text:
Highway of Death

The Highway of Death (طريق الموت ṭarīq al-mawt) is a six-lane highway between Kuwait and Iraq, officially known as Highway 80. It runs from Kuwait City to the border town of Safwan in Iraq and then on to the Iraqi city of Basra. The road was used by Iraqi armored divisions for the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. It was repaired after the Gulf War and used by U.S. and British forces in the initial stages of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

During the American-led coalition offensive in the Persian Gulf War, American, Canadian, British and French aircraft and ground forces attacked retreating Iraqi military personnel attempting to leave Kuwait on the night of February 26–27, 1991, resulting in the destruction of hundreds of vehicles and the deaths of many of their occupants. Between 1,400 and 2,000 vehicles were hit or abandoned on the main Highway 80 north of Al Jahra.

The scenes of devastation on the road are some of the most recognizable images of the war, and it has been suggested that they were a factor in President George H. W. Bush's decision to declare a cessation of hostilities the next day. Many Iraqi forces successfully escaped across the Euphrates river, and the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency estimated that upwards of 70,000 to 80,000 troops from defeated divisions in Kuwait might have fled into Basra, evading capture.

Highway 80

The attack began on the 26th when A-6 Intruder attack jets of the United States Marine Corps' 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing blocked the head and tail of the column on Highway 80, bombarding a massive vehicle column of mostly Iraqi Regular Army forces with Mk-20 Rockeye II cluster bombs, effectively boxing in the Iraqi forces in an enormous traffic jam as the turkey shoot began in earnest, setting up targets for subsequent airstrikes. Over the next ten hours, scores of U.S. Marine, U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy aircraft from USS Ranger (CV/CVA-61) attacked the convoy using a variety of weapons. Vehicles surviving the air attacks were later engaged by arriving coalition ground units, while most of the vehicles that managed to evade the traffic jam and continued to drive on the road north were targeted individually. The road bottle-neck near the Mutla Ridge police station was reduced to a long uninterrupted line of more than 300 stuck and abandoned vehicles sometimes called the Mile of Death. The wreckage found on the highway consisted of at least 28 tanks and other armored vehicles with many more commandeered civilian cars and buses filled with stolen Kuwaiti property.

The death toll from the attack remains unknown. British journalist Robert Fisk said he "lost count of the Iraqi corpses crammed into the smoldering wreckage or slumped face down in the sand" at the main site and saw hundreds of corpses strewn up the road all the way to the Iraqi border. American journalist Bob Drogin reported seeing "scores" of dead soldiers "in and around the vehicles, mangled and bloated in the drifting desert sands." A 2003 study by the Project on Defense Alternatives (PDA) estimated fewer than 10,000 people rode in the cut-off main caravan, and when the bombing started most simply left their vehicles to escape through the desert or into the nearby swamps where some died from their wounds and some were later taken prisoner. According to PDA, the often repeated low estimate of the numbers killed in the attack is 200–300 reported by journalist Michael Kelly (who personally counted 37 bodies), but a minimum death toll of at least 500–600 seems more plausible.

In 1993, The Washington Post interviewed an Iraqi survivor of the attacks:

"There were hundreds of cars destroyed, soldiers screaming. [...] It was nighttime as the bombs fell, lighting up charred cars, bodies on the side of the road and soldiers sprawled on the ground, hit by cluster bombs as they tried to escape from their vehicles. I saw hundreds of soldiers like this, but my main target was to reach Basra. We arrived on foot."

Highway 8

Iraqi forces including the elite Iraqi Republican Guard's 1st Armored Division Hammurabi were trying to either redeploy or escape on and near Highway 8, the continuation of Highway 80 in Iraq. They were engaged over a much larger area in smaller groups by U.S. artillery units and a battalion of AH-64 Apache attack helicopters operating under the command of General Barry McCaffrey. Hundreds of predominantly military Iraqi vehicles grouped in defensive formations of approximately a dozen vehicles were then systematically destroyed along a 50-mile stretch of the highway and nearby desert.

PDA estimated the number killed there to be in the range of 300–400 or more, bringing the likely total number of fatalities along both highways to at least 800 or 1,000. A large column composed of remnants of the Hammurabi Division attempting to withdraw to safety in Baghdad were also engaged and obliterated deep inside Iraqi territory by Gen. McCaffrey's forces a few days later on March 2, in a post-war "turkey shoot"-style incident known as Battle of Rumaila.

Controversies
The attacks were controversial, with some commentators arguing that they represented disproportionate use of force, saying that the Iraqi forces were retreating from Kuwait in compliance with the original UN Resolution 660 of August 2, 1990, and that the column included Kuwaiti hostages and civilian refugees. The refugees were reported to have included women and children family members of pro-Iraqi, PLO-aligned Palestinian militants and Kuwaiti collaborators who had fled shortly before the returning Kuwaiti authorities pressured nearly 200,000 Palestinians to leave Kuwait. Activist and former United States Attorney General Ramsey Clark argued that these attacks violated the Third Geneva Convention, Common Article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who "are out of combat." Clark included it in his 1991 report WAR CRIMES: A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal.

Additionally, journalist Seymour Hersh, citing American witnesses, alleged that a platoon of U.S. Bradley Fighting Vehicles from the 1st Brigade, 24th Infantry Division opened fire on a large group of more than 350 disarmed Iraqi soldiers who had surrendered at a makeshift military checkpoint after fleeing the devastation on Highway 8 on February 27, apparently hitting some or all of them. The U.S. Military Intelligence personnel who were manning the checkpoint claimed they too were fired on from the same vehicles and barely fled by car during the incident. Journalist Georgie Anne Geyer criticized Hersh's article, saying that he offered "no real proof at all that such charges—which were aired, investigated and then dismissed by the military after the war—are true."

Before the U.S. Military Police were deployed to guard the wreckage, looting of functional Iraqi weapons took place.

General Norman Schwarzkopf stated in 1995: "The first reason why we bombed the highway coming north out of Kuwait is because there was a great deal of military equipment on that highway, and I had given orders to all my commanders that I wanted every piece of Iraqi equipment that we possibly could destroy. Secondly, this was not a bunch of innocent people just trying to make their way back across the border to Iraq. This was a bunch of rapists, murderers and thugs who had raped and pillaged downtown Kuwait City and now were trying to get out of the country before they were caught."

According to the Foreign Policy Research Institute, however, "appearances were deceiving":

"Postwar studies found that most of the wrecks on the Basra roadway had been abandoned by Iraqis before being strafed and that actual enemy casualties were low. Further, opinion surveys showed that American support for the war was largely unaffected by the images. (Arab and Muslim public opinion was, of course, another matter, about which Powell may have been rightly concerned.)"

Photojournalist Peter Turnley published photographs of mass burials at the scene. Turnley wrote:

"I flew from my home in Paris to Riyadh when the ground war began and arrived at the "mile of death" very early in the morning on the day the war stopped. Few other journalists were there when I arrived at this incredible scene, with carnage that was strewn all over. On this mile stretch were cars and trucks with wheels still turning and radios still playing. Bodies were scattered along the road. Many have asked how many people died during the war with Iraq, and the question has never been well answered. That first morning, I saw and photographed a U.S. military "graves detail" burying many bodies in large graves. I don't recall seeing many television images of these human consequences. Nor do I remember many photographs of these casualties being published."

Time magazine commented:

"The pictures were among the most stunning to come out of the gulf war: mile after mile of burned, smashed, shattered vehicles of every description—tanks, armored cars, trucks, autos, even stolen Kuwaiti fire trucks—littering the highway from Kuwait City to Basra. To some Americans, the pictures were also sickening. [...] After the war, correspondents did find some cars and trucks with burned bodies, but also many vehicles that had been abandoned. Their occupants had fled on foot, and the American planes often did not fire at them."

In popular culture

 * In 1991, The Guardian commissioned British anti-war poet Tony Harrison to commemorate the war, and in particular the Highway of Death. His poem, A Cold Coming, began with an ekphrastic representation of a graphic photograph taken on Highway 8 by photojournalist Kenneth Jarecke.
 * The 1992 song "Hero" by the industrial metal band Ministry directly mentions the Highway of Death at the end of its first verse.
 * Iain Banks's 1993 novel Complicity has chapter 12 (of 13) called "Basra Road" and uses the imagery, although not the phrase.
 * Galician band Siniestro Total recorded 'Autopista de Basora' for their 1993 album Made in Japan.
 * The 2005 film Jarhead contains a scene in which a group of U.S. Marines pass through the Highway of Death.
 * In the 2019 video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, a similarly bombarded road in the fictional middle-eastern country of Urzikstan is named the Highway of Death. In this instance the attack is carried out by Russian forces, which led to accusations against the game of historical revisionism.

title: Highway of Death


text:
Talk:Linuxconf

Firstly, it's /a/ GUI configuration tool not THE confifuration tool. (many distributions including slackware don't even have it). Secondly, is "currently obsolete" correct in this context? It could be argued that software is never obsolete, because it will always do what it did, people will continue to use it, and older hardware can often benefit from older software.

