text:
Talk:Harry Kim (Star Trek)

Naomi
Its amazing that Wikipedia had an article on Naomi Wildman, but not on Ensign Kim, whose a main character and whose actor is credited in the opening credits. But on deeper reflection, he's one of the more boring characters on Voyager. Perhaps the creators were afraid to offend Asians, so they made his character bland. ShutterBugTrekker 19:34, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Harry Kim the mayor and Harry Kim the fictional character
I think we are going to have to turn this into a disambiguation page, pointing to Harry Kim (Star Trek) and Harry Kim (mayor). Normally, I'm loath to append "(Star Trek)" to the title of an article on a Star Trek character, but in this case it appears that the mayor may have a stronger claim to having the article "Harry Kim" without any parenthetical clarifications. ShutterBugTrekker 23:40, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I looked at Naming conventions for guidance on this issue. I did not find anything that gave a clear directive to this specific case. But, given my understanding of the naming conventions, this is what I think we should do: like it or not, Harry Kim the fictional Star Trek character is more widely known so he keeps the article titled Harry Kim. Harry Kim the mayor gets Harry Kim (mayor). Robert Happelberg 14:29, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I think it would be much more fair to use this page as a disambiguation page and link them to Harry Kim (fictional) and Harry Kim (politician). --Gerald Farinas 16:29, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Agree with you the Council does, Gerald Farinas, except on the small detail of what to put in parenthesis for the fictional character. For Star Trek characters needing disambiguation, the usual format is characterName (Star Trek), so in this case we would have Harry Kim (Star Trek). Though I suppose Harry Kim(fictional) would be OK since as far as I know there are no other fictional universes besides Star Trek with a Harry Kim. ShutterBugTrekker 18:59, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Should future years be linked?
I'm of the opinion that future years should not be linked, because even if there are articles for those future years, most Wikipedians generally disapprove of putting fictional events in those articles. ShutterBugTrekker 21:00, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Middle names
Memory Alpha suggests that Kim's middle initials are S. L. Does anyone have a source on this or know what they stand for? 81.77.238.24 23:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

It is seen on a personnel file in the episode "Non Sequiter." Willie 09:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions
I think the article could be improved with the outright removal of the very confusing 'menacing subtext' section and the Trivia section

Lots42 23:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, and since no one has objected, I am going to remove the trivia section myself. Ejfetters 06:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

More suggestions
1) Add in the other times Kim has actually died.

2) I don't think a holographic simulation is an active indicator of a personality trait. Especially since Seska wrote it. In either case, it's no surprise that a Starfleet Ensign sticks by his Captain. That's what they are trained to do. Lots42 (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Duplicates of what?
Okay, there seems to be a huge debate on which Harry Kim and which Voyager died. Lots42 (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I did some research. Startrek.com, pretty darn official, says the duplicated ship, the undamaged one, blew itself up to save the damaged one. http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/features/specials/article/1668.html Lots42 (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Bottom line is that harry kim died in deadlock. It's the same as if I were to make a clone of you and then kill you. The clone might be identical in every single respect to you. But you are still dead. For futher reference, watch The 6th Day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is disagreement in fandom, simply state it. "Startrek.com says so-and-so, while [someone else who can be referenced or linked to] interprets that such-and-such happened". No reason the article needs to take a definitive position on which interpretation is correct if there is legitimate room for disagreement. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not believe there is legit room for disagreement. I believe the episode states very clearly which Kim did what. Lots42 (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If the real ship was the one that blew up, we would have a whole lot more problems. We would have to change each and every one of the crew member's bios to say that they died on 2372. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The real Harry Kim & the real Naomi Wildman lived, while their duplicate versions died. For the rest of the crew, the real versions died, while their duplicate versions lived.  A "Harry Kim" and a "Kathryn Janeway" still lived, so there is no reason to include a death date.  I will prove this fact.  The real Voyager had no damage, but the duplicate Voyager had massive damage, because the anti-matter wasn't duplicated (as Janeway mentions in the episode).  When Harry & Naomi crosses over, you can see damage done to the Voyager he crossed into; therefore, it had to be the damaged (i.e. duplicate) Voyager.  Also, when the Vidiians attacked Voyager, it was the real one.  You can tell this because they enter the bridge, which was not damaged on the real Voyager (in fact, nothing was).  On the duplicate Voyager, it was so damaged, it was evacuated and Engineering became the new bridge (as Janeway mentions). Mr. College (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cite, please. Lots42 (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to my argument, then watch the episode Deadlock. In that episode, Janeway says that in a Kent State University experiment, anti-matter was not able to be duplicated.  The damaged Voyager was damaged because of their lack of anti-matter, which only happened on the duplicate Voyager.  They continued to get damaged when the real Voyager started emitting proton bursts.  One Voyager was already damaged before the proton bursts were emitted, so the lack of anti-matter (on the duplicate Voyager) played a role in the damaging of the duplicate Voyager.  Also in the episode, Harry & Naomi cross from the undamaged Voyager to the damaged Voyager.  Since the damaged Voyager is the duplicate Voyager, that means that they went from the real Voyager to the duplicate Voyager, thus showing that Harry & Naomi were the real people and not the duplicate people. Mr. College (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I disagree with your synopsis of the teaser. The ship that we start following notices that it's running out of antimatter. They are about to start the photon bursts to combat the lack of antimatter when they're hit and damaged by a series of photon bursts that they didn't start (which we soon learn is coming from the other Voyager). So if the other Voyager is sending them out, that means that both Voyagers are quickly running out of antimatter (because they're both drawing from the same reservoir). It's not a case where one Voyager (the 'original') kept all the Antimatter and left the other ship without any. It's a case that the Antimatter wasn't duplicated, and both ships are drawing on the same supply (which causes it to run out twice as fast). Hence, both ships try to start Photon bursts to reinforce the antimatter, and the one that gets them setup first starts to damage the other one. Basically, I don't think that the presence or lack of damage could in any way lead us to conclude which was the 'original'. The only basis we have for that decision is to assume that the episode starts on the 'original' ship, which is the one that also survives at the end (because it's the one that looses its Harry and Naomi, and has to replace them from the duplicate ship). --Maelwys (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

 * How do you believe that one of the Voyagers got damaged? Mr. College (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "when they're hit and damaged by a series of photon bursts that they didn't start (which we soon learn is coming from the other Voyager)" --Maelwys (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What facts do you use to conclude that the real Voyager was damaged and not the duplicate Voyager? Mr. College (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (resetting indent) "Basically, I don't think that the presence or lack of damage could in any way lead us to conclude which was the 'original'. The only basis we have for that decision is to assume that the episode starts on the 'original' ship, which is the one that also survives at the end (because it's the one that looses its Harry and Naomi, and has to replace them from the duplicate ship)" --Maelwys (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * However, we don't know for sure it starts out on the real ship. It could start out on the duplicate ship.  As you said, there is no evidence to conclude which ship is which, so it is just as likely the ship at the beginning is the real one as it is the duplicate one. Mr. College (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Good, then we agree. It could just as easily start out on the real ship as it could on the duplicate ship. From the episode alone, there's no way to know. Thus, you can't say for a fact that the real Harry and the real Naomi are the ones that crossed over, and that everybody else was replaced by their dopplegangers from this episode forward, which appears to be what you're stating above. And lacking any way to officially confirm the show, we have to look at any other official sources. Since startrek.com says that the duplicate is the one that blew up, and the original continued onwards, and that doesn't contradict what we saw in the show, we have to accept it. The real ship with the duplicate Harry and Naomi aboard, is the one that survived past this episode. --Maelwys (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * However, you're assuming that startrek.com is correct. Yes, it's the official website but there could be incorrect information on it.  If we don't know what ship it is on, then we can't conclude which ship survived. Mr. College (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So we could turn to the Encyclopedia...but, there might be a typo here. Perhaps the shooting script...but, maybe the director changed things on the set. Eh. The ambiguity makes for a (potentially) fun thinking exercise, but insofar as the article is concerned, information from the generally reliable site maintained by the show's owners will suffice. --EEMIV (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

199.43.12.100 (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)You can all debate this as much as you want. The bottom line is that Harry Kim died, and was replaced by a duplicate - simple as that. Any other view is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the episode in question. This said, given that we are talking about someone who actually turned down casual sex with Seven of Nine, maybe he is better off dead?

My most recent edit
I removed the bit saying Harry Kim is extremely loyal to Janeway; this is pretty obvious by default. Also, what a holoprogram writer has a holo-character do means little to nothing in relation with the real (as real as Harry Kim can get, being fictional) person's character. Lots42 (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Above
I'm not getting myself involved in anymore 'Alive or dead' discussions, just for the record. I'm standing behind my request for nuetral editors to help out, please. Lots42 (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

 * How about this? I've viewed the episode description for "Deadlock", and it appears to not distinguish whether it was the real Harry or the duplicate Harry that lived.  What about doing something similar to this page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. College (talk • contribs) 03:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Please see my above statement. To any nuetral editors; please see the Naomi article as of this date. Lots42 (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Character history
Why did the fictional character history vanish? I am confused. Lots42 (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Character Development
This entire section seems to be just complaints about the series that the actor voiced. What does that have to do with the character?75.199.68.63 (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I moved it. Lots42 (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted the deletion because it still, although showing what he didn't like, showed how his caracter developed because of those actions throughout the seasons. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  13:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Promotion to Leutenant
On April, 30th 2011 at FedCon 20 in Düsseldorf, Germany, Scott Bacula promoted Harry Kim to Leutenant on stage after his panel. ;-) --46.115.5.43 (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

additional source(s)

 * "Straight Talk with Voyager’s Garrett Wang, Part I" —   fourthords  | =Λ= |  17:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Harry Kim (Star Trek). 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/20121006002404/http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/magazines/voyager_page_5.jpg to http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/magazines/voyager_page_5.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110828150057/http://www.ugo.com/tv/what-if-crazy-tv-stories-star-trek-voyager to http://www.ugo.com/tv/what-if-crazy-tv-stories-star-trek-voyager
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121122233320/http://trekweb.com/articles/2012/09/19/Garrett-Wang-Returns-to-the-Role-of-Harry-Kim-in-Star-Trek-Renegades-Independent-Web-Pilot-Manu-Intiraymi-Returns-as-Icheb.shtml to http://trekweb.com/articles/2012/09/19/Garrett-Wang-Returns-to-the-Role-of-Harry-Kim-in-Star-Trek-Renegades-Independent-Web-Pilot-Manu-Intiraymi-Returns-as-Icheb.shtml

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) 04:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Voyager absences
Fair Trade Blood Fever Goojrr (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Harry Kim (Star Trek)


text:
Patent claim

In a patent or patent application, the claims define in technical terms the extent, i.e. the scope, of the protection conferred by a patent, or the protection sought in a patent application. In other words, the purpose of the claims is to define which subject-matter is protected by the patent (or sought to be protected by the patent application). This is termed as the "notice function" of a patent claim—to warn others of what they must not do if they are to avoid infringement liability. The claims are of paramount importance in both prosecution and litigation.

