text:
Peppered moth evolution

The evolution of the peppered moth is an evolutionary instance of directional colour change in the moth population as a consequence of air pollution during the Industrial Revolution. The frequency of dark-coloured moths increased at that time, an example of industrial melanism. Later, when pollution was reduced, the light-coloured form again predominated. Industrial melanism in the peppered moth was an early test of Charles Darwin's natural selection in action, and it remains a classic example in the teaching of evolution. In 1978, Sewall Wright described it as "the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed."

The dark-coloured or melanic form of the peppered moth (var. carbonaria) was rare, though a specimen had been collected by 1811. After field collection in 1848 from Manchester, an industrial city in England, the frequency of the variety was found to have increased drastically. By the end of the 19th century it almost completely outnumbered the original light-coloured type (var. typica), with a record of 98% in 1895. The evolutionary importance of the moth was only speculated upon during Darwin's lifetime. It was 14 years after Darwin's death, in 1896, that J. W. Tutt presented it as a case of natural selection. Because of this, the idea spread widely, and more people came to believe in Darwin's theory.

Bernard Kettlewell was the first to investigate the evolutionary mechanism behind peppered moth adaptation, between 1953 and 1956. He found that a light-coloured body was an effective camouflage in a clean environment, such as in rural Dorset, while the dark colour was beneficial in a polluted environment like industrial Birmingham. This selective survival was due to birds, which easily caught dark moths on clean trees and white moths on trees darkened with soot. The story, supported by Kettlewell's experiment, became the canonical example of Darwinian evolution and evidence for natural selection used in standard textbooks.

However, failure to replicate the experiment and Theodore David Sargent's criticism of Kettlewell's methods in the late 1960s led to general skepticism. When Judith Hooper's Of Moths and Men was published in 2002, Kettlewell's story was more sternly attacked, and accused of fraud. The criticism became a major argument for creationists. Michael Majerus was the principal defender. His seven-year experiment beginning in 2001, the most elaborate of its kind in population biology, the results of which were published posthumously in 2012, vindicated Kettlewell's work in great detail. This restored peppered moth evolution as "the most direct evidence", and "one of the clearest and most easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action".

Origin and evolution

Before the Industrial Revolution, the black form of the peppered moth was rare. The first black specimen (of unknown origin) was collected before 1811, and kept in the University of Oxford. The first live specimen was caught by R. S. Edleston in Manchester, England in 1848, but he reported this only 16 years later in 1864, in The Entomologist. Edleston notes that by 1864 it was the more common type of moth in his garden in Manchester. The light-bodied moths were able to blend in with the light-coloured lichens and tree bark, and the less common black moths were more likely to be eaten by birds. As a result of the common light-coloured lichens and English trees, therefore, the light-coloured moths were much more effective at hiding from predators, and the frequency of the dark allele was very low, at about 0.01%.

During the early decades of the Industrial Revolution in England, the countryside between London and Manchester became blanketed with soot from the new coal-burning factories. Many of the light-bodied lichens died from sulphur dioxide emissions, and the trees became darkened. This led to an increase in bird predation for light-coloured moths, as they no longer blended in as well in their polluted ecosystem: indeed, their bodies now dramatically contrasted with the colour of the bark. Dark-coloured moths, on the other hand, were camouflaged very well by the blackened trees. The population of dark-coloured moth rapidly increased. By the mid-19th century, the number of dark-coloured moths had risen noticeably, and by 1895, the percentage of dark-coloured moths in Manchester was reported at 98%, a dramatic change (of almost 100%) from the original frequency. This effect of industrialization in body colour led to the coining of the term "industrial melanism".

The implication that industrial melanism could be evidence supporting Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection was noticed during his lifetime. Albert Brydges Farn (1841–1921), a British entomologist, wrote to Darwin on 18 November 1878 to discuss his observation of colour variations in the Annulet moth (then Gnophos obscurata, now Charissa obscurata). He noted the existence of dark moths in peat in the New Forest, brown moths on clay and red soil in Herefordshire, and white moths on chalk cliffs in Lewes, and suggested that this variation was an example of "survival of the fittest". He told Darwin that he had found dark moths on a chalk slope where the foliage had been blackened by smoke from lime kilns, and he had also heard that white moths had become less common at Lewes after lime kilns had been in operation for a few years. Darwin does not seem to have responded to this information, possibly because he thought natural selection would be a much slower process. A scientific explanation of moth coloration was only published in 1896, 14 years after Darwin's death, when J. W. Tutt explicitly linked peppered moth melanism to natural selection.

Rise and fall of phenotype frequency
Melanism has appeared in both European and North American peppered moth populations. Information about the rise in frequency is scarce. Much more is known about the subsequent fall in phenotype frequency, as it has been measured by lepidopterists using moth traps.

Steward compiled data for the first recordings of the peppered moth by locality, and deduced that the carbonaria morph was the result of a single mutation that subsequently spread. By 1895, it had reached a reported frequency of 98% in Manchester.

From around 1962 to the present, the phenotype frequency of carbonaria has steadily fallen in line with cleaner air around industrial cities. Its decline has been measured more accurately than its rise, through more rigorous scientific studies. Notably, Kettlewell conducted a national survey in 1956, Bruce Grant conducted a similar one in early 1996, and L.M. Cook in 2003.

Similar results were found in North America. Melanic forms have not been found in Japan. It is believed that this is because peppered moths in Japan do not inhabit industrialised regions.

Genetics
Tutt was the first to propose the "differential bird predation hypothesis" in 1896, as a mechanism of natural selection. The melanic morphs were better camouflaged against the bark of trees without foliose lichen, whereas the typica morphs were better camouflaged against trees with lichens. As a result, birds would find and eat those morphs that were not camouflaged with increased frequency.

In 1924, J.B.S. Haldane calculated, using a simple general selection model, the selective advantage necessary for the recorded natural evolution of peppered moths, based on the assumption that in 1848 the frequency of dark-coloured moths was 2%, and by 1895 it was 95%. The dark-coloured, or melanic, form would have had to be 50% more fit than the typical, light-coloured form. Even taking into consideration possible errors in the model, this reasonably excluded the stochastic process of genetic drift, because the changes were too fast. Haldane's statistical analysis of selection for the melanic variant in peppered moths became a well known part of his effort to demonstrate that mathematical models that combined natural selection with Mendelian genetics could explain evolution – an effort that played a key role in the foundation of the discipline of population genetics, and the beginnings of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory with genetics.

The peppered moth Biston betularia is also a model of parallel evolution in the incidence of melanism in the British form (f. carbonaria) and the American form (f. swettaria) as they are indistinguishable in appearance. Genetic analysis indicates that both phenotypes are inherited as autosomal dominants. Cross hybridizations indicate that the phenotypes are produced by alleles at a single locus.

The gene for carbonaria in B. betularia was thought to be in a region of chromosome 17. It was later concluded that the gene could not be in that region, because none of the genes in the chromosome coded for either wing pattern or melanisation. The region that was used to find it was the first intron of the orthologue of the cortex gene in Drosophila. Through elimination of candidates within the region based on rarity, a 21,925 base pair insert remained. The insert, labelled carb-TE, is a class II transposable element that has an approximately 9-kb non-repetitive sequence tandemly repeated two and one third times. There are 6 base pairs of inverted repeats and duplicated 4 base pairs at the target site not present in typica moths. Carb-TE has higher expression during the stage of rapid wing disc morphogenesis. The mechanism of how the gene increases expression, and whether it is the only gene involved, is still not known.

Alternative hypotheses
Several alternative hypotheses to natural selection as the driving force of evolution were proposed during the 1920s and 1930s. Random mutation, migration or genetic drift were also seen as major forces of evolution.

P. A. Riley proposed an additional selective factor, where heavy metal chelation by melanin would supposedly protect peppered moths against the toxic effects of heavy metals associated with industrialisation. This selective advantage would supplement the major selective mechanism of differential bird predation.

Phenotypic induction
In 1920, John William Heslop-Harrison rejected Tutt's differential bird predation hypothesis, on the basis that he did not believe that birds ate moths. Instead he proposed that pollutants could cause changes to the soma and germ plasm of the organism. In 1925, K. Hasebroek made an early attempt to prove this hypothesis, exposing pupae to pollutant gases, namely hydrogen sulfide (H2S), ammonia (NH3) and "pyredin". He used eight species in his studies, four of which were species of butterfly that did not exhibit melanism.

In 1926 and 1928, Heslop-Harrison suggested that the increase of melanic moths in industrialised regions was due to "mutation pressure", not to selection by predators which he regarded as negligible. Salts of lead and manganese were present in the airborne pollutant particles, and he suggested that these caused the mutation of genes for melanin production but of no others. He used Selenia bilunaria and Tephrosia bistortata as material. The larvae were fed with leaves that had incorporated these salts: melanics subsequently appeared. A similar experiment in 1932 by McKenney Hughes failed to replicate these results; the statistician and geneticist Ronald Fisher showed that Heslop-Harrison's controls were inadequate, and that Hughes's findings made the 6% mutation rate required by Heslop-Harrison "improbable".