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

title: Talk:Linuxconf


text:
London Midland Region of British Railways

The London Midland Region (LMR) was one of the six regions created on the formation of the nationalised British Railways (BR), and initially consisted of ex-London, Midland and Scottish Railway (LMS) lines in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The region was managed first from buildings adjacent to Euston station, and later from Stanier House in Birmingham. It existed from the creation of BR in 1948, ceased to be an operating unit in its own right in the 1980s, and was wound up at the end of 1992.

Territory
At its inception, the LMR's territory consisted of ex-LMS lines in England and Wales. The Mersey Railway, which had avoided being "Grouped" with the LMS in 1923, also joined the LMR. The LMR's territory principally consisted of the West Coast Main Line (WCML), the Midland Main Line (MML) south of Carlisle, and the ex-Midland Cross Country route from Bristol to Leeds.

During the LMR's existence there were a number of transfers of territory to and from other regions. The major changes were:

 * In 1949 the London, Tilbury and Southend line, which was completely cut off from the rest of the LMR network, transferred to the Eastern
 * Also in 1949, the isolated from the rest of the LMR ex-LMS Northern Counties Committee railway lines in Northern Ireland were bought by the Ulster Transport Authority.
 * In 1958 a major re-drawing of the regional boundaries took place. LMR lines in South Wales and south-west of Birmingham were transferred to the Western; lines in Lincolnshire and South Yorkshire went to the Eastern; in North and West Yorkshire to the North Eastern. In return, the London Midland gained the former Great Central Railway laying outside Yorkshire and Lincolnshire.
 * In 1974, the Chiltern Main Line from London Marylebone to Banbury and Birmingham Moor Street was transferred to the LMR from the Western Region.

Locomotives and rolling stock
The LMR inherited ex-LMS types of steam locomotive. For a few months in early 1948, an M prefix was added to existing LMS locomotive numbers. From mid-1948, 40000 was added, giving numbers of ex-LMS types in the 4XXXX and 5XXXX series. Some elderly locomotive classes were renumbered in the 58XXX series to make way for new production of LMS designs.

The LMR initially continued building ex-LMS stock, particularly Black Fives, Ivatt 2MT, two Duchesses, and rebuilds of Royal Scots and Patriots. Stanier "Period III" carriages continued to be built and were developed into a new style known as "Porthole" stock. Freight stock on order at Nationalisation was completed: some LMS designs were accepted as BR standard designs and continued to be built for the whole network through the 1950s and early 1960s.

The LMR had some experimental diesel locomotives, such as the Class D16/1 and "Fell locomotive" 10100.

In August 1968 it was the last region of BR to eliminate steam traction under the 1955 Modernisation Plan.

West Coast Main Line electrification
In the 1960s, the West Coast Main Line was electrified between London Euston and Crewe, Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham. This was extended via Carlisle to Glasgow in the 1970s.


text:
User:Roshith

Linux History Linux was created by Finnish computer scientist Linus Torvalds in 1991 as a Unix clone. Previously all big computers used one or another version of UNIX as their operating system. UNIX was created by programmers of Bell Labs in early 1960 and proved to be really good. So good that it became a de facto standard OS for practically all computers before the PC era. Linus being unsatisfied that he could not run Unix on his PC with Intel 386 processor decided to rewrite Unix from scratch.

But ability to run on cheap PC clones was not the only thing that made Linux special. What really created revolution in OS world was that Linus gave away his work for free. Though it was not uncommon to write freeware at that time Linux really broke the ice of free software foundation. The ability to see the source code, to improve it and share it with others to gain satisfaction inspired many programmers to dedicate many sleepless nights to work on it. It was improved and improved, so that ultimately it became even better than many commercial Unix packages.

title: User:Roshith


text:
Talk:Federalisation of the European Union

Older comments
Does the Herbert Armstrong stuff really belong in this article? --69.231.251.39 22:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think not; the last two paragraphs seem to be completely non-sequitur.--24.115.31.119 14:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sure almost every nutsack televangelist has this kind of drivel about anything, remove

I removed a paragraph which described the level of support given in referenda on accession to the EU by various countries - this had little to do with the subject of the entry, 'United States of Europe'. I was going to integrate the contents into Euroscepticism and History of the European Union, but it turns out the stuff is all there already. Toby W

Woo! U.S.E., U.S.E.! I hope there is a Untied States of Europe one day.

 * If there really must be I hope it has a more original name. --JamesTheNumberless 11:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Why? It would be refreshing to have something which obviously shows that the United States can influence Europe.  Look at the American Revolution article.  It's actually contested that the American Revolution influenced the French Revolution although some of the main players were the same, and the French Revolution occurred shortly after the American one. [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg|20px]] Chiss Boy  12:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed all the Herbert W. Armstrong related material - the paragraph and two links.

Strauß
What is the deal with this? This is English Wikipedia. English does not use eszet. --Tysto 05:16, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
 * Strauß is not an English name. There are all kinds of diacritic and non-Latin characters that English doesn't use, but of course they belong in the English Wikipedia. Wombat 08:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have referred this question to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. --Tysto 03:29, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

Proposals for creation
I'm really unsure about this section, and I’m glad it has already been flagged. There appears to be no link to a source and hence it is just wild speculation of what may happen. I don’t think this should belong in an encyclopaedia unless these ideas can be attributed an a relevant person or organisation. Any feedback would be appreciated as I'm not sure I can make an informed decision, to remove this section, alone. --zerorpm 23:11, 2006 May 10 (GMT)
 * I don't know what section means, but the article's tone is propagandist. You'd think that European unification was like curing cancer - something objectively good with which no-one could disagree. Well, ask Napoléon's victims or the people of Greece whose economy is stuck in a euro-straitjacket. If the article is to be allowed, it should be more evaluative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Churchill's opinion
Is there really any basis for claiming to know exactly what Winston Churchill 'meant' in his speech? Shouldn't Wiki confine itself to presenting facts, not interpretations of them? Perhaps a better way to qualify Churchill's speech would be to point to another speech where he clarified that he didn't see Britain as part of this potential U.S.E.
 * user:Paul11 cites a good article that attempts to decipher what Churchill might have meant by reference to his other speeches. My reading of that article is that it says that he was being deliberately vague and kept his options open.  He didn't rule it out and he didn't rule it in.  It certainly does not reach the conclusion that Paul11 added to the article. --Red King 00:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Role of Arthur Salter
I added a brief mention of Arthur Salter, who in 1931 also published a book by that title (cf. http://www.raphaelvishanu-world.at/europeancommunity.html)

Russia
Is Russia a 'predominantly European country'?. Is this not a huge sweeping statement, ignoring the age old debate as to whether Russia is more Asian or European?

 * Most of the population is in the Europe part, but most of its area is in Asia. [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg|20px]] Chiss Boy 12:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Russia is a people and culture unique unto itself.

-G

 * That's about as useful as saying Germans are unique. No one disputes either. However, with Europe and Asia considered as imagined political regions, it seems fairly useless to consider Russia as Asian simply because large, sparsely inhabited tracts of land are on the other side of the Urals. Russians are traditionally Christian, speak a language very similar to countries that no one doubts as being 'European' (all the Slavic Eastern European languages), and often have light complexions. Also historically, 'Russia' was traditionally situated ONLY in the European part. Wasn't the expansions east and south part of empire building by Catherine the Great et al?

Finally, how can one discuss European history, economy, politics and culture without including Russia? Can the same be said, to the same extent, of the far or middle East? Sorry Europe, I think we're stuck with Russia. (jk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storleone (talk • contribs) 02:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

From the Roman Empire to the United States of Europe
Look at the images of those four superpowers. What do you think?The Anonymous One 07:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

About what? The images aren't really very thought-provoking... 203.51.237.72 04:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

 * To try and draw some parallel between the Roman Empire and the EU in the article would violate its objectivity. This is a common slur used by those with anti-EU sentiments. However, it would be permissable, at a stretch, to include the experience of the Roman Empire in some vaguely historical sense concerning the shared history of European states. In other words, you could use it to make a point that Europe hasn't always been composed of separate nation states but has at times been a unified block. You cannot say that the EU is the political descendant of the Roman Empire however, that's a politically motivated point based on guilt by association. Blankfrackis 15:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Romans thought themselves ABOVE europe. All they saw Europe was a bunch of savage Celtic tribes to the West, Germanic tribes to the North and Slavic tribes to the east. Rome shouldn't be seen as a past european empire/union.

