter pilot in the Vietnam War. Eventually, all of the original members left, except Gerry Roslie, with new members continuing on with the name Sonics (later 'Jim Brady and the Sonics') until 1980, although it was a completely different band, at times even incorporating string and horn sections.

Reformations
The original Sonics reunited briefly in 1972 for a live show at Seattle's Paramount Theater, with the recording of this show released as Live Fanz Only by Etiquette. In 1980, a new Sonics fronted by Gerry Roslie recorded the album Sinderella, which featured versions of the original band's material.

The emergence of punk rock in the late '70s and grunge in the '90s led to new interest in the Sonics, and much of their material was re-released by labels in the US and Europe. Larry and Andy Parypa continued performing with various bands in the Northwest, while Roslie, Lind, and Bennett pursued careers outside of music.

A further surge of interest in the Sonics was sparked by the use of their hard-rocking version of Richard Berry's "Have Love, Will Travel" in a 2004 Land Rover TV ad.

Their music was further impressed upon younger generations through a movement known as The Beat Army, an online music forum based on Facebook which is operated by author and music producer Paul Collins.

In 2007, the Sonics reunited again, this time for the Cavestomp garage rock festival in Brooklyn (November 2–4, 2007). The line up featured original members Gerry Roslie on vocals and keyboards, Larry Parypa on guitar, and Rob Lind on tenor sax, with Ricky Lynn Johnson (of the Wailers) on drums and Don Wilhelm (of the Daily Flash) on bass and vocals.

In 2008, the Sonics recorded a live session for Mark Lamarr's BBC Radio 2 show God's Jukebox on March 22. They played their first ever shows in London on Friday March 21 and Sunday March 23; later that year, "Have Love, Will Travel" was prominently featured on the soundtrack of Guy Ritchie's hit film RocknRolla.

Since then, they have played the Primavera Festival in Barcelona, followed by Bilbao, then the Sjock Festival in Belgium, Norway, and the Azkena Rock Festival in Vitoria in the Basque Country.

Their first show in their home region since their last Seattle reunion in 1972 was on Halloween 31 October 2008 at the Paramount Theatre in Seattle, where they were introduced and joined onstage for several songs by Steven Van Zandt. Kent Morrill (front man of the Wailers) made a surprise appearance to help sing his signature song "Dirty Robber". Bob Bennett was also present to sit in on drums albeit only for a few songs and only while Ricky Lynn Johnson played in unison.

In 2009 Freddie Dennis, formerly of Freddie and the Screamers, the Kingsmen, and the Liverpool 5, took Wilhelm's place as bassist and vocalist. The following year they released 8, an EP featuring both live cuts and four new songs produced by Larry Parypa and Jack Endino at Sound House Recording in Seattle.

In 2012 Johnson was replaced by drummer Dusty Watson, who has played with Slacktone, Agent Orange, Dick Dale, the Surfaris, Davie Allan and the Arrows, Lita Ford, the Supersuckers, The Boss Martians, Fur Dixon, Jon and the Nightriders, and others.

The Sonics headlined the fifth annual Muddy Roots Music Festival over Labor Day weekend in 2014. That same year, Muddy Roots Recordings published the previously unreleased song, "Bad Betty," on a 7" record (split with Mudhoney) for Record Store Day.

On January 21, 2015, the band announced they would be releasing a new album, their first in over 40 years, entitled This Is The Sonics. The album was released via their own imprint, Revox on March 31. The band also announced a tour to support the new album.

On May 2, 2016, an announcement was posted by Rob Lind on the band's Facebook site that Gerry Roslie and Larry Parypa would no longer be continuing as touring members of the band although they will still be involved in recording and Larry will occasionally be playing live with the band. Their positions are being filled on a touring basis by Jake Cavaliere of the Lords of Altamont on keyboards and Evan Foster of the Boss Martians on guitar.

Influence
Kurt Cobain of Nirvana said in an interview with Nardwuar the Human Serviette on CITR-FM, discussing drum sounds, "I, I have to admit...The Sonics recorded very, very cheaply on a two track you know, and they just used one microphone over the drums, and they got the most amazing drum sound I've ever heard. Still to this day, it's still my favorite drum sound. It sounds like he's hitting harder than anyone I've ever known."

The White Stripes named The Sonics as one of the bands that influenced them the most, calling them "the epitome of '60s punk" and claiming they were "harder than the Kinks, and punk long before punk".