Kettlewell's experiment
The first important experiments on the peppered moth were carried out by Bernard Kettlewell at Oxford University, under the supervision of E. B. Ford, who helped him gain a grant from the Nuffield Foundation to perform the experiments. In 1953, Kettlewell started a preliminary experiment in which moths were released into a large (18m × 6m) aviary, where they were fed on by great tits (Parus major). His main experiment, at Christopher Cadbury Wetland Reserve in Birmingham, England, involved marking, releasing and recapturing marked moths. He found that in this polluted woodland typica moths were preferentially preyed upon. He thus showed that the melanic phenotype was important to the survival of peppered moths in such a habitat. Kettlewell repeated the experiment in 1955 in unpolluted woodlands in Dorset, and again in the polluted woods in Birmingham. In 1956 he repeated the experiments and found similar results; in Birmingham, birds ate most of the white moths (75%), whereas in Dorset, most of the dark moths (86%) were eaten.

Criticisms
Theodore David Sargent performed experiments between 1965 and 1969, from which he concluded that it was not possible to reproduce Kettlewell's results, and said that birds showed no preference for moths on either black or white tree trunks. He suggested that Kettlewell had trained the birds to pick moths on tree trunks to obtain the desired results.

Two chapters in Michael Majerus's 1998 book Melanism: Evolution in Action critiqued the research in Kettlewell's The Evolution of Melanism, discussed studies which raised questions about Kettlewell's original experimental methods, and called for further research. Reviewing the book, Jerry Coyne noted these points, and concluded that "for the time being we must discard Biston as a well-understood example of natural selection in action, although it is clearly a case of evolution. There are many studies more appropriate for use in the classroom."

Judith Hooper's book Of Moths and Men (2002) severely criticised Kettlewell's experiment. Hooper argued that Kettlewell's field notes could not be found and suggested that his experiment was fraudulent, on the basis of Sargent's criticisms alleging that the photographs of the moths were taken of dead moths placed on a log. She said that E. B. Ford was a "Darwinian zealot", and claimed that he exploited the scientifically naive Kettlewell to obtain the desired experimental results. The book's reception led to demands that the peppered moth evolution story be deleted from textbooks. Scientists have examined the allegations made by Hooper, and found them to be without merit.

Phillip E. Johnson, a co-founder of the creationist intelligent design movement, said that the moths "do not sit on tree trunks", that "moths had to be glued to the trunks" for pictures, and that the experiments were "fraudulent" and a "scam." The intelligent design advocate Jonathan Wells wrote an essay on the subject, a shortened version of which appeared in the 24 May 1999 issue of The Scientist, claiming that "The fact that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks invalidates Kettlewell's experiments". Wells further wrote in his 2000 book Icons of Evolution that "What the textbooks don't explain, however, is that biologists have known since the 1980s that the classical story has some serious flaws. The most serious is that peppered moths in the wild don't even rest on tree trunks. The textbook photographs, it turns out, have been staged." However, peppered moths do rest on tree trunks on occasion, and Nick Matzke states that there is little difference between the 'staged' photos and 'unstaged' ones.

Majerus's experiment
From 2001 to 2007, Majerus carried out experiments in Cambridge to resolve the various criticisms of Kettlewell's experiment. During his experiment, he noted the natural resting positions of peppered moths. Of the 135 moths examined, over half were on tree branches, mostly on the lower half of the branch; 37% were on tree trunks, mostly on the north side; and only 12.6% were resting on or under twigs. Following correspondence with Hooper, he added an experiment to find if bats, not birds, could be the main predators. He observed a number of species of bird actually preying on the moths, and found that differential bird predation was a major factor responsible for the decline in carbonaria frequency compared to typica. He described his results as a complete vindication of the natural selection theory of peppered moth evolution, and said "If the rise and fall of the peppered moth is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, it should be taught. It provides after all the proof of evolution."

Majerus died before he could complete the writing up of his experiments, so the work was carried on by Cook, Grant, Saccheri and James Mallet, and published on 8 February 2012 as "Selective bird predation on the peppered moth: the last experiment of Michael Majerus." The experiment became the largest ever in the study of industrial melanism, involving 4,864 individuals in a six-year investigation, and it confirmed that melanism in moths is a genuine example of natural selection involving camouflage and predation. Their concluding remark runs: "These data provide the most direct evidence yet to implicate camouflage and bird predation as the overriding explanation for the rise and fall of melanism in moths."

Coyne said he was "delighted to agree with this conclusion [of Majerus's experiment], which answers my previous criticisms about the Biston story."

title: Peppered moth evolution


text:
Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge

The Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge (known as the New Mississippi River Bridge until its formal naming in 2013 and informally known as the "Stan Span" ) is a bridge across the Mississippi River in the United States between St. Clair County, Illinois, and the city of St. Louis, Missouri. Built between April 19, 2010, and July 2013, the bridge opened on February 9, 2014. The cable-stayed bridge has a main span of 1,500 ft.

Features
The main span of the bridge is 1500 ft in length, part of a total span of 2803 ft. It is 86 ft wide. Cables stretch from the bridge deck to the tops of two A-shaped towers, which reach 435 ft above I-70. The new bridge's main span is supported by 1000 mi of 0.6 in stay-cable strand, enough for nearly two round trips from St. Louis to Chicago. Nearly 15,000 tons of structural steel are used, along with 8,600 tons of reinforcing steel. Some 90600 yd3 of concrete are in the foundation, deck slab, and towers. At its completion, the bridge was the third-longest cable-stayed bridge in the United States.

Traffic
The bridge was built to relieve traffic on nearby bridges, and to expand with traffic in the future. It carries four mainline traffic lanes, half as many as originally planned, with room to add a lane in each direction. It is designed so that a companion bridge could be built beside it. Initially, the new bridge was intended to reduce traffic by 20% on the Poplar Street Bridge, which carries I-55, I-64, and US 40 (also the former route of I-70); and 50% on the Martin Luther King Bridge.

After three months of use, it was estimated that 31,000 cars and trucks cross the bridge every day, about 10,000 less than the expected 40,000. Traffic volume on the nearby McKinley Bridge has not changed. The MLK Bridge traffic is down 44%. The Eads Bridge is down 3,000 cars per day, a 27% decrease compared to 2013. The Poplar Street Bridge, the busiest in the area, has had volume reduced by 20,000 cars per day, a 19% decrease. After 3$1/2$ years of use of the new Stan Musial-Veterans Memorial Bridge, the daily traffic has increased to 53,700 per day, over 13,000 more than the expected 40,000.

Road redesignations
At the bridge's opening, I-70 was re-routed, diverging from the current I-70 at Cass Avenue to connect with I-55/I-64/I-70 in East St. Louis. The remaining stretch of I-70 through downtown St. Louis became an extension of I-44. After these realignments, the Poplar Street Bridge continues to carry traffic for I-55, I-64 and US 40.

Budget
The cost of the original design of the bridge and surrounding area was estimated at nearly $1.7 billion. After both state governments decided that they could not bear that cost, they called for a new design; this proposed a smaller size and was submitted in 2007 with an estimated cost of $667 million. Of the total, $264 million will go to move I-70 in Illinois, $57 million to move I-70 in Missouri, and $346 million to build the bridge. The Illinois state government plans to spend $313 million; Missouri, $115 million. A federal grant will cover the other $239 million. The final cost was $695 million.

Toll bridge proposal
The funding of the bridge project was debated by the Illinois and Missouri governments. After receiving the federal grant, Illinois pushed to start as soon as possible, but Missouri said it had more pressing highway projects to work on. Missouri transportation officials proposed to privatize the bridge, which would have allowed a private company to charge tolls in return for building, operating and maintaining it for up to 99 years. But Illinois officials and several St. Louis congressman demanded a toll-free crossing, and this was ratified by an agreement signed February 28, 2008, by Missouri governor Matt Blunt and Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich.

Bids
The cost of building the main span was initially estimated at $190 million. This proved low; a $229.5 million contract was awarded on December 30, 2009, to a joint venture of Massman Construction Co. of Kansas City, Traylor Bros. Inc. of Indiana and St. Louis-based Alberici Corp. (The team beat out the $274.9 million bid by a joint venture of American Bridge Co. and Dragados USA.) MoDOT agreed to cover any cost overruns. This has prompted speculation that the project might be scaled back.

Design and construction
Subsurface exploration by engineering firm Modjeski and Masters showed thick deposits of low-density sand below the water table. Such loose sand might liquefy during an earthquake. Several ways to reduce the risk were considered, including in-situ densification of the sands, but ultimately the foundations were changed to feature 12 ft, 120 ft drilled piers founded in the limestone bedrock to support the bridge superstructure. The bedrock is 120 ft below the surface on the Illinois side and between 30 and 60 ft on the Missouri side.

Land sale
In 2003, land intended to be used for the bridge was sold by the City of St. Louis Land Reutilization Authority to a private developer for $2. In early 2008, MoDOT warned the developer not to build on it, but the developer completed the construction of 400 storage units. MoDOT offered a $1.7 million buyout, which the developer turned down. The property was condemned, and a circuit court ordered MoDOT to give the developer $2.3 million in compensation. MoDOT is contesting this amount.

