text:
Talk:Patrick Volkerding

need additional informations
someone, please add pat's date of birth, hometown, nationality and where he is living now. now it seems like an incomplete bio -rr

A picture of PV
A picture of PV can be found here: http://ascii24.com/news/i/topi/article/1999/08/17/images/images604164.jpg

-MJJ

Patrick has a daughter
I believe we should mention that pat daughter was born not long ago...
 * Yes, but what is the "Version 2.0" phrase a reference to? A geeky in-joke?

 * I think the section title "Daughter" should be replaced to "Personal" and perhaps also encompass the information about his illness too. I agree with Ori Livneh that the information on his daughter should be summarized and a link added pointing to the original post. -Etienne 22:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Uncitable Personal Health Info, Patrick Volkerding
I believe we should remove the mention to Patrick's illness. After all, such level of detail is probably irrelevant on the long run of an encyclopaedic article. Maybe a small note perhaps? Today it is roughly 50% of the entire article. In this same point, shouldn't all this progress report on his health be more relevant to a wikinews site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.20.164.3 (talk • contribs)

Pat was on his way toward death <-- a major part of life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.0.78 (talk • contribs)

 * I agree, cleaned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Equinoxe (talk • contribs)

Hi, I hope I didn't appear to be too snippy... but if you'll check the history you'll see that the Three Revert Rule has been disregarded so this does become a matter for Wikipedia arbitration. I hope to convince you away from your current stance by referring you to HIPAA and libel as well as pointing out the lack of a substantitive source on which to defend this content. The only source is a Slashdot message. This is not a verifiable source, nor is it a citation of a reliable source. Whereas health information is temporal and continually updated within the confines of doctor-patient confidentiality (if such a diagnosis ever existed the diagnosis may be updated, changed or reverted at any moment without press releases or public announcements with which to update the article). US Federal Law prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of private medical information. Whereas there is NO PUBLIC RECORD of new or old diagnoses the matter should be viewed as utter heresay, although any lawyer with a penchant for libel law would could easily make a strong case for libel -- such a case would stand quite firmly on the privacy tenets of HIPAA.

Whereas your re-addition lacked the scrutiny of a scan for current and verifiable sources as well as a misunderstanding of the legal prohibitions on this private information I respectfully request that you consider my points, the law and the ethical implications of such disclosure of private health information and stand-down on the matter rather than further escalate the issue to arbitration.

Thanks! Zosodada

 * Hi Zosodad. I appreciate your level-headedness. Your concern is certainly warranted, given the nature of the claims. However, Volkerding's posting about his illness is preserved on many websites. AFAIK, it was removed from the official Slackware site because its urgency and plea for help are no longer relevant. Here's the particular information about Volkerding's self-diagnosis, in his own words:

"I googled for 'yellow lung granule' and maybe the third hit mentioned something called Actinomycosis. There it was, a laundry list of the symptoms I'd been experiencing. Furthermore, the disease is caused by the same bacteria that normally lives in the mouth and in dental plaque.  Infections are most common in the jaw, but sometimes occur in the lungs and spread elsewhere through the body.  The hallmark of the disease is the finding of small granules of sulfur.  Aha, I thought.  Now that I know what this is, I should be able to get some treatment. via"

 * The website is not an especially encyclopedic source, but the words are Volkerding's. He has not, to my knowledge, issued a retraction or disowned the post, which was (at one point) on the official Slackware FTP site. Unfortunately, neither WayBackMachine nor Google cache FTP sites, so the file is not possible to locate that way. However, if you google for PAT-NEEDS-YOUR-HELP.txt, you will find lots of references to the file as it existed on the official Slackware servers by many reputable sources.

 * I agree that "During 2004, Volkerding struggled with some health issues, possibly related to a bacterial infection caused by Actinobacteria", might be a problematic phrasing. How about: "During 2004, Volkerding struggled with some health issues, which he suspected to be related to a bacterial infection."?

 * Finally, I don't think Volkerding's announcement on the birth of his daughter merits his post being reproduced in full. I don't see what's problematic with my quick summary, "He has a daughter, Briah, born in 2005, with his wife, Andrea." What do you think?

 * --Ori Livneh (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I know this is old and doesn't really matter that much. However, Pat himself had made this (both his health issues and details about his wife and daughter) public record.  I don't think this would be a HIPAA or legal issue as I don't think either he or his family would object to this being covered. Centerone (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Volkerding's Alleged "Illness" (follow-up)
Volkerding's illness is noteworthy, since the success of the Slackware project depends on his well-being to a large extent. As such, its reprocussions extend beyond mere trabloid trivia. I don't see how it's a violation of any HPIAA regulations if he released this information to the internet himself. As an aside, I'm also cleaning up the "Version 2.0" geekery which is non-encyclopedic. --Ori Livneh (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I replaced the mention of Volkerding's illness.. personally I think it's worth mentioning, but that might deserve discussion. However, we are obviously not violating HIPAA by re-reporting statements which came from Volkerding himself as well as other sites such as Slashdot. HIPAA's privacy provisions apply only to health care organizations themselves. HIPAA doesn't prevent media outlets from reporting publicly available information. It would be better if the anonymous user did not resort to personal attacks and irrelevant arguments to support his claim that the illness should not be mentioned. Rhobite 15:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Did you check the dead links? The "source"? You have no source or citation statements from Volkerding himself. The only extant citation is a slashdot message with no citation or source. This is not to say that such statements weren't once made, I don't know, but there is no relaible source that I can find for this information at this time and none included in the text that keeps being inserted. The other user also had a point regarding HIPAA -- I refer you to HIPAA Privacy Rule. I'm going to back this up and am willing to take it to arbitration and beyond. User:Zosodada

 * Zosodada: If you read HIPAA, you'll see that HIPAA only applies to "covered entities", which are defined as health care providers, insurance companies, etc. Nothing in HIPAA applies to media organizations. It would be a major first amendment violation if HIPAA restricted ways in which the media could report already-public health information. As for your point about unreliable sources, there is no requirement that Wikipedia should only use primary sources. Slashdot seems like a fine source for reporting about Volkerding's health issues, and it looks like Ori found some other sources for his announcement. As for your libel claim, it is clearly not libel if we're just re-reporting Volkerding's own words.

 * and the words were what? "I googled about a bacteria?" What some of you are reporting is not that he googled something, but that he was diagnosed with something -- which is UNSUPPORTABLE and UNVERIFIABLE. --z.

 * I think you're being much too aggressive with your threats of arbitration and legal pitfalls for Wikipedia. People will quickly lose interest in civil discussion if you continue to make these threats. Thanks. Rhobite 22:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I'll take it to arbitration as soon as the unsupported information is reposted. Please help me keep this page on-topic and deposit your ad-hominem critiques toward me on my talk page. --z.

 * Here's a mirror version of PAT-NEEDS-YOUR-HELP: . It's a copy of what Volkerding posted to his changelog. I fail to see how this is unverifiable, since it's Volkerding's own writing. Please read about arbitration before threatening it. Your arbitration request would be rejected for two reasons: one, arbitration is not used in content disputes. And two, it is a last resort and you haven't attempted any other form of dispute resolution. Personally I wouldn't even classify this as a dispute, we're just having a discussion about what information should be mentioned in this article.

