text:
Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

This article has been mentioned by a media organization-BRD
I added In the War for Narratives Iran’s Regime Takes to Wikipedia by National Council of Resistance of Iran to this talkpage-template, and was reverted on that, "this is not a media organization, but a self-published post by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (an organization with at least one member banned by WMF T&S"

Reasonable people can disagree on what counts as "media organization" in this context, I thought it was close enough, though I tend to be a bit inclusionist on these things. I think of a political org's official website as a media org, in general. Not that it comes up in this context very often, most of it will be some kind of "news". Fwiw, the website has "News". If you have an opinion, please share. However, "an organization with at least one member banned by WMF T&S" doesn't matter in this context, but it's interesting info. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 * I guess that's fair. MarioGom (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: As you note, it's a political party's blog. While it might contain media, that does not make it a "media site" by any standard definition of the term. WP:PRESS and the press template are strictly for press sources. Wikipedia in blogs is the place for blog mentions. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The site has a blog-section, but afaict, the article in question is not there. Some political parties used to publish their own newspapers and magazines (maybe some still do), I don't consider this very different. But that's my view. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Characterization as a cult

 * You reverted my change changing the title of the section "Cult of personality" to "Characterization as a cult". Your rationale was While some sources use this term for the MEK, others don't. It is irrelevant that some sources do not describe it as a cult. Some do, and in-text attribution is used to note it. The section is not about "cult of personality". The content and the backing sources are way more broad and discuss the extent to which the organization can (or cannot) be characterized as a cult. It is simply incorrect to name this section "cult of personality". It does not match the content. It does not match the sources. MarioGom (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Oh God, the topic's back. Yes, it's described as a cult, but not a cult of personality. It wasn't one of these things where everyone hung the pictures of the leaders on the walls. Characterization is a more usefully descriptive/functional subtitle. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello MarioGom. I reverted your edit (didn't change the title as you say) because it was a deeply biased change. It is not irrelevant that other sources use the term "Cult of Personality". All reliable sources need to be considered, and if that's what's missing in that section, then perhaps we should be discussing that instead. I take it from the above comment that this has been previously addressed. If you're adamant about this change, we should look at those discussions as well as sources and determine what new information would support such a change. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Do you realize that the section is not about "cult of personality"? Neither the content or the sources are about that. It just does not make any sense. Which title would you propose for this section? MarioGom (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also note that you are free to propose any other changes to the content, but trying to keep a title unrelated to the content is the kind of filibusterism that has plagued the 62 pages of archives already . MarioGom (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello MarioGom, as already said, this looks like a deeply biased change because you're overlooking a major part of the literature. I will survey sources (also in the archives) and start a list here. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the title is biased at all. The title is not "Cult", "Cult characteristics", or "This is a cult". "Characterization as a cult" is a fairly neutral heading for a section that discusses the sources that describe it as a cult, a politico-religious sect, etc. Some of these sources are as reliable as they can get, such as Ervand Abrahamian. But in any case, the heading "Characterization as a cult" does not preclude adding reliable sources that try to refute the others or represent a different viewpoint on the topic. MarioGom (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you please say which sources use the title "Characterization as a cult" (or similar)? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a summary of the content. What would be your preferred title? MarioGom (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How did you arrive at that summary? through which sources? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please, just see the content of the section. These sources state that the organization has characteristics of a cult, with different aspects being discussed. How would you call a well-sourced section that discusses the extent to which an organization is a cult or displays some characteristics of a cult? The exact title does not need to be in the sources, just like "History" or "Controversies" do not need to explictly come from the sources, as long as the sources discuss history and controversies. So, again, what would be your preferred title for this section? MarioGom (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I got your overall point: you think my proposed title is "deeply biased" and it's unlikely I can persuade you. That's why I wonder what would be your proposal, or if you think the current title is just correct. Given the track record of this page, this would likely need an RFC, but it would be unfair if it did not represent all options. MarioGom (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm as confused as Mario about what you think is "deeply biased" here. I can't see any bias, and you haven't explained any bias. I see one, arguably inaccurate descriptive subhead that has been exchanged for a related, but less specific and objectionable descriptive subhead. I don't see where bias comes into it at all. All labels of "cult" are characterisations, and there "Characterisations as a cult" is a perfectly reasonable subhead. Your objections, on the other hand, are as yet entirely unexplained. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Hello MarioGom. This list of books use "Cult of personality".

 * Iran today : an encyclopedia of life in the Islamic Republic. Authors: Mehran Kamrava (Editor), Manochehr Dorraj (Editor). Publisher: Greenwood Press, Westport, Conn., 2008. Page 338.
 * Terrornomics. Authors: Sean S. Costigan, David GoldPublished March 16, 2016. Publisher: Routledge. Page 68.
 * Deadly connections states that sponsor terrorism. Authors: Daniel Byman. Publisher: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005 Page 37.
 * Conflict in the modern Middle East : an encyclopedia of civil war, revolutions, and regime change. Author:Jonathan K. Zartman (Editor). Publisher: ABC-CLIO, 2020. Page 209.
 * The Iranian Mojahedin. Author: Ervand Abrahamian. Publisher: Yale University Press, New Haven, 1989. Page 255.
 * The Thousand and One Borders of Iran Travel and Identity. Author: Fariba Adelkhah. Publisher: Routledge, 2015. Page 270.
 * Iran Agenda The Real Story of U.S. Policy and the Middle East Crisis. Authors: Reese Erlich, Robert Scheer. Publisher: Routledge, 2016. Page 99.
 * Terrorist Argument. Author: Christopher C. Harmon. Publisher: Brookings Institution Press, 2018. Page 170.

 * My proposal is to have the section consider books like these. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And the reason why I asked you where you got this title from is because I saw in the archives that it was proposed about 4 years ago by two editors that appear to be now banned from this topic, and . How did you arrive at the same verbatim biased title as they did? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding further sources, including discussion of "cult of personality" practices is still compatible with a title "characterization as a cult". On the other hand, a title "cult of personality" is not appropriate for a section that discusses broader "cult-like" practices, not limited to cult of personality. You are welcome to expand the section with further reliable sources, but expanding it with cult of personality practices does not really change my point about the title. In fact, some of the sources you bring up discuss cult practices beyond cult of personality, like Abrahamian. About your later question of previous discussions: yes, I have read many previous discussions over the years, and I'll never claim all my proposals are novel (as neither are yours), there's nothing wrong with that. MarioGom (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello MarioGom. Your answer is rather compelling. I previously asked you how you had arrived at the title "Characterization as a cult", and you said you had not used sources but had read and summarized the content of the section: "It's a summary of the content", "just see the content of the section", "The exact title does not need to be in the sources". However the same verbatim title change proposal was made 4 years ago by two editors that are now banned and who used an unreliable source as the basis for the title change. Where things get compelling is that you never said you were reviving this proposal from 4 years ago, you said you had come up with this proposal by looking at the current content of the section. So how can both proposals (yours, and the one from 4 years ago by two banned editors using an unreliable source) be identical? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you think I'm not acting in good faith, please, report this to an appropriate venue. Otherwise, would you engage assuming good faith in this discussion? I made the case for this proposal at great length here, and asked you some questions to try to build consensus (whether you think the current title is ok or not, whether you have another proposal, or what would you think would be appropriate options for an RFC), but you did not answer any so far. I'm not going to engage in de-railing this thread with a long exchange on this innuendo about whatever some other editor said 4 years ago. MarioGom (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello MarioGom, I'm also interested in the content (I did answer about your proposal using sources, and I'm currently gathering additional sources that I will provide here soon). I'm also not interested in escalating this, but could you just please clear this up? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I answered already . I'm not going to write a longer essay here about this. It's not relevant for this discussion. MarioGom (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you really want to go deeper on this meta discussion on my behaviour, my talk page is open. I think this thread should continue with the substance, and avoid shifting to meta-discussions that do not serve consensus building. MarioGom (talk) 09:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello MarioGom, I have looked at sources in the article, archives, and Google Books. Here is the draft list I've put together so far. I'm looking for additional sources, do you have any? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have been compiling some sources in a sandbox. It is quite early work. I am also drafting a rewrite of the section, although I expect my title proposal to stand both with the current content or my proposed content.To ensure our efforts are directed towards some possible resolution, would you mind clarifying if the current title ("Cult of personality") is your preferred choice based on your current understanding of the sources? Otherwise, do you have any other option in mind? MarioGom (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That being said, I think there's a misconception in your draft. "Cult" and "cult of personality" are not mutually exclusive. Some discuss "cult of personality" without labeling as "cult", while others discuss "cult of personality" as part of an explicit labeling as a cult. This is the case of Ervand Abrahamian, who you classify as "absolutely cult of personality", but he is the scholar describing the MEK most unambiguously as a cult (and yes, also discussing the cult of personality aspects). This can be seen in the following passages:
 * As well as other works, including the following interview:
 * where he stated they stopped being a mass movement with Marxist roots and became basically a cult MarioGom (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello MarioGom. My list evaluates which terminology aligns with WP:DUE, which would determine if a potential title change is necessary. I will add your quotes to the list, but are you also able to find sources with other perspectives? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said, there's a conceptual problem with that. "Cult of personality" is one aspect. Some sources discuss it as part of broader cult-like behavior. "Cult of personality" as a section title is not broad enough to convey that the section discusses what different sources claim about cult-like behavior, not limited to cult of personality. MarioGom (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Analysis or synthesis about how certain authors discuss cult-behavior within the broader concept of "cult of personality" is a patent No original research breach. My list displays quotes from reliable sources to determine what terminology and content aligns with WP:DUE, also including the sources you mention that discuss both "Cult of personality" and "Characterization as a cult" aspects. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello MarioGom. My list evaluates which terminology aligns with WP:DUE, which would determine if a potential title change is necessary. I will add your quotes to the list, but are you also able to find sources with other perspectives? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said, there's a conceptual problem with that. "Cult of personality" is one aspect. Some sources discuss it as part of broader cult-like behavior. "Cult of personality" as a section title is not broad enough to convey that the section discusses what different sources claim about cult-like behavior, not limited to cult of personality. MarioGom (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Analysis or synthesis about how certain authors discuss cult-behavior within the broader concept of "cult of personality" is a patent No original research breach. My list displays quotes from reliable sources to determine what terminology and content aligns with WP:DUE, also including the sources you mention that discuss both "Cult of personality" and "Characterization as a cult" aspects. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I have checked the most relevant sources, and I think you have done so too. I think the discussion is stuck because it is not a matter of reading the sources again, but an essential disagreement on how to interpret them, and how to conceptualize the different aspects. I'll start workshopping a possible RFC. MarioGom (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

