text:
Talk:Transrapid

Untitled
To whomever added the sentence about track costs: standard high-speed tracks are quite expensive as well and also rather cut the landscape due to the necessity of straightness. So it has been argued that Transrapid tracks are not so much more expensive, especially if one takes into account that the train itself might even be cheaper. Does anybody know details, like numbers? Sanders muc 09:56, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes: Traansrapid published some data on this. Unfortunately they prevent hotlinking to their pages, so go to www.transrapid.de > English > System > System > Economic Efficiency to see this image: :http://www.transrapid.de/basics_en/archiv/35/guideway_infrastruct.gif
 * fel64 12:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Transrapid tracks are indeed better for the landscape than standard railways, because they are placed on stilts and thus don't cut the country into two parts, which I think is critical for environment. Further, I heard that an amount of chemicals is used to keep standard railways free of plants, but I'm not quite sure whether this is true. I'll look this up somewhere. (PS: I'm in no way involved with Transrapid, this is just what I've heard.) --Robamler 23:19, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Expansion required (technical details)
While this article describes the political development of the Transrapid very well, it lacks explanation of technical details. At least, a link to Magnetic levitation train should be provided, but I think there should also be some special technical aspects of the Transrapid included in this page. I'll check whether I can do this, but if it's getting too complex, I would like to look for some place to anounce it. Where is the best place for this? Todo_list or Requests_for_expansion? --Robamler 23:42, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) --- As a big fan and 'casual expert' in the Transrapid project, I'll try and add some more technical information to the Wikipage if I get the time. :-)

Hyperspeed 10th May 2006CR at 03:20 BST. --- I just had a quick skim read of the corresponding Transrapid page on the German language Wikipedia, and there is a much greater amount of technical, historical, and operational information on there which I think would be very beneficial to the English language version. I speak a little bit of German myself and could attempt a translation of the German page into this one, although I think it would be done better as a Wikipedia community project.

Would anyone object to me copying the German article into a temporary Wikipedia page and adding a note at the top labelling it as an in progress translation with links to both the German and English versions, or is there a system already in place for translation of Wikipedia articles into different languages? Either way, I think it could prove to be very beneficial for the English Language version! :-)

''Additional: Just found the relevant Translation request page and added an appropriate entry on there. This should hopefully speed up and standardise the translation process. :-)''

Hyperspeed 12th May 2006CR at 17:10 BST. --- As has been requested by Hyperspeed, I'll be aiding in the translation over the coming weeks, as well as adding some technical information not yet mentioned. --Qasdfdsaq 01:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC) - as a small caveat - the german Transrapid page is full in depth technical details but lacking competitive and market segment information. I took some input from the German website for that purpose directly into the article. --Polentario 10:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

One train at a time on the track?
Why can only one train exist on the track at the same time? --- Acording to the german article the track is divided into segments of 0.3 to 5 km length which need their own power source. Acceleration or deceleration happens through changing the frequency of the magnetic field inside the segment. Only one train can be in a segment but on the track there can be more.. sorry bout my bad english :) --- I'd like to expand/clarify this a little:

Because the motive force of the train is actually provided by the magnets in the guideway (Rail) and not by the magnets (Or any other system) on the train itself, this basically means that each section of track can only "move" in one direction at a time.

Therefore if two maglev trains (One heading North and the other south, for example.) were to approach each other on a collision course and the Northbound train was to enter a specific section of track just before the southbound one, then the section of track in question would be set to "flow" North and would result in the southbound train slowing down, stopping momentarily, then accellerating backwards towards the North.

The end result of this would simply be two trains travelling in the same direction with a possibly shorter seperation distance than usual! :-)

Hyperspeed 10th May 2006CR at 03:20 BST. ---
 * Nice principle but a couple of questions
 * How violent would the reversal be. In particular could it derail the train allowing another train to crash into it.
 * Couldn't they crash near the end of the segment before the second train hitting the segment has had time to slow down/reverse Plugwash 10:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

--- 1. Because of the way the system works, the train cannot be derailed in the conventional sense as the train itself wraps around the guideway. I would imagine that the worst effect of this would be rather violent (But hopefully not dangerous.) decelleration and reversal. If you are referring to the train coming into contact with the guideway itself, this could well be a possibility. But the guideway and trains are probabally designed to allow for such a thing to occur with design-anticipated damage only occurring to the guideway and the train, not the passengers on board.

2. Quite possibly...It depends on both the length of the segment in question, and the closing speed of both trains. If both trains enter a 5km section of track with a closing speed of about 400km/h (200km/h each) then the second train would probabally reverse with time to spare. On the other hand, I would guess that two trains entering the same section at a closing speed of 1100Km/h would probabally come off much worse!

It should be pointed out though that in normal operation, the fail-safe train control systems in use would not allow such a thing to occur. Also to my knowlege, this kind of eventuality has not been tested with real vehicles - At least not at the speeds discussed here. Finally, my answers here apply to the Transrapid system only.

Hyperspeed 10th May 2006CR at 17:55 BST. --- It depends more on the track's operating profile of the section in question than the actual speeds. The Transrapid system is not over-designed and only applies the exact amount of power required to keep a train running at the design speed - no more, and no less. Thus, I regret to say that in your above example of two trains approaching at a 400km/h closing speed on a 5km section of track would inevitably result in a fatal high-speed crash. The drive system simply does not apply the required amount of power to reverse the oncoming train fast enough.

But you are right in that the control and failsafe systems ensure that such an event is explicitly prevented on multiple levels.

As for de-railing or the train coming into contact with the track, that's again very very unlikely, as the propulsion system does not provide enough power to destabalize the train.

Personally I find that the inability of two trains to run in opposite directions on one section of track to be an over-hyped and useless "safety feature", one that we will hopefully never see the inadequacy of in practice. However, it will admittedly slow down the oncoming vehicle and possibly reduce the force of the impact. However, I stress that at the rated 200km/h switching speed, an impact will be inevitable.

--Qasdfdsaq 01:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Translation of German version into English
I've created Transrapid/German where the translation of this article from German to English can take place. At current, there appears to be a problem with referencing the images from the German version, so I may have to transfer these over manually. If you can help with the translation, then please do! :-)

Follow-up note: Cheers for moving the temp page RHaworth, much appreciated! :-)

Hyperspeed 12th May 2006CR at 18:30 BST. --- For those who are interested, the translation is coming on quite well so far now. I've managed to translate about 25-33% of the original German so far and I'm hoping to have the whole page done within the space of a month, assuming I'll be doing it all on my own. Would anyone mind me adding a note at the top of the original Transrapid page linking to the temp one, so that anyone who can't find the information they might be looking for on this page can go over to the translation and possibly have more luck there? :-)

Hyperspeed 15th May 2006CR at 01:10 BST.

 * This looks really good but nothing has happened on the translation for some time. Maybe we should move some parts over to this article (Energy requirements for example)

--217.86.148.253 13:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. I have transferred the energy requirements, and will probably to the same for other sections.  The German version is quite impressive!--MrFishGo Fish 23:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The German article isn't very impressive, it has many mistakes, speculations and opinions, mostly from fanatic opponents of the Transrapid-System. Markus Schweiß, formerly wikipedia-admin, was one of the author and is one of those TR-opponents. He was a common user of TR-boards and he always claims on his wiki-page that he has a contra-TR-Page. The section energy requirements is unlocigal & wrong. There's no source for the draw coefficient cw, neither for A-Front. There's no sense in making this calculation. There are many real value for the energy consumption in the literature. --82.83.50.120 21:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Contradicting information regarding construction costs
One paragraph says it's cheaper than HSR, one says it's more expensive. A blanketing more/less statement is dubious anyway due to the multiple factors involved - Transrapid could theoretically be cheaper in some places, HSR may well be cheaper in others. Some clarification and cleaning up is required. --Qasdfdsaq 17:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

incomplete and old information
Economic and environmental consideration

The TR has been more energy efficient that the ICE until the ICE 3 entered service. Up to a speed of 330 kph the ICE 3 consumes less energy that the latest version of the TR. The TR has no mechanic friction between train and track, but the magnetic field between the magnets in the track and in the TR slows the TR down, more than classic mechanic friction slows an ICE 3. Furthermore the TR needs quite a lot of energy just to levitate 10mm above the track.

Construction costs

Building a maglev track is not less costly than a comparatively High-speed railway (HSR) line. According to numbers form TR proponents in Germany a conventional HSR is significantly cheaper in flat terrain and still a bit cheaper in a low mountain ranges(3.5<->5 billion and 4.9<->5.4 for a 200 kilometer long line). It is true that the TR is capable of climbing significantly steeper tracks than conventional trains, but there is a catch. You can not go from zero to a 10% inclination without building a very long ramp. Such a ramp for a speed of 400 kph would be four kilometres long. That does not come cheap and at least in Germany you don´t actually need the ability to climb a 10% inclination. Furthermore you should keep the passengers in mind. Even the 4% inclination feels like a roller coaster sometimes, 10 % would hardly be comfortable and also causes problems with the luggage and dishes in the restaurant.