Minority labor controversies
In August 2011, community leaders in East St. Louis, which suffers high unemployment, lodged complaints with the Illinois Department of Transportation that the bridge labor force included too few minority workers. Federal law requires that the labor force on any public works project that is fully or partially funded by federal dollars must be composed of at least 14.6% members of a recognized minority group. The project meets these requirements, according to contractor records; the activists argued that the labor force was not representative of those living in the region. A protest and work stoppage on the Illinois portion of the bridge was threatened, but work on the bridge continued.

Riley Illinois, a firm that is supplying concrete for the project, was de-listed as a minority-owned business when Illinois officials discovered that only one of the four owners of the firm was a minority. Though the company continued its contract to provide concrete for the bridge, it no longer counted as a minority-owned firm.

Construction accident
At 10:30 a.m. on March 28, 2012, carpenter Andy Gammon plunged to his death in the river when a barge-mounted lift toppled and a rescue effort failed. Gammon was working on pilings from a boom lift that was placed on a secured barge. The mobile piece of equipment was not secured to the barge and tipped over into the water, taking him in the boom with it. Gammon's body was found attached to the lift. OSHA cited the three general contractors and the subcontractor for three violations totalling $15,300. The stretch of I-70 from the bridge to I-44 is designated the Andy Gammon Memorial Highway.

Naming
In August 2004, William Perkins and Russ Reike, members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, gave Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL) petitions with over 4,000 signatures supporting the naming of the new bridge "Veterans Memorial Bridge". There is a Veterans Memorial Bridge over the Missouri River. The Martin Luther King Bridge was originally called "Veterans Memorial Bridge" until it was renamed in 1968 following the assassination of the national civil rights leader. The naming proposal was supported by Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) and Illinois Governor Pat Quinn. When the bridge was delayed by Missouri's postponement of funding, the petitions expired. Perkins and Reiki, joined by fellow VFW member Dave Stout, collected signatures again and in 2009 tuned over to Rep. Costello petitions with more than 13,000 names.

On August 28, 2005, the Missouri State Legislature voted to name the bridge after President Ronald Reagan.

In March 2011, the Missouri House of Representatives approved a proposal to change the name to "Jerry F. Costello–William Lacy 'Bill' Clay Sr. Veterans Memorial Bridge", for two prominent state politicians. One month later, the Missouri Senate Transportation Committee rejected the change.

Some groups pushed for "Women Veterans Memorial Bridge".

On January 22, 2013, Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Glendale, Missouri) introduced a bill to name the bridge after Stan Musial, the former St. Louis Cardinals baseball player who had recently died. The measure required the approval of both houses of both the Illinois and Missouri legislatures. The measure received the first of two necessary approvals from the Missouri Senate on February 20, 2013. An amendment to the Musial bill, sponsored by Sen. Gary Romine (R-Farmington, Missouri), named the Missouri approach to the bridge the Andy Gammon Memorial Highway in honor of the bridge worker who died.

The two state legislatures agreed; the bridge was officially named the Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge, with the signature of President Barack Obama on July 12, 2013.

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

title: Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge


text:
User:Eman

&

I am Israeli, and a regular contributer in the Hebrew Wikipedia, where, among other things, I update the "selected anniversaries" templates for the main page. Most of my activity in the English Wikipedia involves topics originated from this activity.

title: User:Eman


text:
Talk:Bletchley Park

troubling claims
There are rather a lot of errors in some recent edits. I have corrected some of these, but am merely suspicious about others (such as the tunnel claims). Someone with direct knowledge of Bletchley should review some of the statements made. As of this date, this is an unsatisfactory article due to the (possibly) erronious content which remains.

ww 13:56, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

 * ww -- could you point out the statements about which you have suspicions (perhaps copying them to this talk page)? Even if they turn out to be completely accurate, it would be good to have sources... — Matt 09:55, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Matt, Wilco. As below, noted with **xyz** -- from article.

 * Bletchley Park has been credited variously with shortening the war by two years (possible due its contributions during the Battle of the Atlantic, but distinctly controversial), with **ending the bombing of Pearl Harbour** (impossible) by sending information of the **location of Yamamoto the head of the Japanese Combined Fleet ** (quite a dubious claim as the information which led to his death came from breaks into JN-25 largely by USN cryptanalysts). **Montgomery would often talk of how the code-breaking efforts of Bletchley Park enabled him to 'know what the Jerries [Germans] are having for breakfast'.**

 * Strongly suspect none of these stand up apart from the Battle of the Atlantic where the contribution of BP was critical; it's arguable it legthened the war because otherwise the Germans would have won! The main identifiable other credits to BP are the sea battles of Matapan and the north Cape. Chris R 23:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The Government Code and Cypher School (GC & CS), the intelligence bureau responsible for interception and decryption of foreign transmissions amongst other things, moved into the Park in 1939. The radio station that was constructed in the park for its use was given the codename "Station X", a term often erroneously applied to the code-breaking efforts at Bletchley as a whole. Station X was soon moved south to Whaddon Hall, to divert attention from the Bletchley site itself. **To further the disguise of Bletchley Park, it was built to appear as a hospital from above to deter bombing by German planes. However, a bomb was dropped next to the despatch riders' entrance, shifting the whole of Hut 4 (the Naval Intelligence hut) two metres on its base.** The bomb was thought to have been intended for Bletchley railway station.

 * Hate the heading "Before Station X" as I've never seen any serious reference to BP as "Station X" until the TV series of that name (UK). Where does the stuff about the X coming from the Roman numeral come from? I always assumed it was related to the "Y" stations (intercept stations) that collected the encrypted messages and passed them to BP, but I've no confirmation for that. I've not heard the hospital story before (what would you do to make a complex like BP look like a hospital from the air) and the "however" is a non-sequitur - the bomb did not hit because of the failure of the hospital disguise. Chris R 23:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Now deleted the Station X reference in the introduction as unnecesarily prominent, and the Roman numerla X piece, since Bletchley Park's own website says "the Park was given the cover name Station X, being the tenth of a large number of sites acquired by MI6 for its wartime operations", contradicting any link to the radio station. Does anyone have any evidence taht anyone called it Station X, pronounced as letter X, before the Chanel Four documentary? If it were a numeral it would be called "Station Ten". I suspect that Channel 4 seized on it a snappy name for its series. Also changed the references to Y Stations which implied that the BP radio station carried out direct signal intercepts (the job of the Y Stations) - no evidence for that. Why are these particular Y Stations mentioned? --Cyclopaedic 11:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've readded a bold "Station X" into the lead section, simply because it's now a popular term for BP, and it's customary to list synonyms there. I don't know how popular it was before Channel 4, though, and I don't disagree with your edit. I don't know about mentioning particular Y stations, but a paragraph or so describing BP's relationship with the Y service would be a good thing to have. — Matt Crypto 11:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * **The codebreakers would enter the park by coach or train, and it is rumoured that there was a series of inter-connecting tunnels and chambers below Bletchley Park that allowed workers to get in secretly. It is also rumoured that one tunnel, which started in the Park grounds and emerged in the local pub, was for the use of Winston Churchill. It is also said that Eisenhower and Churchill had a meeting in one of the rumoured chambers.**

 * You can't enter BP by train, although the station is next door. I suspect most workers arrived on foot or bicycles, although many were billeted some distance away. The tunnels staff sounds like rubbish to me. Why would Churchill need his own tunnel? Chris R 23:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I know, and have learned, absolutely nothing about the history of the place prior to Leon. All of this in the article may be spot on, but ???
 * ww 17:06, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Re “Station X” Welchman (1982, Hut 6 page 160) writes “Bletchley Park (known in the intelligence world as Station X)”; but he could have got that from postwar writings. He says (page 11) it was B.P. to the inhabitants. Re Pearl Harbour etc, while the decrypts probably didn’t refer specifically to Pearl, Tiltman and other British (and Dutch?) cryptanalysts were working on Japanese codes including JN-25; it wasn’t an American monopoly. And on the shortening of the war by (?) which seems credible; if the European war had lasted much longer, would the allies have dropped an Atomic bomb on Germany? Hugo999 01:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

status of Colossus as first xxx computer, esp in re Zuse
Because of the importance of Bletchley Park for the field of Computer Science someone should correct the statement where it sais the Collossos was the world's first programmable computer. That information is incorrect - the earlier success of Konrad Zuse in building a fully electronic computer (Z1, Z2, Z3) were largeley ignored in Nazi Germany. I think that information is especially interesting in relation to Batchley Park, because Germany apparently had access to superior technology for cryptography at the time - luckily didn't realize it!

