text:
Multi Emulator Super System

Multi Emulator Super System (MESS) was an emulator for various consoles and computer systems, based on the MAME core. It used to be a standalone program (which has since been discontinued), but is now integrated into MAME (which is actively developed). MESS emulated portable and console gaming systems, computer platforms, and calculators. The project strived for accuracy and portability and therefore was not always the fastest emulator for any one particular system. Its accuracy made it also useful for homebrew game development.

As of April 2015 MESS supported 994 unique systems with 2,106 total system variations. MESS was first released in 1998 and was under development up until 2015.

MAME and MESS were once separate applications, but were later developed and released together from a single source repository. MAMEDEV member David Haywood maintained and distributed UME (Universal Machine Emulator) which combined much of the functionality of MAME and MESS in a single application. On May 27, 2015, MESS was formally integrated with MAME and became a part of MAME.

License
MESS was distributed under the MAME Licence, which allowed for the redistribution of binary files and source code, either modified or unmodified, but disallowed selling MESS or using it commercially. The license is similar to other copyleft licenses in requiring that rights and obligations provided in the license must be remain intact when MESS or derivative works are distributed.

In addition to the MESS Licence, The MESS Team required that: "MESS must be distributed only in the original archives. You are not allowed to distribute a modified version, nor to remove and/or add files to the archive. Adding one text file to advertise your web site is tolerated only if your site contributes original material to the emulation scene." The MAME license required source code be included with versions of MESS that are modified from the original source, while the MESS legal page states that when distributing binary files "you should also distribute the source code. If you can't do that, you must provide a pointer to a place where the source can be obtained."

While MESS was available in both binary and source code forms, the restrictions on commercial exploitation cause it to fall outside of the Free Software Foundation's definition of free software. Similarly MESS was not considered to be open source software if appraised according to the criteria of the Open Source Definition.

Challenges
Generally the emulation only includes raw hardware logic, such as for the CPU and RAM, and specialized DSPs such as tone generators or video sprites. The MESS emulator does not include any programming code stored in ROM chips from the emulated computer, since this may be copyrighted software.

Obtaining the ROM data by oneself directly from the hardware being emulated can be extremely difficult, technical, expensive, and even destructive since it may require decapping or desoldering of integrated circuit chips from the circuit board of the device they own. A desoldered IC is placed into a chip reader device connected to a USB or serial port of another computer, with pin sockets on the reader specifically designed to match the chip package shape in question, to perform a memory dump of the ROM to a data file.

Removal of a soldered chip is often far easier than reinstalling it, especially for extremely small surface mount technology chips, and the emulated device in question will be destroyed beyond recovery after the ROM has been removed for reading.

However, if one has a working system, it may be far easier to dump the ROM data to tape, disk, etc. and transfer the data file to one's target machine.

Uses
In 2013 the Internet Archive began to provide select games browser-playable via JSMESS (a JavaScript port of the MESS emulator), for instance, the Atari 2600 game E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial.

title: Multi Emulator Super System


text: User talk:66.229.207.59

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

title: User talk:66.229.207.59


text:
U.S. Route 460

U.S. Route 460 (US 460) is an auxiliary route of U.S. Route 60. It currently runs for 655 miles (1,054 km) from Norfolk, Virginia, at its parent route U.S. Route 60 at Ocean View to Frankfort, Kentucky, intersecting its parent route once again. It passes through the states of Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky. It goes through the cities and towns of Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Petersburg, Farmville, Lynchburg, Roanoke, Christiansburg, Blacksburg, Tazewell, and Grundy, in Virginia; Princeton and Bluefield in West Virginia; and Pikeville, Georgetown, and Frankfort in Kentucky.

The section from Interstate 81 at Christiansburg, Virginia, to U.S. Route 23 in Pikeville, Kentucky, is Corridor Q in the Appalachian Development Highway System. The portion improved under this system is unfinished between Grundy, Virginia, and Pikeville.

US 460 is a major east–west highway in Virginia. It is a major thoroughfare through southern Hampton Roads and connects the area to Petersburg. US 460 connects Lynchburg to Roanoke. US 460 is paired with US 221 between Bedford and Roanoke and with US 11 between Salem and Christiansburg. It is also the primary east–west roadway in the northern part of Southwest Virginia between Christiansburg and the Kentucky border; several miles near Bluefield pass through West Virginia.

Kentucky
US 460 now begins when it splits from US 60 a few miles east of downtown Frankfort. It is a winding two-lane highway with no shoulders and intersects US 62 and I-75 at Georgetown. It proceeds to Paris, where it serves as the town's "Main Street" and intersects US 27 and US 68. The next major intersection is with I-64 in Mount Sterling. It proceeds through Frenchburg and West Liberty. In Salyersville, the Mountain Parkway ends by merging onto it. It is a 3-lane highway for 14 miles and then it merges with US 23 in Paintsville. US 460 East follows US-23 South through Prestonsburg and Pikeville. The route enters the southwestern part of Virginia.

Virginia and West Virginia
U.S. Route 460 runs east–west through the southern part of Virginia. It has two separate pieces in Virginia, joined by a relatively short section in West Virginia. Most of US 460 is a four-lane divided highway.

US 460 from Interstate 81 at Christiansburg west to Pikeville, Kentucky, including the piece in West Virginia, is Corridor Q of the Appalachian Development Highway System. From West Virginia east to I-81, US 460 is also part of the proposed Interstate 73.

History
The earliest origins of this road were as part of the track once known as the Trader's Path, a Virginia colonial trail dating from the 17th century that led from Augusta County to present-day Roanoke. Before it was commissioned as a federally designated route in the late 1940s, US 460 was designated as Kentucky Route 4 from the western Virginia state line near Grundy to Millard, Kentucky. It was Kentucky Route 40 from Paintsville to Lexington.

In the pre-Interstate era, US 460 was a major highway, passing from Frankfort through Louisville, Kentucky and Evansville, Indiana, and ending in St. Louis, Missouri, after crossing the MacArthur Bridge.

Interstate 64 has supplanted most of old US 460 as a more direct route. The stretch through Indiana and Illinois was eliminated in November 1976. Old US 460 has been redesignated in these areas as parts of State Road 66 and State Road 62 in Indiana; and part of Illinois Route 15, Illinois Route 142, and Illinois Route 14 in that state. However, its parent route, US 60 has not been supplanted by I-64 and converted to a state highway in the greater Louisville area.

Many years after the road's elimination in Indiana in 1977, some older residents and even businesses along what is now Indiana State Road 62 still refer to the road as "Highway 460." Older billboards retain that designation in the St. Meinrad area. Some current telephone books also contain listings for those living on "Hwy 460."

When Fishtrap Lake was created in Pike County, Kentucky, US 460 was realigned to its current route from Salyersville to Paintsville. The former US 460 leading to the lake is now Kentucky Routes 1499 and 1789. The part between Paintsville and Millard remained U.S. Highway 23 and Kentucky Route 80.

Future
Future Corridor Q (currently signed as Kentucky Route 3174) is being constructed south of the current alignment of US 460 as a four-lane divided highway from Pikeville to Grundy. The current alignment is a rural two-lane road winding along the rivers and mountains of Virginia and Kentucky. After the segment is completed, US 460 is to be realigned onto that segment and be concurrent with future US 121 (Coalfield Expressway) in Virginia.

Major intersections

 * Kentucky
 * in Frankfort
 * in Georgetown
 * in Georgetown
 * in Georgetown
 * in Paris
 * in Mt. Sterling
 * in Mt. Sterling. The highways travel concurrently through Mt. Sterling.
 * in Paintsville. The highways travel concurrently to Pikeville.
 * in Pikeville. The highways travel concurrently through Pikeville.

 * Virginia
 * in Grundy
 * in Claypool Hill. The highways travel concurrently to Bluefield.

 * West Virginia
 * in Bluefield. The highways travel concurrently through Bluefield.
 * northeast of Bluefield. The highways travel concurrently to southwest of Princeton.
 * east-southeast of Princeton

 * Virginia
 * in Rich Creek
 * Appalachian Trail across the New River near Pearisburg
 * in Christiansburg
 * in Christiansburg. The highways travel concurrently through Christiansburg.
 * in Christiansburg. US 11/US 460 travels concurrently to Salem.
 * in Roanoke
 * in Roanoke. US 221/US 460 travels concurrently to Bedford.
 * south of Lynchburg. The highways travel concurrently to Lynchburg.
 * in Lynchburg. The highways travel concurrently through Lynchburg.
 * west-northwest of Farmville. The highways travel concurrently to south of Farmville.
 * west of Burkeville. The highways travel concurrently to east of Burkeville.
 * southwest of Petersburg. The highways travel concurrently to Petersburg.
 * southwest of Petersburg
 * in Petersburg. I-95/US 460 travels concurrently through Petersburg.
 * in Petersburg
 * southeast of Petersburg
 * in Windsor
 * in Suffolk. The highways travel concurrently to Chesapeake.
 * in Chesapeake. The highways travel concurrently through Chesapeake.
 * in Chesapeake
 * in Chesapeake
 * in Norfolk
 * in Norfolk. The highways travel concurrently through Norfolk.
 * in Norfolk
 * in Norfolk
 * in Norfolk
 * in Norfolk

title: U.S. Route 460


text:
Shawn Marion

Shawn Dwayne Marion (born May 7, 1978) is an American former professional basketball player who played 16 seasons in the National Basketball Association (NBA). Marion finished his career as a four-time NBA All-Star, a two-time member of the All-NBA Team and a one-time NBA champion, helping the Dallas Mavericks win their maiden title in 2011. Nicknamed "The Matrix" by former NBA player Kenny Smith during the preseason of his rookie year, he was widely regarded as one of the most versatile players in the league because of his athleticism and ability to play and defend many positions. He was also known for his unorthodox shooting form.

High school career
Marion was born in Waukegan, Illinois and played high school basketball in Clarksville, Tennessee, at Clarksville High School, where he was a teammate of fellow future NBA player Trenton Hassell. Marion lettered three years in basketball, and during his high school career he earned All-Region and District honors and was nominated as a McDonald's All-American. As a senior, he averaged 26.4 points and 13.1 rebounds, led his team to the Final 8 of the Tennessee Class AAA State Tournament, earned MVP honors, and was selected to the first-team Tennessee All-State Team.