Transportation system for Germany

The railroad line from Hamburg to Berlin was in a poor state –no surprise after 40 years of communism- but it had to be improved for a speed of 100 mph anyway. As far as the general suitability for Germany is concerned it is correct that you can hardly go 100 kilometres before reaching a major city. Often the distance is less and the closer the stops are the less sense makes increasing the top speed. For example at a speed of 300 kph an ICE 3 need 26 minutes for a distance of 100 kilometres, at 400 kph the TR need 22 minutes. A 1/3 increase in speed just leads to a 15 % decrease of travel time. Markus Becker02 16:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with above statements
Markus, I do not agree with your edits to the article. You have provided no sources, nor any actual figures. The construction cost of Transrapid on-site is much lower than that of HSR, though the components cost more. You've not stated which of these are included in your points.

Additionally, your comments in this discussion lend serious doubts about the credibility of your other information.

You imply that the Transrapid is less energy efficient at lower speeds and more at higher speeds. Logic and arithmetic would have it the other way round. Please state your sources.

You mention that a 10% grade would require a long ramp. You then mention the "roller coaster" quality of such a ride. This is absolutely untrue. With a long ramp, you do not feel the grade at all, whether 10%, 4% or otherwise. Without looking out the window, passengers would not be able to tell they're on a grade at all. Simple physics prove this. There would be absolutely no problems with luggage or dishes in the restaurant.

Finally, you mention that TR takes 22 minutes to traverse 100km at 400kph, while ICE3 takes 26 minutes. Again, this is absolutely incorrect. The TR, when limited to 400kph, can easily cover 100km in less than 17 minutes. With full speed enabled (even Shanghai over 30km operates above 400kmh) it takes 14.5 minutes. That's a 35% decrease in travel time with 33% increase in top speed, not 15% as you say. At 500km/h it becomes 45%.

Transrapid has superior acceleration when compared to HSR; nearly double when compared to some (e.g. TGV). This means it makes more sense to use Transrapid over shorter distances than HSR, even with top speed kept the same. Qasdfdsaq 19:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The source is "Transrapid oder Eisenbahn" by Rudolf Breimeier. He analyzes a multitude of available data, a lot if not most from the Transrapid makers themselves.

a)Energy: The TR needs energy to levitate and to move. The amount of energy needed for levitation and guidance is the same no matter at what speed the TR moves. A train does not need any energy for that. So at lower the speeds the train has an advantage.

b) inclination: I don´t think you have ever travelled on new the Cologne-Frankfurt line? It has a max. inclination of 4%. Once you know this line, you would think differently about a 10% inclination.

c) travel time: Includes time for accelaraton and deceleration, a 5% reserve and is counted from the departure at station A to the departure at station B.

d) acceleration: The main factor limiting acceleration is again passenger comfort. Trains could accelerate much faster, but that might be a good idea for a Metro train, but not for a long distance train(luggage or dishes) Markus Becker02 21:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

a) Agreed. However some sources state that this power is very low (below the amount of energy needed for the ICE or Transrapid's air conditioning system). Is your source available to look at online?

b) In fact, I have travelled the line many times. I stand by my statements about the 10% grade. So do the laws of physics.

c) Adding 5% reserve time to Transrapid's sub-17 minute journey time yields less than 17 minutes 50 seconds. Still nowhere near your 22 minute quote, and still 33% faster than the ICE3's time (does that include reserve time too?).

d) Transrapid's acceleration is virtually un-noticeable. It was designed this way to ensure passenger comfort; it could accelerate a lot faster if they decided to make it that way. The Japanese JR-Maglev accelerates 3x faster than Transrapid again, but most passengers don't find it uncomfortable. Many HSTs cannot accelerate faster, even if the designers wanted them to; it is a limitation of the train's engine power, which often cannot be economically increased. Most HST's already operate at maximum acceleration, which incidentally is far lower than Transrapid's standard acceleration.Qasdfdsaq 23:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Alleged theft of Transrapid technology
As I read the Chinese WP about zh:磁懸浮列車 (Maglev train), there's a paragraph pointing that in Sept., 2005, German and Chinese both authorities have rejected the statement about technology theft. Here's the line:

'''2005年9月，中國成都飛機公司開始研製CM1型「海豚」高速磁悬浮列車，最高時速500公里，預計會於2006年7月在上海試行. 但有觀點認為，這是中國剽竊了德國的技術，再把德國技術的不足之處加以改良，但兩國政府均否認有關說法. '''

My only objective here is to find out the truth since what I found in the non-Chinese sources are quite negative. Would Germany still bring this topic into the coming G8? -- Sameboat - 同舟 21:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I just want to add to this topic a small incident, which I came across, when I took the Maglev from Shanghai-Airport to the city (in 2005). During the waiting for the next train, they showed videos of the testing and manufacturing of the train. Most times they showed pictures of the German testing area and the German Transrapid (recognizable from the chraracteristic red stripes), but the comment to the pictures was completely different. In summarization it stated that the "great people and scientists of China developed and built this train with some minor technical help from European engineers." There was neither mention of Germany nor of the major companies involved. And the report left no doubt that the invention was done by China. Of course one can expect Chinese propaganda at such a prestige-spot, but the cold-bloodedness with which they bended the truth, tells a lot about the Chinese position about technology-theft (especially since the report was in English with Chinese subtitles).

But that is a leitmotif when it comes to western technology in China. The companies are all so enthusiastic about investments in China, that they become careless and then they wonder, that a few years later they get competitions with their own products produced cheaper by Chinese firms. --84.57.24.35 12:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Transrapid Guideway Advantage
I recall an article from Railway Gazette International from the late 1980's or early 1990's that mentioned that one reason for the configuration of the guideway was that a pair of rails for conventional trains could be installed in the center allowing one path to share both technologies into crowded city centers. There was even a drawing of an ICE sitting on the guideway. The prinicpal of sharing HSR and Standard rail is part of the success of the TGV system as well.

-DX —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dal-x (talk • contribs) 01:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Transrapid is a Monorail as well
It seems the Transrapid consortium tries to avoid Transrapid being adressed as MOnorail, since they want to avoid the stinch of the Alweg failure. Transrapid is technically a Monorail (where is the second rail, source??) and this is a decisive difference to standard rails. Transrapid is NOT a railway and not a train in the railway sense. --Polentario 08:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Yep, V RS sources should be the answer to this dispute (and this also applies to Polentario's opinion above). Also, a dispute between WP editors often indicates there is a dispute or controversy in the real world. If so, it should be described in the article if possible (once again using V RS sources). Avb 09:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Polentario obviously can't show us a source for his monorail-thesis. There is no dispute like this in the real world. Otherwise Polentario would be able to show us sources of this dispute. BTW: I don't see the "Transrapid consortium" here anywhere - anyone else do? Transrapid is a typical High-Speed System --82.82.184.253 13:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

 * - what have you got? Lars T. 13:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

 * what i have? I have no Transrapid-source, no Maglev-literatur, no Maglev-laws (MbBO, AMbG) that describes the Transrapid as a monorail in the foreword, neither in the whole source. Have you any? btw: Your Link is nice: "Shanghai Maglev is the fastest railway system in commercial operation in the world." Shanghai, China Polentario wanted to delete both informations: "fastest" (the high speed) and "railway system". No words of "monorail" on that page. Same here Emsland, Germany. Informations about the high speed, using of the word "train", no word "monorail" --82.82.184.253 14:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Just about everybody, including other encyclopedias and the international media (e.g. BBC, New York Times, der Spiegel) tends to call Transrapid a monorail (see this Google search and this Google search) while its makers do not use the term (see this Google search and this Google search). Please discuss and solve the dispute here on the talk page. A slow edit war and original research are not going to be a solution here. Avb 22:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

 * no, that's untrue. check out your links. you won't hardly find any Transrapid-pages there. There's also no hint from SpON.
 * Ohh? What is this then? Lars T. 13:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But search for "transrapid hochgeschwindigkeitszug". You'll find several media links, the third one is from Focus. There are others from Financial Times Deutschland, Tagesschau, NDR, BR, Der Standard and others. No Transrapid-literatur neither law is using the word "monorail"(/"Einschienenbahn"). So we should hold the origin formulation, "is a German high-speed train using magnetic levitation" ... btw: Look at User_talk:Lars_T. - he already got several warnings regarding editing & vandalizing a page --82.82.176.204 23:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I personally never thought of Transrapid as a monorail, nor do I care what you people call it in the article. As long as you're doing it the wiki way, which you currently are not. It doesn't help to deny what I've written. You're entitled to disagree of course, but that won't fly given that anyone else who clicks the links will find what I said. Please note that the type of edit warring currently going on will sooner or later result in the article being locked. See also WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DR, and WP:DE.

