text:
Zeppelin NT

The Zeppelin NT ("Neue Technologie", German for new technology) is a class of helium-filled airships being manufactured since the 1990s by the German company Zeppelin Luftschifftechnik GmbH (ZLT) in Friedrichshafen. The initial model is the N07. The company considers itself the successor of the companies founded by Ferdinand von Zeppelin which constructed and operated the very successful Zeppelin airships in the first third of the 20th century. There are, however, a number of notable differences between the Zeppelin NT and original Zeppelins as well as between the Zeppelin NT and usual non-rigid airships known as blimps. The Zeppelin NT is classified as a semi-rigid airship.

There are various roles for the Zeppelin NT; traditional roles have been aerial tourism purposes and for conducting passenger services. The hull surfaces of the aircraft have also been used for advertising purposes. The Zeppelin NT have also been used for observation platforms, such as for aerial photographers and by television commentators covering major events. Due to their capability for low-vibration flight for up to 24 hours at a time, ZLT considers the airships suitable for research missions for environmental observation, troposphere research and natural resource prospecting.

Development
The modern development and construction embodied by the Zeppelin NT had been financed by a long-standing endowment, which had been initially funded with money left over from the earlier Zeppelin company, that had been under the trusteeship of the Mayor of Friedrichshafen. A stipulation had been placed upon the endowment that limited the use of its funds to the field of airships. Over the many years, the investment value of the endowment grew to a point where it had become viable for the funds to be put to use for the purpose of designing, developing, and constructing of a new generation of Zeppelins.

In 1988, the first considerations into the technological and economic feasibility of reviving the Zeppelin industry began; this included examinations of historic Zeppelin documentation as well as current designs for airships. In December 1990, a feasibility study and accompanying market research program found an initial sales potential for around eighty Zeppelin airships for purposes such as tourism, advertising, and scientific research. In mid 1991, the newly formed development team filed several patents on various technologies that would be later used on the subsequent airship, these included propeller arrangements, structure and girder design, and ballonet implementation. In March 1991, a flyable remote control proof of concept model was demonstrated, which is claimed to have revealed excellent flight characteristics from the onset.

In September 1993, the Zeppelin Luftschifftechnik GmbH (ZLT) was founded in Friedrichshafen as a corporate spin-off of the original Zeppelin company to pursue development and production of the new generation of Zeppelins, later known as the Zeppelin NT (New Technology). By spring 1994, preparatory studies for a full-sized prototype were underway. In 1995, the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt, Germany's civil aviation authority, officially recognized ZLT as a design organisation, and approved new construction regulations for airships. In November 1995, final assembly of the first airship prototype commenced, it was promoted as being the first rigid airship to be produced by the firm since the Second World War. In July 1996, the under-construction prototype of the Zeppelin N07 was presented to the public and the media. In September 1997, the prototype performed its maiden flight at Friedrichshafen; piloted by US test pilot Scott Danneker, it flew for a total of 40 minutes.

On 8 August 1998, the Zeppelin N07 prototype performed a cross-country flight via Altenrhein, Switzerland to Echterdingen near Stuttgart, Germany; at the end of this journey, the prototype also accomplished its first masting away from Friedrichshafen upon landing at Stuttgart Airport. The test program included noise level measurements, avionics tests, and take-offs and landings. In October 1999, the prototype completed a 680 km journey, its longest distance flight at that point. According to the manufacturer, the Zeppelin N07 prototype had proven the technical design by mid 1998, and thus could be applied to production models without major modifications.

On 2 July 2000, the centennial of the first Zeppelin flight, the prototype was christened D-LZFN Friedrichshafen by Count Zeppelin's granddaughter, Elisabeth Veil. In July 2000, the prototype performed a high-profile tour of Germany, travelled more than 3600 km in about 75 flight hours and appearing at the Expo 2000 at Hannover. By December 2000, the flight test programme was completed; during which, the prototype had accumulated in excess of 800 flight hours over roughly 220 flights. In June 2001, the prototype appeared at the Paris Air Show, the occasion being the first time that a Zeppelin had cruised above Paris since the 1920s.

In May 1999, the production of the components for the first production airship was started. In February 2000, the support structure assembly of the first series airship was completed, while the envelope was attached to the support structure in May that year. In 2001, the company formally commenced series manufacturing of the Zeppelin NT, and began the commercial exploitation of the airships. In April 2001, the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt issued type certification for the Zeppelin N07, a key step towards commercial operations; that same month, ZLT became a certified airship-manufacturing company. On 19 May 2001, the first production airship conducted its maiden flight, flying for two and a half hours. On 10 August 2001, the first production airship SN 02 was christened D-LZZR Bodensee by Carl, Duke of Württemberg; five days later, it began providing commercial passenger services, initially involving one-hour sightseeing flights over Lake Constance to members of the public up to ten times per day.

Overview
The Zeppelin NT series are a family of semi-rigid airships, combining the design principles of rigid airships and blimps together. The Zeppelin N07, the base model and most commonly constructed to date, are 75 m long, with a volume of 8225 m3. They are thus considerably smaller than the old Zeppelins, which reached a maximum volume of 200000 m3, such as the LZ 129 Hindenburg. Furthermore, they are inflated exclusively with the non-flammable noble gas helium, rather than with hydrogen.

The Zeppelin NT, designed more than 60 years after the last generation of Zeppelins were built and making use of advances in material science and computer-aided design, is claimed to overcome some of the typical maneuverability, safety, and economic disadvantages of airships. In particular, the propulsion system offers significantly increased safety. In standard operations with a maximum payload, the gas cells do not create enough buoyancy to make the whole ship "lighter-than-air." The negative buoyancy is overcome with the application of engine power. The buoyancy can change when traveling with a reduced payload and partially emptied fuel tanks, but typically the Zeppelin NT starts a journey with a net downward force of about 3000 N; on long trips, the airship can become lighter–than–air if much of its fuel is consumed.

The design typically has a range of some 900 km and reaches top speeds of 125 km/h. The standard cruising speed of 70 km/h for tourist flights can be attained using the rear propeller only. Standard operational altitude is 300 m, but up to 2600 m is possible. Their maximum permitted takeoff weight is 10960 kg, with a payload of 1900 kg. A long endurance system can also be installed for extended range and longer flight times.

Hull and structure
The Zeppelin NT is a semi-rigid airship. It is unlike both the original Zeppelins that had a rigid skeleton and non-rigid blimps. It has an internal triangular truss made of graphite-reinforced plastic and three longitudinal girders made of welded aluminium which connect the triangular elements along the length of the frame. Additionally, the structure is tightened with aramid cords to provide for extra rigidity. All major components, such as the engines, control cabin and the steering fins, are mounted upon the structure; this allows maneuverability to be maintained even in the event of envelope pressure being lost. The whole structure weighs only about 1000 kg.

The envelope contains the lighter-than-air helium which gives the airship its buoyancy. Inside historical Zeppelins, the gas cells were separate entities from the hull; however, on the Zeppelin NT, the envelope serves both as the aircraft's hull and as the gas cell. It is made of a three-layered laminate: one gas-tight layer of Tedlar (PVF), one polyester fabric layer to provide stability and one polyurethane layer suitable for plastic welding that acts to connect the separate laminate panels. To preserve its outer form, a slight overpressure of about 5 mb is maintained within the hull. As in blimps, the interior pressure is kept constant at all flight altitudes by using ballonets. The ballonets have a total volume of 2000 m3.

On the external surfaces of the Zeppelin NT are several equipment attachment points, including multiple hardpoints present for the purpose of installing cameras of up to 65 kg weight; an optional nose-mounted boom can be installed for attaching sensor equipment or scientific probes. Payloads can also be suspended underneath the airship via a cargo hook arrangement using the floor hatch present in the cabin. Due to the center of gravity and the location of the cabin being different, two sets of non-retractable landing gear are installed on the underside of the airship, the forward set being directly attached to the cabin's underside and the aft set upon the primary structure itself.

Propulsion and steering
Power for the Zeppelin NT's propulsion systems is provided by a trio of 147 kW Textron Lycoming IO-360 boxer aviation engines, fueled by standard aviation gasoline. These engines are mounted on the sides and rear of the structure itself to provide optimum efficiency; this arrangement also increases in-flight comfort due to reduced levels of propeller noise and vibration. In addition to thrust, each engine also provides maneuverability via their swiveling propellers; the two forward engines are equipped with hydraulically-actuated tilting propellers which are usually aligned horizontally, but can be turned 90° upward or 30° downward, while the aft engine powers a fixed lateral propeller. Each engine is furnished with separate fuel tanks and supply systems that typically operate independently of one another.

The swiveling propellers have been claimed to have provided the Zeppelin NT with unique flight characteristics, such as being able to hover precisely, fly backwards, take off vertically, and turn on its axis. The functionality of the swiveling propellers allows the Zeppelin NT to carry out both take-offs and landing operations entirely in the vertical plane. During such operations, only three ground personnel are required, lowering costs and minimizing turnaround times as a consequence. In 2010, development of an improved propeller capable of quieter operation was completed.