 * Also, please be careful editing this talk page - you removed several other comments from the page in your last edit. Thanks. Rhobite 23:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

 * My objection is not "content"; it regards potential LIBEL and a violation of FEDERAL LAW. -- z
 * I'm attempting that now.--z
 * Whereas you've disregarded the THREE REVERT RULE several times, it is a dispute.
 * That's what happens when I engage in two discussions at once, sorry. --z

 * I'd prefer if you didn't insert your own responses in my comments. Please see Help:Talk page for instructions on formatting your responses. I hope I've put to rest your concerns about libel and HIPAA violations. Both of these claims are without merit, and I don't feel they're worth further discussion. I think you should read about the elements of libel before accusing Wikipedia of it, specifically the falsehood requirement. I have not violated the 3 revert rule, please see WP:3RR. If you feel I've violated it, you should report me at WP:AN3. Rhobite 00:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said above, while I realize this is an old issue and doesn't matter much (I still think it should be included in the article.) It is NOT libel because it is TRUE. Nothing TRUE can be considered libel.  Pat himself made it public. It's not a HIPAA issue because we are not releasing private medical records or details, nor do we have any duties to not release data that is in the public and is verifiable. Centerone (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Resolution
Ok, let's wrap this up peacefully. I'll sum up the issues, and their resolution:
 * 1) Libel: Not an issue for a number of reasons. Primarily because we are referencing Volkerding's own statements.
 * 2) HIPAA Violation: Not an issue, since, as Rhobite points out, HIPAA only applies to "covered entities", which are defined as health care providers, insurance companies, etc.
 * 3) Volkerding's daughter: per my comments and Etienne's, the information about the birth of Volkerding's daughter should be summed up, rather than reproduced in whole.

Here is my proposed phrasing of the contentious health issue:

"In 2004, Volkerding reported in his ChangeLog that he was struggling with some severe health issues, which he suspected to be related to Actinomycosis. On January 22, he wrote that he has not yet fully recovered, but chose not to release any further details."

Zosodada (or anyone else): if you wish to object to the first two items, please provide clear evidence of legal problems. I encourage you to read all relevant legal material carefully. The third is more a matter of opinion, but so far I have heard no objections. I will be applying the relevant changes later today if no further objections have been raised.

--Ori Livneh (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Please make the necessary changes. -Etienne 23:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

 * PLEASE CITE AND REFERENCE SOURCES FOR JAN. 22 -- OF WHAT YEAR? RE: LIBEL, YES CONSIDERING THAT THE HEALTH ISSUE IN QUESTION HAS BEEN PRESENTED AS A DIAGNOSIS WHERAS IT WAS NOT SEE ZOZODADA'S CONCERNS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.132.63 (talk • contribs)

 * I can't find the Jan. 22nd reference anymore, regretably. There is this, but it is not authoritative enough to cite. I'll dig through the archives to see if I can find a proper citation. In the mean time, here is an alternate phrasing:

"In 2004, Volkerding reported in his ChangeLog that he was struggling with some severe health issues, which he suspected to be related to actinomycosis."

 * Any objections? There is no suggestion that this was an official diagnosis. In the mean time, please consider creating an account and depressing your Caps lock. --Ori Livneh (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I replaced the full paragraph.. if Zosodada is going to continue to complain about libel after we have explained that libel isn't an issue, I don't see why we should remove verifiable information from the article. Zosodada please see No legal threats. Rhobite 13:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Folks, let's move on and proceed to elevate the quality of this article in respect of neutrality, current accountability of sources & citations and verifiably factual content. I've added a few book titles, the authorship section did not exist until recently which is a significant oversight considering all the attention that has been given to this page. -- Robert
 * Is there any reason why this notable health info has been removed yet again? I think the last time it was included was 21 July 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Volkerding&oldid=65002128 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.112.116.206 (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

citation available?
Re.: ''"Unfortunately, due to lack of adequate funding (due to the sale of Walnut Creek to WindRiver software) these people had to be let go." '' I think I've read this info but am tempted to remove this until the information can be cited. Is there a Slackware recap on these event? other source? Also needed for the "fundamentalist xn" claim since I believe he attracts derision from multiple factions. That can be surmised from the Usenet source, but I don't think it is necessairily verifiable, or is it? Perhaps I missed something. -- Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.166.61.232 (talk • contribs)
 * I had come here, because I don't even know why this bit is in this article. I assume it might be because (And I'm guessing) the article on Pat himself _might_ have been spun off from the Slackware article.  If this article is about Pat, and not about Slackware, then shouldn't it just be enough to say his is the chief maintainer/founder/developer and that he manages the contributions of others? The fact that other people have been employed at or worked with Pat on a part time and/or ongoing basis with Slackware is irrelevant to the question of "who is Pat Volkerding and what does he do?" This does of course belong in the Slackware article and I believe it is already in there. Centerone (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

What's it with the redirect "Lord Volkermort"?
I assume "Lord Volkermort" is just a nickname composed of the names Lord Voldemort and Volker. However, this should be explained, why he is compared to the Harry Potter character etc. The importance of this may seem rather funny, but it has a cynical notation, and it should be clearified here that this is not meant: Volkermort sounds like German "Völkermord", which means genocide. So, any German speaker who stumbles upon this redirect easily could come to the conclusion that this guy might be someone who thinks making jokes about Ausschwitz is funny. Just a coincidence, I guess, but maybe Volker doesn't want that.--JakobvS (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Patrick Volkerding


text:
Talk:Fraudcast News

Airing
airing in which country? Assuming the US is US-centric... [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 13:09, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's US-centric to use the original airdate which happens to be in the US —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.79.179 (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Poem
Did anyone transcribe that? ~Lordfubbes

Swearing
There was in the episode where Willie the groundskeeper said the word "shite" a scottish term for "shit" just before Lisa was talking can anyone confirm this?LOTRrules 19:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, at the end when he presents his own newspaper, he says he has reviewed all the new tractors, and that they're all "shite" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.80.208 (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It was on channel four (UK terrestrial channel) yesterday at six pm and the line was still in - odd, seeing as they cut the word Perverts from another episode --TimothyJacobson (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Darkwing Duck
There was a Darkwing Duck Episode (Season 3, Episode 9) named "Fraudcast News" in 1992, maybe this should be mentioned somewhere. --Bildungsresistent (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't see why--TimothyJacobson (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Cultural references
I have severely editted the following entrance from "Cultural References" section, as anyone who wants to know about Futurama could just go to that page. (I think other Cult Ref's should also be trimmed)--TimothyJacobson (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Squeaky Voiced Teen jumps off Geezer Rock, screaming, "Why did they cancel Futurama?" Futurama was Matt Groening's other animated sitcom (about a pizza delivery boy from 1999 who gets locked in a cryogenic freezer, wakes up in the year 3000, befriends a cyclops named Leela and an alcoholic robot named Bender, and starts a new life as a delivery boy for his future nephew's interplanetary delivery service) that premiered in 1999 and was cancelled in 2003 due to low ratings on FOX (caused by FOX pre-empting the show and constantly changing its timeslot). Since then, Futurama has had all four seasons released on DVD, four made-for-DVD movies released (and aired on television), and is in syndication on Comedy Central (after Cartoon Network stopped airing reruns of the show in 2008).

