text:
Talk:Project for the New American Century/Survey

The dispute is over which of the following two versions is more appropriate for inclusion in this article:

Version 1: A section of the document that has proved particularly controversial can be found in Section V, "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force" (page 53):

"Further, the process of transformation...is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

Critics of the PNAC have suggested that the September 11, 2001 attacks were just such an event, which were then cynically exploited by the Bush administration to enable it to aggressively pursue the PNAC's agenda. (Some conspiracy theorists see this passage as evidence of complicity in the attacks.)

Supporters of the PNAC say the quote is taken out of the context of a discussion specifically about military use of information technologies, and the report is simply guessing that full transformation to new technologies is likely to be a slow process unless some "catalyzing" event causes the military to upgrade more quickly.

The quote is a source of much spirited - and frequently extremely partisan and ill-informed - debate, and readers may find it more enlightening to examine the document directly than to rely on third party interpretations.

Version 2: A line frequently quoted out of context from Rebuilding America's Defenses famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 51). Conspiracy theorists argue this is suspiciously prescient of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, with some going so far as to suggest complicity of the PNAC in the attacks. Many also incorrectly claim that this "new Pearl Harbor" is stated to be needed to justify war on Iraq. In fact, however, the quote is part of a discussion about military use of information technologies, where the report is simply guessing that full transformation to new technologies is likely to be a slow process unless some "catalyzing" event causes the military to upgrade more quickly. Despite the easy availability of the whole document, the quote provokes spirited - and often partisan and ill-informed - debate.

Please sign your name using three tildes under the position you support, possibly adding brief comments afterwards. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion".

Version 1 is NPOV. (15 votes)

 * 1) CheeseDreams 14:51, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
 * 3) Shorne 21:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) This survey is well done, given the almost impossible circumstances created by VeryVerily. I applaud the creator for his patience. 08:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) *Yes how much "patience" it must require to craft a dishonest survey while completely ignoring the complaints of the only sane user participating. Very Verily 06:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Bryan 00:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) It's not perfect—the "critics" and "supporters" should be named—but it's better than #2. —No-One Jones (m) 15:00, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:22, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Gzornenplatz 20:10, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Delirium 20:28, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC) Better than Version 2, but could still stand some improvement IMO.
 * 10) [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:08, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Rhobite 21:16, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC) Version 2 is vitriolic, negative, and argumentative. 1 is not perfect, but much better.
 * 12) Herschelkrustofsky See my reasons on the main talk page.
 * 13) AquaRichy 07:00, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC) it does better justice to my vision of history.
 * 14) *L33tminion Does better justice to your version? That seems to be a contradiction if you're claiming it's NPOV.
 * 15) L33tminion Actually, I feel both versions are NPOV, but this one is better, in my opinion.  VeryVerily does raise a legitimate issue, however, and I don't think this survey is being conducted in the fairest possible manner.
 * 16) Gary D but only without the last sentence.
 * 17) llywrch 20:58, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) I feel this is the less worse of the two passages; neither really are NPOV. The link to the phrase "conspiracy theory" subtly makes this read as if only the "tin-foil hat" crowd would advocate this POV, an intent which is supported by the last half of the last sentence in this passage: "readers may find it more enlightening to examine the document directly than to rely on third party interpretations." On the other hand, the 2nd passage asserts this passage is quoted out of context, which is blatantly POV. Either would be much improved with the addition of a sample of what has been written on this controversial passage, with attributions.

Version 2 is NPOV. (1 vote)

 * 1) Very Verily 03:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)  This survey is an utter fraud, with misleading and loaded questions designed by partisans of this conflict to mislead and prejudice the casual reader.  Version 1 is "NPOV" in the same way that adding to George W. Bush the paragraph "Some critics have suggested that Bush is a reptilian humanoid controlling Earth through a multidimensional vortex.  Supporters of Bush say that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of such creatures.  This topic has stirred much spirited debate." would be "NPOV".

Neither of the versions is NPOV. (2 votes)

 * 1) "spirited - and frequently extremely partisan and ill-informed" is a judgment, addressing the reader directly like "readers may find it more enlightening to examine the document directly" is not encyclopedia style, and analyzing a particular paragraph from a report in an article about an organization is not appropriate for an encyclopedia altogether. It is fully sufficient to mention that there is a disputer over whether the PNAC suggested something others may be able to specify better than I can about 9/11. Get-back-world-respect 23:00, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) *Yes, neither version is perfect, but I believe version 1 is closer to NPOV. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 22:58, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) *--Silverback 05:00, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) version 1 is better written, but I can see version 2s points, especially if the link conspiracy theory about Iraq can be documented
 * 4) *I think the questions were originally meant to be worded "more NPOV", but they can't be fixed now. There seems to be consenses in any case that the last line, which exists in both versions, needs to be changed to duller wording. I think that most people are viewing this as a separate issue and ignoring it for the sake of the comparative focus of the survey. Kevin Baas | talk 19:18, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
 * 5) ugen64 00:35, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) *In reading through the document in question (but not studying it in detail) I find that the PNAC position is quite clearly stated: The US has attained a globally dominant military position; we must greatly increase military spending to keep it that way. PNAC is not making a secret of what it proposes. I would suggest that, for the purposes of the encyclopedia, a NPOV might be constructed simply by briefly abstracting the document. Why do we care what various political sectors think about it? That's another matter. The problem with focusing on what people think about it, rather than on what the document actually says, is that thoughtful people will undoubtedly think other things as time continues to move along. We will continue to evaluate the proposals in the document within the light of events yet to come. What people think about the document describes the zeitgeist. That has some interest in its own right, but is a degree removed from what the document itself actually says. A simple concise summary of the document will not offend anyone who is interested in the subject. The one will see a reasonable plan; the other will see a threat. Both will agree that they are seeing the essential document.--John Tinker 02:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph: (vote one)

 * An utterly meaningless question. In what context would it be mentioned?  What is the putative relevance? Very Verily  03:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

should mention Iraq. (5 votes)

 * 1) Shorne 21:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Rhobite 21:16, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) "Iraq" appears 25 times in the document. "Iraqi" appears 5 times. "Saddam" - 8 times.--John Tinker 02:05, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) L33tminion
 * 5) CheeseDreams 14:53, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am neutral on this matter. (5 votes)

 * 1) Kevin Baas | talk 21:56, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
 * 2) Bryan 00:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:23, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:19, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) --Silverback 02:00, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

should not say that critics of PNAC believe the paper in question was proposing the invasion of Iraq. (2 votes)

 * 1) Kevin Baas | talk 21:56, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
 * 2) Shorne 21:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

should say that some critics of PNAC believe the paper in question was proposing the invasion of Iraq. (6 votes)

 * 1) It should name them. "Some" and "many" have to be the most-quoted people in Wikipedia. —No-One Jones (m) 15:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Quotes, quotes, quotes. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:23, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Leaning towards "not". [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:09, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Rhobite 21:16, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) --Silverback 05:02, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) There should be a quote, unless this line of argument is common knowledge. If it is, quotes from the document that support the position, or debunk it should be found. The quote is question does not support the position, so the position must be based on others, if it has a basis.
 * 6) CheeseDreams 14:53, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

should say that most critics of PNAC believe the paper in question was proposing the invasion of Iraq. (0 votes)

 * Very Verily 03:09, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) (Not a vote.) This is a strawman they created to further the misleading impression that this is the view being expressed. In fact, no one ever suggested any such thing.

Which, if any, of the following fragments are inherently POV in the context of the above paragraphs? (vote as many as you like)

 * "frequently quoted out of context"
 * Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
 * Shorne 21:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Bryan 00:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:25, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:10, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Get-back-world-respect 23:28, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * John Tinker 02:09, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * CheeseDreams 14:54, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

piracy theorists argue"
 * "Cons
 * Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
 * Shorne 21:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) I'm astounded that there is even any controversy over the blatant POV nature of these statements, but I guess some go through life with blinders on. Shorne 21:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Bryan 00:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:25, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Rhobite 21:16, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Get-back-world-respect 23:28, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * John Tinker 02:09, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * "going so far as to"
 * Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
 * Shorne 21:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:25, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Rhobite 21:16, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Get-back-world-respect 23:28, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * John Tinker 02:09, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * "incorrectly claim"
 * Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
 * Shorne 21:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Bryan 00:09, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:25, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Implies correctness. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:10, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Rhobite 21:16, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Get-back-world-respect 23:28, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * John Tinker 02:09, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * L33tminion
 * CheeseDreams 14:54, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * "Critics of the PNAC have suggested"
 * --Silverback 04:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) "suggested" here may become POV when used as a euphemism for the more accurate "accused". "Suggested" makes it sound like they merely raised an interesting possibility.
 * L33tminion Agreed within this context; "accused" is more accurate.