For instance, a claim could read:
 * "An apparatus for catching mice, said apparatus comprising a base, a spring member coupled to the base, and ..."
 * "A chemical composition for cleaning windows, said composition substantially consisting of 10–15% ammonia, ..."
 * "Method for computing future life expectancies, said method comprising gathering data including X, Y, Z, analyzing the data, comparing the analyzed data results..."

Background
In most jurisdictions, a patent is a right to exclude others from making, using, importing, selling or offering for sale the subject matter defined by the claims when the claim is for a thing (apparatus, composition of matter, system, etc.). If a claim is for a method, the right to exclude would be to exclude any single party from carrying out all the steps of the claim. In order to exclude someone from using a patented invention, the patent owner, or patentee, needs to demonstrate in a court proceeding that what the other person is using falls within the scope of a claim of the patent; therefore, it is more valuable to obtain claims that include the minimal set of limitations that differentiate an invention over what came before (i.e., the so-called prior art). But the fewer the limitations in a claim, the more likely it is that the claim will cover, or "read on", what came before and be rejected during examination or found to be invalid at a later time for obviousness or lack of novelty.

History
Patents have not always contained claims. In many European countries, patents did not contain claims until the 1970s. Before that time, it was often difficult to decide whether a product infringed a patent, since the sole basis to know the extent of protection was the description, in view of the prior art.

Interestingly, American inventors started using claims in their patent applications decades before the authorities (either judicial or legislative) started to require claims in patents. The very first person who used in a US patent application the term "claim" in its current meaning is believed to be Isaiah Jennings in 1807. Claims were recommended in published patents in the Third Patent Act (1836) and finally became mandatory in the Fourth Patent Act (1870).

However, even among patent legal systems in which the claims are used as the reference to decide the scope of protection conferred by a patent, the way the claims are used may vary substantially. Traditionally, two types of claiming systems exist:
 * the "central claiming system", according to which the claims identify the "centre" of the patented invention. The exact scope of the protection depends on the actual nature of the inventor's contribution to the art in the concerned technology.
 * the "peripheral claiming system", according to which the claims identify the exact periphery, or boundary, of the conferred protection. In this system, the burden of drafting good claims is much higher on the patent applicant (or on his or her counsel). The applicant receives the protection he or she requested and almost nothing more, provided that the invention is new and non-obvious. This theoretically makes it easier for third parties to examine whether infringement may exist or not.

No patent system today is a purely either central or peripheral, but the system used in Germany and most of the other countries of continental Europe is considered more central than the system currently used in the United Kingdom, the United States, and especially Japan, which are more peripheral. In recent years, Japan's system has become more peripheral, while the system used in the United States was becoming more central because of the increasing resort in US patent litigation to the doctrine of equivalents to expand claim scope unpredictably, until the US Supreme Court reversed that trend in the Warner-Jenkinson case in 1997.

Requirements and structure
In most modern patent laws, patent applications must have at least one claim, which are critical defining elements of the patent and the primary subject of examination. In some patent laws however, a date of filing may be obtained for an application which does not contain any claim.

European Patent Convention
Under the European Patent Convention (EPC), a claim must define the matter for which the protection is sought in terms of technical features. The convention itself pertains to a procedure to secure a European patent. These technical features can be either structural (e.g. a nail, a rivet) or functional (e.g. fastening means).

Regarding the structure of a claim, under the EPC, what is called the "preamble" is different from the meaning the "preamble" has under U.S. patent law. In an independent claim in Europe, the preamble is everything which precedes the expression "characterized in that" or "characterized by" in a claim written according to the so-called "two-part form", and therefore everything which is regarded as known in combination within one prior art document, namely the closest prior art document. For this reason, in Europe, the preamble of a claim is sometimes also called "pre-characterizing portion".

United States
A claim may include the following parts:

 * A preamble that recites the class of the invention, and optionally its primary properties, purpose, or field: "An apparatus..." "A therapeutic method for treating cancer..." "A composition having an affinity for protein X..." This preamble may also reference another claim and refine it, e.g., "The method of claim 1..." (See "dependent claim" below.).
 * A "transitional" phrase that characterizes the elements that follow. The phrases "comprising", "containing" and "including" are most often used and (under some patent laws, specifically US) preferable, as it means "having at least the following elements..." and are therefore open (inclusive) and do not exclude additional limitations. The phrases "consisting of" and "consisting essentially of" are (under some patent laws, specifically US) more limiting, as they mean "having all and only" or "virtually only" and are therefore closed (exclusive).  In the US, the phrase "consisting of" excludes additional limitations, while the phrase "consisting essentially of" excludes additional limitations that would "materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s) of the claimed invention".
 * A set of "limitations" that together describe the invention: "an X, a Y, and a Z connected to the X and the Y." The elements should be described as though they interact or cooperate to achieve the desired result.
 * Optionally, a purpose clause that further describes the overall operation of the invention, or the goal that the invention achieves ("wherein the Z simultaneously controls the X and Y," or "wherein the Z accomplishes purpose W by controlling X and Y," etc.). "Wherein" clauses limit the scope of the claim. Other forms of purpose language are "whereby" and "thereby" clauses, similar to the "wherein" clauses just described, and statements of intended use in a claim preamble (depending on facts of case, preamble may or may not limit claim scope; in this case it was the "essence of the invention").

Basic types and categories
There are two basic types of claims:
 * the independent claims, which stand on their own, and
 * the dependent claims, which depend on a single claim or on several claims and generally express particular embodiments as fall-back positions.

The expressions "in one embodiment", "in a preferred embodiment", "in a particular embodiment", "in an advantageous embodiment" or the like often appear in the description of patent applications and are used to introduce a particular implementation or method of carrying out the invention. These various embodiments may or may not each be claimed with specificity. They might serve as multiple examples of a more general "genus" that is claimed. In some cases the examiner might declare that what the applicant presented as variations of one invention are actually separate inventions that need to be examined individually.

An independent ("stand alone") claim does not refer to an earlier claim, whereas a dependent claim does refer to an earlier claim, assumes all of the limitations of that claim and then adds restrictions (e.g. "The handle of claim 2, wherein it is hinged.") Each dependent claim is, by law, narrower than the independent claim upon which it depends. Although this results in coverage narrower than provided by the independent claim upon which the second claim depends, it is additional coverage, and there are many advantages to the patent applicant in submitting and obtaining a full suite of dependent claims:

 * Clarification/broadening of the independent claim: Independent claims are typically written with broad terms, to avoid permitting competitors to circumvent the claim by altering some aspect of the basic design. But when a broad wording is used, it may raise a question as to the scope of the term itself. If a dependent claim is specifically drawn to a narrower interpretation, then, at least in the U.S., the doctrine of claim differentiation states that the scope of the independent claim is strongly presumed be different from, and therefore broader than, the scope of the dependent claim. The doctrine dictates that it "is improper for courts to read into an independent claim a limitation explicitly set forth in another claim." This means that if an independent claim recites a chair with a plurality of legs, and a dependent claim depending from the independent recites a chair with four legs, the independent claim is not limited to what is recited in the dependent claim. The dependent claim protects chairs with four legs, and the independent claim protects chairs with four legs as well as chairs having two, three, five or more legs. Similarly, it may be unclear whether a "base" includes a "set of legs." A dependent claim, including the phrase, "wherein said base comprises a set of legs," if allowed by the patent examiner, clarifies that the word "base" in the independent claim does not necessarily include legs. In practice, dependent claims are often used to home in on the inventor's preferred embodiment of the invention (e.g., the actual product design that the inventor intends to use.) The independent claim broadly describes the invention; dependent claim #1 describes the invention in a narrower aspect that more specifically describes the preferred embodiment; dependent claim #2 is narrower still; etc.

 * Possible invalidity of independent claim: It is impossible to know, when beginning the application process and even at the time of patent issuance, if a patent claim is valid. This is because any publication dated before the application's priority date and published anywhere in any language can invalidate the claim (excluding publications by the inventor published during the grace period in certain countries such as U.S., Canada and Japan). Furthermore, even applications that were not yet published at the time of filing, but have a priority date prior to the priority date of the application, can also invalidate the claim. As it is impossible to gain an absolute and complete knowledge of every publication on earth, not to mention unpublished patent applications, there is always some degree of uncertainty. If the independent claim is determined to be invalid, however, a dependent claim may nevertheless survive, and may still be broad enough to bar competitors from valuable commercial territory.

Under the European Patent Convention, when a claim in one particular category (see below), e.g. a process claim, depends on a claim from a different category, e.g. a product claim, it is not considered to be a dependent claim but an independent claim. Under U.S. law, this is still counted as a dependent claim, regardless of the class change.