Having said that, perhaps you guys can compromise on is a German high speed monorail train using magnetic levitation? I'm leaving this discussion, as mud is starting to fly and I don't like editing environments where others are simply ignoring arguments and essentially stonewalling. Good luck. My only interest in Transrapid is that I was on it last year, short weeks before the accident. Avb 12:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

 * You never thought of Transrapid as a monorail, the media never thinks of Transrapid calling a monorail, no law is claiming it as a monorail, no TR-literature - why should wikipedia do it? What you've written was obviously wrong - of course it helps to tell the truth! You don't believe the google-search? Maybe you believe the screenshots of the google-search for TR-HSR ( Page 1 Page 2). Before article being locked you should give Lars T. a big warning. That would not be his first one. And before locking the article you should change into the origin version without the word monorail. The only one who is simply ignoring arguments, who is simply ignoring sources is Lars T. --82.83.32.72 23:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

'''I plead guilty and i am not Lars. '''

Some english web Sources for Transrapid = Monorail: Monorail society, http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/MagEms.html, http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/TPMagIntro.html. I assume there was a Marketing Speeech Policy Attempt to position Transrapid beyound the MOnorail niche and failure being succcessful in germany, but not as much in english speaking countries. the German Spiegel uses MOnorail with and for Transrapid ONLY in the ENGLISH version http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,485422,00.html not in the germn originl articles. So our IP friend 82.83.32.72 has a certain point from a German Maglev promoter perspective. German comparision of ALWEG MOnorail und TRAnsRApid is hoever to be found in writing at Reinhard Krischer (writer of a ALWEG Book) http://www.eisenbahn-webkatalog.de/news/index.php?newsid=817&druck=true and in the alweg web pages

As a compromise, I in the german entry I inserted the following wording (translated):

Transrapid is a German Maglev train foreseen for High-speed railways using magnetic levitation. The complete system is developed and marketed by Transrapid International, a joint venture of the German companies Siemens AG and ThyssenKrupp AG. After more than three decades of intense discussions and studies, the only projects alive or in a very mature state (Munich, Shanghai) so far are much closer to classical monorail local niche appliciations than to the originally planned use in nationwide traffic networks. --Polentario 13:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I could certainly live with something along these lines.

 * About attempts to avoid monorail-associated problems/differences/etc: it would be nice if we had a source for that so that we could add it to the article. Avb 14:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

 * there never have been attempts to avoid monorail-associated problems/differences/etc. Obviously someone is seeing ghosts, not for the first time (cp. my Posting from 13:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)) edit: as he concedes himself - it's just the subjective polemic perspective of the lonely TR-Opponent "Polentario" --82.82.178.243 14:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

??? the story about the marketing issue is my theorie finding, Munich and Shanghai being close close to Monorail applications one can read out of Alweg pages and the monorail society. P--Polentario 14:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Polentario, first read - then write ;-) We had the monorails.org-topic before in this discussion. You can find the "Transrapid" on the monorail-section, but you won't find the "monorail" on the Transrapid-pages on monorail.org. (Shanghai, China, Emsland, Germany) back to wikipedia, we are here on the Transrapid-article, not on the monorail-article. Use it on a footnote but not in the first sentence. Also in your english-SPIEGEL-article the word monorail isn't in the first part, there you'll find "rail" instead! Your article from eisenbahn-webkatalog.de is something about monorails - not about Transrapid. I have not a point from a German Maglev promoter perspective. I'm not subjective, i'm objectiv when i'm saying: Still noone could give us a Transrapid-source (literature, law, ...), which describes the Transrapid as a monorail in the first part.
 * about your compromise. delete the word "foreseen" (it's senseless) and delete the complete last sentence, it's polemic, it's totally wrong, you have no source for it and it's your subjective loneley point of view. There are enough of such these wrong sentences of you in the article --82.82.178.243 14:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You are lying straight in the face, for whatever reasons. Krischer is a Pro Alweg and Transrapid writer and does the comparision explicitely. Especially English quality sources using monorail as term for Trarapid have been provided massively, including the ones on Monorail.org do as well. --Polentario 11:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I am lying? straight? where exactly? I was only asking for sources - and got nearly no answer. Your Krischer-source was about monorail. Which "English quality sources" are you talking about? The TR-Articles on Monorail.org are not using the word "monorail"
 * we talked about this before, see above - nothing new. --82.82.173.246 23:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again: Please stop edit warring and discuss on talk page instead
See also WP:3RR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DR, and WP:DE. Avb 00:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

 * and who want to discuss here? how many postings are here from Lars T.? Where is your warning to him? ..... Even you said yourself that you never thought of Transrapid as a monorail. noone could show us here TR-sources which describes the Transrapid as a monorail. So why should we do this here on wikipedia in the first sentences?--82.82.178.243 08:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop being obnoxious. You only have to click on my and your links above to see that slightly less than 1 in 4 of the many many V RS sources use monorail exclusively, slightly less than 3 in 4 of them use high-speed rail/etc exclusively, and the remainder use both, including the New York Times. Worse, you are a single editor edit warring against 3 other editors. How does it hurt the article to include a term that 98% of this article's 100+ editors have no problem with, given that your (and my) POV has already been accommodated by the fact that "high speed rail" has been added to the lead? You don't give us any policy-based arguments. We don't need "TR" sources, let alone rely on them exclusively. You keep ignoring policy-based arguments. We need to report on the balance of WP:V / WP:RS sources.

I concede that Lars and other editors also largely fail to discuss - but he at least was willing to compromise to reach consensus. But you should note that I've warned Lars too. My advice to the both of you is improve your collaboration skills as expected from Wikipedia editors. You may want to start by reading the policies and guidelines I linked above. Avb 12:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

 * "obnoxious"? What are you talking about? where should I have been obnoxious? The only thing I asked for was sources! And noone could give us such sources. Worse that i'm what? that i'm one editor against 2 others (Lars & Polentario)? that should be worse? not really. TR-Opponents & -laymans have obviously more power at wikipedia, yes, that's worst. But on the other hand ..... wikipedia is not that important and has not a good reputation. I can live with that ;-) policy-based arguments? Maybe i don't understand that. Why policy-based arguments? when there are sources? And of course we need sources to write a good article - why not? I'm ignoring what?

 * Lars was willing to compromise? Sorry what? He was willing to nothing. He nearly never wrote something here in the discussion. edit warring was his only thing, the same text again and again. No basic approach for compromise. No sources. You warned Lars? Where? He's a registered wikipedian-User, he already has severeal warnings. Give him a warning on his page - not here! --82.82.178.243 14:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have misread everything I wrote. For example, see this compromise edit, this warning and this edit summary. Consider the difference between WP:V sources and "TR sources". Wikipedia is not an official TR publication. It aims to present a neutral overview of collective knowledge. Avb 15:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

 * What have i misread? Your examples are not that good. a Lars T compromise with still his unsourced "monorail". A wanring to whom? and on Lars T page? no. Where is the difference between your definition of WP:V sources and "TR sources"? I don't see any and i never seen here a WP:V / "TR sources" about Transrapid which is describing the Transrapid as a "monorail" in the first chapter. I was never talking about an "official TR publication". But this article doesn't aim to present a neutral overview of collective knowledge. Yes, it should be. But therefore WP:V-sources about Transrapid are usefull. --82.82.178.243 16:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, as someone who has been watching this develop, here's what I see. Looking at the comments above, I see external links to reliable sources that describe the Transrapid system as a high-speed monorail train system (BBC, Spiegel, SME TechWeb and National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers among others). The monorail article's first sentence currently says "A monorail is a single rail serving as a track for a wheeled or (magnetically) levitating vehicle; also, a vehicle traveling on such a track." The Transrapid system uses a single rail in its track. The only difference that I see is that Transrapid themselves choose not to use the word monorail, perhaps for political or psychological reasons; I don't yet see anything published by Transrapid to say that it is not a monorail. As the old saying goes, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it must be a duck." The compromise sentence that we have on the article now addresses all of these points. Slambo (Speak) 15:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Slambo, the question was not "is the Transrapid a monorail or not". The question is, should "monorail" be the 5th word in the Transrapid-article? And then we take a look at sources about Transrapid. Most sources never uses the word "Monorail". And most of the sources which use that word, doesn't use it in the first chapter/sentences. (BBC and National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers are the only sources for using the word "monorail" in the first chapter i've seen here so far. But also uses words like "train", "rail technology" and "high-speed" and no mention of "monorail" in the technical-section.) So, it's not that "Transrapid themselves choose not to use the word", all the literature, laws and most of the media doesn't use it. So why should wikipedia use the word for the foreword? The most important attributes are "High-speed train" and "maglev". --82.82.178.243 16:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I see no reason not to put monorail as the fifth word, based on the accepted definition of monorail. It grammatically fits in the sentence there and it is a concise and accurate description of the system as a whole.  The first sentence of an article's lead section should be a basic definition of the subject discussed in the article; the rest of the lead section should provide a short overview of the most important points of the article.  Slambo (Speak)  16:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

 * well, as I said before, nearly noone else doing this - why should wikipedia do it? monorail is not that typical term for the Transrapid, it's "high speed" and "maglev". OK, now it's in the article and also the compromise from Polentario uses these words. --88.130.95.110 11:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I guess this qualifies for Lamest edit wars.
 * Anyway, its not our fault that you keep ignoring sources (as if Spigel never wrote Germany developed the Transrapid monorail 'magnetic levitation' train decades ago), or point to different pages of websites were they don't mention that the Transrapid is a monorail (why should a site about monorails specifically mention that something is a monorail). Lars T. 19:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

 * and you disqualify yourself again and again - not only on the transrapid-topic. And here you qualify yourself as the biggest edit-warrior? How many postings have you done here in the discussion? 2? 3? WOW. How many times did you edit the article in the last days? 20? 30? how many warnings did you get? ! OK, that's offtopic in general, but nevertheless the sad truth and in this caption it's ontopic.
 * delete the "our" and write "my" - or are you speaking for your royal majesty? Is that SPIEGEL-article your only source? (and you know that SPIEGEL is very very TR-opponent) Nevertheless you took ages for posting that link. Regarding to your monorails.org-theme: Why should a Wikipedia-article about a monorail specifically mention that something is a monorail? A Link somewhere as the same as on the TR-pages on monorails.org - OK. --88.130.75.154 10:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

 * YOU are the guy who keeps insulting people. Go back under your bridge. Lars T. 11:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

 * At least your last 5 words is obviously a personal attack --82.82.173.246 23:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

 * And your behaviour fits that of a troll. Go back under your bridge. Lars T. 13:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

 I am definitely neither lone ranger nor out of range with my opinion, and variou sources can be provided:

The German wisoweg website is a local technical history documentation portal with en detail alweg/monorail http://www.wisoveg.de/rheinland/alweg/al-utopie.htm cites a web issue of the PRO Bahn pro railway magazin in the rhineland, from 2001, the author is Prof. Dr. Klaus Groß. The Alweg entries are from a exhibition documentation in Rheinisches Industriebahn- Museum e.V. Köln.