 * "Supporters of the PNAC say"

 * "has proved particularly controversial"
 * --Silverback 04:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) I've reviewed the passage, it doesn't seem controversial at all, despite the fact that it has become the focus of opponents seeking to proof text out of context

 * none of the above

Yes. (6 votes)

 * 1) Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
 * 2) Shorne 21:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Bryan 00:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) —No-One Jones (m) 15:02, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:33, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:11, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Indifferent. (2 votes)

 * 1) --Silverback 05:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) but I can see VVs point, if the rest of the paragraph clears things up better, I'm not too concerned.
 * 2) L33tminion

Is it important to quote the full sentence, rather than only part of it? (vote one)

 * That depends on what information one is attempting to convey. But Kb's reason for wanting the whole sense is to spin a deceptive theory as to what the "transformation" refers to, but the part I quoted was the part most frequently quoted. This is another trick. Very Verily 03:10, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes. (5 votes)

 * 1) Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
 * 2) Shorne 21:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:33, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:13, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) L33tminion 02:02, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Indifferent. (3 votes)

 * 1) —No-One Jones (m) 15:02, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) --Silverback 05:09, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) Only a short clause is saved by the ..., so I wonder why it was chose, but it doesn't bias a POV, and maybe it'll arouse some minor curiousity about what was left out.
 * 3) *I really don't mind the ... either, it's the difference between the quote in v.1 and v.2 that i'm concerned about. Kevin Baas | talk 19:07, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Which, if any, of the following statements are reasonable? (vote as many as you like)

 * 1) the sept-11 attacks can be thought of as a "New Pearl Harbor" in the sense described in the document
 * 2) Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
 * 3) Shorne 21:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Bryan 00:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) —No-One Jones (m) 15:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:33, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:15, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) --Silverback 05:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) CheeseDreams 14:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) the sept-11 attacks enable an administration to accelerate the "process of transformation" suggested by the document, if the administration acting at the time is so motivated, as the document so states.
 * 2) Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
 * 3) Shorne 21:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Bryan 00:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) —No-One Jones (m) 15:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:33, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) CheeseDreams 14:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) the "process of transformation" described in the document includes america becoming more militant and unilateral
 * 2) Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
 * 3) Shorne 21:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) since the sept-11 attacks, the adminstration has become significantly more militant and unilateral.
 * 5) Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
 * 6) Shorne 21:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) Could anyone deny it?
 * 7) Bryan 00:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) —No-One Jones (m) 15:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:33, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:15, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) CheeseDreams 14:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) prominent members of the acting adminstration helped write the document
 * 2) Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
 * 3) Shorne 21:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Paul Wolfowitz did. —No-One Jones (m) 15:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:33, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:15, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) CheeseDreams 14:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) what is written in the document reflects the beliefs of those who wrote it
 * 2) Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
 * 3) Shorne 21:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) So it seems.
 * 4) —No-One Jones (m) 15:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:33, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:15, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) CheeseDreams 14:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) it is reasonable to think that the people in the acting administration are acting according to their beliefs
 * 2) Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
 * 3) Shorne 21:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Bryan 00:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) —No-One Jones (m) 15:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:33, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:15, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) CheeseDreams 14:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) the above statements, taken together, constitute a "reasonable" criticism
 * 2) Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
 * 3) Shorne 21:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Bryan 00:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:33, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:21, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) CheeseDreams 14:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) none of the above statements are reasonable

Discussion of ongoing survey
Oh, after all that I neglected to suggest a closing date for the poll. Shall we say ten days? October 22. Bryan 16:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Shorne 21:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Kevin Baas | talk 21:55, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
 * [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:33, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Bryan 21:14, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) I proposed it, but I guess I should also register my support for it. :)
 * I just saw this linked on Community Portal. I hope my comment isn't re-opening a resolved matter. (Although I suspect the wording of this & other articles will be debated for months to come.) -- llywrch 21:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Old discussion relating to the wording and structure of this survey has been /Archived.

The paragraph: (vote one)

 * An utterly meaningless question. In what context would it be mentioned?  What is the putative relevance? Very Verily  03:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Funny, I understood it perfectly. Shorne 04:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

should say that most critics of PNAC believe the paper in question was proposing the invasion of Iraq.

 * Very Verily 03:09, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) (Not a vote.)  This is a strawman they created to further the misleading impression that this is the view being expressed.  In fact, no one ever suggested any such thing.

 * So don't vote for this one. This is how polls work, you don't have to agree with everything in it. Bryan 03:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * How does not voting for it address the misleading impression that this is the view being expressed? You unilaterally deleted all of my loaded/strawman questions. Very Verily  04:20, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I unilaterally second the deletion of VeryVerily's loaded/straw-man questions. Shorne 04:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is it important to quote the full sentence, rather than only part of it? (vote one)

 * That depends on what information one is attempting to convey. But Kb's reason for wanting the whole sense is to spin a deceptive theory as to what the "transformation" refers to, but the part I quoted was the part most frequently quoted.  This is another trick. Very Verily  03:10, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I was considering voting "indifferent" because I don't actually know what the full quote is, and decided that the best way to convey that was to just not vote on this particular issue. Bryan 03:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I do. And this is a trick. Very Verily  04:21, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I vote in favour of quoting the full sentence. Shorne 04:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * The best way to resolve ambiguity and remove partiality, is to add information. Removing information makes the picture less complete, while adding information makes it more complete.  One cannot "spin" via faithfull reproduction.  That's an oxymoron, and, as such, is, dare i say, ridiculous.

 * Let me note, beyond this particular circumstance, that I often notice a general trend in some sociological manifestations: there are some who try to arrive at "the truth" by adding knowledge, while others try to arrive at it by subtracting.  I think it is important to consider which of the two practices is more deceptive. Kevin Baas | talk 19:27, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

you have not stopped beating your wife.
Moved from the first question:
 * 1) Shorne 21:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) This survey is well done, given the almost impossible circumstances created by VeryVerily. I applaud the creator for his patience.
 * 2) *Yes how much "patience" it must require to craft a dishonest survey while completely ignoring the complaints of the only sane user participating. Very Verily 06:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) **Uh-huh. And I bet you're Napoleon, too, aren't you? Shorne

Moved from the sentence fragment question:
 * none of the above
 * What a joke! The only way of giving a dissenting voice other than silence is that "none" are inherently POV? Very Verily  06:49, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Back in the /archived discussion three days ago when I first proposed a "none of the above" option, your only response was "It's hard for me not to laugh." Perhaps you should have provided a more substansive criticism at that point? Bryan 14:59, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * That is because you are operating in such obviously bad faith. Very Verily 00:03, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Which, if any, of the following statements are reasonable? (vote as many as you like)

 * 1) *More comedy! The only way of giving a dissenting voice other than silence is to say that "none" are reasonable? Very Verily 06:50, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * A lack of a consenting vote is considered a dissenting vote. The "none" are reasonable is simply for redundancy; it is a confirmation that you have voted in the section, and that you are giving a dissenting vote to all questions. (without this check, your lack of any vote could be interpreted as you haven't voted yet or are abstaining.)  Each question is considered according to the ratio of explicit consenting to implicit dissenting votes.  That is, if there are five voters and two vote a statement reasonable, then a majority dissent.  It saves space and time from a yes-no-indifferent for each question.
 * The wording of the questions, in concerns the particular issue, is only valid if it is in the positive sense, because if the criticism can be demonstrated to be reasonable, then any argument that does not throw into question this demonstration is irrelevant. If two and two apples make four, then the question of how rotten the apples are or the bias of the mathemetician or what have you, is irrelevant: 2 and 2 still make four.
 * Another way to say this is that criticism should be applied constructively via logic. When there is doubt, either soundness or validity should be examined, rather than adding new axioms.  Adding new axioms is a means to construct, rather than to destruct.  However, if too many axioms are added, the system may become inconsistent, at which point the soundness of the axioms, or the validity of their application that led to the apparent inconsistency, should be tested.
 * I think I just gave a spontaneous lecture on critical thinking. Forgive me if it's patronizing.  I'm trying to respond to your complaint, but the premises of it are unstated, so I can only infer. Kevin Baas | talk 19:18, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
 * Kb is giving me a lecture on critical thinking. How absurd.  This is not an axiom system, you know. Very Verily  00:04, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Any premise to an argument is an axiom. Kevin Baas | talk 19:21, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

FWIW, I thank Bryan for moving my discussion out of the survey section. I think it is a good idea to keep the survey clean. Thanks, Bryan. Kevin Baas | talk 20:52, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

the Iraq issue
If there is a legitimate body of critics that are directly or through innuendo are accusing the document of advocating or planning an invasion, then it probably deserves to be mentioned and responded to. I think some passages in the document make it clear that while frustrated by the way Saddam was pulling our chain and concerned about the degradation of our air force readiness due to enforcing the no fly zone, they were actually recommending a long term redeployment which accepted the likely continuation of these realities. On page 17:

 * "With the rationalization of ground-based U.S. air forces in the region, the demand for carrier presence in the region can be relaxed."

Also documented in the document is the clear concern with WMD in general, not just a focus on Iraq, although throughout the document the lessons of Gulf War I and the demands of the no fly zone and the need for stability in the middle east are prominent. Although on page 57, it states:

 * "The current American peace will be short-lived if the United States becomes vulnerable to rogue powers with small, inexpensive arsenals of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction. We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself."

the main argument of the document appears to be for a more rational deployment of our forces. It is no wonder that the administration seized upon it as a fortuitiously available coherant policy in the wake of the urgency thrust upon us by 9/11, so early in the administration. Besides all the obvious moral reasons for selecting Iraq as the a target, one thing the document makes clear is that the no fly zone was not a painless exercise, but was tying down our forces and reducing our flexibility more than the general public probably appreciated. Combine that with the UN cooperating in undermining US and UN credibility by repeatedly delaying a meaningful response to Saddams repeated breaking of the truce (the sanctions and the kicking out of inspectors), made Iraq the logical next target.

There is plenty of fodder for the Kerry campaign in the document as well, given that the document recognized the need for larger armed forces because of "constabulary" needs.--Silverback 05:51, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The document should also be reassuring to the very Europeans, whose fears are being aroused by the rhetoric. The concerns it raises about the then ill-thought-out deployment of US forces and the tying down of US forces in Iraq and the balkans and the limitations of US capability given these commitments, would seem to be evidence that the US is a paper tiger of a superpower. Yes, US power is to be feared since it can be projected from a great distance, but like a bully, there is little to fear once it is challenged. If a little ole no-fly zone can strain US forces, imagine what an occupation like Iraq can do. The Iraq war may have successfully freed up, some American air power, but at an unsustainable strain on the land forces. Either the total size of US land forces must be increased or the Iraqi-ization of the occupation must succeed. Superpower? Poppy-cock! Only in the current power vacuum. If some other threat arose, the US had better hope they are impressed by "Shock and Awe", except perhaps in the case of Iran, since the US forces could easily maneuver to counter any threat there.--Silverback 23:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

it is reasonable to think that the people in the acting administration are acting according to their beliefs
This is not reasonable, executive branch decisions are often compromises, and multiple positions are considered. Even the PNAC people in the administration, while unlikely changed in their core values, may be quite changed in what the view as the policy implications of those values. Although they have been accused of anticipating 9/11, they may well have been transformed by it in unanticipated ways. --Silverback 09:07, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * You've talked about how their beliefs are formed, but not how their beliefs relate to their actions. Kevin Baas | talk 14:50, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

 * Like loyal soldiers, unless it violates their conscience, their actions reflect the beliefs of the president than their own. It is their recommendations/advice that may follow their beliefs.--Silverback

 * In any case, they are following their beliefs, whether they believe that they should take orders or give them. As when people go to church, donate, and assimilate their beliefs to those of the church, in acting according to their belief in a diety, so does one act when taking orders. As Voltaire said, "One cannot 'go against' a will - it is always a stronger will overcoming a weaker one." - in this case it is a stronger belief overcoming a weaker one.