College career
After high school, Marion attended Vincennes University, a junior college in Indiana, for two years. He was a first-team All-American selection as a sophomore and a second-team All-American selection as a freshman. As a freshman in 1996–97, he appeared in 36 games and averaged 23.3 points and 12.8 rebounds (462 total). He shot 56 percent from the field (324-for-516) and 69 percent from the free throw line (124-for-178). His 838 total points as a freshman established him as the second-highest single-season total in school history. As a sophomore in 1997–98, he appeared in 36 games and averaged 23.5 points (847 total points) and 13.1 rebounds (471 total). He shot 60 percent from the field (331-for-549), 38 percent from 3-point range (21-for-56) and 75 percent from the free throw line (122-for-163). He was subsequently named the 1998 NJCAA David Rowlands Male Student Athlete of the Year. He averaged 23.4 points (1,685 total points) in his career and is Vincennes University's second all-time leading scorer.

In May 1998, Marion signed a National Letter of Intent to play for UNLV.

As a junior at UNLV in 1998–99, Marion averaged 18.7 points, 9.3 rebounds, 2.5 steals and 1.9 blocks in 29 games. He was named to the Western Athletic Conference Mountain Division First Team, All-Newcomer Team and All-Defensive Team.

In March 1999, Marion said his intention was to stay for his senior season, graduate and try to win an NCAA championship. But while trying to gauge where he stood with the NBA scouts, he learned he was highly regarded and that he was looking at going no lower than the middle of the first round. As a result, he declared for the 1999 NBA draft in April.

Phoenix Suns (1999–2008)
Marion was selected by the Phoenix Suns with the ninth overall pick in the 1999 NBA draft. Due to a left knee injury, Marion missed 31 games between December and February of the 1999–2000 season. He was selected to the NBA All-Rookie Second Team and in 51 games (38 starts), he averaged 10.2 points, 6.5 rebounds, 1.4 assists, 1.0 blocks, 0.8 steals and 24.7 minutes. He averaged 17.3 points, 10.7 rebounds, 2.0 assists, 1.7 steals, 1.4 blocks and 36.2 minutes in 78 starts during the 2000–01 season. He played for the Sophomores in the Rookie Challenge during the NBA All-Star Weekend and finished with 18 points, 3 rebounds, 2 assists, 2 steals and 1 block in 24 minutes. He increased his averages to 19.1 points and 9.9 rebounds in 2001–02, and again in 2002–03 to 21.2 points with 9.5 rebounds. He was named an NBA All-Star for the first time in 2003.

In 2003–04, Marion averaged 19.0 points, 9.3 rebounds, 2.7 assists, 2.1 steals, 1.3 blocks and 40.7 minutes in 79 games (79 starts). He led the NBA in total steals (167) and joined 2003–04 MVP Kevin Garnett as the only two players to rank in the top 30 in scoring (19th), rebounds (14th), steals (2nd), blocks (27th) and minutes (2nd). Following the season, he played for the U.S. national team at the 2004 Athens Olympics.

In 2004–05, Marion started all 81 games for the Suns in which he appeared and averaged 19.4 points (.476 FG%, .833 FT%), 11.3 rebounds, 2.01 steals, 1.9 assists, 1.47 blocks and 38.8 minutes. He was named Western Conference Player of the Week twice (weeks ending November 28 and December 19), was named a reserve on the Western Conference All-Star Team, and was selected to the All-NBA Third Team. He was the only player in 2004–05 to be ranked in the top 25 in scoring (23rd), rebounding (3rd), steals (4th), blocks (23rd) and minutes (9th). He also became only the second player in NBA history (joining David Robinson, 1991–92) to rank in the top five in rebounding and steals in the same season since the league began tracking steals in 1973–74. During NBA All-Star Weekend, he was a member of the Phoenix team that won the Shooting Stars Competition.

In 2005–06, Marion started each of the 81 games he appeared in for the Suns and averaged 21.8 points (.525 FG%, .809 FT%), 11.8 rebounds, 1.98 steals, 1.8 assists, 1.69 blocks and 40.3 minutes. He was named Western Conference Player of the Month for the month of February, and was named Western Conference Player of the Week for the week ending January 1. He was once again named a reserve on the Western Conference All-Star Team and was selected to the All-NBA Third Team for the second consecutive year. He became the first player in NBA history to finish in the top five in both rebounding and steals in consecutive years since the 1973–74 season. He was joined by Kevin Garnett, Elton Brand and Yao Ming as the only players in the NBA to average at least 20 points and 10 rebounds in the 2005–06 season. On February 22, 2006, he scored a career-high 44 points against the Boston Celtics. He became only the second Suns player in franchise history (after Charles Barkley) to record three consecutive 30-point/15-rebound games (February 22–27). He also became the first Sun since Barkley to record a 30-point/20-rebound game with 31 points and an NBA season-high (and personal career-high) 24 rebounds against the Charlotte Bobcats on February 25.

In 2006–07, Marion led the NBA in total steals (156) and received seven first place votes and finished fourth in the voting for Defensive Player of the Year. He scored his 10,000th career point in the season-opener against the Los Angeles Lakers on October 31, 2006. He was once again named a reserve on the Western Conference All-Star Team.

In September 2007, with trade rumors swirling around him, Marion declared he wanted out of Phoenix. Marion had been mentioned in trade scenarios involving the Utah Jazz and Los Angeles Lakers. He said he would welcome a trade to the Lakers to play with his good friend Kobe Bryant. During the summer, Marion had reportedly prevented a three-team deal that would have sent him to Boston with an extension, Garnett to Phoenix, and draft picks to Minnesota.

On November 9, 2007, Marion tied his career high with 24 rebounds in the Suns' 106–101 win over the Miami Heat.

Miami Heat (2008–2009)
On February 6, 2008, Marion was acquired by the Miami Heat, along with Marcus Banks, from the Suns in exchange for Shaquille O'Neal. On March 8, 2008, he participated in the first replayed NBA game since 1982, as the Heat played the Atlanta Hawks to settle a disputed last 51.9 seconds from their encounter on December 19, 2007. Marion, who had played for the Suns on December 19 and participated in the replayed 51.9 seconds, officially went down as having played for two different teams on the same day.

Toronto Raptors (2009)
On February 13, 2009, Marion and Banks were traded to the Toronto Raptors in exchange for Jermaine O'Neal and Jamario Moon. On April 16, Marion scored a season-high 34 points and grabbed 11 rebounds during a 109–98 win over the Bulls, during the last game of the season.

Dallas Mavericks (2009–2014)
On July 9, 2009, Marion was acquired by the Dallas Mavericks in a sign-and-trade deal with the Raptors, with Marion receiving a five-year contract worth an estimated $39 million. Marion was a steady performer for the Mavericks during the 2009–10 season, but he was not a primary option. His average of 12 points per game was the lowest since his rookie season. He also averaged a career-low 6.4 rebounds per game.

Having been a starter his whole career, Marion was relegated to a bench role for the 2010–11 season, with Caron Butler taking over the starting small forward position. However, Butler sustained a season-ending injury on January 1, 2011, and by the end of the season, Marion was starting again. Marion was the Mavericks' starting small forward throughout their playoff run, a run that resulted in a trip to the NBA Finals. In Game 5 of the Western Conference Finals against the Oklahoma City Thunder, Marion scored 26 points. In the NBA Finals, Marion helped the Mavericks defeat the Miami Heat in six games to win their maiden NBA championship. Marion averaged 13.7 points, 6.3 rebounds and 2.3 assists during the six games, with his best effort coming in Game 2 when he had 20 points. During the season, Marion joined Hakeem Olajuwon, Karl Malone, Kevin Garnett and Julius Erving as the only players with 1,500 steals and 1,000 blocks.

In the lockout-shortened 2011–12 season, Marion was the only player 6ft 7in or shorter to lead his team in rebounding (7.4 rpg, 465 total rebounds). He became the first Maverick 6ft 7in or shorter to lead Dallas in rebounding since 6ft 7in Jay Vincent did so in 1984–85 (8.9 rpg). On March 13, 2012 against the Washington Wizards, Marion moved into 100th place on the NBA's all-time scoring list.

On December 18, 2012, against the Phoenix Suns, Marion eclipsed the 16,000-point plateau, becoming the 95th player in league history with at least 16,000 career points. He joined Hakeem Olajuwon, Karl Malone and Kevin Garnett as the only players in NBA history with at least 16,000 points, 9,000 rebounds, 1,500 steals and 1,000 blocks. On January 27, 2013 against Phoenix, Marion played in his 1,000th NBA game, becoming the 107th player in NBA history to reach the milestone. On March 6, 2013 against the Houston Rockets, Marion passed Rod Strickland for 25th place on the NBA's all-time steals list.

On January 3, 2014, against the Los Angeles Clippers, Marion passed the 17,000-point mark and joined Olajuwon, Malone and Garnett as the only players with at least 17,000 points, 9,000 rebounds, 1,500 steals and 1,000 blocks. For the 2013–14 season, Marion posted a career-low 13.4 PER, struggled with consistency on offense, and struggled defensively at times.

Cleveland Cavaliers (2014–2015)
On September 9, 2014, Marion signed with the Cleveland Cavaliers. In December 2014, he became the first player in NBA history with 15,000 points, 10,000 rebounds, 1,000 blocks and 500 3-pointers. On January 21, 2015, Marion announced his intention to retire at the end of the 2014–15 season. Marion missed time in February and March with a strained left hip. Marion returned to the NBA Finals in June 2015; however, he did not appear in any of the Cavaliers' six games, a series Cleveland lost 4–2 to the Golden State Warriors.

On June 18, 2015, Marion announced his retirement from the NBA after 16 seasons.

National team career
Marion played for the United States national team at the 2001 Goodwill Games in Brisbane, 2002 FIBA World Championship in Indianapolis, and 2004 Olympic Games in Athens, winning gold in Brisbane and bronze in Athens.