 * I am not so sure about this. Wikipedia says that Colossus was the first programmable electronic computer, whereas the Zuse machines were based on telephone relays and were therefore electrical, not electronic. -- Heron 16:21, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Heron, You are correct. The article claims (or at least claimed when I last reviewed carefully) that Colossus was the first 1) electronic, 2) programmable 3) digital computer. Vannevar Bush's analog computers were neither electronic nor digital, but pre-dated Colossus. The ABC machine was electronic but not programmable, and pre-dated Colossus. The Zuse and Stibitz (Bell Labs) relay machines were not electronic and were (variably) programmable, but pre-dated Colossus. Babbage's Analytical Engine design was digital and programmable but not electronic, and well pre-dated Colossus. It is the combination of points that is the unique priority for Colossus. ww 20:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you, ww. Our article "History_of_computing_hardware" has more details, for anyone who wants to follow this up. -- Heron 08:03, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * A later note. After reviewing Colossus material in great detail (to far more depth than we have in our article), I would not describe Colossus as "programmable", at least in anything like the sense we now think of the word.
 * For one, there was no program, in the sense of an algorithm, with transfers of control, especially conditional transfers. The commonly-reported line about Colossus having some conditional testing is true only in a very limited sense; at the end of each pass of the tape loop, it could compare the contents of counters with pre-set values (in switches), and would print or not print the totals in the counters if they exceeded the preset values.
 * All Colossus could do, really, was read paper tape, perform certain plug-selected binary operations on one or more of the bits of each frame read from the tape (usually only 2 channels out of 5 were looked at), and depending on the output of that binary function, increment counters. That's all. It was really incredibly specialized to the job of doing statistical analyses on the key/cipher stream of the Tunny cipher.
 * The novelty of Colossus lies in the technology, more than the architecture: it was certainly the first large-scale electronic digital device, and thereby had a great influence on post-WWII computer development in the UK (since many of the leading lights in that field, such as Newman and Turing, were intimately associated with Colossus). Noel (talk) 04:11, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * One other thing: It's saying "citation needed" for the claim that the crypto research at Bletchley was comparable to the Manhattan Project in impact. This is prima facie evident.  Without the crypto research at Bletchley, there would have been no Manhattan Project.  Furthermore, Turing's work is the foundation of all modern computer science.
 * I do think it needs a citation — at least IMHO (for whatever that's worth!) it's not really prima facie evident. It's not at all clear to me why Ultra was necessary for the Manhatten Project to have succeeded, for example. Also, Turing's work may indeed be the foundation of compsci, but it's not the crypto work he did at Bletchley. From what I've been reading recently, Turing's contribution to Colossus has been much overstated. It would seem he had little, if any, involvement in Colossus. — Matt Crypto 17:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

hut, hut, hike
Matt, I can't pretend to remember the Hut numbering, but the one I seem to remember is Hut Six. It's the title of Welchman's book, after all. That implies that Six was responsible for Naval Engima, not as the list is now Army and AirForce variants. Since you've clearly gotten this from a list, could there have been a list - brain - fingers obscuration. Appropriate for the crypto corner, eh?, but confusing to the non-cryptiac.

So, Six or not Six, that is ... never mind... ww 14:57, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Welchman's own book says (pp. 58) that Hut 6 "decoded .. mostly army and air force traffic", and Hut 8 did "decodes of the German navy's Enigma traffic". So I'm not sure what led you to your idea above that Welchman worked on naval Enigma. Noel (talk) 23:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * The list was amalgamated from a couple of online sources (one was http://www.codesandciphers.org.uk/bletchleypark/tour4.htm). It seems that huts 6 and 3 were paired and dealt with army and air force traffic; 6 did the codebreaking while 3 housed the intelligence analysts. Similarly Huts 8 and 4 were paired for Naval Enigma. — Matt 22:57, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rumours
I've moved the following rumours here for now:  The code breakers would enter the park by coach or train, and it is rumoured that there was a series of inter-connecting tunnels and chambers below Bletchley Park that allowed workers to get in secretly. It is also rumoured that one tunnel, which started in the Park grounds and emerged in the local pub, was for the use of Winston Churchill. It is also said that Eisenhower and Churchill had a meeting in one of the rumoured chambers. Does anyone have a source for these rumours? I haven't come across them after reading a number of BP books, so I'm not even sure these are notable enough to include, but I'm willing to be proved wrong! — Matt 20:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The rumours of tunnels for Churchill were alive in 1982; we spent many hours searching for them in Block B, without success, but with some likely places - the drying room in the basement appeared to have a blocked off area, and a vertical blocked tunnel close to the GCHQ building facing part of Block B.

Link error?
Comment only: on the list of people associated with Bletchley Park: I think you've linked Hugh Alexander to the wrong chap: the Hugh Alexander at Bletchley was C. H. O'D. Alexander, an outstanding English chess player, later - among other things - chess correspondent of the Sunday Times (in which capacity he once sent me a nice letter).

Brian Palmer 137.195.14.158 14:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting that. I've whipped up a short entry on C.H. O'D. Alexander, although it doesn't include any of his achievements in chess. — Matt Crypto 15:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hut 1
According to the caption for the picture of Hut 1, "Hut 1 was the first hut to be constructed". I am surprised by this. Surely the first hut to be constructed would logically have been Hut 76, or Hut 4931? :-p --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

More People Stubs
I have added stubs for Frank Birch, Hugh Foss, and Josh Cooper (cryptographer). Hope someone can add the BP details of JC! And that no-one deletes Hugh Foss, as happened to someone else's earlier article on him in 2005. PS re Categories, should Foss etc be shown as Category:Cryptographers or Category:British Cryptographer(s)??

The reference to Kilindi needs to direct to a new page I will write sometime on the FECB = Far East Combined Bureau, which moved from Hong Kong to Singapore to Colombo/Ceylon to Kilindini. And there is a reference in Action this Day (page 142/144/531) re Hugh Foss to him being in the Japanese Naval Section in “Hut 7” at B.P. To add Hut 7 to the Huts in main B.P. article?

(Not sure who wrote above) I added Hut 7 and more people but no stubs. One of the challenges is who to list. If a source lists someone in an article, who am I to not add them? -- DGamey 01:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Reunion
Radio 4's "The Reunion" broadcast on the 6th and 11th April 2008 brought together five people who were codebreakers at Bletchley Park. If you're quick you can catch it on the "listen again" website here before it expires on Sunday morning 13th April when the next programme is broadcast. There was some useful stuff on there that could be quoted in the article - such as how the first book published on the subject was wrong, and quotations from Churchill. If I can find my minidisk recorder I'll plug it into the PC to record it but time is short and I've not found it yet. Richerman (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Available as an mp3 here. SeveroTC 15:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's lovely, but even better would be a printed transcript. I've searched for such a document, but so far without success. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't realise there would be an mp3. A transcript would be nice but you can quote from the mp3 and use the cite episode template from Citation templates Richerman (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I recorded it from the BBC Listen Again - I'm not sure about the legality but it certainly gives us more time to listen to it and pick out useful bits for this article. SeveroTC 19:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably not strictly legal but as long as it's only for your personal use and you don't redistribute the recording nobody's going to care. Richerman (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Bletchley Park faces bleak future
Despite past donations Bletckley still struggles financially for the reason given in this ZD Net article. Bletchley Park faces bleak future I don't know how best to work it into this article, so I'll leave it here for anyone who understands the situation better.--Aspro (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Bletchley Park, The aftermath.
In my view Bletchley Park existed yet is bedevilled by the history of the contemporary times. 'When did Bletchley Park know about the "Final solution"?' is a question that recurs. The answer seems to be that the Germans passed lists of the names of those slaughtered, encrypted, and Blethcley park was aware of these lists from fairly early on. What they meant was open to question, as was the extremely vexing question of what could be done if everyone's worst nightmares were recognised. Were the orders stemming from the Wannsea conference promulgated via ENIGMA, and were they intercepted?

At the end of the war copies of the ENIGMA machine were given to commonwealth countries as an unbreakable system. MI6 wanted Bletchley Park raised to the ground and any memories sowed with salt (hence the continuing rumours of Turing's suicide - did you ever hear such nonsense as the tale that he is supposed to have coated an apple with cyanide and put it into his fruit bowl?) This destruction included Colossus. However, since the whole point of giving these machines to other countries was because the codes could be broken, clearly MI6/GCHQ must have built a replacement.

 * Up to the 1970s Australia & New Zealand used (British) Typex not Enigma machines. And while Stalin knew about Enigma decrypts, he did not know about the decrypting of Fish (Tunny) ciphers according to Tony Sale's page Hugo999 (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It is a matter of record that Bletchley Park didn't cackle, but Philby, Blunt et al sang like birds, and they had access to the intercepts. As far as Stalin was concerned, Bletchley Park was an open book.

The UK govt. were and are still, paranoid (not too strong a word) about the average bloke off the street being able to use a code which govt. cannot read. Secret service fixation about the mathematical approaches to encryption (mostly demanding the extraction of very large primes) meant that they concluded the situation could be controlled by restricting access to the necessary computing power, which lead to establishment demands that the number of computers in the UK should be heavily restricted and placed in locations where they could be properly policed. Hence the statement that the number of computers needed in the UK were 4 and they should be in nuclear power (perhaps more properly called fissile material extraction plants) stations.

Other questions occur. Were the Labour government told about Bletchley Park when they came to power in 1945, or was that another of the secrets that the Civil Service felt were too important to be entrusted to a Socialist Government?