 * And I don't think the black-and-white master-slave dichotomy that you draw is really representative. Control is a matter of relative information rate.  The sociology of the White House is not as you would have me believe.  The flows of ideas and beliefs are much more chaotic. Kevin Baas | talk 19:39, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

Survey is closed
The closing date for this survey was October 22. I would like to thank everyone who participated in a mature manner and, in particular, the people who took such pains to devise a fair and reasonable poll in the face of a certain party's unspeakable juvenility. Shorne 19:41, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Summary of results
18 people voted.
 * Which version is NPOV? (v.1-v.2-neither) 13-1-2
 * Should the para mention Iraq? (yes-no-indifferent) 4-0-5
 * Should the paragraph say critics of PNAC believe the paper in question was proposing the invasion of Iraq? (no-some-most-indifferent) 2-5-0-0
 * What fragments are pov in their present context? (pov-npov)
 * "frequently quoted out of context" 7-3
 * "conspiracy theorists argue" 7-3
 * "going so far as to" 6-4
 * "incorrectly claim" 9-1
 * "Critics of the PNAC have suggested" 2-8
 * "Supporters of the PNAC say" 0-10
 * "has proved particularly controversial" 1-9
 * Should the title of the section be mentioned? (yes-no-indifferent) 6-0-2
 * Should the sentence be quoted in full? (yes-no-indifferent) 5-0-3
 * What statements are reasonable? (reasonable-not reasonable)
 * 9/11=new pearl harbor 7-0
 * enabled "process of transformation" 5-2
 * "process of transformation": militant, unilateral 2-5
 * 9/11: militant, unilateral 6-1
 * bush adminstration, co-authored document 5-2
 * people wrote what they believed 5-2
 * people act according to their beliefs 6-1
 * together they make a reasonable criticism 5-2

I simplified the sentences for conciseness, they meanings might have thereby been slightly altered. outcomes representing a >2/3 majority are italicized. Kevin Baas | talk 21:21, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

Strange, five people think that the para should say some critics think that the paper was proposing the invasion of Iraq, but only four people think that the para should mention Iraq. How is this logically possible? Kevin Baas | talk 21:32, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

 * There were a bunch of "indifferent" voters on the question of whether Iraq should be mentioned, perhaps one of them didn't care much whether it was mentioned but felt that if it was mentioned it should be in the "some critics" context? Bryan 04:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I thought not voting was going to be counted as a no or a dissent, but a lot of the votes don't add up to 18?--Silverback 06:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I think there were too many complicated questions to assume that. I can easily imagine people looking at the survey and having an opinion but not being interested enough to go to the trouble of picking through the minutiae, so they only vote on the more general questions. There were explicit "no" positions for most of the questions anyway so we don't need to. Bryan 14:59, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Perhaps you missed User_talk:Kevin_baas discussion above which begins "A lack of a consenting vote is considered a dissenting vote". That discussion may have been relied upon.  While that would make a difference in a lot of the votes, I think the sense of the discussions is that neither version was satisfactory.  Hopefully, we are better positioned to work towards a compromise.--Silverback 15:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I was refering exclusively to the 'what statements are reasonable?' and 'what statements are pov?'. I thought that was apparent in the context. (see the question by VV above it.)  For the other questions, in which people may explicitly dissent, as well as state their indifference, a lack of a vote is an abstain.  In the two questions w/out dissent votes, a lack of vote for any of the choices is an abstain, while a vote for none of the above is a dissent for all sub-questions.  That is, in any case, failure to vote for the question is an abstain.  16 people voted on the first question, 2 people did not vote on the first question.  All question have 18 votes+abstains. Kevin Baas | talk 22:19, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

 * Yes, that was the understanding, the reasonable and pov, was where the tallies should total 18, with the currently uncounted votes in the dissent column. --Silverback 22:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * You seem to have trouble comprehending what I mean. The currently uncounted votes belong in abstain.  Then me put it in explicit propositional logic, so that my meaning will not be misconstrued again.  The following refers to any given multiple-vote question:
 * if a person votes for none, then that person abstains from all sub-questions.
 * (else) if a person votes for some but not all then that person dissents for all that they did not vote for.
 * (else) if a person votes "none of the above" and none other, then that person dissents for all (except "none of the above").
 * (else) if a person votes for "none of the above" and at least one other, then that person abstains from all sub-questions. (their vote is self-contradicting and thus void)
 * Kevin Baas | talk 02:58, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

 * Your meaning was not clear, because you mentioned that the "none" option was "redundant", which has a possible meaning of unnecessary, that the vote would be interpretted as a dissent even without selecting "none", although, strangely, later on you say it "could be" interpretted as an abstention. Apparently this is what was done later one.  I guess I should have asked for clarification, I did not analyze much beyond the "redundant".--Silverback 04:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


text:
Blood Canticle

Blood Canticle is a 2003 vampire novel by American writer Anne Rice, the tenth book in her The Vampire Chronicles series. The novel includes some characters who cross over from Rice's Lives of the Mayfair Witches trilogy (1990–1994), concluding the unified story begun in Merrick (2000) and continued in Blackwood Farm (2002).

Blood Canticle was originally intended to conclude the saga of Rice's famed vampire Lestat de Lioncourt, but in March 2014 she announced a sequel titled Prince Lestat.

Plot summary
Narrated by the vampire Lestat de Lioncourt, Blood Canticle finds young Mayfair witch and heiress Mona slowly dying, afflicted with a mysterious disease brought on by the birth of her daughter Morrigan. Over time, Mona and her guardian, Rowan Mayfair, reveal more and more about the powerful genetic plague that has haunted the Mayfairs for generations: their connection to the Taltos, an advanced species of human to which both women have given birth. Mona and the young vampire Tarquin "Quinn" Blackwood are in love. Lestat turns a dying Mona into a vampire so that the lovers can be together forever.

While trying to prevent Mona's family from discovering her transformation, Lestat falls in love with the married Rowan, and she secretly pines for him as well. As Mona adjusts to her new power, Lestat enlists the ancient vampire Maharet to help find Mona's Taltos child. Lestat, Quinn and Mona arrive at the remote island colony of the Taltos, but instead of finding a secluded utopia, they discover that years of criminal intrigue and civil war have taken their toll. The remaining Taltos join the Mayfair clan at the Mayfair Medical Center where they intend to safely learn and grow as a family. Mona and Quinn are instructed in the proper ways of vampirism by Maharet and her twin Mekare. Rowan seeks out Lestat, half in love with him but torn by her love for her husband Michael. Exhausted by her life, she requests that he make her a vampire. Lestat declines, pained though he is, because she is a guiding force for the Mayfair family and he cannot take her away from it.

Crossovers
Some characters from Rice's Lives of the Mayfair Witches trilogy (1990–1994) appear in Merrick (2000), and later Blackwood Farm (2002) and Blood Canticle.

Audiobooks
In 2003, Penguin Random House Audio released an abridged audiobook adaptation of Blood Canticle, narrated by Stephen Spinella, as well as an unabridged version, narrated by David Pittu.

Critical reception
Blood Canticle debuted at No. 5 on The New York Times Best Seller list, spending a total of five weeks on the list. Publishers Weekly wrote, "The vampirization of young Mona, a true child of our times, gives Rice a dynamic new vampire personality with whom to play. Writing as if her blood-inked quill were afire, Rice seems truly possessed by [Lestat] as she races through the story. She sometimes slights members of the vast supporting cast, both dead and alive, but neatly ties up all their loose ends." Alynda Wheat of Entertainment Weekly called Blood Canticle "overwrought and pulpy as only Rice knows how to be", adding that "while he occasionally displays the flashes of vanity, wit, and style that originally lured fans, Lestat is lately hampered with a desire to be (ick!) good. It's a moral U-turn that drives the Blood Hunter toward the ultimate literary sin: tedium."

After Blood Canticle received many "virulently negative reviews" from readers on Amazon.com, Rice responded on the site with "a blistering 1,200-word defense" of the novel. Compelled to speak out because many of the postings included personal attacks on her writing ability, health and state of mind since her husband's 2002 death, Rice added that she had received many emails of support from fellow writers who had also felt "savaged and trashed" by Amazon.com reviews.

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

title: Blood Canticle


text:
Boundary Peak (Nevada)

Boundary Peak is a mountain in Esmeralda County, Nevada, United States. With a peak elevation of 13147 ft, it is the highest natural point in the state of Nevada.

Geography
Boundary Peak is the northernmost peak of 13,000 feet or greater elevation within the White Mountains. The summit is located in Esmeralda County of southwestern Nevada, and is within the Boundary Peak Wilderness of the Inyo National Forest. It is less than half a mile (1 km) from the California state line, which is how it derived its name.

While it is the highest point in Nevada, the considerably taller Montgomery Peak (13441 ft) is less than 1 mi away, across the state line in California. By most definitions Boundary Peak, which has a prominence of only 253 ft, is considered to be a sub-peak of Montgomery Peak.

Boundary Peak is only 82 ft taller than Wheeler Peak, which is located in Great Basin National Park, White Pine County in eastern Nevada. By most definitions, Wheeler Peak is the tallest independent mountain within Nevada.

Climbing
This peak is most often climbed from the Nevada side. From there, a climber may scramble the ridge connecting to Montgomery Peak. It is recommended that the U.S. Forest Service (Inyo National Forest) be contacted so they can provide climbing information.

title: Boundary Peak (Nevada)


text:
Marcinkiewicz interpolation theorem

In mathematics, the Marcinkiewicz interpolation theorem, discovered by, is a result bounding the norms of non-linear operators acting on Lp spaces.

Marcinkiewicz' theorem is similar to the Riesz–Thorin theorem about linear operators, but also applies to non-linear operators.