Personal life
Marion and his ex-partner have a son. In 2017, Marion teamed up with fellow retired NBA player Cedric Ceballos to compete in Season 30 of The Amazing Race.

In February 2018, Marion and fellow former NBA player Matt Walsh became majority shareholders of the New Zealand Breakers via a newly-formed company called Breakers Basketball Ltd.

title: Shawn Marion


text:
Talk:2004 Venezuelan recall referendum

Unprecedented
User:Hajor wrote Boud, I think the "US/Can local executives" proviso is unnecessary: Head of State it says, Head of State it means.

The struggle for power between states and States is continuous. The economy of California is bigger than that of many States in the world; while more than 50% of laws of States like France and Germany are imposed by the EU, so it's not really clear that France and Germany (let alone smaller States in the EU) are still sovereign States. But i agree that this makes the statement a bit heavy, probably something lighter is possible... Boud 00:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Head of State is pretty unequivocal in this context. It's also a remark of major historical import -- "first one of its kind ever". Best to let it stand alone, without qualification: if someone is curious about other (non-national) recalls that have taken place, they can go and check the recall election article. Also, re States and states: Venezuela is itself federal, of course, so the natural parallel should be with the USA or Canada (or with the EU, at some point in the future), not with their constituent states . Still, if you want try something lighter, go ahead; I'd just be wary of diluting the importance of the comment by splitting explanatory hairs. Cool? –Hajor 02:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The present version looks OK to me - i think the in any nation bit was what got me most bothered before - since nation does not always correspond to State. But i agree that the present version is clear - head of state already is a rather formal expression, plus you've capitalised it, plus it's a link to a wikipedia page. Cool. :) Long live the Wikirepublic! ;) Boud 11:53, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Signature gathering, fraud?
Why doesn't the article mention the massive fraud that the opposition had to undertake to get the required signatures to force a recall vote? Over a million of the signatures were ineligible. Eric B. and Rakim 18:59, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Because noone had bothered to wite about it. This is the wikipedia. Boud 21:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * And you have done a very good job of fixing that, thank you! I am quite impressed at how this article has progressed in very short time, some cleaning up will be needed, but nevertheless --Dittaeva 21:46, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The petition

 * In November 2003, the opposition collected a new set of signatures, with 3.6 million names produced in four days. In February 2004, Roberto Abdul, one of the directors of Súmate the USA-backed NGO that collected the signatures, word missing that at least 265,000 of the signatures were invalid. missing junction here? According to their own calculations. missing junction here? The majority of the CNE rejected the petition, saying that only 1.9 million were valid; 1.1 million doubtful and 460,000 completely invalid. The invalid signatures contained persons that had died many years earlier, infants and persons that weren't even Venezuelan citizens. Of the signatures categorized as doubtful, 876,017 all had the personal details written in the same handwriting except for the signature itself.

There are several problems here.
 * 1) Did Abdul find or state this?
 * 2) Which sentence does According to their own calculations match up with? The sentence before or the sentence after?
 * 3) 876,017 all had the personal details written in the same handwriting except for the signature itself
 * 4) It's hard to believe that a single person wrote 876,017 signatures - i think what is meant is that on 876,017 petition forms, the signature is in different hand-writing to that of the personal details.

Boud 21:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is all according to an article I've read. And it is all on paper and without proper references so please don't sue me. I tried to write the info as stated in that article without plagiarizing to much and English is not my language:

 * 1) Abdul did acknowledge that atleast 265,000 signatures were invalid. I guess, in response to growing suspicion that a large number of signatures were fake.
 * 2) The sentence before.
 * 3) I try to translate: "Of the dubious 876,017 was written on lists were the personal details (except the signature itself) was filled in with one and same handwriting".

Another sentence is wrong in that section "Reaction to this decision resulted in nationwide riots that led to nine dead, 339 arrested, and 1,200 injured." It suggests a popular uproar that met with massive police brutality. I dont think that was the case. Eric B. and Rakim 01:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Numbers
From the article: And that's after 95% had been counted. So: 5 + 3.5 = 8.5 million. Plus the 5% not yet counted: total votes cast = 9 m. Out of a total electorate of 14.25 m. (9 / 14.25)*100 gives me a turnout of 63%. So, why's everyone talking about a "massive turnout"? And which third of the population couldn't be bothered to vote? –Hajor 22:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * No 4,991,483 = 58%
 * Yes 3,576,557 = 42%

 * For comparison, turnout in the California recall was at 61.2% and has been referred to as "unusually high" and "heavy" (e.g. ). Turnout at the 2000 US presidential election was only 51% and turnout for referanda is typically lower than for elections.--Eloquence* 22:21, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * But what I have seen claimed is 80%, either here or elsewhere. --Dittaeva 22:30, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Glad someone noticed - i didn't. Either (1) the 80% is accurate and the CNE has ignored about 17% of the total registered voting population, i.e. about an additional 27% of the total number (8.5 million) who have been counted so far; or (2) the turnout was 63% and not 80%. IMHO (2) seems the most likely. Boud 00:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Chávez's two presidential elections had turnouts "in the 60s", if I recall -- don't know, Carter's wide-eyed exclamations, all the talk in the previous months of "national polarization", and the election-day press reports I read led me to expect a much higher number. I haven't seen any actual percentages quoted anywhere, which is why I got my calculator out and did the sums. Presumably the very long queues of voters were more the result of technical glitches (with the thumbprint scanners, particulary) than higher-than-expected voter numbers. A 63% turnout also indicates, to me, a lower likelihood that fraud took place: not much margin for bumping up the figures with tricks like the voting dead there. –Hajor 23:23, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not really important, but i don't quite follow your argument about 63% turnout decreasing the fraud margin - it seems to me the opposite. If the real turnout is, say, 90%, and you add in 15% dead and other fake voters, because you only expected 60% turnout, then you risk getting 105% turnout and people getting suspicious. Even the least mathematically-minded readers might start suspecting that something's wrong. Secondly, the higher the turnout, the less influence a fixed number of faked voters will have. Boud 00:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The secret is not to go over 100%, of course (blackjack dealers and politicians understand this instinctively). What I meant was that 63% 'sounds' clean to me in a way that percentages in the high 90s never could. (I was thinking of a specific state in one specific LatAm election in the 1990s, but I can't find an online reference, so I shall leave it at that.) –Hajor 02:12, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In votingday polls opposition wins?
From norwegian newspaper Dagbladet:
 * "Grønsund, som har overvåket medienes opptreden under valgkampen, sier til NTB at valgdagsmålingene søndag gikk i opposisjonens favør med en fordeling av stemmene på 60-40 prosent"

Circa Translated

 * "Grønsund [surname of person], who has surveilled media conduct under the election campaign, tells NTB that the electionday polls [unsure of translation here, but it means unofficial polls on sunday just before the real recall poll] sunday favoured the opposition with a distribution of the votes of 60-40 percent"

It is thus stated the exact opposite of what I have understood from our article: That polls conducted just before the "official" election (more specifically on sunday in this case) favour the opposition by a goog margin. I could find anything on this in English, so I thought I'd mention it. Sorry about the sorry state of my english, have to sleep now --Dittaeva 22:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * There are polls and polls. IMHO a poll where there is at least the name of the organisation conducting the poll or at least a named, contactable individual (e.g. Robert Jensen who's a professor at the Univ of Texas at Austin - you can email him at - rjensen at uts.cc.utexas.edu - ) makes the poll somewhat more verifiable than just unofficial polls. Someone who's suspicious can search for more info on those organisations or individuals and chase up the info - but unofficial polls is impossible to check. i edited the text so that there are at least names of organisations and one individual, but anyone is welcome to improve on this. My general impression is that the opposition were unable to find any serious poll, based on proper demographic/statistical techniques, which favoured the Yes vote, so they avoided saying anything precise enough that it could be shown to be wrong. Boud 00:46, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * My guess of the translation is that it's either the Sunday one week earlier, or else it's based on exit polls, which AFAIK were not supposed to be taken, because they risked being published quickly while voting was continuing and thereby making the voting process much more unstable (too many positive and negative feedback loops).

 * What I meant with unofficial polls was not-the-recall-poll-itself. I am 100% positive that exit polls is what was meant, that is what "valgdagsmåling" means, directly translated "electiondaymeasurement". --Dittaeva 08:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I do off course agree that polls should be verifiable, it is sad how the mainstream press oversimplifies everything.

 * I should add IMHO anyway one needs to mention what kind of polls they were. THis is important, especially in a country like Venezuela. Chavez supporters tend to be poor who I suspect don't tend to have telephones and when they do, often work longer hours so are less likely to be home etc. As such telephones poles are likely to be biased in favour of Chavez opponents.60.234.141.76 20:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Empirical (but entirely unpublished) data from Venezuela shows that in a poll where the respondent is not anonymous to the pollster (e.g. by being questioned at ones door, or over the phone, or face to face in any other setting), in such a setting the respondent is much more likely to claim an intent to vote for Chávez, than in a poll where his replies are anonymized. This is due to fear of retaliation, of losing ones job, of not getting government service, and the like. This factor was found to be around 15% in the 2006 presidential election. Chances are the exit poll mentioned in Norway was more truthful by virtue of the respondents feeling "safe" with giving an accurate answer. As long as the safety situation in Venezuela remains the same I will not provide a source (people are afraid of the government). Dr Ulf Erlingsson (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

POV balancing
There is some stuff in this (right wing) that I think merit inclusion. Won't take the time myself right now. --Dittaeva 12:12, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Using Newsmax.com as a source won't be helpful. If Newsmax is used, it'll have to be balanced by a Communist, pro-Chavez rag like Cuba's Gramna. We should instead utilize the amble array of more credible sources available online, like academic journals, the BBC, AP, Reuters, etc. 172 12:17, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Sure, but assuming its not all lies, there are points (or events) in there that I think merit inclusion, it would off course be best if the source is not Newsmax. --Dittaeva 12:28, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point. If there are points or events in the article that merit inclusion then they should be available from other sources such as BBC, AP, Reuters etc. If they are not, then it is arguable if they do merit inclusion. If still think they do, then there must also be points in Communist, pro-Chavez rags as 172 says which merit inclusion but most Wikipedians don't feel this way.60.234.141.76 20:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Removal of baised sentence
The start of the article used to say:

 * Chávez resisted the recall vote using a combination of legal technicalities and – allegedly – threats and violence.