Quote: "Ursprünglich war als Einsatzgebiet eher der Hochgeschwindigkeits-Fernverkehr vorgesehen. In einem Eisenbahnbuch von 1955 lautete eine Kapitelüberschrift zur ALWEG-Bahn: „Heute Utopie, morgen vielleicht schon Wirklichkeit: Mit 400 Stundenkilometern nach Madrid“, wobei Hamburg der Ausgangspunkt sein sollte. Wie beim Transrapid zerplatzten die Träume, und übrig blieben ein paar Anwendungen im Nahverkehr, insgesamt aber immerhin noch mehr, als bei den staatlich geförderten 70er-Jahre-Entwicklungen C-Bahn, H-Bahn und M-Bahn zusammen."

My summary of the quote : It provides a Explicit comparision between Alweg monorail and Transrapid, as Alweg being similarly developed for international traffic (e.g. european connection between hamburg and Madrid). As with Transrapid, all this dreams went bust, only some local traffic applications came true, but at least some more as via other german cabin-rail or Magnet-rail white elephants of the 70ies.

On the mentioned web page are further entries about failed Alweg projects (e.g. in the Ruhrgebiet or a connection between the then Munich airport, innercity and lake Starnberg) where later Transrapid came into consideration (Metrorapid, Trara Munich).

http://www.mosafilm.de/CF/heftbesprechung/vergleiche/029/monorail.html#urania is a website about MOsaic, a popular popular culture and educational monthly in eastern germany, the cited articles draw several paralles about Alweg / MOnorail and Transrapid and provide detailed info about eastern monorail projects, e.g. in Jena.

 * Its worth while to check the websites 88.130.75.154 cites. http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/MagEms.html internally links to a "What is Maglev MOnorail" page, quote: "So what is a Maglev Monorail? Simply put, maglev monorail follows the guideway as conventional monorail does, but powerful magnets provide propulsion and lift".

I assume 88.130.75.154 has seen those, ignored them and is keeping lying straight in our faces for whatever reason.

I ask to exclude anonymous IPs from editing this site. --Polentario 14:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Transrapid as Monorail / Alweg

 * Polentario, why do you imply that I would ignore that monorail-page? or other sources? I told you many times, those are NOT sources about Transrapid, those are articles about monorails. Yes, look at the "worth while" Transrapid, Emsland Page of monorails.org - no word of "monorail" - just a link.
 * "exclude anonymous IPs from editing this article"? Why? I did obviously improvements (+ HSR, +train +others) to this article while I was here as anonymous IP - so why should it be locked? --82.82.173.246 23:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

 * The sources are monorail, yes, which include and define Transrapid maglev as being part of their story and the links you mention directly draw the conclusion. http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/MagWhat.html

Mathew 13:9 : He that hath ears to hear, let him hear! Youre could provide even more valuable contributions, if you skipped provideing biased /possibly paid opinion.

The real question is more wether Transrapid stays in the same niches (ending like Alweg) or really provides added value. Our german discussion about Standi values is more worth while translating in the article.Polentario 12:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I doubt this. That has nothing to do with Transrapid in general. --82.82.189.98 13:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not include Standardisierte Bewertung (German Project evaluation scheme)
What our IP friend doubts as not interesting is a Traffic german project evaluation scheme (Standardisierte Bewertung, "Standi") very commonly used in Germany. This provides generic values (return on invest/ measurable bang for the buck for complete society). MOre than 1 is required to receive federal funding.

Transrapid projects as in MUnich or Metrorapid have reached 1,5. This is comparable and sometimes even better than ICE HST projects. There are some indications that a Transrapid from Berlin City to Leipzig Airport (while skipping the planned new Big Berlin Airport) would have an excellent Standi, however this would be tough for Berlin. To compare: Tram-train pilots have often Standis about 2,4, some Tram-Train and extension project about 1,4. I ask the english audience wether we should elaborate this aspect and evaluation scheme in the english wikipedia as well.--Polentario 13:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Appalling wording
This article is in desperate need of copy-editing. It sounds like it's been cobbled together from technical articles in a foreign language. Do something somebody!! And no, I am not volunteering. BuzzWoof (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Originally proposed for Toronto
One of the earliest serious applications for what is today Transrapid was in Toronto, Canada. They partnered with the local company Hawker Siddeley Canada to build a three-route system through Toronto, and actually started construction of a 5.6 km test track in Toronto when the project was cancelled around 1969 or 1970. This seems like something worth mentioning! Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Historic parallels section
I've removed this section because:

 * 1) it has been marked as unreferenced for 9 months without its original author(s) making any attempt to fix this.
 * 2) it is poorly written, with the first paragraph drawing parrallels between Schwebebahn & Aerobus without any explicit reference to Maglev.
 * 3) it is poorly informed, apparently believing that Birmingham (the location of the first public service maglev) and Derby (where said system was developed) are German speaking!.

If somebody wants to write something better quality, better informed and (above all) cited to replace this, please be my guest. -- Starbois (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Technology section; "proprietary"?
I'm a bit confused as to what this paragraph in the "Technology" section is saying:

 * From a competition standpoint, the Transrapid is a proprietary solution. The track being a part of the engine, only the single-source Transrapid vehicles and infrastructure can be operated. There is no multisourcing foreseen concerning vehicles or the highly complicated crossings and switches. Unlike classical railways or other infrastructure networks (as jointly administrated by the Bundesnetzagentur in Germany) a Transrapid system does not allow any direct competition.

The only halfway reasonable interpretation I can come up with is that Transrapid International may hold patents that currently prevent anyone else from building tracks and/or vehicles, but can someone here make that explicit if that is actually the case? (I don't really see any technological reasons why not anyone should be able to build vehicles that operate on the tracks, but the tone of the quoted paragraph seem to make it out to be a fundamental difference from classical rail. Which seems unfair; if it were invented today, would it not have the exact same problems with patents?)  -- magetoo 03:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge to Transrapid
How is this rejected proposal notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article? I suggest it be shortened into a section of Transrapid. AadaamS (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Transrapid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://210.15.220.118/ewlna_submissions/EastWestResponse_100708_ThyssenKruppTransrapidAustralia.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/transportstrategy/eddingtonstudy/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212053442/http://english.eastday.com/e/110119/u1a5677922.html to http://english.eastday.com/e/110119/u1a5677922.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090922213331/http://www.canv-maglev.com/ to http://www.canv-maglev.com/
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20080806150309/http%3A//www.transrapid%2Dusa.com/images/route_USA.gif to http://www.transrapid-usa.com/images/route_USA.gif
 * Added tag to http://www.thyssenkrupp-transrapid.de/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070620005529/http://www.tfh-berlin.de/~breede/medien/ss03/referate/Transrapid.pdf to http://www.tfh-berlin.de/~breede/medien/ss03/referate/Transrapid.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130105005223/http://www.transrapid-usa.com/content_history_main.asp to http://www.transrapid-usa.com/content_history_main.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Transrapid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719234220/http://www.transrapid.de/cgi/en/basics.prg?session=76d1f56f4da67ae8_285873&a_no=35 to http://www.transrapid.de/cgi/en/basics.prg?session=76d1f56f4da67ae8_285873&a_no=35
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131211193855/http://www.i70solutions.org/docs/reports/MagLevPresCoates02-09.pdf to http://www.i70solutions.org/docs/reports/MagLevPresCoates02-09.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Transrapid


text:
Robert McFarlane (American government official)

Robert Carl "Bud" McFarlane (July 12, 1937 – May 12, 2022) was an American Marine Corps officer who served as National Security Advisor to President Ronald Reagan from 1983 to 1985. Within the Reagan administration, McFarlane was a leading architect of the Strategic Defense Initiative, a project intended to defend the US from Soviet ballistic missile attacks. He resigned as National Security Adviser in late 1985 because of disagreements with other administration figures but remained involved in negotiations with Iran and with Hezbollah.