-G

 * That's funny. What continent was Rome in again? --Meridius (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to realized that, fo rall intenst an dpurposs Rome WAS Europe. You see all teh modern stes we consider part of "Europe" Orignte din fall, and susequential fracturing, of the empire, Fedral europe could be seen as a reunifction of those governments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.171.153 (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * euhm no; Sweden, Ireland etc were never part of Rome. Todays Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, and Morrocco were. None of the latter are being "reunified" with the EU. The Roman empire was much more a mediterranean empire (indeed the Romans called this see Mare Nostrum - Our Sea) while the EU is a European land (as in not maritime) based union. Arnoutf (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Map
The map is pretty much the definition of original research. Completeley unsourced and arbritary. so ive removed it. Willy turner 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur, thanks. There's no reason to assume that the USE would occupy all of Europe any more that the USA stretches from Nunavut to Tierra del Fuego. samwaltz 20:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

European Space Agency is not a part of the EU
The European Space agency is not a part of the EU, it includes countries who aren't EU member states. The sentence at the beginning of the article suggests otherwise. I'll remove it if nobody objects, or maybe we could just rephrase the sentence a little so that it's not explicitly referring to the EU. There are after all many developments external to the EU which could be relevant to this article, though the EU is obviously the most important. Blankfrackis 15:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

One can be against a superstate and still be pro-Europe
This sentence - "People who oppose and criticize forming a United States of Europe or even a confederation of European nations are called Eurosceptics." is incorrect in my view. One can oppose the creation of a "superstate" and support EU membership. The idea that you either support a European superstate or you're a Eurosceptic is one of the biggest red herrings in debates on the EU. This isn't an obscure point of semantics, undoubtedly the largest percentage of European citizens fall into the category of supporting EU membership but not supporting a "United States of Europe". To call these people Eurosceptics, as this sentence does, is obviously to use the term too liberally. I'll change it if nobody objects. Blankfrackis 15:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

USA: AoC
I put the Articles of Confederation reference in the article for two reasons: I'm putting the parenthetic phrase back. However, if you still feel it is too tangential in light of these comments, please feel free to remove it. samwaltz 05:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * people tend to forget that the US has not always been a centralist federation. The previous version of this article did not mention the change in the structure of the US. Because the US has one of the oldest constitutions in the world, we tend to forget that the system is dynamic, that it does change, and that there were previous relevant documents.
 * to allow more of a comparison, showing the development of the US through various founding documents, in relation to the development of the EU and its documents, as the name of the USE is based on the name of the USA. We're seeing versions of the federalism/antifederalism debates playing out all over again.
 * I did remove it because I felt it wasn't really relevant to an article about the EU. In my view you shouldn't really correct myths, or add information about a subject which is only indirectly relevant to an article like this. Yes the phrase "United States of Europe" is in most cases a comparison with the United States of America, but it wouldn't be the case that changing your opinion about the U.S. would have any impact on how the term is used in the EU. The U.S. is the origin of the phrase, but it's not an explicit comparison with the way the U.S. is organised, it's just a general term and it could refer to a type of federation which is quite different from the way the U.S is governed.

 * For that reason I don't think we should go into correcting misinterpretations about the U.S. in this article, though we certainly shouldn't say things which are factually incorrect such as "the U.S. has always been a federation". However, I don't feel particularly strongly about it because it's not a POV question, it's just a minor issue of relevance and how the article reads. If anyone else wants to chime in then they can. Blankfrackis 21:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I should say that on a personal note I'm not that fond of the whole opposition section. The way it's written is a bit meandering and I'm not sure what its purpose is supposed to be, or what the original author was trying to say. It seems to give two points, firstly that a lot of people oppose a "United States of Europe" and that some of these people are Eurosceptics and secondly that the term can refer to both a confederation and a federation of European states. The first point may need to be said, but it hardly merits its own section alone unless we're going to add extra content and the second point seems to fall under the definition section. I think it's the sort of section that probably made sense in its original form, but has been steadily re-edited to correct certain issues to an extent that you're not entirely sure what the point in it is anymore. Blankfrackis 21:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

European Space Agency
The ESA was formed completely independent of the EC and the EU and it still has non EU member states as members. Is it really appropriate to cite the ESA as the EUs space agency? It seems a bit like citing NATO as the european defence agency.Zebulin (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

ERROR!!!
I'm furious. Victor Hugo wrote about "les Etats-Unis d'Europe" in 1849 !!! Not Winston Churchill !!! This article is WRONG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.32.151 (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Hugo reference is already in the article (See 19th Century). Churchill is referenced only as one of the people who spoke in favour of a European Union after WW2, which resulted in it becoming a reality.  Can you be more specific about your concern? --Red King (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies to the anonymous editor. I failed to appreciate that you were complaining (rightfully) about some new text that another editor had  bunged before the beginning of the article.  He should not have done ths and he should certainly not have made such a controversial assertion as though it were the only perspective. --Red King (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the citation, it authoratatively claims that the United States of Europe was entirely from Churchill and documents that he did NOT want an EU (with a government but only a council), but lost, and that the United States of Europe movement dies at the first Congress of Europe, but that the European Court of Human Rights was created at this Congress. What exactly are you challenging? The text is relevant, cited, and when you delete it the burden of proof falls upon you.
 * I deleted it because it wildly inappropriate to disrupt an article by arbitrarily slamming your text before the beginning of it. --Red King (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Read the citation, it authoratatively claims on page 12 that the United States of Europe was a creation of Churchill. Edit in another citation if you dispute this, but please do not edit a cited claim that you have not first read Raggz (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have moved your text into the section about Churchill where it belongs. If it is a credible source, it may stay - but the manner of your edit leads me to read it sceptically. --Red King (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Dinan is a credible authority, so the text and cite should stand.
 * Yes it is certainly true that Churchill was one of those responsible for the foundation of what today is the European Union, but he is certainly not the first to postulate a United States of Europe, which is what this article is about. --Red King (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, I have read "Winston Churchill first called for a "United States of Europe""... (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_of_Europe&oldid=183317048) I have deleted "first". Thank you. This article in French is shorter but better. 86.217.32.151 (talk)
 * Yes, that text has been transferred (without the "first") to later in the article. But I think that FR.WIKI is wrong!  See United States of Europe.  Yes, it was a Frenchman who first proposed it, but it was Napoleon Bonaparte!!   --Red King (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What's going on with this move?
This article used to be "United States of Europe", what's going on here? Why was the article moved/merged? I see that User:Ssolbergj has renamed/moved the article with the reason being "Removes controvercial link to the United States", what on Earth is this supposed to mean? As far as I can see Ssolbergj has not consulted anyone on this move, and the article is currently a mess. I think we need to seriously consider putting it back the way it was, especially seeing as there has been no explanation given or consultation offered. --Hibernian (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

 * User:Ssolbergj moved this article from United States of Europe to Federal Europe without any notice whatever. It is not at all appropriate to move an established article such as this to a new title without seeking discussion and consensus.  The policy WP:Be bold does not justify such a high handed and unilateral behaviour.  An explanation is expected.  --Red King (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the idea of the move -- "United States of Europe" is just one of many names given to the concept of a federal Europe, and therefore the article should naturally treat the concept and not one of its names. — Nightstallion 22:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I might well agree too, but that's not the point. Major changes should have at least some discussion beforehand. --Red King (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Indeed, the idea of merging the articles is not necessarily a bad one (although I'm yet to be convinced of that), but the way it's been done is awful. The reason given is boggling, the people who wrote the article weren't even given the slightest notice and the merger has left both articles looking like a mish-massed mess. --Hibernian (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, I know that being bold renaming articles can be controversial. But I noticed that this article hadn't been edited by anyone other than me for more than two weeks, and I was (and still am) totally convinced that this title would work much better, per what Nightstallion said, so I didn't bother to write a move application on the talk page. - $\mathrm{S}$ $\mathrm{Solberg}$ $\mathrm{J}$ 00:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, now that we've agreed that how the change was implemented was not optimal, is there another issue at hand or was that about it? — Nightstallion 16:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at copy-editing, but it still lurches fairly violently from a discussion of European Federalism to historic proposals for a USE. It could do with fresh eyes. --Red King (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