Nostradamus reference?
One of the bullies - probably Kearney - after seeing Mr. Burns alive was wondering whose skull was he drinking beer from. It is said that drinking wine out of Nostradamus's skull will grant the person Nostradamus's ability to see in the future. This should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan2paul (talk • contribs) 08:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Fraudcast News, the book
Hotairhead (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)I'm the author of Fraudcast News - How Bad Journalism Supports Our Bogus Democracies (http://fraudcastnews.net/) The name came to me independently of the Simpsons TV show, even though I'm an occasional fan. I drew inspiration from the William Hurt film Broadcast News and corrupted it to suit my own project. I discovered the Simpsons episode of the same name only later, once I'd got well down the production route. I would like to have a mention of this book included in the Fraudcast News Wikipedia entry and/or create a separate entry. I don't want to be some ugly, secret self-promoter though so I'd be grateful for some advice on how best to do this or to get someone else to do it. Any advice?
 * The book has nothing to do with The Simpsons, therefore no mention of it should be anywhere on the page. C T F 8 3 !  00:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hotairhead (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)That's a very clear answer - how then is it best to differentiate between the Simpsons episode and the book? I think I could manage an edit on this page but am unfamiliar with navigating the disambiguation process. Any tips gratefully received. Thanks

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Fraudcast News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111117201132/http://www.simpsonschannel.com/2004/05/ratings-fraudcast-news/ to http://www.simpsonschannel.com/2004/05/ratings-fraudcast-news/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Fraudcast News


text:
Siegbert Salomon Prawer

Siegbert Salomon Prawer (15 February 1925 – 5 April 2012) was Taylor Professor of the German Language and Literature at the University of Oxford.

Life and works
Prawer was born on 15 February 1925 in Cologne, Germany, to Jewish parents Marcus and Eleanora (Cohn) Prawer. Marcus was a lawyer from Poland and Eleanora's father was cantor of Cologne's largest synagogue. His sister Ruth was born in 1927. The family fled the Nazi regime in 1939, emigrating to Britain.

Educated at King Henry VIII School, Coventry, and Jesus College, Cambridge, he was lecturer at the University of Birmingham from 1948 to 1963, Professor of German at Westfield College, London, from 1964, and became Taylor Professor of the German Language and Literature at the University of Oxford in 1969. He was awarded his PhD by Birmingham University in 1953 (PhD, University of Birmingham, Department of German, 1953, 'A critical analysis of 24 consecutive poems from Heine's Romanzero').

He was a Fellow (then an Honorary Fellow) of Queen's College, Oxford, and an Honorary Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge.

He had academic interests in German poetry and lieder, Romantic German literature, especially E. T. A. Hoffmann and Heinrich Heine, comparative literature and also in film, particularly horror films.

His sister was the writer Ruth Prawer Jhabvala. He made a cameo appearance in the Merchant-Ivory film Howards End (for which his sister wrote the Academy Award-winning screenplay).

Prawer died on 5 April 2012 in Oxford, England.

Publications

 * 1952: German Lyric Poetry: a critical analysis of selected poems from Klopstock to Rilke. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
 * 1960: Mörike und seine Leser. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett
 * 1960: Heine. Buch der Lieder. London: Edward Arnold
 * 1961: Heine the Tragic Satirist: a study of the later poetry 1827-56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
 * 1964: Penguin Book of Lieder. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, editor and translator
 * 1969: Essays in German Culture, Language and Society. London: University of London, editor with R. Hinton Thomas, Leonard Wilson Forster, Roy Pascal
 * 1970: Heine's Shakespeare: a study on contexts: inaugural lecture delivered before the University of Oxford on 5 May 1970. Oxford: Clarendon Press
 * 1970: The Romantic Period in Germany: essays by members of the London University Institute of Germanic Studies, editor
 * 1971: Seventeen Modern German Poets. London: Oxford University Press, editor
 * 1973: Comparative Literary Studies: An Introduction. London: Duckworth
 * 1976: Karl Marx and World Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press
 * 1980: Caligari's Children: the film as tale of terror. Oxford: Oxford University Press
 * 1983: Heine's Jewish comedy: a study of his portraits of Jews and Judaism. Oxford: Clarendon Press
 * 1984: A. N. Stencl, Poet of Whitechapel. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew studies. 1st Stencl Lecture
 * 1984: Coal-Smoke and Englishmen: a study of verbal caricature in the writings of Heinrich Heine. London: Institute of Germanic Studies, University of London
 * 1986: Frankenstein's Island: England and the English in the writings of Heinrich Heine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
 * 1992: Israel at Vanity Fair: Jews and Judaism in the Writings of W. M. Thackeray. Leiden: Brill
 * 1997: Breeches and Metaphysics: Thackeray's German discourse. Oxford: Legenda
 * 2000: W. M. Thackeray's European Sketch Books: a study of literary and graphic portraiture. Oxford, New York: P. Lang
 * 2002: The Blue Angel. (BFI Film Classics.) London: British Film Institute
 * 2004: Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht. (BFI Film Classics.) London: British Film Institute
 * 2005: Between Two Worlds: the Jewish presence in German and Austrian film, 1919-1933. (Film Europa: German Cinema in an International Context) New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books
 * 2009: A Cultural Citizen of the World: Sigmund Freud's knowledge and use of British and American writings. Oxford: Legenda

title: Siegbert Salomon Prawer


text:
Orbigny

Orbigny may refer to:

 * One of the abbreviations used for Alcide d'Orbigny in biological citations
 * Orbigny, Indre-et-Loire, a commune in the Indre-et-Loire department in France
 * Orbigny-au-Mont, a commune in the Haute-Marne department in France
 * Orbigny-au-Val, a commune in the Haute-Marne department in France

title: Orbigny


text:
Beta Canis Majoris

Beta Canis Majoris (β Canis Majoris, abbreviated Beta CMa, β CMa), also named Mirzam, is a star in the southern constellation of Canis Major, the "Great Dog", located at a distance of about 500 light-years (150 parsecs) from the Sun. In the modern constellation it lies at the position of the dog's front leg.

Nomenclature
Beta Canis Majoris is the star's Bayer designation. The traditional names Mirzam, Al-Murzim or Murzim, derive from the Arabic (مرزم) for 'The Herald', and probably refers to its position, heralding (i.e., rising before) Sirius in the night sky. In 2016, the International Astronomical Union organized a Working Group on Star Names (WGSN) to catalog and standardize proper names for stars. The WGSN's first bulletin of July 2016 included a table of the first two batches of names approved by the WGSN; which included Mirzam for this star.

In Chinese, 軍市 (Jūn Shì), meaning 'Market for Soldiers', refers to an asterism consisting of β Canis Majoris, Nu3 Canis Majoris, 15 Canis Majoris, Pi Canis Majoris, Omicron1 Canis Majoris and Xi1 Canis Majoris. Consequently, β Canis Majoris itself is known as 軍市一 (Jūn Shì yī, the First Star of Market for Soldiers). From this Chinese name arose the name Kuen She.

The Dunhuang Star Chart noted β Canis Majoris as Yeji "Pheasant Cock", though was located about 10 degrees too far north of its correct position.

Beta Canis Majoris was called Oupo by the people of the Tuamotus.

Properties
Mirzam is a Beta Cephei variable that varies in apparent magnitude between +1.97 and +2.01 over a six-hour period, a change in brightness that is too small to be discerned with the naked eye. It exhibits this variation in luminosity because of periodic pulsations in its outer envelope, which follow a complex pattern with three different cycles; all about six hours in length. The two dominant pulsation frequencies have a combined beat period of roughly 50 days. The strongest pulsation mode is a radial first overtone, while the second is non-radial.

This star has a mass of about 13–14 times the mass of the Sun with 8–11 times the Sun's radius. The effective temperature of the star's outer envelope is about 23,150 K, which is much higher than the Sun's at 5,778 K. The energy emitted at the high temperature of the former is what gives this star a blue-white hue characteristic of a B-type star. The estimated age of Mirzam is 12–13 million years, which is long enough for a star of this mass to have evolved into a giant star. The stellar classification of B1 II-III indicates that the spectrum matches a star part way between a giant star and a bright giant.