 * I have a few observations on the discussion so far. First, yes, the concept of "cult" in general is broader than just "cult of personality", so the latter does not adequately encompass the former. Secondly, in Hogo's source analysis, the "allegations" column is largely not allegations, but reliable and/or notable opinions. A good example is HRW, which is a reliable source in its own right. If they characterise it as a cult, that's a reliable characterisation. Finally, if it is purely a phrasing question, other formulations could be things like "cult-like attributes", "labelling as a cult", etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand people will have personal observations, but my list only displays quotes from reliable sources without any personal analysis or editorializing. If a source attributes claims as coming from critics, governments, or certain analysts, then that's how I have also listed them. For example the AP article has two contrasting opinions, one is by a critic and the other by someone rejecting that criticism. These are two contrasting opinions coming from the same source, and I've quoted them accordingly without any further appraisals. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course those are opinions. Those are just statements by politicians. Those aren't the examples I gave. The voices of subject-matter experts, research organisations and independent bodies are not just opinions however - these are reliable, expert statements. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The source quotes them as opinions, and I'm doing the same. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but random opinions in random news pieces are not very relevant. This sort of stuff carries little to no weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My source analysis prioritizes content from books. Let me know if you have any other book you'd like me to consider. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Workshop: RFC on section title
I intend to open an RFC to resolve the above discussion. It could be as follows: == RFC: Section title for the current "Cult of personality" section ==

What should be title title of the section currently titled "Cult of personality" (permalink)?
 * Option 1: "Cult of personality" (statu quo)
 * Option 2: "Characterization as a cult"

Alternatively, if it turns out there are no further options, I can turn it into a yes/no question, along the following lines: == RFC: Section rename to "Characterization as a cult" ==

Should the section currently titled "Cult of personality" (permalink) be renamed to "Characterization as a cult"?

What do you think? Are these the two options that we would consider? Is there any other? cc participants in the above discussion. MarioGom (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Perhaps Hogo can respond to my final comment above first. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello MarioGom. Before starting a RFC about the title, there are unresolved questions about the content of the section. For example the sentence:

 * The MEK has been described as a "cult" by governments and officials in Iran, the United States, France, and Iraq.

My list shows how Owen Bennett Jones in The BBC and the AP article provide contrasting opinions, yet the sentence selectively represents only one point of view. That is one of several WP:NEUTRAL problems in the section. Would you like to help me clean it up? Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

 * I think the section needs to be rewritten, but at least for my proposal, I do not think it would change the title choice. So I don't think we need to wait for or hold back content changes. That can continue its own editing cycle. For what it's worth, I'm drafting new content, which would open with the following paragraph (still work in progress): Whether the MEK can be characterized as a cult or not is a frequent discussion among scholars. Some of them, including Ervand Abrahamian and Michael Axworthy, consider that, after the Iranian Revolution, the organization became a cult.  Others, including Ronen A. Cohen and Eli Clifton, consider that the organization has some characteristics of a cult. However, Cohen notes that these characteristics are common across military organizations in times of war, and that the MEK cannot be considered a cult. I think the sentence you quote should be replaced as part of a rewrite, since I think it gives undue weight to declarations by some individual government officials, and scholar sources should have more weight.: I'm sorry for being repetitive, but back to the point: do you think all reasonable options for the title are represented? Or do you expect to support any other? Do you think the formulation of the RFC, as presented, would be neutral? MarioGom (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We are all volunteers and obviously you have no obligation to answer any question, but I have asked this many many times in this thread, without receiving any answer. I intend to keep answering your questions and concerns, but it would be really great if you had the courtesy of answering the most basic question I made (repeatedly): Do you think all reasonable options for the title are represented? Or do you expect to support any other? Do you think the formulation of the RFC, as presented, would be neutral? MarioGom (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello : I have already addressed this. But if it's still unclear, the title should align with WP:DUE terminology. So far most sources (particularly books) use "Cult of personality". If it can be established that "Characterization as a cult" (or any other terminology) is more frequently used in sources, then I would support whatever terminology is WP:DUE. I have been analyzing the sources in that section and found that often the content selectively represents only one point of view, so I cannot tell you yet if your title choice is reasonable until we address this. Now would you please address the WP:NEUTRAL problems in that section that I asked about? Why delete from the page that RAND also describes the group as a cult of personality and that this claim is being denied by supporters, and only keep RAND's list of cult characteristics? Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem to have done quite a lot of review of sources, so I thought by now you would have a rough idea of the possible choices. I'm not asking for you to commit to anything, none of this is binding for a future RFC, but ok.I did not delete, I reverted, which is not the same. I objected to your changes and explained why. Your edit removed or replaced the following passages:
 * [According to a RAND Corporation report for the US government, the MEK had] "many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, sexual control (including mandatory divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labour, sleep deprivation, physical abuse and limited exit options."
 * According to RAND, members were lured in through "false promises of employment, land, aid in applying for asylum in Western countries" and then prevented from leaving.
 * and I have not seen any justification other than Merging RAND, which is definitely not an explanation for such a change, in an area that is already proven contentious. MarioGom (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have indeed done a good review of some of the sources, and the main problem with that section is its selective misrepresentation of a single point of view. This was the rationale for merging RAND in a manner that includes the various perspectives the source presents. If representing all significant views is a non-negotiable Wikipedia policy, then why not include the various perspectives the source presents here? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your edit removed key points of the RAND report, the ones I quoted. I have no problem expanding, and in fact, I already mentioned I think the section needs expansion. MarioGom (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that section should be better written to represent the different points of views rather than expanded, but ok, I will add the missing views and then we can open a new topic about rewriting certain passages. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree it will eventually need a rewrite to better represent what reliable sources say, with attention to due weight. Adding more info on cult of personality contributes to that. Removing well sourced mentions to cult beyond cult of personality does not. MarioGom (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In terms of due weight, RAND is cited to a large percentage of the entire section. There are dozens of sources available in this topic, so one source should not carry that much weight. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * These are not useful sources. The BBC piece is half opinion piece itself, is not focused on the issue and merely recollects the uninformed opinions of anonymous soldiers. The AP piece just trots out a few opinions from politicians. There are much more serious, secondary, analytical voices to be referenced here. We don't need trivial, unfocused news clippings and opinions. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello : What is the reason for removing from the article the 13 sources that match the section title "Cult of personality"? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Please, see the edit summary: Several issues: 1) removes well-sourced content (e.g. cult characteristics), 2) misrepresents the RAND report, which describes cult characteristics (not just cult of personality), 3) completely unreasonable refbomb in the body. By refbomb, I mean an indiscriminate list of inline references, where some seem tangential, and there seems to be even duplicates. Although format-wise, it can be improved by using a citation bundle (many examples in this article). Also, please, use proper citation templates. Although my main objection is that the change misrepresents the RAND report, where you changed the quote, seemingly implying that the source discusses only cult of personality, when it goes way way beyond that. MarioGom (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have partially restored your edits. The one for the initial sentence. Reference selection and style can be refined later. MarioGom (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