McFarlane was a central figure in the Iran–Contra affair, an operation in which the Reagan administration funneled weapons to Iran and diverted the profits to illegally fund right-wing rebels in Nicaragua. When the scheme came to light, administration officials implemented a plan to insulate Reagan and senior officials by focusing blame on McFarlane. He ultimately pleaded guilty to four misdemeanor counts and admitted that he had hidden information about the Reagan administration's support of the Contras from Congress. Suffering from guilt over his role in the scheme and feeling betrayed by Reagan, who, McFarlane later wrote, "approved every single action I ever took" but "lacked the moral conviction and intellectual courage to stand up in our defense and in defense of his policy." McFarlane attempted suicide in 1987. He was later pardoned, along with several other figures in the Iran-Contra scandal, by President George H. W. Bush shortly before he left office.

After his pardon, McFarlane operated a consulting business. He was investigated by the FBI in 2009 over concerns that he was illegally lobbying on behalf of the Sudanese government of Omar al-Bashir but was not charged with any crime. McFarlane died in Lansing, Michigan, on May 12, 2022, from a lung condition.

Early life and education
McFarlane was the son of Texas Democratic Congressman William McFarlane. After graduating high school, McFarlane entered the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis in 1955, where he graduated in 1959. He was the third member of his family to attend the Academy, after his uncle Robert McFarlane (1925) and his brother Bill (1949). At the academy he graduated in the top 15 percent of the class and lettered twice in gymnastics. He received an honorary doctorate from the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., in 2014. He sang in the Chapel Choir, and was a Brigade Administrative Officer and 14th Company Commander. He married his high school sweetheart, Jonda Riley.

Marine Corps service
Following graduation from the Naval Academy in 1959, McFarlane was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Marine Corps, where he served as a field artillery officer.

As a Marine Corps officer, McFarlane commanded platoons, a battery of field artillery howitzers and was the Operations Officer for an artillery regiment. He taught Gunnery at the Army Advanced Artillery Course. He was the executive assistant to the Marine Corps' Operations Deputy from 1968–1971, preparing the deputy for meetings with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. During this assignment he was also the Action Officer in the Marine Corps Operations Division for Europe/NATO, the Middle East, and Latin America.

McFarlane served two combat tours in the Vietnam War. In March 1965, he commanded an artillery battery in the first landing of U.S. combat forces in Vietnam. While deployed during his first tour, McFarlane was selected for graduate studies as an Olmsted Scholar. McFarlane received a master's degree (License) in strategic studies with highest honors from the Graduate Institute of International Studies (Institut de Hautes Etudes Internationales, HEI) in Geneva, Switzerland.

After attending the Graduate Institute of International Studies, McFarlane returned to Vietnam for a second tour in 1967–1968 as a Regimental Fire Support Coordinator for the 3rd Marine Division deployed along the Vietnamese Demilitarized Zone during the Tet Offensive. He organized all fire support (B-52s, naval gunfire from the USS New Jersey (BB-62), and artillery) for forces deployed at Con Thien, Cam Lo, Dong Ha, The Rockpile, Khe Sanh, and points between. McFarlane received a Bronze Star and a Navy Commendation Medal, both with Valor device.

Following his second tour in Vietnam and a tour at Headquarters Marine Corps, in 1971 he was named a White House Fellow. He was the first Marine Corps officer selected for the program.

McFarlane was assigned to the White House Office of Legislative Affairs and at the conclusion of that assignment was selected as the Military Assistant to Henry Kissinger at the National Security Council. In this post, McFarlane dealt with intelligence exchanges with the People's Republic of China from 1973 to 1976, giving detailed intelligence briefings to the PRC at the time of the Sino-Soviet split. He also accompanied Kissinger on his visits to the PRC. In addition, McFarlane dealt with other aspects of foreign policy, including the Middle East, relations with the Soviet Union, and arms control. McFarlane was appointed by President Gerald Ford as his Special Assistant for National Security Affairs while a Lieutenant Colonel and was awarded the Navy Distinguished Service Medal in 1976.

Upon leaving the White House, McFarlane was assigned to the National Defense University, where he co-authored a book on crisis management while concurrently receiving a diploma from the National War College.

He ended his Marine Corps career on Okinawa as Operations Officer for the 12th Marine Regiment. McFarlane retired in 1979 as a lieutenant colonel.

Civilian posts
In 1979, McFarlane was appointed by U.S. Senator John Tower to the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he was responsible for staffing Senate consideration of the SALT II Treaty from 1979 to 1981. He also authored much of Ronald Reagan's foreign policy platform during the 1980 presidential campaign.

In 1981, President Reagan appointed and the Senate confirmed McFarlane as Counselor at the Department of State. In this post he assisted Secretary of State Alexander Haig.

In 1982, Reagan appointed McFarlane as Deputy National Security Advisor responsible for the integration of the policy recommendations of the Departments of State, Treasury, and Defense. In 1983, he was appointed by the president as his Special Representative in the Middle East responsible for Israeli-Arab negotiations.

McFarlane was criticized for having involved the United States armed forces in the Lebanon Civil War with gunship bombardment of Lebanese opposition forces which may have led to the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing where 241 American servicemen were killed.

Following that assignment, he returned to the White House and was appointed President Reagan's National Security Advisor. In that post, he was responsible for the development of U.S foreign and defense policy. He was a supporter of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI or "Star Wars").

Iran-Contra affair and resignation
The Iran-Contra affair involved secretly selling arms to Iran and funneling the money to support the Contras in Nicaragua. As National Security Adviser, McFarlane urged Reagan to negotiate the arms deal with Iranian intermediaries, but McFarlane said that by late December 1985 he was urging Reagan to end the arms shipments. McFarlane resigned on December 4, 1985, citing that he wanted to spend more time with his family; he was replaced by Admiral John Poindexter.

The Iran-Contra affair came to light in November 1986 and a political scandal ensued. Disheartened, feeling abused by his former colleagues, and in depression over the embarrassment for the president that his actions had contributed to, McFarlane attempted suicide with an overdose of 25 to 30 valium tablets and was admitted into the hospital just two hours before his scheduled testimony before the Blue Ribbon panel appointed by President Reagan to investigate Iran-Contra known as the Tower Commission on February 9, 1987, saying he had failed his country.

In 1988, he pleaded guilty to four misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress as part of the Iran-Contra cover-up. He was sentenced to two years' probation and a $20,000 fine but was pardoned by President George H. W. Bush on Christmas Eve 1992.

Other activities
McFarlane co-founded and served as CEO of McFarlane Associates Inc., an international consulting company. He was also a Co-founder and Director of IP3 International (short for "International Peace Power & Prosperity" ), a consortium of firms wanting to build nuclear reactors in Saudi Arabia that is led by retired U.S. military commanders and former White House officials. Michael Flynn has described himself as an adviser to IP3, which the company denies. In May 2019, McFarlane wrote an op-ed in The Washington Times advocating for developing nuclear power generation in the Middle East titled "The New Imperialism". This proposal, dubbed "Middle East Marshall Plan" by its backers, was detailed in a March 2017 White Paper written by Tom Barrack, the chairman of Donald Trump's Presidential Inaugural Committee, a senior adviser to Trump's presidential campaign, and a long-time close friend of and fundraiser for Donald Trump. In 2021, McFarlane co-wrote with David Gattie a piece for The National Interest, titled, "China and the Importance of Civil Nuclear Energy," which extended his ideas on nuclear energy to the geopolitical outlook for China.

McFarlane was a member of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) Board of Advisors, was president of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, was on the Board of Advisors, and was a founding member of the Set America Free Coalition. He was also an Advisory Board member for the Partnership for a Secure America, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to recreating the bipartisan center in American national security and foreign policy.

McFarlane served on a number of boards including:
 * Aegis Defence Services – Non-executive director
 * Partnership for a Secure America – Advisory Board
 * Fuel Freedom Foundation – Advisory Board
 * Myriant Incorporated – Advisory Board
 * Member of the Committee on the Present Danger
 * Alphabet Energy – advisory board

He was an advisor to John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. From 2009 on, McFarlane worked in the southern region of Sudan and Darfur on intertribal relations and development projects. On September 30, 2009, the Washington Post published a story suggesting that McFarlane's contract for this work, which was supported by the government of Qatar, was the result of a request by Sudanese officials. McFarlane denied any improper contact with Sudanese officials or efforts to avoid disclosure of his work. The Washington Post article reported that some persons involved in peacemaking efforts in the southern Sudan region questioned the source and helpfulness of McFarlane's activities. That article prompted FBI investigators to review McFarlane's activities in the Sudan. After an exhaustive probe that lasted three years and included search of his trash, email, and personal belongings, investigators concluded their search and did not file any criminal charges.

In July 2011, McFarlane, in cooperation with former CIA director Jim Woolsey, co-founded the United States Energy Security Council, sponsored by the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security.

Death
McFarlane died on May 12, 2022, at a hospital in Lansing, Michigan, from complications of a lung condition at the age of 84. He lived in Washington, D.C., but was visiting family in Michigan at the time of his death. On July 27, 2022, the Congressional Record published, "Remembering the Honorable Robert C. "Bud" McFarlane," commemorating the respect he commanded around the world for his diverse leadership roles.

