text:
Talk:Spanish Revolution of 1936

70th Anniversary Push?
Should we maybe do lots of work on this article as the 70th anniversary of the whole thing is coming up soon. There's lots to expand on for both the begining and supression of the revolution? Chaikney 16:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This article
It's the same as what I wrote for it under Anarchism in Spain, but I feel that it could be further expanded here. Also, it used to redirect to Spanish Civil War, which is false and misleading. --Tothebarricades.tk 23:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it's misleading to say that communist policy was simply to postpone the revolution until after the war. The communist didn't want an anarchist revolution at all, and they even murdered some of the anarchist leaders. I will look up the sources for this and make a proposition for an amendment to the article. -anonymous

Merging
I removed the the merge tag from this page. The revolution is complex and important enough to merit its own article (to anarchists it is one of the most important events in history). This article will be longer at some point, whenever I get around to organizing my margin notes and everything from a few books I've recently read and update the article. --Tothebarricades.tk 03:13, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Could be used
Sort of unrelated to the actual article, but has anyone seen The Ex's 1936: The Spanish Revolution? There are only 4 songs but the great part is the book that goes along with it! The cd's (there are 2 small discs, each with 2 songs) are stored on the inside covers and the book is in spanish and english and has tons of pictures from the civil war (actually, it's mostly pictures, but there is some text). It's pretty cool. Two of the songs are in spanish.

Trotskyists?
Do you think it's right to talk about POUM as Trotskyists? I think they didn't have direct connection with Trotsky except the person of Nin. I think it would be better to write there simply POUM. --Vladimír Fuka 12:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Orwell has them as Trotskyist (chapter 5 of Homage to Catalonia, p.61 my edition) but it's in "quotes", so it's not clear if they self-identified that or were just labelled that by the Stalinists or the Anarchists. Chaikney 16:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that Orwell was not meaning to label the POUM as trotskyites, hence the quotation marks -69.123.9.255 06:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

POUM was not trotskyst as they broke with Trotsky in 1935 on the role of unions in revolution. POUM defended unions. And POUM didn't want to join to the socialist party. They considered themselves as marxists-leninists. During the war there was a tiny trot group called Sección Bolchevique Leninista Española. They were about 100 members, while POUM was about 70 000. mk.-

LET me correct a few things above. The "Trotskyist" terminology used to describe the POUM lays with the Comintern, who sought to banish and suppress the POUM by labeling as such. This was carried further by Hugh Thomas, whose terrible book "The Spanish Civil War" stood for decades as the authority on the Spanish Civil War and revolution. The author above is correct that Trotsky broke with the POUM. It was only, however, over one issue: the proposed fusion of the Left Communists (Nin's group prior toward the fusion with the independent Workers and Peasants Bloc that became the POUM) with the Socialist Youth, who were being courted by the Communist Party. That was it, nothing more substantial than that.--Dwalters

The POUM never had more than 10,000 members and 30,000 in it's militia (membership in the latter doesn't presume membership in the former). 75,000 is a wild exageration.

Old random text
This article, particularily the last two paragraphs seems a little POV. I tweaked one sentence in the last one from "oppressive traditions" to "traditions some found oppressive" and I think that helped a little bit. I consider myself an anarchist, so I'm not the best person to remove any pro-revolutionary bias from the article, but I can see another seeing this article as idealizing the revolution. Tomorrowsashes 22:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Spanish Revolution is NOT the same as the Spanish Civil War, they certaintly deserve two different entries.

 * You're absolutely right. Go on, then -- get scribbling! –Hajor 03:53, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Severely lacking sources
I added the "Unsourced" tag to the article just now because the article as it stands right now makes a wide variety of claims with only a single person's memoir as a source. If this event was so important and caused such fantastic effects there should be more sources available. - DNewhall 22:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

 * There are lots of sources. There is material written by particpants and observers (journalistic, polemical etc).  Lessons of the Spanish Revolution, by Vernon Richards (3rd ed, Freedom Press, 1983) is written from an anarchist perspective, as is the pre-revolution study by Murray Bookchin, The Spanish Anarchists: the heroic years, 1868-1936, AK Press, 1998.  The largest study I'm aware of is the comprehensive The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, by Robert Alexander. 2 vols, Janus Publishing Company, 1999.  It's not a committed anarchist text like the other two.  If and when I get time I may do some work based on these and other sources, but really I'd invite others to get hold of these and incorporate some facts because it's unlikely I can do anything much any time soon. --Dannyno 10:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

 * It needs more sources, especially since this is claiming to be the ONLY collective society to ever have created a surplus of anything. 2 sources, both socialists, is not enough to prove to me that it actually worked, let alone improved efficiency by 20%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.183.177 (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Minority Report
The article reads like a minority report next to several other articles describing Spain in 1936. The overly long quote by Orwell is interesting, but alas page 4 of Homage to Catalonia is not representative of his whole impression of the Spanish Civil War.

A lot of stuff sounds rather unlikely, like the claims "For instance, women were allowed to have abortions, and the idea of "free love" became popular. In many ways, this spirit of cultural liberation prefigured that of the "New Left" movements of the 1960s."

Wouldn't some actual Spanish sources be helpful here in preference to American Sam Dolgoff and Englishman George Orwell? patsw 01:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

 * First of all, this article is specifically about the social revolution which occurred during the Spanish Civil War, rather than the Civil War as a whole. Orwell's impressions of the Revolution appear to conflict with his impressions of the Civil War because they are not the same thing. This article does need a lot of work, and I agree that more Spanish sources would be good. The problem is the scarcity of Spanish histories of the Revolution in English translation. The main interest in the Revolution in the English-speaking world is among the various libertarian socialists - not a large enough market for translations of current scholarship on the Revolution. Off the top of my head I can only think of two Spanish eyewitnesses who have had books published in English - Antonio Tellez and Jose Peirats. I agree that it seems strange to only include foreign accounts of the Revolution, and I would be grateful if someone with these books at hand could edit the article. There are other useful non-Spanish eyewitness accounts as well, for example by Franz Borkenau, Augustin Souchy, and Gaston Leval. Antony Beevor's recent book on the Civil War also has information on the Revolution drawing from more recent Spanish-language research on the subject. -Steve

 * P.S. The use of the term "free love" here is misleading - in the context of Spanish anarchism, the term referred to such practices and customs as cohabitation, common law or civil unions, the full equality of partners, and the liberalizing of divorce laws. I also don't find it hard to believe that abortions were freely available to women - but such a specific claim does need a citation in my opinion. -Steve

 * A good source for Spanish eyewitnesses' accounts is actually Beevors own book, under "Bibliography". There are quite a few books to look up there if one speaks Spanish. --Popperipopp 22:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed, it is mostly a selection of supportive excerpts from books. There's very little detailed information about, for example, the chronology of events. If the Revolution merits its own article separate from the articles of the Spanish Civil War then it merits its own chronology. The entire article is obviously intended as propaganda and not to inform. Informational articles can totally serve as propaganda and it's annoying anarchists aren't trying to write good, informative propaganda articles on here. I'll read your propaganda if you give me the info I'm looking for. Anyways, the more you say, the more opportunities you have to make your points. You can go into detail about how great it was and frame the chronology in the most flattering possible light. Just step up your game is all I'm asking. 2601:602:A80:7940:A4FC:A3EB:6239:CFB6 (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Borkenau
I know that Bork.'s account is already mentioned elsewhere. Perhaps it could be better integrated into the article, I don't know. But it is vital that it be included: even the non-Comintern sympathising Left didn't necessarily think that the "spanish revolution" was all peaches and cream. By accepting Orwell's account uncritically, we are doing a disservice to his legacy of accepting uncomfortable truths. BillMasen (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just a question of redundancy between articles; this was a cut'n'paste job which is discouraged by WP:CFORK as you often end up having one version which deviates from WP:NPOV. Let's put the Borkenau material that only relates to Catalonia in the other article, and mention it here with a link. And on the question of putting Orwell in context, there must be dozens of critical studies of his writings.  Skomorokh   16:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Michael Seidman
I've added a few lines on Michael Seidman's thought-provoking work on self-management during the Spanish Revolution plus a snapshot of the various ways those sympathetic to the revolution have dealt with the difficult contradictions of the period. I hope that's OK with everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neacc (talk • contribs) 18:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Your latter paragraph is written from the point of view that Seidman is objectively correct; in the uncited linking sentences, you dismiss the writings of others that contradict Seidman's position as "understatements of the problem", and take as a given the "limitations of the Spanish Revolution" (presumably you mean those which Seidman pointed to). Also the final sentence sounds a lot like OR — do you have a citation for it?  I think you added a lot of good salvageable info, but could you try to cut away the POV and OR?  I'll start it out by changing "Michael Seidman has revealed other contradictions" to a less POV phrase, and if you want I can try later to fix up more of it myself, but I'd rather give you a chance since you're the one who knows what you're talking about; I'd have to delete a lot of it just assuming that it's OR.  -Inkwiry (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