Preliminaries
Let f be a measurable function with real or complex values, defined on a measure space (X, F, ω). The distribution function of f is defined by

 * $$\lambda_f(t) = \omega\left\{x\in X\mid |f(x)| > t\right\}.$$

Then f is called weak $$L^1$$ if there exists a constant C such that the distribution function of f satisfies the following inequality for all t > 0:

 * $$\lambda_f(t)\leq \frac{C}{t}.$$

The smallest constant C in the inequality above is called the weak $$L^1$$ norm and is usually denoted by $$\|f\|_{1,w}$$ or $$\|f\|_{1,\infty}.$$ Similarly the space is usually denoted by L1,w or L1,∞.

(Note: This terminology is a bit misleading since the weak norm does not satisfy the triangle inequality as one can see by considering the sum of the functions on $$ (0,1) $$ given by $$ 1/x $$ and $$ 1/(1-x) $$, which has norm 4 not 2.)

Any $$L^1$$ function belongs to L1,w and in addition one has the inequality

 * $$\|f\|_{1,w}\leq \|f\|_1.$$

This is nothing but Markov's inequality (aka Chebyshev's Inequality). The converse is not true. For example, the function 1/x belongs to L1,w but not to L1.

Similarly, one may define the weak $L^p$ space as the space of all functions f such that $$|f|^p$$ belong to L1,w, and the weak $$L^p$$ norm using

 * $$\|f\|_{p,w}= \left \||f|^p \right \|_{1,w}^{\frac{1}{p}}.$$

More directly, the Lp,w norm is defined as the best constant C in the inequality

 * $$\lambda_f(t) \le \frac{C^p}{t^p}$$

for all t > 0.

Formulation
Informally, Marcinkiewicz's theorem is

 * Theorem. Let T be a bounded linear operator from $$L^p$$ to $$L^{p,w}$$ and at the same time from $$L^q$$ to $$L^{q,w}$$. Then T is also a bounded operator from $$L^r$$ to $$L^r$$ for any r between p and q.

In other words, even if one only requires weak boundedness on the extremes p and q, regular boundedness still holds. To make this more formal, one has to explain that T is bounded only on a dense subset and can be completed. See Riesz-Thorin theorem for these details.

Where Marcinkiewicz's theorem is weaker than the Riesz-Thorin theorem is in the estimates of the norm. The theorem gives bounds for the $$L^r$$ norm of T but this bound increases to infinity as r converges to either p or q. Specifically, suppose that

 * $$\|Tf\|_{p,w} \le N_p\|f\|_p,$$
 * $$\|Tf\|_{q,w} \le N_q\|f\|_q,$$

so that the operator norm of T from Lp to Lp,w is at most Np, and the operator norm of T from Lq to Lq,w is at most Nq. Then the following interpolation inequality holds for all r between p and q and all f ∈ Lr:
 * $$\|Tf\|_r\le \gamma N_p^\delta N_q^{1-\delta}\|f\|_r$$

where
 * $$\delta=\frac{p(q-r)}{r(q-p)}$$

and
 * $$\gamma=2\left(\frac{r(q-p)}{(r-p)(q-r)}\right)^{1/r}.$$

The constants δ and γ can also be given for q = ∞ by passing to the limit.

A version of the theorem also holds more generally if T is only assumed to be a quasilinear operator in the following sense: there exists a constant C > 0 such that T satisfies

 * $$|T(f+g)(x)| \le C(|Tf(x)|+|Tg(x)|)$$

for almost every x. The theorem holds precisely as stated, except with γ replaced by

 * $$\gamma=2C\left(\frac{r(q-p)}{(r-p)(q-r)}\right)^{1/r}.$$

An operator T (possibly quasilinear) satisfying an estimate of the form

 * $$\|Tf\|_{q,w}\le C\|f\|_p$$

is said to be of weak type (p,q). An operator is simply of type (p,q) if T is a bounded transformation from Lp to Lq:

 * $$\|Tf\|_q\le C\|f\|_p.$$

A more general formulation of the interpolation theorem is as follows:

 * If T is a quasilinear operator of weak type (p0, q0) and of weak type (p1, q1) where q0 ≠ q1, then for each θ ∈ (0,1), T is of type (p,q), for p and q with p ≤ q of the form
 * $$\frac{1}{p} = \frac{1-\theta}{p_0}+\frac{\theta}{p_1},\quad \frac{1}{q} = \frac{1-\theta}{q_0} + \frac{\theta}{q_1}.$$

The latter formulation follows from the former through an application of Hölder's inequality and a duality argument.

Applications and examples
A famous application example is the Hilbert transform. Viewed as a multiplier, the Hilbert transform of a function f can be computed by first taking the Fourier transform of f, then multiplying by the sign function, and finally applying the inverse Fourier transform.

Hence Parseval's theorem easily shows that the Hilbert transform is bounded from $$L^2$$ to $$L^2$$. A much less obvious fact is that it is bounded from $$L^1$$ to $$L^{1,w}$$. Hence Marcinkiewicz's theorem shows that it is bounded from $$L^p$$ to $$L^p$$ for any 1 < p < 2. Duality arguments show that it is also bounded for 2 < p < ∞. In fact, the Hilbert transform is really unbounded for p equal to 1 or ∞.

Another famous example is the Hardy–Littlewood maximal function, which is only sublinear operator rather than linear. While $$L^p$$ to $$L^p$$ bounds can be derived immediately from the $$L^1$$ to weak $$L^1$$ estimate by a clever change of variables, Marcinkiewicz interpolation is a more intuitive approach. Since the Hardy–Littlewood Maximal Function is trivially bounded from $$L^\infty$$ to $$L^\infty$$, strong boundedness for all $$p>1$$ follows immediately from the weak (1,1) estimate and interpolation. The weak (1,1) estimate can be obtained from the Vitali covering lemma.

History
The theorem was first announced by, who showed this result to Antoni Zygmund shortly before he died in World War II. The theorem was almost forgotten by Zygmund, and was absent from his original works on the theory of singular integral operators. Later realized that Marcinkiewicz's result could greatly simplify his work, at which time he published his former student's theorem together with a generalization of his own.

In 1964 Richard A. Hunt and Guido Weiss published a new proof of the Marcinkiewicz interpolation theorem.

title: Marcinkiewicz interpolation theorem


text:
Edmund Colhoun

Edmund Ross Colhoun (6 May 1821 – 17 February 1897) was a rear admiral of the United States Navy who served during the Mexican War and the American Civil War, in which he was commended for his participation in the bombardment and capture of Fort Fisher.

Service from 1839 to 1853
Colhoun was born at Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, on 6 May 1821 and was appointed a midshipman on 1 April 1839. He was attached to the sloop-of-war USS Marion (1839) in the Brazil Squadron from 1839 to 1841, then to the frigate USS Congress (1841) in the Mediterranean Squadron and Brazil Squadron from 1842 to 1844. He then attended the Philadelphia Naval School in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1845 and, after completing his studies, was promoted to passed midshipman on 2 July 1845.

Colhoun next served aboard the frigate USS Cumberland (1842) from 1846 to 1847, seeing action in the Mexican War, first under Commodore David Conner in the first attack on Alvarado, Mexico, and then under Commodore Matthew C. Perry at Tabasco, Mexico.

From 1850 to 1851, Colhoun served aboard a receiving ship at Philadelphia, then aboard the frigate USS St. Lawrence (1848) in the Pacific Squadron from 1851 to 1853, being promoted to master on 6 January 1853. He resigned from the Navy on 27 June 1853.

Service from 1861 to 1883
With the onset of the American Civil War in April 1861, Colhoun returned to U.S. Navy service, becoming an acting lieutenant on 24 September 1861. From 1861 to 1862 he was commanding officer first of the steam tugboat USS Shawsheen (1855), then of the steamer USS Hunchback, both operating as part of the Union blockade of the Confederate States of America in the North Atlantic Blockading Squadron. In command of Hunchback, he saw combat at the Battle of Roanoke Island on 7–8 February 1862, the Battle of New Bern on 14 March 1862, and in an engagement on the Blackwater River south of Franklin, Virginia, on 3 October 1862 during the joint expedition against Franklin.

Promoted to commander on 17 November 1862, Colhoun took command of the steamer USS Lodona (1862) in the North Atlantic Blockading Squadron in 1863. Later that year, he became commanding officer of the monitor USS Weehawken (1862) in the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron, and led Weehawken in various actions against Confederate forts – among them Fort Sumter, Fort Wagner, and Fort Beauregard – between 10 July and 15 September 1863. He next commanded the monitor USS Saugus (1863) from 1864 to 1865, engaging Howlett's Battery on the James River in Virginia on 21 June and 5 December 1864 and taking her into action in North Carolina in both the First Battle of Fort Fisher in December 1864 and the Second Battle of Fort Fisher in January 1865. He was commended for his participation in the bombardment and capture of Fort Fisher.

After the war, Colhoun had special duty at New York City in 1866 before serving as Fleet Captain of the South Pacific Squadron from 1866 to 1867. He was promoted to captain on 2 March 1869 and was commanding officer of the monitor USS Dictator (1863) from 1869 to 1870. He commanded the sloop-of-war USS Hartford (1858), flagship of the Asiatic Squadron, from 1873 to 1874 and was in command of the entire Asiatic Squadron from 12 January 1874 to 29 May 1874. He then took command of the sloop-of-war USS Richmond (1860), flagship of the South Pacific Squadron, in August 1874.

Leaving Richmond in July 1875, Colhoun was promoted to commodore on 26 April 1876 and took command of Mare Island Navy Yard in Vallejo, California, on 17 April 1877. On 15 January 1881, he relinquished command of the navy yard and was on special duty until 1882 as inspector of vessels in California. He was promoted to rear admiral on 3 December 1882 and retired from the Navy on 6 May 1883 upon reaching the mandatory retirement age of 62.

Personal life
Colhoun married the former Mary Ann Hays (15 July 1825 – 11 February 1916) in 1845. They had four children.

Colhoun died suddenly of heart failure in Washington, D.C., late on the evening of 17 February 1897. He is buried with his wife at Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia.