RAND weight in section "Cult of Personality"
Currently the section "Cult of Personality" has 323 words, of which 102 words (about one-third) are attributed to just one source, RAND. There are dozens of sources available in this topic so the weight given to RAND is undue. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 * The RAND report is probably the second most cited publication about the MEK in academia, after Abrahamian. So it is due.I think Abrahamian is way underrepresented in the section, and even RAND is underrepresented. Major aspects discussed by both sources are not covered. I don't think any of them should be covered less in absolute terms. MarioGom (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello MarioGom, where can I verify that RAND is "probably the second most cited publication about the MEK in academia"? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also note that I didn't say RAND was not due, I said that it's over-represented because its content makes up about one-third of the entire section. If WP:NPOV requires that editors paraphrase from various reliable sources, then why not do this here? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You can verify this by actually reading the most cited academic sources within the article, as well as the most relevant tertiary sources such as Oxford Reference entries. I'll post a bibliographic review here. This will take some time. MarioGom (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll be waiting for your bibliographic review, but kindly prioritize the central issue. If WP:NPOV requires that we paraphrase from various reliable sources, what is your justification for attributing one-third of the entire section to only RAND when there are dozens of sources available? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said, RAND is one of the most cited, not in this article, but in academic publications. I get that you will not check this, but please, understand that preparing a bibliography review for you will require quite some effort and time. About the extension, I did not advocate for RAND to take one-third. What I said is that is should be well represented, and that other sources, especially Abrahamian (which I hope you will not dispute as being the most important author in this area), need to be represented more. So my guess is that a well written section will have less than one third specifically attributed to RAND, not because reduced representation, but because the most reliable sources (currently underrepresented) will increase in weight. MarioGom (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello MarioGom, note that I did not say RAND was an unreliable source, I said RAND is being over-represented (and it is). A workshop should be set in place now so that portion of the section complies with WP:NPOV through additional sources. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Would you endorse such a workshop? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure. I've been reviewing bibliography and drafting some material and I'll be happy to post it here for further discussion. MarioGom (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I have not been involved in this topic recently. But there was a time when I would read about MEK day and night. Based on my research, MarioGom is correct in saying "The RAND report is probably the second most cited publication about the MEK in academia, after Abrahamian."VR (Please ping on reply) 08:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Workshop:RAND and WP:NPOV through additional sources
A bibliography review focused on paraphrasing from various reliable sources. I'll share my review soon. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd be curious to see how frequently each source was cited. For comparison, the RAND article has 33 citations according to google scholar. And the source is both entirely dedicated to MEK, and covers the MEK comprehensively. The first is important, because it assures us all the citations are indeed MEK related. The second is important for establishing relative WEIGHT.VR (Please ping on reply) 08:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello VR. Wildfried Butcha's Who rules Iran? : the structure of power in the Islamic Republic (which ellaborates on the MEK thoroughly) is not cited in that section ("Cult of personality") at all and has 390 citations according to Google scholar, while almost of a third of the entire section remains attributed to only RAND. That's obviously against WP:NPOV. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Ronen Cohen's The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq has 24 citations according to Google scholar (also missing in that section). Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


text:
Ministry of Justice and Public Security

The Royal Ministry of Justice and Public Security (Det kongelige justis- og beredskapsdepartement) is a Norwegian government ministry that oversees justice, the police, and domestic intelligence. The main purpose of the ministry is to provide for the maintenance and development of the basic rule of law. An overriding objective is to ensure the security of society and of individual citizens. The ministry was founded in 1818 and currently employs about 400 people in the central government department. Its subordinate agencies include the Norwegian Police Service, the Norwegian Correctional Service, the Norwegian Police Security Service, the Norwegian Prosecuting Authority, the Judiciary of Norway, and the Directorate of Immigration, and employ around 30,000 people. The Ministry of Justice of Norway oversees the administration of justice in Svalbard.

History
The ministry was founded in 1818 and was known as the Royal Ministry of Justice and the Police from its establishment until 2012, when it was renamed the Royal Ministry of Justice and Public Security. The ministry's headquarters was bombed in the 2011 terrorist attacks, killing three employees. The ministry subsequently moved to its current location at Gullhaug Torg in Nydalen.

People
The Minister of Justice and Public Security is the head of the ministry. Since October 2021 Emilie Enger Mehl has served as Minister of Justice and Public Security.

Organisation
It is organised into the following sections:

 * Press and public relations
 * Penal and rehabilitation matters
 * Legal issues
 * Arctic affairs
 * Police
 * Rescue and readiness
 * Civil rights issues
 * Planning and administration
 * Analytics

Subordinate agencies

 * Norwegian Police Service
 * Norwegian Correctional Service
 * Norwegian Police Security Service
 * Norwegian Prosecuting Authority
 * Judiciary of Norway
 * Norwegian Directorate for Civil Protection
 * Directorate for Emergency Communication
 * Norwegian Military Prosecution Authority
 * Joint Rescue Coordination Centres
 * Mediation Service
 * Norwegian Advisory Council on Bankruptcy
 * Office for Compensation for Victims of Violent Crime
 * Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs
 * Norwegian Civil Affairs Authority
 * Crime Prevention Council
 * Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies
 * Directorate of Immigration
 * Directorate of Integration and Diversity

Current issues
On September 8, 2006, the government commissioned an inquiry on the wrongful conviction of Fritz Moen.

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

title: Ministry of Justice and Public Security


text: Category:Chinese film directors

title: Category:Chinese film directors


text:
S2

S2 or S II may refer to:

Science and technology

 * S2 (star), Milky Way galaxy
 * S/2007 S 2, a natural satellite of Saturn
 * S2 impact (ie, "Spherules 2"), major impact of early Earth
 * S2 map projection, a map projection created at Google
 * S2 steel (shock resisting steel)
 * S2: Keep out of the reach of children, a safety phrase in chemistry
 * Disulfur (S2), an allotrope of sulfur
 * Sulfide (S(2-)) anion

Mathematics

 * S2, the two-dimensional n-sphere
 * S2, the permutation group on two elements

Biology and medicine

 * British NVC community S2, a swamps and tall-herb fens community in the British National Vegetation Classification system
 * Schneider 2 cells, or S2 cells, a commonly used Drosophila cell line

 * Secondary somatosensory cortex, a brain area in the parietal cortex
 * Sacral spinal nerve 2, a spinal nerve of the sacral segment
 * Schedule 2, an Australian legal category assigned to drugs; See Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons
 * S2, the second sacral vertebrae
 * S2 (heart sound), a sound in cardiac auscultation
 * ATC code S02 Otologicals, a subgroup of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System

Computing

 * S2 (programming language)
 * S2 Spreadsheet, by IBM in 1984

Cars

 * AS S2, a 1927 car manufactured in Poland
 * Audi S2, a turbo-charged sports car
 * Lotus Elise S2, a Lotus Elise production series of roadster automobile
 * Porsche 944 S2, a 3l naturally aspirated Porsche 944 sports car

Roads and bus routes

 * County Route S2 (California)
 * Expressway S2 (Poland), a southern bypass of Warsaw
 * S2 National Highway, one of the National Highways of Pakistan
 * S2 expressway (Shanghai), an expressway in Shanghai also known as the Hulu Expressway
 * S2, an abbreviation for a standard single carriageway road, with a single lane going in each direction
 * Stagecoach Gold bus route S2, a bus route in Oxfordshire, England

Aviation and space

 * Bangladesh (aircraft registration code)
 * JetLite (IATA airline code)
 * Focke-Wulf S 2, a 1928 German trainer aircraft
 * Grumman S-2 Tracker, a 1952 United States Navy anti-submarine warfare (ASW) aircraft
 * SABCA S-2, a 1926 Belgian aircraft
 * Short S.2, a Short Brothers aircraft
 * Strojnik S-2, motorglider
 * S-II or S-2, the second stage of the Saturn V rocket

Locomotives

 * Alco S-2, a locomotive
 * Pennsylvania Railroad class S2, a unique steam turbine locomotive
 * NER Class S2, a class of British steam locomotives

Passenger services

 * S2 (Berlin), an S-Bahn service
 * S2 (Dresden), an S-Bahn service
 * S2 (Munich), an S-Bahn service
 * S2 (Nuremberg), an S-Bahn service
 * S2 (RER Vaud), an S-Bahn service in Switzerland
 * S2 (Rhine-Main S-Bahn), an S-Bahn service
 * S2 (Rhine-Ruhr S-Bahn), an S-Bahn service
 * S2 (St. Gallen S-Bahn), an S-Bahn line in Switzerland
 * S2, a planned Bremen S-Bahn service
 * S2, a Hamburg S-Bahn service
 * S2, a Hanover S-Bahn service
 * S2, a RheinNeckar S-Bahn service
 * S2, a Rostock S-Bahn service
 * S2, a Stuttgart S-Bahn service
 * S2, a Stadtbahn Karlsruhe service
 * S2 (ZVV), a service of the S-Bahn Zürich in Switzerland
 * Line S2 (BCR), a commuter rail service in Beijing
 * Line S2 (Milan suburban railway service)
 * Line S2 (Nanjing Metro), a suburban rapid transit line currently under construction in China
 * Line S2 (Wenzhou Rail Transit), a suburban rapid transit line currently under construction in China
 * FGC line S2, a suburban train service in Barcelona Province

Military

 * Soviet submarine S-2, a Soviet World War II submarine
 * Grumman S-2 Tracker, a US Navy aircraft
 * Finnish torpedo boat S2, which sank in 1925
 * USS S-2 (SS-106), a US Navy submarine
 * Göta Signal Corps (designation S2), a 1944–1997 Swedish Army signal unit
 * S2 (missile), the first deployed French land-based strategic missile
 * S-2, a military intelligence officer on the staff of a regiment or battalion
 * HMS Rorqual (S02), a 1956 British Royal Navy Porpoise-class submarine
 * ORP S-2, Polish World War II motor gun boat

Organisations

 * S2 Records, a subsidiary of Sony Music
 * S2 (TV channel), a former Scottish television channel
 * S2 Games, a video game developer
 * S2 Yachts, a defunct sailboat-building company

Products

 * Samsung Galaxy S II, an Android smartphone
 * Samsung Gear S2, a Tizen smartwatch
 * Samsung Galaxy Tab S2, an Android tablet

Cameras

 * Nikon S2, a 35mm rangefinder camera produced between 1954 and 1958 as part of the Nikon S-mount range
 * Nikon 1 S2, a digital mirrorless interchangeable lens camera
 * Canon PowerShot S2 IS, a 2005 5.0 megapixel digital camera
 * FinePix S2 Pro, a 2002 interchangeable lens digital single-lens reflex camera by Fuji
 * Leica S2, a 2009 37 million pixel medium format digital single-lens reflex camera

Other uses

 * Seremban 2, a suburb of Seremban, located in Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia
 * S2, a version of the racing simulation Live for Speed
 * S2, a district of the S postcode area, covering areas of eastern Sheffield
 * Seattle Sounders FC 2, nicknamed S2
 * Second year, in the Scottish education system
 * S2 (classification), used for categorising swimmers based on their level of disability
 * Splatoon 2, a 2017 video game for the Nintendo Switch
 * Pitts Special, Two-Seat Aerobatics Biplane

title: S2


text:
Talk:S2

s2- A gang that started in staten island, there is over 2 thugs/criminals associated with this. s2- is mad pussy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.2.153 (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC) theyre leader who is mentally retarded and is named Shawn Parker S2upid is nothing but a bunch of wiggas who have nothing better to do and is not even big..the boss is known to be scared of mobsters and is known to head to a goal of being nothing better than a bum.