The rules of claim drafting also permit "multiple dependent claims" that reference more than one other claim, e.g.: "3. Method of claim 1 or 2, further comprising..." The rules for this are quite specific: specific claims must be referenced ("the method of any of these other claims" is incorrect); the claims must be referenced in the alternative ("the method of claims 1 and 2" is incorrect); etc. While still acceptable, this claim style is seldom used in the U.S. because it is counted for filing fee purposes according to the number of claims that it references. Thus, if the claim depends from three former claims, it is counted for fee purposes as three dependent claims. In light of the "excess claim" fees currently imposed by the USPTO, this tactic can quickly become expensive. Multiple dependent claims are, however, very commonly used in other jurisdictions, including Europe.

Claims can also be classified in categories, i.e. in terms of what they claim. A claim can refer to In the United States, these categories are referred to as the four statutory categories of invention, and they are: processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. Notably, printed matter (including data stored on a computer drive) and signals (such as transient electromagnetic waves, (see in Re Nujten). ) do not belong to any of the four statutory categories and are not patentable in US. However, such signals are considered patentable by the European Patent Office (EPO).
 * a physical entity, i.e. a product (or material) or an apparatus (or device, system, article, ...). The claim is then called respectively "product claim" or "apparatus claim"; or
 * an activity, i.e. a process (or method) or a use. The claim is then called respectively "process claim" (or method claim) or "use claim".

The "process" claims have been the most controversial, particularly in cases, when processes involve transformations of non-statutory (and/or non-physical) entities, such as data into data, or electronic money exchange. Three US Supreme Court justices (Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer) in their concurring opinion in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International suggested, that all business methods should be excluded from patentability: "[A]ny claim that merely describes a method of doing business does not qualify as a process under § 101." However, the SCOTUS refused to accept this position so far, and some business method patent claims are possible in the US, although the case law in the area is still evolving (see Software patents under United States patent law).

Special types of claims
In addition to aforementioned four statutory categories of claims, there are also many other "flavours" of claims, which are used in different circumstances. Sometimes a particular claim form is required by law if a patent is to be granted for a particular invention, such as for a second medical use of a known substance where the "Swiss-type" claim might be required. Another reason to use a particular claim might be to catch a particular class of infringer.

Interpretation or claim construction
The claims often use precise language. Certain words commonly used in claims have specific legal meanings determined by one or more court decisions. These meanings may be different from common usage. For instance, the word "comprises", when used in the claims of a United States patent, means "consists at least of". By contrast, the word "consists" means "consists only of", which will lead to a very different scope of protection.

Construction, whether of a patent or any other document, is of course not directly concerned with what the author meant to say. There is no window into the mind of the patentee or the author of any other document. Construction is objective in the sense that it is concerned with what a reasonable person to whom the utterance was addressed would have understood the author to be using the words to mean. Notice, however, that it is not, as is sometimes said, "the meaning of the words the author used", but rather what the notional addressee would have understood the author to mean by using those words. The meaning of words is a matter of convention, governed by rules, which can be found in dictionaries and grammars. What the author would have been understood to mean by using those words is not simply a matter of rules. It is highly sensitive to the context of and background to the particular utterance. It depends not only upon the words the author has chosen but also upon the identity of the audience he is taken to have been addressing and the knowledge and assumptions which one attributes to that audience.

In U.S. patent practice at least, inventors may "act as their own lexicographer" in a patent application. That means that an inventor may give a common word or phrase a meaning that is very specific and different from the normal definition of said word or phrase. Thus a claim must be interpreted in light of the definitions provided in the specification of a patent. The specification of a patent is a written description of how to make and use the invention (see also: sufficiency of disclosure).

Traditionally the USPTO used for claims interpretation during patent examination a "broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with specification" standard, while the US courts in suits for patent infringement, during a Markman hearing, a claim is interpreted using a narrower standard. This duality (broader during examination, narrower during litigation) is used to prevent patentees from enforcing in courts broader claims than were examined by the USPTO. However, on November 13, 2018 the USPTO switched to the claim construction standard established by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

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

title: Patent claim


text:
Consultation on Church Union

The Consultation on Church Union (COCU) was an effort towards church unity in the United States, that began in 1962 and in 2002 became the Churches Uniting in Christ. It was a significant part of the Christian movement towards ecumenism. This effort can be seen in the context of the worldwide ecumenical attitude that was manifested in the 1948 formation of the World Council of Churches, the 1950 formation of the National Council of Churches, the 1957 formation of the United Church of Christ, and the formation of the Roman Catholic Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity during the Second Vatican Council (which occurred from 1962 to 1965). The original task of COCU was to negotiate a consensus between its member denominations (originally the Protestant Episcopal Church, the Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ, and the UPCUSA).

Origin
On December 4, 1960, Eugene Carson Blake, the stated clerk of the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., on the invitation of Episcopal Bishop James Pike, delivered a sermon at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco, in which he proposed the creation of a Protestant "superchurch". In response, the UPCUSA's General Assembly, approved an overture at its General Assembly meeting to work together with the Protestant Episcopal Church in order to invite the Methodist Church and the United Church of Christ to explore the concept of union. The Episcopal church accepted the invitation. Representatives from the four churches met in Washington, D.C. in 1961 and proposed a first official meeting of the churches for the following year at the College of Preachers and Wesley Theological Seminary. It was at that 1962 meeting that the group, which had come to include the Presbyterian Church in the United States, the mainline "Southern Presbyterians", first called itself the "Consultation on Church Union". The first churches to be invited to join COCU beyond the first four were the International Convention of Christian Churches (Disciples), the Polish National Catholic Church, and the Evangelical United Brethren Church, which later merged with the Methodist Church to form the United Methodist Church. All North American churches were invited to send observers. At the next meeting, in 1963, the Disciples of Christ joined, and it was decided to stop sending individual invitations and instead simply accept applications. 16 other churches attended the 1963 meeting as observers.

Time magazine reported that a meeting in Dallas in May 1966 produced a timetable for merger that called for "creation and ratification of a union plan within 13 years, followed by some 30 years of federation during which a constitution will be prepared." Among delegates from the eight churches then involved were Methodist theologian Albert Outler, Episcopal bishop Robert Gibson of Virginia, and United Church of Christ minister David Colwell. By 1967, ten churches (including two pairs, Presbyterian and Methodist, which later merged) were members of the consultation:

 * African Methodist Episcopal Church
 * African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church
 * Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
 * Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
 * Episcopal Church
 * Evangelical United Brethren Church
 * Methodist Church
 * Presbyterian Church in the U.S.
 * United Church of Christ
 * United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.

The 1970 Plan of Union
Despite intense negotiations, membership of the denominations overwhelmingly rejected the "Plan of Union" when it was proposed in 1970. Much agreement was reached on the first six and a half chapters of the proposal ("From Unity to Union", "What it Means to be God's People", "To Be Members in This Community", "The Living Faith", "This People at Worship", and the first half of "To Be Ministers of Christ"), but when specifics of ministry came up, there was significant disagreement.

In 1972 after the devastation caused by Hurricane Agnes in the Wilkes-Barre/Kingston, Pennsylvania, area, the Methodist Church and Presbyterian Church, one block apart in Kingston, considered the wisdom of spending so much money to reconstitute two expensive buildings. Quickly the discussion moved from "Should we merge?" to a discussion of "Is there any reason we should NOT merge?" The pastors talked with denominational leaders and worked on a plan after chatting extensively with COCU in Princeton, NJ, and receiving excellent direction for their idea. In October 1973, the new entity came into existence: The Church of Christ Uniting in Kingston, PA. More information can be obtained from The Church of Christ Uniting, Market Street, Kingston, PA, 18704.

Intercommunion
A key phrase associated with COCU was “catholic and reformed” (later, “catholic, evangelical, and reformed”). With the failure of the Plan of Union that had become clear by 1972, COCU turned in 1973 to negotiating "intercommunion", whereby each member church would retain its own autonomy and identity, while recognizing the validity of the rites, membership, and ministry of the others and accepting them as true churches. This proposal, submitted to the churches in 1979, was titled "The COCU Consensus: In Quest of a Church of Christ Uniting". It was one part of a three part proposal; the other two parts were first published as "Covenanting Toward Community: From Consensus to Communion" and later republished with revisions in 1989 as "Churches in Covenant Communion".

Episcopal structure
The proposal contained in "Churches in Covenant Communion" was to be done on the historic episcopal model of bishop, presbyter and deacon. The document was approved by seven churches: the ICC (1989), the CME church (1994), the Disciples of Christ (1995), the AME church, AMEZ church, UCC, and UMC (1996). However, the Presbyterian Church USA was unwilling to implement some of the changes to its internal rules that this model would require and had concerns over the role of elders (presbyters), and the Episcopal Church did not feel able to participate at the time, having concerns about the role of bishops (episcopacy). It was then proposed that intercommunion be established without a resolution of the ministry issue. It was stated that "full reconciliation of ministries, as well as resolution of any remaining challenges, is a goal we seek to accomplish and proclaim by the time of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity 2007."

Dissolution
After forty years of talks, COCU voted (in 1999) to dissolve in 2002 and to reconstitute itself as Churches Uniting in Christ (CUIC).

Documents

 * Blake, Eugene Carson, "A Proposal Toward the Reunion of Christ's Church", preached in Grace Cathedral, San Francisco, December 4, 1960.

COCU produced several ecumenically developed texts:
 * The Principles of Church Union
 * A Plan of Union for the Church of Christ Uniting,
 * Mutual Recognition of Members in One Baptism,
 * In Quest of a Church of Christ Uniting
 * The COCU Consensus
 * Covenanting Toward Community
 * Churches in Covenant Communion
 * Lenten booklets such as Liberation and Unity,
 * the COCU liturgy of the Lord’s Supper,

Notable people involved in the COCU effort

 * Eugene Carson Blake
 * Albert J. duBois Episcopalian opponent
 * Arthur Marshall
 * Harold Johnson
 * Robert Taylor
 * James McCord

title: Consultation on Church Union


text:
Mohammedia

Mohammedia (المحمدية), known until 1960 as Fedala (فضالة), is a port city on the west coast of Morocco between Casablanca and Rabat in the region of Casablanca-Settat. It hosts the most important oil refinery of Morocco, Samir Refinery, which makes it the center of the Moroccan petroleum industry. It has a population of 208,612 according to the 2014 Moroccan census.