Beta Canis Majoris is located near the far end of the Local Bubble, a cavity in the local interstellar medium through which the Sun is traveling. It is located within the Mirzam Tunnel, a region of less dense concentration between the stars and HII regions surrounding the Ori OB1 and Vel OB2 associations. Beta Canis Majoris was the brightest star in the night sky around four million years ago, peaking with an apparent magnitude of -3.65, or more than seven times as bright as Sirius today.

In culture
Mirzam appears on the flag of Brazil, symbolising the state of Amapá.

Murzim (AK-95) was a United States Navy Crater class cargo ship named after one of the star's alternative traditional names.

title: Beta Canis Majoris


text: Category:Television networks in India

title: Category:Television networks in India


text:
Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus

The Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus is a feast of the liturgical year celebrated by Christians on varying dates.

History
The feast of the Holy Name of Jesus has been celebrated in the Roman Catholic Church, at least at local levels, since the end of the fifteenth century. The celebration has been held on different dates, usually in January, because 1 January, eight days after Christmas, commemorates the naming of the child Jesus; as recounted in the Gospel read on that day, "at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb." Medieval Catholicism, and many Christian churches to the present day, therefore celebrated both events as the Feast of the Circumcision of Christ, usually on 1 January. An Office and Mass were approved by Pope Sixtus IV.

Observance of the feast was officially granted to the Franciscans in 1530 and spread over a great part of the Church. The Franciscans, Carmelites, and Augustinians kept the feast on 14 January, the Dominicans on 15 January. At Salisbury, York, and Durham in England, and at Aberdeen in Scotland it was celebrated 7 August, at Liège in Belgium, 31 January, at Compostela in Spain and Cambrai in France, 8 January.

Around 1643 the Carthusians obtained the second Sunday after Epiphany for the Feast. This was the date assigned to the celebration when, on 20 December 1721, it was inserted into the General Calendar of the Roman Rite by Pope Innocent XIII. In the reform of Pope Pius X, enacted by his motu proprio Abhinc duos annos of 23 October 1913, it was moved to the Sunday between 2 and 5 January inclusive, and in years when no such Sunday existed the celebration was observed on 2 January; this is still observed by Catholics following calendars of 1914 to 1962.

The reform of the liturgical calendar by the motu proprio Mysterii Paschalis of 14 February 1969 removed the feast "since the imposition of the name of Jesus is already commemorated in the office of the Octave of Christmas." However, the Mass texts of the Holy Name of Jesus were preserved, being placed with the Votive Masses. The celebration was restored to the General Roman Calendar with the 2002 Roman Missal.

Present day
In the Latin Rite Catholic Church it is observed as an optional memorial on 3 January by Catholics following the present General Roman Calendar. According to the 1962 Missal of St. John XXIII used in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite the feast is celebrated on 2 January. In Roman Catholicism the month of January is traditionally dedicated to the Holy Name of Jesus.

The Jesuits celebrate the Holy Name of Jesus on 3 January as the order's titular feast.

In the Lutheran Church, the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus is sometimes celebrated as a part of the Feast of the Circumcision of Christ on 1 January.

In some Anglican churches including the Episcopal Church (United States), the feast is observed on 1 January. In the Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America since 1979, the Feast of the Circumcision of Christ celebrated on 1 January is now listed as the "Feast of the Holy Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ". In the Church of England, the calendar of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer stipulates a festival "The Name of Jesus" to be observed on 7 August as had been the practice in Durham, Salisbury and York, but in the more recent Common Worship resources the Feast of the Circumcision and Naming of Christ (1 January) takes its place as the primary festival of the name of Jesus. The Anglican Church of Canada's 'Book of Common Prayer' (1962) retains the date of 7 August, but as a commemoration, not a feast day. Many Eastern Churches celebrate the feast on 1 January.

The United Methodist Church observes the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus on 1 January, with the liturgical colour of the day being white/gold.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) observes the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus on 1 January.

In Western Rite Orthodoxy, the feast is celebrated on 7 August.

title: Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus


text:
Lyne, Denmark

Lyne is a small village with a population of 247 (1 January 2024) in Ringkøbing-Skjern Municipality, on the peninsula of Jutland in southwest Denmark.

Notable people

 * Morten Eskesen
 * Frederik Heiselberg

title: Lyne, Denmark


text:
Talk:The Phantom of the Opera (2004 film)

Possum
Some one changed every instance of "Emmy Rossum" to "Emmy Possum".98.220.223.197 (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Stupenda
After Christine's first performance, M. André (Simon Callow) calls out "Stupenda". That would ordinarily be considered an attribute of La Stupenda (Joan Sutherland), another coloratura. Is that a reference? Varlaam (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Errors?
The film's attention to period detail is certainly very good. Are there any errors?

The hanging of the stagehand is incorrect. That drop would result in his decapitation, and not his strangulation. See Hanging. Varlaam (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
Someone vandalized the info box. The "Release dates" are listed as : January 12, 1786 (africa) and May 21, 1297 (china)

I couldn't find the exact location in the history because they were at least smart enough to not put an entry in the Edit Summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.221.142.210 (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Found it. Fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.221.142.210 (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Phantom of the Opera (2004 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.saturnawards.org/nominations.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on The Phantom of the Opera (2004 film). 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/20080207072429/http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Phantom of the Opera (2004 film). 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 tag to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_294170.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629150947/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/90699-The-Phantom-of-the-Opera-Opens-Nationwide-Jan-21 to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/90699-The-Phantom-of-the-Opera-Opens-Nationwide-Jan-21
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708085902/http://www2.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=1696&p=.htm to http://www2.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=1696&p=.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091215204343/http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/film/25940 to http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/film/25940
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090904014529/http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/movies/review/2004/12/22/phantom/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/movies/review/2004/12/22/phantom/index.html

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) 13:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Phantom of the Opera (2004 film). 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/20140714145550/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1255518925502 to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1255518925502

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) 19:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

What is the "lock" number of the chandelier at the auction?
Someone please help for a task — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.185.162.16 (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

What is the "lock" number of the chandelier at the auction?
Someone help, this is a question for a task. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.185.162.16 (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Blufive

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

 * Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try How to edit a page.
 * To sign your posts (for eg. on talk pages) use 	 ~  (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type (3 tildes).
 * You can experiment in the Sandbox.
 * For help, see Where to ask a question.
 * Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Five pillars, Neutral point of view, Civility, What Wikipedia is not
 * You can contribute in many ways: write a great article, fight vandalism, upload pictures, perform maintainance tasks, contribute to existing projects...

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at New user log.

-- utcursch | talk

Non-free rationale for File:Phantom slayer screenshot.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Phantom slayer screenshot.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Blufive


text:
User talk:Aceman87~enwiki

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

 * Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try How to edit a page.
 * To sign your posts (for eg. on talk pages) use 	 ~  (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type (3 tildes).
 * You can experiment in the Sandbox.
 * For help, see Where to ask a question.
 * Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Five pillars, Neutral point of view, Civility, What Wikipedia is not
 * You can contribute in many ways: write a great article, fight vandalism, upload pictures, perform maintainance tasks, contribute to existing projects...

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at New user log.