Emoticon
What about the use of the character sequence S2 (or s2) as an emoticon?Panglossa | Talk 23:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's there under "Other". Clarityfiend (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:S2


text:
Thunder Bay (Michigan)

Thunder Bay is a bay in the U.S. state of Michigan on Lake Huron. The bay extends from North Point at 45.02194°N, -83.26611°W to South Point at 44.88333°N, -83.31417°W.

The city of Alpena lies at the mouth of the Thunder Bay River at 45.06333°N, -83.42806°W. The entire bay lies within Alpena County, with Alpena Township in the north and Sanborn Township in the south.

Several islands in the bay are protected as part of the Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge. Thunder Bay Island lies just east of North Point outside the bay. The wildlife in the Bay's waters are protected as part of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

The name is the English translation of the French Anse du Tonnerre, which appears as early as the map of Franquelin in 1688. It was probably derived from the Native American name, as they believed that the Bay was peculiarly subject to thunder storms. The Thunder Bay Band of Chippewa and Ottawa, who called this bay home, merged with the Mackinac Bands of Chippewa and Ottawa Indians in the mid 1800s under Chief Way-ge-maw-waw-be.

There are a substantial number of shipwrecks in and around Thunder Bay. Diving is an important activity.

title: Thunder Bay (Michigan)


text:
Talk:Rita of Cascia

Query
Cascia ou Cássia ??????- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.116.186 (talk • contribs)

patron saint of the town of La Rita, in the state of Zulia, Venezuela. festivities, fair, mass and processions held that day in this town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.77.170.13 (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fact-checking of some details needs to be done
Biographical details don't add up: the article says that Rita was married at age 18, that she lived with her abusive husband for 18 years before his murder, and that she then spent some additional years rearing her two sons before their deaths and her requests to enter the convent. However, it also states that she reconciled the feuding families and/or forgave her husband's murderers (a prerequisite for entering the convent) at age 36, or supposedly, in the same year as her husband's murder.

The old Catholic Encyclopedia article on her states that she was married at age 12, not age 18. This would make more sense given the details about the length of her marriage and the years that passed between her husband's murder and her entry into the convent. Marriage of girls at such a young age would not have been unheard-of in the 14th century. 72.83.247.43 (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorruptibility
Saint Rita is listed on the wiki incorruptibility page as a person who has an incorrupt body. However there is nothing in this article to suggest or source this. A citation should be added discussing her relics or her name should be removed from the incorruptibility list. --Lastentwife (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Should be discussed on the Incorruptibility article. However, if information is found supporting her name on the list, then it should also be added to this article. Nitroblu (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Her body is on public display, apparently. The article amazingly mentions nothing of this. See here: Scroll down about two-thirds of the way. The article needs a photo of this, btw. --98.232.182.66 (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

St. Jude
I do not believe St. Jude’s name should appear in the article (previously mentioned under Legacy), as St. Rita is the true patron saint of impossible or lost causes, whereas St. Jude is one of the “patron saints of the Armenian Apostolic Church” and “Hope for the Hopeless”, and generally not considered the patron saint for impossible or lost causes. I have removed his name from the article, unless someone can make a point to put it back in. Nitroblu (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A beautified article
I especially enjoyed "...her subsequent beautification by Pope Urban VIII"— which did seem apropos in the most pious context of this article. Printed texts embody this kind of content: quoting them and citing them would make a more respectable encyclopedia article. As it stands, this one does have somewhat the air of My Big Coloring Book of Saints. --Wetman (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree. Like most articles on saints, it appears to a non-religious reader to conflict with WP:IN-U.  At any rate, it would be nice to have sources for miracles in articles about saints. Lexo (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The body is on display
Her body is on public display, apparently. The article amazingly mentions nothing of this. See here: http://www.overcomeproblems.com/incorruptables.htm Scroll down about two-thirds of the way. Also here.. http://members.chello.nl/~l.de.bondt/IncorruptBodies.htm The article needs a photo of this, btw. --98.232.182.66 (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 * The first site reports that these are the actual bodies of the people in question, but is there any other evidence for it? Lexo (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Rita vs. St. Rita
The use of these two designations is inconsistent throughout the article. I have made them consistent by using "Rita" to refer to her during her earthly life and "St. Rita" to refer to her after her canonization. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Kolkata
The last paragraph simply introduces what seems to be a local church in Kolkata, India and makes several unsourced claims. Should it be removed or can it be sourced? 2600:387:15:1517:0:0:0:9 (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

 * @2600:387:15:1517:0:0:0:9 edit: Kerala. 2600:387:15:1517:0:0:0:9 (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

"Controversy" section - Redundant/Misleading
The "Controversy" section of the Infobox should be removed or revised. It groups together dissimilar details/facets of St. Rita's life that are better placed in other sections. The four items listed in this section are (1)spousal abuse, (2)feud, (3)family honor, and (4)loneliness. This section corresponds to the Controversy: field of the Infobox Saint template (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_saint). Per the template the section calls for "e.g. controversies about or associated with the saint." Based on the rest of the article, items (1) and (2) could be considered "associated with" Rita of Cascia, technically, but in the sense that she was a VICTIM of (1) and acted in opposition to (2). (3) is really a descriptor of (2) and not a controversy in and of itself. These don't meet the criteria on the template or the common understanding of what it means to be associated with controversy - she did not perpetrate or (1) or (2/3), and (2/3) didn't arise about or because of her. (4) is not even a controversy. The inclusion of (4) makes me think an editor conflated in the Controversy field with issues that St. Rita's intercession would be invoked for (already covered under "Patronage"), or else, issues that the saint personally faced during her life. 2600:1700:1370:A140:C426:A225:FA08:2E45 (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rita of Cascia


text:
STS-115

STS-115 was a Space Shuttle mission to the International Space Station (ISS) flown by. It was the first assembly mission to the ISS after the Columbia disaster, following the two successful Return to Flight missions, STS-114 and STS-121. STS-115 launched from LC-39B at the Kennedy Space Center on September 9, 2006, at 11:14:55 EDT (15:14:55 UTC).

The mission is also referred to as ISS-12A by the ISS program. The mission delivered the second port-side truss segment (ITS P3/P4), a pair of solar arrays (2A and 4A), and batteries. A total of three spacewalks were performed, during which the crew connected the systems on the installed trusses, prepared them for deployment, and did other maintenance work on the station.

STS-115 was originally scheduled to launch in April 2003. The Columbia accident in February 2003 pushed the date back to August 27, 2006, which was again moved back for various reasons, including a threat from Tropical Storm Ernesto and the strongest lightning strike to ever hit an occupied shuttle launchpad.

Crew
Note:The P3/P4 Truss segment and batteries were so heavy (more than 17.5 short tons, or roughly 16 metric tons) that the crew count was reduced from seven to six.

Crew notes
Canadian Space Agency astronaut MacLean became the first Canadian to operate Canadarm2 and its Mobile Base in space as he was handed a new set of solar arrays from Ferguson and Burbank controlling the original Canadian robotic arm, the Canadarm. MacLean performed a spacewalk, becoming only the second Canadian, after Chris Hadfield to do so.

The mission patch worn on the clothing used by the astronauts of STS-115 was designed by Graham Huber, Peter Hui, and Gigi Lui, three students at York University in Toronto, Ontario, the same university that Steve MacLean attended. The students also designed Steve MacLean's personal patch for this mission.

Mission payloads
The primary payload was the second left-side ITS P3/P4 Truss segment, a pair of solar arrays, and associated batteries.

Mission objectives

 * Delivery and installation of two truss segments (P3 and P4)
 * Delivery and deployment of two new solar arrays (4A and 2A)
 * Perform three spacewalks to connect truss segments, remove restraints on solar arrays, and prepare the station for the next assembly mission by STS-116

Mission background
NASA managers decided to move the STS-115 launch date forward to August 27 to obtain better lighting conditions to photograph the external tank. This occurred before with STS-31 and STS-82. The launch window was co-ordinated with the Soyuz TMA-9 launch in mid-September, which delivered a new ISS crew and fresh supplies to the station. The Soyuz spacecraft operationally did not dock to the station while the Space Shuttle was there.

The mission marks:
 * 147th NASA crewed space flight.
 * 116th space shuttle flight since STS-1.
 * 27th flight of Atlantis.
 * 91st post-Challenger mission.
 * 3rd post-Columbia mission.
 * 1st post-Columbia mission of Atlantis.