Early history
The harbor, which is now Mohammedia, was originally named Fedala (فضالة). The name comes from the Arabic words Fadl Allah (فضل الله) which means "favor of God". According to Graberg de Hemsö, it comes from Fayḍ Allāh, meaning "bounty of God". Traces still exist of its business role under the Almoravid dynasty. It was frequented in the 14th and 15th centuries by merchant ships from Europe seeking cereals and dried fruits.

In 1773, the Sultan Sidi Mohammed ben Abdallah made of Fédala a grains warehouse of Tamasna province and built the Kasbah to protect the shops for traders. He built the white masjid Al Atik as well.

French Protectorate
During the precolonial period, competition between the Western powers to ensure the economical exploitation of Africa was behind the merger of Europeans interests in the ports of Morocco. In the region of Fédala, the German family Mannesmann acquired a large area of land.

The Treaty of November 4, 1911 between France and Germany on the partition of Africa forced the Mannesmann family to abandon the lands they held for Georges and Jacques Hersent, two French industrialists, who noticed the existence of a natural bay, valuable for the creation of a large port at low cost.

The group Hersent created the Franco-Moroccan company in 1912 and founded the port company in 1914 that took a leading part in the development of Fédala. The rapid growth of the city started around the port, which allowed the development of various industries such as canning fishery products, agro-industry plants, tannery, textile, etc..

The seaside town took shape in 1925 and the Esplanade was built in 1938. The construction of the sea line in 1951 made of Fédala the first and most modern oil port in North Africa.

The church of Saint James (Saint Jacques), which overlooks the main square, was erected in 1934 by Jean and Georges Hersent, in memory of their son and nephew Jacques (3 February 1893 - 26 July 1917), who died at the Marne during the First World War.

Battle of Fedala
US Army invaded Fédala from the Atlantic on November 8, 1942 as part of operation Torch. The invasion was carried out by the Center Attack Group of the Western Task Force which landed on the Atlantic coast of Morocco. The landing began at 4 AM.

New city

Fédala was renamed Mohammedia on 25 June 1960 in honor of King Mohammed V, the restorer of Moroccan independence, on the occasion of laying the foundation stone of the Samir oil refinery. The new name indicates the modern character of this city. Today, the city serves as both a seaside resort and a manufacturing center.

Mohammedia is also a resort city containing a golf and tennis club, casino and many other recreational activities. In addition, people call it madinat lwurud wa riyada which means "city of flowers and sports".

Within the past decade, Mohammedia's beaches "Sablet & Mimosa" have drawn many people from Casablanca, and its nearby cities. Sablet and Mimosa have been under development, building new beach condos, villas, as well as more investments in small businesses which creates more jobs. Summer is simply the best season in Mohammedia being that there is more involvement due to an increase of the population. There is a wide range of outdoor activities including basketball, soccer, surfing, and fishing. The night life is a great experience to be part of, including several cafes, restaurants, clubs, and a boardwalk. A couple of beach residential areas that are good places for vacation are "Residence of Oubaha" and "Palm Beach." There are several other projects going on in the city of Mohammedia as well as infrastructure throughout the city.

On 22 December 2022, a huge explosion erupted after a gas storage facility went up in flames. Authorities claimed to have no casualties. Families and citizens living near the facility have evacuated the surroundings. After 2 hours of the incident, local authorities contained the fires caused by the explosion.

Location
Mohammedia lies along the Atlantic Ocean 15 mi Northeast of Casablanca. It is located between the outlets of the Rivers Oued El-Maleh and Oued Nfifikh and is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean to the North, Ben Slimane Province to the East and South, and the prefecture of Sidi Bernoussi-Zenata to the West.

Climate
Mohammedia has a hot-summer Mediterranean climate (Köppen climate classification Csa). The moderating effect of the Atlantic Ocean influences strongly on the city climate and makes its winter soft and warm, and its summer hot and cool. Mohammedia enjoys plenty of sunshine throughout the year with measurable precipitation annually.

The period of November through April is mild and rainy with average high temperatures of 63 to 70 F and lows of 46 to 53 F, however temperatures can occasionally drop to around 36 °F in the morning, or be as high as 75 °F for a few days during winter.

The period of May through October is warm to hot and dry with average high temperatures of 72 to 79 F and lows of 59 to 68 F, but temperatures can exceed 90 °F and occasionally reach 104 °F.

Most rainfall occurs from November to April, and the average annual precipitation is around 432 mm. Precipitation is most commonly in the form of light rain showers, but sometimes there is heavy rainfall and thunderstorms.

Subdivisions
The province is divided administratively into the following:

Demographics
The population of Mohammedia is growing at a fast rate. The city, which had a population of only 500 people in 1914, is currently home to about 204,000 people. The population of the prefecture of Mohammedia is estimated at 336,000 inhabitants with an average population density of 5000 PD/km2. All population groups of the Moroccan Kingdom are represented in this region. The first inhabitants of the city were the Zenata tribes, of which only few remain, divided territorially between Mohammedia and neighboring prefectures. Another Arab tribe of Mauritania, called Mjedba, settled between Fédala and Mediouna three centuries ago and are now twice as many as Zenata.

Sources : World Gazetter.

Education
The city has a French international school, Groupe Scolaire Claude Monet, serving moyenne section through collège (junior high school).

Municipality
Mohammedia, whose size has increased significantly during the second half of the 20th century, is becoming one of the biggest cities in Morocco. New neighborhoods are built in all the parts of the city and more people live in town.

The city is divided into 2 major distinct areas, the Kasbah area, the Al-Alia district.

Kasbah area
This area where stands the Kasbah extends from Souss Street to the Al-Wafaa subdivision. It represents the historical heart of the city and has marked a transitional compromise between an urbanism of modern buildings and monuments, and the forms of ancient old Medina. Many commercials and services exist along the narrow streets of the Kasbah and the boulevards of the surrounding area, such as clothing merchants, wool merchants and fruit sellers. This area, which represents the city center, hosts many administrations, mosques, restaurants, hotels and parks as well.
 * Subdivisions: The Kasbah, Al-Wafaa, Al-Marsa, Dyour Al-Qraii.
 * Famous places: Twin Towns Park, Mohamed V boulevard, the Corniche.
 * Infrastructures and mobility : The railway station, Moulay Abdellah Hospital, the Prefecture, Bachir Stadium.

Al-Alia
This district is located southern in the city on a gentle hill slope, which gives it the name Al-Alia that means the upper side. It was built in 1948 as a solution to the shantytowns problem, where rural population were living, attracted by the industrial development of the city and looking for a job.

Today, the district equals a small city in continuous expansion, equipped by all necessary facilities.
 * Ancient subdivisions: El Hassania, Derb Marrakech, Diour Doukkala, Derb Jamila, Derb Ourida, Derb Fath, Derb Douchmane, Riyad Salam, Derb Laâyoune, Hay Al-Houria.
 * New subdivisions : Hay El-Falah, Anfa, Rachidia, Hay Reda, Hay Nasr, Hay el-Fajr, La Colline, Hay Al-Wahda.
 * Infrastructures and mobility: The Municipal Theater, the Coach Station.

Port
The port of Mohammedia specialises in liquid bulk and petro-chemicals. Mohammedia imports crude oil and it gets refined upon arrival. The port exports fish, chlorine, and sodium carbonate from large factories within the city.

Notable People

 * Abderrahim Achchakir, International footballer
 * Abraham Serfaty, Moroccan political activist.
 * Eric Besson, French politician.
 * Ahmed Faras, Former international Moroccan football footballer.
 * Noureddine Ziyati, Moroccan footballer.
 * Tarik El Jarmouni, Moroccan football goalkeeper.
 * Reda El Amrani, Moroccan tennis player.
 * Jannat Mahid, Moroccan singer.
 * Mohamed Al Hachdadi, international volleyball player.
 * Marwane Saâdane, Moroccan footballer.
 * Abdelatif Noussir, moroccan footballer
 * Noureddine Kacemi, Former international footballer
 * Hassan Amcharrat, Former international footballer.
 * Tarik El Jarmouni, Former international goalkeeper.
 * Tarik Tnibar, footballer.
 * Rachid Rokki, Former international footballer.