POV challenge
User:BillCJ tagged the whole article as POV with the edit comment "Added tag - article paints a biased and often inaccurate views of the USA and its formation, and antagonism towards its system of govenment, with many sections of discussion unsourced entirely.", but did not open a discussion to explain his concerns. As far as I can guess, his objection is more specific to Federal Europe, so I have moved the tag to that section. But really it is incumbent on him to explain his concerns or, better still, improve the article. I don't deny that this article has a lot of problems because it concerns speculative fiction, nationalism, utopianism and even xenophobia - but the charge of anti-US bias comes way off left field. Please explain. --Red King (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * BillCJ hasn't responded but after looking at States' rights, I can guess what he had in mind. The whole section was POV/OR "tilting at windmills", so I've cut it down to the bare citable minimum and removed the tag. --Red King (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Historical unifications of Europe
After reading this article many times, I am still not sure if the "Historical unifications of Europe" section really belongs to an article on "Federal Europe". None of the imperial conquests mentioned in that section unified Europe and none of them attempted to create a European federation. The section seems to be a bit out of place. I wonder what the most frequent editors of this article think about this issue. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree - I never liked it either. It has nothing to do with Federation or confederation or other free association of states. It always seemed to me that it was an attempt to tar the EU with "Guilt by association". Unless someone can produce a case to keep it, it should be deleted. --Red King (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since no one has raised any objections in a week, I have just deleted that problematic section. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem with colours in EU evolvement timeline?
EU evolvement timeline Inaccurately suggests Lisbon will establish the 'EU'. The 'EU' has been established since the Maastricht Treaty 1992 (adopted 1993).
 * Above comment by 78.158.98.244 moved here from article page. --Boson (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Mitterand in 1991
Mitterand proposed this in 1991. Perhaps that might be a good addition to the article? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In fiction
"In the computer game Shattered Union, set in a future civil war in America, the European Union is portrayed as a peacekeeping force."

(from the article)

The EU already exists and has peacekeeping capabilities. I don't see why this concept is related to the idea of a future federal Europe any more than it is to the EU now. Of course, I haven't actually played the thing, so it's possible there's something that I (and the article) am missing. --Islomaniac 973 15:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any relevance to this segment as well, it seems to me that whoever wrote it just wants to promote a game. --Nizzemancer (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a conspiracy theory.
I distinctly remember the former prime minister of Greece (I'm from there) saying in a speech (of some sort I can't recall) something in the lines of "We all agree as members of the European community that the way forward is in the form of a federal administration for Europe .." or something in those lines. This is not some kind of crazy local politician, he said that after years as prime minister roaming the parliaments of Europe. He said it not in the way of some bold statement, it was just something thrown along the lines; i.e. He gave the idea he was saying something completely natural to him that is just accepted by European administration officials. Also; I was just listening to a historic speech of Thatcher where she distinctly says (at this youtube video towards the end) that the Economic union of Europe was a move towards a federation (with the British historically opposing for keeping their own power). --Leladax (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure exactly what your point is, as regards the article. I don't think anybody disputes that the EU has many features of a federation or that many within the EU have envisaged a natural path leading ultimately to something like a federal state. Walter Hallstein, the first Commission president even wrote a book referring to it as an "unfinished federal state" (Der unvollendete Bundesstaat).--Boson (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is - sorry, I haven't slept well and the previous message is quite scrambled - that a federal nature for Europe is not just a 'futuristic' idea as the article implies in certain sections or a conspiracy theory. It has been documented that Politicians involved actively in the cycles of the European community (such as Margaret Thatcher and the former prime minister of Greece I mentioned above) have clearly stated that at least a considerable proportion of politicians in Europe do actively seek a federal administrative nature for Europe. --Leladax (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * OK. I see your point now. Although I think the article is correct if you distinguish carefully between increasing integration towards a union which is increasingly federal in nature and something which is really a "United States of Europe", I can see that two or three sentences might make the general idea seem more speculative than it probably is.--Boson (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Imperial Europe is not federal Europe
I'm not sure of the relevance of the sentence "In the past, various empires and military powers have achieved control over large parts of the European continent, and often introduced imperial structures by force. Notable among these are the Roman Empire, the First French Empire, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union." My immediate reaction would be to interpret it as an attempt to taint movement toward European integration with imperial, dictatorial, and fascist associations that have nothing to do with the subject of the article.--Boson (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But not all movements to unify Europe have been democratic. This is a fact. For example, the European Union isn't democratic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Fiction section removed?
I notice the entire fiction section was removed in this edit. Either it should be reinstated (and probably rewritten to be less trivial), or the Category:Fictional governments should be removed. — sjorford++ 22:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion
This article and United States of Europe should probably be merged. They cover the same political ideology of a united Europe. Currently, Talk:United States of Europe redirects here. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This article was previously named United States of Europe. It was renamed because there emerged a consensus that "Federal Europe" is a less subjective and more descriptive title. A separate U.S.E. article has been created again, and if anything, I think that article should be merged into this one. - SSJ ☎ 04:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there should be separate articles, but a clear division of scope. The federal Europe on the broad European federalism/unification issues and the USE article only on the term "United States of Europe" - i.e. its fictional uses and its application to the concept (but for detail of the concept, direction towards federal europe article of the pre-1945 ideas of european unity article.- J.Logan`t : 18:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur. --Red King (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this article is based on crystal balling. The federalisation aspect fits entirely in the European integration article. Therefore I propose that this article is merged into the European integration article. - SSJ t 01:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with that too. "Federal Europe" is a POV/CB title and invites POV/CB comments. Texts inEuropean integration  can tested against real information, not eurosceptic speculation. --Red King (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support merge here. Many information is basically the same, as is the main idea. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  08:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

George Washington quote
The Washington quote used in the United States of Europe article is a fake, manipulated during the translation from English to French and then back to English. The original does not include the phrase "United States of Europe" or anything equivalent. Kauffner (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Present Situation
I think this section could do with some work. It presents the situation as though there is an academic consensus that the European Union is a federation in all but name. There is a huge body of academic literature that would take issue with this: Andrew Moravcsik and other intergovernmentalist academics being the obvious example.

More than this, however, Kelemen has been quoted in a slightly misleading fashion. He certainly doesn't view the EU as a federation, or anything like a unified state, his argument is that you can explain certain aspects of European integration through federalist concepts, but that the entire arrangement falls short of a federation. He's explicitly stated that the idea of a single European federal state is implausible, here, for instance:

 * "Widespread political opposition to the creation of anything approximating a large, unified executive bureaucracy in Brussels has long-since ended hopes, for the few who harboured them, of creating a European superstate." Kelemen and Tarrant

Blankfrackis (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What page does this talk page belong with.
The talk page for Federal Europe is this page, the talk page for United States of Europe is a redirect to this page. This means that two pages share one talk page. Does anyone know why? --Khajidha (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * United States of Europe and its talkpage were moved to Federal Europe and Talk:Federal Europe on February 2, 2008. Then on October 2, 2009, this edit seems to have copy/pasted the original content, thus restoring United States of Europe (which continued to evolve) but leaving its talkpage as a redirect to this one.  Skomorokh   20:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Have now fixed by removing redirect from Talk:United States of Europe. --Boson (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Despite being (apparently) responsible for the edit, I have to admit that I have only the haziest memory of the edit itself, and I'm not sure why it was done in a way to lead to a false redirect -- though I am sure it wasn't intentional. My apologies.RandomCritic (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

History
Strange there isn't a mention of Napoleon (as he claimed after he was defeated) or the Third Reich in the history of proposing a United Europe... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.174 (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 * This article is about the federalisation of the European Union, an existing political entity, which is a modern concept by definition based on voluntary membership of nation states. Napoleon and the Third Reich are neither modern, they both precede the European Union by quite some time, and they both envisioned "uniting" Europe by force, i.e. by conquering it. InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

 * In view of the content and tone of 108.171.128.174's comment about EU law, I take the view that his/her above comment, especially the reference to the Third Reich, is simply an expression of the editor's own anti-EU sentiment rather than a serious attempt to provide relevant additional material. In any case, your point about voluntary membership versus force provides sufficient rebuttal to any suggestion that either Napoleon or the Third Reich are relevant to the history section. The fact that they predate the EU by some time is less of an issue, and indeed, the history section does include material going back to the 1920s. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well we are obviously on the same page here, but I wanted to point out that the aticle is about the federalisation of the European Union, not Europe as a continent or some other pre-existing organisation or concept. And today's European Union has evolved from the European Coal and Steel Community which started in 1952, some 130 years after Napoleon's death, and seven years after the Third Reich had been defeated in WWII. So this article should historically constrain itself to political developments from the 1940s or 1950s onwards (and, considering that whether the EU is moving towards a tighter federation or not is a very debatable issue which forms the gist of the divide between Eurosceptics and Europhiles across the continent, this article should be more focused on describing the degree of achieved, perceived and/or proposed federalisation, hopefully in comparison to other federalised entitied like the USA, the UK, etc). The idea of a federalised Europe itself is indeed older then the EU or the ECSC, but these are not what this article is really about, we have United States of Europe for that. InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. I suppose that the existing material on the pre-WWII movement may still be of relevance, if it can be verifiably shown to have had an influence on the development of the EU or its precursor organisations. However, I am not qualified to know whether this is the case, and as the article currently stands there is no source to say that this movement was in fact influential (or for that matter, even that Churchill's 1946 speech was). If you felt that all this should be removed (perhaps added to another article) then I wouldn't object, or if any of it should be kept then really it needs a source to establish that it was influential. In any case, we are clearly well agreed that attempts to unite by force are not of relevance. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Federalisation of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130120153312/http://www.princeton.edu/~smeunier/Kelemen%20Memo.pdf to http://www.princeton.edu/~smeunier/Kelemen%20Memo.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080819213748/http://crem.univ-rennes1.fr/wp/2006/ie-200607.pdf to http://crem.univ-rennes1.fr/wp/2006/ie-200607.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010193511/http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/00/00f0101-04.html to http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/00/00f0101-04.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080531025508/http://journal.ilovephilosophy.com/Article/European-Integration--Westphalian-Cooperation-or-Federalization-/2383 to http://journal.ilovephilosophy.com/Article/European-Integration--Westphalian-Cooperation-or-Federalization-/2383