Launch preparations
Atlantis was rolled out from the Orbiter Processing Facility to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) on July 24, 2006. It was lowered onto the mobile launcher platform on July 26 and rolled out to Pad 39B in the early morning hours of August 2. The rollout was scheduled for July 31, but a storm in the vicinity of the Kennedy Space Center resulted in a delay of two days from fears of the orbiter being hit by lightning, which could cause immeasurable damage.

On the weekend of August 5 to 6, 2006, engineers completed a "flight readiness" check of the shuttle's main engines, which were deemed ready for launch. The crew arrived at the Kennedy Space Center August 7, 2006, for four days of launch rehearsals, including a practice countdown August 10.

Top NASA managers held a Flight Readiness Review (FRR) meeting August 15–16, 2006 to finalize the launch date. Foam loss from the external tank was a key issue at this meeting because on August 13, 2006, NASA announced there was an average amount of loss from the external tank of STS-121, the previous mission. Columbia's demise was due to a piece of foam, shed from its external tank, striking the shuttle's left wing during launch and causing a hole that was breached during re-entry.

The meeting also discussed problems with the bolts securing the shuttle's Ku-band antenna, which might not have been threaded correctly. The installation had been in place for several flights and hadn't experienced any problems. At the end of the two-day meeting, NASA managers had decided to proceed with the launch on August 27, 2006. However, on August 18, 2006, NASA decided to replace the antenna bolts with Atlantis still on the launch pad. NASA had no procedure to replace these on the pad, but the work was nonetheless completed by August 20, without affecting the planned launch date.

On August 25, 2006, a direct lightning strike, the most powerful recorded at Kennedy Space Center, hit the lightning rod atop the launch pad. As a result, on August 26 the Mission Management Team ordered the mission postponed for at least 24 hours to assess damage. On August 27, the decision was made to postpone the launch for another 24 hours, making the earliest possible launch date August 29, 2006, still unassured that there was no damage from the lightning strike and taking into account the possible threat from Hurricane Ernesto.

On August 28, 2006, it was decided to postpone the launch and rollback Atlantis to the VAB after updated forecasts projected Hurricane Ernesto would regain its strength and pass closer to Kennedy Space Center than previously anticipated. NASA began rolling back the shuttle on August 29, 2006, in the late morning, but by early afternoon the decision was made to move Atlantis back to the launch pad (something that has never been done before) to weather out Tropical Storm Ernesto instead. The change came after weather forecasters determined that the storm wouldn't hit Kennedy Space Center as forcefully as they once thought. Its peak winds were expected to be less than 79 mph (126 kilometers per hour), NASA's limit for keeping the shuttle outdoors.

By the early morning of August 31, 2006, the storm had passed and inspection teams began a survey for damage to the launch facilities. Only three problems were discovered, all of which were simple repairs. A target date for launch was set for September 6 with the option to launch for another two days after NASA and Russian space managers agreed to extend the launch window by one day. On the morning of September 3, 2006, the official countdown began at the T minus 43-hour mark, with about 30 hours of scheduled holds. In the early morning of September 6, 2006, engineers observed an apparent internal short when one of the three electricity producing fuel cells was powered up. When engineers couldn't figure out the problem in time, the launch was scrubbed for the day to further analyze the fuel cell problem. Late Wednesday evening NASA managers decided that they would not attempt a launch on Thursday, and scheduled the next launch attempt for September 8, 2006. Originally they had ruled out September 9 as a potential launch date due to a conflict with the planned Russian Soyuz mission Soyuz TMA-9, which was scheduled to, and did, launch on September 18, 2006. This caused some news agencies to report that Friday as the last chance for a launch until October.

September 8 (Launch attempt 1)
On the morning of September 8, 2006, it was reported that one of the engine cut-off (ECO) sensors in the external tank had failed. About half an hour before the scheduled launch time, NASA announced it had decided to delay the launch for another 24 hours while the fuel was drained out of the external tank and the problem assessed. The sensor in question, ECO sensor No. 3, was proved to be faulty when it indicated that there was still liquid hydrogen in the external tank despite all of it being drained out. The other three ECO sensors correctly indicated a dry tank; and as long as they didn't start to malfunction, NASA could allow a launch with three out of the four ECO sensors operational.

September 9 (Flight day 1, Launch)
On September 9, 2006, all the engine cut-off sensors were working properly, and following a flawless countdown, at 15:15 UTC (11:15 EDT), Atlantis lifted off the launch pad to the International Space Station. As Atlantis launched, the International Space Station was 350 km above the northern Atlantic Ocean, between Greenland and Iceland.

During the climb to orbit, Mission Control asked the crew to reconfigure a cooling system that apparently had ice build up. The reconfiguration cleared the system, called the Flash Evaporator System, and it operated normally. Temporary ice in that cooling unit is not uncommon and has occurred on previous missions.

Moments after main engine cutoff, 8.5 minutes after liftoff, Tanner and MacLean used hand-held video and digital still cameras to document the external tank after it separated from the shuttle. That imagery, as well as imagery gathered by cameras in the shuttle's umbilical well where the tank was connected, was transmitted to the ground for review.

September 10 (Flight day 2)

 * Day 2: Canadarm inspection animation

During their first full day in space, the crew thoroughly examined Atlantis with the Orbiter Boom Sensor System, the 15 meter (50-foot) long extension for the shuttle's robotic arm. Pilot Chris Ferguson and mission specialists Dan Burbank and Steve MacLean performed a slow, steady inspection of the reinforced carbon-carbon panels along the leading edge of Atlantis' starboard and port wings and the nose cap.

The crew worked ahead of schedule for most of the day readying the ship for docking and preparing for the mission's three planned extra-vehicular activities (EVA). Mission specialists Joe Tanner and Heide Stefanyshyn-Piper checked out the spacesuits and tools that they, Burbank and MacLean used during spacewalks set for Days 4, 5, and 7. The spacewalks installed the girder-like P3/P4 truss, deploy new solar arrays, and prepare them for operation.

On the space station, Expedition 13 Flight Engineer Jeffrey Williams prepared the orbiting laboratory for Atlantis' arrival on Day 3. He readied the digital cameras that was used to take high-resolution photos of the shuttle's heat shield. With help from Commander Pavel Vinogradov, Williams pressurized the Pressurized Mating Adapter 2 at the end of the Destiny Laboratory Module, where Atlantis later docked. Vinogradov also prepacked equipment to be returned.

September 11 (Flight day 3)

 * Day 3: Docking animation

Prior to docking, Jett flew Atlantis through an orbital back flip while stationed about 180 meters (600 feet) below the space station. The maneuver allowed the Expedition 13 crew to take a series of high-resolution photographs of the orbiter's heat shield.

At about 10:46 UTC Atlantis docked with the International Space Station, and almost two hours later the hatch between them was opened, and the crew was welcomed aboard the station at 12:35 UTC.

 * Day 3: Handoff animation

Following docking, Ferguson and Burbank attached the shuttle's robotic Canadarm to the 17.5-ton P3/P4 truss, lifted it from its berth in the payload bay, and maneuvered it for handover to the station's Canadarm2.

After hatch opening, MacLean and Expedition 13 Flight Engineer Jeff Williams then used the Canadarm2 to take the truss from the shuttle's robotic arm. MacLean is the first Canadian to operate the Canadarm2 in space.

Tanner and Stefanyshyn-Piper began the "camping out" preparations in the Quest Airlock to prepare for a Day 4 spacewalk. The preparations are new pre-breathing measures on the part of NASA, to avoid decompression sickness, or the bends, by getting rid of some nitrogen in their bloodstreams. The preparations involve wearing oxygen masks and sleeping overnight in the airlock with the airlock at under 69 kPa (10 psi), to acclimate their bodies the low pressures they will encounter when wearing their spacesuits.

September 12 (Flight day 4)

 * Day 4: Truss installation animation

Following the installation of the P3/P4 Truss to the ISS by the Canadarm2, Tanner and Stefanyshyn-Piper began their spacewalk to activate the truss at 09:17 UTC. During the EVA they installed power and data cables between the P1 & P3/P4 trusses, released the P3/P4 truss' launch restraints and a number of other tasks to configure the truss for upcoming activities. The spacewalk was so successful that the astronauts carried out a number of tasks scheduled for later EVAs, with the eventual completion of the EVA at 15:43 UTC. A bolt, spring and washer assembly from a launch lock was lost during these extra activities and floated off into space.

Following the completion of the EVA, the station's crew began preparing for Day 5's spacewalk, with astronauts Burbank and MacLean entering the Quest Airlock for their "camp out" at 18:40 UTC, ready for the scheduled 09:15 UTC EVA.

September 13 (Flight day 5)

 * Day 5: Activation of SARJ animation

On Day 5, the second spacewalk of the mission was conducted, this time by first-time spacewalkers Burbank and MacLean. They devoted the day to the final tasks required for activation of the Solar Alpha Rotary Joint (SARJ). The SARJ is an automobile-sized joint that will allow the station's solar arrays to turn and point toward the sun. Burbank and MacLean released locks that had held the joint secure during its launch to orbit aboard Atlantis. As they worked, the spacewalkers overcame several minor problems, including a malfunctioning helmet camera, a broken socket tool, a stubborn bolt, and a bolt that came loose from the mechanism designed to hold it captive. The stubborn bolt required the force of both spacewalkers to finally remove it.

Burbank and MacLean spent 7 hours and 11 minutes outside the station, beginning their spacewalk at 09:05 UTC and completing it at 16:16 UTC. In addition to the SARJ work, they completed several "get-ahead" tasks during their time outside.