Twin towns - Sister cities
Mohammedia is twinned with:

title: Mohammedia


text:
Talk:Sri Lankan Civil War

Use of advocacy groups as sources
@Oz346, it was clearly stated in the the RSN that advocacy groups such as ITJP statements by advocacy groups are WP:PRIMARY source. Hence can not be used as facts in an inforbox. Cossde (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

 * RSN said that it can be used with attribution, which it has. Oz346 (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Oz346, you have misunderstood the RSN. It said attribution can be made for their stance - as opinion and not as accepted fact. A inforbox contain facts. Cossde (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Who said that these figures have all been portrayed as "accepted fact"? This is why we have explicit attribution, to imply that the figure is "according to". I have now added the qualifier "estimates" to make it more clear. Even the UN figures which you re-added can not be regarded as established fact, hence why they are all explicitly attributed. Oz346 (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Oz346, no, the inforbox is not a WP:SOAPBOX for every advocacy group's opinion. That is why I simplified by keeping only the figures presented by the UN. That meets the WP WP:NPOV requirement. Cossde (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not advocacy nor a soapbox the current infobox. I don't know how anyone could get that impression. Statements by human rights groups and advocacy groups can be cited on wikipedia, if they have been explicitly attributed. And this has been done countless times on Wikipedia. The initial UN estimate regarding the total death toll for the whole conflict (100,000) is less accurate and contradicts their own later, more accurate figures. So the UN figures are certainly not always better in this regard. Oz346 (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Oz346, so you are saying the UN is not reliable? Cossde (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No i'm not saying that. Oz346 (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Oz346, you said  The initial UN estimate regarding the total death toll for the whole conflict (100,000) is less accurate and contradicts their own later, more accurate figures  , as I understand, you are saying that advocacy groups are more accurate than the UN. Cossde (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * no I'm not saying that. Individual statements of a group whether the UN or ITJP should be assessed on their own merits. It is possible for the UN to be more accurate in some statements, and less accurate in other statements (the 100,000 figure for the whole conflict is clearly inaccurate, and has already been discussed here years ago). In any case, the UN also advocates for human rights. By this questionable logic no human rights source can be cited.Oz346 (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Oz346, No that's not what you said before. You clearly said that UN figures are inaccurate. According to your early statement the advocacy groups have more merit that the UN. Now you are saying the UN is the same as advocacy groups. You are contradicting yourself. Cossde (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * no, I said that the first UN figure of 100,000 for the entire conflict is inaccurate. Their follow up figures of 40,000-75,000 for the final phase in 2009 are more accurate estimates. But it is likely closer to 100,000 for the last phase.
 * Please read what I have written carefully and aloud, so you do not miss what I say. Oz346 (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Oz346, there you go again, disputing the UN figures: 100,000 for the entire conflict is inaccurate, it is likely closer to 100,000 for the last phase. So according to you the UN is not reliable and the advocacy groups are. Cossde (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, under "Estimates of civilian death toll" in the infobox, the first three bullets have references which all say "people killed," not "civilians killed." Combatants could be included in that figure. SinhalaLion (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Corrected. Oz346 (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Oz346, you are yet to confirm on the reliability of the UN. Cossde (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I already answered you, you keep on misinterpreting what I am saying. We keep going around in circles. Please read my replies more carefully, read them aloud if you have to. Oz346 (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Oz346, you don't have to be uncivil by saying "read them aloud if you have to". I am trying to understand why you think that the advocacy groups are more reliable than the UN as a source for figures for an inforbox. Cossde (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sri Lankan Civil War


text:
Cessna 150

The Cessna 150 is a two-seat tricycle gear general aviation airplane that was designed for flight training, touring and personal use. In 1977, it was succeeded in production by the Cessna 152, a minor modification to the original design.

The Cessna 150 is the fifth most produced aircraft ever, with 23,839 produced. The Cessna 150 was offered for sale in named configurations that included the Standard basic model, the Trainer with dual controls, and the deluxe Commuter, along with special options for these known as Patroller options. Later, these configurations were joined by the top-end Commuter II and the aerobatic Aerobat models.

In 2007, Cessna announced a successor to the Model 150 and 152, the Model 162 Skycatcher.

Development

In the mid-1950s, Cessna Aircraft Company began development of a successor to the popular Cessna 140 which finished production in 1951. The resulting 142 was based on the 140, but had tricycle landing gear, which gives the aircraft more docile ground handling than the tailwheel landing gear of the 140; Cessna also replaced the rounded tips of the wings and empennage with more modern-looking, squared-off tips, and the narrow, hinged wing flaps of the 140 were replaced by larger, far more effective Fowler flaps.

The Cessna 142 prototype first flew on September 12, 1957, shortly before the aircraft was renamed to Model 150 in October. Production commenced in September 1958 at Cessna's Wichita, Kansas, plant. 1,764 aircraft were also produced by Reims Aviation under license in France. These French manufactured 150s were designated Reims F150 or Reims-Cessna F150, the "F" indicating they were built in France.

American-made 150s were all produced with the Continental O-200-A engine of 100 hp. Most Reims-built aircraft are powered by a Continental O-200-A built under license by Rolls-Royce, but some have the Rolls-Royce-built version of the Continental O-240-A.

All models from 1966 onwards have larger doors and increased baggage space. With the 1967 Model 150G, the doors were bowed outwards 1.5 in on each side to provide more cabin elbow room.

The 150 was succeeded in the summer of 1977 by the closely related Cessna 152. The 152 is more economical to operate due to the increased TBO (time between overhaul) of the Lycoming O-235 engine. The 152 had its flap travel limited to 30 degrees, from the 150's 40 degree flap deflection, for better climb with full flaps and the maximum certified gross weight was increased from 1,600 lb (726 kg) on the 150 to 1670 lb (757 kg) on the 152. Production of the 152 ended in 1985 when manufacturing of all Cessna piston singles was suspended.

Production
A total of 22,138 Cessna 150s were built in the United States, including 21,404 Commuters and 734 Aerobats. Reims Aviation completed 1,764 F150s, of which 1,428 were Commuters and 336 were Aerobats. A Reims affiliate in Argentina also assembled 47 F150s, including 38 Commuters and 9 Aerobats.

Of all the Cessna 150/152 models, the 1966 model year was the most plentiful with 3,067 1966 Cessna 150s produced. This was the first year the aircraft featured a swept tail fin, increased baggage area and electrically operated flaps.

Variants
Cessna has historically used model years like the U.S. automobile industry, with new models typically being introduced a few months prior to the actual calendar year.

 * The sole Model 142 prototype, registered N34258 (c/n 617), was built in 1957 as a tricycle landing gear development of the Cessna 140. Other changes included the addition of "Para-Lift" flaps and squared wingtips and tail surfaces.  The aircraft was powered by a 100 hp Continental O-200-A engine, was of an all-metal construction, and had a gross weight of 1500 lb.  First flown on September 12, 1957, the aircraft was subsequently redesignated to Model 150.
 * The sole Model 142 prototype, registered N34258 (c/n 617), was built in 1957 as a tricycle landing gear development of the Cessna 140. Other changes included the addition of "Para-Lift" flaps and squared wingtips and tail surfaces.  The aircraft was powered by a 100 hp Continental O-200-A engine, was of an all-metal construction, and had a gross weight of 1500 lb.  First flown on September 12, 1957, the aircraft was subsequently redesignated to Model 150.

 * Introduced for the 1959 model year, the production 150 was largely identical to the 142/150 prototype. The 1959 150 was offered in three configurations; the Standard, the most basic level with the fewest features; the upgraded Trainer, with dual flight controls, a more complete set of flight instruments for instrument flight rules operation, a radio, a landing light, and a few other features; and the top-of-the-line Inter-City Commuter (often called simply the Commuter), which added an engine vacuum pump, vacuum-driven heading and attitude indicators, and a revolving anti-collision beacon mounted on the vertical fin, along with all of the Trainer's features except for the dual flight controls.
 * For the 1960 model year, the generator in the Commuter was upgraded to 35 amperes. All 150s for 1959 had included a 20-ampere generator, and this was retained in the Standard and Trainer for 1960; the 35-ampere generator was offered as an option for these configurations. Also for 1960, the Patroller configuration was introduced for patrol-type work. These could be added, either together or selectively, to any 150 configuration, and included a "Patroller" wing with long-range fuel tanks that held a total of 38 usgal, instead of the standard 26 usgal in the normal wing; Patroller doors, with extra acrylic glass windows in the lower half for better visibility; and a message drop tube, for dropping messages and other small items through the cabin floor to the ground.
 * A total of 1017 were built, not including the 1957 prototype; 683 in 1959 and 334 in 1960.
 * A total of 1017 were built, not including the 1957 prototype; 683 in 1959 and 334 in 1960.

 * 1961 model year with 15% larger rear side windows, which offered slightly better rear visibility. The landing gear was also redesigned, shifting the main wheels aft by 2 in, but not changing the gear leg mountings. This shift of the main wheels made the aircraft less likely to tip back onto its tail during loading, and it also made the nose wheel bear more weight, which increased its steering effectiveness.  Other new features in the 150A included an instrument panel with a completely redesigned layout; flush inside door handles and nearly flush window latches, which made the 150's narrow cabin a bit less cramped, and optional individually adjustable seats.  332 built.
 * 1961 model year with 15% larger rear side windows, which offered slightly better rear visibility. The landing gear was also redesigned, shifting the main wheels aft by 2 in, but not changing the gear leg mountings. This shift of the main wheels made the aircraft less likely to tip back onto its tail during loading, and it also made the nose wheel bear more weight, which increased its steering effectiveness.  Other new features in the 150A included an instrument panel with a completely redesigned layout; flush inside door handles and nearly flush window latches, which made the 150's narrow cabin a bit less cramped, and optional individually adjustable seats.  332 built.

 * 1962 model year with a new McCauley 1A100/MCM6950 propeller replacing the Sensenich M69CK-52 of previous versions. The new propeller had the same diameter of 69 in, but its blade pitch was reduced, which increased the maximum cruise speed by about 3 mph and slightly improved the climb rate and service ceiling.  The original metal wingtips were replaced by more smoothly contoured fiberglass ones with a different shape, increasing the wingspan by about 2 in.  The optional two-passenger child seat for the baggage compartment, available from the very first 150, was completely redesigned for the 150B.  A new option was a simple autopilot, specifically for the Commuter version, called "Nav-O-Matic", a single-axis heading-hold type. Also newly offered for the 150B were optional "courtesy lights" in the underside of the wings to light the area around the doors when on the ground.  The Patroller message drop tube option, on the other hand, was eliminated.  350 built.
 * 1962 model year with a new McCauley 1A100/MCM6950 propeller replacing the Sensenich M69CK-52 of previous versions. The new propeller had the same diameter of 69 in, but its blade pitch was reduced, which increased the maximum cruise speed by about 3 mph and slightly improved the climb rate and service ceiling.  The original metal wingtips were replaced by more smoothly contoured fiberglass ones with a different shape, increasing the wingspan by about 2 in.  The optional two-passenger child seat for the baggage compartment, available from the very first 150, was completely redesigned for the 150B.  A new option was a simple autopilot, specifically for the Commuter version, called "Nav-O-Matic", a single-axis heading-hold type. Also newly offered for the 150B were optional "courtesy lights" in the underside of the wings to light the area around the doors when on the ground.  The Patroller message drop tube option, on the other hand, was eliminated.  350 built.