Where the British Army directed to Belsen as quickly as possible, or was the need to keep our success in code breaking secret still, even at that late stage, considered to be paramount?

Clearly Stalin wanted a second front. Equally clearly he would have been happy if it's success had been limited while drawing in as many German troops as possible. At Arnhem the Germans had placed a Panzer division close by our target, supposedly for 'R & R'. Why was there no information about the location of this division relayed by ENIGMA as usual and intercepted, as one might have expected? Or was it that 'Boy' Browning had this information and it was this that lead to the instant demise of his army career and undiluted hatred from his American opposite numbers? Did Stalin allow German spies to glean the information about the intended attack which had been relayed to him by his selection of highly placed spies in the UK?

Drg40 (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Re: Arnhem, the additional enemy armour being present in the area would not normally have been a problem, as XXX Corps's tanks would have taken care of them. What killed the operation was the delay caused by the Son bridge being blown. So the additional German armour's presence only became crucial as the subsequent events turned out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.153 (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Non-sequiturs, etc.
As one who doesn't know about this subject, some of the sentences seem to come out of the blue, and could use some prefacing or explanation:

 * second paragraph: "The main Manor house is also available for functions and is licensed for ceremonies. A good part of the fees for hiring the facilities are paid to the fund, and is another way that support can be given to the Trust." What fund?  What Trust?

 * Under early history, second paragraph: "The first government visitors to Bletchley Park described themselves as Captain Ridley's shooting party." What does this refer to?

Help in clarifying would be welcome. - Special-T (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What did Stalin know?
Can anyone add info. about Stalin's spy/spies at BP?

Is is true that Stalin was given intelligence information from BP, under a cover-story, but that he knew, through spying, the real intelligence source (that 3 and 4 wheel Enigma cypher has been broken, by using Bombes and so on)?

But is it also true that the Collosii were destroyed in 1945 because Britain did not want Stalin to know that the much stronger twelve-wheel German high-command cypher had been broken at BP, which was useful in the Cold War? Jdudding (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly the case that Stalin was aware of Bletchley Park and Ultra. The Soviet Spy John Cairncross worked as a translator at BP for a year, and other members of the Cambridge 5 spyring had access to Ultra reports. Regarding clandestine sharing of Ultra, it is certainly true that Churchill personally provided Stalin information, with ultra as the undisclosed source, regarding Barbarossa and Operation Blue to the Soviets, which were promptly ignored. I don't know about the destruction of the Colossi. --95.151.250.94 (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Bombing
The article states

"The only direct action that the site experienced was when three bombs, thought to have been intended for Bletchley railway station, were dropped on 20 November 1940 – 21 November 1940. One bomb exploded next to the dispatch riders' entrance, shifting the whole of Hut 4 (the Naval Intelligence hut) two feet on its base. As the huts stood on brick pillars, workmen just winched it back into position whilst work continued inside."

But the Bletchley park site itself states that it is believed the bombs were just being randomly dumped by a German bomber heading home. As the statement above doesn't site evidence, shouldn't it be removed?

213.120.222.100 (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I would take out the bit about direct action maybe, as the German army never cottoned on to Bletchley Park's existance for the duration of the war, so direct action is a bit of a fallacy. The "thought to have been intended" bit I would maybe leave in, and insert a  tag next to it to prompt someone to cite where they got that from. --  role player 16:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I can contribute to the story of the bombing of Bletchley Park, having been there in 1940. I was a member of the German Air Section which occupied half of Hut 4, with the German Naval Section in the other half, until the end of 1940. One bomb fell near Hut 4, but did not damage it in any way. The only damage it caused was to a small hut to the west of Hut 4. I went to have a look at the bomb site on the following day and saw that the small hut was leaning slightly in the direction of the Mansion. I understood that this small hut was used by the Bletchley Park typing pool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.223.48 (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Col J. Tiltman
There are 2 refences in this article to a J Tiltman, the first to Col. J. Tiltman, and the second to John Tiltman. The first reference says there is no wikipedia entry to Col. J. Tiltman, the second references a page about John Tiltman - including his work at Bletchley. I am sure both references are actually to the same man ( just from reading the 2 pages, not from any personal knowledge ). I do not know how to correct this, so can I suggest the link for Col. J. Tiltman is made the same as the link for John Tiltman?

If I have misunderstood the document, and Col. J. Tiltman is a different person to John Tiltman then please make this clear in the text. Holland jon (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

photo of submarine model
The caption of the submarine model says it is 1:40 scale. A German submarine of that era was maybe 80 meters long (see German submarine U-110 (1940)). A 1:40 scale model would be a little less than 2 meters long. The one in the photo looks at least 10 meters long, so it can't be anything close to 1:40 scale. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

 * I removed the "1:40" claim, since nothing supports it, and it's not really important. - Special-T (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

✅ That's the best solution. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"Cryptographic Attacks" category?
An editor seems pretty insistent this article be included in Category:Cryptographic attacks, which seems inappropriate. Bletchley Park is as much a crypto attack as is the NSA or CIA. Examples of the articles included in the category:

 * Adaptive chosen-ciphertext attack
 * Adversary (cryptography)
 * Attack model
 * Banburismus
 * Birthday attack
 * Bit-flipping attack
 * Black bag operation
 * Black-bag cryptanalysis
 * Boomerang attack
 * Brute-force attack
 * Chosen-ciphertext attack
 * Chosen-plaintext attack
 * Ciphertext-only attack
 * Clock drift

Inclusion of Bletchley Park in this category makes no sense to me. Anyone have any thoughts on the matter? Thanks! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 22:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

New Pages
New pages added for Hut 3 & Hut 4; they were redirects to Bletchley Park. Any other "Hut" articles warranted? Hugo999 (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Communicating the results of the broken communications
These points may not be entirely on-topic in the article, but it's certainly significant in the general topic of war-time coded communications, perhaps in the "See also" section: —Steve98052 (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * When Bletchley Park (and its satellite operations) decoded a message, how did they deliver the decoded information to the people who needed to know what it said? Were the messages delivered by courier? Transmitted using a British code?
 * What sort of codes did the UK use during the war? Their efforts to break enemy codes are significant, but what were they doing to communicate their own secrets?
 * I found the answer to the second question myself: they used Typex, a more-secure variant of Enigma, and sometimes one-time pads. —Steve98052 (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Intelligence Service Knox
Intelligence Service Knox currently links to Dilly Knox. I am preparing to add some information about ISK to this page but Knox died very soon after ISK was established, with Peter Twinn becoming head, so a full treatment seems inappropriate there. ISK already has several links from biography pages. Unless anyone has a better idea or beats me to it, I'll probably create a page for Intelligence Service Knox (notable for disseminating over 100,000 decrypted German Military Intelligence transcripts) and redirect links (including the Knox link from this page) to that page. RobertBurrellDonkin (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

For balance, shouldn't there also be a page for ISOS for Oliver Strachey's outfit?--TedColes (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Several huts have their own pages. So yes, in my opinion, a page for ISOS make sense too. RobertBurrellDonkin (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Photo: Listening stations
The communications radio receiver on the left with the two big semi-circular dials on its front panel is clearly a post-war (American) Hallicrafters design -- probably a model S-85. It was manufactured by Hallicrafters near Chicago USA from about 1954 or 1955 until the mid-1960s. Clearly, it did not exist during WW2.

I'd have expected to see a WW2-vintage UK-manufactured radio receiver at Bletchley Park -- maybe one manufactured by Marconi, Pye, or Plessey. Russbellew (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The standard receiver for Y sevice interception posts was the National HRO (an american design). SV1XV (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. (Cool photo.) The National HRO receiver was, though an older design, a much better receiver than the Hallicrafters S-85 in the photo. The HRO was a (I think) dual-conversion superhet (the S-85 was single-conversion), had more stable local oscillators, a linear frequency display, and included a selectable-bandpass crystal filter (the S-85 had none). http://www.radioblvd.com/National%20HRO.htm confirms the use of the HRO in Y-Stations and details HRO history.
 * Nom the HRO was single conversion, the other oscillator was the BFO. SV1XV (talk) 10:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