Engineers encountered a glitch during the four-hour activation and checkout of SARJ, and had temporarily delayed starting the deployment of the new solar arrays pending further work and checkout of the SARJ. The timeline allowed ample time to continue working on the problem during the night and still complete the deploy of the arrays on Thursday as scheduled.

September 14 (Flight day 6)

 * Day 6: Solar array deployment animation

Day 6 continued the installation of the solar array. The unfurling of the solar panels themselves began a little behind schedule due to the problem encountered on Day 5 with SARJ. This problem was determined to be in the software, and a workaround was developed. The unfurling of the panels continued throughout the morning in stages to prevent the panels sticking, as they did during STS-97. It was noted by the crew that some panels were still sticking together, but this didn't cause any problems. Although the installation has been completed, the solar arrays will not provide power to the station until the next shuttle mission, STS-116, scheduled for December 2006, when the station will undergo a major electrical system rewiring.

Other activities of Day 6 included a "double walk off" of the station's Canadarm2 from its current location at the Mobile Base System to the Destiny Laboratory Module and the preparation for the mission's third spacewalk. A number of interviews were also conducted later in the day, between Jett & MacLean and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper & students.

September 15 (Flight day 7)

Flight day 7 featured the third and final spacewalk of mission STS-115. The start of the spacewalk was delayed after a circuit-breaker-like remote power controller (RPC) tripped, causing loss of power to the airlock's depressurization pump. This was attributed to a momentary spike in the electric current of the depressurization pump. After assessing data to ensure the system had no short circuit, the breaker was reset and pump reactivated. Joe Tanner and Heide Stefanyshyn-Piper began their spacewalk at 10:00 UTC after a 45-minute delay

During the 6-hour and 42-minute spacewalk, the astronauts carried out numerous maintenance and repair tasks including removal of hardware used to secure the P3/P4 radiator during launch. Ground Flight Controllers subsequently unfurled the radiator, increasing the ability of the station to dissipate heat into space. Also, completed during this spacewalk was the retrieval of a materials exposure experiment from the outside of the ISS, maintenance on the P6 truss, installation of a wireless TV aerial and the replacement of the S1 truss' S-band antenna assembly.

A number of "get-ahead" tasks previously scheduled for future missions were also performed during this spacewalk. Near the end of the spacewalk, the astronauts carried out a test to evaluate using infrared video of the leading edge of Atlantis' wing to detect debris damage.

After the spacewalk, the station's mobile transporter was moved to a worksite on the P3 truss to inspect portions of that truss.

September 16 (Flight day 8)
Day 8 of STS-115, the last full day with Space Shuttle Atlantis docked to the ISS, was mainly spent in preparation for the undocking procedures to occur in flight day 9. The crew spent the morning resting following their highly successful mission, and then began getting ready for the undocking by carrying out transfers of ISS equipment and science experiments onto Atlantis ready for the trip home.

The crews of Expedition 13 and STS-115 also took part in the traditional joint-crew news conference, with mission Commander Brent Jett commenting on the success of the mission and on the construction missions to follow:

"All of the rest of the assembly missions are going to be challenging. We have similar payloads flying in the future. We are off to a good start on assembly. I think we can pass along a lot of the lessons to the future crews."

September 17 (Flight day 9)
Flight day 9 saw the end of STS-115's tasks at the ISS as Atlantis undocked from the International Space Station at 12:50 UTC.

Following the traditional farewell ceremonies between Expedition 13 and STS-115, the hatch between Atlantis and the ISS was closed and locked at 10:27 UTC. Then, after a series of checks for leaks, Atlantis left the dock to begin its 360-degree flyaround of the expanded ISS to document the new configuration.

September 18 (Flight day 10)
The crew of STS-115 spent the morning of Flight Day 10 carrying out final inspections of Atlantis' heat shield in preparation for re-entry on flight day 12.

Orbiting around 80 km behind the ISS, the crew used the Orbiter's robotic arm and boom sensor system to make sure that no damage had been done to Atlantis' nose and wing leading edges by micrometeoroids and other space junk. The crew spent the rest of this light duty day stowing equipment in preparation for re-entry and landing.

September 19 (Flight day 11)
During the morning of day 11, astronauts Jett and Ferguson tested Atlantis' reaction control thrusters and practiced for landing using on-board computers. The thrusters will be used to position the shuttle during re-entry.

The crew also took some time for interviews, with Ferguson telling the media that everyone on board was looking forward to landing. "I think we all, thus far, feel pretty good about the job that we did," Ferguson said. "We are looking forward to a successful re-entry and landing sometime tomorrow."

Following the interviews, the crew continued their preparations for re-entry by stowing unnecessary equipment and other tasks prior to landing. However, the crew informed the Mission Control Center later in the day that, following the test of the reaction control system, an object was seen moving in a co-orbital path with the Orbiter. The astronauts spotted the object using an on-board TV camera, but unfortunately the resolution of the images was not high enough to identify the object.

The images were sent down to the MCC for further analysis by flight controllers, who were concerned about the possibility that the object may have come off Atlantis, and as such wished to identify the object. The most likely scenario was that the object was benign, such as ice or a piece of shimstock (observed earlier in the flight protruding from the heat shield) that may have shaken loose. However, the possibility remained that the object may be of critical importance, such as a tile from the Orbiter's thermal protection system, and the Mission Control Center asked Atlantis' crew to power up the shuttle's robotic arm ready to reinspect the orbiter, and drew up plans for a series of tests which took place on flight day 12 to determine whether the shuttle was safe for re-entry. This extra inspection, added to poor weather forecasts predicted for the Shuttle Landing Facility for Wednesday, and the de-orbit burn and landing were delayed by a day.

September 20 (Flight day 12)
Following the discovery of a co-orbiting object on flight day 11, Flight Controllers spent the early hours of the morning using the Orbiter's robotic arm to inspect the upper surface of Atlantis, with the astronauts on board the Orbiter spending the rest of the morning scanning the underside of the shuttle for any areas of concern. Following these scans, the crew received word from the Mission Control Center in Houston to use the orbiter boom sensor system to conduct more inspections of Atlantis' heat shield.

Following the review of these scans, together with an overnight analysis of the payload bay by Ground Flight Controllers, it was determined that there remained no safety issue with Atlantis, and Mission Controllers cleared the Orbiter for re-entry. This clean bill of health, added to a favorable weather forecast for the Shuttle Landing Facility for Thursday morning, permitted Atlantis to be cleared for a landing the next day.

The crew spent the remainder of the day in preparation for landing, packing up gear and stowing the Ku band antenna used for TV broadcasts. During the inspection, the crew was notified that the Soyuz TMA-9 spacecraft was docked with the ISS above, which carried the first half of the Expedition 14 crew.

September 21 (Flight day 13 and landing)
Flight day 13 was the last day of the mission, with the final re-entry procedures and landing taking place during the morning, and numerous debriefs and conferences in the afternoon. The landing process began hours before the actual landing at Kennedy Space Center. The process began with the APU prestart at 04:37 EDT, followed by the closing of the payload bay doors and sealing of the Orbiter at 04:45 EDT. Atlantis' crew received the final "Go" for the prime re-entry window from Mission Control in Houston at 04:52 EDT. The crew then started the deorbit reorientation of the shuttle so that its engines faced in its direction of travel, meaning that by firing the engines for the deorbit burn Atlantis would slow down and begin its descent out of orbit.

The de-orbit burn was initiated at 05:15 EDT, lasting 2 minutes 40 seconds with two engines burning well throughout. The astronauts aboard the Orbiter were informed at 05:17 EDT that their burn was perfect, with no alterations required as Atlantis began her drop through the atmosphere above the Indian Ocean.

Following the deorbit burn, the crew of Atlantis began dumping excess propellant overboard, a process lasting 3 minutes, concluding at 05:26 EDT, with the Orbiter 55 minutes away from landing. Twenty-five minutes later, at 05:51 EDT, Atlantis began feeling the effects of the atmosphere at an altitude of approximately 130 km, and soon after began its "roll reversal banking" in order to bleed off most of the 27000 km/h she was traveling at, ready for landing at less than 760 km/h. The ISS was positioned in such a way as to be above the reentry path taken by Atlantis, so the astronauts were able to observe the entire maneuver from above.

At 06:08 EDT, the downlink from the Shuttle was acquired by the MILA tracking station on Merritt Island, Florida, with GPS data beginning to be accepted by the Orbiter three minutes later. Ten minutes following the first detection of Atlantis, two sonic booms were heard at Kennedy Space Center as the Orbiter dropped below the sound barrier three minutes prior to touchdown. Commander Jett took control of Atlantis a minute later, and, with Kennedy Space Center Runway 33 in sight, began bringing his ship in for a landing.

Atlantis' main gear touched down at 06:21:30 EDT on Runway 33 at the Space Shuttle Landing Facility at Kennedy Space Center, with the nose gear following 6 seconds later at 06:21:36 EDT, and, 8,000,000 km after launch, the Orbiter's wheels came to a stop at 06:22:16 EDT, bringing mission STS-115 to an end.

The morning's landing was considered a night landing as it took place about 48 minutes before sunrise, and as such was the 21st night landing for the Space Shuttle Program. It was the 63rd landing at Kennedy Space Center, as well as the 27th mission for Atlantis.

Post flight
While working on the Atlantis orbiter, NASA technicians discovered that one of the spacecraft's radiator panels showed evidence of micrometeorite damage. A hole was observed which was reported to be about 2.7 mm (0.108 in) in diameter.