15M movement
It would be interesting to update this article with information on the May 15 2011 movement branded Democracia Real Ya (Real Democracy Now), or Spanish Revolution in the social networks. 83.34.178.73 (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Claim without citation
This line at the end of the article has not citation

"(Such a radical transformation would, of course, be easier in the 21st century, with its potential for material abundance, than in the Spain of the 1930s, with its harsh poverty and civil war conditions.)"

If you want to make this claim you could use this article by David Graeber as a source

http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20130820174826479

Im a novice Wikipedia editor and not an anarchist so Id prefer leave it up to the experts as to weather or not this is a suitable citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultan42 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is the entire lede of this article a quotation?
The lede is terrible. I can't tell if this is a topic compounded on by an essay, or a real event. It looks like someone's original research. Why is there a gigantic block of quotation in the lede? 128.84.127.161 (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Excessive quotation
This article relies too much on quotes, and most of them are incredibly long quotes. It's ridiculous. I'll come back when I have more time and gut them. Richard75 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * When I edited the article I tried to either incorporate the quotations into other parts of the article, or delete the overly extensive ones (as with Orwell). The main problem I had was with the Criticisms section, which I left largely untouched. While criticisms of such an event would be important to keep in, I feel they'd need to be better integrated into the body, maybe re-written using the sources but not the quotes. Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

"Revolutionary Spain" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Revolutionary_Spain&redirect=no Revolutionary Spain] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Spanish Revolution of 1936


text:
Operation Sandstone

Operation Sandstone was a series of nuclear weapon tests in 1948. It was the third series of American tests, following Trinity in 1945 and Crossroads in 1946, and preceding Ranger. Like the Crossroads tests, the Sandstone tests were carried out at the Pacific Proving Grounds, although at Enewetak Atoll rather than Bikini Atoll. They differed from Crossroads in that they were conducted by the Atomic Energy Commission, with the armed forces having only a supporting role. The purpose of the Sandstone tests was also different: they were primarily tests of new bomb designs rather than of the effects of nuclear weapons. Three tests were carried out in April and May 1948 by Joint Task Force 7, with a work force of 10,366 personnel, of whom 9,890 were military.

The successful testing of the new cores in the Operation Sandstone tests rendered every component of the old weapons obsolete. Even before the third test had been carried out, production of the old cores was halted, and all effort concentrated on the new Mark 4 nuclear bomb, which would become the first mass-produced nuclear weapon. More efficient use of fissionable material as a result of Operation Sandstone would increase the U.S. nuclear stockpile from 56 bombs in June 1948 to 169 in June 1949.

Origins

Nuclear weapons were developed during World War II by the Manhattan Project, which created a network of production facilities, and the weapons research and design laboratory at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Two types of bombs were developed: the Mark 1 Little Boy, a gun-type fission weapon using uranium-235, and the Mark 3 Fat Man, an implosion-type nuclear weapon using plutonium.

These weapons were not far removed from their laboratory origins. A great deal of work remained to improve ease of assembly, safety, reliability and storage before they were ready for production. There were also many improvements to their performance that had been suggested or recommended during the war that had not been possible under the pressure of wartime development. Norris Bradbury, who replaced Robert Oppenheimer as director at Los Alamos, felt that "we had, to put it bluntly, lousy bombs."

Plutonium was produced by irradiating uranium-238 in three 250 MW nuclear reactors at the Hanford site. In theory they could produce 0.91 g of plutonium per megawatt-day, or about 20 kg per month. In practice, production never approached such a level in 1945, when only between 4 and 6 kg was produced per month. A Fat Man core required about 6.2 kg of plutonium, of which 21% fissioned. Plutonium production fell off during 1946 due to swelling of the reactors' graphite neutron moderators. This is known as the Wigner effect, after its discoverer, the Manhattan Project scientist Eugene Wigner.

These reactors were also required for the production (by irradiation of bismuth-209) of polonium-210, which was used in the initiators, a critical component of the nuclear weapons. Some 62 kg of bismuth-209 had to be irradiated for 100 days to produce 600 curies of polonium-210, a little over 132 mg. Because polonium-210 has a half-life of only 138 days, at least one reactor had to be kept running. The oldest unit, B pile, was therefore closed down so that it would be available in the future. Investigation of the problem would take most of 1946 before a fix was found.

Uranium-235 was derived from enrichment of natural uranium at the Y-12 plant and K-25 site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Improvements in the processes and procedures of the electromagnetic and gaseous isotope separation between October 1945 and June 1946 led to an increase in production to around 69 kg of uranium-235 per month, which was only enough for one of the very wasteful Little Boys. A Fat Man was 17.5 times as efficient as a Little Boy, but a ton of uranium ore could yield eight times as much uranium-235 as plutonium, and on a per-gram basis, plutonium cost somewhere between four and eight times as much to produce as uranium-235, which at this time cost around $26 per gram.

Weapon development 1945–1948
The objectives of the Sandstone series of tests were to:
 * 1) test nuclear cores and initiators;
 * 2) improve the theory and knowledge of implosion type weapons;
 * 3) test levitated cores;
 * 4) test composite cores; and
 * 5) determine the most economic designs in terms of efficient use of fissionable material.

Levitation meant that instead of being immediately inside the tamper, there would be an air gap between the tamper and the core, which would be suspended inside on wires. This would allow the tamper to gain more momentum before striking the core. The principle was similar to swinging a hammer at a nail versus putting the hammerhead directly on the nail and pushing as hard as possible. In order for this to work outside the laboratory, the wires had to be strong enough to withstand being dropped from an aircraft, but thin enough to not disturb the spherical symmetry of the implosion. The Theoretical Division at Los Alamos, known as T Division, had run computer calculations on the levitated core as early as March 1945. The use of the levitated core had been proposed during the planning for Operation Crossroads, but it had been decided instead to use the existing solid core "Christy" design. This was named after its designer, Robert Christy. For Sandstone, however, it was decided that at least two of the three tests would use levitated cores.

The motivation behind the composite core was to make better use of the available fissionable material. The use of uranium-235 in an implosion weapon instead of the inefficient gun type Little Boy was an obvious development. However, while plutonium was more expensive and harder to produce than uranium-235, it fissions faster, because it makes better use of the neutrons its fission produces. On the other hand, the slower reaction of uranium-235 permits the assembly of super-critical masses, making it theoretically possible to produce weapons with high yields. By July 1945, Oppenheimer and Groves were considering using both materials in a composite core containing 3.25 kg of plutonium and 6.5 kg of uranium-235. The composite cores became available in 1946. Los Alamos' priority then became the development of an all-uranium-235 core. By January 1948 the national stockpile contained 50 cores, of which 36 were composite Christy cores, nine were plutonium Christy cores, and five were composite levitated cores. Testing the new levitated, composite and uranium-235 cores would require at least three test firings.