-- utcursch | talk

Possibly unfree Image:Stratovarius.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Stratovarius.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MetsBot 20:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Finnish Animeunion on VfD
Hi! The article Finnish Animeunion that you have created has just been listed on Votes for Deletion (VfD) as per Wikipedia's deletion policy. If you wish to preserve the article, you may place a vote on the article's VfD page, explaining why the subject matter should be considered notable enough for it to be included in Wikipedia. - ulayiti (talk)  22:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Karjala
Teit artikkelista Karjala uudelleenohjauksen artikkeliin Karjala (beer). Mielestäni Wikipediassa ei pitäisi olla uudelleenohjauksia xxx:stä xxx (yyy):hyn, vaan ei-tarkennetun nimen pitäisi aina olla joko oikea artikkeli tai täsmennyssivu. Artikkelin Karjala pitäisi kertoa Karjalan tasavallasta/maakunnasta tai Karjala-oluesta, mutta kummasta? Mitä mieltä sinä olet? J I P | Talk 16:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Aceman87. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Aceman87~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 21:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aceman87~enwiki


text: Template:TV resolution

title: Template:TV resolution


text:
Talk:German battleship Scharnhorst

Article overhaul
In working to finish this, I've started a complete rewrite of this article here. Feel free to lend a hand if you have the time, but I ask that you only do so if you have access to reliable sources—this article will eventually go to FAC and we don't need to spend time redoing things because they weren't properly sourced the first time. Though based on the response I got when I overhauled Bismarck class battleship, I doubt this will generate much of anything... Parsecboy (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

ship motto
I am just curious. I remembered reading in Otto Busch that the Scharnhorst had as motto "Scharnhorst voran" and so I put that in (initially incorrect). Why was it taken out? Hpvpp (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I rewrote the article in a userspace draft and didn't incorporate anything from the old version. Do you happen to know what page it's on in Busch? I have his book, but didn't notice it anywhere (though it's quite possible I missed it). Parsecboy (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I have the book as well, but I can't find it either. Sorry, no time. Even so, look here http://www.germanmilitaryhistory.com/blog/51484-scharnhorst-immer-voran/ Hpvpp (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Busch p. 145, 2nd page of Ch.XVI, also p. 150. Hpvpp (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Thanks for finding that, though it's page 127 in my edition. Parsecboy (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

not sure how to add an nopther issue but have several, the article states the oiltanker and passneger boat were sunk by the ugly isters they werent tha was the estroyer escort that aprted company with the scharnhorst according to the gemran footage, the sruvivors being taken aboard fom the tanker onto the admiral hipper, the film claerly states this, the original german narration and footage are in direct conflict with the article.

"Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had reached a point north-west of Lofoten, Norway, by 12:00 on 9 June. The two ships then turned west for 24 hours while temporary repairs were effected. After a day of steaming west, the ships turned south and rendezvoused with Admiral Hipper on 12 April. An RAF patrol aircraft spotted the three ships that day, which prompted an air attack. The German warships were protected by poor visibility, however, and the three ships safely reached port later that day. Scharnhorst returned to Germany, and was repaired at the Deutsche Werke in Kiel. During the repair process, the aircraft catapult that had been installed on the rear gun turret was removed.[19]

The two ships left Wilhelmshaven on 4 June to return to Norway. They were joined by Admiral Hipper and four destroyers.[20] The purpose of the sortie was to interrupt Allied efforts to resupply the Norwegians and to relieve the pressure on German troops fighting in Norway.[19] On 7 June, the squadron rendezvoused with the tanker Dithmarschen to refuel Admiral Hipper and the four destroyers. The next day, a British corvette was discovered and sunk, along with the oil tanker Oil Pioneer. The Germans then launched their Arado 196 float planes to search for more Allied vessels. Admiral Hipper and the destroyers were sent to destroy Orama, a 19,500 long tons (19,800 t) passenger ship, while Atlantis, a hospital ship, was allowed to proceed unmolested. Admiral Marschall detached Admiral Hipper and the four destroyers to refuel in Trondheim, while he would steam to the Harstad area.[20]"

and this bit? all of a sudden the 9th of june comes and there is an attack? a day after the sinking of the glorious? the 6th and 7th are the sinkings of the oil tanker and the passenger ship are mentioned as simulatneous to the battle for the glorious. the ugly sisters are "released on a special mission" accoring to the film from the hipper and the destroyers...

was it really that chance a meeting? they were scouting the area for the norwegian retreat, the vents onto he scharnhrt leading up to the sighting of glorious are interesting... the intercepted battle orders that wer heard at bletchley but not decoded? what did they say excatly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.49.133 (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

no external links?
The Gneisenau has some external links so why not the Scharnhorst? I think this website should be mentioned http://www.scharnhorst-class.dk/index.html and http://wn.com/Die_Deutsche_Wochenschau has archival footage. Hpvpp (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

 * The problem is, all of the photos on the first website and the footage linked to on wn.com (which is actually just a collection of youtube videos) violate copyright. We therefore can't link to either of them (and once I finish rewriting Gneisenau, it won't have any either). Parsecboy (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

 * That is a problem for them, sure, but why would it be a problem for us? Hpvpp (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Per WP:EL, we can't link to sites that violate copyrights. Parsecboy (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Okay. How about http://www.archive.org/details/GermanBattlecruisersScharnhorstOnPatrol (via http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Deutsche_Wochenschau) Hpvpp (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

 * There's no indication that archive.org licensed the images under the Creative Commons license as claimed on the Commons page (or even that the website holds the copyright, which I'd bet they don't). They are most assuredly still under copyright in Germany, which means they're still copyrighted in the US as well (unless they have some sort of status as seized Nazi assets as some photos do, though this has not been asserted or proved). We can't use any of these clips. Parsecboy (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Mmm, I would have thought there be guardians in Wikipedia (etc) to ensure that whatever is uploaded is indeed not in violation. Indeed, the phrase which I see underneath this editing box "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted" leads me to believe that this is the case and so I suspect that you are overly cautious.  Hpvpp (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, copyright violations are uploaded to Wikipedia and Commons all the time, and most of it takes months or even years to be found and deleted. I've also been to FAC over 20 times, and I know what the image reviewers will say if we use this material in the article. It's a copyright violation, and therefore unusable in this or any other article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I've nominated all of the videos for deletion here. Parsecboy (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

 * What would be the point of the external links? I can see a point in an external link to a street-map for an article on a town. I can see a point to an external link to detailed ship plans for a warship.  In a stub/start article there can be value in external links that could be used to expand the article.  Pointless external links best deleted.  External inks to stolen imagery implies approval of copyright theft and is therefore unethical.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

And so I learned something new. Thanks, Parsecboy & Toddy. Hpvpp (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

no mention of the "ugly sisters"?
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau have been referred to as the "ugly sisters" according to many sources on the web. Even if no good source can be found it still should be mentioned. One of the videos on http://wn.com/Die_Deutsche_Wochenschau actually has an overprint with those words. Hpvpp (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You would have to have eyes of solid lead to call them "ugly". Not to mention it's hardly encylopedic.

 * The name is a reference to the pantomime "Cinderella" - "the Ugly Sisters" (Scharnhorst and Gneisenau) never got to dance with Prince Charming, whereas "Cinderella" did. "Cinderlla" was either the Bismarck or later the Tirpitz. It was a joke.

 * Not at all accurate - the sisters in Grimm's version (i.e., the version that would have been most well known in Germany) were beautiful - the "ugly sisters" nickname was a British creation. They were also nicknamed "Salmon" and "Gluckstein" by the RN. But neither set of nicknames is particularly encyclopedic. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Salmon & Gluckstein was a British chain of tobacconists' shops. The derisive use of those nicknames for Scharnhorst and Gneisenau was commonplace at the time and is mentioned in numerous sources. 'The Ugly Sisters' was because they were generally bad news, not because they were ill-designed. Khamba Tendal (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ...And it seems that "Ugly Sisters" was a nickname for the "Nelson" and "Rodney" years before these ships were built that somehow got swapped over. Well. "Nelson" and "Rodney" actually were ugly ships. 2404:4404:147B:E400:6166:E581:BE07:363D (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Confusion?
Is this a fault or just confusingly written?
 * Six minutes after opening fire, Scharnhorst scored a hit at a range of 24,100 m (26,400 yd). ... By 18:26 the range had fallen to 25,600 m (28,000 yd),...