Debris analysis
NASA's Mission Management Team conducted a detailed analysis of data from many sources including ground imagery, radar, shuttle inspections using the Canadarm and from the space station. By Day 2 they pinpointed a handful of launch debris events, and drew a preliminary conclusion that the effect was minimal. Later that day, NASA agency engineers decided that additional heat shield inspections were not required. The preceding only relates to debris shed immediately during or after launch, and not the debris observed on September 19, 2006.

Not mentioned was a large debris event during launch at 48 seconds near max Q. Because it happened on the ET side opposite the Orbiter, it was never a danger to the Shuttle. By the origin from near the top of the ET, it presents a new source of debris and is therefore of concern for further missions.

Wake-up calls
A tradition for NASA spaceflights since the days of Gemini, mission crews are played a special musical track at the start of each day in space. Each track is specially chosen, often by their family, and usually has special meaning to an individual member of the crew, or is applicable to their daily activities.

Contingency mission
STS-300 was the designation given to the Contingency Shuttle Crew Support mission which would have launched in the event Space Shuttle Discovery became disabled during STS-114 or STS-121. This rescue mission would have been a modified version of the STS-115 mission with the launch date being brought forward and the crew reduced. STS-300 would have launched no earlier than August 17, 2006, and the crew for STS-300 would have been a four-person subset of the full STS-115 crew:
 * Brent Jett, commander
 * Christopher Ferguson, pilot and backup Remote Manipulator System (RMS) operator
 * Joseph Tanner, mission specialist 1, Extravehicular 1 and prime RMS operator
 * Daniel Burbank, mission specialist 2 and Extravehicular 2

Videos

 * Mission Timeline – Canadian Space Agency: with animations of key parts of the mission
 * STS-115 Video Highlights

title: STS-115


text:
Wilfred Josephs

Wilfred Josephs (24 July 1927 – 17 November 1997) was an English composer.

Life
Born in Gosforth, Newcastle upon Tyne, the fourth and youngest son of Russian and South Shields Jewish parents, Wilfred Josephs had his first musical studies in Newcastle with Arthur Milner, and showed early promise, but was persuaded by his parents to take up a 'sensible' career. He subsequently became a dentist, qualifying as a Bachelor of Dental Surgery of the University of Durham in 1951. He later studied at the Guildhall School in London.

In 1963 his Requiem, a complete setting of the Hebrew Kaddish, written in memory of the Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust, won the first International Composing Competition of the City of Milan and La Scala – then the biggest musical award in the world, after which he gave up dentistry and became a full-time composer. The Requiem was performed by Nino Sanzogno in Milan, Maurice Handford for the BBC, Max Rudolf in Cincinnati, and Giulini in Chicago. A recording was made by David Measham for Unicorn Kanchana.

Josephs was awarded an honorary Doctorate of Music of Newcastle University in 1978. In October 1996, a concert of his works was given at Newcastle University in his presence. He died in London in 1997, leaving a wife, Valerie, and two daughters, Claudia and Philippa. The Wilfred Josephs Society continues to promote his works, the president of which was Sir Charles Mackerras.

Works
Wilfred Josephs was a prolific composer and his classical works include 12 symphonies, 22 concertos, overtures, chamber music, operas, ballets, vocal works – almost all of which had been written to commission. An exception was Requiescant pro defunctis, a string quartet composed as Josephs' personal response to newsreel footage of Auschwitz shown at the time of the Adolf Eichmann trial. This string quartet became the basis of the Kaddish Requiem.

Josephs is best remembered for composing the music for the television series The Great War (1964), Horizon (BBC TV series) 1964', "WPIX Chiller Theatre", 1965 Theatre 625 (1965), Talking to a Stranger (1966), Weavers Green (1966), W. Somerset Maugham (1969), Cider with Rosie (1971), The Guardians (1971) I, Claudius (1976), Disraeli (1978), The Ghosts of Motley Hall (1976), Enemy at the Door (1978), The Voyage of Charles Darwin (1978), Pride and Prejudice (1980), The Brief (1984) and The Return of the Antelope (1986), as well as incidental music for The Prisoner (1967). His film scores include Cash on Demand (1961), Two Letter Alibi (1962), Fanatic (1965), The Deadly Bees (1966), Hostile Witness (1968), My Side of the Mountain (1969), Cry of the Banshee (1970), Dark Places (1973), Callan (1974), Swallows and Amazons (1974), All Creatures Great and Small (1975), The Uncanny (1977), Martin's Day (1985) and Mata Hari (1985).

In 1966, under the pseudonym Wilfred Wylam, Josephs composed the score for Man of Magic, a musical based on the life of magician Harry Houdini, with book by John Morley and Aubrey Cash. Produced by impresario Harold Fielding, the show opened at the Manchester Opera House on 22 October before transferring to the Piccadilly Theatre in London where it ran for 135 performances.

His other notable works include an opera, Rebecca (1983), based on Daphne du Maurier's novel, a ballet Cyrano (1991) and the Aelian Dances, based on Newcastle folk songs (the title is a reference to Newcastle's Roman name), a music theatre piece in memory of his nephew, A Child of the Universe, Op. 80, and a children's opera, Alice in Wonderland, Op. 144 (1985–1988).

Recordings

 * Requiem, Robert Dawe, baritone; Daphne Harris, soprano (2nd movement – Yitgadal); Adelaide String Quartet, with Pamela de Almeida, 2nd cello; Adelaide Chorus; Adelaide Symphony Orchestra, David Measham, Unicorn-Kanchana LP DKP 9032 (released on double CD in November 2015 – Lyrita SRCD.2352)

title: Wilfred Josephs


text:
Party of Democratic Socialism (India)

The Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS) is a political party in West Bengal in India. The PDS was founded in February 2001 by former Communist Party of India (Marxist) leaders Saifuddin Choudhury and Samir Putatundu. The PDS was in opposition to the Left Front government in West Bengal.

History
The PDS was founded by Saifuddin Chaudhury on 21 February 2001. Samir Putatunda, who had been expelled from CPI(M), joined the new party.

Alliances
Initially there was speculation that the PDS would joint with the All India Trinamool Congress, or else that it would be a constituent of an anti-CPI(M) mahajot (broad front), but the link between Trinamool and the Hindu rightist Bharatiya Janata Party hindered such a development.

The PDS has formed relations with other pro-Congress leftist outfits, such as the Communist Marxist Party in Kerala and the United Communist Party of India. PDS participates in the Confederation of Indian Communists and Democratic Socialists.

Elections
Ahead of the West Bengal state assembly elections in 2001, the PDS had launched their own front. The PDS put up 98 candidates, who together got 219,082 votes (0.6% of the votes in the state). None of their candidates were elected. Ahead of the Lok Sabha elections in 2004, the PDS had joined hands with Congress, and put up two candidates supported by Congress.

Organisation
The flag of the PDS is a red flag with a red star in a white circle. The president of the PDS is Saifuddin Chaudhury, the general secretary is Samir Putatundu (formerly the CPI(M) South 24 Paraganas district secretary), and the treasurer is Subir Chaudhury.

The women's organization of the PDS is called Paschim Banga Nari Sanghati Samiti (West Bengal Women's United Association). The president of PBNSS is Kishwar Jahan. The PDS publishes Natun Path (New Way).

title: Party of Democratic Socialism (India)


text:
Armstrong Siddeley

Armstrong Siddeley was a British engineering group that operated during the first half of the 20th century. It was formed in 1919 and is best known for the production of luxury vehicles and aircraft engines.

The company was created following the purchase by Armstrong Whitworth of Siddeley-Deasy, a manufacturer of luxury motor cars that were marketed to the top echelon of society. After the merge of companies, this focus on quality continued throughout in the production of cars, aircraft engines, gearboxes for tanks and buses, rocket and torpedo motors, and the development of railcars. Company mergers and takeovers with Hawker Aviation and Bristol Aero Engines saw the continuation of the car production which ceased in August 1960.

The company was absorbed into the Rolls-Royce conglomerate which was interested in the aircraft and aircraft engine business. Eventually, the remaining spares and all motor car interests were sold to the Armstrong Siddeley Owners Club Ltd, which now owns the patents, designs, copyrights and trademarks, including the name Armstrong Siddeley.

Considered "an elegant car appropriate for royal use", the "Armstrong Siddeley Saloon" was used by the Prince of Wales (later King Edward VIII) during his 1930 tour of Uganda.

Siddeley Autocar
The Siddeley Autocar Company, of Coventry, was founded by John Davenport Siddeley (1866–1953) in 1902. Its products, made for him by a Vickers subsidiary, were heavily based on Peugeots using many Peugeot parts and fitted with English-built bodies. J. D. Siddeley was appointed London sales manager of Vickers Limited's subsidiary Wolseley in early 1905 at the same time as Wolseley purchased the goodwill and patent rights of his Siddeley car. A few months later Herbert Austin left to form his own business and Siddeley was appointed general manager.

Without the consent of the Vickers brothers Siddeley added his own name to the Wolseley nameplate but it was dropped on his departure.

Siddeley-Deasy
In 1909, J. D. Siddeley resigned from Wolseley and in 1910, he took on management of The Deasy Motor Car Manufacturing Company, Limited. The shareholders were so pleased with his success in that post that on 7 November 1912 they unanimously agreed to change the company's name to The Siddeley-Deasy Motor Car Company Limited. Siddeley's name had been added to the product's radiator earlier in 1912. His cars began to use the slogan "As silent as the Sphinx", sporting a Sphinx as a bonnet mascot.