More efficient weapons would require less efficient initiators. This meant that less polonium would be required. At the time of Sandstone, the national stockpile of polonium-beryllium initiators consisted of 50 A-Class initiators, with more than 25 curies of polonium, and 13 B-Class initiators with 12 to 25 curies. During Sandstone, at least one test would be conducted with a B-Class initiator.

Organization
The tests were authorized by President Harry S. Truman on June 27, 1947. The Atomic Energy Commission's Director of Military Applications, Brigadier General James McCormack and his deputy, Captain James S. Russell, met with Bradbury and John Henry Manley at Los Alamos on July 9 to make arrangements for the tests. They readily agreed that they would be scientific in nature, with Los Alamos supplying the technical direction and the armed forces providing supplies and logistical support. The cost of the tests, around $20 million, was divided between the Department of Defense and the Atomic Energy Commission. Lieutenant General John E. Hull was designated as test commander. Rear Admiral William S. Parsons and Major General William E. Kepner reprised their Operation Crossroads roles as deputy commanders. Joint Task Force 7 was formally activated on October 18, 1947. As its commander, Hull was answerable to both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Atomic Energy Commission.

Joint Task Force 7 consisted of 10,366 personnel, 9,890 of them military. Its headquarters consisted of about 175 men, of whom 96 were on board the USS Mount McKinley. The rest were accommodated on the USS Albemarle (AV-5), USS Curtiss (AV-4) and USS Bairoko. A special division of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, known as J Division, was created specifically to manage nuclear testing. An Atomic Energy Commission group (Task Group 7.1) was responsible for preparing and detonating the nuclear weapons, and conducting the experiments. It consisted of some 283 scientists and technicians responsible for nuclear tests from J Division, the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project, the Naval Research Laboratory, the Naval Ordnance Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory,  the Aberdeen Proving Ground, the Atomic Energy Commission, Edgerton, Germeshausen & Grier, and other agencies.

Each dealt with a different aspect of the tests. The Naval Ordnance Laboratory handled the blast measurement tests, while the Naval Research Laboratory conducted the radiation measurement experiments, and Argonne National Laboratory did gamma ray measurements. Edgerton, Germeshausen, and Grier were contractors hired to design and install the timing and firing systems. Seven experimental weapon assemblies and six cores were delivered to San Pedro, California, and loaded on the weapon assembly ship USS Curtiss (AV-4), in February 1948, but the Atomic Energy Commission only gave permission for the expenditure of three cores in the tests.

Ships
The naval forces were organized as Task Group 7.3. It consisted of:

 * Task Unit 7.3.1
 * USS Mount McKinley (flagship)
 * Task Unit 7.3.2 Main Naval Task Unit
 * USS Pickaway (APA-222)
 * USS Warrick (AKA-89)
 * USS Curtiss (AV-4)
 * USS Yancey (AKA-93)
 * USS Albemarle (AV-5)
 * USS LST-45
 * USS LST-219
 * USS LST-611
 * Task Unit 7.3.3 Offshore Patrol
 * USS Gardiners Bay (AVP-39)
 * USS Henry W. Tucker
 * USS Rogers (DD-876)
 * USS Perkins (DD-877)
 * USS Spangler (DE-696)
 * USS George (DE-697)
 * USS Raby (DE-698)
 * USS Marsh (DE-699)
 * USS Currier (DE-700)

 * Task Unit 7.3.4 Helicopter Unit
 * USS Bairoko – 4 HO3S and 2 HTL helicopters
 * Task Unit 7.3.5 Services Unit
 * USS Arequipa
 * USS Pasig (AW-3)
 * USS YOG-64
 * USS YW-94
 * Task Unit 7.3.6 Cable Unit
 * USS LSM-250
 * USS LSM-378
 * Naval Signal Unit No. 1
 * Task Unit 7.3.7 Boat Pool Unit
 * USS Comstock (LSD-19)
 * USS Askari
 * USS LCI-549
 * USS LCI(L)-1054
 * USS LCI(L)-1090
 * USS LCI-472
 * USS LCI-494
 * USS LCI-l194
 * USS LCI-1345

Source: Berkhouse et al, Operation Sandstone, p. 40

Civil affairs
In September 1947, Hull, Russell, who was designated test director on October 14, and Joint Task Force 7's scientific director, Darol K. Froman from the Los Alamos Laboratories, set out with a group of scientists and military officers to examine various proposed test sites in the Pacific. Enewetak Atoll was chosen as the test site on October 11. The island was remote, but with a good harbor and an airstrip. It also had ocean currents and trade winds that would carry fallout out to sea, an important consideration in view of what had happened at Bikini Atoll during Operation Crossroads.

As the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands was a United Nations trust territory administered by the United States, the United Nations Security Council was notified of the upcoming tests on December 2. The atoll was inhabited by the dri-Enewetak, who lived on Aomon, and the dri-Enjebi, who lived on Bijire. Their original homes had been on Enewetak and Enjebi, but they had been moved during the war to make way for military bases. The population, about 140 in number, had been temporarily relocated to Meck Island during Operation Crossroads. This time, Ujelang Atoll, an uninhabited atoll 124 nmi southwest of Enewetak, was selected as a relocation site. A Naval Construction Battalion group arrived there on November 22 to build accommodation and amenities. The military authorities met with the local chiefs on December 3, and they agreed to the relocation, which was carried out by USS King County (LST-857) by December 20. An LST and four Douglas C-54 Skymaster aircraft were placed on standby to evacuate Ujelan in case it was affected by fallout, but were not required.

Unlike the Crossroads tests, which were conducted in the media spotlight, the Sandstone tests were carried out with minimal publicity. On April 15, there was still discussion in Washington about whether or not there should be any public announcement of the tests at all. Hull opposed making any announcement until after the series was completed, but the AEC commissioners felt that the news would leak out, and the United States would look secretive. It was therefore decided to make a last minute announcement. There was no announcement of the purpose of the tests, and only cursory press releases. On 18 May, after the series was over, Hull held a press conference in Hawaii, but only permitted the media to quote from written statements.

Construction
Enjebi, Aomon, and Runit Islands were cleared of vegetation and graded level to make it easier to install the required instrumentation, and a causeway was built between Aomon and Bijire so the instrument cables could be run from the test tower on Aomon to the control station on Bijire. The detonations were ordered so that later test areas would suffer minimal fallout from the earlier shots. The Army component, Task Group 7.2, was responsible for construction work. It consisted of the 1220th Provisional Engineer Battalion, with the 1217th and 1218th Composite Service Platoons, the 18th Engineer Construction Company and 1219th Signal Service Platoon; Companies D and E of the 2nd Engineer Special Brigade's 532nd Engineer Boat and Shore Regiment; the 461st Transportation Amphibious Truck Company; 854th Transportation Port Company; 401st CIC Detachment; and the Naval Shore Base Detachment.

Operations
As in Operation Crossroads, each detonation was given its own code name, taken from the Joint Army/Navy Phonetic Alphabet. All used modified Mark III assemblies, and were detonated from 200 ft towers. The timing of the detonations was a matter of compromise. The gamma ray measurement experiments required darkness, but the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress drones that would sample the clouds needed daylight to control them. As a compromise, the Sandstone detonations all took place shortly before dawn.