Namesakes
Two U.S. Navy destroyers have been named USS Colhoun in Colhoun's honor.

title: Edmund Colhoun


text:
Type Ia sensory fiber

A type Ia sensory fiber, or a primary afferent fiber, is a type of afferent nerve fiber. It is the sensory fiber of a stretch receptor called the muscle spindle found in muscles, which constantly monitors the rate at which a muscle stretch changes. The information carried by type Ia fibers contributes to the sense of proprioception.

Function of muscle spindles
For the body to keep moving properly and with finesse, the nervous system has to have a constant input of sensory data coming from areas such as the muscles and joints. In order to receive a continuous stream of sensory data, the body has developed special sensory receptors called proprioceptors. Muscle spindles are a type of proprioceptor, and they are found inside the muscle itself. They lie parallel with the contractile fibers. This gives them the ability to monitor muscle length with precision.

Types of sensory fibers
This change in length of the spindle is transduced (transformed into electric membrane potentials) by two types of sensory afferents, whose cell bodies are located in dorsal root ganglia located next to the spinal cord.

The two kinds of sensory fibers are different with respect to the kind of potentials they generate:

The first of the two main groups of stretch receptors wrapping the intrafusal fibers are the Ia fiber, which are the largest and fastest fibers, and they fire when the muscle is stretching. They are characterized by their rapid adaptation, because as soon as the muscle stops changing length, the Ia stop firing and adapt to the new length. Ia fibers essentially supply proprioceptive information about the rate of change of its respective muscle: the derivative of the muscle's length (or position).

Type Ia fibers connect to both nuclear bag fibers and nuclear chain fibers. These connections are also called "annulospiral endings", deriving from the Latin word annulus which means "a ring-shaped area or structure".

Efferent innervation
In addition, the spindle also has a motor efferent innervation carried by the efferent nerve fibers of gamma motor neurons, which is used by the nervous system to modify the spindle's sensitivity.

Termination of afferents
Proprioceptive afferents send central axons through the dorsal root of spinal nerve bifurcating into ascending and descending branches, which in turn send branches to multiple spinal segments. Some branches synapse at the dorsal horn and some at the ventral horn (where the motor neurons are) which mediate different responses including stretch reflex. Ascending pathways to the brain have some similarities with the cutaneous afferents, but are different because the proprioceptive information also has to reach the cerebellum which controls the timings of muscle contractions for voluntary movements.

title: Type Ia sensory fiber


text:
User talk:CockSlave

Dont' vandalize articles, especially VFD deletion debates. Continue and you will be blocked. ugen64 01:46, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:CockSlave


text:
Operation Krohcol

Operation Krohcol, or the Battle for The Ledge, was a British operation in December 1941 to invade southern Thailand following the Japanese invasion of Malaya and of Thailand during World War II. It was authorised by Lieutenant-General Arthur Percival as a "mini Matador" after Operation Matador, a pre-emptive strike into Thailand which had been opposed by the British government and was not carried out. Due to delays in authorisation by Percival and in the forwarding of his order, the need to reorganise the troops for Krohcol instead of Matador, and resistance from Thai policemen the Kroh column did not reach the Ledge in time.

Mini Matador
As an alternative to Matador, three ad hoc columns were put together to harass and delay the Japanese advance from their beachheads at Songkhla and Pattani.

Krohcol was the most important of the three. Krohcol was tasked with the destruction of the feature known as the Ledge. Destruction of the Ledge would effectively block the road from Pattani, thereby ensuring the security of 11th Indian Infantry Division's lines of communication and retreat. For the Japanese, capture of the Ledge would allow them access to the rear areas of the 11th Indian Division, either forcing the British to retreat from Perak and Kedah, or if they were fast enough, they could even cut the 11th Indian Division off entirely.

British Commonwealth Forces
It was named Krohcol as it was operating from the town of Kroh at the Perak-Thailand border and 'col' is short for column (meaning battle group).

The original Krohcol was to consist of:
 * 3/16th Punjab Regiment - Lt. Col. Henry Dawson Moorhead
 * 5/14th Punjab Regiment - Lt. Col. Cyril Lovesy Lawrence Stokes ( in captivity on 15 February 1942 following the Battle of Slim River)
 * 10th Indian Mountain Battery - Major D.G.C. Cowie
 * 45th Field Company, Royal Bombay Sappers & Miners - Major J.R. Dinwiddie

The column that departed Kroh consisted of men from the 3/16th Punjab and some engineers under the command of Lt Col Henry Moorhead, carried in the Marmon-Herrington AWD trucks of the 2nd/3rd Australian Motor Transport Company under Major G.A.C. Kiernan. Krohcol was under its designated strength and delayed due to a second battalion the 5/14th Punjab Regiment and a light artillery battery failing to arrive on time. The column left without them. The column's objective was a six-mile (10 km) stretch of road cut through a steep hillside and bounded on the other side by sheer drop into a river and known as The Ledge. Blowing the hillside on to the road would cause the Japanese invasion force considerable delay.

Thailand Forces
Royal Thai Police

Opposing this Commonwealth invasion force was the resistance of the policemen and volunteers from Betong under Major Prayoon Rattanakit, who caused further delays to the column. The Thai Police were, at the same time combating the Japanese 5th Division at Pattani, prior to a ceasefire between the two sides.

Japanese Forces
'''IJA 5th Infantry Division'’'
 * 42nd Infantry Regiment - Colonel Tadao Ando
 * Battalion, 42nd Regiment - Major Shigeharu Asaeda
 * 2 Companies, 14th Tank Regiment

Battle of Betong
Krohcol crossed the frontier some 14 hours after the landings at Kota Bharu, on 8 December, and met opposition force from Thai policemen and civilian volunteers led by Major Prayoon Rattanakit, police commissioner of the town of Betong. At the Thai-Malay border the first Sepoy to cross the customs barrier was shot dead by armed Thai Constabulary

This force harassed the British column from the safety of the surrounding forests and felled rubber trees across the narrow road, slowing down the progress of the Bren gun carriers. In the meantime much of the Thai population of Betong evacuated the town, leaving behind Chinese and Indian merchants. Thai resistance delayed the Punjabis until the following afternoon and they did not reach the town of Betong, only five miles (8 km) inside the frontier, until the evening of 9 December.

When Krohcol entered Betong, a Thai constable commanding a police unit allowed them to pass through unopposed. He then approached Lt Col Moorhead and courteously apologised for the "mistake." However, it is not known why Moorhead did not immediately push on to the Ledge, but the delay proved fatal.

10 December
On the morning of 10 December, 3/16th Punjab set off from Betong and headed for the Ledge, 26 miles (42 km) away. The Japanese 42nd Regiment of the 5th Division with two companies of light tanks, which had landed at Pattani at 03:00, won the race, reaching the Ledge at midday on 10 December.

About 14:00, while advancing through a ravine above the Pattani River and still a mile (1.6 km) short of the Ledge at km 37, Krohcol's advance A (P.M.) Company (Subadar Sher Khan) came under fire again, this time from the Japanese 5th Division. A Company had advanced around a hill and was out of sight when it came under fire. Moorhead sent forward D (P.M.s) Company (Lieutenant Zarif Khan) along the road to support A Company, and C (Dogra) Company (Captain K.A.H. Casson) was sent over the thick jungle covered hill on the left flank. B (Sikh) Company (Lieutenant G.B. Palmer) covered the battalion's right flank.

Shortly afterwards, Moorhead lost contact with all three lead companies. Later in the afternoon a runner from D Company reported that A Company was in a desperate battle against tanks and infantry with D Company in support. The battalion adjutant, Captain A.E. Charlton, went forward across a wooded bridge over the Kampong To stream and with the runner he turned the sharp bend a hundred meters ahead. On rounding the bend, Charlton discovered a Japanese tank a short distance ahead and the mortar section of A Company in a heavy firefight. Charlton hurried back to the wooden bridge and brought forward the battalion's anti-tank platoon. Major Dinwiddie's Sappers took the bridge apart by hand. When the tank rounded the bend, it received a hot reception from the battalion's Boys Anti-Tank Rifles and retreated. But Japanese infantry had now occupied the road ahead. B and C Companies returned shortly before nightfall. By midnight on 10 December Lt Col Stokes with 5/14th Punjab and the 10th Mountain Battery transported by 2/3rd Australian MT Company had arrived at Kroh.

With no possibility of any further advance, and now cut off from two of his companies, Moorhead remained with HQ Company and B Company at the bridge position with the sounds of heavy fighting carrying on throughout the night.

11 December
The situation on the morning of 11 December was that Moorhead held the bridge at km 37 (25 miles north of Betong), but he had lost complete contact with A and D Companies. Havildar Manawar Khan and eight men from A Company returned with the news that Subadar Sher Khan and A Company had been completely destroyed by tanks and infantry.

Lt Col Stokes' 5/14th Punjab and the 10th Mountain Battery spent the morning preparing defensive positions at Kroh, whilst Stokes himself went forward to consult with Moorhead. Moorhead ordered Stokes to prepare a position nine miles (14 km) north of Betong to cover the battalion when it withdrew. Stokes left C (P.M.) Company, 5/14th Punjab (Lieut C.E.N. Hopkins-Husson) at Kroh and moved forward with the rest of his battalion plus the mountain battery to the 15 km post where they prepared new positions.

The NCO reported that on the previous day, A Company had advanced 700 yd beyond the bridge when they had spotted Japanese tanks and infantry coming from the Ledge position. Subadar Sher Khan deployed his company into the jungle east of the road and allowed the two leading tanks to pass. Once they had passed Khan ordered his men to charge the Japanese infantry. Khan was almost immediately severely wounded, but kneeling beside the road, he continued to give encouragement to his men, and the Japanese retreated in complete disorder, leaving a number of casualties. A second group of two tanks and infantry arrived soon after and the first tank ran over the wounded Subadar, killing him instantly. The rest of his company fought fiercely for the next half-hour, inflicting many casualties, but caught on the open road they were eventually wiped out. Only one NCO managed to escape, with eight other survivors.

At 11:00 on 11 December, to the relief of Moorhead, Lieutenant Zarif Khan and D Company returned through the jungle, having hung on to their position until nightfall. Lieutenant Khan withdrew into the jungle, and taking a long detour, reached the battalion positions, having lost 15 men.