But I deleted this. There are at least two problems. The first is a clarity problem: "resisted the recall vote" doesn't have a clear meaning here. Does "resisted" apply to the word "recall" (i.e. he won, he wasn't recalled) or the word "vote" (i.e. he tried to prevent the vote from taking place)?

The second problem is that the "allegedly" doesn't mention who the allegers are. This implies that it's a cross-party belief, but it would be very strange for Chávez's supporters to make/believe these allegations.

(Other lesser problems include the meaninglessness of "legal technicalities", and that the first half of the sentence is stated as a fact rather than the belief/claim of a particular subsection of Venezuelan society.)

My best guess at the intended meaning is: "Chávez's opponents allege that he disputed the legal grounds for the vote, and tried to prevent it from taking place. Some even allege that he used threats and violence."

Although, given how normal such allegations are in Latin American politics, I really don't think this is worthy of a statement at the top of the article. Gronky 20:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Date
I have modified the sentence on the timing. If I understand it correctly, the date chosen would have been significant only if Chavez was recalled (which he was not). Although Chavez may have chosen the date for this reason, the fact is the date was in the end insignificant as far as I can tell. So unless there is evidence people changed their vote because of the potential outcome or the date was otherwise significant in who voted and how they voted IMHO it is important to make it abunduntly clear that the date as it turned out was not significant, even if it may have been chosen because it might have been significant. I feel my modification does this well but if you have a different suggestion change it or discuss it here. 60.234.141.76 20:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Counter-intuitive
The article says the referendum question was counter-intuitive. I would have to strongly disagree. The referendum was recall election. A recall election is about recalling someone, generally a leader, i.e. removing them from office. If you support recalling someone, you want to remove them from office. Obviously then if you vote yes, you want to remove them from office. This is not a motion of confidence/no confidence. If this was a motion of confidence then a yes vote should be expressing confidence and a no vote would be expressing no confidence. In both cases, you are to some extent asking the same thing but in different ways. But in both cases, the answer is not IMHO counter intuitive. Either you are saying yes I want to remove Chavez (or whoever from office or you are saying yes I support Chavez. Which ever question you ask, both are just as intuitive IMHO. At the very least then IMHO the discussion should say something like "to some this may seem counter-intuitive" 60.234.141.76 20:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Manual Votes?
From the article: "An interesting piece of information is that 10% of the votes were cast manually, as not all polling places could be automated. In those places where voting was manual Chavez won 70% to 30%, an even wider margin than when using the automated technology. This, of course, puts all claims of electronic voting fraud in a very difficult situation."

I really didn't think the summary was particularly appropriate or accurate. From Venezuelanalysis.com: Manual count of votes from rural and low income urban areas where Chavez has widespread support, and where automatic machines were not used, could increase the President's margin of victory. Hence the change. 129.72.143.42 07:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

False exit polls
The entreprise Penn, Schoen & Berland cited in the text is world wide recognized as a mercenary firm. They use to show false survey results in order to manipulate public opinion.

Their habitual program is as follows:

- They show results prior to the elections showing their candidate is wining positions, or is above the other candidate. These results use to be strange (because their are false), compared to results coming from any other firms, that usually coincide between them.

- The elections day, they publish false exit polls, showing their candidate has won the elections. The idea is to manipulate the public opinion in order that masses think about "fraud", when there is nothing about it.

- This idea, supported by mass media and, often, foreign interests, lead sometimes to a climate of violence that degenerates in rebellion of the losing minority.

Penn, Schoen & Berland have used this tactic in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, and Venezuela.

It is easy to see that they always fail in their polls, and the reason is that the survey results they present are false.

Economist Article
I was unable to find The Economist article referenced in footnote one through proquest or lexisnexis, which makes me think that it doesn't exist, or is miscited. I also ran searches for the article title "Authenticated, but not quite agreed" but found nothing. Is this a real source?

If it's not, should we consider removing the content from the article?

24.213.197.102 20:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that last one was me, forgot to sign in. Found the text from the economist: "The president's supporters are making their own threats. When the opposition tried to hold a rally in a chavista stronghold in the west of Caracas, gunfire erupted, leaving one dead and a score injured. The government called it a "provocation" and spoke of restricting the right to demonstrate." (The EconomistJune 7 03, with the headline "Agreeing to disagree")

Is it worth mentioning the incident, which the current text does not?

Chris kupka 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that at a rally to support the referendum gunfire erupted killing one and wounding a dozen more seems to be a rather important piece of information. It demonstrates the hostility at least one side had towards the other as well as the lengths at which government supporters were willing to go to ensure the referendum failed. it could easily be and should be added to the day of the referendum section.

70.176.114.199 17:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Agree, and it also shows that the previously removed claim that Chávez was using violence and threats of violence to prevent the recall election should be reinstated for being factual and relevant. Dr Ulf Erlingsson (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fraud claims
Good evening editors, just a quick note to inform that I will be editing/deleting POV remarks, sources that do not comply with WP:RS such as indymedia or CEPR, and other stuff from the paragraph about fraud claims.Alekboyd (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh fun. I'm sure you'll be careful to explain all your edits, and claims such as CEPR not being a reliable source for its own views, which is all it's used for at present. Rd232 talk 02:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the record (if this is going to be an issue), you think American Free Press is a reliable source. diff. (I'm not saying at this point whether I agree or not, just a point of information.) Rd232 talk 02:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CEPR is not a WP:RS compliant in this particular matter. Provide others and you'll be fine.Alekboyd (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Please explain how CEPR is not a reliable source for its own reports. You know this is going to be disputed (and I've already questioned it) so you could at least bother trying to justify it. Rd232 talk 03:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I've just put my finger, I think, on what bothered me about the ISR paper you added: "Since each voter is assigned at random to a certificate of election (computerized or manual), it can be stated that each certificate of election is a random sample of the voting center population." This assumption of randomness underpins their entire analysis, and there are many ways in which it could fail. At voting center level they can't identify variation (too few certificates). So they place centers into clusters, and if more than a small amount of variation between these certificates exists, then their analysis identifies this variation as a reason to "reject" the cluster of voting centers. Rejected clusters are then ignored, with results projected from the rest. This would be OK if the initial assumption (randomness) is actually true. But it could easily not be; to pick a plausible actual reason, because No voters distrust the computers on average slightly more and demand a manual vote; or No voters might distrust computers less if they're in a local area run by the opposition. Or a zillion other reasons, who's to say? Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with cluster analysis to say how a violation of that assumption interacts with the clustering process they use (badly I would think, it's a rare statistical analysis that can survive violation of a basic untested assumption); and nobody has cited or critiqued them, so I'd have to go off and learn more about cluster analysis, and then it would still be OR unless I got it published somewhere... Bah. Rd232 talk 04:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, alek, I take it you had permission to republish their work. Rd232 talk 04:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This paper isn't mentioned in the article: Delfino and Salas 2008 and it's a whole lot more persuasive than the ISR one. Rd232 talk 04:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good morning Rd232, if you have a problem with the peer-reviewed paper I cited, I suggest you raise the issue wit ISR, that is, of course, assuming that you have the necessary credentials to dispute its findings. As per CEPR, the acronym means Center for Economic and Policy Research. They are not an authoritative source on electronic voting. So please stop using it as a source in this particular respect.Alekboyd (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good morning alek. "Policy Research" covers anything, and, CEPR's work is clearly identified so readers can judge for themselves. Incidentally did you dismiss the Delfino and Salas paper without even looking at the link? I'd have expected a comment on it if you had, plus immediate addition to the article. (Plus splashes across every one of your blogs...) Rd232 talk 14:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems that we are disagreeing on your rather optimistic "policy research covers anything policy." Does CEPR, for instance, has any positions re the policies of the Chavez administration in failing to implement electoral recommendations made by the Carter Centre and the OAS, after 2004's recall? When you say CEPR work is clearly identified, do you mean as in economist Mark Weisbrot being Hugo Chavez's apologist par excellence in the USA? I will repeat, CEPR is not an authoritative source in electronic voting, unless, of course, you can demonstrate that their work in that field has passed some sort of peer reviewed process within established circles.

 * As per Delfino & Salas paper, I will refer you to studies done about the recall referendum, recall referendum, while stressing that, to date, every single one of them done by reputed analysts somewhat, erm, throws into question the results announced by Carrasquero and Rodriguez. So, do you really want to go down the route of citing academics? It ain't pretty...