The detonations in the United States' Sandstone series are listed below:

X-Ray
The X-Ray nuclear device used a levitated composite core. It was detonated on Enjebi just before sunrise at 06:17 on April 15, 1948, with a yield of 37 kilotons. The efficiency of utilization of the plutonium was about 35%; that of the uranium-235 was 25% or more. This was somewhat higher than Los Alamos' prediction. Observers watching from ships in the lagoon saw a brilliant flash and felt the radiant heat. A condensation cloud 5 nmi in diameter quickly enveloped the fireball, which glowed within the cloud. It took 45 to 50 seconds for the thunderous roar of the explosion to reach the observers.

About 20 minutes later, Bairoko launched a helicopter to check on the cable winch which was to collect samples. It also lowered boats to test radioactivity levels in the lagoon. B-17 pilotless drone aircraft were flown through the clouds, and a drone light tank was used to recover soil samples from the crater. Unfortunately, it became bogged and had to be towed out ten days later.

Yoke
The Yoke nuclear device used a levitated all-uranium-235 core. It was detonated on Aomon just before sunrise on May 1, 1948, at 06:09, a day late due to unfavorable winds. The observers saw a similar flash and felt the same heat as the X-Ray blast, but the 6 nmi wide condensation cloud was larger, and the sound of the explosion more forceful. One observer likened it to the sound of "a paper bag which is forcefully burst in a small room". They were correct: its yield of 49 kilotons made it the largest nuclear detonation up to that time, but it was considered inefficient and wasteful of the fissile material.

Zebra
Zebra, the third test, and the last of the Sandstone series, was detonated on Runit just before sunrise at 06:04 on May 15, 1948. This test was characterized by AEC Chairman David Lilienthal as the "hardest and most important" test of the three. By using one of the B-class initiators, it demonstrated that these could still be used with confidence. The observers perceived the flash and blast as similar to the previous two tests, but this time the base of the condensation cloud was at 2000 ft, which gave the observers an unobstructed view of the fireball, which therefore appeared to be brighter and last longer than the other two. Looks were deceiving: its levitated uranium-235 core produced a yield of 18 kilotons.

The procedures used in the previous tests were repeated, but this time the winch cable snagged, and the test samples had to be retrieved by a jeep, exposing its crew to more radiation. The Los Alamos personnel assigned to remove the filters from the B-17 drones had apparently carried out the procedure on X-Ray and Yoke without problems, but this time three of them suffered radiation burns on their hands serious enough to be hospitalized and need skin grafting. One of the men who had carried out the procedure for Yoke was then also found to have burns on his hands and was hospitalized too, but was discharged on 28 May. Once again the drone tank gave trouble, and bogged in the crater, but the soil samples were retrieved by the backup drone tank. Both tanks were subsequently dumped in the ocean.

Outcome
The successful testing of the new cores in the Sandstone tests had a profound effect. Practically every component of the old weapons was rendered obsolete. Even before the third test had been carried out, Bradbury had halted production of the old cores, and ordered that all effort was to be concentrated on the Mark 4 nuclear bomb, which would become the first mass-produced nuclear weapon. The more efficient use of fissionable material would increase the nuclear stockpile from 56 bombs in June 1948 to 169 in June 1949. The Mark III bombs were withdrawn from service in 1950. At the same time, new production plants were coming online and the Wigner effect problem had been solved. By May 1951, plutonium production was twelve times that of 1947, while uranium-235 production had increased eight-fold. The Chief of the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project, Major General Kenneth D. Nichols, saw clearly that the era of scarcity was over. He now "recommended that we should be thinking in terms of thousands of weapons rather than hundreds."

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

title: Operation Sandstone


text:
User talk:Craig Currier

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
 * Read the article describing how to edit a page and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
 * When editing pages, use the preview button before submitting and try to fill in the summary box for every edit.
 * Eventually, read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck! Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~ (4 tildes).

Vorik
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Vorik, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of Vorik. Ejfetters 05:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Craig Currier


text: User talk:66.190.50.73

title: User talk:66.190.50.73


text:
User talk:Parakalo~enwiki

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
 * Read the article describing how to edit a page and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
 * When editing pages, use the preview button before submitting and try to fill in the summary box for every edit.
 * Eventually, read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck! Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~ (4 tildes).

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Parakalo. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Parakalo~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Parakalo~enwiki


text:
User talk:Oklonia

Sorry, everybody. I missed April Fools Day (I was away) and just wanted to pull a harmless prank. I'm done though. Until next year... Oklonia 03:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
That was not directed at you. It came up on my watchlist, the edit before yours which was vandalism, said "Hi Mom" or something like that. So I reverted that. Somewhere between when I did that and saved it you made an edit. Sorry.. it happens. K1Bond007 03:06, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Notability
Hello. Notability is not a reason for speedy delete. Please do not put delete on articles unless they are gibberish.

Long article
I don't know if someone has answered this for you allready, but the problem may be that you are using an old browser which can't display more than 32KB in those frames. I believe that's why the message was added in the first place. Hope that helps. This link is Broken 04:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Welcome and Answer
First off, I noticed your question on the Clueless newbies page, and I see that BrokenSegue has answered it already. I haven't had a problem with it- whenever I click edit and it's 32 kb or longer, I can still read (and edit!) throughout the whole article. My suggestion is to try it again and see if it works- if not, maybe try using a newer browser! (he he, I was stuck with an ancient computer for many years...)

Second off, I see that nobody has "officially" welcomed you to Wikipedia. So here it is:

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Flcelloguy 00:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Copyright problems with Image:Bilde.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Bilde.jpg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  howch e  ng   {chat} 00:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Atari Flashback Hardware.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Atari Flashback Hardware.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. -- Longhair 08:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Harlequin2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Harlequin2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Image legality questions. 10:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Zapper.jpg
Can you please confirm (or not) if this image is under the GFDL, and provide its source? Thanks Platonides 08:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

EBaum's World
The facts in the Ebaum's World article have already been restructured several times to reflect NPOV. Presenting them as facts rather than opinions does not make them more NPOV by Wikipedia standards, it simply misrepresents them. If you wish to make statements more accurate, you are welcome to do so, but reframing statements to make them softer does not increase NPOV. We have already had this debate previously in the article's discussion section. --Xombie 02:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Snes2 sys.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Snes2 sys.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Flashbackmain510.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Flashbackmain510.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award
 For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award originated by Pedia-I (Explanation and Disclaimer) ♠  Tom   @  s   Bat   21:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Zapper.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Zapper.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MER-C 05:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Madd.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Madd.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mtwo4.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mtwo4.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mtwo6.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mtwo6.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Yoshis story box.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Yoshis story box.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Spht2.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Spht2.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Visualmode.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Visualmode.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Aleph one screenshot 2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Aleph one screenshot 2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Stackup.jpeg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Stackup.jpeg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Pfhor fighter.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Pfhor fighter.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Oklonia


text:
ATM adaptation layer

The use of    Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) technology and services creates the need for an adaptation layer in order to support information transfer protocols, which are not based on ATM. This adaptation layer defines how to segment higher-layer packets into cells and the reassembly of these packets. Additionally, it defines how to handle various transmission aspects in the ATM layer.

Examples of services that need adaptations are Gigabit Ethernet, IP, Frame Relay, SONET/SDH, UMTS/Wireless, etc.

The main services provided by AAL (ATM Adaptation Layer) are:

 * Segmentation and reassembly
 * Handling of transmission errors
 * Handling of lost and misinserted cell conditions
 * Timing and flow control

The following ATM Adaptation Layer protocols (AALs) have been defined by the ITU-T. It is meant that these AALs will meet a variety of needs. The classification is based on whether a timing relationship must be maintained between source and destination, whether the application requires a constant bit rate, and whether the transfer is connection oriented or connectionless.

AAL Type 0
AAL Type 0 (also referred as raw cells) consists of 48 bytes of payload without any reservation for special fields.