 * 1963 model year with a quick drain added to the fuel strainer, optional larger 6.00×6 inch (150×150 mm) main wheels and tires to replace the standard 5.00×5 inch (125×125 mm) size, and an optional child seat. The optional landing gear "speed fairings" were also changed to a sharp-nosed design compatible with those used for other single-engine Cessna models.  387 built.
 * 1963 model year with a quick drain added to the fuel strainer, optional larger 6.00×6 inch (150×150 mm) main wheels and tires to replace the standard 5.00×5 inch (125×125 mm) size, and an optional child seat. The optional landing gear "speed fairings" were also changed to a sharp-nosed design compatible with those used for other single-engine Cessna models.  387 built.

 * 1964 model year with a cut down rear fuselage and a wraparound "Omni-Vision" rear window, following the pattern already set by other Cessna models. The new rear window improved rearward visibility, and many people found the new cabin more "airy" and pleasant, due to the increased light.  Useful load was increased by 40 lb, and the gross weight of the aircraft was correspondingly increased to 1600 lb, where it would stay for all later 150 models.
 * Because of the higher gross weight with the same engine power, Cessna's claimed performance figures for the 150D and later models are worse than for earlier models: maximum and cruise speeds are reduced, range is shortened, takeoff and landing distances are lengthened, and climb rate and service ceiling are lower. Such changes are only to be expected, because performance is weight-dependent and is normally specified at maximum gross weight.  Cruise performance may also have been lessened because the new rear window made the 150D's rear fuselage less well streamlined than the former "fastback" fuselage.
 * The 150D retained the straight tailfin and rudder of previous years. However, to lighten control loads, aerodynamic balance horns were added to the rudder and the elevator.  These horns also contained weights (mass balances) to eliminate any possible control flutter that might be induced by the changed aerodynamics of the rear fuselage.
 * The 150D moved the heavy electrical battery from the previous rear location, behind the baggage compartment, to the front, just ahead of the engine firewall. It had a broader range for its center of gravity than earlier models, which allowed more flexibility in loading. The 150D also had more permissive airspeed limits for its never-exceed speed, its maneuvering speed, and particularly its maximum flaps-extended speed, which was raised from 85 mph to 100 mph.
 * Partway through the 150D's production, an option was added for a heavy-duty nose landing gear with a larger 6.00×6 inch (150×150 mm) nosewheel; this had a tire whose tread was wider than standard but was only slightly larger in diameter. The folding torque links on this heavy-duty nose gear were also reversed, being mounted in front of the nosewheel strut instead of behind it.
 * A total of 686 aircraft were built; one prototype (c/n 644) and 685 production aircraft.
 * A total of 686 aircraft were built; one prototype (c/n 644) and 685 production aircraft.

 * 1965 model year with only minor changes, like the addition of an optional rear-view mirror. 760 built, plus one prototype converted from the 150D prototype (c/n 644).
 * 1965 model year with only minor changes, like the addition of an optional rear-view mirror. 760 built, plus one prototype converted from the 150D prototype (c/n 644).

 * 1966 model year with a new vertical tail that was swept back 35 degrees, with a short dorsal strake at its base, matching the styling of the Cessna 172 and other models. The cabin doors were widened, with 23% more area, and while the old doors were tapered at the bottom, the new doors were square, making it easier to get in and out of the cabin.  The new doors also had larger windows and better latches.  The baggage compartment was extended aft to the bottom of the rear window, giving 50% more room, although its load limit remained at 120 lb.  The cabin floor was now flat, with no hump for routing control cables.  The old manual flaps were replaced by electrically driven flaps activated by a switch on the instrument panel; other former floor controls (the elevator trim wheel and fuel shutoff valve) were now on a small vertical console beneath the panel.  The electric flaps now had a flap position indicator above the left door.  The 6.00×6 inch (150×150 mm) main wheels with large low-pressure tires were now standard rather than optional, and they had new brakes.  The stall warning alert, previously an electric beeper, was now a pneumatic reed horn that would work even if electrical power failed.  The pointed propeller spinner and rear-view mirror options became standard for the Commuter and Trainer.  Other newly standard features for the Commuter were dual controls (previously restricted to the Trainer), wheel speed fairings, and an electric heater for the pitot tube and stall warning sensor.  The old optional Patroller-type door (with an extra window in the lower half) was dropped along with the name "Patroller", though long-range fuel tanks were still offered.  The courtesy light option was also discontinued.
 * Cessna greatly expanded 150 production for the 150F; a total of 3,000 of this model were produced. The 1966 model year was also the first production of French Reims-built F150s, with 67 built as the F150F.
 * Cessna greatly expanded 150 production for the 150F; a total of 3,000 of this model were produced. The 1966 model year was also the first production of French Reims-built F150s, with 67 built as the F150F.

 * 1967 model year with the doors bowed outward to make the cabin about 3 in wider, and a lowered floor to add head room. Rubber sound isolators were added to the engine cowling to reduce vibration and noise in the cabin. The cabin heating system now allowed heated air to be mixed with fresh air and had a new windshield defroster outlet. The instrument panel's layout was changed, and the control yokes now had open tops. The stroke of the nosewheel's oleo strut was shortened from 7 in to 4 in. Both of the old electrical generators, 20-ampere and 35-ampere, were replaced by a new 60-ampere alternator. The anti-collision beacon (standard on the Commuter, optional elsewhere) was changed from the old motorized revolving type to a new flashing type. Separately adjustable bucket seats were now standard for the Commuter and could be either fabric or vinyl-covered. The Commuter got standard wall-to-wall carpet. Tinted windows were a new option.    The 150G was also the first Cessna 150 variant certified for floats. For floatplane operation it used a larger 75 in diameter propeller and had a gross weight of 1650 lb.
 * A total of 2,666 150G models were built by Cessna; one prototype (c/n 649) and 2,655 production aircraft. Another 152 were built by Reims in France as the F150G.  Unlike the F150F, which was powered by a Continental-built engine, the engines of the F150G and subsequent Reims-built F150s were license-built by Rolls-Royce.
 * A total of 2,666 150G models were built by Cessna; one prototype (c/n 649) and 2,655 production aircraft. Another 152 were built by Reims in France as the F150G.  Unlike the F150F, which was powered by a Continental-built engine, the engines of the F150G and subsequent Reims-built F150s were license-built by Rolls-Royce.

 * 1968 model year with streamlined speed fairings at the ends of the wing struts. The electric flap switch was now a three-way switch: when pushed upward to raise flaps, it would stay in that position, making this operation "hands-off", but lowering the flaps still required holding the switch downward.  The flap position indicator was now vertical, on the left front doorpost, and the center console was narrowed to improve legroom.  A new wing leveler option could automatically control the ailerons and rudder to keep the aircraft on course.   2,110 were built, plus one prototype converted from the 150G prototype (c/n 649).  Reims also built 170 aircraft as the F150H.
 * 1968 model year with streamlined speed fairings at the ends of the wing struts. The electric flap switch was now a three-way switch: when pushed upward to raise flaps, it would stay in that position, making this operation "hands-off", but lowering the flaps still required holding the switch downward.  The flap position indicator was now vertical, on the left front doorpost, and the center console was narrowed to improve legroom.  A new wing leveler option could automatically control the ailerons and rudder to keep the aircraft on course.   2,110 were built, plus one prototype converted from the 150G prototype (c/n 649).  Reims also built 170 aircraft as the F150H.

 * The "I" model was skipped to avoid confusion with a numeral 1.
 * The "I" model was skipped to avoid confusion with a numeral 1.

 * 1969 model year an improved instrument panel layout, which finally adopted the "basic-T" arrangement that would be used for all later 150 models. The 150J also had rocker-style electrical switches instead of the former pull-type ones, and a new key-operated combined magneto/starter-switch replaced the old "pull-style" starter.  The new starter was more "car-like" but not as reliable as the old one and also more expensive to repair.  New options were a map light under the control wheel and a ground power plug, and extra steps and handles were added to the floatplane version to make fueling easier.  1,820 built, plus 140 built by Reims as the F150J.
 * 1969 model year an improved instrument panel layout, which finally adopted the "basic-T" arrangement that would be used for all later 150 models. The 150J also had rocker-style electrical switches instead of the former pull-type ones, and a new key-operated combined magneto/starter-switch replaced the old "pull-style" starter.  The new starter was more "car-like" but not as reliable as the old one and also more expensive to repair.  New options were a map light under the control wheel and a ground power plug, and extra steps and handles were added to the floatplane version to make fueling easier.  1,820 built, plus 140 built by Reims as the F150J.

 * 1970 model year with a split master switch that could turn off the alternator separately, a ground-adjustable rudder trim tab, a new molded cabin headliner, and new seats with greater legroom. New options included tinted dual overhead skylights for upward visibility, extra steps and handles to aid in fueling, whitewall tires, and "conically cambered" wingtips that curved downward toward the trailing edge.  On the 150K Commuter, the cambered wingtips were standard.
 * In addition to the standard 150K, the 1970 model year introduced a version certified for aerobatics as the A150K Aerobat. The Aerobat retained the normal 150's 100 hp Continental O-200 engine, but structurally it was stronger than the normal 150K, being rated for load factors of +6.0/−3.0 g (vs. +4.4/–1.76 g for the normal 150K) and having higher limits for its maneuvering and never-exceed speeds. Other Aerobat standard features included the dual skylights already mentioned, shoulder harnesses for both occupants, removable seat backs and cushions to make room for a back-pack or seat-pack parachute, jettisonable doors, and a special checkerboard paint scheme; there was also an optional accelerometer for the instrument panel. The Aerobat was approved for a variety of maneuvers that were not permitted for normal 150s, but it still had the normal 150's gravity-fed fuel system, so sustained inverted flight was not possible.   A 1970 A150K Aerobat cost $12,000 as opposed to the $11,450 price for a 150K Commuter model.
 * A total of 1101 were built; 875 as the 150K and 226 as the A150K. Reims also built a total of 210 aircraft; 129 as the F150K and 81 as the FA150K Aerobat.
 * A total of 1101 were built; 875 as the 150K and 226 as the A150K. Reims also built a total of 210 aircraft; 129 as the F150K and 81 as the FA150K Aerobat.