General and cited references

 * "Complaint That Donald Regan May Be Placing Blame for the Iran Initiative on Robert McFarlane," Secret PROFS email (November 7, 1986). Original source: US National Security Council.
 * Kornbluh, Peter and Malcolm Byrne, eds. The Iran-Contra Affair: The Making of a Scandal, 1983–1988 (Document collection). Alexandria, VA: Chadwyck-Healey; Washington, D.C.: National Security Archive, 1990.
 * Kornbluh, Peter and Malcolm Byrne, eds. The Iran-Contra Scandal: The Declassified History. New York: New Press, Distributed by W. W. Norton, 1993.
 * Walsh, Lawrence E. Firewall: The Iran-Contra Conspiracy and Cover-up. New York: Norton, 1997.
 * Timberg, Robert, The Nightingale's Song. New York: Free Press, 1996.
 * McFarlane, Robert C.; Smardz, Zofia (1994). Special Trust: Pride, Principle and Politics Inside the White House. New York: Cadell & Davies.
 * McFarlane, Robert C.; Smardz, Zofia (1994). Special Trust: Pride, Principle and Politics Inside the White House. New York: Cadell & Davies.

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


text:
Talk:1900s

Standard headings
I cannot see a section of "important personalities" on other decades and don't think that is the best description of Freud. Is there anyway of getting standard headings for the decades? BozMo(talk)

Lawrence Hargrave
The only references I find to Lawrence Hargrave indicate that his work took place in the 1880s and 1890s. This appears to be the only reference to this "stable wing" design in the 1990s. Can someone please confirm or remove this entry? -Harmil 28 June 2005 11:40 (UTC)

Quick Description
I was thinking, since the 1910's-2000's(the rest of the 20th century, plus some of the 21st) each have their own descriptions, maybe this should have one as well. Thanks for the time. -Chris, Nov. 28 2005 6:03pm

What was this decade called?
How did people refer to the 1900s in the 1900s, does anybody know? -- Bungopolis 07:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

 * The aughts? Voortle 21:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they called it the 1900s? -- Anomynous 19:28, 25 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.18.136 (talk)

I would like to know myself. Was it really the aughts? What about 1800-1810, would that be the eighteen aughts, similar to the eighteen twenties? Are we in the two-thousand aughts or the two-thousand zeros? Does anyone know? GalaxyMage@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.142.21.43 (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I can't comment on what it was called during the nineteen hundreds itself. However, in my experience, from at least the 1950s on, the 1900s universally referred to the (aprox.) 1st decade of the 20th century: as in, "in the nineteen hundreds" could not, prior to 2000, really mean anything other than 1900 to 1909. Personally, I feel that using, e.g., 1900s to (almost) mean the, e.g., 20th C., presumably to avoid having to remember to subtract one when forming individual years, is just lazy. It's a bit like misspelling words correctly ending in 'ize', like 'realize', with an 's': to avoid having to remember the few that correctly end in 'ise', like 'improvise' and 'circumcise', etc. See Fowler's Modern English Usage or Hart's Rules.
 * I do see the symmetry, or is it orthogonality, of the terminology of 'oughs'/'aughts'/'naughts', 'tens', 'twenties', 'thirties', etc., referring to ten year periods and 'hundreds' to centuries. However, I still remain strongly prejudiced against this use of 'hundreds'. The only real arguments that I have against this are as follows:
 * It is illogical to have one term for the first ten years of the current/contextual century that, when applied to another century, refers to the whole hundred years. This may not be as clear-cut an issue in the context of the 21st C., because twenty hundreds feels somehow uncomfortable in comparison to nineteen hundreds or eighteen hundreds, or even twenty one hundreds. So, perhaps, it remains to be seen what the common usage will be for the decade just passed, whether there is a conflict with any numerically similar usage for the 21st C to 1900s for the 20th C., and whether this TBD common usage affects common usage for other centuries and first decades.

 * There would then be no clear equivalent for the first decade to the numerical forms 1810s, 1820s, etc.; whereas, 1800s for a century is so close a synonym to 19th C., it feels unnecessary.

 * On the latter point, R. Ritter (The Oxford Guide to Style: 2002, §7.10.4, p181) has a relevant comment: "The difference between labeling a decade 'the twenties' rather than 'the 1920s' is that the word form connotes all the social, cultural, and political conditions unique to or significant in that decade, while the numerical form is simply the label for the time span. This is not to say that the two cannot be used together for variation in text, but in doing so it is useful to attempt some distinction in context between aura and era". To me, this highlights that there is a specific need for a numerical form, in addition to any form such as the aughts (or oughs), that refers to the period 00 to 09. What this might be other than 1900s or 1800s, etc., is not clear to me.

 * Anyway, I suggest that, as a minimum, the clause in the opening section should be modified from "although this term can equally be used for the years 1900–1999" to "although this term is also used for the years 1900–1999", or better yet "although this term is used by some for the years 1900–1999", which removes or at least downgrades the tacit acceptance that it is correctly a (near) synonym for the 20th C. I will leave this as a suggestion for now, and consider the mod when there has been time for comment. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

20th Century?
Since when was the 20th Century as a whole ever referred to as the 1900s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.163.185 (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

 * The 20th century began on January 1st of 1901 and ended with December the 31st of Y2K. The 1900s, by most definitions, began with the year 1900 and ended with the year 1999. 2603:6011:A400:259:15F0:B290:6096:7CA8 (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The 1900's refers to the years 1900-1909, it's literally in the first sentence of this article. 51.9.106.150 (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Great work!
I tried to fix it up as much as I could. In my opinion, the Technology section might still need to be shortened a bit. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The selection of notable events in the montage
We need to reach a consensus on the final selection of images included in the 1900s montage on the top of the page through a discussion (and not through edit wars) which would include (hopefully) many Wikipedians.

The current montage is composed of the following images:

Please share your opinion on this matter BELOW supplying reasons for or against the current images included and/or supply alternative suggestions. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

 * The Image Fil-American War Feb 04,1899.jpg needs to be replaced - it is a non-free image of a 1899 event. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a heavy bias to United States in this selection. How about Modernism, the funeral of Queen Victoria, Comet Halley, Fauvism, Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, Second Anglo-Boer War, Russo-Japanese War, 1905 Russian Revolution, colonialism as per Congo Free State, the Porfiriato for starters. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://gardenofpraise/ibdbell.htm
 * In 1900s (decade) on 2011-05-25 02:31:53, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
 * In 1900s (decade) on 2011-06-02 00:34:17, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.dieselduck.ca/library/01%20articles/rudolph_diesel.htm
 * In History of the internal combustion engine on 2011-04-01 02:11:56, 404 Not Found
 * In 1900s (decade) on 2011-05-25 02:32:00, 404 Not Found
 * In 1900s (decade) on 2011-06-02 00:34:25, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.wright-brothers.org/TBR/History/History%20of%20Airplane/whiteheadarticles.htm#herald
 * In 1900s (decade) on 2011-05-25 02:32:09, 404 Not Found
 * In 1900s (decade) on 2011-06-02 00:34:36, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.weisskopf.de/history.htm
 * In Early flying machines on 2011-03-17 19:52:32, 404 Not Found
 * In 1890s on 2011-05-25 02:16:20, 404 Not Found
 * In 1890s on 2011-06-01 23:45:04, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/court_and_social/the_hitch/article1042746.ece
 * In 1900s (decade) on 2011-05-25 02:32:13, 404 Not Found
 * In 1900s (decade) on 2011-06-02 00:34:55, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 6
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.ulwaf.com/LA-1900s/index04.html
 * In History of Los Angeles on 2011-03-29 15:07:33, 404 Not Found
 * In 1900s (decade) on 2011-05-25 02:32:13, 404 Not Found
 * In 1900s (decade) on 2011-06-02 00:35:06, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