AAL Type 1
AAL Type 1 supports constant bit rate (CBR), synchronous, connection oriented traffic. Examples include T1 (DS1), E1, and x64 kbit/s emulation. It is used for transmitting Class A network traffic, that is, real-time, constant bit rate, connection oriented traffic (example- uncompressed audio and video). Bits are fed in by the application at constant rate and must be delivered to other end with minimum delay, jitter or overhead. The input is stream of bits without message boundaries. For this traffic, error detection protocols cannot be used since timeouts and retransmission causes delay but the missing cells are reported to the application, that must take its own action to recover from them.

AAL Type 2
AAL Type 2 supports time-dependent Variable Bit Rate (VBR-RT) of connection-oriented, synchronous traffic. Examples include Voice over ATM. AAL2 is also widely used in wireless applications due to the capability of multiplexing voice packets from different users on a single ATM connection.

AAL Type 3/4
AAL Type 3/4 supports VBR, data traffic, connection-oriented, asynchronous traffic (e.g. X.25 data) or connectionless packet data (e.g. SMDS traffic) with an additional 4-byte header in the information payload of the cell. Examples include Frame Relay and X.25.

AAL Type 5
AAL Type 5 is similar to AAL 3/4 with a simplified information header scheme. This AAL assumes that the data is sequential from the end user and uses the Payload Type Indicator (PTI) bit to indicate the last cell in a transmission. Examples of services that use AAL 5 are classic IP over ATM, Ethernet Over ATM, SMDS, and LAN Emulation (LANE). AAL 5 is a widely used ATM adaptation layer protocol. This protocol was intended to provide a streamlined transport facility for higher-layer protocols that are connection oriented.

AAL 5 was introduced to:
 * reduce protocol processing overhead.
 * reduce transmission overhead.
 * ensure adaptability to existing transport protocols.

The AAL 5 was designed to accommodate the same variable bit rate, connection-oriented asynchronous traffic or connectionless packet data supported by AAL 3/4, but without the segment tracking and error correction requirements.

title: ATM adaptation layer


text: User talk:61.149.181.4

title: User talk:61.149.181.4


text:
Operation Ranger

Operation Ranger was the fourth American nuclear test series. It was conducted in 1951 and was the first series to be carried out at the Nevada Test Site. All the bombs were dropped by B-50D bombers and exploded in the open air over Frenchman Flat (Area 5).

These tests centered on the practicality of developing a second generation of nuclear weapons using smaller amounts of valuable nuclear materials. They were planned under the name Operation Faust.

The exact locations of the tests are unknown, as they were all air drops. However, the planned ground zero was set at 36.82556°N, -115.965°W for all except the Fox shot, which was "500 feet [500 ft] west and 300 feet [300 ft] south" in order to minimize damage to the control point.

Footage of the Buster-Jangle Baker test is often mislabeled as belonging to the Ranger Able test. Both shots can be told apart because the Buster Baker test was conducted at Yucca Flat in the daytime, meanwhile Ranger Able was conducted at Frenchman Flat in the nighttime. No motion picture of Operation Ranger has ever been declassified.

History
The primary purpose of Operation Ranger was to perform experiments in preparation for Operation Greenhouse. As the device to be tested in Greenhouse was in the stockpiling stage with respect to its high explosive system, it was felt that the entire test series could be performed using air dropped weapons.

The test led to the establishment of the Nevada Proving Ground (later Nevada Test Site, now Nevada National Security Site or NNSS). Following this test series it was believed appropriate to conduct tests up to approximately 60 ktTNT at Nevada instead of at the Pacific Proving Ground.

title: Operation Ranger


text:
Senate of the Dominican Republic

The Senate of the Dominican Republic (Senado de la República Dominicana) is the upper house in the bicameral legislature of the Dominican Republic, and together with the Chamber of Deputies makes up the Congress.

The composition and powers of the Senate are established in Third Title, Chapter 1 in the First Section of the Dominican Constitution. Each province, and the Distrito Nacional, regardless of population, is represented by one senator who serves for a four-year term, with possibility of reelection. The Senate Chamber is located in the west wing of the Congress Palace, in Santo Domingo. The Chamber of Deputies convenes in the east wing of the same building.

The Senate has several advice and consent powers not granted to the Chamber of Deputies, including consenting to treaties, loans and contracts as a precondition to their ratification and consenting to or confirming appointments the members of Chamber of Accounts, Central Electoral Board and ambassadors. The Senate is widely considered both a more deliberative and more prestigious body than the Chamber of Deputies. Due to its smaller size and statewide constituencies, the Senate has historically had a more collegial and less partisan atmosphere.

Qualifications
The constitution of the Dominican Republic states that to be a senator, one must be a Dominican in full exercise of civil and political rights, have attained twenty-five years old, and be a native of the territorial demarcation that choose or have resided there for at least five consecutive years. In consequence:
 * The senators must reside in the territorial demarcation from which they are elected during their elected terms of office;
 * Naturalized persons may be elected to the Senate ten years after having acquired Dominican nationality, provided they have resided in the territorial demarcation (jurisdiction) from which they seek election for a period of at least five years prior to their election.

Election and Terms
The members of the Senate in Dominican Republic are elected by the D'Hondt method in relationship with the deputies. The terms for serving as senator are unlimited, one term corresponds to four years.

Oath
The internal rules of procedure of the Senate requires that senators take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. Congress has prescribed the following oath for all senators:

The oath to be provided is:

"I SWEAR TO GOD, THE HOMELAND AND MY HONOR, RESPECT CONSTITUTION AND LAWS AND COMPLY WITH DIGNITY AND THE FAITHFULLY OTHER DUTIES OF MY OFFICE",

what will be answered as follows:

"IF I DO SO, GOD AND THE PEOPLE WHAT OS REWARD IF I NOT, THAT I DEMAND IT. "

Majority and minority parties
The "Majority party" is the political party that either has a majority of seats or can form a coalition or caucus with a majority of seats; if two or more parties are tied, the vice president's affiliation determines which party is the majority party. The next-largest party is known as the minority party.

Seating
The majority party or the party with more senators traditionally sits to the presiding officer's right, and the minority party or the party with less senator traditionally sits to the presiding officer's left, regardless which party has a majority of seats.

Functions and Powers
The exclusive powers of the Senate are:
 * 1) Know the allegations made by the Chamber of Deputies against and public officials. The plea leaves the person removed from office, and may not perform any public function, whether or not popularly elected for a term of ten years. The destitute person shall be subject, if any, to be charged and tried by the ordinary courts, in accordance with the law. This decision shall be taken by a vote of two-thirds of enrollment;
 * 2) To approve or disapprove the appointment of ambassadors and heads of permanent missions accredited abroad to submit to the President of the Republic;
 * 3) To elect the members of the Chamber of Accounts of the lists presented by the Chamber of Deputies, with the vote of two thirds of the senators present;
 * 4) To elect the members of the Central Electoral Board and their deputies, with the vote of two thirds of those present;
 * 5) Choose the Ombudsman, their deputies and their deputies from the triads to submit to the House of Representatives, by a vote of two-thirds of those present;
 * 6) To authorize, upon request of the President of the Republic, in the absence of agreement permitted, the presence of foreign troops in military exercises in the territory of the Republic, as well as determine the time and conditions of their stay;
 * 7) To approve or disapprove of sending troops abroad in peacekeeping missions authorized by international organizations, setting the conditions and duration of the mission.

Current composition (2024-2028)
Senators elected in the May 19, 2024 elections.

Composition (2020-2024)
Senators elected in the July 2020 elections. This list contains the changes that occurred after the election until 1 May 2021.

Composition (2016-2020)
Senators elected in the May 2016 elections.

Party strengths in the Senate
The following table shows the composition of the Senate at the start of the most recent legislative periods.