LCD Soundsystem name-checked The Sonics, among other bands, in their debut single, "Losing My Edge".

Nicholaus Arson of the Hives cites The Sonics' version of "Have Love, Will Travel" as a favorite.

The German country band the BossHoss named themselves after the Sonics' song "Boss Hoss".

A 1993 tribute album entitled Here Ain't The Sonics was released on PopLlama Records, featuring contributions from Mono Men, Screaming Trees, Thee Headcoats, the Cynics, Mojo Nixon and the Original Sins.

Band members
The classic Sonics lineup, as recorded on Here Are The Sonics and Boom:
 * Rob Lind – saxophone, vocals, harmonica
 * Gerry Roslie – organ, piano, lead vocals
 * Andy Parypa – bass guitar
 * Larry Parypa – lead guitar, vocals
 * Bob Bennett – drums

Current touring lineup:
 * Rob Lind – saxophone, vocals, harmonica
 * Dusty Watson – drums
 * Freddie Dennis – bass guitar, vocals
 * Jake Cavaliere – keyboards, vocals
 * Evan Foster – guitar

Bennett and Andy Parypa, unable to travel, were replaced by Watson and Dennis. In 2016 it was announced that Roslie and Larry Parypa would no longer tour with the band. They were replaced by Cavaliere and Foster. Saxophonist Lind is the sole original member in the touring band.

Timeline

Studio albums

 * Here Are The Sonics (Etiquette Records, 1965)
 * Boom (Etiquette, 1966)
 * Introducing the Sonics (Jerden, 1967)
 * Sinderella (Bomp, 1980)
 * This Is The Sonics (Revox, 2015) #21 Billboard Heatseekers; #25 Billboard Tastemakers

Compilations and live albums

 * Merry Christmas (Various Artists album, Etiquette, 1966)
 * Explosives (Buckshot, 1973)
 * The Sonics (SRT, 1978)
 * Fire and Ice (First American, 1983; re-released as Fire & Ice: Lost Tapes Vols. 1 & 2 in 1996)
 * Full Force! (Line, 1984; re-released as Full Force! The Best of The Sonics in 1987)
 * The Ultimate Sonics (Etiquette, 1991)
 * Maintaining My Cool (Jerden, Munster Records, 1991)
 * Psycho-Sonic (Big Beat, 1993)
 * This Is... The Savage Young Sonics (Norton, 2001)
 * The Jerden Years 1966-69 (Munster, 2004)
 * Busy Body!!! Live in Tacoma 1964 (Live, Norton, 2007)
 * The Sonics Live at Easy Street Record Store Day Release (Re:VOX & Easy Street Records 2016)

Singles

 * "The Witch"/"Keep A-Knockin'" (Etiquette, 1964)
 * "The Witch"/"Psycho" (Etiquette, 1965)
 * "Psycho"/"Keep A-Knockin'" (Etiquette, 1965)
 * "Boss Hoss"/"The Hustler" (Etiquette, 1965)
 * "Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark"/"Shot Down" (Etiquette, 1965)
 * The Sonics' "Don't Believe In Christmas"/The Wailers' "Christmas Spirit" (Etiquette, 1965)
 * "Cinderella"/"Louie Louie" (Etiquette, 1965)
 * "You Got Your Head On Backwards"/"Love Light" (Jerden, 1966)
 * "Like No Other Man"/"Love Light" (Jerden, 1966)
 * "The Witch"/"Like No Other Man" (Jerden, 1966)
 * "Psycho"/"Maintaining My Cool" (Jerden, 1966)
 * "Love-itis"/"You're In Love" (Jerden, 1967)
 * "Lost Love"/"Any Way The Wind Blows" (Piccadilly, 1967)
 * "Any Way The Wind Blows"/"Lost Love" (UNI, 1967)
 * "Dirty Old Man"/"Bama Lama Bama Loo" (Burdette, 1975)
 * "The Witch"/"Bama Lama Bama Loo" (Great Northwest, 1979)
 * "The Witch"/"Keep A-Knockin'" (Norton, 1998)
 * "Psycho"/"Have Love Will Travel" (Norton, 1998)
 * "Cinderella"/"He's Waitin'" (Norton, 1998)
 * "Boss Hoss"/"The Hustler" (Norton, 1998)
 * "Strychnine"/"Shot Down" (Norton, 1998)
 * The Sonics' "Louie Louie"/The Wailers' "Louie Louie" (Norton, 1998)
 * "Don't Believe In Christmas"/"Santa Claus" (Norton, 1998)
 * "Bad Betty"/"I Like It Small" [Mudhoney] (Muddy Roots, 2014)