 * One last thing, please back up your claims of percentages with CNE data instead of articles of Chavez's consul in San Francisco. That shouldn't be a problem for you. Where's the link to Hellinger's paper BTW?Alekboyd (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Hellinger's paper isn't available online for free to the general public - you can google it, you'll find places you can pay for it if you want. Or find a library. As for CEPR, it just goes to show that you might learn something if you read the sources you disagree with - in this case, that the paper was very badly summarised (I've corrected it). (Ditto the VA ref, which supported only a small part of the para it was attached to when the phrasing implied it was the source for all of it.) As for your comments on the Delfino and Salas and ISR papers... I'm mystified. From the fact that you haven't added it to the article yet, I conclude you've completely confused yourself, even though given the link you've provided it's hard to see how. I'll remark that the fact that Delfino and Salas are academics unlike the ISR authors is probably why their paper is better than the ISR one. Rd232 talk 00:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Good morning Rd232. Hellinger's paper does not contain any remarks to the effect that the Carter Center appointed an independent panel that found no evidence of fraud. Perhaps you can point out to the specific page of the paper in which the remarks are purportedly made. Aside from that, how come you are using as reference a paper that's not publicly available? Isn't that a violation to WP:V? Regarding your insistence in citing CEPR, as if it were an authoritative and reliable source on electronic voting, and their use of Evans/McDonough, there's an obvious conflict of interest there. Ted Nordhaus, co-author of "Death of Environmentalism" and partner of lobbyist of Hugo Chavez Michael Shellenberger, was at the time VP of Evans/McDonough, was he not? How can their polling be taken seriously then? I suggest you provide references to truly independent pollsters. Re Febres-Cordero, Marquez, or Delfino and Salas, the fact that their work has been published in peer-reviewed publications means that their output has passed strict academic criteria. Now can you say the same about CEPR? Either paper proves that results announced by CNE are suspect, to put it lightly.
 * I misread the Carter panel sentence which I added the Hellinger ref to at one point (he mentions Carter OKing the result but not an independent panel). Since I'd realised my mistake and edited the article since and not re-added your removal of it, I'm not sure why you bothered to comment. Also Hellinger is publicly available online, just not for free; but even if it were only available on paper it would be a WP:RS. If you can link to WP:V maybe you can read it too. As to your comments about Evans/McDonough: ROTFLMAO. Even if this is the case (don't know) - you have no problem with the PBS survey using Sumate volunteers to actually carry out their survey, but some wink-wink connection to Chavez in a respected US polling company is beyond the pale. Be serious. Finally, you seem so wrapped up in your antagonistic attitude that you've completely failed to notice my praise for Delfino and Salas' paper, even as I criticised the other one. Finally your views of CEPR are irrelevant here, as they're just reporting public poll results, go find another source if it makes you feel better. Rd232 talk 19:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rd232, please visit WP:NPA. Please provide evidence that I have no problem with the PBS survey using Sumate volunteers to actually carry out their survey. And finally, unless, of course, you can provide evidence that you are an authoritative source on electronic voting and statistics, whatever you have to say about peer-reviewed papers is as relevant as the views of CEPR in that respect.
 * WP:NPA? OK, sorry if I hurt your feelings... somehow. Also apologies if in fact you do appreciate the fundamental flaw involved in using Sumate volunteers - but I've seen nothing from you to suggest you did and your comments on Evans imply you don't... And I'm well aware of WP:OR, though if you think it has any relevance whether I'm an authority or not, maybe you need to revisit it. I might be the world's foremost expert, but only what reliable sources say can be used, so if my idea hasn't been published (yet) it can't be cited in the article. So yes my remarks were WP:SOAPBOXing but having spent an hour reading the paper I needed to express my thoughts. Incidentally, the CEPR paper was economists using statistical analysis to criticise other economists doing statistical analysis. Got a problem with that? Rd232 talk 21:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 'but only what reliable sources say can be used...' At last we agree in something Rd232. CEPR is not a reliable source in this respect. Perhaps you can provide references to their criticism of the Hausmann and Rigobon paper cited by reliable sources, or, even better, perhaps references to both Hausmann and Rigobon and CEPR papers should be removed, and let the academics and statisticians who actually have passed some sort of peer-reviewed process do the talking. Aside from that, I have a problem with remarks such as "opposition linked polling firms" while patently clear links between Evans & McDonough and the regime are out in the open, yet not mentioned. Hellinger's paper bases its conclusions on a poll made by IMEDIOPSA, a pollster of dubious credentials and capacity. In any case, such claims ought to be supported with some kind of evidence from RS or be taken out.Alekboyd (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

All these opposition fraud claims made sense before December 2006 as a way to challenge Chávez legitimacy. However, Chávez legitimacy now rests in his victory in the December 2006 election, victory conceded by his main opponent so I don't understand what's the point of pushing the fraud hypothesis in the 2004 RR. JRSP (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there is no need to remove either the Hausmann/Rigobon or the CEPR papers. If you want to remove them on the basis that they're not reliable, please ask at WP:RSN and see what people say. Hellinger's conclusion isn't "based" on IMEDIOPSA, and in any case you'll need to provide WP:RS evidence that they're unreliable, not merely assert it. (A quick googling in response to your assertion wasn't very helpful, though it turned up another Hellinger paper where he did use IMEDIOPSA more extensively.) As for "opposition linked polling firms" - since this isn't describing any particular firms, and the claim is taken from Hellinger, I don't see a problem. Can use a direct quote if you prefer. Rd232 talk 15:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Good morning JRSP. The issue here is not Chavez's current legitimacy, but rather historical facts.Alekboyd (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Take it easy, then. From a historical perspective, the only thing to say is that there were claims from the opposition denied by the government, that the international observers found no evidence of fraud and eventually, that nobody cares about that after the 2006 election. Perhaps we should add that not all the opposition supported those claims, Teodoro Petkoff and Claudio Fermín said that Chávez won in 2004. It could be also interesting to find material connecting the fraud claims with the opposition withdrawal from the 2005 legislative elections that many analysts consider a major mistake. JRSP (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

 * JRSP, I don't think you have the power to decide what is or isn't relevant regarding our history. Re legislativas, search about Fila de Mariches, 23 de Noviembre, and an audit that was conducted in the presence of international observers. It's fascinating reading.Alekboyd (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

 * What is it with you? "authority" this and "power" that? He was an expressing an opinion - something you're well familiar with. Rd232 talk 21:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've a made a bunch of changes to improve structure, fix refs, clarify/correct etc: diff. Three big things need doing: (a) move the media stuff to a different article, as it's not really about the RR (maybe the article on Venezuela media); (b) move the Tascon List somewhere else, most of it doesn't belong here (and it duplicates the section in Luis Tascon where it doesn't really belong either); unless we have a better idea, maybe move it to its own article; (c) incorporate the Delfino and Salas paper, which will fit neatly after the Carter Center audit-of-the-audit now that that's properly referenced. Comments? Rd232 talk 21:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

 * The Tascon List should have its own entry, given the impact it has had/will have and the level of attention it has generated. Agree on (c) and don't really have an opinion on (a).Alekboyd (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Changed the media section to a Polls section, since on closer examination it was basically WP:OR. Cleaned up the polls bit. Rd232 talk 15:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

New Fraud Studies
There was a special section in Statistical Science Vol. 26, Nr. 4, November 2011, about the Venezuelan recall referendum. I've mentioned it briefly in the article, but I think the whole article may need to be reviewed in the light of the new evidence that clearly demonstrates, using a wide array of tools, that the result was fraudulent. Dr Ulf Erlingsson (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added links to the individual papers. The summary paper (here) is obviously the most digestible, and has a note of caution the individual papers don't. It would be worth looking out for any responses (though given scientific publishing timescales, it might well take a couple of years). Rd232 talk 20:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040905004646/http://edition.cnn.com:80/2004/WORLD/americas/08/16/venezuela.recall.ap/index.html to http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/08/16/venezuela.recall.ap/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060330020217/http://www.wmd.org/democracyalerts/july1504.html to http://www.wmd.org/democracyalerts/july1504.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050313204850/http://newswire.indymedia.org:80/en/newswire/2004/08/808090.shtml to http://newswire.indymedia.org/en/newswire/2004/08/808090.shtml

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071117043011/http://caracas.usembassy.gov:80/wwwh2678.html to http://caracas.usembassy.gov/wwwh2678.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120717020928/http://www.eluniversal.com/2004/08/15/revo_ava_15A483829.shtml to http://www.eluniversal.com/2004/08/15/revo_ava_15A483829.shtml

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:2004 Venezuelan recall referendum


text:
Battle of the Bismarck Sea

The Battle of the Bismarck Sea (2–4 March 1943) took place in the South West Pacific Area (SWPA) during World War II when aircraft of the U.S. Fifth Air Force and the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) attacked a Japanese convoy carrying troops to Lae, New Guinea. Most of the Japanese task force was destroyed, and Japanese troop losses were heavy.

The Japanese convoy was a result of a Japanese Imperial General Headquarters decision in December 1942 to reinforce their position in the South West Pacific. A plan was devised to move some 6,900 troops from Rabaul directly to Lae. The plan was understood to be risky, because Allied air power in the area was strong, but it was decided to proceed because otherwise the troops would have to be landed a considerable distance away and march through inhospitable swamp, mountain and jungle terrain without roads before reaching their destination. On 28 February 1943, the convoy – comprising eight destroyers and eight troop transports with an escort of approximately 100 fighter aircraft – set out from Simpson Harbour in Rabaul.

The Allies had detected preparations for the convoy, and naval codebreakers in Melbourne (FRUMEL) and Washington, D.C., had decrypted and translated messages indicating the convoy's intended destination and date of arrival. The Allied Air Forces had developed new techniques, such as skip bombing, that they hoped would improve the chances of successful air attack on ships. They detected and shadowed the convoy, which came under sustained air attack on 2–3 March 1943. Follow-up attacks by PT boats and aircraft were made on 4 March on life boats and rafts. All eight transports and four of the escorting destroyers were sunk. Of 6,900 troops who were badly needed in New Guinea, only about 1,200 made it to Lae. Another 2,700 were rescued by destroyers and submarines and returned to Rabaul. The Japanese made no further attempts to reinforce Lae by ship, greatly hindering their ultimately unsuccessful efforts to stop Allied offensives in New Guinea.

Allied offensives
Six months after Imperial Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the United States won a strategic victory at the Battle of Midway in June 1942. Seizing the strategic initiative, the United States and its Allies landed on Guadalcanal in the southern Solomon Islands in August 1942, beginning the Solomon Islands Campaign. The battle for Guadalcanal ended in victory for the Allies with the withdrawal of Japanese forces from the island in early February 1943. At the same time, Australian and American forces in New Guinea repelled the Japanese land offensive along the Kokoda Track. Going on the offensive, the Allied forces captured Buna–Gona, destroying Japanese forces in that area.

The ultimate goal of the Allied counter-offensives in New Guinea and the Solomons was to capture the main Japanese base at Rabaul on New Britain, later codified as Operation Cartwheel, and clear the way for the eventual reconquest of the Philippines. Recognising the threat, the Japanese continued to send land, naval, and aerial reinforcements to the area in an attempt to check the Allied advances.