 * In 2010, the parliamentary term was extended to six years so that the elections could once again be held together with the presidential election. The presidential term had been shortened to two years in 1994, after the controversial election of Joaquín Balaguer against José Francisco Peña Gómez, after which the presidential and parliamentary elections were thus held separately, each every two years.
 * After the electoral roll, Senators Bautista Rojas (Hermanas Mirabal), David Sosa (Dajabón) and Virgilio Cedano (La Altagracia) transferred from the PRSC to the FP; Senator Antonio Marte (Santiago Rodríguez), although not transferred from the PRSC, is also counted as part of the FP; the PRSC thus holds now 2 seats only (Carlos Gómez, Espaillat, and Ramón Genao, La Vega).
 * After the elections, Senators Dionis Sánchez (Pedernales), Félix Bautista (San Juan) and Franklin Peña (San Pedro de Macorís) transferred from the PLD to the FP; the PLD thus now holds 3 seats only; the FP, also taking into account the transfers of PRSC and BIS and Antonio Marte (Santiago Rodríguez), now holds 9 seats.
 * After the transfer of Senator José Castillo (San José de Ocoa) from the BIS to the FP, the BIS now holds no seat anymore.
 * In 2001 and 2002 respectively, the provinces of Santo Domingo (by secession from the Distrito Nacional) and San José de Ocoa (by secession from the province of Peravia) were created, bringing the number of senators to 32.

title: Senate of the Dominican Republic


text:
Operation Greenhouse

Operation Greenhouse was the fifth American nuclear test series, the second conducted in 1951 and the first to test principles that would lead to developing thermonuclear weapons (hydrogen bombs). Conducted at the new Pacific Proving Ground, on islands of the Enewetak Atoll, it mounted the devices on large steel towers to simulate air bursts. This series of nuclear weapons tests was preceded by Operation Ranger and succeeded by Operation Buster-Jangle.

Operation Greenhouse showcased new and aggressive designs for nuclear weapons. The main idea was to reduce the size, weight, and most importantly, reduce the amount of fissile material necessary for nuclear weapons, while increasing the destructive power. With the Soviet Union's first nuclear test a year and half earlier, the United States had begun stockpiling the new designs before they were actually proven. Thus the success of Operation Greenhouse was vital before the development of thermonuclear weapons could continue.

A number of target buildings, including bunkers, houses and factories were built on Mujinkarikku Islet to test nuclear weapon effects.

George
The George explosion conducted on May 8, 1951 was the world's first thermonuclear burn, though it was just a test design, unsuitable for weaponization. Shaped like a torus, the George device had a small amount of heavy isotopes of liquid hydrogen (deuterium and tritium) placed at its center. The vast majority of its yield derived from fission. The energy output from the thermonuclear fusion in this test was insignificant in comparison. The "George" device was more like a "boosted" nuclear bomb than a thermonuclear one. The small amount of heavy deuterium and tritium in this test fused, but its role was to generate a strong flurry of fast neutrons - ones that sparked more fissions in the uranium nuclei that were present, and which also caused fission in uranium-238 - which does not fission under bombardment with slow neutrons, as does uranium-235.

The George design was a 'Classical Super' prototype with a binary triggering device using radiation implosion upon a cylinder. The design of the triggering system in this test was based on the one patented by Klaus Fuchs and von Neumann in 1946. Its success played a vital role in the history of the Teller–Ulam design. The George Test had a perfect “bell” Wilson cloud formed near the top of the mushroom cloud.

The George test validated the principles which would be used for the first full-scale thermonuclear bomb test, Ivy Mike, one year later, on November 1, 1952, at Enewetak Atoll.

Item
Conducted on May 25, 1951, Item was the first test of an actual boosted fission weapon, nearly doubling the normal yield of a similar non-boosted weapon. In this test, deuterium-tritium (D-T) gas was injected into the enriched uranium core of a nuclear fission bomb. The extreme heat of the fissioning bomb produced thermonuclear fusion reactions within the D-T gas. While not enough to be considered a full nuclear fusion bomb, the large number of high-energy neutrons released nearly doubled the efficiency of the nuclear fission reaction.

Dog photograph
The Dog explosion is more popularly known for an image taken of those viewing it than the actual explosion itself; the photograph depicts numerous VIPs wearing safety goggles sitting on Adirondack chairs while being illuminated by the flash of the detonation. This photograph takes up the bottom portion of the cover of the 1995 documentary Trinity and Beyond by Peter Kuran. The safety goggles worn by all those viewing the test in the picture have become somewhat of a museum collectors item, with a possibility that Norman F. Ramsey may have been present. Cynthia Miller claims that her father, Van Dine, is the first man on the left in the photo. The blast wave safely arrived at the location of the VIPs some 45 seconds after the initially silent flash of the detonation as observed from their position on Parry island.

title: Operation Greenhouse


text: User talk:4.8.229.100

title: User talk:4.8.229.100


text:
User:Anthony/questions

Hi. Due to the concerns of a number of people, we are considering adopting a new system to replace First Past the Post. What is your preference? Please respond to WikiElections AT aol DOT com. This is not an assurance that the system will be changed, but rather an attempt to gauge the will of the electorate. Danny 03:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

License compatibility issues
As you're probably aware, one of the issues the project has is the wide variation in what can and can't be used under copyright law in different jurisdictions and the differing definitions of free used by contributors to the project. How will you seek to resolve the inevitable tension between those who want a completely free to use public domain Wikipedia, those who want to make full use of all works they are free to use under the copyright law of their jurisdiction, those who want a GFDL only encyclopedia, those who want a copyleft encyclopedia and those who want the best possible encyclopedia and accept all content which doesn't infringe copyright, even if some of it might be hard for all reusers, or a small number of reusers? The most compatible license is public domain, so does that mean that you prefer public domain content over other content? Would you want to strongly favor public domain content to maximise the freedom to reuse the work? How do you believe that increasing or decreasing the acceptability of licensed content will increase or decrease the participation in the project? How do you believe it will increase or decrease the chance of a competing project to fill any gaps in what we accept? Jamesday 06:01, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation was organized "to create and freely distribute a free encyclopedia in all languages of the world." This is further clarified in the bylaws, which state that the foundation "is dedicated to the development and maintenance of online free, open content encyclopedias, collections of quotations, textbooks and other collections of documents, information, and other informational databases in all the languages of the world that will be distributed free of charge to the public under a free documentation license such as the Free Documentation License written by the Free Software Foundation Inc. at http://www.fsf.org or similar licensing scheme, see http://www.wikimedia.org." While one could argue that this purpose coincides with the goal of creating "the best possible encyclopedia", the latter goal leaves much more room for interpretation. (1) To help resolve the tensions over the different definitions of "free" and "open content", I will suggest that a committee be formed, consisting of board members and non-board members, to further clarify what this project means by those words, similar in spirit to GNU's definition at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html. The definition should be created with input from all members, and ratified by the board.

I think it will become clear from our definitions that copyleft is the best mechanism to distribute free content which encourages the creation of more free content. Yes, the most compatible "license" is public domain, and therefore we should encourage contributions to be given to us in that form (2), but for distribution a copyleft is preferable.

I don't think generalizations can be made over whether or not "increasing or decreasing the acceptability of licensed content will increase or decrease the participation in the project". In any case, project participation is secondary to project integrity. The project was formed for a specific purpose. Others who wish to "fill the gaps" can do so without the benefits of our funding dollars. In fact, I would encourage them to do so. If citizens of country X wish to form a project which uses our content and adds on X-specific content to it, they should be encouraged to do so. It's unclear to me if that's what you meant by a "competing project", since the goals of such a project would be completely different from ours.

(1) For example, while one might argue whether or not Brittanica is "the best possible encyclopedia", it certainly isn't "a free encyclopedia" or an "open content encyclopedia".