First decade
1st January 1901 to 31st December 1910 is the first decade of the 20th century. The 1900s presumably include 1900, even though it is in the 19th century? -- most confusing!! Rwood128 (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I have referred this to WP:RY Rwood128 (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Bulgarian Independence
This page shows that Bulgaria declared it's independence on October 5, 1908, as does "The Twentieth Century: An Almanac". However, the Bulgaria page in Wikipedia shows September 22, 1908 as the date Bulgaria declared independence. Does anyone have the correct, verifiable date? Or is there something different that happened on both dates regarding Bulgarian independence?Jtyroler (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on 1900s (decade). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160125161639/http://www.kipnotes.com/AgriculturalMachinery.htm to http://www.kipnotes.com/AgriculturalMachinery.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Separate "Aughts" article rather than a redirect
A new article titled "Aughts" could be created using pieces of 1900s (decade) and 2000s (decade), which I've cobbled together a candidate for at User:RobLa/sandbox/Aughts. "Aughts" is one possible general term for the first decade of every century (e.g. 1800s (decade), 1700s (decade), etc). The naming problem is a topic that has gathered mainstream attention through the years (as noted in the citations for User:RobLa/sandbox/Aughts), and the redirect currently at the top of this article is a bit confusing to navigate. Any problem with renaming User:RobLa/sandbox/Aughts to Aughts? -- RobLa (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I moved User:RobLa/sandbox/Aughts to Aughts earlier today. -- RobLa (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 1900s (decade). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611043607/http://www.dieselduck.ca/library/01%20articles/rudolph_diesel.htm to http://www.dieselduck.ca/library/01%20articles/rudolph_diesel.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100204031232/http://www.umw.edu/hisa/resources/Student%20Projects/Singel/students.umw.edu/_ksing2os/polygraph/origin.html to http://www.umw.edu/hisa/resources/Student%20Projects/Singel/students.umw.edu/_ksing2os/polygraph/origin.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110626100212/http://www.teawaker.com/clarke.htm to http://www.teawaker.com/clarke.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070324025948/http://www.aeroclub.com/santos_dumont_14bis_14bis.htm to http://www.aeroclub.com/santos_dumont_14bis_14bis.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061128124844/http://www.aeroclub.com/santos_dumont_14bis_index.htm to http://www.aeroclub.com/santos_dumont_14bis_index.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Add image of Atrocities in the Congo Free State to the montage?
I find many of the decade montages ignorant of much of the world. I would recommend adding an image of Atrocities in the Congo Free State for three reasons: It was a horrible and noteworthy period in itself, it brings representation to Africa, and it brings representation to western colonialism. I think this is more significant to humanity than the assassination of William McKinley or the San Francisco earthquake, so maybe it could replace one of them? 05:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely on board with replacing the assassination of William McKinley with imagery about some wider event. It makes sense that we keep the focus off individuals and more on wider events. For that matter, we might also want to replace the 1906 San Francisco earthquake with a bigger event, like the Chinese famine of 1906–1907, or the 1908 Messina earthquake if we want to keep the focus on earthquakes. Koopinator (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now added a new montage incorporating the Atrocities in the Congo Free State and the 1908 Messina earthquake. Now we've lessened the montage's Americentrism in exchange for focus on important events elsewhere. Koopinator (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 * Looks great, thanks! —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 07:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, I appreciate that there is an image that brings representation to Africa and Colonialism. However, my child (who is not used to gore/gruesome images) was browsing through the "decades in history" for a school project and is now slightly traumatized & having nightmares. I worry that that particular image might be too gruesome for such a popular page. Would it be possible to find a less gruesome image to represent colonialism? ABetterTomorrow101 (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, history simply is gruesome sometimes. I'm sorry your son is slightly traumatized, but atrocities in the Congo Free State were large and systemic, and the image helps capture the brutality that was going on in Africa at the time. I am afraid that any more mild image would serve to downplay the situation. See WP:NOTCENSORED. Koopinator (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 22 February 2023

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Silikonz 💬  20:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

– Per Wikinav, 72.6% of people who go to the 1900s article click through to 1900s (decade). Only 27.2% click through to 20th century. For the latter group, we could just put a hatnote redirecting people to 20th century. Koopinator (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1900s (decade) → 1900s
 * 1900s → 1900s (disambiguation)
 * Note: pages with content, such as 1900s, are ineligible to be new titles in move requests unless they, too, are dispositioned. 1900s → 1900s (disambiguation) was added to this request to satisfy that requirement.  P.I. Ellsworth  , ed.  put'er there 18:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

 * Support Per nom - highly pointless disambiguation page, should be overwritten. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

"The 1900s" usually denotes a century long period
The 1900s" usually denotes a century long period, starting with the year 1900 and ending with 1999. The "19 - Aughts" is far more specific to a decade. 2603:6011:A400:259:E072:4AB0:8E6C:CD23 (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

 * We had a discussion about this a few months ago (right above this thread). The 1900s as a decade is somewhat more common than the 1900s as a century. Koopinator (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Depending on where you look. 2603:6011:A400:259:3065:D186:D5EA:9CAF (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Which happens to be our reader base, where over 70% of people are looking for the decade. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  11:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Collage
It appears an RFC on collages on Wikiproject years will be interpreted to also ban collages in decade articles. Users here may wish to participate. Koopinator (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:1900s


text:
Talk:Further Down the Spiral

At The Heart Of It All
this song is not a Coil/Aphex Twin collaboration. Coil released a song with the same name on their Scatology album. please do not re-add misinformation

- not sure what you mean here, the liner notes specifically say that this song was created by Aphex Twin, which is what i stated.

merge
There is really no reason for a rather short instrumental song to have its own article. All the info on that article could be neatly placed here. Na uf ana :  talk  23:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

 * - It's not really a 'short' instrumental piece, it is over 7 minutes. It is also a distinctive track, since it is not a remix but an entirely different track under the NIN name.  Besides, many record descriptions all over wikipedia break down each song into a separate page, so it is common practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tprayx (talk • contribs) 11:44, 20 September 2007

I realize that many people create articles for every song on their favorite record, all I'm saying is that the article in question is incredibly short, only three sentences, one of which speculates on the origins of the title. There really isn't any chance of the article being expanded, so don't you think it would be more informative for a casual reader to have this information on the further article? (P.S. - don't for get to sign your comments) Na uf ana  :  talk  02:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support merge Not really a notable song. Drewcifer 10:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Further down the spiral v2.jpg
Image:Further down the spiral v2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

First remix album?
"Further Down the Spiral is the first remix album by American industrial rock band Nine Inch Nails."

Is this true? Can't we describe the earlier "Fixed" as a remix album? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quarkmonkey (talk • contribs) 10:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Further Down the Spiral


text:
User:L00k

Well ... Nothing special ... I hope I can help in this great project

title: User:L00k


text:
Countdown (Australian TV program)

Countdown was a weekly Australian music television program that was broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation from 8 November 1974 until 19 July 1987. It was created by Executive Producer Michael Shrimpton, producer/director Robbie Weekes and record producer and music journalist Ian "Molly" Meldrum. Countdown was produced at the studios of the ABC in the Melbourne suburb of Ripponlea. It was screened Sunday night from 6:00pm to 7:00pm.

Countdown was the most popular music program in Australian TV history. It was broadcast nationwide on Australia's government-owned broadcaster, the ABC, and commanded a huge and loyal audience. It soon exerted a strong influence on radio programmers because of its audience and the amount of Australian content it featured. The first half-hour episode went to air at 6.30pm on Friday, 8 November 1974, but for most of the time it was on air, it also gained double exposure throughout the country by screening a new episode each Sunday evening, and then repeating it the following Saturday evening. The majority of performances on the show were lip synched.

Molly Meldrum, the program's talent co-ordinator, began appearing on-air in 1975, presenting the "Humdrum" music news segment and conducting interviews. Meldrum soon became the "face" of Countdown. He appeared regularly on-air until 1986. Another attraction to the program was the local and international acts who would host an episode—usually performing as well. During the show, Meldrum would interview them (while co-hosting) or have a chat with them before the show went out with the number-one single of the week. In October 2014, Meldrum published his autobiography, The Never, Um, Ever Ending Story.

Cultural influence
Teen-oriented pop music still enjoyed strong popularity during the 1970s, although much of it was sourced from overseas, and the proportion of Australian acts in the charts had hit an all-time low by 1973. That trend began to change around 1975, and many credit that largely to the advent of Countdown. Much of the show's influence derived from its timeslot (Sundays at 6pm) and the fact that each week's show was repeated the following Saturday at 5pm; the series also undoubtedly benefitted hugely from the long-delayed introduction of PAL colour television system in Australia, which was introduced four months after Countdown premiered. Because of this, Countdown was also one of the first Australian TV series to be made entirely in colour.

Although it is not widely recognised, Countdown also had a strong international influence, because it was one of the first TV shows in the world to promote the regular use of the music video as a major part of its programming. Because of its receptivity to music videos (something of a necessity because of the comparative rarity of tours by overseas acts), Countdown proved to be instrumental in the worldwide success of a number of important overseas acts of the period. Madonna achieved her first hit single in April 1984 when "Holiday" was screened on Countdown. Subsequently, "Burning Up" reached the top twenty following repeated showings of the video clip on the show; this second song was not a hit in other countries. Other international artists—including Blondie, ABBA, John Mellencamp, Meat Loaf, Boz Scaggs and Cyndi Lauper—achieved their first hits in Australia thanks to their video clips being aired on Countdown, and this in turn led to their records being picked up and becoming hits in America and/or Europe.

Many international acts, who would otherwise have gone largely unheard on Australian commercial radio, gained important exposure in Australia on Countdown through their music videos; the list includes many UK "new wave" acts such as Duran Duran, XTC, The Beat, Elvis Costello, The Specials, Lene Lovich, Joe Jackson, and The Cure, and US acts such as The Ramones and The Cars.

Above all, Countdown was crucial to the success of many leading Australian acts, including John Farnham, AC/DC, Olivia Newton-John, INXS, Dragon, Hush, Kylie Minogue, I'm Talking, John Paul Young, Sherbet, Skyhooks, Ted Mulry Gang, Jimmy and the Boys, Marcia Hines, Mark Holden, The Angels, Mondo Rock, Men at Work, Icehouse, Australian Crawl and Mental As Anything.

The program dominated Australian popular music well into the 1980s. The popularity of Countdown started to lose momentum by the mid-1980s. Music videos were often shown rather than the artists performing live in the studio. It was cheaper to produce with videos, and this led to Countdown having no significant difference from any other music video program shown on TV during this time.

The final episode of Countdown aired on 19 July 1987. Meldrum co-hosted with, and interviewed, Carol Hitchcock and Jim Keays. It was followed by the last Countdown Awards ceremony. It was a sad night for many, yet a celebration of musical achievements in '86/'87. Meldrum made his appearance at the end of the show wearing his well-known Stetson hat. Meldrum saluted the music industry and fans and then bared his shaved head to the audience. It was well known that his shaved head was a statement to artists like Midnight Oil, who during their career, and being one of Australia's favourite bands, never appeared on the show due to regarding Countdown as too industry/hit-driven and appealed only to a young teenage audience.