Instead of four rudder and elevator fins set on the airship's empennage, the Zeppelin NT uses only three identical fins; one fin being set at the top with the others offset at an angle of 120 degrees to either side of the top fin. This arrangement not only saves weight, but as a side effect, the loss of one fin can be compensated with the remaining two. The aerodynamically balanced rudders are equipped with independent electrical actuators.

Cockpit and cabin
The two-man cockpit of the Zeppelin NT is equipped with modern avionics systems and provides similar levels of external visibility to that of a helicopter. The flight controls make use of fly-by-wire technology to reduce physical demands upon the pilot as well as enable the execution of precision maneuvers; the pilot uses a single joystick to steer the airship across the three dimensions. The Zeppelin NT is certified for single pilot operations; the second seat is often used by a flight attendant during tourist operations. Elements of the airship's avionics, including navigation, communication, and air data systems, can be directly interfaced with the mission support systems; an 8kVA additional electrical power system is also present. In early 2012, ZLT and Goodyear signed an agreement to replace the Zeppelin NT's instrumentation and display systems, upgrading the cockpit to feature a glass cockpit.

The base model of the Zeppelin NT has a passenger capacity of 12 in addition to a crew of two; alternatively, it is capable of lifting payloads of up to 1900 kg. In contrast, the original Zeppelin designs carried over a hundred passengers and crew, with a nearly even ratio of passengers to crew members. The Zeppelin NT has been equipped with a variable cabin structure, allowing it to be quickly changed for various purposes and missions. Entrance and egress of the cabin for both cargo and passengers is provided by a pair of large hinged floor-level doors. In a passenger configuration, up to 13 seats equipped with seatbelts may be installed along with heating/air conditioning systems, a kitchenette, and a restroom in the rear cabin area; large wraparound windows are also present to provide panoramic views of the outside. Amongst the possible seating configurations, more luxurious VIP layouts are also available. Alternatively, mission equipment can be installed in the cabin area.

Operational history
Seven Zeppelin NTs have been built to date.

D-LZFN, Friedrichshafen
The prototype Zeppelin NT (SN 01), D-LZFN, Friedrichshafen, was intended to be used for training pilots for special flights and for presentations. During the Oktoberfest of 2002 a Zeppelin NT was used for radio experiments in connection with the European Galileo positioning system project for the German Aerospace Center and the ESA. It was intended that all further ships would be used commercially or sold. As a tribute to the days of Zeppelin mail, a number of mail-carrying flights were planned. Steve Fossett and Paul Stroehle set the current speed record for airships over a distance of one kilometer on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 in Friedrichshafen, Germany with a Zeppelin NT. The new world record was set to 111.8 km/h, an improvement of 19 km/h.

Starting in late 2005 the Friedrichshafen was based in Jwaneng, a diamond mining town in southern Botswana, where it conducted an airborne geophysical survey on behalf of De Beers Prospecting Botswana. The airship was moved from Amsterdam to Cape Town by ship and then flown to Gaborone where a Lockheed Martin full tensor gravity gradiometer was installed. This instrument, owned and operated by Bell Geospace, measures changes in the Earth's gravity field associated with geological density variations. The technology is based on accelerometers and the data quality is sensitive to the turbulence and motion usually associated with fixed wing aircraft installations. The airship, flying slowly at night in relatively cool calm air, provides a very stable and vibrationally quiet platform. The resulting data is capable of revealing the rather faint gravity signals associated with Kimberlite pipes – a source of diamonds – buried under the Kalahari sands. This survey came to an end on 20 September 2007, when D-LZFN was irreparably damaged by a whirlwind while moored at its mast.

Registration number D-LZFN, was later given to SN 02 when it returned from Japan.

D-LZZR, Bodensee
The second Zeppelin NT and first production model (SN 02) was named D-LZZR Bodensee and began the first commercial tourist operations on August 15, 2001 by Deutsche Zeppelin Reederei (DZR). On March 2, 2004 the DZR sold it to Nippon Airship Corporation in Japan. Transferred in June 2004, it was to have followed the historical route of the 1929 World Tour of the famous dirigible LZ127 Graf Zeppelin. After problems with Russian authorities (unattested air security), a special ship for huge parts from the Netherlands was chartered and the Zeppelin was shipped from Italy to Japan by sea. The company used the airship mainly for tours and advertising. In May 2010, due to economic problems at Nippon Airship Corporation, the SN 02 was shipped back to Germany. The craft regained her old name Bodensee and resumed passenger operations in 2012. In winter 2015–16, Bodensee was rebuilt to -101 configuration, with its passenger capacity increased to 14.

D-LZZF, Baden-Württemberg
The third Zeppelin NT (SN03) and second production model, designated D-LZZF, Baden-Württemberg, first flew in February 2003. It is currently flown in revenue passenger service by the DZR. It was painted in Goodyear colors for the summer season 2010 to promote a new joint venture between Goodyear and the Zeppelin Luftschiffbau, the first in 70 years.

D-LZNT, Eureka
In January 2006, the Zeppelin Luftschifftechnik GmbH announced the start of construction of a fourth Zeppelin N07. In 2007, it was optioned by California-based Airship Ventures. On 21 May 2008, the new airship completed its first flight. Between July and September 2008, the airship, registered D-LZNT, operated sightseeing and pleasure flights over eastern London and the Thames Estuary from an airfield close to Upminster, in Essex, England, advertising Stella Artois beer and the DrinkAware responsible alcohol use campaign. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued the type certificate for the Zeppelin N07, allowing the airship to fly legally in the United States. In late September 2008, the airship arrived at the Port of Beaumont, Texas; after spending three days tethered at the Southeast Texas Regional Airport, the airship flew cross-country to its base at Moffett Federal Airfield. Upon its arrival, the airship was given the US registration N704LZ, and was christened Eureka (after the California state motto). In November 2008, Airship Ventures began commercial operations, offering flightseeing tours over the San Francisco and Monterey Bay areas, operating both out of Moffett Field and Oakland Terminal. On 14 November 2012, Airship Ventures ceased operations and grounded Eureka. Eureka was disassembled and shipped back to Germany. In 2019-2020, D-LZNT was rebuilt to N07-101 -standard and brought back to service, with a completely new gondola for 16 passengers and crew.

Goodyear
On 3 May 2011, Goodyear confirmed their intentions to reinstate their long-lost partnership with Zeppelin. Goodyear placed an order for three Zeppelin NT LZ N07-101 models with plans to start operation in January 2014. The Zeppelin NT is the successor to Goodyear's non-rigid airship, the GZ-20 in Goodyear airship advertising. Goodyear's first zeppelin, Wingfoot One, was unveiled on 14 March 2014 and is currently stationed in Pompano Beach, Florida, USA. The second zeppelin, Wingfoot Two made its maiden flight on 12 March 2016. Wingfoot Two is stationed in Carson, California. The third zeppelin, Wingfoot Three made its maiden flight on 25 June 2018 and will be permanently stationed in Suffield Township, Ohio.

Deutsche Zeppelin-Reederei
In January 2001, ZLG founded the Deutsche Zeppelin-Reederei (DZR) (German for German Zeppelin shipping company) as a subsidiary. Since 15 August 2001, DZR has offered aerial sightseeing tours using a number of Zeppelin NT airships; in June 2010, the 100,000th passenger was carried, less than nine years after commercial operations were launched. In March 2004, DZR became the first company in the world to receive certification as a flight school for airships, initially providing such services to the Japanese Nippon Airship Corporation.

Variants

 * LZ N07-100
 * Original production version.

 * LZ N07-101
 * Slightly improved version produced since 2011. New avionics and slightly longer gondola increasing max passenger capacity to 14. Goodyear ships are seated for 12.

 * Zeppelin NT 14
 * Planned larger, 19-seat aircraft. The "14" comes from the 14000 m3 of envelope volume.

title: Zeppelin NT


text:
Elulu

Elulu (, e-lu-lu) is listed as the third king of the First Dynasty of Ur on the Sumerian king list, which states he reigned for 25 years.

One early inscription for an "Elulu (or Elili), king of Ur" was found at nearby Eridu, stating that this king had built up the abzu ziggurat for Enki.

Some scholars have further connected Elulu with the "Elilina" who was said to be the father of the later king Enshakushanna of Uruk, but this theory is uncertain, owing to chronological difficulties. The inscription states that Enshakushanna's father was "Elilina", possibly King Elulu of Ur:

" DLU2-KU-ra / en-sha3-kush2-an-na / en ki-en-gi / lugal kalam-ma / dumu e2-li-li-na#? / e2-ni mu-na-du3 "For ... (unknown god): Enshakushanna, lord of Sumer and king of all the land, son of Elilina, built the temple for Him.""

- Dedication tablet by King Enshakushanna, State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, Erm 14375.