(2) Actually, an even better form of contribution would be either copyright assignment or some sort of license to relicense content. I would suggest that mechanisms be put into place to accept (and maybe encourage, but not require) such contributions, but first the relicensing issues need to be clarified. Certainly any content used in Wikipedia for which the foundation owned the copyright would have to be released under at least the GFDL, for instance, and any secondary licenses should be created solely with regard to the freedom of the content (requiring links back is unacceptable).

anthony 11:43, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. What do you think should be done with fair use materials in the project today, given that the broad fair use right is a largely US phenomenon not available to reusers elsewhere in the world? Considering the number and nature of fair use works contributed to date, what percentage of conrtibutors do you believe agree with your view? If their view is contrary to the goals of the project, should the goals change to include those contributors or should the contributors be forced to contribute elsewhere? What effect do you think a copyright assignment would have on the freedom (as in speech) of the project? When replying please consider that:
 * under US law an author can revoke a copyright assignment during a period around 35 years after it was made.
 * if the Wikimedia Foundation receives an adverse legal judgment it may be required to transfer all or some of the rights it holds as part of that judgment. Jamesday 17:24, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

First of all I'd like to state that this is my personal opinion, and not something that I feel should be implemented at the board level. With that out of the way, the first thing I think we should do is find out just what the law is with regard to fair use in other countries. Is it possible for a US citizen to successfully sue someone (presumably a non-US citizen) for use of copyrighted material in another country which would be fair use under US law? If not, then what I think should be done is quite simple. Material copyrighted by US citizens which is used in a manner which is extremely likely to be fair use for any reuser (assuming the article is kept as is) should be kept. Anything less than that (such as material for which we are relying on our status as a non-profit organization) should be deleted. I should note that on this point I presumably have the agreement of Jimmy Wales, who has stated in an email to me, among other things, that he is "of the opinion that most, possibly even almost all, of the fair use images that we have in Wikipedia should be removed."

If it is possible for a US citizen to successfully sue someone for redistributing Wikipedia (1), then I think we should delete that content which relies on fair use. While I think there is room for debate over how much modification must be allowed to call a work free, I don't think you can consider a work which is only redistributable by a small portion of the world free. The purpose of the Foundation is to create and distribute free content, and mixing non-free content in with that free content in my opinion not only fails to contribute to that goal but actually hinders it, both by making distribution more difficult and by lessening the incentives for creation of free content which is filled by the non-free content.

I'm not sure what percentage of people would agree with me on either of those points, but I'll finish that paragraph from Jimbo's email: "But I've been unable to persuade most people on this point [most fair use images should be removed], and it's not like me to just overrule the community on something that I do think is somewhat optional [in that it is not required by the GFDL]." Now here I'm perhaps a bit more stubborn, but I don't propose that the board just go in and start deleting files either. I'm actually hopeful that people can be persuaded on this point, especially if it comes down to a case where someone setting up a mirror in a foreign country would be breaking the law. I'm also hopeful that it's not going to come to that, and that the answer to my question on foreign law is that fair use can apply.

Perhaps, if all else fails, it will be possible to form a separate entity to separate the funding of any US-specific project. I guess this could be seen as forcing contributors to contribute elsewhere, but it really isn't. Any fair use content which is contributed to the worldwide project could be transferred to the US project before being deleted, and any free content which is contributed to the US project could be shared with the worldwide project. I'm confident that some sort of compromise can be made.

Finally, you asked about how copyright assignment would affect the freedom of the project. The revocation of copyright assignment throws a monkey-wrench into things, and I haven't had time to look at the details of the law in this respect. One question I would have is whether or not licenses granted by the assignee are valid after the revocation. If not, then the only real benefit from copyright assignment is the right to sue. That alone wouldn't really affect the freedom of the project, if properly implemented, but it would most likely encourage reusers to create new free content. In any case, I think there are other problems that we need to solve before looking into copyright assignment. Right now it is essentially impossible for a reuser to properly follow the GFDL, and so we shouldn't be suing anyone (the alternative of suing everyone or suing people selectively are in my opinion incompatible with running a free project). So those issues should be resolved first.

(1) For the sake of simplicity let's consider just Wikipedia.

title: User:Anthony/questions


text:
User:OldakQuill/Ask the candidate

Hi. Due to the concerns of a number of people, we are considering adopting a new system to replace First Past the Post. What is your preference? Please respond to WikiElections AT aol DOT com. This is not an assurance that the system will be changed, but rather an attempt to gauge the will of the electorate. Danny 04:04, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

License compatibility issues
As you're probably aware, one of the issues the project has is the wide variation in what can and can't be used under copyright law in different jurisdictions and the differing definitions of free used by contributors to the project. How will you seek to resolve the inevitable tension between those who want a completely free to use public domain Wikipedia, those who want to make full use of all works they are free to use under the copyright law of their jurisdiction, those who want a GFDL only encyclopedia, those who want a copyleft encyclopedia and those who want the best possible encyclopedia and accept all content which doesn't infringe copyright, even if some of it might be hard for all reusers, or a small number of reusers? The most compatible license is public domain, so does that mean that you prefer public domain content over other content? Would you want to strongly favor public domain content to maximise the freedom to reuse the work? How do you believe that increasing or decreasing the acceptability of licensed content will increase or decrease the participation in the project? How do you believe it will increase or decrease the chance of a competing project to fill any gaps in what we accept? Jamesday 07:30, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

title: User:OldakQuill/Ask the candidate


text:
Operation Upshot–Knothole

Operation Upshot–Knothole was a series of eleven nuclear test shots conducted in 1953 at the Nevada Test Site. It followed Operation Ivy and preceded Operation Castle.

Over 21,000 soldiers took part in the ground exercise Desert Rock V in conjunction with the Grable shot. Grable was a 280mm Artillery Fired Atomic Projectile (AFAP) shell fired from the "Atomic Cannon" and was viewed by a number of high-ranking military officials.

The test series was notable as containing the first time an AFAP shell was fired (GRABLE Shot), the first two shots (both fizzles) by University of California Radiation Laboratory—Livermore (now Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory), and for testing out some of the thermonuclear components that would be used for the massive thermonuclear series of Operation Castle. One primary device (RACER) was tested in thermonuclear system mockup assemblies of TX-14, TX-16, and TX-17/TX-24, to examine and evaluate the behaviour of radiation cases and the compression of the secondary geometries by the primary's x-rays prior to full-scale testing during Castle. Following RACER's dodgy performance, the COBRA primary was used in the emergency capability ALARM CLOCK, JUGHEAD, RUNT I, RUNT II thermonuclear devices, as well as in the SHRIMP device. RACER IV (as redesigned and proof-tested in the Simon test) was employed as primary for the ZOMBIE, RAMROD and MORGENSTERN  devices.

Annie
Planned yield for Annie was 15 ktTNT, actual yield based on radiochemical analysis was 16.2 ktTNT.

Nancy
Planned yield for Nancy was 40 ktTNT, actual yield based on radiochemical analysis was 24.5 ktTNT.

Simon
Planned yield for Simon was 33 ktTNT, actual yield based on radiochemical analysis was 43.4 ktTNT.

Harry
Planned yield for Harry was 37 ktTNT, actual yield based on radiochemical analysis was 27 ktTNT.

Encore
Planned yield for Encore was 31 ktTNT, actual yield based on radiochemical analysis was 26 ktTNT.

title: Operation Upshot–Knothole


text:
Talk:Illustrators

Where in the article about the only person listed here does it say he's an illustrator? RickK 04:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Illustrators


text:
Mount Niblock

Mount Niblock is a mountain in Banff National Park near Lake Louise, Alberta, Canada.

The mountain was named in 1904 after John Niblock, a superintendent with the Canadian Pacific Railway. Niblock was an early promoter of tourism in the Rockies and influenced the naming of some of the CPR stops in Western Canada.