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Eurozone map
The Eurozone map at the start of the article shows Montenegro and Kosovo (and the microstates) as part of the Eurozone. Whilst they use the Euro, they are not a part of the Eurozone and as such that map is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synitar (talk • contribs) 11:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of UK from EU map
The UK has now left the EU, and as such should be removed from the EU map. If anyone is familiar with using the maps commonly found on wikipedia, the removal of the UK from it would be appreciated! Porcelain katana (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge with 'United States of Europe' and 'European integration' articles?
Despite ostensibly being different topics, all 3 pages cover largely the same content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.40.102 (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Error in map of the EEA
The map of the EEA at the top of the article appears to show the UK in the EEA. My understanding is that the UK is not part of the EEA. Is it possible to correct this, please? RomanSpa (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Scholz cabinet policy
A sentence that reports a policy objective of the Scholz cabinet (to foster EU federalisation) is being added and removed repeatedly, sometimes by the same editor. For this item to remain, we really need a wp:secondary source that evaluates it; by relying on the wp:primary source, it is Wikipedia that is making the judgement as to its importance (by including it or not): we should not do that. So let's see the secondary sources first, please. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi! I was the IP unregistered guy. Would you prefer

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/german-government-will-push-for-a-european-federation/ or https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-elections-government-europe-olaf-scholz-angela-merkel-sdp-fdp-greens-brussels/ The first one seems to be more dramatic, but the Politico article actually contains a quote from the primary. Also, the primary source should stay along the secondary, just in case, IMO. Hahonja (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll add both articles.Hahonja (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, accepted. Politico.eu estimates the response of other members, which is what I felt was lacking.
 * I moved the sentence out of "History" into "Current situation", which is a more appropriate place for it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Merge?
This seems to have been unilaterally merged into United States of Europe by @Micga. Where was the consensus for this? Why did you essentially delete a whole article?

I would like to restore this article, but if there's some consensus I'm not aware about, or you have some argument that'll convince me against doing so, I'd like to hear about that first.first.

XA1dUXvugi (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

 * That merge should absolutely be undone pending discussion and consensus. I would certainly argue against it since the USoE is a hypothetical or fictional idea, whereas federalisation is a real direction of travel, with documented phases. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Now that I am using the desktop interface, I see that the merged version has been in place since November of last year. So at this stage, consensus is needed to "demerge" the article. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No consensus was there to merge it in the first place. Had anyone seen it before now, I'm sure it would've been undone. I don't see what's wrong with undoing it now. If someone disagrees, they are free to revert that. XA1dUXvugi (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * i don't have time to look right now but does European integration meet the need? If so, should that be the target for the redirect? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. European integration is an overview of the organisations in Europe - in particular the EU. It doesn't talk about what this article does/did talk about; the federalisation of the EU. XA1dUXvugi (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have reverted it for now. If there is a consensus that the merge should actually take place, this can be reverted. I don't it think it should, as the article's own heading makes clear: this article is about the federalisation of the EU, not a hypothetical and wider European federation that doesn't exist. XA1dUXvugi (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I support 's reversion. "Federalisation of the EU" is a process, "United States of Europe" / "European Federation" are hypothetical end points. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * An additional piece of information to be considered, that sums up the motivation behind this revert very well: Talk:European integration. Tl;dr: European Federalism, European integration, and this article are all separate subjects. XA1dUXvugi (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Kosovo & Montenegro are not Eurozone members and should be removed from the Eurozone map
While they use EUR, only the 20 EU members are considered Eurozone members. Kosovo & Montenegro aren't part of eurozone and should therefore be removed from the map.Hexadecimal16 (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:European Federation which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wet clean

Wet clean was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

... has been speedy deleted already by Benc -- Chris 73 Talk 10:49, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Content was: thickfilm and thinfilm. Clearly a CSD. • Benc • 17:36, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree with that assessment. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:21, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrong

Wrong
Was listed on VfD without comment. I say: Keep or Move to Wictionary -- Chris 73 Talk 10:49, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep is useful. It is more than a dicdef, (okay it's three) but they could be expanded e.g. on the law front needs minor cleanup to make it look purdy. Dunc_Harris|☺ 11:37, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Clearly keep. -- Netoholic @ 16:35, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can be expanded beyond dictdefs.   — Gwalla | Talk 17:45, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete/Wiktionary - The question is not can it be expanded but has it been expanded beyond a dicdef to a point that should be included in an encyclopedia. The answer is no.  If you wish to expand it to an acceptable article please make a note here so it can be reviewed.  If not, why fool people into thinking there is an actual article on the topic? -  Tεx  τ  urε  20:47, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It might be better cleaned up by merging the content into the relevant pages (tort, truth, etc) and making this into a disambiguation page.  -Sean Curtin 01:17, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Transwiki and Delete. I agree with Texture.  This article is like a dictdef gone wrong.  -- WOT 02:07, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how this can be elaborated beyond a dicdef without including material that would be better placed at, say, morality or truth. Transwiki and delete. [[User:Livajo|力伟|т]] 03:12, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The legal concept of "a wrong" is sufficient justification to keep it (and hopefully, for a legal scholar to expand it).  Several good articles link to this in ways that make sense. Rossami 03:46, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. OK as it stands & has potential for expansion. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:24, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless someone cares to make it into a disambig page, and can link to a few valid conceptions of it, with articles, before VfD ends. If you do, msg me and I'll change my vote. --Improv 16:39, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, can certainly be expanded to more htan a dicdef! — siro  χ  o  06:26, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Dittaeva 16:32, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrong


text:
Shao Piaoping

Shao Piaoping (11 October 1884 – 1926) was a journalist, author, and political activist in China during the early 20th century. He was originally named Jingqing (鏡清), and later renamed himself Zhenqing (振青).

Born in Jinhua (金華) in the province of Zhejiang (浙江), China, Shao spent most of his life pursuing his aspirations for journalism. "To die as a journalist" was his lifetime motto. Shao contributed to the development of journalism in China through efforts such as founding the influential newspaper Jing Bao (京報). He also mixed politics with his journalistic career by engaging in criticism against the government, which placed him in jail several times and eventually led to his death.

Chronology

 * 1884: born in Jinhua city, Zhejiang province
 * 1903: began his secondary study in Zhejiang High School. Shao's interest in journalism was enlightened by Zhang Gong, the founder of the Chinese newspaper Cuixinbao (萃新報).
 * 1906: entered Zhejiang Advanced College (浙江高等学堂, now Zhejiang University) in Hangzhou
 * 1909: launched his first newspaper, called Yi Ri Bao (一日報), with a friend while in school
 * 1911: became the chief editor of Hanmin Daily (漢民日報)
 * 1913: arrested three times by ruling warlords and later fled to Japan
 * 1916: established the Tokyo Editing Society (東京編譯社) and became the reporter for Shenbao in Tokyo
 * 1918: set up the first Chinese News Editing Society in Beijing which aimed at self-editing local news and self-translating foreign news
 * 1918: published Jing Bao (京報), the first newspaper in China with an independent background
 * 1918: set up The Journalism Study Society of Beijing University (北京大學新聞研究會) for teaching new journalism concepts to students
 * 1919: was arrested by the An Xin Government and fled to Japan again. Meanwhile, Jing Bao was put under suspension.
 * 1920: relaunched Jing Bao
 * 1925: advocated and supported the anti-warlordism revolution held by Feng Yu Xiang (馮玉祥) and Guo Song Ling (郭松齡) through Jing Bao
 * 1926: was executed by Zhang Zuolin (張作霖) in Beijing for being accused of "promoting communism, colluding with Russia"

Early life and education
Shao studied at Zhejiang High School in Hangzhou (杭州) and graduated in 1902. After his graduation, he went back to Jinhua and taught at the Jinhua No. 1 High School of Zhejiang. At that time, he started writing articles for several newspapers in Shanghai. In 1912, Shao established Hanmin Daily ( 漢民日報) with Han Sin Jai in Hangzhou. Following the Xinhai Revolution (1911), in 1913 he was arrested and sent to jail, being charged with "accusing the government with bad intention" because of his opposition to president Yuan Shikai (袁世凱). In the spring of 1914, he was rescued from the prison and fled to Japan. It was in Japan where he wrote large numbers of journal articles and critiques for two Chinese papers: Shenbao (申報) and Current Issues in Xinbao.