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

title: Elulu


text:
Twenty-third Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland

The Twenty-third Amendment of the Constitution Act 2001 of the Constitution of Ireland is an amendment that permitted the state to become a party to the International Criminal Court (ICC). It was approved by referendum on 7 June 2001 and signed into law on the 27 March 2002. The referendum was held on the same day as referendums on the prohibition of the death penalty, which was also approved, and on the ratification of the Nice Treaty, which was rejected.

Background
The Statute of the International Criminal Court established the International Criminal Court. As its ratification would affect Ireland's sovereignty and powers and functions elsewhere in the Constitution, under the decision of the Supreme Court in Crotty v. An Taoiseach (1987), an amendment was required before it could be ratified.

Changes to the text
Insertion of new Article 29.9:

Oireachtas debate
The Twenty-third Amendment was proposed in Dáil Éireann by Minister for Foreign Affairs Brian Cowen on behalf of the Fianna Fáil–Progressive Democrats coalition government led by Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. It had the support of all parties and it passed final stages in the Dáil on 12 April. It passed final stages in the Seanad on 2 May and proceeded to a referendum on 11 June 2001.

Aftermath
The International Criminal Court came into force on 1 July 2002.

Note on numbering
The Twenty-third Amendment Bill was put to the people with the Twenty-first and Twenty-fourth Amendment Bills. This is because the Twenty-second Amendment of the Constitution Bill was withdrawn by the government during the course of debate in the Oireachtas. There was therefore no Twenty-second Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, as the title of legislation is not changed on its enactment.


text:
La Pommeraye

La Pommeraye is the name or part of the name of several communes in France:

 * La Pommeraye, Maine-et-Loire, in the Maine-et-Loire département
 * La Pommeraye, Calvados, in the Calvados département
 * La Pommeraie-sur-Sèvre, in the Vendée département

title: La Pommeraye


text:
File talk:AntiochPrinces.png

can this be rendered in wikiml, in mathml, in a table? can the "1, 2... number of marriage" text be fixed? Badanedwa 20:28, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * i dont know whats wikiml or mathml. MvHG 09:32, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

title: File talk:AntiochPrinces.png


text:
CDU donations scandal

The CDU donations scandal was a political scandal resulting from the illegal forms of party financing used by the German Christian Democratic Union (CDU) during the 1990s. These included accepting hidden donations, the non-disclosure of cash donations, the maintenance of secret bank accounts, and illegal wire transfers to and from foreign banks.

The scandal was uncovered in late 1999 and remained the dominant subject of political discussion and news coverage in Germany for several months. The Gesellschaft für deutsche Sprache selected the term Schwarzgeldaffäre (literally, "black money affair" i.e. "illegal earnings scandal") as German Word of the Year 2000. Opinion polls conducted by the Allensbach Institute suggest that in November 1999 (before the scandal became known), the CDU was expected to receive around 45 percent of the popular vote in a hypothetical German federal election. By February 2000, this value had plummeted down to 31 percent.

As a consequence, two of the leading CDU figures of the 1980s and 1990s, Helmut Kohl and Wolfgang Schäuble, lost their political influence, with Angela Merkel and Roland Koch emerging as the most powerful German conservative politicians.

title: CDU donations scandal


text:
Talk:CDU donations scandal

This is more or less a direct translation of the German version, with some added information from my Google search results. My German isn't great, though, and some of the article talks about aspects of the German political system I'm not familiar with, so I would appreciate input. Jxg 20:28, 2004 May 22 (UTC)

Notes moved from Translation into English

 * Article: de:CDU-Spendenaffäre
 * Corresponding English-language article: None that I can find
 * Unless we discover that the English-language newspapers at the time had a name for this, let's put it at CDU contribution scandal. -- Jmabel 04:55, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Worth doing because: Looks very complete, and the English Wiki doesn't have one
 * Originally Requested by: Αλεξ Σ 03:56, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Status: I translated it at 1999 CDU Funding Scandal. Any assistance would be appreciated. Jxg 20:34, 2004 May 22 (UTC)
 * Looks good enough to be moved to "done" IMO.Cat 16:17, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Other notes:

I would like to see the German version translated into English. As far as the citations being in German, you do what we do in Canada: if it is only in French, we refer to it as is. Citations are basically proof of source of statement/information. Example: the article from La Presse contradicts Süddeutsche Zeitung in it's portrayal of such and such.

Also using the odd german phrase/term in the english version isn't going to kill us english speakers - though putting a translation in brackets would be nice. The bigger words are easier to look up than the ones to do with syntax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.37.48 (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Renaming
International media referred to this as a "donations scandal", therefore the article should be renamed "CDU donations scandal (1999)".--Franz-57 (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CDU donations scandal. 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/20120519155701/http://www.br.de/themen/aktuell/inhalt/schreiber_chronik100.html to http://www.br.de/themen/aktuell/inhalt/schreiber_chronik100.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120919235902/http://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/schreiber-revision102.html to http://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/schreiber-revision102.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:CDU donations scandal


text:
La Pommeraye, Calvados

La Pommeraye is a commune in the Calvados department in the Normandy region in northwestern France.

Geography
The commune is part of the area known as Suisse Normande.

The commune is made up of the following collection of villages and hamlets, La Guérardière and La Pommeraye.

The commune has a single watercourse running throughs its borders, The Orival stream.

Points of interest

 * Théâtre équestre de la Pommeraye is a theatre that has been open since 2018 which is dedicated to mixing performing arts with equestrian arts.

National heritage sites

 * Château Ganne is the remains of an eleventh century castle, that was listed as a Monument historique in 2000.

title: La Pommeraye, Calvados


text:
Die Schuldigkeit des ersten Gebots

Die Schuldigkeit des ersten Gebots (complete title in historical spelling: Die Schuldigkeit Des ersten und fürnehmsten Gebotes; The Obligation of the First and Foremost Commandment), K. 35, is a sacred musical play (geistliches Singspiel) composed by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in 1767 when he was 11 years old. It is Mozart's first opera or, more specifically, sacred drama, as is suggested by the name. The libretto is now attributed to, although Johann Adam Wieland or Jakob Anton Marianus Wimmer had been suggested earlier. (The title page of the libretto ascribes it only to "J.A.W.".) Only the first part of the opera was composed by Mozart; the second and third parts were contributed by Michael Haydn and Anton Cajetan Adlgasser respectively. However, these other two parts have not survived. Part 1 of the opera was first performed on March 12, 1767, in the Knight's Hall of the Palace of the Archbishop, the Salzburg Residenz. Part 2 was performed on March 19, and part 3 on March 26.

Background and performance history
Mozart composed the work at age 11 with the help of his two teachers, Michael Haydn and Anton Cajetan Adlgasser. In Salzburg, dividing up a sacred singspiel between other composers was common. The libretto was written by Ignatz Anton von Weiser even though it was said that Johann Adam Wieland suggested the idea first and his name is written on the libretto. Mozart composed only the first part of the opera, and the others composed "part two" and "part three." However, these other two parts have not survived. The performances were predominantly in Salzburg in St. Peter's, in Cathedrals, on the Nonnberg, and in Residenz. The opera includes many recitatives for all of the characters, and each character sings one to three arias. The characters of the opera are two tenors: Christgeist and Christ (a Christian), and three sopranos: Barmherzigkeit, Gerechtigkeit, and Weltgeist. The opera does not have a chorus.

Part I of the opera was first performed on 12 March 1767 in the Knight's Hall of the Palace of the Archbishop, Salzburg. Part II was performed on 19 March, and Part III on 26 March.

Musical numbers

 * 01. Sinfonia Allegro
 * 02. Recitativo: Die löblich' und gerechte Bitte
 * 03. No. 1 Aria: Mit Jammer muß ich schauen
 * 04. Recitativo: So viele Seelen Fall
 * 05. No. 2 Aria: Ein ergrimmter Löwe brüllet
 * 06. Recitativo: Was glaubst du?
 * 07. No. 3 Aria: Erwache, fauler Knecht
 * 08. Recitativo: Er reget sich
 * 09. Recitativo: Wie, wer erwecket mich?
 * 10. No. 4 Aria: Hat der Schöpfer dieses Leben
 * 11. Recitativo: Daß Träume Träume sind
 * 12. No. 5 Aria: Jener Donnerworte Kraft
 * 13. Recitativo: Ist dieses, o so zweifle nimmermehr
 * 14. No. 6 Aria: Schildre einen Philosophen
 * 15. Recitativo: Wen hör' ich nun hier in der Nähe
 * 16. No. 7 Aria: Manches Übel
 * 17. Recitativo: Er halt mich einem Kranken gleich
 * 19. Recitativo: Hast du nunmehr erfahren
 * 20. No. 8 Terzetto: Laßt mir eurer Gnade Schein

title: Die Schuldigkeit des ersten Gebots


text:
Dudu

Dudu may refer to:

Places

 * Dudu, Hormozgan, a village in South Khorasan Province, Iran
 * Dudu, South Khorasan, a village in South Khorasan Province, Iran
 * Dudu, Jammu and Kashmir, a village in Jammu and Kashmir, India
 * Dudu, Rajasthan, a district in the state of Rajasthan, India
 * Dudu (Rajasthan Assembly constituency)
 * Dudu, a village in Chiajna Commune, Ilfov County, Romania
 * Dudu, a village in Plopii-Slăvitești Commune, Teleorman County, Romania
 * 564 Dudu, a minor planet

Footballers

 * Dudu (footballer, born 1939), Olegário Tolóí de Oliveira, Brazilian midfielder and coach
 * Dudu (footballer, born 1980), Eduardo Francisco da Silva Neto, Brazilian forward
 * Dudu (footballer, born 1982), Carlos Eduardo Passos Farias, Brazilian midfielder
 * Dudu (footballer, born 17 April 1990), Luis Eduardo Chebel Klein Nunes, Brazilian defender
 * Dudu (footballer, born 21 April 1990), Luiz Eduardo dos Santos Gonzaga, Brazilian forward
 * Dudu (footballer, born 1992), Eduardo Pereira Rodrigues, Brazilian winger and attacking midfielder
 * Dudu (footballer, born 1993), Carlos Eduardo Bendini Giusti, Brazilian defender
 * Dudu (footballer, born 1996), Luiz Eduardo da Silva dos Santos, Brazilian forward
 * Dudu (footballer, born 1997), Luís Eduardo Marques dos Santos, Brazilian right back
 * Dudu (footballer, born 1998), Eduardo Feitoza Sampaio, Brazilian footballer
 * Dudu (German footballer) (born 1999), Eduardo dos Santos Haesler, German goalkeeper
 * Dudu (footballer, born June 1999), Eduardo Marcelo Rodrigues Nunes, Brazilian midfielder
 * Dudu (footballer, born August 1999), Luiz Eduardo Teodora da Silva, Brazilian midfielder
 * Dudu (footballer, born 2002), Eduardo Kempf Schwade, Brazilian left back
 * Dudu (footballer, born 2006), Eduardo Kogitzki Anastacio, Brazilian football midfielder
 * Dudu Aouate (born 1977), Israeli goalkeeper
 * Dudu Biton (born 1988), Israeli striker
 * Dudu Cearense (born 1983), Brazilian central midfielder
 * Dudu Dahan (born 1971), Israeli defender and manager
 * Dudu Doukara (born 1991), French-Senegalese footballer
 * Dudu Figueiredo (born 1991), Brazilian attacking midfielder
 * Dudu Georgescu (born 1950), Romanian footballer
 * Dudu Hatamoto (born 2003), Brazilian football forward
 * Dudu Mineiro (born 1985), Brazilian forward
 * Dudu Omagbemi (born 1985), Nigerian striker
 * Dudu Pacheco (born 1997), Brazilian midfielder
 * Dudu Paraíba (born 1985), Brazilian left wingback
 * Dudu Twito (born 1994), Israeli left back
 * Eduardo da Silva (born 1983), Croatian footballer

Musicians

 * Dudu Aharon (born 1984), Israeli singer
 * Dudu do Banjo (born 1935), Brazilian guitar player and "king of banjo"
 * Dudu Elharar (born 1945), Israeli singer, music producer, actor and presenter
 * Dudu Fisher (born 1951), Israeli singer and stage performer
 * Dudu Nobre (born 1974), Brazilian composer and singer
 * Dudu Pukwana (1938–1990), South African saxophonist, composer and pianist
 * Dudu Tassa (born 1977), Israeli musician
 * Dudu Tucci (born 1955), Brazilian percussionist, singer and composer

Other people

 * Dudu of Akkad (fl. c. 21st century BC), king of Akkad
 * Dudu Duswara (c. 1951–2020), Indonesian judge
 * Dudu Gerstein (born 1944), Israeli painter and sculptor
 * Dudu Geva (1950–2005), Israeli artist, writer, cartoonist, illustrator, and comic book creator
 * Dudu Karakaya (born 1985), Turkish middle-distance runner
 * Dudu Mentemu (1370–1433), Manchurian chieftain
 * Dudu Miyan (1819–1862), Indian militant leader
 * Dudu Mntowaziwayo Ndlovu (1957–1992), Zulu dancer
 * Dudu Myeni (born 1963), South African businesswoman
 * Dudu Topaz (1946–2009), Israeli comedian, actor, author and radio and television host
 * Dudu Zondo (born 1994), South African cricketer
 * Eduardo Dantas (born 1989), Brazilian bantamweight mixed martial arts fighter
 * Khandaker Rashiduzzaman Dudu (died 2014), Bangladeshi politician
 * Princess Dudu (born 1978), Nigerian taekwondo practitioner
 * Shamsul Alam Dudu (born 1957), Bangladeshi politician
 * Shamsuzzaman Dudu, Bangladeshi politician

Other uses

 * Dudu (album), by Turkish pop singer Tarkan
 * Dudu, a West German children's comedy film series also known as Superbug

title: Dudu


text:
Twenty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland

The Twenty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution Act 2002 (previously bill no. 32 of 2003) is an amendment of the Constitution of Ireland which permitted the state to ratify the Treaty of Nice. It was approved by referendum on 19 October 2002 (sometimes known as the second Nice referendum) and signed into law on 7 November of the same year. The amendment followed a previous failed attempt to approve the Nice Treaty which was rejected in the first Nice referendum held in 2001.

Background
The Treaty of Nice was signed by the member states of the European Union in February 2001, amending the Treaties of the European Union. Under the decision of the Supreme Court in Crotty v. An Taoiseach (1987), an amendment to the Constitution was required before it could be ratified by Ireland. In June 2001, an amendment to the Constitution of to allow the ratification of the Nice Treaty was rejected in a referendum. One of the reasons the No side had called for its rejection was that it would affect Irish neutrality. When the Nice Treaty was put to a second vote, the wording of the constitutional amendment excluded participation in common defence. The Treaty of Nice contained a number of optional discretionary provisions that member-states could activate at a later time after its adoption. The Government of Ireland and the European Council jointly made the Seville Declarations on the Treaty of Nice in June 2002 to recommit themselves to shared interests ahead of the second vote. The Twenty-sixth Amendment permitted the Republic to choose to exercise these options, provided its decision was approved by the Oireachtas.

Changes to the text
Insertion of the following subsections in Article 29.4:

Existing subsections 7° and 8° of Article 29.4 renumbered as 10° and 11° respectively.

Oireachtas debate
The Twenty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution Bill was proposed in Dáil Éireann by Minister for Foreign Affairs Brian Cowen on 4 September 2002 on behalf of the Fianna Fáil–Progressive Democrats coalition government led by Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. It passed final stages in the Dáil on 11 September, where it also had the support of Fine Gael and the Labour Party, and was opposed by Sinn Féin, the Green Party and the Socialist Party and a number of Independent TDs. It passed final stages in Seanad Éireann on 13 September and proceeded to a referendum on 19 October.

Campaign
A Referendum Commission was established by Minister for the Environment and Local Government Noel Dempsey. It was chaired by former Chief Justice Thomas Finlay. Its role was to prepare one or more statements containing a general explanation of the subject matter of the proposal and of the text of the proposal in the amendment bill.

Result
The '± Yes 2001' column shows the percentage point change in the Yes vote compared to the first Nice referendum which was rejected in a referendum in 2001.

Note on numbering
The Twenty-sixth Amendment follows directly after the Twenty-third Amendment in the list of passed Amendments. This is because the Twenty-fourth and Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution Bills were both rejected in referendums, and the government decided not to reuse the numbers. Numbers have been re-used before, for example, there were rejected proposals titled the Third Amendment in 1959 and in 1968, before the Third Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland was passed in 1972.


text:
Shu-turul

Shu-turul (Shu-durul,, shu-tur2-ul3) (also Šu-Turul) was the last king of the Akkadian Empire, ruling for 15 years according to the Sumerian king list. It indicates that he succeeded his father Dudu. A few artifacts, seal impressions etc. attest that he held sway over a greatly reduced Akkadian territory that included Kish, Tutub, Nippur, and Eshnunna. The Diyala river also bore the name "Shu-durul" at the time.

Sumerian King List
The king list asserts that Akkad was then conquered, and the hegemony returned to Uruk following his reign. It further lists six names of an Uruk dynasty; however only two of these six rulers, Ur-nigin, and Ur-gigir, have been confirmed through archaeology. With Akkad's collapse the Gutians, who had established their capital at Adab, became the regional power, though several of the southern city-states such as Uruk, Ur and Lagash also declared independence around this time.

Inscriptions
A few inscriptions in his name are known. One, on an administrative clay sealing found at Kish reads:

""Šu-Turul the mighty, king of Agade""

A clay sealing of Shu-turl was found at Nippur. Another reading "[S]u-Turul, the [m]ighty, [ki]ng of [Aga]de: ... [(is) his servant]." was found at Tell Asmar.