In March 2007, the pay television service Foxtel, and its regional affiliate Austar, began screening hundreds of studio performances from the Countdown era. Themed Countdown specials have become very popular, and thought-lost performances by John Farnham, drag queen Divine, a-ha, Pseudo Echo and the Countdown Dancers performing the Flashdance medley highlight the great popular music of the period.

The sign used in the logo is now housed and displayed at the Australian Centre for the Moving Image.

Prince Charles interview
A well-known segment of the show's run is an atypical studio interview Meldrum conducted with Prince Charles. Meldrum was extremely nervous about interviewing the prince, and he botched a great many takes during the interview by flubbing his lines and even committing several royal protocol blunders. Members of his production crew gave him constant encouragement between takes, and eventually Prince Charles politely asked Meldrum if he could get a teleprompter to assist him with the interview, to which Meldrum replied that there was not one available.

The interview, or rather, the numerous botched takes from it, has become a staple of blooper shows in Australia. Meldrum has since said of the interview, "It's not a regret, but I definitely stuffed that up."

Wiped episodes
A large number of master videotapes recorded between 1974 and 1978 were later erased and recycled during a management-initiated "economy drive" at the ABC, an action which Meldrum later criticised and said was "unforgivable". Given the costs at the time of recording on videotape, most tapes were wiped and re-used. At least 100 episodes in total were erased from this period of the show's history.

In the book Glad All Over, Michael Shrimpton said at that time the ABC were "run by financial types [who] suddenly discovered that the increase in the purchase of video tapes had roared up 200 percent in 12 months". He said they didn't stop to consider that the video tape "was the cheapest link in the chain". An order came through from middle-management Bill Pritchard to erase a whole wall of tapes.

A total of 500 12-inch reels were pulled out, which affected at least 100 episodes. Ted Emery and Paul Drane heard about the order, surreptitiously removing as many reels as they could during the middle of the night and hiding them in their cars. According to Ted Emery, when the order came to erase the episodes, he used stalling tactics such as moving the tapes around. He said: "I kept thinking fifteen years down the track this stuff will be important." The producers tried stalling further by handing in trims and pre-assemblies rather than the master copies. "But it wasn't enough," Emery said. "I didn't have enough to give him so they took the masters as well". Had it not been for Emery and Drane, the few episodes from the 1974–78 period that remained would have been erased. That includes the first episode broadcast in colour.

With the exception of 30 episodes, all programs aired between 1975 and 1978 were erased; only two episodes which aired in 1976 are known to exist. Most of the episodes erased originally aired from 1975 to 1977, but there are other episodes either missing or too damaged for future airing, the latter of which are most likely held only for research purposes.

According to Ted Emery, it was not just episodes of Countdown that were affected by the purge. A number of Australian Rules Football Grand Final games, along with episodes of Bellbird and Certain Women, were also erased.

In recent years, ABC Archives has undertaken an upgrade of the remaining episodes, copying what was left to its two on-air playback formats (Betacam SP and Digital Betacam). It is the copying of the programs onto this format that has allowed the ABC to re-broadcast episodes of Countdown during its all-night music show, Rage, in place of video clips which would normally air during that timeslot.

Missing-episode enthusiast Troy Walters has a website Turning Back Time: The Hunt For ABC’s Countdown, which discusses what has been lost and found.

Countdown Revolution era
From 3 July 1989 to December 1990, Countdown returned in the guise of Countdown Revolution. Without Meldrum, who had since gone on to Hey Hey It's Saturday, it featured a group of young hosts, including Tania Lacy and Mark Little. The duo were fired by the ABC after an unauthorised on-air protest on 22 June 1990 against the policy of not allowing acts to perform live and insisting they mime to backup tracks. The show continued until its cancellation in December 1990. It also played once a month in Sydney at the Artransa Studios in Frenchs Forest.

The program aired 6:30 weeknights for 30 mins. On Friday nights, the top 10 biggest-selling songs in Australia was counted down (using information from the ARIA Chart). Video clips were generally shown, but memorable appearances live on stage included Poison ("Nothin' but a Good Time"), Faith No More ("Epic"), Kylie Minogue ("Hand on Your Heart" and "Never Too Late"), Jason Donovan ("Sealed with a Kiss"), Collette ("All I Wanna Do Is Dance" and "That's What I Like About You"), Brother Beyond ("He Ain't No Competition"), Indecent Obsession ("Say Goodbye"), Martika ("I Feel The Earth Move"), James Freud ("One Fine Day") and many more.

The hour-long Batdance competition was a high-rating show in November 1989, where Molly Meldrum aided in the judging of the talent from the state finalists.

The ABC's late-night continuous music show Rage replayed old episodes of Countdown Revolution in January 2012, and again in January 2015, including the first episode from 1989.

The Countdown Magazine continued to be published during the run of Countdown Revolution.

40th anniversary
Countdown, the show that epitomised the pop music scene in Australia for over a decade, celebrated the 40th anniversary of its debut with the release of an anthology album in 2014. A two-part 40th Anniversary TV special, "Countdown: Do Yourself A Favour", was broadcast on Sunday 16 November 2014. It was hosted by Julia Zemiro and included a guest appearance by Prince Charles. At the ARIA Music Awards of 2014 in November, both Countdown and Meldrum were inducted into the ARIA Hall of Fame – the first time a non-performing artist was inducted.

"Molly" television drama
A two-part documentary-drama about the life of Meldrum and his experiences with Countdown was created by Channel 7 in 2016. Episode one aired on 7 February 2016, while episode two aired on 14 February 2016. Australian actor Samuel Johnson starred as Meldrum, with Tom O'Sullivan as Shrimpton and T.J. Power as Weekes. It tells of the rise and fall of Countdown, its production struggles and various other tales about the music groups that went on it. The show received predominantly positive ratings.

Rage: Countdown
The show lived up to its name when it angered devoted viewers by slashing its top 50 in mid-2006 and playing videos freeform. But nearly a decade after that controversial decision, a new segment called "The Chart" hit the silver screen. Rage now regularly plays chart hits with a 'Countdown' of the most popular videos from the ARIA singles

Classic Countdown
On 17 September 2017, the ABC commenced airing a retrospective of the show, comprising 13 one hour episodes. Each episode focused on one year from 1975 to 1987, showcasing live performances from the show, interviews and Molly's Humdrum. Voice over narration is supplied by recording artists who appeared on the show. The show was programmed to air in Countdown's original Sunday 6pm slot.

New Year's Eve: Countdown Live
For the 2017 Sydney New Year's Eve live show and broadcast on the ABC, there was a countdown to midnight and the fireworks. The show was themed like the Countdown show, with many live artists including Casey Donovan, Jimmy Barnes, Phil Jamieson, Isiah Firebrace and more. The show had the Countdown theme song and some of the same graphics. Ian "Molly" Meldrum did not return to host. The stage also had the Countdown logo.

Compilation albums
A series of popular CD compilations have been released by ABC Music, with selective tracks as featured on the original series.

 * Notes
 * ° Australian DVD Compilation Chart.

title: Countdown (Australian TV program)


text:
Colin Macfarquhar

Colin Macfarquhar (1744/5 – 2 April 1793) was a Scottish bookseller and printer who is most known for co-founding Encyclopædia Britannica with Andrew Bell, first published in December 1768. The dates of his birth and death remain uncertain, even to Britannica itself.

Biography
Macfarquhar was born in Edinburgh to his father James Macfarquhar who was a wigmaker and his mother Margaret. His formal education ended when he was apprenticed to a printing firm and achieved the status of a master printer in 1767. On 13 December 1767 Macfarquhar married Jane whose father, James Scruton, was an accountant in Glasgow. Macfarquhar and Jane had one son and four daughters.

Macfarquhar opened a printing shop in Edinburgh one or two years after getting married. The first edition of Britannica was sold at his printing office in Nicolson Street. Macfarquhar also contributed heavily to the second and third editions of Britannica.

title: Colin Macfarquhar


text:
Johannes Thiele (zoologist)

Karl Hermann Johannes Thiele (1 October 1860 – 5 August 1935) was a German zoologist specialized in malacology. Thiele was born in Goldap, East Prussia. His Handbuch der systematischen Weichtierkunde (English edition published by the Smithsonian under the title Handbook of Systematic Malacology) is a standard work. From 1904 until his retirement in 1925 he was the curator of the malacological collection at the Museum für Naturkunde (Museum of Natural History) in Berlin. Thiele described more than 1.500 new species of molluscs; until today their types are deposited with the Museum of Natural History in Berlin. Especially important are his works on the Mollusca of the First German Antarctica Expedition and of the German Deep Sea Expedition aboard the vessel Valdivia.

Thiele's classification of Gastropoda has been in use up to the past decade. It modified an earlier concept of Henri Milne-Edwards (1848) with three subclasses: Prosobranchia, Opisthobranchia and Pulmonata. Thiele's classification was based on overall similarity between the species. This classification has been modified over the years, one recent example being the classification of Ponder & Lindberg, 1997, based on phylogenetic arguments. He became the first to describe Geodia exigua in 1898.

title: Johannes Thiele (zoologist)