Was 18:26 before the six minutes after opening fire? Then why is it metioned afterwards?--WerWil (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I came to ask the same thing. It says: "At 17:45, the German battleships spotted the British aircraft carrier Glorious and two escorting destroyers, Ardent and Acasta, at a range of some 50,000 m (55,000 yd). Scharnhorst was closer and therefore fired first.[21] Six minutes after opening fire, Scharnhorst scored a hit at a range of 24,100 m (26,400 yd). The shell struck the carrier's upper hangar and started a large fire. Less than ten minutes later, a shell from Gneisenau struck the bridge and killed Glorious 's captain.[22] The two destroyers attempted to cover Glorious with smoke screens, but the German battleships could track the carrier with their radar. By 18:26 the range had fallen to 25,600 m (28,000 yd), and Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were firing full salvos at the carrier"

It seems to imply that she first started firing at 24,000 yards, yet later the "range had closed to 28,000 yards". It's either wrong, or confusingly written. If it's correct, the bit about the range being closed to 28,000 yards and beginning to fire full salvos ought to precede the part where she makes a hit at 26,000 yards. It seems to be saying that they began firing with less than full salvos, and managed to score deadly hits, and later got closer and began with full salvos, yet the numbers don't add up. If they're right, it ought to say that they started at 55,000, closed to 28,000, began to fire full salvos, and at 26,000, scored the hits..45Colt 08:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Still not fixed 4 years later, and there is the added point of an un-referenced claim in the lead claiming a record for longest range naval hit. Given that the guns had a theoretical range of 40,000 m - 25,000 m seems a bit low for such a claim - is this the hit being mentioned? I don't have the references at hand to fix this or I would. - NiD.29 (talk) 05:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Frequency of damage
I know I've read of numerous other ships that were repeatedly damaged in action, but the frequency with which the Scharnhorst was damaged and forced to dock for repairs (both by enemy action and by weather) seems remarkable. Seems I recall the Gneisenau suffering similarly. Not sure whether I'd call that lucky or unlucky, but I'd be interested to see how the numbers compare to other ships. How many other naval vessels were subjected to enemy attack, injured, repaired and returned to be damaged again with such frequency? It's also curious that some of the secondary damage mentioned (turrets jammed by mine explosions, etc) seems to be excessive; I've read of other ships hitting mines, being hit by AP bombs, etc, and basically shrugging the damage off (relatively speaking). Yet it happened a number of times to the Scharnhorst. Not to mention that she seems to end up "a meter down" in the water on 4-5 occasions. Is that a symptom of her relatively light weight and protection, mere bad luck, or was flawed engineering a factor? Or was it just because she was one of only a few heavy German surface vessels, and so was unusually heavily engaged, and therefore took an unusual brunt of the enemies wrath?.45Colt 09:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Fact or Fiction?
In the article: "With only turret Caesar operational, all available men were sent to retrieve ammunition from the forward turrets to keep the last heavy guns supplied[63]" - I cannot believe that it is possible to retrieve ammunition weighing some 100s of pounds and carrying it inside a ship along a distance of 200 feet which is under constant fire! This can only be pure fiction or a bad translation! 84.155.58.33 (talk)

 * That's what Garzke & Dulin say, and they're both noted naval historians. Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Have you ever examined the method of handling these large shells inside the magazine underneath the turret? If someone can get a shell into a hoist when the ship is travelling at speed in rough conditions, moving shells from one part of the ship to another is not really a lot more difficult. Add a bit of desperation, and the job is achievable. Anyway, how do you think the shells were got into the magazine in the first place, especially if replenishing at sea? (The method of moving shells in the turret involves looping a chain around the shell and then pulling it to where you want it to go - it needs a lot of dexterity with the chain!) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Air raid on 24 July 1941
The raid on the Scharnhorst on 24 July 1941 is described in the wartime book Tail Gunner by R C Rivaz. Whilst wartime security makes the book a less than complete account of the attack, the aircraft are undoubtedly Halifax's. A website whose provenance I am not able to establish gives a fuller account, confirming the story in the book.

A quality confirming source appears to be needed for this point. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

 * The sentence is question is covered by the citation to Garzke & Dulin. Parsecboy (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Noting that the article has already been amended in line with my understanding of the correct details of the raid, the question remains on the source. Does Garzke & Dulin support this revision? I do not have a copy available and I am not sure if I understand the extent of the answer above. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

 * This [] seems to tell of a far more complex series of operations that day. Irondome (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

 * I tracked down and added the original source [] but based on the new material, I am puzzled. Irondome (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Wouldn't be the first time that a cited source contains an error. Are you saying that you have had sight of Garske and Dulin, or just spotted it in the cross reference to the B17 in Wikipedia? The rest of the original text - mention of B24s seems wrong, as all the early B24s were highly valuable for their long range, and La Rochelle is not much of a long trip. I am researching further, but will take a few days to access good sources.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

 * No, I seem to recall digging it up on Google books. Their work was not previously on WP as far as I could see. But it is nearly 2 years back, and it was probably late at night. I think the authors have just confused the types that made the hits. There is also this [] which is quite explicit as to 90 squadrons' B-17 experiences that day. The B-24 mention I have nothing to do with! I think that was added later by someone else. Even without sources, I knew that was just daft. Irondome (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking at Garzke and Dulin (pg 159) they are both right and wrong: they say that the aircraft were Halifax Bombers, but say they were from several squadrons. I am satisfied from other sources that there were 9 aircraft from 35 squadron and 6 from 76 squadron involved in this raid - so "several" is a bit misleading. I think the other aircraft types that were shown in the article until recently are an example of how someone can sneak in a change that does not match a source - and it just stays there until challenged. I am sure some deep philosophical comment about the way Wikipedia works is appropriate - but fortunately words escape me.

Just spotted that this error arrived on 12 Jan 2011 when a lot of editing was done "outside" of the article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect times in account of Glorious/Ardent/Acasta action
The account of the action with Ardent, Acasta and Glorious seems to have combined times from 2 sources which report this action based on different time zones. The start of the action is listed as 1745 with the initial sighting. The cited source, Garzke & Dulin, gives this time as 1645 and this is confirmed by Koop and Schmolke.

It is accepted that the discrepancy might be, for instance, due to an adjustment by an editor to GMT (or some other time zone). However, the torpedo hit is timed at 1839 in the article, citing Garzke & Dulin, and this matches the source (and also Koop and Schmolke). So if an adjustment to time zone has been made, it has not been done consistently.

It is possible that the confusion on times is the source of the problems with ranges, as shown in the "Confusion" section shown above.

It appears that this part of the article needs to be re-researched and rewritten. (Perhaps also solving the problem that the account is difficult to follow, even with the log transcripts that appear in Koop and Schmolke to assist in comprehension.)

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 * HMS Glorious article has 3:46 PM GMT as time of first spotting and action ending at 6:20 PM GMT with sinking of Acasta. The action desription and times are a bit lacking here vs presentation at the Glorious article.--Denniss (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Air raid on 24 July 1941 (again)
I have made some changes to the details of the air raid at La Pallice on 24 July 1941.

Firstly, Koop and Schmolke are quite definite that the intention was for the Scharnhorst to leave Brest as too many large warships were now concentrated in one port. (Obviously, as events turned out, La Pallice was not sufficiently far away to avoid bombing attacks.) Koop appears to have excellent credentials as a WP:RS.