A votive mace, made of dark green marble, is also known with an inscription mentioning Shu-turul and the dedication of a temple to Nergal:

"

a-na {d}ne3-iri11-gal a-na na-'a3-si szu-tur2-ul3 szar3-ri2 a-ga-de3{ki} la-ba-'a3?-szum szabra e2 a mu-ru "To Nergal, for the life of Shu-turul king of Akkad, Laba-erishum the palace soothsayer has dedicated this""

- Mace of Shu-turul (British Museum, BM 114703)

A seventeen centimeter long copper axe, acquired on the antiquities market, reads "Su-Turul, the mighty, king of Agade".

A tablet found at Adab contains the year name "year when Shu-Durul assumed the kingdom".

A one manna weight(in the shape of a duck), now held at the Urfa Museum, is inscribed with the name of an official of Akkadian ruler Shu-durul was recovered from a looted context in Titris Hoyuk.

title: Shu-turul


text:
Pont-Bellanger

Pont-Bellanger is a commune in the Calvados department in the Normandy region in northwestern France.

title: Pont-Bellanger


text:
Base transceiver station

A base transceiver station (BTS) or a baseband unit (BBU) is a piece of equipment that facilitates wireless communication between user equipment (UE) and a network. UEs are devices like mobile phones (handsets), WLL phones, computers with wireless Internet connectivity, or antennas mounted on buildings or telecommunication towers. The network can be that of any of the wireless communication technologies like GSM, CDMA, wireless local loop, Wi-Fi, WiMAX or other wide area network (WAN) technology.

BTS is also referred to as the node B (in 3G networks) or, simply, the base station (BS). For discussion of the LTE standard the abbreviation eNB for evolved node B is widely used, and GNodeB for 5G.

Though the term BTS can be applicable to any of the wireless communication standards, it is generally associated with mobile communication technologies like GSM and CDMA. In this regard, a BTS forms part of the base station subsystem (BSS) developments for system management. It may also have equipment for encrypting and decrypting communications, spectrum filtering tools (band pass filters) and so on. Antennas may also be considered as components of BTS in general sense as they facilitate the functioning of BTS. Typically a BTS will have several transceivers (TRXs) which allow it to serve several different frequencies and different sectors of the cell (in the case of sectorised base stations). A BTS is controlled by a parent base station controller via the base station control function (BCF). The BCF is implemented as a discrete unit or even incorporated in a TRX in compact base stations. The BCF provides an operations and maintenance (O&M) connection to the network management system (NMS), and manages operational states of each TRX, as well as software handling and alarm collection. The basic structure and functions of the BTS remains the same regardless of the wireless technologies.'''

General architecture
A BTS is usually composed of:
 * Transceiver (TRX): Provides transmission and reception of signals. It also does sending and reception of signals to and from higher network entities (like the base station controller in mobile telephony). This can be separated into a dedicated device known as a Remote radio head (RRH).
 * Power amplifier (PA): Amplifies the signal from TRX for transmission through antenna; may be integrated with TRX.
 * Combiner: Combines feeds from several TRXs so that they could be sent out through a single antenna. Allows for a reduction in the number of antenna used.
 * Multiplexer: For separating sending and receiving signals to/from antenna. Does sending and receiving signals through the same antenna ports (cables to antenna).
 * Antenna: This is the structure that the BTS lies underneath; it can be installed as it is or disguised in some way (concealed cellular sites).
 * Alarm extension system: Collects working status alarms of various units in the BTS and extends them to operations and maintenance (O&M) monitoring stations.
 * Control function: Controls and manages the various units of BTS, including any software. On-the-spot configurations, status changes, software upgrades, etc. are done through the control function.
 * Baseband receiver unit (BBxx): Frequency hopping, signal DSP.

Terms regarding a mobile BTS

 * Diversity techniques: To improve the quality of the received signal, often two receiving antennas are used, placed at a distance equal to an odd multiple of a quarter of the corresponding wavelength. For 900 MHz, this wavelength is 33 cm. This technique, known as antenna diversity or space diversity, avoids interruption caused by path fading. The antennas can be spaced horizontally or vertically. Horizontal spacing requires more complex installation, but brings better performance.

 * Other than antenna or space diversity, there are other diversity techniques such as frequency/time diversity, antenna pattern diversity, and polarization diversity.

 * Splitting refers to the flow of power within a particular area of the cell, known as a sector. Every field can therefore be considered like one new cell.

Directional antennas reduce LoRa (long-range) interference. If not sectorised, the cell will be served by an omnidirectional antenna, which radiates in all directions. A typical structure is the trisector, also known as clover, in which there are three sectors served by separate antennas. Each sector has a separate direction of tracking, typically of 120° with respect to the adjacent ones. Other orientations may be used to suit the local conditions. Bisectored cells are also implemented. These are most often oriented with the antennas serving sectors of 180° separation to one another, but again, local variations do exist.

title: Base transceiver station


text:
Talk:France and weapons of mass destruction

Fernando Pereira
It is impossible that the Fernando Pereira that is the current destination of this link could be the Fernando Pereira mentioned in this entry. One died in 1972, the other led a revolution in 2003.

Mihoshi 20:35, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

fixed. Get-back-world-respect 15:20, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

David McTaggart
"The skipper, David McTaggart, was beaten and severely injured by members of the French military." Such a sentence may be misleading without context. Was McTaggart beaten when helpless, or did he try to resist arrest? Do we have other testimonies apart from McTaggart's on this? David.Monniaux 15:24, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
 * "Mr McTaggart returned to the atoll, but was captured and beaten up by French military officers." BBC "He and his crew were physically assaulted by the French military. Although this charge was later denied, it was captured on camera by a crew member. The subsequent litigation against the French government, and the corresponding publicity, played a major part in the French decision to end their nuclear testing programme." I once saw a picture of his black eye on television. He reportedly could not see for a while. Get-back-world-respect 16:01, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

operation vulture
I removed the following four paragraphs:

 * In May 1954 the French were losing the war in Indochina against Ho Chi Minh. At the height of the decisive battle at Dien Bien Phu France's nuclear bosses sent a request to the chairman of the British Atomic Energy Authority. It was a shopping list of items that would help them build nuclear weapons, including a sample quantity of plutonium "so we can take the steps preparatory to the utilisation of our own plutonium". Britain had exploded its own bomb less than two years earlier and so they realised the significance of the request.

 * Before the letter even arrived the French had lost the battle and the war but later that year the French prime minister, Pierre Mendes France, made the formal decision to build the atomic bomb. Britain agreed to supply the requested nuclear materials, including enriched uranium. Among the most important parts of the agreement was an arrangement for the British to check the blueprints and construction of French plutonium production reactors.

 * According to one source, this not only helped the French get their military plutonium reactor at Marcoule into operation quickly but it also averted a disaster, for the British found defects which could have caused a catastrophic explosion at the Rhone Valley site. The same source says that when Charles de Gaulle came to power in 1958 he personally thanked Harold Macmillan for the team's work.

 * There remained France's request for plutonium. In 1955 Britain agreed to export ten grams but "we would not tell the US that we were going to give the French plutonium nor about any similar cases".

The single source given cites "secret documents" and unnamed informants as a basis for these claims. While the story they picture may (or not) reflect the true story, I don't think it's good policy to base an article on what sounds like a conspiracy theory. Anyone thinking of reverting should consider maybe trying to find independent confirmation or corroboration of these claims. 24.201.30.153 05:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reinstated the paragraphs. I agree with you about conspiracy theories but this isn't one of them. The papers were all released to the BBC by UKAEA/MoD et.c under Freedom of Information. It was a very small part of the much larger story on Britain's help for Israel's Nuclear Weapons programme which was broadcast on BBC Newsnight in March and picked up by thousands of outlets TV/Radio/Newspapers/Internet. Noone has challenged the valildity of any of the documents which were supplied by various branches of UK government. The French story was not surprisingly overlooked in the bigger picture about Britain and Israel. The BBC and New Statesman saw all the documents before the story was published. You're welcome to have copies of any of the documents that you request but given that you think everything's a conspiracy theory if you tell me what you want I can give you the exact reference and you can directly request those documents from UKAEA/MoD yourself. For instance the original request from France to Britain is in the UKAEA Heavy Water 1952-57 file titled "Translation of a letter to Sir E Plowden from Messrs, Guillaumat & Perrin dated May 6th 1954" As I have already had the documents declassified this should be a very swift routine process. Newsnightmeirion 17:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I googled for details and didn't really find anything to support those claims except stories directly related to the New Statesman article. In any case, I think you should at least rephrase the passage, because as it is now, it follows awkwardly (IMO) from the previous paragraph. And, unless I'm mistaken, it's lifted directly from the article, although I suppose this would fall under the definition of fair use. Regarding evidence, if you have any link pointing to independent corroboration, that would be great. I must confess I don't care enough to go to the trouble of contacting a foreign government agency. :-) 24.201.30.153 05:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

 * A few more things. First, the New Statesman claims the UK gave France a few grams of plutonium, among other, unspecified items, but the importance of this is unclear considering that, according to the article, "[t]he first French reactor went critical in 1948 and first plutonium was extracted in 1949". Furthermore, (linked in the Wikipedia article) states that "Official approval for developing nuclear weapons was not authorized until late 1954, even though by then the necessary plutonium production program was well advanced." If France first extracted plutonium in 1949 and had an established plutonium production program by, at the latest, late 1954, why the need for British plutonium, much less enriched uranium?