During the afternoon of 11 December the battalion was attacked three times, the final attack before night fall was of battalion strength along the entirety of the 3/16th Punjab perimeter. The Japanese regimental infantry guns destroyed most of the Punjabi carriers, but were eventually put out of action by the Punjab 2-inch (51 mm) mortars. The 2/3rd Australian Motor Transport Company and the 36th Field Ambulance evacuated the Punjabi wounded throughout the day.

With casualties mounting, Moorhead made up his mind to fall back to Betong, with permission from divisional headquarters. Moorhead telephoned Colonel Harrison (GSO 1), who told him that he had to hang on until the orders arrived. Written permission to withdraw to Betong had to be carried by motorcycle messenger from Murray-Lyon at his HQ 113 miles (182 km) away.

12 December
The battalion held its position throughout the night, but by dawn it became evident that the Japanese were attempting to outflank the battalion from the east and south. Soon after at 07:00 the strongest Japanese attack began, supported by the outflanking forces to the east and south. Moorhead decided that he had to attempt to withdraw rapidly.

Lieutenant Palmer's Sikh Company was able to extricate itself, but at the cost of 30 casualties whilst Captain Casson's Dogra Company soon found itself completely surrounded. Casson gave orders for his men to fight their way out. A handful of survivors reached D Company's positions. The survivors reported that both Casson and his second in command 2nd Lieutenant Frank Skyrme had been killed in the hand-to-hand fighting. Captain Harry Casson (from the island of Saint Vincent) was reported missing in action, believed killed. In reality, he had survived the battle, but was cut off. He survived in the jungle for the next five months, eventually being captured on 24 April 1942.

Nearly outflanked by the Japanese and under heavy artillery fire, Krohcol began their retreat. Colonel Moorhead, armed with a rifle, remained with the rearguard of four surviving Bren carriers. As they were just leaving two of the carriers were hit by shell fire. Moorhead jumped aboard the two remaining Bren gun carriers, but not before rescuing a wounded Punjabi soldier (Moorhead spotted him lying on the shell-blasted road, lifting a weary hand of farewell to him. He leaped out of the carrier, carried him on his shoulder, and returned to the carrier).

Moorhead was forced to make a fighting retreat back to Betong throughout 12 December, where they passed through Lt. Col. Stokes' 5/14th Punjab, which was digging in and preparing defences. The 3/16th Punjab were reduced to around 350 officers and men.

Japanese scouts found the 5/14th Punjabi's position just after dark and probed the area throughout the night.

13 December
At first light on 13 December the Japanese attacked the position with light tanks and motorised infantry. One light tank was destroyed and a number of frontal infantry attacks beaten off. With their usual speed the Japanese were soon pushing troops around Stokes' flanks. The 5/14th Punjab were forced to withdraw back to Kroh, which they did with relatively minor casualties.

The Japanese released a prisoner from a local jail, an ex-bandit who knew the area well. Betong was re-occupied, and the force under Prayoon began taking punitive actions against the local Chinese, who were believed to have greeted Krohcol flying the Union Jack as well as the Kuomintang flag. A local Indian accused of volunteering his services (as a guide) to Krohcol was tracked down, cornered, and shot dead by a group of vengeful Thais.

Laycol
One of the other columns, consisting of 200 truck-borne troops from the 1/8th Punjabis, and a section of the 273rd Anti-Tank Battery all under the command of Major E.R.Andrews, had crossed the Thai border at the same time as Krohcol. The column, named Laycol after Brigadier William Lay, commander of the 6th Indian Infantry Brigade, crossed the frontier at 17:30 on 8 December 1941 and moved towards Songkhla to harass and delay the enemy. Laycol reached Ban Sadao, ten miles (16 km) north of the frontier at dusk, where it halted and took up a position north of the village.

Laycol made contact with a Japanese mechanised column from Colonel Saeki's reconnaissance unit of the Japanese 5th Division with a company of tanks from the 1st Tank Regiment. The force was led by the tanks and moved in close formation with full headlights blazing. The two leading tanks were knocked out by the anti-tank guns, but the Japanese infantry quickly debussed and started an enveloping movement around the flanks of the Punjabis. Laycol withdrew on 11 December through the outpost position at Kampong Imam, destroying two bridges and partially destroying a third on the way back.

Armoured train
The last column was an armoured train, with 30 men from the 2/16th Punjab Regiment and some engineers, advancing into Thailand from Padang Besar in Perlis. This armoured train reached Khlong Ngae, in southern Thailand, and successfully destroyed a 200-foot (60 m) bridge before withdrawing back to Padang Besar.

title: Operation Krohcol


text:
CHEK-DT

CHEK-DT (channel 6) is an independent television station in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, serving Vancouver Island and Greater Vancouver. The station is owned by the CHEK Media Group, a consortium made up of station employees and local investors. CHEK-DT's studios are located on Kings Road in Victoria, and its transmitter is located atop Mount Warburton Pike on Saturna Island.

CBC and CTV affiliation
The station first signed on the air on December 1, 1956. Originally operating as a CBC affiliate, it was founded by David Armstrong, owner of local radio station CKDA (1220 AM, now CJZN-FM on 91.3); Armstrong originally applied to assign the CKTV call letters for the station, which was changed to CHEK-TV prior to the station's sign-on. Its original studio facilities were located on Epsom Drive in Saanich. Initially, the radio and television stations shared staff such as Andy Steven (who was CHEK's first news director) and Keith MacKenzie (who served as its sports director). CHEK was the only local television station that operated on Vancouver Island for many years, until CHUM Limited signed on CIVI-TV (channel 53) in October 2001. The station was the first (and is currently the oldest) privately owned television station in British Columbia. Only CBC owned-and-operated station CBUT-DT (channel 2) in Vancouver has been on the air longer, having signed on in December 1953.

In 1963, the station was purchased by businessman Frank Griffiths, who also owned Vancouver CTV affiliate CHAN-TV (channel 8, now a Global owned-and-operated station). By September of that year, CHEK's schedule consisted of some CTV programming and simulcasts of CHAN-originated shows mixed in with the CBC network schedule, along with CHEK-based local productions and syndicated programs not aired on CHAN; this setup continued into the late 1960s and early 1970s, when CHAN started to timeshift network programs. CHEK would also air CBC programs during the afternoon and primetime while running CTV shows such as University of the Air and Canada AM in the morning (simulcast with CHAN).

In 1972, CHEK, which had simulcast CHAN's News Hour since the Griffiths purchase (and would continue to do so until 2001), began producing its own news program, News Hour Vancouver Island. It aired at 5:30 p.m. before the CHAN News Hour simulcast (in some cases, CHAN's News Hour would only be broadcast on CHEK due to other programming commitments, primarily Vancouver Canucks hockey), and at 11:15 p.m. following CBC's The National. From 1975 to 1976 and again from 1983 to 1986, CHEK used the same Pacific dogwood logo as CHAN; in both cases, they later reverted to using their own logo.

Beginning around the 1978–79 television season, CHEK gradually added more CTV programs during the prime time hours (which were timeshifted from their airings on CHAN). On January 5, 1981, when CBUT launched repeater stations in Sooke and Mount Macdonald, CHEK disaffiliated from CBC and became a full-time CTV station.

In 1982, Western International Communications (WIC) acquired a 59% interest in CHEK and CHAN. WIC bought the remaining 41% interest from Selkirk Communications in 1989, when that company sold most of its broadcasting assets. In 1984, CHEK moved its operations from its original studios in Saanich to its present location at 780 Kings Road; the studio facility had originally been built to house a planned CBC Television station for Victoria, but budget cuts caused the plans to be shelved and then canceled.

Until 2001, CHEK also broadcast many of the same programs as CHAN on a timeshifted basis; as with CHAN, this consisted of a mixture of CTV network programming and WIC-owned programming (usually drawn from the schedule of CHCH in Hamilton), although the WIC programming usually differed from that aired on CHAN. The launch of Baton Broadcasting-owned CIVT (channel 32) in 1997 further complicated the distribution of CTV network programming in southwestern British Columbia, with CIVT becoming the area's third station (after CHAN and CHEK) to carry CTV programming. However, after CHAN strengthened its own morning newscast around 2000, CHEK became the only station in the province that aired Canada AM, as CIVT aired its own local morning news program.

Canwest takes ownership
CHEK came under the ownership of Canwest Global Communications in 2000 after that company acquired Western International Communications. This acquisition set off a major affiliation switch among the Vancouver–Victoria market's television stations in 2001, with both CHEK and CHAN disaffiliating from CTV, and CIVT becoming the sole CTV station in British Columbia. CHAN and CHEK's affiliation agreements with CTV were originally due to end in 2000; they were extended to expire on September 1, 2001, in view of the uncertainty surrounding the local media landscape.

After disaffiliating from CTV, CHEK became part of Canwest's new CH system. It rebranded as "CH Vancouver Island", and took on a schedule similar to that of Hamilton sister CHCH. CHEK aired 15 to 20 hours of local news programming each week, and often programs that were usually shown on CHAN were moved to accommodate its news programming. It also took the sports highlight and discussion program Sports Page from former Global owned-and-operated station CKVU (channel 10); however, CHAN continued to produce the program until its cancellation in September 2005.

CHEK celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2006; as part of the celebration, it aired vignettes of past station promos from the pre-CH era during commercial breaks. Another short vignette was also introduced consisting of CHEK's logos and station IDs through the years, from its original logo in 1956 to its then-current logo as "CH Vancouver Island".

On September 7, 2007, the station's newscasts were retitled CHEK News, a partial reversal of the current trend for Canadian television networks and systems to solely use their branding for their owned-and-operated stations, as a result of the rebranding of CH to E!. Programming on CHEK outside local newscasts were branded simply as "E!".

On January 3, 2009, CHEK began simulcasting CHAN's broadcast of Global National at 5:30 p.m., the first time that CHEK had simulcast its former sister station's programming since the September 2001 affiliation switch.

Threatened closure; ownership by CHEK Media Group
On February 5, 2009, Canwest announced it would explore "strategic options", including a possible sale of the stations, for CHEK and its other E! owned-and-operated stations, on the basis that "a second conventional TV network [was] no longer key to the long-term success" of the company.