Secondly, (a) the readily available aerial photograph and (b) the account by RC Rivaz both show/talk about the Scharnhorst lying alongside at La Pallice, rather than being anchored. Neither of these sources are precise about whether the ship was simply alongside on 23 Jun and then went to anchor, or was still moored alongside at the time of the attack. However, if the article uses the word "moored" then the ambiguity of that nautical word solves the problem. All we know for certain is that "anchored" has a good chance of being wrong. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate account of Glorious sinking in Garzke and Dulin?
(see also sections above, titled: Confusion and Incorrect times in account of Glorious/Ardent/Acasta action)

This article relies heavily on Garzke and Dulin for the account of the sinking of Glorious, Ardent and Acasta. Looking at other sources suggests that some of the details in Garzke and Dulin are wrong. Furthermore, Garzke and Dulin's account is relatively short, whereas much more comprehensive information is available elsewhere. At this stage, I have compared information with Koop and Schmolke and an analysis by Captain Vernon W. Howland

Problems with the article/Garzke and Dulin are as follows: (1) Distance at which Scharnhorst sighted Glorious. The article states this was 50km, whilst both Koop and Schmolke and Howland give this as 40km. As a check on this, if you use a height of eye calculator, the maximum distance that the masthead lookout would be able to detect another warship is around 40km. (The Scharnhorst lookout who first sighted Glorious, Midshipman Goos, was in the foretop. I don't have the height of eye for that part of the ship, but scaling off the plans in Koop and Schmolke, the masthead is 41m above the waterline - so giving an absolute maximum height. This gives a horizon distance of 22.9km. Presuming that enough visible superstructure, plus the small amount of smoke from Glorious is of a similar height, then that would be an additional 20km or so. So 40km is around the maximum distance that one could expect the sighting to have occurred. From discussion of the rangefinders in Koop and Schmolke, it would appear that the foretop is actually 35m above the waterline, giving a horizon distance of 21km, so shortening the distance a little. In any case, 50 km is clearly too much.)

(2) The article states that Scharnhorst opened fire first. This is incomplete and ambiguous. The first of the two German ships to open fire was the Gneisenau, using her secondary armament against Ardent. The Scharnhorst used her main armament against Glorious about 4 minutes later.

(3) The article gives the impression that the German ships' radar was useful in overcoming the smokescreens laid by the British ships. At this stage, both the battleships had the FuMO22 radar that had a maximum useful range of between 14 and 18km. Whilst this would have been useful for ranging the Ardent (14.5km opening range), the Glorious was about 26km distant when Scharnhorst opened fire - with critical hits being achieved at not much less distance. The article's comments on radar are misleading by being incomplete.

(4) The article is not clear about when the German ships opened fire - it would be easy to believe from the article that this was a few minutes after the first sighting. Actually, there was a delay of 41 minutes between sighting and the order to open fire.

It appears that other editors on this article have made substantial reliance on Garzke and Dulin, but there is a clear case that this source is not adequate for this section of the article. Before starting a rewrite of the appropriate paragraphs, it seems sensible to see if anyone disputes the account in the two alternative sources given. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Battle of North Cape
It is stated that Scharnhorst got back up from 5 to 22 knots after the damage by the shell that penetrated the boiler room was partially fixed. Then it is stated that it was pulling away from the British forces; which is false. It was pulling away before that shell penetrated, not after. The destroyers wouldn't have been able to catch up if it didn't take that hit. Top speed of Scharnhorst almost 32 knots, top speed of Duke of York about 27 knots. So Scharnhorst wouldn't be pulling away at 22 knots. The information just has to be repositioned. Thanks. Best wishes; David Torre DaveTorre (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Maximum speed in calm waters in peacetime is not the same as maximum speed in gale in December in the Arctic. Parsecboy (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

reasons for Cerberus
I question "....Operation Cerberus, would avoid the increasingly effective Allied radar and patrol aircraft in the Atlantic". My understanding, from a range of sources is that the following dictated the Kriegsmarine thinking: (1)The network of supply ships that were pre-deployed in the Atlantic had been mopped up. (The Germans were unaware that this was largely due to effective signals intelligence by the British.) Operations by the steam turbine powered ships were not practical as they needed to be refuelled for any sortie to be meaningful. (2) The Kriegsmarnie believed that Allied radar was much more effective than it really was - therefore they felt their ships were more easily detected than they had expected. In reality, this detection was largely down to the use of HF/DF which gave accurate fixes of German radio transmissions in a much shorter time than they believed possible. (3) The continuing risk of damage by attacks by the RAF - which was rationalised by the Kriegsmarine as a failure by the Luftwaffe to protect Brest from attack.

Given some time, I could dig out all the sources for this - but my efforts are currently directed at other articles. Furthermore, other editors might have a different slant on this. Hence this note to put this point out for the opinions/efforts of others. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

 * It's been a while since I wrote that, but as I recall, the point of it was not a justification for relocating, but the reason they chose to run through the Channel (rather than return via the Denmark Strait - after what happened with Bismarck). I do think explaining the reasoning behind moving the ships should be added, though. Parsecboy (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 * By the way, I got Koop & Schmolke's book last year, and while it's been on the back burner, I do plan on rewriting all 3 articles to bring them up to snuff for an eventual FAC. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 * I think some of the above "list of reasons" comes from Hellwinkel, Lars. Hitler's Gateway to the Atlantic: German Naval Bases in France 1940-1945 . Seaforth Publishing. For instance (no page number as I've pulled this off a Kindle version) "In a situation report to Hitler one month earlier, Raeder had set out the Skl’s new plans for the operational use of the repaired ships. According to this, the high risk of air attacks made any further stay at Brest undesirable, and after a brief anti-shipping sortie in the North Atlantic the ships would return by the Iceland route." The sort of sources used by Hellwinkel include: " Wagner, Lagevorträge, p. 147 (14.10.1940); Salewski, Seekriegsleitung, vol I, pp.269f and 375ff; Gerhard Bidlingmaier, Einsatz der schweren Kriegsmarineeinheiten im ozeanischen Zufuhrkrieg, Neckargemünd 1963; Gerhard Wagner, ‘Überlegungen der deutschen Marineführung zum Einsatz und Verlust der Schlachtschiffe während des Zweiten Weltkrieges’, in MGM (1/1974)", which you can paste into google translate as well as me, but looks to be a whole new range of German-language sources. (Of course, I apologise if you are fluent in German.)
 * I feel that the reasons for the withdrawal of these ships from Brest is key to the whole history of the German surface fleet and specifically to the Scharnhorst. In short a large amount of resource had been devoted to building, manning and then continually repairing these ships. In military "value for money" terms, they were probably the disaster that Hitler seems to have concluded they were. So the article would be deficient if it did not address whether or not the concept of these ships was (albeit with hindsight) a wise one. Yet the reasons why they were not a viable naval asset are complex and vary depending on the source. For instance the sources used by Hellwinkel are giving a German view from before the revelations of Enigma. It is not for a Wikipedia editor to do the job of a historian: putting this all together. But I think we can fairly identify that having an article that presents the full and correct picture needs sources with an up-to-date and broad overview. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The trouble with pinning down the value issue is the lack of sources that address it and its sheer complexity. Tooze discusses it in Wages of Destruction, but only on the broadest of levels (i.e., the reallocation of precious steel production from the army to Plan Z in 1939 and the severe crimp that put on tanks, ammunition, etc.), so it'd be difficult (and probably WP:SYNTHy) to try to draw a comparison for individual ships. It also brings into question the wisdom of building (or planning to build) dozens of oil-fueled ships without sufficient access to the oil itself, something I raised in the Plan Z article. It definitely should be addressed in the Kriegsmarine article as well, but I do wonder if these things should really be covered in individual ship articles. It would open a large can of worms I don't know we'd want to mess with (the criticism would apply to most other navies as well - how much better off would the French Army have been in 1914 if the resources that had been allocated to the Mediterranean Fleet, which spent most of the war sitting idly at anchor, been used for more artillery, for instance?) There are also questions of hindsight bias to deal with - for example, sure, we know now that the Japanese never had a hope of defeating the US, but it wasn't so clear in 1937 when they started on the Yamatos. Parsecboy (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 * On a related note - an article on the Operation Salvage operations that found the German supply ships would be nice. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea - I know Nick-D has been working on related articles lately (like Operation Berlin (Atlantic) and Operation Nordseetour), maybe he'd be interested in working on it. Parsecboy (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I get the point about 20/20 hindsight. However, the article could (?should) make clear the bad position that the Kriegsmarine surface fleet was in, just before Cerberus - because this is not necessarily clear to the general reader. If all the article seems to say is that the three ships were moved back to Germany, that is very different to German admirals deciding that they had to move the ships away from Brest, together with a realisation that Atlantic sorties were simply too risky. Looking at sources to hand, p 145-146 of Garzke and Dulin states that (a) all 3 ships would have to refuel if going back to Germany via either northern route, (b) almost all supply ships had been lost (c) "British air raids were increasing in severity and intensity". Koop and Schmolke (pg 111) make clear that the risk of air attack and the abandonment of plans for another Atlantic sortie (following the loss of Bismarck) left no alternative but to "evacuate" the three ships. Hellwinkel gives the useful summary that "This meant that all three major warships at Brest were now non-operational. The anti-shipping war with heavy units planned by the Skl had thus come to nothing because they had no more major warships to send out. The heavy cruiser Lützow had been torpedoed and seriously damaged by a British submarine whilst attempting to break out into the North Atlantic on 13 June 1941 and the heavy cruisers Admiral Hipper and Admiral Scheer were both being overhauled in the yards. The new battleship Tirpitz was still working up. Hellwinkel also mentions the rolling up of the supply ship network. Frustratingly, I seem to have mislaid my paper copy of Hellwinkel (building work, everything has been in boxes) so cannot give you a page number on this - it is towards the end of chapter 2. I have therefore reinstated the "strategic summary" at the end of the section before Operation Cerberus, with the reference - though I think one could verify all the facts from other sources. Not the end of the world if you don't feel the reinstated (and slightly expanded) paragraph has a place in the article - but I think we need something that gives a clue to the reader that the Kriegsmarine surface fleet was in a bad way at that point.