One more question: If this is a LISTENING station, why is a telegraph key needed? Worse, why is it plugged into the headphones jack of the Hallicrafters S-85 receiver? Russbellew (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Overt promo in Intro
From the opening paragraph: "New attractions are becoming available regularly. Up to date details can be found ......" at an external link. Sounds inappropriately like an ad to me, especially upfront in the lede. If there are no objections, I'll tone it down and move the link elsewhere. jxm (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Massive change without discussion
User EEng has cut out about one third of this article without discussion on these pages. Change on this scale seems to me to be worthy of explanation and more evident consensus. --TedColes (talk) 05:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of my changes simply reorganized existing material without substantive change, but where there is substantive change explanation is given in my edit summaries. The article was highly repetitive and overdetailed -- a lead containing stuff such as
 * The site is now controlled by the Bletchley Park Trust. One of its tenants is a company called the Bletchley Park Science and Innovation Centre (BPSIC), which provides rental income for the Trust by providing office space and services to innovative, early stage companies.
 * and material elsewhere such as
 * Sustained breaking of an enemy's ciphers can be a very fragile business. (Inappropriate tone)
 * Pigeons at War – tells the heroic role that pigeons played during periods of war (Heroic pigeons???)
 * Sue Black and others have used Twitter and other social media to raise the profile and funding for Bletchley Park. (Noble indeed, but does this increase the reader's understanding of B.P.?)
 * were obvious red flags, as were the soporific details such as the number of slates in the Turing statue, the timeline of director turnovers, mention of foundations not awarding grants, the town plebescite endorsing the intention to give money (without, apparently, actually doing so) and other stuff leaving the general reader puzzled as to significance. Plus there were three or four separate mentions that the whole game would have been up had the enemy suspected what was going on.
 * I'm happy to discuss, of course. What particular changes are you concerned about? EEng (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Action this day
Ted, I wonder if you can explain why the particular shortage, complained of to Churchill by Turing et al., matters in narrating action-this-day. In other words, what does
 * Six weeks later, having failed to get sufficient typing and unskilled staff to achieve the productivity that was possible, Turing, Welchman, Alexander and Milner-Barry wrote directly to Churchill. His response was "Action this day make sure they have all they want on extreme priority and report to me that this had been done."

add to the reader's experience of the subject, relative to
 * Six weeks later, on receiving a plea from Turing, Welchman, Alexander and Milner-Barry that red tape was hampering recruitment, Churchill directed, "Action this day make sure they have all they want on extreme priority and report to me that this had been done."

(other than being 25% longer, of course). This may seem like a minor point, but I strongly believe that surplus detail adding to neither the reader's understanding nor his interest seriously weigh down an article. It's the death of a thousand dull cuts. For that matter I'm not sure why the full roster of petitioners matters either. Why not
 * Six weeks later, on receiving a plea from Turing and others that red tape was hampering recruitment, Churchill directed, "Action this day make sure they have all they want on extreme priority and report to me that this had been done."

Certainly I believe in credit-where-due but there's plenty of credit due all these men for many reasons, and I think they wouldn't mind not being enumerated in this particular incident. EEng (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

 * The sources do not say that it was "red tape" that hampered the recruitment of typing and unskilled staff. Indeed, there is a hint that Commander Denniston may have been responsible for giving insufficient priority to this. He was later "moved sideways" away from Bletchley and Edward Travis became the effective head. My wording also makes the point that the success of the four letter-writers (and others) in decrypting enemy radio traffic meant that there was a vast increase in capability to provide critical military intelligence in a timescale that made it operationally useful. Delay, for any reason such as a shortage of unskilled and typing staff, would have made the intelligence less useful and possibly cost lives. Let's bear in mind WP:CIV. --TedColes (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I think red tape accurately and succinctly communicates the situation you describe, especially given that in a prior version you yourself wrote
 * Attempts to rectify this situation working through official channels did not work

which it seems to me is the very essence of (extreme) red tape. If you like we can say instead official indifference or unresponsiveness, but I don't see how that better informs the reader. I also don't see how your wording makes the point you mention re success in decrypting and the importance of that success. Obviously a request for more resources will try to convince the recipient that such will help the writers to better do what they've been tasked to do. To spell out that their desire was "to achieve the productivity that was possible" would be completely superflous -- of course that was the goal. And surely no reader needs to be told that better productivity / faster decrypting / etc. meant the entire difference between valuable intelligence and useless retrospective. Your wording doesn't mention any of that stuff anyway. Further (as I've said before) I also don't see why it matters what specific type of resource was lacking -- the important points are: (a) the codebreakers felt that they could not do the best job possible without more resources; (b) Churchill unhesitatingly granted them carte blanche, showing the importance he attached to their work and the breadth of his authority in making such decisions. What doesn't matter is just what it was that was lacking -- typists? paperclips? light bulbs? Some of these elements could be incorporated to enliven the narrative e.g. some kind of "for want of a nail"-type angle -- "Look, Prime Minister, you've gathered all these first-class minds here but we can't get anything done because we have to do our own bloody TYPING!" -- if sources lay something like that out. Am I missing something? EEng (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC) P.S. What do you mean about WP:CIV?

EEng (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Debutantes v's Debs
Hi there,

The only question that needs to be asked regarding this is: Is the average reader aware that the term "deb" is an abbreviation of "debutante"? If they are, then there is no need for a bracketed expansion. If they aren't, then it's an easter egg, and there needs to be a bracketed expansion.

Personally, I've never heard this abbreviation before. Is it more common in the UK? InternetMeme (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

 * What puzzles me is that you're worried about debs but unfazed by boffins -- what my great-grandmother called "Straining at gnats and swallowing horses." Anyway, articles don't explicitly gloss nontechnical words just because some readers might not be familiar with them -- that would be almost all words outside Basic. Readers who don't want to look up an occasional word should read the Simple English Wikipedia. EEng (talk) 06:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

 * What are you talking about? The word "boffins" isn't abbreviated anywhere in the article. I think it's clear that you don't understand what I'm talking about here. InternetMeme (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, deb is not an abbreviation any more than phone is. I think it's clear that you don't understand what you're talking about either. EEng (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

 * It is common in Britain. See for example Chapter 12 of Anne de Courcy's 2007 book "Debs at War: 1939-1945" which is specifically about those who served at Bletchley Park. --TedColes (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just had an idea: Why is the word linked in the first place? There are two possibilities: InternetMeme (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Normally, words on Wikipedia are left unlinked unless they're considered to be unfamiliar.
 * 2) If a word is left linked, this means that people generally consider it to be unfamiliar.
 * 3) If the word "debutante" itself is considered unfamiliar, how would you expect readers to know that "debs" is an abbreviation for it?
 * 1) The word is so familar that most people know that a "deb" is a "debutante". In this case, we should remove the wikilink, as we shouldn't be linking familar terms.
 * 2) The word is unfamilar enough that it needs to be wikilinked. In this case, people aren't likely to know that a "deb" is a "debutante", and we need a bracketed expansion.

 * I was wondering when you'd notice that inconsistency in your own logic -- you've been complaining (in edit summaries and elsewhere) about this being an easteregg, but here you go on about bracketing or whatever. Again, we don't give explicit glosses (what you call "bracketed expansion") for nontechnical English words in general usage -- it looks and reads stupid -- and that's true even where an identifiable chunk of readers might be more or less likely to be familiar with them e.g. if a UK-subject article mentions a car's boot we don't usually add (trunk) (though in an article on electronics we might explain that vacuum tube and valve mean the same thing).
 * However, in a case like boot-trunk if there's an appropriate WP article or Wiktionary entry I think it's fine to link to that. And please, that's not an easteregg -- an easteregg arises when the facial text misleads the reader about where the link goes, or where there's no reasonable way, from the facial text, that any reader could surmise (rightly or wrongly) where the link goes (e.g. links saying things like see to learn more, linking to some discussion the reader would have no clue about in advance). If the reader doesn't happen to know what a word in the facial text means that criterion isn't met -- he will naturally click the link and be taken to exactly what he expects: an appropriate explanation. EEng (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

 * There is inconsistency in some reasoning that you have misattributed as my logic, but it's nothing to do with me. At any rate, since the term "debs" is familiar enough that people will know it means "debutantes", we no longer need the wikilink.
 * InternetMeme (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes, but some people may want to know more about debutantes so as to gain a clearer picture of what it is about them that would make them available for and fitted to these wartime jobs, so I suggest we put it back. TedColes, I take it you don't disagree? EEng (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC) P.S. Mr. Memory, I take it linking boffin is OK with you?
 * What is your purpose in deigning to refer to TedColes by his username, but to forego my username in favour of "Mr. Memory"?
 * InternetMeme (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Less by deign than by accident -- must have been my autocorrect. Anyway, based on your response, and on TedColes' recent edit,, there appear to no further arguments for omitting the links. EEng (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

 * There's no way an autocorrect could do that. What is the real reason for referring to me as "Mr. Memory"? InternetMeme (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

 * You preoccupation with this point is beginning to get weird -- see image at right. Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. EEng (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

 * It's not weird at all. It's bad manners to make up names for people, and it's even worse manners to lie about it afterwards and blame it on autocorrect. You should have just apologized. Also, you still haven't provided any justification for using a piped link. InternetMeme (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

As brought out above it appears you are under the misapprehension that debs is an abbreviation. It's not. Several lines of reasoning have been given for why the link is appropriate and helpful. I wonder if you can just defer on this. EEng (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