 * Introduced for the 1971 model year with tubular landing gear legs replacing the previous flat steel leaf spring gear. Also in 1971, the landing and taxi lights were moved from the wing leading edge to the nose bowl to better illuminate the ground.  The 150L also introduced a longer dorsal strake that reached to the rear window.  The 1972 model year the received new fuel filler caps to reduce moisture seepage, and better seats and seat tracks.  1973 brought in lower seats to provide more headroom for taller pilots.  1974 introduced a new propeller with a Clark Y airfoil on the A150L Aerobat, which increased cruise by 4 mi/h.
 * In 1972, Reims introduced the FRA150L Aerobat, which was powered by a 130 hp Rolls-Royce O-240-A engine; the first engine change for the 150 type since production began. The FRA150L was produced alongside the O-200-powered F150L and FA150L Aerobat, and could be converted to FA150L standard with an FKA150-2311 or FKA150-2316 kit.
 * Cessna built a total of 4,074 aircraft; 625 (1971 150L), 50 (1971 A150L), 1,030 (1972 150L), 66 (1972 A150L), 1,192 (1973 150L), 87 (1973 A150L), 931 (1974 150L), and 93 (1974 A150L). Reims built a total of 665 aircraft; 485 (F150L), 39 (FA150L), and 141 (FRA150L).  DINFIA also produced a total of 48 150L/A150Ls in Argentina as the A-150L and A-A150L; 39 (A-150L), 6 (1972 A-A150L), and 3 (1973 A-A150L).
 * Cessna built a total of 4,074 aircraft; 625 (1971 150L), 50 (1971 A150L), 1,030 (1972 150L), 66 (1972 A150L), 1,192 (1973 150L), 87 (1973 A150L), 931 (1974 150L), and 93 (1974 A150L). Reims built a total of 665 aircraft; 485 (F150L), 39 (FA150L), and 141 (FRA150L).  DINFIA also produced a total of 48 150L/A150Ls in Argentina as the A-150L and A-A150L; 39 (A-150L), 6 (1972 A-A150L), and 3 (1973 A-A150L).

 * Introduced for the 1975 model year, the 150M was the final Cessna 150 model before the type was replaced by the 152. The primary change was a redesigned vertical tail that was taller, narrower, and had an overall larger area.  Inertia-reel restraints were also offered as an option.  The 150M introduced the Commuter II upgrade package that included many optional avionics and trim items as standard.  The 1976 model year introduced redesigned wheel fairings, a suite of electrical circuit breakers to replace the previous fuses, and a fully articulated pilot seat as standard equipment (this seat had been optional on some earlier models).
 * The 1977 model year was the last for the Cessna 150. It added only "pre-select" flaps, allowing the pilot to set the flaps to any position without the pilot having to hold the switch during flap travel, enabling the pilot to concentrate on other flying duties.  Only 427 1977 model 150Ms were built as production shifted to the improved Cessna 152 in the early part of 1977.
 * The many refinements incorporated into the 150 over the years had cost the aircraft a lot of useful load. The very first 150 weighed 962 lb empty, whereas the last Commuter II had an empty weight of  1129 lb.  This increase in empty weight of 167 lb was offset only by a gross weight increase of 100 lb in 1964.  The 152 would bring a much-needed 70 lb increase in gross weight to 1670 lb.
 * A total of 3,836 aircraft were built; 1,224 (1975 150M), 87 (1975 A150M), 1,500 (1976 150M), 75 (1976 A150M), 900 (1977 150M), and 50 (1977 A150M). Reims built a total of 360 aircraft as the F150M, FA150M, and FRA150M; 285 (F150M) and 75 (FA150M/FRA150M).
 * A total of 3,836 aircraft were built; 1,224 (1975 150M), 87 (1975 A150M), 1,500 (1976 150M), 75 (1976 A150M), 900 (1977 150M), and 50 (1977 A150M). Reims built a total of 360 aircraft as the F150M, FA150M, and FRA150M; 285 (F150M) and 75 (FA150M/FRA150M).

 * Designation of a single 150L and two 150M aircraft used by the United States Air Force Academy Flying Team.
 * Designation of a single 150L and two 150M aircraft used by the United States Air Force Academy Flying Team.

Modifications available

There are hundreds of modifications available for the Cessna 150. Some of the most frequently installed include:
 * Vortex generators and STOL kits that reduce the stall speed of the plane.
 * Flap gap seals to reduce drag and increase rate of climb.
 * Different wing tips, some of which claim various cruise speed increases and stall speed reductions.
 * Auto fuel STCs, which permit the use of automobile fuel instead of the more expensive aviation fuel.
 * Larger engines, up to 180 hp.
 * Taildragger landing gear.
 * Auxiliary fuel tanks for larger capacity.
 * Door catches to replace the factory ones that often fail in service.
 * Belly fuel drain valves to drain fuel from the lowest point in the fuel system.

The Aviat 150 is an overhauled and rebuilt Cessna 150 by Aviat.

Noteworthy flights

 * On September 12, 1994, Frank Eugene Corder intentionally crashed a Cessna 150L onto the South Lawn of the White House against the south wall of the Executive Mansion, in an apparent suicide. Corder was killed, but no one else was injured and damage to property on the ground was minimal.
 * In 1996, a Cessna 150 was flown from the United States to South Africa in several stages, crossing the Atlantic along the way. An extra 60 gallon fuel tank was installed (beyond the standard 22.5 gallons) and the plane took off 500 lb over gross weight.

Civil
The aircraft is popular with flying schools as well as private individuals.

Military

 * Burundi Air Force
 * Congo Democratic Air Force
 * Congo Democratic Air Force
 * Congo Democratic Air Force
 * Ecuadorian Air Force
 * Ivory Coast Air Force
 * Liberian Army
 * Mexican Naval Aviation
 * Paraguayan Naval Aviation
 * Somali Air Force
 * Sri Lanka Air Force
 * United States Air Force Academy
 * Paraguayan Naval Aviation
 * Somali Air Force
 * Sri Lanka Air Force
 * United States Air Force Academy
 * Sri Lanka Air Force
 * United States Air Force Academy
 * United States Air Force Academy

Notable accidents

 * 27 March 1968: Ozark Air Lines Flight 965, a Douglas DC-9-15, collided with a 150F, aircraft registration N8669G, approximately 1.5 mi north of Lambert–St. Louis Municipal Airport (Lambert Field), St. Louis, Missouri, while both aircraft were approaching runway 17. The Cessna was destroyed and both of its occupants were killed. The DC-9 sustained light damage and was able to land safely; none of its 44 passengers or five crewmembers were injured. The accident was attributed to inadequate visual flight rules (VFR) procedures at the airport, the failure of the DC-9 pilots to notice the Cessna, and poor communications between air traffic control and the Cessna pilots.
 * 4 August 1968: Cessna 150F N8742S collided with North Central Airlines Flight 261, a Convair CV-580, 11.5 mi southwest of General Mitchell Airport in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, at 2700 ft, as the northbound Convair was on approach to runway 7R. The cabin section of the Cessna became embedded in the Convair's forward baggage compartment. The Convair lost electrical power and its right engine was shut down due to a damaged propeller; the captain completed a successful emergency landing six minutes later. All three occupants aboard the Cessna were killed and the first officer on the Convair was seriously injured, but the other three crew and eight passengers were uninjured. The accident was attributed to the inability of the Convair 580 flight crew to see the Cessna in sufficient time to take evasive action, despite having been provided with three radar traffic advisories. Contributing factors were heavy insect smears on the Convair's cockpit windows, haze, smoke and sun glare, and the Cessna's inconspicuous color and its lack of relative motion as the two aircraft converged.
 * 9 January 1971: 150J N60942 collided with American Airlines Flight 30, a Boeing 707-323C, at about 2,975 feet Edison, New Jersey, while the 707 was on approach to Newark Airport. The Cessna ran head-on into the 707's outer left wing and went out of control due to impact damage, crashing and killing both its occupants. The 707, although itself damaged, landed safely in Newark; there were no injuries among its 14 passengers and 7 crew. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found the cause to be "the inability of the crews of both aircraft to see and avoid each other while operating in a system which permits VFR aircraft to operate up to 3,000 feet on random headings and altitudes in a congested area under conditions of reduced visibility."
 * 4 August 1971: 150J N61011 collided with Continental Air Lines Flight 712, a Boeing 707-324C, at about 3,950 feet over Compton, California, while the 707 was making a nighttime approach into Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The 150 hit the 707's outer right wing and was severely damaged, but the instructor pilot retained enough control to make a successful forced landing near a lighted golf course; although the Cessna was destroyed, its pilots both survived with injuries. The 707's outer right wing was damaged, but the aircraft landed safely at LAX, and none of its 87 passengers and 9 crew were injured. According to the NTSB, the cause was "the minimum opportunity for the flightcrews [sic] to see and avoid the other aircraft due to the background lights behind the Cessna and the decrease in the Cessna pilots' visual field resulting from the aircraft's wing while turning".
 * 9 January 1975: 150H N50430 collided with a United States Air Force Convair VT-29D at night over the James River off Newport News, Virginia, while the Convair was on an instrument landing system approach to Langley Air Force Base. The collision killed all aboard both aircraft: the Cessna's pilot and passenger and the Convair's five crew and two passengers. The NTSB found the probable cause to be "the human limitation inherent in the see-and-avoid concept, which can be critical in a terminal area with a combination of controlled and uncontrolled traffic", and recommended stricter traffic control procedures for the high-traffic area around Newport News and Langley.
 * 9 January 1975: Golden West Airlines Flight 261, a de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter, collided with 150 N11421 at Whittier, California, while on approach to LAX, killing all 14 people on both planes.
 * 7 July 2015: 150M N3601V was involved in a mid-air collision with a General Dynamics F-16CJ Fighting Falcon over Moncks Corner, South Carolina. Both occupants of the Cessna were killed; the pilot of the F-16 ejected safely.

title: Cessna 150


text:
Free Officers movement (Egypt)

The Free Officers (حركة الضباط الأحرار) were a group of revolutionary Egyptian nationalist officers in the Egyptian Armed Forces and Sudanese Armed Forces that instigated the Egyptian revolution of 1952. Initially started as a small rebellion military cell under Abdel Moneim Abdel Raouf, which included Gamal Abdel Nasser, Hussein Hamouda, Khaled Mohieddin, Kamal el-Din Hussein, Salah Nasr, Abdel Hakim Amer, and Saad Tawfik, it operated as a clandestine movement of junior officers who were veterans of the Palestine War of 1948-1949 as well as earlier nationalist uprisings in Egypt in the 1940s.