Armstrong Siddeley
In April 1919, Siddeley-Deasy was bought out by Armstrong Whitworth Development Company of Newcastle upon Tyne and in May 1919 became Armstrong Siddeley Motors Ltd, a subsidiary with J. D. Siddeley as managing director. In 1927, Armstrong Whitworth merged its heavy engineering interests with Vickers to form Vickers-Armstrongs. At this point, J. D. Siddeley brought Armstrong Siddeley and Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft into his control. In 1928, Armstrong Siddeley Holdings bought Avro from Crossley Motors. Also that year Siddeley partnered with Walter Gordon Wilson, inventor of the pre-selector gearbox, to create Improved Gears Ltd, which later became Self-Changing Gears – the gearbox that should be credited with enabling the marketing tagline "Cars for the daughters of gentlemen".

Armstrong Siddeley manufactured luxury cars, aircraft engines, and later, aircraft. In 1935, J. D. Siddeley's interests were purchased for £2 million by aviation pioneer Tommy Sopwith, owner of Hawker Aircraft, to form – along with the Gloster Aircraft Company and Air Training Services – Hawker Siddeley, a famous name in British aircraft production. Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft and Armstrong Siddeley Motors became subsidiaries of Hawker Siddeley, with Sopwith himself becoming the new chairman of Armstrong Siddeley Motors. At this time, there remained an "unbroken business association" between the Siddeley family and the Middleton-Joy family who were manufactures of Filtrate Oil and had enjoyed considerable success in car-racing rallies.

Armstrong Siddeley was merged with the aircraft engine business of Bristol Aeroplane Company (Bristol Aero Engines) to form Bristol Siddeley as part of an ongoing rationalisation under government influence of the British aircraft and aircraft engine manufacturers. Armstrong Siddeley produced their last cars in 1960. Bristol Siddeley and Rolls-Royce merged in 1966, the latter subsuming the former which remained for a while as an aircraft engine division within Rolls-Royce.

In June 1972, Rolls-Royce (1972) Ltd sold all the stock of spares plus all patents, specifications, drawings, catalogues and the name of Armstrong Siddeley Motors Ltd to the Armstrong Siddeley Owners Club Ltd. This meant that "Armstrong Siddeley" and "A-S Sphinx Logo" are trademarks and copyright of the Armstrong Siddeley Owners Club Ltd.

The "Siddeley" name survived a while longer in aviation, through Hawker Siddeley Aviation and Hawker Siddeley Dynamics. In 1977 they joined with others to become British Aerospace (BAe) which with further mergers is now BAE Systems.

Motor cars
The first car produced from the union was a fairly massive machine, a 5-litre 30 hp. A smaller 18 hp appeared in 1922 and a 2-litre 14 hp was introduced in 1923. 1928 saw the company's first 15 hp six; 1929 saw the introduction of a 12 hp vehicle. This was a pioneering year for the marque, during which it first offered the Wilson preselector gearbox as an optional extra; it became standard issue on all cars from 1933. In 1930 the company marketed four models, of 12, 15, 20, and 30 hp, the last costing £1450.

The company's rather staid image was endorsed during the 1930s by the introduction of a range of six-cylinder cars with ohv engines, though a four-cylinder 12 hp was kept in production until 1936.

In 1932 - or thereabouts, a line of special, rather more sporty designs was started which resulted in the Rally Tourer series. The aim was to help shake off the somewhat pedestrian image of what was in fact a rather advanced product. Of the 16 rally tourers built, many were used by the owners or senior directors, and were entered into various rallies, achieving some good results and making for good publicity. Only one of those 16 special cars is now known to exist: a 1933, Long-15 Rally Tourer which, according to the records, shared the same body as the 20 hp version (which had a slightly longer bonnet).

In 1933, the 5-litre six-cylinder Siddeley Special was announced, featuring a Hiduminium aluminium alloy engine; this model cost £950. Car production continued at a reduced rate throughout 1940, and a few were assembled in 1941.

The week that World War II ended in Europe, Armstrong Siddeley introduced its first post-war models; these were the Lancaster four-door saloon and the Hurricane drophead coupe. The names of these models echoed the names of aircraft produced by the Hawker Siddeley Group (the name adopted by the company in 1935) during the war. These cars all used a 2-litre six-cylinder (16 hp) engines, increased to 2.3-litre (18 hp) engines in 1949. From 1949 to 1952 two commercial variants of the 18 hp Whitleys were produced, primarily for export. The Utility Coupé was a conventional coupe utility style vehicle, while the Station Coupé was effectively a dual cab vehicle, although it still retained only two doors. However, it did have two rows of seating to accommodate up to four adults and the doors were larger to allow better access to the rear. From 1953 the company produced the Sapphire, with a 3.4-litre six-cylinder engine.

In 1956, the model range was expanded with the addition of the 234 (a 2.3-litre four-cylinder) and the 236 (with the older 2.3-litre six-cylinder engine). The Sapphire 346 sported a bonnet mascot in the shape of a sphinx with namesake Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire jet engines attached. The 234 and 236 Sapphires might have looked to some of marque's loyal customers like a radical departure from the traditional Armstrong Siddeley appearance. However, in truth, they were simply too conservative in a period of rapidly developing automotive design. If the "baby Sapphire" heralded the beginning of the end for Armstrong Siddeley, it was because Jaguar had launched the unitary-construction 2.4 saloon in 1955, which was quicker, significantly cheaper, and much better-looking than the 234 and 236.

The last new model produced by Armstrong Siddeley was 1958's Star Sapphire, with a 4-litre engine, and automatic transmission. The Armstrong Siddeley was a casualty of the 1960 merger with Bristol; the last car left the Coventry factory in 1960.

Model list
Cars produced by Armstrong Siddeley had designations that came from the tax horsepower rating of their engines.

A feature of many of their later cars was the option of an electrically controlled pre-selector gearbox.

Clubs
Like many British cars of this era, there are active owners' clubs supporting their continued use in several countries, e.g. the UK, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands and Germany. Armstrong Siddeley Owners Club Ltd has members worldwide and many members of the ASCC in Australia are resident overseas.

In the United Kingdom, ASOC publishes a monthly members magazine Sphinx. In Australia, the Armstrong Siddeley Car Club publishes Southern Sphinx six times a year. In the Netherlands, ASOC Dutch also publishes six times a year, and in New Zealand, Armstrong Siddeley Car Club in New Zealand Inc. publish Sphinx-NZ monthly.

Aircraft engines
Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, Armstrong Siddeley produced a range of low- and mid-power aircraft radial engines, all named after big cats. They also produced a tiny 2-cylinder engine called the Ounce, another name for the snow leopard, for ultralight aircraft.

The company started work on their first gas turbine engine in 1939, following the design pioneered at the Royal Aircraft Establishment by Alan Arnold Griffith. Known as the "ASX" for "Armstrong Siddeley eXperimental", the original pure-turbojet design was later adapted to drive a propeller, resulting in the "ASP". From then on, AS turbine engines were named after snakes. The Mamba and Double Mamba were turboprop engines, the latter being a complex piece of engineering with two side-by-side Mambas driving through a common gearbox, and could be found on the Fairey Gannet. The Python turboprop powered the Westland Wyvern strike aircraft. Further development of the Mamba removed the reduction gearbox to give the Adder turbojet.

Another pioneer in the production of the RAE engine design was Metrovick, who started with a design known as the Metrovick F.2. This engine never entered production, and Metrovick turned to a larger design, the Beryl, and then to an even larger design, the Sapphire. Armstrong Siddeley later took over the Sapphire design, and it went on to be one of the most successful 2nd generation jet engines, competing with the better-known Rolls-Royce Avon.

The company went on to develop an engine – originally for unmanned Jindivik target drones – called the Viper. This product was further developed by Bristol Siddeley and, later, Rolls-Royce and was sold in great numbers over many years. A range of rocket motors were also produced, including the Snarler and Stentor. The rocket development complemented that of Bristol, and Bristol Siddeley would become the leading British manufacturer of rocket engines for missiles.

Diesel engines
In 1946 Armstrong Siddeley produced their first diesel engines. They were medium-speed engines for industrial and agricultural use. Initially there was a single-cylinder engine producing 5 bhp at 900 rpm and a twin-cylinder version. Each cylinder had a capacity of 988 cm3 (60.2 cubic inches). The power output and speed was progressively increased. By the end of 1954 the single-cylinder engine was rated at 11 bhp at 1800 rpm and the twin-cylinder engine 22 bhp at the same speed. In 1955 the range was extended with the introduction of a 3-cylinder engine rated at 33 bhp.

The engines were built at Armstrong Siddeley's factory at Walnut Street in Leicester until that factory closed in August 1957. Production was transferred to the factory of Armstrong Siddeley (Brockworth) Ltd in Gloucestershire and in 1958 to the factory of Petters Limited at Staines, Middlesex. The engines built by Petters were designated AS1, AS2 and AS3 to distinguish them from that company's other products. Production ended in 1962 when Petters introduced a replacement range of lightweight small high-speed air-cooled diesel engines.

In April 1958 the company obtained a licence to build the Maybach MD series high-speed diesel engines. Several hundred were built by Bristol Siddeley Engines Ltd after that company took over Armstrong Siddeley's manufacturing activities in 1959.

title: Armstrong Siddeley