 * In that case, it requires a bracketed explanation rather than a wikilink. That would be appropriate and helpful. Wikilinks aren't meant for translation. InternetMeme (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I've found a solution that should work for us all, based on PIPING
 * the redirect could serve as an alternative name for the target article, meaning an alternative term which is already in the article's lead section.
 * Also, based on that, I've added the term "deb" to the intro of the "debutante" article. What do you guys think?
 * InternetMeme (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Time well spent indeed. EEng (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC) P.S. I meant to point out that your link above leads to the MOS guideline on dab pages, not deb pages, making it (frankly) something of an easteregg. But this is Easter so I guess we can let that pass. EEng (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Valerie Glassborow
Is the visit by Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and her family link to Hut 16 of any note: ? "Ms Glassborow, who married the duchess' grandfather Peter Middleton, was a civilian staff member at the centre where her twin sister Mary was also employed." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Man, we're just bumping into each other all the time these days! Hmmm... I'm trying to think of some distasteful analogy I can inject at this point. ... So far... nothing. Darn.
 * Certainly there's usable material in the piece you link, though I personally don't have the time just now. Shame none of the images are usable. EEng (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha, something about enigmatic royals perhaps? or a Cambridge hut? Maybe Royal Turing around? Oh well, never mind. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As a hapless youth I was completely at sea for the first 15 minutes of a certain lecture, until I realized that this "Touring machine" the instructor kept talking about had nothing to do (well, not nothing) travelling salesmen. EEng (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * EEng, that was Ultra amusing. Have now added a couple of sentences. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by an eyewitness
Cottage Number 2 WAS NOT used by Dilly Knox or Alan Turing as this was the house occupied by the Budd Family from 1940 through to 1950, it was in Cottage Number 3 that Knox and Turing worked with a lot of Wrens and this Cottage became know as 'The Harem' and the girls as 'Dilly's Fillies' It is true the Cottages were converted from a 'Fruit Store and Tack Room' and the Tower in Number 2 was NOT used by Alan Turing as it is NOT a room but the stairs for Number 2 Cottage leading to the upstairs bedrooms, Alan Turing used the upstairs rooms in Number 3 Cottage. During WWII Mrs Budd use to tell the children living in Number 2 Cottage to be 'quiet' as the girls next door were doing very important work and she did not want them disturbed. The reason I have 'Made' these changes is I have tried about 5 times before and NOTHING was carried out to change this mistake, how do I know these facts, my name is Neville J Budd the youngest son of the four children who lived in Number 2 Cottage during WWII, we were the ONLY people who lived in Bletchley Park during this time, every one else was 'Billeted' Out side of the Park, the other members of the Budd family were Robert George Buud (Dad) Emma Rebecca Budd (Mum) Robert George Edwin Budd (Brother Bobby) Jean & Faye Budd my Twin Sisters, check the Wall Hanging in the entrance of the Mansion and you will see all of our names. Comment by -- see.

 * In light of Mr. Budd's comments, and given that the article text says that "Turing, Knox, and Jeffreys did their early work in Number 3 Cottage", I've changed the image caption from
 * The stableyard cottages, where Knox, Jeffreys, and Turing made the first British attacks on Enigma. The tower room was used by Turing

As I have stated the TOWER was NOT a ROOM it is the stair way for Number 2 Cottage, Turning only came into our house ONCE to see his mother and she was sleeping in one of the bedrooms downstairs.

 * to simply
 * The stableyard cottages.
 * EEng (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * On a recent guided tour of the site, the guide confirmed Mr Budd's recollection. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you EEng, at last someone listened to what I have been saying for the past year. If you need to contact me please use my email address.

I use the name Anderson in my name, which was my Grand Mothers maiden name, and it is better than Neville J. Budd as and author, to see more information have a look at my book 'Bletchley Park Family' on Createspace and Kindle. NJA-B.

Regards Neville J. Anderson-Budd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neville 120 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Secrecy
It is often claimed that Bletchley Park remained secret until 1974 and the publication of Winterbotham's memoir. This is, in fact, untrue. There are several instances in which information about BP's work was published before this date. The former BP veteran and post-war librarian, Jimmy Thirsk, details a number of these (which I've checked, and he is right) in his memoir. I have added a sentence to the Post War section to better reflect that fact.95.146.250.4 (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"unsourced fictional material"
I am amazed those have all been removed. Yes, they do need sources, but they are possibly the most notable portrayals of Bletchley in popular culture. I suspect they have not been sourced already as they all have Wikipedia articles to support them. I think tags might be more appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Removal based on lack of sourcing was inappropriate (unless we really think an item's fabricated). The real question is whether a given item adds to the reader's understanding of Bletchley. I've used the following criterion:
 * A fictional or semifictional portrayal of an article's subject is worth noting or discussing in the article on that subject to the extent that reliable secondary sources demonstrate that the portrayal adds to an understanding of the subject itself or of the subject's place in history or popular perception.
 * Assuming we adopt that criterion, the question then is which ones qualify. Until we can determine that there's no harm leaving these items, so I've restored them except for two which appear trivial or borderline trivial. EEng (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

use of copyrighted material
I made by Editor ECEC because:
 * 1) the caption contains the string: '©Shaun Armstrong/mubsta.com'
 * 2) the description field at the image file at commons contains the string '©Shaun Armstrong/mubsta.com'
 * 3) the image's metadata (also at commons) contains the string '©shaunarmstrong/mubstaphotography'

Editor ECEC with the edit summary: I have permission from the photographer, Shaun Armstrong, to use low res versions of his images of Bletchley Park on the Bletchley Park Wikipedia page. At the image's page, the Author field identifies Editor ECEC as the author and the Source field identifies the image as her/his own work which is in contradiction to the statement in the edit summary.

Editor ECEC may 'have permission' to use the image, but Wikipedia does not. The image should be deleted.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bletchley Park. 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/20100108030414/http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk:80/content/bombestops.pdf to http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk/content/bombestops.pdf

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) 04:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Women in Bletchley Park
Hi, I'm currently working on User:Ethanbas/Women in Bletchley Park. Feel free to help out! Ethanbas (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bletchley Park. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jharper.demon.co.uk/bombe1.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk/content/bombestops.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131204202741/http://www.jharper.demon.co.uk/bombe1.htm to http://www.jharper.demon.co.uk/bombe1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090516183838/http://www.readersheds.co.uk/share.cfm?SHARESHED=2159 to http://www.readersheds.co.uk/share.cfm?SHARESHED=2159
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081109070803/http://savingbletchleypark.org/ to http://www.savingbletchleypark.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) 21:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bletchley Park. 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/20131104230748/http://www.bletchleypark.org/content/contact/donation/support.rhtm to http://www.bletchleypark.org/content/contact/donation/support.rhtm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130528083112/http://www.bletchleypark.org/commercial.rhtm to http://www.bletchleypark.org/commercial.rhtm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708090316/http://www.bpsic.com/index.html to http://www.bpsic.com/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Bletchley Park introduction
My first input to Wikipedia so please be gentle with me! On a recent Monday afternoon visit to BP we were struck by the numbers of young schoolchildren visiting on school trips, all of whom, presumably, learning about the history and importance of BP in WWII. I can imagine many cut and paste Wikipedia prose into school history assignments so the introduction/summary paragraphs need to be especially clear and accurate. The second paragraph of BP entry starts:

"According to the official historian of British Intelligence, the "Ultra" intelligence produced at Bletchley shortened the war by two to four years, and without it the outcome of the war would have been uncertain." The claims are attributed to Professor Sir Harry Hinsley, who actually worked at Bletchley from 1939 to 1946 and then went back to Cambridge and became Professor of [the] History of International Relations and Master of St John's College. He was also the official historian of British Intelligence in World War II. It is the second attributable clause I have issue with: "...and without it the outcome of the war would have been uncertain.". If one reads the attributed article, <"The Influence of ULTRA in the Second World War">, Hinsley is quoted as saying (twice) that: "And so in all that story you can see that the British survived the war with little benefit from Intelligence until the Germans invaded Soviet Russia. And since Soviet Russia survived the German invasion, and that invasion was followed by the entry of the United States in December '41, we can safely conclude that Germany was going to be defeated in the long run, even if the enormous expansion of Ultra from the summer of 1941 had not from that date given the Allies this massive superiority in Intelligence which they retained until the end of the war." and "Q. Would we have won the war without Ultra? My own view is that given that the Soviets survived the German attack and the Americans came in as they did, the combined forces of Russia, America and the British would eventually have won the war. The long term relative strengths of Germany and those three counties were such that Germany was bound to loose in the end. But how lengthily and with what damage and destruction we should have succeeded I don't know. I think we would have won but it would have been a long and much more brutal and destructive war."