Japanese plans
Reviewing the progress of the Battle of Guadalcanal and the Battle of Buna–Gona in December 1942, the Japanese faced the prospect that neither could be held. Accordingly, Imperial General Headquarters decided to take steps to strengthen the Japanese position in the South West Pacific by sending Lieutenant General Jusei Aoki's 20th Division from Korea to Guadalcanal and Lieutenant General Heisuke Abe's 41st Division from China to Rabaul. Lieutenant General Hitoshi Imamura, the commander of the Japanese Eighth Area Army at Rabaul, ordered Lieutenant General Hatazō Adachi's XVIII Army to secure Madang, Wewak and Tuluvu in New Guinea. On 29 December, Adachi ordered the 102nd Infantry Regiment and other units under the command of Major General Tōru Okabe, the commander of the infantry group of the 51st Division, to move from Rabaul to Lae and advance inland to capture Wau. After deciding to evacuate Guadalcanal on 4 January, the Japanese switched priorities from the Solomon Islands to New Guinea, and opted to send the 20th and 41st Divisions to Wewak.

On 5 January 1943, the convoy, which consisted of five destroyers and five troop transports carrying Okabe's force, set out for Lae from Rabaul. Forewarned by Ultra, United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) and Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) aircraft spotted, shadowed and attacked the convoy, which was shielded by low clouds and Japanese fighters. The Allies claimed to have shot down 69 Japanese aircraft for the loss of 10 of their own. An RAAF Consolidated PBY Catalina sank the transport SS Nichiryu Maru. Although destroyers rescued 739 of the 1,100 troops on board, the ship took with it all of Okabe's medical supplies. Another transport, SS Myoko Maru, was so badly damaged at Lae by USAAF North American B-25 Mitchells that it had to be beached. Nonetheless, the convoy succeeded in reaching Lae on 7 January and landing its troops, but Okabe was defeated in the Battle of Wau.

Most of the 20th Division was landed at Wewak from naval high speed transports on 19 January 1943. The bulk of the 41st Division followed on 12 February. Imamura and Vice Admiral Gunichi Mikawa, the commander of the South East Area Fleet, developed a plan to move the command post of the headquarters of the Japanese XVIII Army and the main body of the 51st Division from Rabaul to Lae on 3 March, followed by moving the remainder of the 20th Division to Madang on 10 March. This plan was acknowledged to be risky because Allied air power in the area was strong. The XVIII Army staff held war games that predicted losses of four out of ten transports, and between 30 and 40 aircraft. They gave the operation only a 50–50 chance of success. On the other hand, if the troops were landed at Madang, they faced a march of more than 140 mi over inhospitable swamp, mountain and jungle terrain without roads. To augment the three naval and two army fighter groups in the area assigned to protect the convoy, the Imperial Japanese Navy temporarily detached 18 fighters from the aircraft carrier JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER Zuihō's fighter group from Truk to Kavieng.

Allied intelligence
The Allies soon began detecting signs of preparations for a new convoy. A Japanese floatplane of the type normally used for anti-submarine patrols in advance of convoys was sighted on 7 February 1943. The Allied Air Forces South West Pacific Area commander – Lieutenant General George Kenney – ordered an increase in reconnaissance patrols over Rabaul. On 14 February, aerial photographs were taken that showed 79 vessels in port, including 45 merchant ships and six transports. It was clear that another convoy was being prepared, but its destination was unknown. On 16 February, naval codebreakers in Melbourne (FRUMEL) and Washington, D.C., finished decrypting and translating a coded message revealing the Japanese intention to land convoys at Wewak, Madang and Lae. Subsequently, codebreakers decrypted a message from the Japanese 11th Air Fleet to the effect that destroyers and six transports would reach Lae about 5 March. Another report indicated that they would reach Lae by 12 March. On 22 February, reconnaissance aircraft reported 59 merchant vessels in the harbour at Rabaul.

Kenney read this Ultra intelligence in the office of the Supreme Allied Commander, South West Pacific Area – General Douglas MacArthur – on 25 February. The prospect of an additional 6,900 Japanese troops in the Lae area greatly disturbed MacArthur, as they might seriously affect his plans to capture and develop the area. Kenney wrote out orders, which were sent by courier, for Brigadier General Ennis Whitehead, the deputy commander of the Fifth Air Force, and the commander of its Advance Echelon (ADVON) in New Guinea. Under the Fifth Air Force's unusual command arrangements, Whitehead controlled the Allied Air Forces units of all types in New Guinea. This included the RAAF units there, which were grouped as No. 9 Operational Group RAAF, under the command of Air Commodore Joe Hewitt.

Kenney informed Whitehead of the proposed convoy date, and warned him about the usual Japanese pre-convoy air attack. He also urged that flying hours be cut back so as to allow for a large strike on the convoy, and instructed him to move forward as many aircraft as possible so that they could be close to the nearby captured airfields around Dobodura, where they would not be subject to the vagaries of weather over the Owen Stanley Range. Kenney flew up to Port Moresby on 26 February, where he met with Whitehead. The two generals inspected fighter and bomber units in the area, and agreed to attack the Japanese convoy in the Vitiaz Strait. Kenney returned to Brisbane on 28 February.

Allied tactics
In the South West Pacific, a conventional strategic bombing campaign was out of the question, as industrial targets in Japan were well beyond the range of even the largest strategic bombers operating from bases in Australia and New Guinea. Therefore, the primary mission of the Allied bomber force was interdiction of Japanese supply lines, especially the sea lanes. The results of the effort against the Japanese convoy in January were very disappointing; some 416 sorties had been flown with only two ships sunk and three damaged; clearly, a change of tactics was in order. Group Captain Bill Garing, an RAAF officer on Kenney's staff with considerable experience in air-sea operations, including a tour of duty in Europe, recommended that Japanese convoys be subjected to simultaneous attack from different altitudes and directions.

The Allied Air Forces adopted some innovative tactics. In February 1942, the RAAF began experimenting with skip bombing, an anti-shipping technique used by the British and Germans. Flying only a few dozen feet above the sea toward their targets, bombers would release their bombs which would then, ideally, ricochet across the surface of the water and explode at the side of the target ship, under it, or just over it. A similar technique was mast-height bombing, in which bombers would approach the target at low altitude, 200 to 500 ft, at about 265 to 275 mph, and then drop down to mast height, 10 to 15 ft at about 600 yd from the target. They would release their bombs at around 300 yd, aiming directly at the side of the ship. The Battle of the Bismarck Sea would demonstrate that this was the more successful of the two tactics. The two techniques were not mutually exclusive: a bomber could drop two bombs, skipping the first and launching the second at mast height. In addition, as regular bomb fuses were designed to detonate immediately on impact, which would catch the attacking aircraft in its own bomb blast at low altitude attacks, crews developed a delayed-action fuse. Practice missions were carried out against the wreck of the SS Pruth, a liner that had run aground in 1923.

In order for bombers to conduct skip or mast-height bombing, the target ship's antiaircraft artillery would first have to be neutralized by strafing runs. For the latter task, Major Paul I. "Pappy" Gunn and his men at the 81st Depot Repair Squadron in Townsville, Queensland, modified some USAAF Douglas A-20 Havoc light bombers by installing four .50 in machine guns in their noses in September 1942. Two 450 usgal fuel tanks were added, giving the aircraft more range. An attempt was then made in December 1942 to create a longer range attack aircraft by doing the same thing to a B-25 medium bomber to convert it to a "commerce destroyer", but this proved to be somewhat more difficult. The resulting aircraft was nose-heavy despite added lead ballast in the tail, and the vibrations caused by firing the machine guns were enough to make rivets pop out of the skin of the aircraft. The tail guns and belly turrets were removed, the latter being of little use if the aircraft was flying low. The new tactic of having the B-25 strafe ships would be tried in this battle.

The Fifth Air Force had two heavy bomber groups. The 43rd Bombardment Group was equipped with about 55 Boeing B-17 Flying Fortresses. Most of these had seen hard war service over the previous six months and the availability rate was low. The recently arrived 90th Bombardment Group was equipped with Consolidated B-24 Liberators, but they too had maintenance problems. There were two medium groups: the 38th Bombardment Group, equipped with B-25 Mitchells, and the 22nd Bombardment Group, equipped with Martin B-26 Marauders, but two of the former's four squadrons had been diverted to the South Pacific Area, and the latter had taken so many losses that it had been withdrawn to Australia to be rebuilt.

There was also a light group, the 3rd Attack Group, equipped with a mixture of Douglas A-20 Havocs and B-25 Mitchells. This group was not just short of aircraft; it was critically short of aircrew as well. To make up the numbers the USAAF turned to the RAAF for help. Australian aircrew were assigned to most of the group's aircraft, serving in every role except aircraft commander. In addition to the RAAF aircrew with the USAAF squadrons, there were RAAF units in the Port Moresby area. No. 30 Squadron RAAF, which had arrived in Port Moresby in September 1942, was equipped with the Bristol Beaufighter. Both the aircraft and the squadron proved adept at low level attacks. Also in the Port Moresby area were the 35th and 49th Fighter Groups, both equipped with Bell P-39, Curtiss P-40 Warhawk and Lockheed P-38 Lightning fighters, but only the last were suitable for long range escort missions.

First attacks
The Japanese convoy – comprising eight destroyers and eight troop transports with an escort of approximately 100 fighters – assembled and departed from Simpson Harbour in Rabaul on 28 February. During the January operation, a course was followed that hugged the south coast of New Britain. This had made it easy to provide air cover, but being close to the airfields also made it possible for the Allied air forces to attack both the convoy and the airfields at the same time. This time, a route was chosen along the north coast, in the hope that the Allies would be deceived into thinking that the convoy's objective was Madang. Allied air attacks on the convoy at this point would have to fly over New Britain, allowing interdiction from Japanese air bases there, but the final leg of the voyage would be particularly dangerous, because the convoy would have to negotiate the restricted waters of Vitiaz Strait. The Japanese named the convoy "Operation 81."