 * Also, a quick google shows the French nuclear program to have a long and pretty well documented history. I don't think claims of British assistance, justified though they may be, should take up almost half the Wikipedia article. The Indochina War bit seems especially off-topic. You appear to care about the article, so I'll leave it up to you to present the possible British ascendency of the French nuclear program in a more appropriate manner. 24.201.30.153 06:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

We can all agree that a longer article on French WMD would be better. The way to achieve this is not by cutting what little is already there but by adding more sections perhaps written by the people who have created the excellent French version of this site. I only dealt with the area on which I have expertise and which has only recently been revealed. I am of course not sugggesting that British help was a major factor in the French Bomb. It was not.

You say you don't understand plutonium or the significance of the Indo China War so let me explain. The French had experimentally extracted minute quantities of plutonium in the late 1940s and the "program was well advanced" in the sense that they had committed to building production reactors at Marcoule but these did not come on stream till 1956. That is why the French wanted small quantities of British plutonium for preliminary weapons design work in 1954-55. They also wanted the designs of those reactors checked by the British. It was the loss of Indo China which convinced Pierre Mendes France at the end of 1954 to go ahead with the Bomb programme in the hope that France would still be regarded as a great power.

Factual articles in the New Statesman are a perfectly good source and I have also offered you a way of independently verifying any facts which you are unsure of. Newsnightmeirion 07:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

 * What I meant is that it's not clear from the Wikipedia article what significance the British assistance, namely providing plutonium and enriched uranium, has, in light of France's successful extraction of plutonium 5 years earlier. The information you provided in your reply should be presented in the article itself and not on the discussion page. 24.201.30.153 17:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Added in French hydrogen bomb and reverted nuclear to atomic where necessary. Newsnightmeirion 07:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"It was the loss of Indo China which convinced Pierre Mendes France at the end of 1954 to go ahead with the Bomb programme in the hope that France would still be regarded as a great power. " : No, this is purely bullshit. There is strictly not a link between Indochina and french nuclear program, which started after WWII. There is also no link whatsoever between France great power status (with a GDP at that time superior to UK GDP, a nice growth and so on...) and Indochina ! This article furthermore rely on fantasy sources... Someone to clean this mess up ? 90.41.148.222 12:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC) For these reasons, removed the four paragraph for lacking any reliable source...90.41.148.222 13:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be factual but it was the loss of Indo China which finally convinced Pierre Mendes France to go ahead with the Bomb at a cabinet meeting on 26 December 1954 although I am sure there were many other factors. However the article does not make this claim - it is only on this talk page so why did you remove the paragraphs from the article? Of course France was already involved in nuclear research - and not just after WW2. I regard France as being the leading country in nuclear research BEFORE WW2 and of course French scientists played their part DURING WW2 as part of the British-Canadian contribution to the Manhattan Project. The post war nuclear programme started to set in place the necessary infrastructure for a Bomb programme - as the request to the UK shows - but no formal decision to go for a Bomb was taken before December 26th 1954. You need to have another look at your GDP figures - I suggest OECD or Eurostat - no serious economist has suggested French GDP was bigger than the UK's in the 1950s. In 1954 for instance the UK GDP was 50% bigger than France's - according to the OECD's World Economy: Historical Statistics. UK GDP was bigger than France's through the 50s and 60s - France overtook UK and stayed ahead through the 70s, 80s and 90s and UK only overtook France again this century. Please source any of your statements or explain exactly which of my sources you think are "fantasy" beofre vandalising articles. Newsnightmeirion 11:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

1) "Sorry to be factual but it was the loss of Indo China which finally convinced Pierre Mendes France to go ahead with the Bomb at a cabinet meeting on 26 December 1954 although I am sure there were many other factors". No. There is no link between Indochina and the nuclear program, no "serious historian" can claim that. The only source about that is nuclearweaponarchive.org, but they themselves lacks credible sources and are not neutral on this topic. Their articles are excellent on some technical aspects, but are highly debatable on political points, like the one we are discussing about; the "romantic" style of the article add another problem to the validity of this website as a good source on political/historical angles. De Gaulle created the CEA on october 1945 in order to give France not only a civil nuclear program, but also a nice place to a military program, which had a troubled history and experienced incredible delays; it explains why De Gaulle "ordonnance" of 1945 states that the CEA "pursue technical and scientific research for use of atomic energy in science, industry, and national defense.": the last of these terms is not what we could qualify as peaceful civilian goal. One of the leading scientist, (in fact, the high commisionner), of the CEA was Frederic Joliot, the one whose researches where funded by the french ministry of defence in 1939 to explore the explosive capacity of uranium; he deposed some patents on this topic with Halban and Kowarski. Considering all this facts, it is clear that stating "the war in Indochina is the event which pushed french gov to go ahead with the bomb" is an more an opinion or a joke than a fact, on a sensitive subject already over-saturated with rumors.

2) "Please source any of your statements or explain exactly which of my sources you think are "fantasy" beofre vandalising articles." Why these paragraphs are a piece of fantasy, X-Files or BS ? Ok, but this was already nicely written by another contributor: "The single source given cites "secret documents" and unnamed informants as a basis for these claims. While the story they picture may (or not) reflect the true story, I don't think it's good policy to base an article on what sounds like a conspiracy theory. Anyone thinking of reverting should consider maybe trying to find independent confirmation or corroboration of these claims. " :D

=> A single source with "secret document" and "unnamed informant" is NOT a valid source, but clearly is a fantasy one. This is hypothesis added to hypothesis; a nice mental construction, a nice scenario for Lost, Heroes or Veronica Mars, but this is not reality.

This article is not yours, it is a collective work. Some people here edited this article three or four times, deleting some higly fantasmatic paragraphs, but each time you reversed it because you don't seem to understand that :

- there is no link between war in Indochina and France's nuke program;

- a single new statesman article based on smoke and rumors is not a valid source.

What is great with Wikipedia is that the average teenager can claim a total control over an article to publish anything he wants, blocking edition to what he like or not. Great, but nor really serious. I don't want to launch an edit war, so, you win, and this article will still continue to propagate absolute bullshit. Nice work ! ;) 90.36.78.180 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