On July 22, 2009, after failing to find a buyer, Canwest announced it would be shutting down CHEK on August 31, 2009, issuing layoff notices to the station's staff. This would have resulted in CIVI-TV becoming the only remaining television station to serve the Victoria area. Shortly after the announcement was made, CHEK employees announced a proposal to acquire a 25% interest in the station and find local investors to acquire the remaining 75%, and organized a campaign to support the plan and save channel 6. On August 27, 2009, station employees announced that they had raised $2.5 million for the buyout plan; however, the following day, Canwest announced that the employee buyout did not meet company guidelines to keep the station on the air, and that the station had no programming and advertising lined up beyond August 31, at which date Canwest would permanently shut down the station. CHEK would have closed down following the late newscast that night, after a retrospective on the station's history.

However, on August 31, 2009, during its 5 p.m. newscast, the station announced that its shutdown would be put on hold, and that it would continue broadcasting while negotiations between Canwest and the prospective new owners continued. Facing a new deadline of September 4, Canwest announced on that date that it had reached a deal to sell the station to CHEK's employees and several local investors, through a consortium known as CHEK Media Group, for $2. Canwest would continue to provide transitional support for CHEK, including providing certain programming, allowing the use of its Vancouver studios, and leasing, at "favourable rates," the 780 Kings Road studios to the new owners with the assumption of various station liabilities. The sale was approved by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) on November 9. After the sale's announcement, station manager John Pollard revealed to CBC News that CHEK would operate as an independent station (one of two such stations in Canada that began as a CBC Television affiliate, and then later a CTV affiliate, alongside CJON-DT in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador), with no plans to simulcast any American programs.

CHEK Media Group took control of the station's programming on that date the station also disaffiliated from E! (which shut down a few days prior), and adopted a new schedule that included a mix of movies and older programming (both Canadian and American in origin), syndicated programming and a greater emphasis on local newscasts (including a new 10 p.m. newscast that debuted on September 1), and reverted to branding itself as simply "CHEK". With no plans to simulcast American programming at some point, CHEK would add, in sparse amounts, additional programming during the 2009–10 season, including Let's Get It On, a mixed martial arts program; Ed the Sock's This Movie Sucks!, a movie show featuring the former MuchMusic character alongside co-host Liana Kerzner and comedian Ron Sparks; and infomercials.

The station later reversed its stance on running recent American programs; in September 2010, CHEK, for the first time since it came under the employee/investor control, began airing American network television series. Many of the programs that were added to the schedule (including Smallville, Supernatural, Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Chuck and 60 Minutes) were previously carried in the Vancouver–Victoria market on CHNU-DT (channel 66) and on cable through Toronto/Hamilton independent station CKXT-TV (that station's owner, Quebecor, was in the process of replacing that station's licence with one for an all-news cable channel; Quebecor shut down the station and relinquished the CKXT license to the CRTC in 2011). The station also acquired I Hate Hollywood, produced by CHCH-DT, which picked up all of the mentioned programs.

On January 25, 2013, CHEK began sharing space with the local CBC Radio One station CBCV-FM, which migrated its operations into the television station's Kings Road studios.

Programming
As an independent station, CHEK is programming features a mix of newscasts and other locally produced programs, syndicated programming, movies and infomercials. Some entertainment programming is aired through its secondary affiliation with indieNET (formerly Net5).

Past local programming
The following is a partial list of local programs that formerly aired on CHEK:
 * Sports Page (sports highlights – produced at CHAN-TV)
 * Vancouver Canucks hockey (sports)
 * Vancouver Grizzlies basketball (sports)

Notable past foreign programming

 * From August 1995 to August 1999, CHEK carried the Late Show with David Letterman at 4:30 on weekday afternoons. Other channels that have carried the talk show, including originating U.S. network CBS, have aired the program in the late evening (11:35 p.m. ET/PT).
 * From 1995 to 2001 The Bold and the Beautiful weekdays on CTV.

News operation
CHEK-DT presently broadcasts $14 1/2$ hours of locally produced newscasts each week (with $2 1/2$ hours each weekday and an hour each on Saturdays and Sundays); in addition, the station also produces news updates between entertainment programs at the top of each hour between 1 and 3:30 p.m. each weekday. Unlike most news-producing television stations in major Canadian markets, the station does not broadcast a late evening newscast on weekends (its only weekend newscast is a one-hour 5 p.m. newscast). In addition, the station produces the half-hour public affairs program CHEK Point. CHEK uses shoots on DVC-Pro tapes for all its programming and pre-recorded segments during its newscasts.

Longtime news anchor Hudson Mack left CHEK in 2004, after 19 years at the station, following his appointment as news director at CIVI effective September 1 (Mack later became anchor of that station's 5 p.m. newscast the following month on October 11). To replace Mack, Sophie Lui returned to the station from CHAN-TV and was paired with former CIVT Victoria bureau chief Ed Watson as the station's main anchors. On August 25, 2008, production for CHEK's newscasts migrated from Victoria to CHAN's facility in Burnaby with the addition of a new virtual set, and a launch of a new newscast, CHEK News: Island 30 – which focused on news stories outside Victoria. The program was retooled months later into a newsmagazine and renamed to simply Island 30. Longtime CHAN anchor Tony Parsons joined CHEK on March 15, 2010, as anchor of CHEK's 10 p.m. newscast; Parsons had earlier stepped down as anchor at CHAN after a 35-year run as anchor of its News Hour supper hour broadcast on December 16, 2009.

In April 2010, CHEK entered into a news share agreement with the CBC, in which the station and CBC Television's Vancouver O&O CBUT would share news content, staff and resources. Parsons also joined the CBC to anchor CBUT's 90-minute early evening newscast, CBC News: Vancouver, resulting in him flying to Victoria after that program to anchor CHEK's 10 p.m. newscast. A simulcast of the 6 p.m. half-hour of CBC News: Vancouver was also added to CHEK's schedule on that date. On June 15, 2012, Parsons relinquished his duties on the 10 p.m., while remaining lead anchor of the 6 p.m. half-hour of the CBUT newscast; a rotation of anchors and reporters temporarily replaced Parsons as 10 p.m. anchor.

Long time reporter Stacy Ross was named anchor of CHEK News at 5:00 and 6:30, after the resignation of Jim Beatty. In October 2015, former CTV and Global News International correspondent Ben O'Hara-Byrne joined the station, as they launched CHEK News at 6, which O'Hara-Byrne was hired to anchor the 6 and 10 p.m. news.

In 2018, former prime time CHEK anchor Scott Fee returned to the company as News Director. Fee set out to renew and restructure CHEK News. In his first year, Fee oversaw the design and installation of a new upgraded set, new cameras, and made some fresh personnel changes.

In 2019, Fee recruited Joe Perkins from CTV Vancouver Island to anchor the now hour-long 6 p.m. newscast.

In 2021, CHEK carved out a new role by bringing in Rob Shaw, a longtime Vancouver Sun legislative columnist and reporter, as the station's first political correspondent.

The same year, CHEK launched its foray into community podcasts, producing MicCHEK, Political Capital, Our Native Land and Chamber Chats. It also launched a popular newscast semgment featuring positive news called "The Upside" hosted by Jeff King and Ed Bain.

In 2023, Joe Perkins took over as news director. Perkins' first move was recruiting Global BC morning show host Paul Haysom to take over as the 6 p.m. news anchor. Perkins also promoted CHEK reporter April Lawrence to executive producer and hired long-time CTV Vancouver Island anchor/reporter Jordan Cunningham, as well as Our Native Land's Tchadas Leo as a multimedia journalist.

Notable former on-air staff

 * Mi-Jung Lee now at CTV Vancouver
 * Pamela Martin (former Director of Engagement for former Premier Christy Clark & Liaison to the Leader of the British Columbia Liberal Party)
 * Harvey Oberfeld (retired)
 * Tony Parsons (retired)
 * Michaela Pereira (last with KTTV's Good Day L.A. in Los Angeles; later at HLN as anchor of Michaela; formerly with CNN as anchor for New Day)
 * The Tyabji Show from September 1996 to July 1998

Spectrum repacking
In April 2017, Industry Canada posted new channel assignments for stations as a result of spectrum repacking due to the US 600 MHz spectrum auction. CHEK-DT moved to channel 16 on July 3, 2020.

Analogue-to-digital conversion
CHEK flash cut its digital signal into operation, over UHF channel 49, on August 31, 2011, the official date on which Canadian television stations in CRTC-designated mandatory markets transitioned from analogue to digital broadcasts. Digital television receivers display CHEK-DT's virtual channel as its analog-era VHF channel 6. Due to technical issues with the digital transmitter, the analogue transmitter did not shut down until October 26, 2011; it was the last television station in the Vancouver-Victoria market to continue operating its main analogue transmitter, making Calgary the largest market in Western Canada to have an analogue station operate over-the-air and also unseating Edmonton as Canada's second-largest market to have all of its stations convert to digital-only broadcasts. While all Vancouver and Victoria area television stations continued operating analogue signals until August 31, CHEK-TV was the only such station in the Vancouver/Victoria market, as all of the other transmitters in these markets shut down as required by 12 a.m. on September 1, 2011. KVOS-TV (channel 12) in nearby Bellingham, Washington was the first television station that served Vancouver to shut down its analogue signal on February 17, 2009, as part of the digital television transition in the United States.

CHEK-TV was not the last analogue transmitter to shut down as part of Canada's August 31, 2011, digital conversion deadline in mandatory markets. A handful of other transmitters in Canada were also late to shut down, though unlike CHEK-DT, the other stations did not have their digital transmitters on-air by August 31, 2011.

Transmitter
Note:
 * On November 18, 2011, CHEK-TV received approval from the CRTC to shut down its Sooke transmitter.
 * On July 24, 2014, CHEK-TV received approval from the CRTC to shut down its Port Alberni and Campbell River transmitters, with their final day of broadcast being September 1, 2014.