The destroyers carried 958 troops, while the transports took 5,954. All the ships were combat loaded to expedite unloading at Lae. The commander of the Japanese XVIII Army – Lieutenant General Hatazō Adachi – travelled on the destroyer JAPANESE DESTROYER Tokitsukaze, while that of the 51st Division – Lieutenant General Hidemitsu Nakano – was on board the destroyer JAPANESE DESTROYER Yukikaze. The escort commander – Rear Admiral Masatomi Kimura of the 3rd Destroyer Flotilla – flew his flag from the destroyer JAPANESE DESTROYER Shirayuki. The other five destroyers were JAPANESE DESTROYER Arashio, JAPANESE DESTROYER Asashio, JAPANESE DESTROYER Asagumo, JAPANESE DESTROYER Shikinami and JAPANESE DESTROYER Uranami. They escorted seven Army transports: JAPANESE TRANSPORT Aiyo Maru (2,716 gross register tons), JAPANESE TRANSPORT Kembu Maru (950 tons), SS Kyokusei Maru (5,493 tons), JAPANESE TRANSPORT Oigawa Maru (6,494 tons), SS Sin-ai Maru (3,793 tons), SS Taimei Maru (2,883 tons) and SS Teiyo Maru (6,870 tons). Rounding out the force was the lone Navy transport SS Nojima Maru (8,125 tons). All the ships carried troops, equipment and ammunition, except for the Kembu Maru, which carried 1,000 drums of avgas and 650 drums of other fuel.

The convoy, moving at 7 kn, was not detected for some time, because of two tropical storms that struck the Solomon and Bismarck Seas between 27 February and 1 March, but at about 15:00 on 1 March, the crew of a patrolling B-24 Liberator heavy bomber spotted the convoy. Eight B-17 Flying Fortresses were sent to the location but failed to locate the ships.

At dawn on 2 March, a force of six RAAF A-20 Bostons attacked Lae to reduce its ability to provide support. At about 10:00, another Liberator found the convoy. Eight B-17s took off to attack the ships, followed an hour later by another 20. The B-17s were planned to rendezvous with P-38 fighters from the 9th Fighter Squadron, but the B-17s arrived early and faced the Japanese fighters on their own for the initial air battle until the P-38s arrived. They found the convoy and attacked with 1000 lb bombs from 5000 ft. They claimed to have sunk up to three merchant ships. Kyokusei Maru had sunk, carrying 1,200 army troops, and two other transports, Teiyo Maru and Nojima, were damaged. Eight Japanese fighters were destroyed and 13 damaged in the day's action, while nine B-17s were damaged.

The destroyers Yukikaze and Asagumo plucked 950 survivors of Kyokusei Maru from the water. These two destroyers, being faster than the convoy since its speed was dictated by the slower transports, broke away from the group to disembark the survivors at Lae. The destroyers resumed their escort duties the next day. The convoy – without the troop transport and two destroyers – was attacked again on the evening of 2 March by 11 B-17s, with minor damage to one transport. During the night, PBY Catalina flying boats from No. 11 Squadron RAAF took over the task of shadowing the convoy.

Further attacks
By 3 March, the convoy was within range of the air base at Milne Bay, and eight Bristol Beaufort torpedo bombers from No. 100 Squadron RAAF took off from there. Because of bad weather only two found the convoy, and neither scored any hits, but the weather cleared after they rounded the Huon Peninsula. A force of 90 Allied aircraft took off from Port Moresby, and headed for Cape Ward Hunt, while 22 A-20 Bostons of No. 22 Squadron RAAF attacked the Japanese fighter base at Lae, reducing the convoy's air cover. Attacks on the base continued throughout the day.

At 10:00, 13 B-17s reached the convoy and bombed from medium altitude of 7,000 feet, causing the ships to maneuver, which dispersed the convoy and reduced their concentrated anti-aircraft firepower. The B-17s attracted Mitsubishi A6M Zero fighters, which were in turn attacked by the P-38 Lightning escorts. A B-17 broke up in the air, and its crew took to their parachutes. Japanese fighter pilots machine-gunned some of the B-17 crew members as they descended and attacked others in the water after they landed. Five of the Japanese fighters strafing the B-17 aircrew were promptly engaged and shot down by three P-38s which were also lost. The Allied fighter pilots claimed 15 Zeros destroyed, while the B-17 crews claimed five more. Actual Japanese fighter losses for the day were seven destroyed and three damaged. B-25s arrived shortly afterward and released their 500-pound bombs between 3,000 and 6,000 feet, reportedly causing two Japanese vessels to collide. The result of the B-17 and B-25 sorties scored few hits but left the convoy ships separated, making them vulnerable to strafers and masthead bombers, and with the Japanese anti-aircraft fire being focused on the medium-altitude bombers this left an opening for minimum-altitude attacks.

The 13 Beaufighters from No. 30 Squadron RAAF approached the convoy at low level to give the impression they were Beauforts making a torpedo attack. The ships turned to face them, the standard procedure to present a smaller target to torpedo bombers, allowing the Beaufighters to maximise the damage they inflicted on the ships' anti-aircraft guns, bridges and crews in strafing runs with their four 20 mm nose cannons and six wing-mounted .303 in machine guns. On board one of the Beaufighters was cameraman Damien Parer, who shot dramatic footage of the battle; it was later included in the newsreel The Bismarck Convoy Smashed. Immediately afterward, seven B-25s of the 38th Bombardment Group's 71st Bombardment Squadron bombed from about 750 m, while six from the 405th Bombardment Squadron attacked at mast height.

According to the official RAAF release on the Beaufighter attack, "enemy crews were slain beside their guns, deck cargo burst into flame, superstructures toppled and burned". Garrett Middlebrook, a co-pilot in one of the B-25s, described the ferocity of the strafing attacks: "They went in and hit this troop ship. What I saw looked like little sticks, maybe a foot long or something like that, or splinters flying up off the deck of ship; they'd fly all around ... and twist crazily in the air and fall out in the water.  Then I realized what I was watching were human beings.  I was watching hundreds of those Japanese just blown off the deck by those machine guns.  They just splintered around the air like sticks in a whirlwind and they'd fall in the water."

Shirayuki was the first ship to be hit, by a combination of strafing and bombing attacks. Almost all the men on the bridge became casualties, including Kimura, who was wounded. One bomb hit started a magazine explosion that caused the stern to break off, and the ship to sink. Her crew was transferred to Shikinami, and Shirayuki was scuttled. The destroyer Tokitsukaze was also hit and fatally damaged. Its crew was taken off by Yukikaze. The destroyer Arashio was hit, and collided with the transport Nojima, disabling her. Both the destroyer and the transport were abandoned, and Nojima was later sunk by an air attack.

Fourteen B-25s returned that afternoon, reportedly claiming 17 hits or near misses. By this time, a third of the transports were sunk or sinking. As the Beaufighters and B-25s had expended their munitions, some USAAF A-20 Havocs of the 3rd Attack Group joined in. Another five hits were claimed by B-17s of the 43rd Bombardment Group from higher altitudes. During the afternoon, further attacks from USAAF B-25s and Bostons of No. 22 Squadron RAAF followed.

All seven of the transports were hit and most were burning or sinking about 100 km southeast of Finschhafen, along with the destroyers Shirayuki, Tokitsukaze and Arashio. Four of the destroyers – Shikinami, Yukikaze, Uranami and Asagumo – picked up as many survivors as they could and then retired to Rabaul, accompanied by the destroyer JAPANESE DESTROYER Hatsuyuki, which had come from Rabaul to assist. That night, a force of ten U.S. Navy PT boats – under the command of Lieutenant Commander Barry Atkins – set out to attack the convoy. Two boats struck submerged debris and were forced to return. The other eight arrived off Lae in the early hours of 4 March. Atkins spotted a fire that turned out to be the transport Oigawa Maru. PT-143 and PT-150 fired torpedoes at it, sinking the crippled vessel. In the morning, a fourth destroyer – Asashio – was sunk when a B-17 hit her with a 500 lb bomb while she was picking up survivors from Arashio. Only one destroyer, Yukikaze, was undamaged among the four surviving destroyers.

Some 2,700 survivors were taken to Rabaul by the destroyers. On 4 March, another 1,000 or so survivors were adrift on rafts. On the evenings of 3–5 March, PT boats and planes attacked Japanese rescue vessels, as well as the survivors from the sunken vessels on life rafts and swimming or floating in the sea. This was later justified on the grounds that rescued servicemen would have been rapidly landed at their military destination and promptly returned to active service, as well as being retaliation for the Japanese fighter planes attacking survivors of the downed B-17 bomber. While many of the Allied aircrew accepted these attacks as being necessary, others were sickened. On 6 March, the Japanese submarines JAPANESE SUBMARINE I-17 and JAPANESE SUBMARINE I-26 picked up 170 survivors. Two days later, I-26 found another 54 and put them ashore at Lae. Hundreds made their way to various islands. One band of 18 survivors landed on Kiriwina, where they were captured by PT-114. Another made its way to Guadalcanal, only to be killed by an American patrol.

On 4 March the Japanese mounted a retaliatory raid on the Buna airfield, the site of a base that the Allies had captured back in January, though the fighters did little damage. Kenney wrote in his memoir that the Japanese reprisal occurred "after the horse had been stolen from the barn. It was a good thing that the Nip air commander was stupid. Those hundred airplanes would have made our job awfully hard if they had taken part in the big fight over the convoy on March 3rd."

On Goodenough Island, between 8 and 14 March 1943, Australian patrols from the 47th Infantry Battalion found and killed 72 Japanese, captured 42 and found another nine dead on a raft. One patrol killed eight Japanese who had landed in two flat-bottomed boats, in which were found some documents in sealed tins. On translation by the Allied Translator and Interpreter Section, one document turned out to be a copy of the Japanese Army List, with the names and postings of every officer in the Japanese Army. It therefore provided a complete order of battle of the Japanese Army, including many units that had never before been reported. A mention of any Japanese officer could now be correlated with his unit. Copies were made available to intelligence units in every theatre of war against Japan.