ANOTHER PATIENT EXPLANATION... I wish I was still a teenager but I'm happy to see you've abandoned your original claims. You claimed that France in the 1950s had "a GDP at that time superior to UK GDP". I assume you now realise along with the rest of us that that was untrue. You claimed that the French nuclear programme "started after WWII". You now seem to accept what I was saying - and what the article says - about the French lead in nuclear research BEFORE WWII and the French element in the Anglo-Canadian part of the Manhattan Project DURING WWII. The pre-war French effort was stage 1. The Montreal work was stage 2. De Gaulle's programme was stage 3 but he was out of office within a year. All the dozens of countries which launched nuclear programmes after the war had one eye on national defence - like de Gaulle - but only nine of them led to the production of weapons. In any case although the communist Frederick Joliot Curie built a first reactor in 1948 there was no way he was going to build a Bomb which might target Russia. Stage 4 was when Pierre Gillaumat took over from Frederick and set out his plan for nuclear energy in 1951 which led to the building of the Marcoule reactors. The Mendes-France decision in 1954 was stage 5 - and it was crucial. All sources (even boring old Encyclopaedia Britannica) agree that was the first unambiguous commitment to make French nuclear weapons. This is what the CNRS history says "la réunion inter-ministérielle du 26 décembre 1954 envisage la préparation d'un prototype d'arme nucléaire". The Suez collapse in 1956 and the return of De Gaulle in 1958 quickened the pace. The factual New Statesman cover article was a perfectly good source. It wasn't based on smoke and rumours but on old yellowing pieces of paper in a newly declassified file held in the National Archives in London. In those files is an official letter from Pierre Guillaumat head of the French nuclear programme detailing the nuclear materials which he needs. The rest of the file records the British meetings in response and the final agreement to supply the nuclear materials and expertise to France. In the sixteen months since the article was published nobody has challenged the authenticity of the letters. It would be difficult to think of a more authoritative source than the head of the French nuclear programme. The links between Dien Bien Phu and the decision to build a protoype Bomb seem obvious to me and to many others who have looked at the issue over the years. For starters Mendes-France would not even have been in position as Prime Minister to make that decision on 26th December if Dien Bien Phu hadn't caused Laniel's government to fall in June and Mendes France to be appointed. Secondly there were factions in the French government who felt that the Americans had unfairly denied them the support of nuclear weapons in Vietnam and therefore the French would now need to build their own Bombs. Thirdly there is Guillaumat's letter written to the British written at the height of the battle. Fourthly the French Chiefs of Staff were told to start looking at what they would need for a home grown Force de Frappe within weeks of Dien Bien Phu. Your statement "There is no link between Indochina and the nuclear program" does not stand up. After all the subsequent decolonisation it is difficult to realise the impact that Dien Bien Phu had in 1954. A colony had defeated a supposed major world power for the first time. But there are other factors in the mix - German rearmament and Algeria amongst others - which is precisely why the main article does not go so far as to say explicitly "It was the loss of Indo China which convinced Pierre Mendes France at the end of 1954 to go ahead with the Bomb". I only mentioned that in the discussion on this Talk page. It appears to me and to many others including NuclearWeaponArchive, Wolf Mendl et al to be true but in my view the evidence for the conclusion is not quite strong enough to put that in the main article. If you think I am motivated by some desire to put down the French or exaggerate British achievements I can assure you that is not the case. (If only we had a rail system like yours) I repeat that I am not suggesting that British help made a huge difference to the French nuclear programme. If you look back at all my edits to France and Weapons of Mass Destruction I think you will see that. Unfortunately I cannot look back at the many articles which you have contributed to because you constantly change your username. That is often an indication of a vandal but I am going to be charitable and just assume you can't remember your passwords.Newsnightmeirion 13:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I do take issue with your single source. Your argument appears to be completely invalidated by Keith Baum's publication of "Two's Company, Three's a Crowd:  The Eisenhower Administration, France and Nuclear Weapons".  In essence, England did not help France with the development of nuclear power or weapons.  In fact they did the opposite; by working with the Eisenhower administration, they attempted to make it as difficult as possible for France to develop nuclear weapons.  The other issue I have with your argument is that Britain was hardly at the forefront of nuclear technology after the war, and only became acquainted with the technology after the US loosened restrictions on the transfer nuclear technology.  However, that would have made them 'newbies' in the field--not experts;  hardly the position of assisting others.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.159.53 (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

B2-Namous top secret base
found infos regarding a top secret base in french algeria called "B2-Namous" and located somewhere between Colomb Béchar and the Morrocan border. rumors are about chemical warfare dev among others and that the base was still active after the algerian independence. does anyone has reliable infos regarding this? Cliché Online 22:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * it was real. i saw it in an archive video featuing the defense minister: video availble here: ESSAIS CHIMIQUES ALGERIE, so my source was actually serious. Cliché Online 10:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

the dien bien phu part is a joke
this section should be removed, it is based on a biaised rumor. antother point is it was the american COS that offered the french to use a nuclear bomb at dien bien phu but the french refused, as did eisenhower and churchill. Shame On You 22:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My friend you have a strange sense of humour. If you read the discussion above and the New Statesman article which is cited - you can just read the last bit which deals with the French if you find it too onerous to read the whole thing - you will realise that this is all from the original correspondence between the French and British authorities which has now been declassified. The French weren't asking Britain to supply them with a finished atom bomb at that time they were asking for help to speed up their military and civil nuclear programmes which they thought would maintain their Great Power status. Newsnightmeirion 09:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this Dien bien phu part is a kinda joke. Linking a nuclear program to a far and not profitable colony is somewhat laughable. The author seems to forgot that French governments, like their counterparts, may have rational reasons to act, not only "prestige" or "being regarded as a great power" or other childish reasons teached to 4th-grade students, but most probably "national interest", "self-preservation in cold war times against the USSR", and maybe "autonomy from the USA" 90.41.148.222 12:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Oh, please. "autonomy from the USA"? Show me one instance of the USA attempting to annex France, from WWII to today. What you actually mean by "autonomy" is precisely "prestige" or "being regarded as a great power", that is, having distance between it and the USA's foreign policies. It's silly things like this and leaving NATO because they couldn't deal with being second to USA that France gets made fun of. 121.108.242.207 (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Get your facts straight, France never left Nato. Oh, and about annexion, isn't it silly that the surname of UK is the 51st state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.115.28.42 (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then again, perhaps the French wanted a nuclear weapons program because they were tired of being "cheese eating surrender monkeys". —  Rickyrab | Talk 22:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Merging proposal
The article "France and wmd" and "Force de frappe" talk about two aspect of the same subject, one of it is the relation of France and wmd and the second one is about the wmds themselves. I think we should merge the Force de frappe article into a section of this article. The choice of the destination article is based about the fact that the other title is in french and France and WMD seems to be include in some sort of X and WMD series. -- Esurnir 15:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What has been the practice for other nations on Wikipedia? Does the US get its own article like this and another article on its nuclear strategic capabilities? If the latter is the case, then the status quo should remain, otherwise there'd be nothing wrong with merging.UberCryxic 15:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Esurnir - there is also a good site on the French Wikipedia about the Force de Frappe - I have no objection to merging all three articles - in English and French - for that matter we could reintegrate Gerboise Bleue and Operation Canopus as well - but I am not sure how that would fit with rules of the Military History Project - maybe you need to ask them. I'm only interested in the content I don't care what heading it comes under.Newsnightmeirion 21:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that the two article more suited to merging are France and weapons of mass destruction with France and nuclear weapons.Mombas 23:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Disagree. Force de frappe should be merged in France and nuclear weapons, and the latter kept a sub-article of France & WMD. France & nuclear weapons is at least as much related as Nuclear power in France than to "France & WMD".Tazmaniacs 07:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Seeing consensus here and the need to update the article(s) to reflect recent annuoncement about force size, I was WP:BOLD and merged France and nuclear weapons into France and weapons of mass destruction. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Atmospheric tests at Mururoa & Fangataufa
"A fission device ignited a lithium 6 deuteride secondary inside a jacket of highly enriched uranium to create a 2.6 megaton blast which left the whole atoll uninhabitable because of radioactive contamination."

This does not seem to be supported by the IAEA report posted here:  Poolcode (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

wikileaks
Why are we quoting wikileaks here in the wikipedia?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.227.163.100 (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge with France's nuclear testing series
Subject does not require a separate article; can be merged into France and weapons of mass destruction  Cheers AKS  10:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 * My only concern, as principle author of the pages (France, Great Britain and China) that are being petitioned to be merged into the larger articles, is that there is a hierarchical architecture built with the smaller articles. By accessing the article Worldwide nuclear testing counts and summary, there are links there to the articles in question (as well as to equivalent pages for the US, USSR, Pakistan, India and North Korea).  Perhaps they, too, need integration into more general articles.  The last step in the hierarchy is that those pages contain links to the test series level for each of the countries, on which individual tests are specified.

 * This hierarchy is not, of course, negated by the merge, though the clearness of it will not be as apparent, but that seems a minor point. If someone decides to perform the merge, my only request of it is that the table in the merged-in page be placed with a header such that a direct link to the table can be established.  More than that, I have no particular stance against the merges.

 * I will place pointers to the comments here on the other discussions for merging these pages. SkoreKeep (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is an article hierarchy here, and both the testing and the development nuclear weapons warrant their own articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The hierarchy will be be maintained by the redirects. I agree that each testing programme warrants its own article, but at present, only lists exist. Merge doesn't prevent the future creation of articles under the same titles, and indeed I would encourage it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on France and weapons of mass destruction. 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/20090124170238/http://www.disarmsecure.org/publications/papers/index.html to http://www.disarmsecure.org/publications/papers/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209094841/http://library.bullerdc.govt.nz/cgi-bin/library/liinquiry?acc=00000711 to http://library.bullerdc.govt.nz/cgi-bin/library/liinquiry?acc=00000711
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723050155/http://www.mururoavet.com/ to http://www.mururoavet.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on France and weapons of mass destruction. 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/20070925235810/http://www.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/60823/571529/file/SAHARA.pdf to http://www.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/60823/571529/file/SAHARA.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070925235810/http://www.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/60823/571529/file/SAHARA.pdf to http://www.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/60823/571529/file/SAHARA.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on France and weapons of mass destruction. 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/20080413233434/http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/france-priorities_1/disarmament_1109/regulation-of-the-international-arms-trade_5613/france-and-the-chemical-weapons-convention_9113.html to http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/france-priorities_1/disarmament_1109/regulation-of-the-international-arms-trade_5613/france-and-the-chemical-weapons-convention_9113.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150429192508/http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/israel/nuke.html to http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/israel/nuke.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100221081508/http://www.france24.com/en/20090324-four-decades-french-nuclear-tests-atomic-bomb-gerboise-bleue-algeria-polynesia to http://www.france24.com/en/20090324-four-decades-french-nuclear-tests-atomic-bomb-gerboise-bleue-algeria-polynesia
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090124092525/http://tf1.lci.fr/infos/france/politique/0,,3784844,00-mise-eau-terrible-devant-sarkozy-.html to http://tf1.lci.fr/infos/france/politique/0,,3784844,00-mise-eau-terrible-devant-sarkozy-.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090531052930/http://www.lamontagne.fr/editions_locales/montlucon/les_victimes_des_essais_nucleaires_enfin_reconnues%40CARGNjFdJSsHFh8MBxg-.html to http://www.lamontagne.fr/editions_locales/montlucon/les_victimes_des_essais_nucleaires_enfin_reconnues%40CARGNjFdJSsHFh8MBxg-.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090328131610/http://www.france24.com/en/20090324-govt-earmarks-10-million-euros-compensate-nuclear-test-victims-france-algeria-polynesia to http://www.france24.com/en/20090324-govt-earmarks-10-million-euros-compensate-nuclear-test-victims-france-algeria-polynesia
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121020221105/http://www.france24.com/en/20090522-france-denies-reparations-victims-nuclear-tests-1960s-algeria to http://www.france24.com/en/20090522-france-denies-reparations-victims-nuclear-tests-1960s-algeria
 * Added tag to http://actualite.el-annabi.com/article.php3?id_article=9477
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090531054402/http://www.france24.com/en/20090527-nuclear-compensation-bill-disappoints-victims-france-justice to http://www.france24.com/en/20090527-nuclear-compensation-bill-disappoints-victims-france-justice
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060110012010/http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/France/index_2701.html to http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/france/index_2701.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121020036/http://www.point-zero-penelope.org/ to http://www.point-zero-penelope.org/