 * Former transmitters

title: CHEK-DT


text:
Tumbarumba

Tumbarumba is a town in New South Wales, Australia, about 480 km southwest of the state capital, Sydney. Tumbarumba is located on the periphery of the Riverina and South West Slopes regions at the western edge of the Snowy Mountains. The showed the population of the town and surrounding area to be 1,862 people. Locals refer to the town as 'Tumba'.

To the south and east, the highest peak of the Snowy Mountains and mainland Australia—Mount Kosciuszko—can be seen.

History
The Aboriginal history of the region is contentious. According to the map developed by Tindale, the area that is now Tumbarumba lay at the boundary of the lands of the Wiradjuri and Walgalu peoples. Since the Wiradjuri word for the 'Walgalu' was Guramal, meaning 'hostile men', presumably there was little in common between these peoples, who spoke different languages. The Walgulu spoke the same Ngarigo language as the more easterly Ngarigo people of the Monaro region,  and in more recent times these groups have been considered by some to be just one people, the Ngarigo, whose lands included Tumbarumba. There are different views on the origin on the word 'tumbarumba' and whether it derives from the Wirajuri or Ngarigo language. Tumbarumba and surrounds now lie within the Brungle/Tumut Aboriginal Land Council Area.

The settler community was established in the late 1850s after gold was discovered in the district. The Post Office opened on 1 August 1860 but was spelt Tumberumba until 1915.

A railway branch line was opened to Tumbarumba in 1921. The Tumbarumba railway line ran from Wagga Wagga through Tarcutta. The service ceased in September 1974 and the line has since been officially closed. The 21 km final section of the line between Rosewood and Tumbarumba opened as the first rail trail in NSW in April 2020.

Gold mining petered out in the 1930s, and the region's economy now depends on agriculture and tourism. The timber industry dominates the Shire's economy.

The name Tumbarumba may be derived from the sound of thunder. or alternatively from the Aboriginal words for "hollow sounding ground", "thunder", "sound" or "place of big trees".

Industry
The major industry in the town is softwood timber processing, with the Hyne and Sons Timber Mill to the west of the town being the biggest employer. Other industries include tourism, viticulture (Tumbarumba is in the Tumbarumba wine region), and blueberry growing. Tourism is a source of income due to its proximity to the snow fields.

Tourism
Tumbarumba provides a convenient base for visiting the Western Snowy Mountains area.

The town lies on the Snowy Valleys Way which Destination NSW advertises as a more leisurely and picturesque driving route to take between Sydney and Melbourne. The Snowy Valleys way links Gundagai and Beechworth passing through Tumut, Tumbarumba and Corryong.

Tumbarumba is also close to the 440 km Hume and Hovell Track. Access to the track is at the Henry Angel Trackhead, 9 km from Tumbarumba toward Khancoban. A half day walk from the Henry Angel Trackhead to 'Big Hill' provides views of the western face of the Snowy Mountains Main Range. This walk passes old gold workings at the Burra Falls.

Tumbarumba is also the centre of the Tumbarumba wine region, a developing cool climate wine growing region with the first plantings in 1982. Several local wineries have 'cellar doors' with wines for sale.

The Museum and Visitor Information Centre on Bridge Street is open 363 days of the year, and the Tumbarumba Library and Archive on Prince Street is open Monday to Saturday, but check for opening hours.

The Tumbarumba to Rosewood Rail Trail opened April 2020. The rail trail is a 21 km walking and cycling trail that follows the closed Tumbarumba branch line. The rail trail has boosted tourism to the region.

Education
There are three schools in Tumbarumba. Tumbarumba Public School and All Saints Primary School (Catholic) providing primary education. Tumbarumba High School provides secondary education to the district.

Events
The Tumbarumba Rodeo is held annually at the Tumbarumba Showground on New Years Day (1 January). In addition, Tumbafest, an annual weekend long music, wine and market festival, is held on the last weekend in February. Past festivals have attracted acts like Leo Sayer (in 2015). Tumbarumba Tastebuds is a festival celebrating local food, wine and art. It is held in the Spring.

Climate
Tumbarumba has a South West Slopes climate, with a great seasonal range of maximum temperatures and a pronounced winter rainfall peak. Frosts are frequent throughout much of the year. Snow is fairly common, generally falling on about two days per annum, though is usually light due to the town's valley location. The lowest recorded maximum temperature was 1.1 C on 15 July 1966, and the lowest recorded minimum temperature was −9.4 C on 13 July 1970. The town gets 109.2 clear days annually, with the grand majority in summer and early autumn.

Rainfall records commenced at Tumbarumba Post Office in 1885, however temperature records (both averages and extremes) didn't commence until 1965.

Another site approximately 25 km to the northwest of Tumbarumba operated from 1938 to 1969, known as Carabost Forest Headquarters. There is a remarkable warming trend to be observed between the two sites; particularly in the winter months, where Tumbarumba Post Office averages 10.8 C in July maxima, compared to just 9.1 C at Carabost. A reduction in winter rainfall, but increase in summer rainfall, is noted. It too should be noted that Carabost was of a considerably lower altitude than Tumbarumba Post Office: a deficit of 65 m.

Sport
The Tumbarumba Greens field rugby league teams in the Murray Cup competition. The club is notable for having a full team of Goldspinks playing in the 1960s. The club formerly competed in the Group 13 Rugby League and Group 9 Rugby League competitions before joining their current league.

The Tumbarumba Kangaroos compete in the Victorian-based Upper Murray Football League.

Cultural references

 * In November 1963, New Zealander Johnny Devlin (with Bee Gees on backing vocals) released the single "Stomp The Tumbarumba", a song covered later by, among others, the Australian rock band Hoodoo Gurus (see "Come Anytime" and "1000 Miles Away"). Tumbarumba in the song's title may or may not have something to do with the name of the town.
 * Tumbarumba is one of the very few Australian placenames mentioned in James Joyce's prose-poem Finnegans Wake. 'Tumbarumba mountain' is listed as one of the places of origin of HCE (Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker), one of the central characters of the Wake (FW 596.11).
 * Shirley Abicair, the UK based Australian singer, made the town of Tumbarumba's name familiar to many British children with the publication of her book "Tales of Tumbarumba" in 1962.
 * Tumbarumba is another word for a tmesis, a linguistic term which refers to the placing of a word within another word, such as "ri-goddamn-diculous". The origin of this meaning may come from the poem "Tumba-bloody-rumba" by John O'Grady, which includes several tmeses including "Tumba-bloody-rumba", "e-bloody-nough", and "kanga-bloody-roos".

title: Tumbarumba


text:
User:Naz 2

A band with no recordings is not usually considered worthy of an article on wikipedia - after all, there are probably tens of millions of school bands in the world! That's why the articles have been deleted. We could certainly use more articles and editing about Malaysia topics, though, so wikipedia could use you. - DavidWBrooks 01:53, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I repeat: A band with no recordings is not worthy of an article on wikipedia. They are too common and not noteworthy - no offence to those involved, of course. - DavidWBrooks 02:21, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: User:Naz 2


text:
Gannett Peak

Gannett Peak is the highest mountain peak in the U.S. state of Wyoming at 13810 ft. It lies in the Wind River Range within the Bridger Wilderness of the Bridger-Teton National Forest. Straddling the Continental Divide along the boundary between Fremont and Sublette counties, it has the second greatest topographic prominence in the state (7076') after Cloud Peak (7077'), and is the highest ground for 290.36 mi in any direction.

Overview
Geographically, Gannett Peak is the apex of the entire Central Rockies, the largely continuous chain of mountains occupying the states of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana. Named in 1906 for American geographer Henry Gannett, the peak is also the high point of the Wind River Range. The mountain slopes are located in both Bridger-Teton National Forest and Shoshone National Forest.

Gannett is the highest peak within what is better known as the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and is the highest peak in the Rocky Mountains outside of Colorado. The 896 acre Gannett Glacier, which is likely the largest single glacier in the American portion of the Rocky Mountains, extends across the northern slopes of the mountain. Minor Glacier is situated in the western cirque of the peak while Dinwoody and Gooseneck Glaciers can be found on the southeast side of the mountain.

Gannett Peak is in the heart of a remote and rugged wilderness. Because of this, its elevation, and extreme weather, it is often considered by mountaineers to be one of the most difficult U.S. state high points to reach, after Denali and possibly Granite Peak.

Climate
The summit has an ET (tundra) climate, with short, chilly summers and very long, very cold winters. Precipitation (mostly snow) is moderate year-round, but the wettest month is April.

Hazards
Encountering bears is a concern in the Wind River Range. There are other concerns as well, including bugs, wildfires, adverse snow conditions and nighttime cold temperatures.

Importantly, there have been notable incidents, including accidental deaths, due to falls from steep cliffs (a misstep could be fatal in this class 4/5 terrain) and due to falling rocks, over the years, including 1993, 2007 (involving an experienced NOLS leader), 2015 and 2018. Other incidents include a seriously injured backpacker being airlifted near SquareTop Mountain in 2005, and a fatal hiker incident (from an apparent accidental fall) in 2006 that involved state search and rescue. The U.S. Forest Service does not offer updated aggregated records on the official number of fatalities in the Wind River Range.

title: Gannett Peak


text:
Talk:My Two Cents (Simpsons)

from VfD:

Again, see VfDs for "Nookie in New York" and "Afternoon Yak." Ian Pugh 01:58, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC) end moved discussion
 * Merge and redirect to Kent Brockman.   — Gwalla | Talk 03:35, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree with Gwalla, merge and redirect to Kent Brockman. Andrew Levine 03:25, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. anthony (see warning) 21:29, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge with Kent Brockman and delete. No redirect necessary. Nohat 18:23, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: No merge, no redirect. Fictional shows on fictional shows don't get searched, aren't needed. Geogre 02:07, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Anyone please explain why redirected this "My Two Cents" page to the Kent Brockman page. There is nothing talking about "My Two Cents" on this Kent Brockman page at all.

Should remove "redirect"
Anyone please explain why redirected this "My Two Cents" page to the Kent Brockman page. There is nothing talking about "My Two Cents" on this Kent Brockman page at all.

merge
Yes plz, merge. Herostratus 22:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Don't forget to delete the disambig page and rename My two cents (idiom). Herostratus 22:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:My Two Cents (Simpsons)