Aftermath
The battle was a disaster for the Japanese. Out of 6,900 troops who were badly needed in New Guinea, only about 1,200 made it to Lae. Another 2,700 were saved by destroyers and submarines and returned to Rabaul. About 2,890 Japanese soldiers and sailors were killed. The Allies lost 13 aircrew, 10 of whom were lost in combat while three others died in an accident. There were also eight wounded. Aircraft losses were one B-17 and three P-38s in combat, and one B-25 and one Beaufighter in accidents. MacArthur issued a communiqué on 7 March stating that 22 ships, including twelve transports, three cruisers and seven destroyers, had been sunk along with 12,792 troops. Army Air Force Headquarters in Washington, D.C., looked into the matter in mid-1943 and concluded that there were only 16 ships involved, but GHQ SWPA considered the original account accurate. The victory was a propaganda boon for the Allies, with one United States newsreel claiming the Japanese had lost 22 ships, 15,000 troops, and 102 aircraft. The New York Times, on its front page on March 4, 1943, cited the loss by the Japanese of 22 ships, 15,000 troops and 55 aircraft.

The Allied Air Forces had used 233,847 rounds of ammunition, and dropped two-hundred and sixty-one 500-pound and two-hundred and fifty-three 1,000-pound bombs. They claimed 19 hits and 42 near misses with the former and 59 hits and 39 near misses from the latter. Of the 137 bombs dropped in low level attacks, 48 (35 percent) were claimed to have hit but only 29 (7.5 percent) of the 387 bombs dropped from medium altitude. This compared favourably with efforts in August and September 1942 when only 3 percent of bombs dropped were claimed to have scored hits. It was noted that the high and medium altitude attacks scored few hits but dispersed the convoy, while the strafing runs from the Beaufighters had knocked out many of the ships' anti-aircraft defences. Aircraft attacking from several directions at once had confused and overwhelmed the Japanese defences, resulting in lower casualties and more accurate bombing. The results therefore vindicated not just the tactics of mast height attack but of mounting coordinated attacks from several directions. The Japanese estimated that at least 29 bombs had hit a ship during the battle. This was a big improvement over the Battle of Wau back in January, when Allied aircraft attacked a Japanese convoy consisting of five destroyers and five troop transports travelling from Rabaul to Lae, but managed to sink just one transport and beach another.

Imamura's chief of staff flew to Imperial General Headquarters to report on the disaster. It was decided that there would be no more attempts to land troops at Lae. The losses incurred in the Bismarck Sea caused grave concern for the security of Lae and Rabaul and resulted in a change of strategy. On 25 March a joint Army-Navy Central Agreement on South West Area Operations gave operations in New Guinea priority over those in the Solomon Islands campaign. The XVIII Army was allocated additional shipping, ordnance and anti-aircraft units, which were sent to Wewak or Hansa Bay. Of the defeat, Rabaul staff officer Masatake Okumiya said, "Our losses for this single battle were fantastic. Not during the entire savage fighting at Guadalcanal did we suffer a single comparable blow. We knew we could no longer run cargo ships or even fast destroyer transports to any front on the north coast of New Guinea, east of Wewak".

The planned movement of the 20th Division to Madang was revised in the light of events in the Bismarck Sea. The operation was postponed for two days, and the destination was altered from Madang to Hansa Bay further west. To reduce the Allied air threat, the Allied airfield at Wau was bombed on 9 March and that at Dobodura on 11 March. Three Allied aircraft were destroyed on the ground and one P-40 was lost in the air but Allied fighters claimed nine Japanese aircraft. The transports reached Hansa Bay unscathed on 12 March and the troops made their way down to Madang on foot or in barges. The 20th Division then became involved in an attempt to construct a road from Madang to Lae through the Ramu and Markham Valleys. It toiled on the road for the next few months but its efforts were ultimately frustrated by the New Guinea weather and the rugged terrain of the Finisterre Range.

Some submarines were made available for supply runs to Lae but they did not have the capacity to support the troops there by themselves. An operation was carried out on 29 March in which four destroyers delivered 800 troops to Finschhafen but the growing threat from Allied aircraft led to the development of routes along the coast of New Guinea from Madang to Finschhafen and along the north and south coasts of New Britain to Finschhafen, thence to Lae using Army landing craft. It was by this means that the remainder of the 51st Division finally made the trip to Lae in May. The necessity of delivering troops and supplies to the front in this manner caused immense difficulties for the Japanese in their attempts to halt further Allied advances. After the war, Japanese officers at Rabaul estimated that around 20,000 troops were lost in transit to New Guinea from Rabaul, a significant factor in Japan's ultimate defeat in the New Guinea campaign.

In April, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto used the additional air resources allocated to Rabaul in Operation I-Go, an air offensive designed to redress the situation by destroying Allied ships and aircraft in New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. The operation was indecisive and Yamamoto became a casualty of Allied intelligence and air power in the Solomon Islands on 18 April 1943.

Game theory
In 1954, O. G. Haywood Jr., wrote an article in the Journal of the Operations Research Society of America in which game theory was used to model the decision-making in the battle. Since then, the name of the battle has been applied to this particular type of two-person zero-sum game.

title: Battle of the Bismarck Sea


text:
U.S. Route 163

U.S. Route 163 (also U.S. Highway 163, US 163) is a 64 mi U.S. Highway that runs from US 160 northward to US 191 in the U.S. states of Arizona and Utah. The southernmost 44 mi of its length are within the Navajo Nation. The highway forms part of the Trail of the Ancients, a National Scenic Byway. The highway cuts through the heart of Monument Valley and has been featured in numerous movies and commercials.

The highway was designated in 1970, replacing Arizona State Route 464 and Utah State Route 47 as well as a portion of the old alignment of US 160 in Utah. In 1981, US 191 was routed over the northern section of US 163, effectively truncating the northern terminus to Bluff, Utah, from Crescent Junction. The state of Utah briefly had plans for a different routing of US 163 north of Bluff. These plans were rejected, resulting in discrepancies between the signed route and the official designation by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials that were not resolved until 2008. The route number does not follow the numbering convention for U.S. Highways, as the number 163 would normally be used for a spur of US 63; however, these two highways have never connected.

Arizona
The southern terminus of US 163 is at a junction with US 160 south of Kayenta in Navajo County and Navajo Nation. The road continues to the south of this junction as Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Route 591. US 163 heads north from US 160 to the west of the Kayenta Airport as it passes through the town of Kayenta. The highway curves toward the northeast in Kayenta before it curves back toward the north. As it continues north, the highway goes through an s-curve, resulting in a northeasterly heading. US 163 continues this heading as it heads toward Monument Valley and crosses into Utah. The state of Arizona has designated an 18 mi stretch of the highway, from approximately 5 mi north of the US 160 junction to the Utah border, as a scenic route.

Utah
The Utah portion of the highway begins in Monument Valley, in San Juan County. Just after it enters Utah, the highway junctions with the Monument Valley Visitors center. The highway proceeds northeast until the town of Mexican Hat where the highway both crosses the San Juan River and exits the Navajo Nation. From Mexican Hat, the highway travels east crossing the Comb Ridge toward its terminus in Bluff. A significant portion of the Utah portion of the route north of the Navajo Nation is inside the boundaries of the Bears Ears National Monument. Formerly, the route continued along what is now signed US 191 to I-70, however the portion north of Bluff was not signed after the creation of US 191 and was formally removed in 2008. The length of US 163 in Utah has been designated the Bluff to Monument Valley Scenic Byway by the Utah State Legislature and forms part of the Trail of the Ancients National Scenic Byway. All highways in Utah are codified in law; US 163 is defined at Utah Code §72-4-122(3). While Monument Valley and US 163 have been featured in numerous western movies, a specific view area near Utah mile marker 13 has recently been given the nickname Forrest Gump hill, as a location from the movie Forrest Gump. It has become common for fans of the film to re-create the scene where the title character ends a cross country jogging along this point on US 163.

History
The modern routing of US 163 in Utah was initially designated as State Route 47, in 1910. SR 47 extended to Monticello at a junction with then U.S. Route 160. In Arizona, the road appeared on maps as early as 1935, but it was an unimproved dirt road. The Arizona portion was added to the state highway system in 1960 when it was designated as State Route 464.

In 1970, US 163 was designated along SR 464 in Arizona and SR 47 in Utah as part of a re-alignment of U.S. highways in the Four Corners region. With the re-alignment, US 160 was re-routed into Arizona instead of Utah. US 163 also absorbed the former route of US 160 to its former terminus at Interstate 70 at Crescent Junction. In 1981, AASHTO approved a new iteration of U.S. Route 191 that absorbed much of the alignment of US 163. Utah truncated US 163 at Bluff. The truncation was made without approval from AASHTO, as the AASHTO logs placed the northern terminus of US 163 at I-70 at Crescent Junction.

The state of Utah signed a joint intent with the Navajo Nation and San Juan County in 1986 to construct a new highway to connect Bluff with Montezuma Creek. Businesses in Monument Valley asked the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) to request extensions of US 163 and US 666 using this new road. The proposal would have US 163 run from Cedar City to US 160 near Cortez, Colorado along the routes of State Route 14, U.S. Route 89, Arizona State Route 98, U.S. Route 160, the current US 163, the new road from Bluff to Montezuma Creek, and Colorado State Highway 41. The proposal for US 666 would extend to Richfield via upgrades to State Route 95 and State Route 24. UDOT submitted the proposal for US 666 to AASHTO, which was rejected. AASHTO cited that the route was not direct, and SR-24 was not built to U.S. Highway standards. UDOT did not pursue the extension of US 163, even though the Utah state legislature had approved the new road from Bluff to Montezuma creek as route 163.

With this extension, the Utah definition of US 163 conflicted with the AASHTO definition. UDOT resolved this discrepancy by signing the extended portion as State Route 163. In 2004, the plan to extend US 163 was abandoned, and the extension was renumbered SR-162 to "make the state route numbers run synonymous with the U.S. route designation." Although the state changed the definition of US 163 back to match the national definition in 2004, the portion north of Bluff remained unsigned. In October 2008, UDOT requested and obtained approval to truncate US 163 to the junction with US 191 resolving the discrepancy.

The highway corridor became controversial in 2016 with the designation of Bears Ears National Monument. The area near where US 163 crosses the Comb Ridge was included in some versions of the monument proposal, but excluded as a concession to local concerns in other versions. The proclamation signed by President Obama in 2016 did not include the Comb Ridge area, however, was included with subsequent boundary changes by succeeding presidents.

title: U.S. Route 163