So my contention is that this sentence needs amendment as Hinsley clearly did not believe the outcome of the war would have been uncertain, and is a rather massive claim in any case. I suggest this phrase simply be replaced with something like '...and potentially saved many millions of lives' and/or '...by providing the Allies with detailed intelligence from decrypted enemy communications', or something that really can be attributed to what Hinsley said. As I say, I am a Wikipedia newbie and have neither the skills or knowledge to take this any further myself but would nevertheless appreciate those that do consider my input appropriately so those schoolchildren learn the real BP story. It really needs no embellishment. IanF1UK (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello IanF1UK. Welcome to Wikipedia! As no one has yet taken up your well-argued suggestion, I encourage you to have a go at improving the article yourself. We all had to start somewhere, and if you need more encouragement, read this: WP:BOLD. If anyone disagrees with your changes, they will tell you! Best wishes. Blurryman (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—104.219.136.47 (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You haven't explained what you think needs correction. I've tweaked the coordinates in the article a bit, but if you still think that there is an error, you'll need to provide a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add the Google Easter Egg that appears when you type in 'Bletchley Park'
I think it could go into the popular culture section, here is what it does: https://searchengineland.com/figz/wp-content/seloads/2014/12/google-easter-egg-Bletchley-Park-1419342795.gif Sorry if this has already been talked about, this is *literally* my first suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64Apples (talk • contribs) 15:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Cipher vs Cypher
So I noticed in some parts, it uses the "y" spelling of cipher instead of the "I" spelling of cipher. I feel like it should all be uniform, and it makes sense to use cipher with an I since it's more commonly used and the conclusion of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cryptography/Cipher_vs_Cypher#:~:text=In%20the%20published%20literature%20of,than%20the%20spelling%20%22cypher%22. was that cipher should be used. HOWEVER, the Government Code and Cypher School is mentioned many times in the article and uses the "y" spelling, and that's just the name of it so it can't be changed. What should happen? I'm not very, uh, experienced, to say the least. NickleSonic (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See Cipher vs. Cypher "Cipher" is much more commonly used in American English and a bit more commonly used in British English. We need to use "Cypher" for the name of the school but I would suggest using "cipher" throughout the rest of the article. Dormskirk (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Cypher" where it is part of a proper noun; "cipher" elsewhere. Per Dormskirk. Zazpot (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Bletchley Park is in Bletchley, shock
It seems to me really odd to say that Bletchley Park is in Bletchley, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, England. All we need is, United Kingdom, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way.

Bletchley is part of Milton Keynes (and has been so since 1967). Quite a large part, maybe an eighth, but still just a part and barely notable outside 50 mile radius in its own right (probably not at all but for BP).. We need to think of an international readership and not get bogged down in detail like this. IMO, the lead sentence should drop 'Bletchley' and at least one of 'Milton Keynes' or 'Buckinghamshire', probably the former for historical consistency (as it didn't exist '39-'45). Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic request for assistance at another article: New Bradwell
Please excuse my cheek but it occurred to me that watchers of this article may have book sources that may satisfy a citation needed, please?

I haven't been able to find any citations online for the "New Bradwell Blitz", so I wonder if it ever actually happened? I haven't been able to find any citations online for this event, but it may be in a book that someone has? If so, would they please update the New Bradwell article and/or leave a note at talk:New Bradwell. Much obliged if you can help. TYVM. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to close this request, in May last year a reader contributed the evidence required . My thanks to everyone who looked. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bletchley Park


text:
Deadly Desert

The Deadly Desert is the magical desert in Nonestica that completely surrounds the fictional Land of Oz, which cuts it off from the rest of the world.

Geology
On the map of Oz, first published in the endpapers of the eighth book, Tik-Tok of Oz (1914), the eastern quadrant of the desert is called the Deadly Desert, while the other three quadrants of desert are called the Shifting Sands, the Impassable Desert, and the Great Sandy Waste.

The desert was originally described as dangerous as any natural desert but no more. Indeed, in the second book, The Marvelous Land of Oz (1904), the witch Mombi tries to escape through it in the form of a griffin, and Glinda chases her over the sands. In the third book, Ozma of Oz (1907), it has become a magical desert with life-destroying sands and noxious fumes, a feature that remained constant through the rest of the series.

In the fifth book, The Road to Oz (1909), a sign is posted on the edge of the desert to warn travelers:

ALL PERSONS ARE WARNED NOT TO VENTURE UPON THIS DESERT For the Deadly Sands Will Turn Any Living Flesh to Dust in an Instant. Beyond This Barrier is the LAND OF OZ But no one can Reach that Beautiful Country because of these Destroying Sands.

The desert is used as a literary device to explain why Oz is essentially cut off from the rest of the world and the rest of the surrounding countries of Nonestica. However, it has been crossed several times by people from within Oz and from the outside world, with applied ingenuity, with magical assistance, or through unusual natural phenomena. In fact, no one in the Oz series is ever seen to die in the desert.

Notable crossings

 * In the 1900 novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, Dorothy Gale is carried into Oz in her house by a cyclone and back over again by her Silver Shoes, which fall off during her flight and are lost in the desert. Also, the Wizard of Oz originally arrived in Oz by a circus balloon (which he implies functioned by a gas lighter than air, rather than hot air), and years later leaves Oz in a hot-air balloon of his own design.
 * In The Marvelous Land of Oz, Tip and his companions fly over it using The Gump who was granted flight with its palm leaf parts.
 * In Ozma of Oz, Princess Ozma crosses the desert with her whole court by use of an infinitely unrolling carpet.
 * In The Road to Oz, Dorothy Gale, Shaggy Man, Polychrome and Button-Bright cross the desert into Oz by use of a sand ship.
 * In The Emerald City of Oz, the Nome King and his allies the Whimsies, the Growleywogs, and the Phanfasms dug a tunnel underneath the desert.
 * In The Scarecrow of Oz, Trot, Cap'n Bill, and Button-Bright flew over the desert carried by birds and led by Flipper the Ork.
 * In The Magic of Oz, Kiki Aru transformed himself into a bird and flew over the Deadly Desert from the Land of Oz, exploring the various countries of Nonestica.
 * In Kabumpo in Oz, a giant Ruggedo hopped right over the Deadly Desert and ran back to his mountain in the Land of Ev after Princess Ozma's palace got stuck in his hair spikes. In the same book, Kabumpo, Peg Amy, Pompadore, and Wag crossed over the Deadly Desert on a runaway country.
 * In The Purple Prince of Oz, Polychrome allowed Prince Randy, Kabumpo, and Jinnicky the Red Jinn to ride her rainbow across the Deadly Desert.
 * In Handy Mandy in Oz, a geyser beneath Mt. Mern in an unidentified area erupted underneath Handy Mandy sending her and the large boulder she was on over the Deadly Desert where she landed in Munchkin Country.
 * In The Silver Princess in Oz, Kabumpo and King Randy were blown across the Deadly Desert by a powerful storm.

In other media

 * In the 1985 film Return to Oz, Dorothy Gale crosses the edge of the Desert by stepping upon stones. Later, the pack of Wheelers working for Mombi fail to get across the Deadly Desert in pursuit of Dorothy and the Gump, who cross the desert to reach the Nome King's mountain. Six of the Wheelers fall into the desert and are subsequently turned into sand and killed. The seven remaining Wheelers later return with Princess Mombi and cross the desert through the tunnel that was dug underneath the desert to reach the Nome King's mountain.

 * In Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz, the Deadly Desert is featured where it also contained a monster made of sand.

title: Deadly Desert


text:
RTC

RTC may refer to:

Places in the United States

 * Redmond Town Center, Washington
 * Reston Town Center, Virginia

Education and training

 * Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes, Illinois
 * Reformed Theological College, Australia
 * Regional Technical College, former name of Institutes of Technology in Ireland
 * Renton Technical College, also known as Renton Tech, an American public two-year institution
 * Royal Thimphu College, the first private university in Bhutan

Organisations and enterprises

 * RTC (Cape Verde), also known as Radiotelevisão Caboverdiana, Cape Verde's state-owned radio and television station
 * RTC (record label), New Zealand record label
 * Dirección General de Radio, Televisión y Cinematografía, a Mexican government agency
 * Religious Technology Center, the corporate body that controls the intellectual property of the Church of Scientology
 * Residential treatment center, a live-in health care facility for adolescents with severe psychological, behavioral, and/or substance abuse issues
 * Resolution Trust Corporation, the government-owned company created to manage insolvent financial institutions during the US savings and loan crisis
 * Rochester Telephone Company (disambiguation), several telephone companies in the United States
 * Rotterdam Terror Corps, a Dutch gabber group
 * Radiotechnique-Coprim, a French electronics company
 * Rational Team Concert, an IBM software engineering solution

Technology

 * Real-time clock, the clock that keeps civil time for a computer
 * Real-time communication, any mode of telecommunications in which all users can exchange information instantly or with negligible delay
 * Real-time computing

Transport

 * Rail traffic controller, a person who oversees the movement of trains and controls railway signals
 * Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, a US organization to promote use of railroad rights-of-way as trails
 * Railway Technical Centre, the British Rail research centre in Derby, England
 * Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, a government agency responsible for public transit and roads in the Las Vegas valley, parent of RTC Transit (formerly called Citizens Area Transit)
 * Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, a government agency responsible for public transit and roads in and around the cities of Reno and Sparks, in Western Nevada
 * Réseau de transport de la Capitale, the regional transportation commission for Quebec City
 * Road traffic collision, or road traffic accident
 * Road Transport Corporation, see Category:State road transport corporations of India
 * Rochester Transit Corporation, historical operator of streetcar, rail, and bus transit in Rochester, New York.

Other uses

 * Regional Trial Court, the highest trial courts in the Philippines
 * Right to Censor, a group in the World Wrestling Federation
 * Rosette terminal complex, a structure in vascular plants which produces cellulose
 * Replication and transcription complex, the most vulnerable part of a coronavirus

title: RTC