EPs

 * Live Fanz Only  (Live at Seattle's Paramount Theater, 1972) (Etiquette, 1986)
 * 8 (The Sonics Record Co./Re:Vox, 2010, 2011 on Re:Vox)

title: The Sonics


text:
USS Sampson (DDG-10)

USS Sampson (DDG-10), named for Admiral William T. Sampson USN (1840–1902), was a Charles F. Adams-class guided missile destroyer in the United States Navy.

Construction and career
Sampson was laid down by the Bath Iron Works at Bath in Maine on 2 March 1959, launched on 21 May 1960 by Mrs. John S. Crenshaw and commissioned on 24 June 1961 at the Boston Navy Yard.

1960s
Following shakedown off Guantanamo Bay in September, Sampson tested and evaluated the Tartar missile system off Puerto Rico. Homeported at Norfolk, Virginia, she conducted further tests and trials in early 1962 before joining Destroyer Squadron 18 (DesRon 18) and Destroyer Division 182 (DesDiv 182) in July. Composed completely of missile ships, DesRon 18 was then the most modern squadron in the Navy. Further radar and missile tests followed in 1963; and, in July, Sampson operated in the Midshipman Training Squadron. Finally, in January 1964, Sampson fired two Tartar missiles under simulated combat conditions. During 1964, she also underwent her first regular overhaul, and received missile replenishment at sea from helicopters.

In January 1965, Sampson sailed for her first Mediterranean deployment, but an electrical fire on the night of 14 January caused extensive damage to her fire control capability and forced her to abbreviate her deployment and enter the Norfolk Naval Shipyard for repairs on 15 March.

The destroyer returned to fleet duties on 24 June. While conducting gunnery exercises, on 17 July, Sampson spotted the 50-foot sailing sloop, Cecelia Anna, flying distress signals and rescued her 6 crewmen and mascot puppy moments before the sloop sank. In 1966, Sampson conducted gunnery exercises and escort duties near Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; then, in March, she deployed to the Mediterranean for extensive operations with the 6th Fleet. She returned to Norfolk in August. On 28 November, following three weeks of exercises in the Caribbean and additional tests, Sampson got underway to participate in exercise "Lantflex 66" in which she provided ASW and AAW services for the ASW carrier, USS Wasp (CVS-18), and conducted exercises in the Puerto Rico operating area before returning to Norfolk in December.

Sampson re-deployed to the Mediterranean in mid-1967. While there, a Sampson radarman rescued a German seaman from the harbor at Ferrol, Spain. <Sampson visited Rota and El Ferrol, Spain from 10 May to 18 May 1967.

By 25 May 1967, there was evidence that a crisis was brewing in the Middle East that eventually lead up to the Six-Day War, 5-10 Jun 1967. The Sampson was assigned to the USS America CVA-66 task group. This task group also joined up with TG 60.2, the carrier Saratoga CVA-60, and her destroyers under the command of Rear Admiral Geis.

On 8 June 1967, the USS Liberty (AGTR-5) was attacked by Israeli fighter jets aircraft and Israeli Navy motor torpedo boats. The attack killed 34 crew members and wounded 171 crew members. Sampson was a member of the force which steamed to rendezvous with the heavily damaged USS Liberty (AGTR-5) on 9 June. Sampson was in Souda Bay, Crete 13-18 June 1967.

Leaving the 6th Fleet at the end of August 1967, Sampson steamed back to the United States, and soon shifted to her new home port of Charleston, South Carolina.

Sampson operated out of Charleston in the Atlantic and Caribbean during 1968 until again deploying to the Mediterranean in September. She returned to Charleston in February 1969 and resumed operations in the Atlantic and the Caribbean until redeploying to the Mediterranean in October of that year. After six months with the 6th Fleet, she returned to Charleston on 28 March 1970.

1970s
Sampson operated out of Charleston in the western Atlantic until 23 September, when, after only two days' notice, she got underway for special operations in the Mediterranean. She spent the month of October cruising first with USS John F. Kennedy (CVA-67), then with USS Saratoga (CV-60), during the latest Levantine crisis. On 1 November, she stood out of Barcelona, Spain, to return to the United States. Sampson entered the mouth of the Cooper River on the 12th, moored at Charleston, and began a leave and upkeep period.