Career
In 1916, Shao returned to China and was soon appointed as the first Beijing correspondent of Shenbao, the oldest Shanghai newspaper with the largest circulation at that time. During his time in Beijing, Shao was impressed by the emergence of the New Culture Movement (新文化運動).

As the movement launched, Shao widely spread the idea of patriotism and democracy while promoting journalism in a revolutionary way. He established the News Editing Society (新聞編譯社), which was the first Editing Society established in China, and published the Beijing Special Notice(北京特別通訊), which contained more than 200 articles. His works facilitated the improvement of Chinese newspapers.

In 1918, Shao established a very influential paper in northern China called Jing Bao. However, it was put under suspension in 1919 because the official government was offended by its critiques. It was relaunched in 1920 with the support of Shao's wife. Yet, due to Jing Bao 's stance against the warlord government, Shao was charged with "promoting communism, colluding with Russia", according to the decision of warlord Zhang Zuolin (張作霖).

Death
Shao was detested by contemporary warlord government since he constantly offended the officials. On 26 April 1926, Shao was arrested by military officials and executed in Beijing at his age of 40. In memory of him, the Memorial Hall was built in Hengdian Town of Dongyang City, 5 kilometers from Zixi Village, the birthplace of Shao.

Contribution to journalism
Shao Piaoping was a pioneer of journalism during the early 20th century in China. His major contributions included: reforming the style and practice of newspaper, combating censorship, and laying out the guidelines for journalists.

Newspaper reform
Shao observed that there were numerous problems with the newspapers in his time. The first and most prominent problem was a biased viewpoint caused by limited sources and pressure from authorities. During the years 1910–1925 in particular, many Chinese newspapers fell under the influence of different parties. For instance, Beijing Shi Bao (北京時報) was controlled by Duan Qirui (段祺瑞), a powerful warlord; Huang Bao, on the other hand, was under the control of Zhang Zongchang (張宗昌), another warlord; and Chen Bao was under the direct control of Yan Jiu Xi, yet another warlord. Additionally, Shun Tian Shi Bao was run by the Japanese. In view of this, Shao advocated that journalists should report truthfully and practice the discipline of verification. He put this principle into practice when working for Shenbao.

Another problem of news organizations in China, especially in the 1910s, was the heavy dependence on foreign news agencies. Shao found this practice a barrier to the development of Chinese journalism because when journalists only copied the news scripts offered by foreign organizations, they failed to produce news on their own through self-exploration of the truth. Thus, in 1917, Shao requested local reporters working for Shenbao to increase the length of their texts from 200 words per article to 500. He also enlarged the coverage of news to include local news, foreign news, and domestic and foreign government policies and critiques.

Combating censorship
In the 1910s, when China was under the repressive rule of warlords, freedom of speech was suppressed and newspapers were under strict censorship. Despite this, Shao insisted on reporting political and military news on Shenbao, at a time when most journalists were confined to reporting on non-political and non-military issues. Although the government was occasionally offended by Shao's daring practice, he managed to reveal the down-to-earth truth to the public with the help of his keen social skills and wide interpersonal network with officials.

Shao's actions demonstrated that democratic and free journalism can be a powerful weapon against a repressive government. This increased the public's appreciation that freedom of speech and publication would not be granted by the government unless they fought for it. Journalists were also inspired, and guidance was provided on combating censorship.

Journalism guidelines
Summarized from the books, articles, and speeches by Shao, he believed that in order to be a good journalist, one should:

 * 1) be aware of the current affairs.
 * 2) be able to analyze and understand the background of news.
 * 3) emphasize the ability to judge the value of news, and the complex and changing situation.
 * 4) have the courage to stand against any pressure from authorities (e.g. the warlords).
 * 5) be aware of the fact that one is influential to society and has the power to change it through reporting the news.
 * 6) stay in close touch with different social classes in order to have a comprehensive understanding of the society and the different needs of the readers.
 * 7) have common sense.
 * 8) keep the news comprehensive, that is to be able to choose the news of the highest value, from the most appropriate time and of the most interest to the readers.
 * 9) be observant, analytical, and imaginative.
 * 10) be communicative and organized in news writing to ensure that the news is understandable, systematic, comprehensive, and persuasive.

Jing Bao
The newspaper Jing Bao was set up in October 1918 with two main objectives: (1) to provide an independent platform for the public to express their opinions, and (2) to act against the malpractices of contemporary journalism, such as reporting faulty and biased news. When Jing Bao was first launched, Shao wrote the famous slogan "Tie Jian La Shou" meaning that it is the newspaper's responsibility to criticize whatever injustice exists in society. He hoped to remind himself and his co-workers to retain the essence of journalism, namely a critical manner and objectivity.

In its early stages, Jing Bao mainly reported news concerning social issues, the economy, finance, diplomacy, education, art, and literature. In addition, it acted as a means to deliver notice from the government. In its later stage, it also focused on political and military news, Sino-foreign relationships, and culture. With its revolutionary way of reporting and its diverse coverage, Jing Bao became a popular newspaper at that time in Beijing.

In order to enrich the contents of the paper, supplementary papers including Xiao Jing Bao and Jing Bao Supplementary Paper (京報副刊) were added. Famous writers such as Lu Xun (魯迅) and Sun Fu Yuan (孫伏園) also wrote for the supplementary papers.

Jing Bao Supplementary Paper included different topics including social science, economy, literature, science, and religion. It emphasized the freedom of speech and encouraged people, particularly young writers, to express their opinions. This laid the foundation for the establishment of The Journalism Study Society of Beijing University (北京大學新聞研討會).

Establishment of The Journalism Study Society of Beijing University (北京大學新聞研究會)
As a supporter of the study of journalism in China, Shao joined the Journalism Study Society at the University of Beijing in 1918. The society recruited 113 students, among them the later famous political leader Mao Zedong (毛澤東).

Shao introduced the western model of journalism and shared his experience as a journalist with the students. He kept reminding his students that morality—particularly in terms of helping the poor and undermining the power of the despots—was the most crucial element for journalists. He also made it clear to his students that journalists should verify the authenticity of news and be truthful to the readers. He told his students about the need to observe, apply logical thinking and imagination, and to judge the value of news. At the same time, he taught his students the basic concepts of journalism, including techniques of interviewing, truthfulness of news, the timing of news-reporting, and even the importance to a journalist of his appearance, language, and attitude.

Shao also arranged visits to news agencies for his students in order to have a taste of the real world. The students were encouraged to submit writings to newspapers. As a result, the Journalism Study Society, with the organized training of young journalists, generated a group of intellectuals who later became the pillar of modern journalism in China.

Books and writings on journalism
During the first two years when Shao worked as the Beijing correspondent of Shenbao, he wrote 251 articles with more than 220,000 words. In 1923, he published the books Practical Applied Journalism (實際應用新聞學) and The Journalism Pandect (新聞學總論), which focused on the discipline of journalism and promoted social justice and political renewal. In 1917, he published a famous article entitled "The hostile relation between the World and my country" (我國與世界戰局) in Shenbao. The article revealed the relationships among nations during the First World War and gave the Chinese a clearer picture of what was happening in the world. His other famous writings include, the "General studies of Sociological Ideologies in other countries" (綜合研究各國社會思潮), "Studies of New Russia" (新俄國之研究), and the "Collection of Shao Piaoping's Articles" (邵飄萍新聞通訊選).

Influence on literature
After Jing Bao was relaunched in 1920, Shao focused on writing supplementary papers which contained a variety of literary content. Xiao Jing Bao (小京報) was the first of them. Later, Shao cooperated with the famous universities in Beijing to publish more supplementary papers. In total there were more than 10 supplementary papers, including Film Weekly (戲劇周刊), Women Weekly (婦女周刊), Human Arts Weekly (民眾文藝周刊), Economics Bimonthly (經濟半月刊), and Social Science Bimonthly (社會科學半月刊). He even invited Lu Xun (魯迅) to write the famous paper "Mang Yuan" (莽原). The contents of these papers were of great diversity, including film review, art, culture, and literature. Freedom of speech in these supplementary papers was maintained and Shao claimed that the principles of these papers could differ from those of Jing Bao based on their different nature.