Mt. Niblock is a popular scramble in the Lake Louise area and is sometimes combined in the same day with Mount Whyte (2983 m), although the latter is a more difficult scramble. The best time for climbing Mt. Niblock is July through September when the normal route is usually free of snow. Attempting it in the spring or early summer may include significant avalanche hazard.

To access Mt. Niblock, follow the trail as it begins near Chateau Lake Louise, passes Mirror Lake and then Lake Agnes. Follow the right hand shore line trail to the far end of the lake until it begins its left turn towards the Big Beehive. Here an obvious path can be found leading to the lower scree slopes and short cliffs. A more detailed route description can be found in Scrambles in the Canadian Rockies.

Geology
Like other mountains in Banff Park, Mount Niblock is composed of sedimentary rock laid down during the Precambrian to Jurassic periods. Formed in shallow seas, this sedimentary rock was pushed east and over the top of younger rock during the Laramide orogeny.

Climate
Based on the Köppen climate classification, this mountain is located in a subarctic climate with cold, snowy winters, and mild summers. Temperatures can drop below −20 °C with wind chill factors below −30 °C.

Nearby

 * Fairview Mountain
 * Mount St. Piran

title: Mount Niblock


text: Talk:Mount Niblock

title: Talk:Mount Niblock


text:
Putty

Putty is a material with high plasticity, similar in texture to clay or dough, typically used in domestic construction and repair as a sealant or filler. Although some types of putty (typically those using linseed oil) slowly polymerise and become stiff, many putties can be reworked indefinitely, in contrast to other types of filler which typically set solid relatively rapidly.

Chemical composition
Putty, or lime putty, is made from a mixture of calcium oxide (CaO) and water (H2O) in proportions of 38% and 62% by weight respectively, as result, the solution forms hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2) which takes up about a half of the weight.

The other putty mixture may be a calcium carbonate (CaCO3, 750-850 parts) based with an admixture of CaO (ash calcium, 120-180 parts), white cement (40-60 parts), and talc powders in much lower concentrations (fractions).

Use in construction
Putty has been used extensively in glazing for fixing and sealing panes of glass into wooden frames (or sashes), although its use is decreasing with the prevalence of PVC and metal window frames which use synthetic sealants such as silicone. Glazing putty is traditionally made by mixing a base of whiting (finely ground chalk) with linseed oil in various proportions. Historically, white lead was sometimes mixed with the whiting. There are a number of synthetic alternatives such as polybutene-based putties, where the polybutene is a low molecular weight oligomer replacing the linseed oil. Butyl rubber is also added to the mixture to provide some strength and flexibility.

Painter's putty is typically a linseed oil-based product used for filling holes, minor cracks, and defacements in wood only.

Putties can also be made intumescent, in which case they are used for firestopping as well as for padding of electrical outlet boxes in fire-resistance rated drywall assemblies. In the latter case, hydrates in the putty produce an endothermic reaction to mitigate heat transfer to the unexposed side.

In woodworking, water-based putties are more commonly used, as these emit very little odour, are more easily cleaned up and are compatible with water-based and latex sealers.

Two-part hardening putties
Polyester putty and epoxy putty are thermosetting polymers that can be molded by hand, but become permanently rigid after curing. Pratley Putty is an epoxy putty used primarily for steel bonding. Milliput is another popular multipurpose epoxy putty. Bondo is a polyester-based automotive body filler, which is commonly used in collision repair.

Plumber's putty
Plumber's putty is the common name encompassing a variety of products of completely different compositions, all used for making watertight seals in plumbing. It is a pliable substance used to make watertight seals around faucets and drains. The putty is a basic component of a plumber's toolkit and is often used when replacing plumbing fixtures. Plumber's putty formulations vary but commonly include powdered clay and linseed oil. Other formulas use limestone, talc, or fish oil. RTV silicone or epoxy sealants may be used in place of putty.

Plumber's putty contains mineral oils and/or vegetable oils so it can stain porous materials such as marble or some plastics. The oils can also react chemically with some plastics, slowly making them brittle.

Other uses
Certain types of putty also have use in the field of terminal ballistics, where the putty can accurately represent the average density of the human body. As such it can be used, for instance, to test the penetrative power of projectiles, or the stopping power of body armour.

Modeling clay and play putty, such as Plasticine and Silly Putty are common toys.

title: Putty


text:
Talk:Philippine literature

Removing the section "Classical literature in Spanish during the 19th century"
I have decided to remove this section due to the fact that it lacks any references or citations. Also, there's is a more compact mention on Philippine literature during/from the Spanish period in the History section. It just loks like a big waste of space IMO, and would be better places in the separate Wikipedia page for Philippine Literature during the Spanish period. For those who want to undo the revisions, please discuss it first in this talk page. GTALuisLopez (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Spanish Literature
Ironically, a great amount of Spanish literature was produced after the Spanish colonial era. This was because the Americans did not suppress literature but encouraged it.

Based on my idea, Rizal showed the Filipino people how much he loved and cared about the Philippines through his literary works. If you read his novel, it may come as a shock to you. Because it is too long to read.

The Good Fight by M. L. Quezon
The link to the Good Fight is different.FadulJoseArabe (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
Copied from WP:RM. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Literature of the Philippines → Philippine Literature — Manual of style on other literature pages (See British Literature, American Literature, Chinese Literature) --Shadowjams (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why "Philippine" and not "Filipino"? --seav (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because Philippine is the adjective and Filipino is the noun. If we used Filipino it would be like saying Finn literature instead of Finnish literature. Shadowjams (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, Filipino is both a noun and an adjective. So, why Philippine as opposed to Filipino? --seav (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum: "Philippine" connotes an official status (e.g., Philippine government, Philippine ambassador to the United States, etc.) while "Filipino" connotes a cultural/informal status (e.g., Filipino music, Filipino cuisine, etc.). So I suggest this be moved to Filipino literature instead of Philippine literature. --seav (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I disagree. See here (Philippine as an adjective), here (filipino as a noun, listed as an adjective with the definition as philippine), here (same), here (philippine as an adjective), and here (filipino is a noun) for my reasoning. I don't think it's particularly wrong to use Filipino as an adjective, but I think the more formal approach is to use Philippine as the noun. Obviously there should be a redirect from Filipino literature to Philippine literature.

 * The distinction between the native culture and the government is persuasive; are there any additional citations to that effect. Shadowjams (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll bring this topic up at the Philippines noticeboard. As a Filipino, I see both adjectives used almost interchangeably, but with some distinction on official/cultural lines. Basically, wherever the "Pinoy" adjective is used, the "Filipino" adjective can be used. I'll see if there are reliable sources/examples that can be dug up for this distinction and so that naming conventions can be established. --seav (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've got no objection to it being the other--it's just that all the sourced I'd normally check suggest the Phillipine nomenclature. I'd easily be persuaded otherwise. Shadowjams (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

CharcoalDePorkS
Your recent edits are poorly written, unsourced and unnecessary. You need not revert to them again, but you are welcome to write better. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

love
LOVE IS LIKE AN MATH MINSAN MAHIRAP MINSAN MADALI MINSAN MASAYA MAGSAGOT NG PRBLEM SOLVING TAMA?!!! DI BA LOVE IS LIKE A MATH--125.60.237.202 (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Notable who?
How can we agree on who's notable? And how can we agree on who's NOT notable and therefore ought NOT to be included in this article's Notables list? Unless we rely on Wikipedia's standards on notability, then it's easy work---anybody who is written about (raved!) by a third-party source may be deemed notable. But if our decision in these lists are to derive from some people's opinion or research or best list, then we should cite those sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.193.143.240 (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Philippines
Gb 175.176.82.77 (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Among the period in Philippines literary which is the richest among all
None 139.135.240.222 (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Philippine literature