Sampson stayed in Charleston into 1971. During the first three months of the new year, she operated in the vicinity of the British West Indies; then prepared for overseas movement. On 9 April, following exercises and type training, Sampson steamed out of Charleston, passed Fort Sumter, and headed for the Mediterranean. She cruised with the 6th Fleet for six months, participating in exercises with both American and NATO forces. By 16 October, the guided missile destroyer was back in port at Charleston. She spent the rest of 1971 preparing for regular overhaul.

For four months, from 4 January until 4 May 1972, Sampson underwent the first Compressed Regular Overhaul ever attempted on a DDG. From mid-May until 9 July, she was underway for post-overhaul trials, exercises, and refresher training. She was in Charleston during the period 9 July to 18 August, at which time Sampson stood out for her new home port, Athens, Greece. She stopped at Rota, Spain, ten days later and entered Phaleron Bay on 3 October. The guided missile destroyer remained in the Mediterranean, home ported at Athens, Greece throughout 1973 and into 1974. In April 1974, she was in port at Athens.

In 1973 she was dispatched to and docked in Tunis, Tunisia where she provided communication link for Helos of USS Forrestal for the Medjerda River flood. During 1973 she visited Barcelona, Spain, Palma de Majorca, Naples Italy, Mikonos, Crete, Istanbul, Turkey, and Villa France. She met the Soviet Black Seas fleet at the straits of Bosporus during the 1973 Israeli/Arab war.

1980s
Sampson underwent a major overhaul in the Portsmouth shipyard during 1980–81. In November 1982 Sampson deployed to the Persian Gulf and later the Mediterranean. After transiting the Suez canal and Red Sea, the Sampson shadowed the Soviet carrier Minsk & cruiser Tashkent in the Indian Ocean, and made port calls in Djibouti, and in Karachi. Sampson was on station off Beirut when the US Embassy was bombed. The ship returned to Mayport, FL in May 1983. From October to December of that year, Sampson was deployed in the eastern Caribbean in support of Operation Urgent Fury.

1990s
On 7 August 1990 the Sampson deployed with the USS Saratoga battle group in support of Desert Shield/Storm. Once there the Sampson performed the final Adams class guided missile destroyer deployment as a unit of the Maritime Interception Force, conducting the first boarding and search of a merchant on 28 AUG 1990, during OPERATION DESERT SHIELD and the first diversion of a ship with prohibited cargo. After conducting the first-ever exercise ASROC shot in the Red Sea, USS SAMPSON operated with ships of various NATO navies conducting surveillance and protection of shipping in the approaches to the Suez Canal.

Decommissioning
Sampson was decommissioned on 24 June 1991 exactly 30 years after commissioning, stricken from the Naval Vessel Register on 20 November 1992 and sold for scrap on 25 July 1995. Sampson was repossessed by the US Navy on 14 March 2000 after the scrap yard failed to dismantle the ship in a timely manner. On 10 February 2003, the Navy issued a contract to Metro Machine of Philadelphia, Pa to dismantle Sampson for $2,900,000. Sampson was completely dismantled on 15 October 2003.

title: USS Sampson (DDG-10)


text:
Rock flour

Rock flour, or glacial flour, consists of fine-grained, silt-sized particles of rock, generated by mechanical grinding of bedrock by glacial erosion or by artificial grinding to a similar size. Because the material is very small, it becomes suspended in meltwater making the water appear cloudy, which is sometimes known as glacial milk.

When the sediments enter a river, they turn the river's colour grey, light brown, iridescent blue-green, or milky white. If the river flows into a glacial lake, the lake may appear turquoise in colour as a result. When flows of the flour are extensive, a distinct layer of a different colour flows into the lake and begins to dissipate and settle as the flow extends from the increase in water flow from the glacier during snow melts and heavy rain periods. Examples of this phenomenon may be seen at Lake Pukaki and Lake Tekapo in New Zealand, Lake Louise, Moraine Lake, Emerald Lake, and Peyto Lake in Canada, Gjende lake in Norway, and several lakes (among others, Nordenskjöld and Pehoé) in Chile's Torres del Paine National Park, and many lakes in the Cascade Range of Washington State (including Diablo Lake, Gorge Lake, and Blanca Lake).