Inspired by Shao's efforts in expanding the coverage of newspapers to include literary contents, his students Zhang Youluan (張友鵉), Zhao Shaojun (周紹鈞), and Huang Jinqing (黃近青) established the Xingxing Literature Society (星星文學社) and published Literature Weekly (文學周刊).

Objection to the government
While Shao was recognized as an outstanding journalist, politics was an inseparable ingredient in his journalistic career. Shao foresaw Yuan Shikai's aggression to set up his own regime and thus launched the anti-Yuan force in China. His open objection to the new power naturally put him in trouble. Shao was arrested twice and his newspaper Hanmin Daily was forced to close down. He fled to Japan to continue working in the field of journalism. He was the earliest to unveil Yuan's conspiracy in accepting the infamous Twenty-One Demands proposed by Imperial Japan. In December 1916, he flew back to China to join the protest against Yuan's coronation.

During the May Fourth Movement (五四運動) in 1919, Shao took part in rallying for the support of Chinese students to save the country from Japanese aggression. He spoke at the University of Beijing on the reasons for China's frustration at the Paris Peace Conference and criticized the weaknesses of the Chinese Government in Jing Bao. This again agitated the authorities and eventually the newspaper was put under suspension. After fleeing to Japan for refuge, he returned to China when Duan Qi Rui's (段祺瑞) government lost power in 1920.

In 1925, he became a secret member of the Chinese Communist Party where he made large numbers of reports on the communist movement. A year later, the Chinese military, under the command of Zhang Zuolin (張作霖), executed Shao without trial, claiming that he "propagandized communism".

Involvement in the Communist Party
When the operation of Jing Bao was restarted in 1920, Shao published an article entitled "Study of the New Russia" (新俄國之研究). His aims were to introduce the theory of Karl Marx to the Chinese people, and more importantly, to promote the way he believed that could save China, which was revolution. The article presented the theory of socialism, glorified the October Revolution in the Soviet Union in 1917, and promoted the success of Union of Soviet Socialists Republics (USSR). The article sowed the seeds of communism in the hearts of many Chinese. Later, in 1921, Shao joined the "Marxist theory Study Society" (馬克斯學說研究會). He strongly promoted communism while discouraging capitalism. In 1925, he joined the Chinese Communist Party (中國共產黨).

title: Shao Piaoping


text:
Brink's-Mat robbery

The Brink's-Mat robbery was one of the largest robberies in British history, with £26 million (equivalent to £ in ) worth of gold bullion, diamonds, and cash stolen. It occurred at the Heathrow International Trading Estate, London, on 26 November 1983, from a warehouse operated by Brink's-Mat, a former joint venture between US security company Brink's and London-based company MAT Transport. The bullion was the property of Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd. Micky McAvoy and Brian Robinson were convicted of armed robbery. Most of the gold has never been recovered. Lloyd's of London paid out for the losses, and several shooting deaths have been linked to the case.

Robbery
The Brink's-Mat robbery happened at 06:40 on 26 November 1983 when six robbers broke into the Brink's-Mat warehouse, Unit 7 of the Heathrow International Trading Estate near Heathrow Airport in West London, England. It was described as "the crime of the century".

The gang gained entry to the warehouse from security guard Anthony Black, who was complicit in the robbery. Once inside, they poured petrol over the staff and threatened them with a lit match if they did not reveal the combination numbers of the vault. The robbers thought that they were going to steal around £1 million worth of Spanish pesetas, but they also found three tonnes (3000 kg) of pure gold bullion outside the main vault in 152 bars in 76 cardboard boxes. The gold had been stored at the warehouse overnight before being due to be transferred to Hong Kong the next day. In addition, they stole platinum, 1,000 carats of diamonds and $250,000 of traveller's cheques. The total value of their haul was £26 million (equivalent to £ in ).

Arrests
Two days after the robbery, a couple saw a white-hot crucible operating in a garden hut at a neighbour's property near Bath, Somerset. Suspecting it to be linked to the bullion robbery, they immediately informed the police. The police arrived and were shown the hut, but they said it was just beyond their jurisdiction and stated that they would pass the information on to the police responsible for that area. The couple were never asked to give a statement to police nor give evidence in court. No explanation has been given for the police's failure to follow up immediately on the tip-off.

Police soon identified that Black's sister was living with Brian Robinson, who appeared in Flying Squad intelligence files. Black confessed in December 1983 to aiding and abetting the raiders, providing them with impressions of the key to the main door, and giving them details of security measures and became an informer. He identified his brother-in-law, Brian Robinson, as one of the robbers. Ten days after the robbery, Robinson and Micky McAvoy were arrested. Anthony Black was also arrested for the robbery but was later acquitted.

In January 1985, the premises in Bath were raided and the furnace was found but the occupier, John Palmer, a jeweller and bullion dealer, was on holiday in Tenerife. His former partners Garth Chappell and Terrence Patch were arrested. The sudden movement of £13 million through Bristol area branches of Barclays Bank allegedly came to the notice of the Bank of England, which informed the police although the Bank of England denied this.

McAvoy had entrusted part of his share to associates Brian Perry and George Francis. Perry recruited Kenneth Noye, who was an expert in his field, to dispose of the gold. Noye melted down the bullion and recast it for sale, mixing in copper coins to disguise the source.

Noye was placed under police surveillance. In January 1985, he encountered undercover Detective Constable John Fordham, dressed in camouflage and a balaclava, in the grounds of his home and stabbed him 10 times, resulting in the detective's death. Noye claimed that he had been attacked and killed Fordham in self-defence and at the resulting trial, the jury found him not guilty of murder. Brian Reader was also at the property at the time and put on trial for murder but was acquitted.

In 1986, seven men, including Noye, Reader, Chappell and Patch, were put on trial for handling the stolen gold, with Noye accused of masterminding and controlling the operation to launder the robbery proceeds.

Palmer was deported to Britain from Brazil in 1986 and was put on trial in 1987. In court, Palmer said he was unaware the gold was linked to the robbery and he was cleared of all charges.

Another suspect, John Fleming, was held in Miami in 1986 after being deported from Costa Rica where he had arrived following an earlier ejection from Spain. He was subsequently deported from the US to the UK in 1987 and charged with handling £840,000. Despite the three year attempt to question him, his case was thrown out of court after just 25 seconds due to insufficient evidence.

In 1988, nine people, including Perry, solicitor Michael Relton and McAvoy's wife Kathleen, were arrested and put on trial for conspiracy to handle stolen goods. Relton was accused of bringing £7.5 million smuggled to Switzerland and Liechtenstein back to the UK to invest in London's property boom in the Docklands. A tenth person, property developer Gordon Parry, was also considered a co-conspirator but initially escaped arrest. The jury failed to reach a verdict for Perry who faced a retrial.

Parry was arrested in Fuengirola, Spain, in 1989 and returned to the UK a year later and charged with handling over £16 million. He went on trial with, among others, Perry, McAvoy's first wife Jacqueline, Patrick Clark, and Jean Savage in 1991. Perry was accused of laundering £7.5 million, Clark and his son £4.5 million and Savage £2.5 million. McAvoy's former wife was alleged to have benefitted from a house her ex-husband bought her. The jury failed to reach a verdict for McAvoy but her house was seized.

Convictions
Black was sentenced to six years for robbery.
 * Anthony Black

Tried at the Old Bailey in December 1984, McAvoy and Robinson were sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment for armed robbery.
 * Micky McAvoy, Brian Robinson

McAvoy and Robinson were released from prison in 2000.

 * Kenneth Noye, Garth Chappell, Brian Reader, Matteo Constantino

In 1986, Noye was found guilty of conspiracy to handle the Brink's-Mat gold, fined £500,000, plus £200,000 costs, and sentenced to 14 years in prison. He served seven years before being released in 1994.

Chappell was jailed for ten years for conspiring to handle stolen goods and fined £200,000 and Reader jailed for eight years. All three men were also convicted of fraudulently conspiring to evade VAT payments.

Constantino was convicted of VAT fraud but acquitted of conspiring to handle stolen goods. He was given a 12-month suspended jail sentence.

In July 1988, Michael Relton was convicted of helping launder proceeds and jailed for 12 years. Kathleen McAvoy was convicted of conspiring to handle the stolen gold but given an 18-month suspended jail sentence.
 * Michael Relton, Kathleen McAvoy

In August 1992, Gordon Parry, Brian Perry, Patrick Clark, and Jean Savage were convicted at the Old Bailey. Parry was jailed for ten years, Perry for nine years, Clark for six and Savage for five years.
 * Gordon Parry, Brian Perry, Patrick Clark, and Jean Savage

A few months after leaving prison in 2001, Perry was shot dead.