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) 06:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 6 December 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lightoil (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

– Trying to get some consistency in the naming. Regarding the articles curretly having "weapons of mass destruction" in the title, most or all of the content is about nuclear weapons, with a passing mention of non-nuclear WMDs. For example, there is a short section at France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction. For Pakistan, there isn't even that. Of course, a separate article that covers all of the WMDs can be created, but I think it is better to move the history to the nuclear weapons article since that is most of the article's content. Non-nuclear WMDs are a notable topic, but they pale in comparison with nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons can obliterate a city of millions in seconds, and whether a country has them has enormous geopolitical implications, which can't be said for non-nuclear WMDs. I think that deserves an article of its own. I propose the naming "Country and nuclear weapons", but I am open to other suggestions. Vpab15 (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Russia and weapons of mass destruction → Russia and nuclear weapons
 * Nuclear weapons of the United States → United States and nuclear weapons
 * Nuclear weapons of the United Kingdom → United Kingdom and nuclear weapons
 * France and weapons of mass destruction → France and nuclear weapons
 * China and weapons of mass destruction → China and nuclear weapons
 * Nuclear weapons and Israel → Israel and nuclear weapons
 * North Korea and weapons of mass destruction → North Korea and nuclear weapons
 * India and weapons of mass destruction → India and nuclear weapons
 * Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction → Pakistan and nuclear weapons

 * Oppose. It is good to use consistent format, but some of these articles are about the broader topic, and ought to be titled as such. If there’s a reason to do it, then the NW section can be split off from WMD, summary style, and we’d have both versions. In the naming WP:CRITERIA, consistency comes after precision. —Michael Z. 19:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please note there is a Category:Weapons of mass destruction by country that contained a Category:Nuclear weapons by country, and plenty of articles or subcategories in each. —Michael Z. 14:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose. As with previous comment, there is a difference between WMD and nuclear weapons.  There could be a series of articles XX and nuclear weapons, but some of those would have to be narrower than the existing XX and WMD articles, which would need to remain as separate articles. NPguy (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Support. It is better if the title of the articles listed here should be country name first then nuclear weapons rather than country name first then weapons of mass destruction. KevinNov3 (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

 * The main change I would support is for cases where there is no significant disagreement in independent RS about the possession of nuclear weapons, we use the same format as when nuclear weapons are acknowledged. I believe the current titles are messy, confusing, and contravene the NPOV principle that we should avoid stating facts as opinions. (t · c)  buidhe  00:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Buidhe All the countries in the request have nuclear weapons, there is overwhelming evidence for all of them, including from nuclear tests, which is covered in the articles. Vpab15 (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes so there is no need for the weird circumlocution in the article titles. Just "France's weapons of mass destruction" or "nuclear weapons of Israel" would be better. (t · c)  buidhe  23:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Canada and weapons of mass destruction, for example, is chiefly not about Canada’s weapons of mass destruction. See also nuclear sharing. —Michael Z. 03:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment.  I understand the concerns about re-scoping, but as mentioned in the nomination, the idea was to move the articles to "nuclear weapons" so as to better preserve the history. I have asked at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves if there is any guideline of what to do in cases like this. Setting those cases aside, do you agree with the name "X country and nuclear weapons" for the moves where there is no change of scope? Vpab15 (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In cases where the subject of the article only concerns nuclear weapons I support the move. —Michael Z. 03:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I oppose that move and support "Nuclear weapons of X country", per Nuclear weapons of the United States, Nuclear weapons of the United Kingdom, etc. (t · c)  buidhe  03:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Comment I have crossed out the articles covering WMDs and leave the ones that seem to have consensus to move: i.e, the ones for the US, UK and Israel. I will create a new article for the remaining countries covering just nuclear weapons after the move request is closed. Vpab15 (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Still Oppose There's a difference between "nuclear weapons of XX" and "XX and nuclear weapons." The articles with the former formulation are entirely about the known stockpiles of those countries.  They are not about broader issues of global nuclear weapons policy, as the alternative title might imply.  The one with the latter formulation is Israel, whose ambiguous/opaque policy about whether it has nuclear weapons seems to call for different wording. NPguy (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think any country has a public inventory of their nuclear weapons, so there is opacity for all cases. I can't see how Israel's case is different in any meaningful way. Vpab15 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Israel's opacity is distinct and fundamental. It won't say whether or not it has nuclear weapons. All the other states have openly tested them. NPguy (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The government of Israel is not a reliable source, so what they say is not as important as what reliable sources say. And they unambiguously say that Israel has nuclear weapons. Vpab15 (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We don’t need a primary-source public inventory to know which states have nuclear weapons or use the presumed possession of them as a nuclear deterrent. The subject of nuclear weapons is inherently about deterrence and a posture relative to other states’ nuclear capability, so I would be fine with all of those articles were titles XX and n.w. —Michael Z. 17:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. All pages suggested to rename are about all types of WMD, not just the nuclear weapons. This proposal has nothing to do with consistent naming. Just the opposite.My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see that such pages were already striked through and no longer a part of the ongoing RfC. OK. My very best wishes (talk) 04:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose WMDs and Nuclear Weapons are two different things and both are equally relevant for their mention in the article title. Dympies (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dympies the request is about moving the articles that only cover nuclear weapons. The article covering WMDs are crossed out and no longer part of the move request. Vpab15 (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Historically, they kept WMDs so I still don't feel like supporting the proposed moves. Dympies (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I don't understand your comment. Do you oppose the move of the articles covering nuclear weapons for the US, UK and Israel? If so, could you explain the reason? The proposal as it stands now doesn't involve any article covering WMDs in general. Vpab15 (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


text:
Tom Connors

Tom Connors may refer to:

 * Stompin' Tom Connors (1936–2013), Canadian country and folk singer-songwriter
 * Tom Connors (research scientist) (1934–2002), British cancer research scientist

title: Tom Connors


text:
Pont-d'Ouilly

Pont-d'Ouilly is a commune in the Calvados department in the Normandy region in northwestern France.

Geography
The commune is part of the area known as Suisse Normande.

The commune is made up of the following collection of villages and hamlets, La Martelée, Le Rocray, Les Hogues, La Potiche, La Guérardière, Le Hameau Hue, Le Haut d'Ouilly, Les Îles d'Ouilly, Le Val Aubert and Pont-d'Ouilly.

The Rivers Orne & Noireau plus six streams, The Orival, The Val Corbel, La Boullonniere, The Val la Here, La Mare des Bois and La Mesliere flow through the commune.

Pont-d'Ouilly is home to the famous Haras d'Ouilly, a Thoroughbred horse racing and breeding business currently owned by the Aga Khan IV.

History
The commune of Pont-d'Ouilly was created on 23 August 1947 from the merger of the two former communes of Saint-Marc-d'Ouilly and Ouilly-le-Basset (old INSEE code 14690) Pont-d'Ouilly - Histoire - Communes.

Points of Interest

 * Haras d'Ouilly, is a famous Thoroughbred horse racing and breeding business currently owned by the Aga Khan IV.

Notable People

 * Jean-Luc Lagardère - (1928 – 2003) a major French businessman and CEO of the Lagardère Group is buried here.

Twin towns – sister cities
Pont-d'Ouilly is twinned with:

 * 🏴 Chipping Campden, England
 * 🇩🇪 Hafenlohr, Germany

title: Pont-d'Ouilly