Formation
Typically, natural rock flour is formed during glacial migration, where the glacier grinds against the sides and bottom of the rock beneath it, but also is produced by freeze-and-thaw action, where the act of water freezing and expanding in cracks helps break up rock formations. Multiple cycles create a greater amount.

Although clay-sized, the flour particles are not clay minerals but typically ground up quartz and feldspar. Rock flour is carried out from the system via meltwater streams, where the particles travel in suspension. Rock flour particles may travel great distances either suspended in water or carried by the wind, in the latter case forming deposits called loess.

Agricultural use
Rock flour, artificial or natural, is a source of plant micronutrients (minerals trace elements) widely used in organic farming practices. Synonyms in this case include rock dust, rock powders, rock minerals, and mineral fines.

The igneous rocks basalt and granite often contain the highest mineral content, whereas limestone, considered inferior in this consideration, is often deficient in the majority of essential macro-compounds, trace elements, and micronutrients.

Background
Soil remineralization (in the sense of re-incorporating minerals, different from remineralisation in biogeochemistry) creates fertile soils by returning minerals to the soil which have been lost by erosion, leaching, and or over-farming. It functions the same way that the Earth does: during an Ice Age, glaciers crush rock onto the Earth's soil mantle, and winds blow the dust in the form of loess all over the globe. Volcanoes erupt, spewing forth minerals from deep within the Earth, and rushing rivers form mineral-rich alluvial deposits.

Rock dust is added to soil to improve fertility and has been tested since 1993 at the Sustainable Ecological Earth Regeneration Centre (SEER Centre) in Straloch, near Pitlochry, in Perth and Kinross, Scotland. Further testing has been undertaken by James Cook University, Townsville, Far North Queensland.

History
Thomas J. Goreau who wrote the book Geotherapy believed that mafic/ultra-mafic rock flour had a powerful effect in restoring trace minerals to soils, which increases the health and vigour of the Microorganism, Plantae, Animalia pathway and also sequesters carbon. An early experimenter was the German miller, Julius Hensel, author of Bread from Stones, who reported successful results with steinmehl (stonemeal) in the 1890s. His ideas were not taken up due to technical limitations and, according to proponents of his method, because of opposition from the champions of conventional fertilisers.

John D. Hamaker argued that widespread remineralization of soils with rock dust would be necessary to reverse soil depletion by current agriculture and forestry practice.

While this originally was an alternative concept, increasing mainstream research has been devoted to soil amendment and other benefits of rock flour application: for instance, a pilot project on the use of glacial rock, granite and basaltic fines by the U.S. Department of Agriculture exists at the Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. The SEER Centre in Scotland is a leading source of information on the use of rock dusts and mineral fines. The Soil Remineralization Forum was established with sponsorship from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and has commissioned a portfolio of research into the benefits of using mineral fines. The Forum provides an interface among research, environmentalists, and industry.

Research
SEER's research claims that the benefits of adding rockdust to soil include increased moisture-holding properties in the soil, improved cation exchange capacity and better soil structure and drainage. Rockdust also provides calcium, iron, magnesium, phosphorus and potassium, plus trace elements and micronutrients. By replacing these leached minerals it is claimed that soil health is increased and that this produces healthier plants.

A 2022 study found that basalt dust improved soil fertility and increased available phosphorus, potassium, calcium and magnesium levels compared to soil without the basalt dust in a period of several months.

Composition
Often phosphorus is locked in soils due to many years of application of traditional fertilisers. The use of micronutrient-rich fertiliser enables plants to access locked phosphorus.

The elements high in available 2+ valence electrons, calcium, iron and magnesium in particular contribute to paramagnetism in soil which aid in cation exchange capacity.

The calcium and magnesium in high quality have the ability to neutralise pH in soils, in effect acting as a liming agent.

Application
Rock dust can be applied to soil by hand application, via broadcast spreader or by fertigation. Where possible the rockdust can be worked into the ground either physically or by using water to wash in.

In some soils which display poor levels of nutrients, application rates of 10 tonnes per hectare are required. In Australia, namely the Riverland, Riverina, Langhorne Creek, Barossa and McLaren Vale regions, rates are 3–5 tonnes per hectare. In a garden application, this might equate to 400 grams per square metre.

title: Rock flour