Gold
Attempts by McAvoy to strike a deal to give back his share of the money in exchange for a reduced sentence failed, as by then the money had vanished. Despite a record reward of £2 million offered for locating the gold, much of the three tonnes of stolen gold has never been recovered. £1 million of gold was found stored at the Bank of England. In 1996, about half of the gold, the portion which had been melted and recast, was thought to have found its way back into the legitimate gold market, including the reserves of the true owners, Johnson Matthey. According to the BBC, some have claimed that anyone wearing gold jewellery bought in the UK after 1983 is probably wearing Brink's-Mat. The rest of the gold was believed to have been buried.

Lloyd's of London made a record insurance pay out of £26 million.

Cash and other assets
By 1995, 57 people had assets frozen, including homes and a Kansas oil well and the insurers had recovered £16 million, including £3 million from Noye. In January 1995, the High Court ordered McAvoy to make a payment of £27,488,299, making him responsible for the entire sum stolen. Despite being acquitted of robbery, in 1995 White was also ordered by the High Court to repay the stolen £26 million plus £2.2 million in compensation and his wife ordered to repay £1.1 million. The judge said that he was satisfied that White was involved in planning the robbery. By 2004, £25 million had been recovered in total.

Counterfeit stolen gold bars
On 21 December 1983, less than four weeks after the robbery, police in Austria arrested five men, four Italians and an Austrian, at a Vienna hotel. Police also recovered ten bullion bars bearing the refiner's mark and serial numbers of bars stolen in the Brink's-Mat robbery.

According to the police spokesman, the bars were gold-coated tungsten counterfeits, and therefore could not be Johnson Matthey's stolen gold bars. He said that the arrested men planned to fraudulently claim they were from the Heathrow robbery. No explanation was given as to how the counterfeiters obtained the unpublished bar serial numbers, nor the likely benefit of counterfeiting stolen property in this way.

Panama Papers
Gordon Parry laundered large amounts of cash from the robbery after the disposal of the gold according to the Panama Papers, which show an offshore financial intermediary firm in Jersey named Centre Services requested Mossack Fonseca set up a Panamanian company 12 months after the Heathrow raid on behalf of an unnamed client. Under Parry's direction millions of pounds were put through the resulting Feberion and other front companies via banks in Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Jersey and the Isle of Man. A man identified as depositing £800,000 in cash to the Hong Kong & Shanghai Bank is thought to have been notorious armed robber David Moore.

Two nominee directors from Sark were appointed to Feberion and the company then issued two bearer shares. Parry used the offshore firms and recycled the funds, said to have amounted to £10.7 million, through transactions involving land in London Docklands, some buildings that used to form part of Cheltenham Ladies' College, a farmhouse in Kent for McAvoy's girlfriend Kathleen Meacock and a £400,000 home for himself and his family, Crockham House, near Chartwell, Kent. The Metropolitan Police raided the offices of Centre Services in late 1986 in cooperation with the Jersey authorities, seized papers and the two Feberion bearer shares.

In 1987, Jürgen Mossack, the law firm's principal, regained control of the company by dilution. Parry appointed a fresh set of Feberion directors, who were instructed to issue 98 new shares to Western Cross Inc, a front company controlled by Parry or his associates. In 1995, Brink's-Mat solicitors finally took control of Feberion and its assets. Crockham House was sold, and reacquired by Parry's wife, Irene Beaumont.

Collapse of Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd
On 30 September 1984, less than a year after the Brink's-Mat robbery, the banking and gold-trading arm of Johnson Matthey (Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd) collapsed and was taken over by the Bank of England to protect the integrity of the London gold markets. Losses amounted to over US$300 million. The bank had made very large loans to fraudsters and insolvent businesses over several years, and had serious and unexplained gaps in its records. The fraud squad was called in to investigate the bank and certain customers.

"Curse"
The so-called "Curse of Brink's-Mat" or "Curse of the Brink's-Mat millions" refers to the shooting deaths of several men who were allegedly involved. These deaths were thought by members of the London criminal underworld to be related to laundering of the gold.
 * In 1990, the former treasurer of the Great Train Robbery, Charlie Wilson, had moved to Marbella, Spain, where he was suspected of being involved in drug smuggling. Engaged to launder some of the proceeds from the Brink's-Mat robbery, he lost the investors' £3 million. On 23 April 1990 Wilson was shot dead.
 * Nick Whiting, an old schoolfriend of Noye who was questioned on laundering, was found dead after being shot twice and stabbed in 1990.
 * Donald Urquhart was one of the launderers of the proceeds of the robbery; he was shot dead in January 1993 on Marylebone High Street in Central London. The supergrass Kenneth Regan assisted police with information about Urquhart's murder. Graeme West was subsequently jailed for Urquhart's killing, as was his accomplice Geoffrey Heath, who planned the murder.
 * In 1996, Keith Hedley, a suspected money launderer whose home was searched during the investigation, was shot dead on his yacht in the Mediterranean Sea.
 * On 5 December 1998, Hatton Garden jeweller Solly Nahome was shot dead outside his home. Nahome was a "financer" and associate of the Adams family, who were also suspected of having been involved in the laundering of the Brink's-Mat gold. Prior to his murder, Nahome's associate and jeweller Gilbert Wynter had disappeared from the home that he shared with his girlfriend on 9 March 1998. It was thought that Nahome and Wynter were murdered over the disappearance of £800,000 from a cannabis deal, while it was suspected that a rival gang murdered Nahome and Wynter to cause disruption.
 * In November 2001, Brian Perry was shot three times in the head in Deptford.
 * On 14 May 2003, George Francis was shot dead by John O'Flynn outside Francis' courier business in Bermondsey.  Francis was a former associate of the Krays and was believed to have been involved in the laundering of the gold. Francis had survived an attempt on his life when he was shot in the shoulder over the bar in the Henry VIII Inn in Hever which he ran in May 1985, after allegedly failing to pay £100,000 to have a jury acquit Lennie "Teddy Bear" Watkins, who was on trial for the murder of Peter Bennett, a customs investigator who was shot by Watkins in a struggle.
 * On 24 June 2015, John "Goldfinger" Palmer was shot dead.

In popular culture

 * On 14 November 1992, a made-for-television film called Fool's Gold based on the robbery was aired on ITV with McAvoy portrayed by Sean Bean.
 * In 1994, Roger Cook exposed John Palmer for his part in the robbery during an edition of The Cook Report entitled "The Laundry Man".
 * On 24 November and 1 December 2003, Channel 4 broadcast Brinks Mat: The Greatest Heist, two-part documentary of the raid in its Secret History strand.
 * In 2007, Will Pearson published the book Death Warrant: Kenneth Noye, the Brink's-Mat Robbery And The Gold that provides a captivating account of the heist, chase and convictions as well as personal tragedies and ironies of the events.
 * In 2010, a documentary was broadcast on the Crime+Investigation UK network.
 * On 4 February 2017 Channel 5 aired a documentary updating events, including the death of John Palmer. In the new documentary first-hand accounts from the security guards were given who were on shift the morning of the robbery as well as from officers on the case.
 * On 1 April 2017 BBC Radio 4 aired a drama, The Hatton Garden Heist, which included the events of the Brink's-Mat robbery.
 * In 2022, Channel 4 aired The Curse,   written by the producers and writers of the TV series, People Just Do Nothing, fictionalising aspects of the Brink's-Mat robbery.
 * In 2023, Channel 5 aired a documentary, including first-hand accounts from the security guards who were on shift the morning of the robbery as well as from officers on the case.
 * On 1 February 2023, BBC Radio 5 Live began airing a 6-part documentary and podcast, as part of its Gangster series, about John Palmer and the events that surrounded the robbery.
 * On 12 February 2023, BBC One began airing a six-episode drama called The Gold inspired by the robbery, starring Charlotte Spencer, Dominic Cooper, Hugh Bonneville and Jack Lowden. In November 2023, the BBC announced that the drama would return for a second series.
 * The BBC also released a documentary about the robbery following the drama series entitled The Gold: The Inside Story in March 2023.
 * In 2023, Ebury published The Gold: The Real Story Behind Brink’s-Mat: Britain’s Biggest Heist, to accompany the BBC television drama The Gold. The book was written by the creator of The Gold, Neil Forsyth, along with the show’s researcher Thomas Turner.
 * In 2023, Ebury published The Gold: The Real Story Behind Brink’s-Mat: Britain’s Biggest Heist, to accompany the BBC television drama The Gold. The book was written by the creator of The Gold, Neil Forsyth, along with the show’s researcher Thomas Turner.

title: Brink's-Mat robbery