The nationally respected Arab-Israeli War veteran Mohamed Naguib joined the Free Officers in 1949. Naguib's hero status, and influence within the army, granted the movement credibility, both within the military and the public at large. He became the official leader of the Free Officers during the turmoil leading up the revolution that toppled King Farouk in 1952. The Movement was succeeded by the Revolutionary Command Council after the overthrow of Farouk that was later succeeded by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.

Background

The Great Depression affected national economies around the globe, including those of Egypt and Sudan. During this time, the Great Powers in the Arab World and Middle East began removing institutions for economic development after some positive advancement became evident. This encouraged many political groups to organize against the politicians who dominated the parliamentary politics of the time. Workers had become accustomed to development efforts which were meant to stabilize the economies of the region. These state-led initiatives set the standard for what the people expected of their government, including the regulation of imports, industrial investment, commodity distribution, production supervision.

Formation
Politicians and government bodies were forced to respond to the demands of groups who were directly affected by the initiative changes and withdrawals. Some of these groups included military officers. While the first military coups began in Syria in the late 1940s, it was the Free Officers coup in Egypt and the revolution of 1952 that would have the greatest impact, and encourage later movements. The members were not from the wealthy elite, but rather the middle class, young workers, government officials and junior officers. The movement, which began and spread throughout the 1940s, came to fruition with the leadership of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Nasser, who commanded the loyalty and respect of the other members, formed a coordinating committee (1949), which he was later asked to lead (1950).

Coming from a modest background, he represented the group's majority: the hard-working middle class. The Free Officers consisted of urban dwellers and educated militants with a lower-middle-class upbringing. Nasser was a war hero who rose quickly in military rank to colonel. He, like many others, dedicated his time and energy to reversing the corruption seen on the part of the government throughout the 1947–1949 Palestine war by restoring a democracy. He saw the problem of domestic passivity towards imperialism as being as much a problem as imperialism itself. The Free Officers strengthened a "new" middle class. Due to this dedication to change, the Free Officers referred to their group and its entirety as simply a "movement." Later however, it would become a revolution. The Free Officers Committee enlisted General Muhammad Naguib as a public figurehead in preparation for the successful coup of 23 July 1952. The men who had constituted themselves as the Committee of the Free Officers Movement and led the 1952 Revolution were Lieutenant Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser (1917–70), Major Abdel Hakim Amer (1919–67), Lieutenant Colonel Anwar El-Sadat (1918–81), Major Salah Salem (1920–62), Major Kamal el-Din Hussein (1921–99), Wing Commander Gamal Salem (1918–2001), Squadron Leader Hassan Ibrahim (1917–90), Major Khalid Mohieddin (1922–2018), and Wing Commander Abdel Latif Boghdadi (1917–99); Major Hussein el-Shafei (1918–2005) and Lieutenant Colonel Zakaria Mohieddin (1918–2012) joined the committee later.

World War II
Anwar Sadat, in his autobiography "In Search of an Identity," described how the Free Officers movement attempted to defect to the Nazis in advance of the Battle of El Alamein. The Free Officers took aerial photographs of British positions and sent this intelligence along with a letter offering allegiance to Axis in a British warplane headed to Erwin Rommel in El Alamein. ("The general feeling in Egypt was against the British and, naturally, in favor of their enemies" ). The plan was stifled when the Germans failed to recognize the sign of friendship and shot down the British warplane, a Gloster Gladiator, killing the pilot.

"'It was agreed that one of us would be sent to El Alamein to tell Erwin Rommel we were honest Egyptians who had an organization within the army; that, “like you,” we were fighting against the British; that we were prepared to recruit an entire army to fight “on your side,” and to provide him with photographs showing the lines and positions of the British forces in Egypt; and that we would take it upon ourselves not to let one British soldier leave Cairo, in return for granting Egypt complete independence so that she would not be given to Italy or fall under German domination, and so that no one whatsoever would interfere in her affairs, internal or external. These were the terms of the treaty dictated by me and flown to El Alamein on board the aircraft piloted by Ahmed Saudi Hussein. The film and the draft treaty were put into a bag and given to Saudi to fly to Rommel in Alamein. That day Hassan Ibrahim’s aircraft was scheduled to be on alert; he gave it to Saudi, who flew it as though on a regular patrol but headed for El Alamein. It was, naturally, British made, a “Gladiator.” So, although Saudi gave a signal of friendship, the Germans shot it down and Ahmed Saudi was killed. When it came to be known that the aircraft was lost, Hassan Ibrahim was tried and his promotion delayed, but nobody detected any planning behind the incident.'" The Free Officers continued to try to contact the Germans, and found a pair of German spies who gave Sadat a broken German radio transmitter. However, Sadat, the German spies, and other Free Officers were caught by the British and imprisoned for treason. Sadat was stripped of rank. The Allied victory at the Battle of Alamein put the question to rest and Sadat and other imprisoned Free Officers were granted leniency. Nasser returned from his mission in Sudan in 1943 and assumed control over the Free Officers organization while Sadat was in prison.

Rise
In 1951, while operating covertly within the military, the Free Officers formulated a six-point plan to direct their administration following the coup. The program called for the overthrow of British rule in Egypt, the elimination of Egyptian feudalism, the end of the political control of Egypt's government by foreign capital, the establishment of social justice, the formation of a strong national army and the creation of a healthy democratic society.

The continued agitation within Egypt as a result of British control led to a series of skirmishes in which British military outposts were attacked. During 1950–52, Arab fedayeen in the Suez Canal Zone engaged in guerilla operations against British forces. The pro-British Egyptian government in Cairo issued a public warning to fedayeen not to continue their activities. Despite this, attacks were made against the British garrison and the Egyptians who worked with them. At this point, Egyptian nationalist groups were divided and disorganised. The military was the only area that still held some sort of organised mission, which led to the revolution of 1952. The revolutionaries publicised the need for reform and social justice, marched on Cairo and forced King Farouk to abdicate his throne. The revolution led to the end of British control over Egypt, which had begun in 1882 during the Anglo-Egyptian War.

Legacy
Similar movements were organised by other groups of junior officers seeking to mimic the Free Officers' ascent to power. In Iraq, a faction of Arab and Iraqi nationalist officers, who referred to themselves as the "Free Officers", toppled the pro-British Hashemite government of Nuri al-Said and Faisal II in 1958. Said and Faisal, Nasser's chief regional rivals at the time, were both killed during the coup. In 1963 some of the same officers aligned themselves with the Ba'ath Party and overthrew the government of Abd al-Karim Qasim, who was killed by the organizers of the coup.

In Syria a coalition of Arab nationalist officers, including Nasserists, Ba'athists and independents, toppled the secessionist government of Nazim al-Qudsi in 1963 and vowed to restore the union with Egypt in the United Arab Republic (1958–1961). In Saudi Arabia during the 1960s the Prince Talal invoked a similar idea, the Free Princes Movement, in an unsuccessful effort to overthrow his country's conservative monarchy. He was exiled to Egypt as a result and was given asylum by Nasser.

Then Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi used a similar group to overthrow the Libyan King Idris in 1969.

The anniversary of the Egyptian revolution of 1952 led by the Free Officers is commemorated as Revolution Day, an annual public holiday in Egypt on 23 July.

The name was consciously assumed by the Free Officers and Civilians Movement, led by Brigadier-General Najib al-Salihi who opposed Saddam Hussein.

Members
This is a list of some of the major officers of the movement:
 * Major General Muhammad Naguib (Border Guards)
 * Brigadier General Youssef Seddik (Infantry)
 * Lieutenant Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser (Infantry)
 * Lieutenant Colonel Anwar El-Sadat (Military Communication)
 * Lieutenant Colonel Zakaria Mohieddin (Infantry)
 * Major Abdel Hakim Amer (Infantry)
 * Major Salah Salem (Artillery)
 * Major Kamal el-Din Hussein (Artillery)
 * Major Khalid Mohieddin (Armoured Corps)
 * Major Hussein Al Shafei (Armoured Corps)
 * General Ali Elbana
 * Major Hamdy Ebeid
 * Captain Abdel Moneim Abdel Raouf (Air force)
 * Wing Commander Gamal Salem (Air force)
 * Wing Commander Abd al-Latif al-Boghdadi (Air force)
 * Squadron Leader Hassan Ibrahim (Air force)
 * Amin Shaker (Military Communication)
 * Mashhour Ahmed Mashhour
 * Aly Mansour (Air Force)
 * Mounier Shash (Artillery)
 * Major General Mohamed Uthman (Infantry)

title: Free Officers movement (Egypt)