To address the "single ship article" point - it is the damage to Scharnhorst at La Pallice that was the "last straw" in the whole matter - hence why the overall strategic position being relevant in this article. Where else would the general reader gain this information?

The (hindsight) wisdom of turbine powered battleships compared to the fuel efficient diesel ships is briefly mentioned by Koop and Schmolke in their closing remarks - p164 - doesn't really say more than that. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you on any of that, adding context is generally never a bad thing. No rush on getting a page number for Hellwinkel, I won't likely have the time to get started on overhauling the article for a while (work has been a bear lately - we're significantly understaffed, so everyone is covering extra responsibilities, and the work of reading sources and rewriting existing content is one of the last things I want to do after killing myself at work ;-) Parsecboy (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue over whether the surface fleet was a good use of production resources is possibly most relevant at the level of the U-boat versus surface ship debate. This was not only about the effort and resource of building and manning each type, but also about the necessary maintenance. Hellwinkel's work makes clear that a limiting factor for the U-boat war was how quickly U-boats could be handled in the Atlantic coast dockyards. Germany was desperately short of skilled dockyard workers - and the battery design of U-boats required a higher level of routine maintenance than with their Allied counterparts. Not a point to go into in this article, but something for Wikipedia to cover somewhere. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That illustrates how complex the question of resource allocation is - having more U-boats would just exacerbate the shortage of dockyard workers, right? Even assuming that extra boats would allow crews to rotate between them, this would eventually lead to degradation in their performance and increased attrition as the men wear out. One can't perform high-stress tasks like that indefinitely. Parsecboy (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a thought, but one Scharnhorst, at 1,669 crew equals 32 type VII U-boats (52 crew). Retraining needed, of course, but many of the surface vessel crews did end up on U-boats over the course of the war. (Perhaps some of them were the survivor POWs who claimed they had been sent below decks at gunpoint at the start of their last trip.) Meanwhile the UK was worrying that too many men were in uniform and not enough in the mines and factories. Resource management had a big effect on progress of the war, if not on the final outcome. Consider the difficult to manufacture and somewhat unreliable Tiger tank which was built in modest quantities versus the inferior Sherman, built in massive quantities (similar for the better-performing T-34). I'm not aware of an RS that brings all this high-level strategic stuff together.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

chaff / Düppel used during operation Cerberus ?
i don't have a Garzke & Dulin at hand, could somebody check page 146 ? In Martin Middlebrooks 'Hamburg 1943' on p.69-70 ( German lang ) there are some details about the window / Düppel developments by Germany, and it says there that the Germans knew the principle of chaff, and out of fear maybe the British learned about it and use it against the german air defensive, it was forbidden in the Luftwaffe to even talk about it. So it is doubtfull they would use consider to use it themselves first. Also, I don't find any other source stating that Germans possessed chaff for use in 1942, the Düppel research was mid 1942. Nor did I find any other source mentioning chaff in operation Cerberus. Klutserke (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Germans used electronic radio jamming, not Duppel. It was absolutely forbidden to use Duppel under any circumstances in case the British found out about it. (They didn't know, of course, that the British had already discovered it.) Khamba Tendal (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * On p146 indeed Garzke & Dulin mention German airplanes used chaff, but that must be a mistake. I found another source ( Jones, R. V. (1978). Most Secret War: British Scientific Intelligence 1939–1945, page 383 ) which confirms Germans did not use chaff in 1942, with Göring even explicitly forbidding to discuss its existence.  Klutserke (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Inaccuracy with armor should be 320mm not 350mm
This affects both Scharnhorst’s page and the Page for the class.

The main belt is listed as 350mm, and to my knowledge this number originated from Janes, wich is known to have accuracy issues. It also partly originated from Gröner.

The proper thickness should be 320mm sourced from:

RM 25/15783 (Original Ship plans for Gneisenau) (using the given scale guide of 1:25) from 1938/39 plus others in the set.

RM 25/6319 shows it even better & straight up mentions the 320mm belt.

ONI lists it as 320mm (12.6in)

Gröner lists it as being 350mm, but this was most likely having very early 1936 plans.

Primary documents such as those shown in the Bundesarchiv should have president over secondary sources. Multiple other authors list it as 320mm (IE Whitley). if it says 340, it most likely is including the 20mm backing plate (cba to look up anymore information)

credits out to those who did the research for this on another area of the internet. I borrowed it. 166.181.85.49 (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Another note is eventually to add that the armor belt tapered. 166.181.85.49 (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Citing primary sources is generally not acceptable. You need to provide specific citations (i.e., including page numbers) in the article if you want to change the figures. Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:German battleship Scharnhorst


text:
Luneburg lens

A Luneburg lens (original German Lüneburg lens) is a spherically symmetric gradient-index lens. A typical Luneburg lens's refractive index n decreases radially from the center to the outer surface. They can be made for use with electromagnetic radiation from visible light to radio waves.

For certain index profiles, the lens will form perfect geometrical images of two given concentric spheres onto each other. There are an infinite number of refractive-index profiles that can produce this effect. The simplest such solution was proposed by Rudolf Luneburg in 1944. Luneburg's solution for the refractive index creates two conjugate foci outside the lens. The solution takes a simple and explicit form if one focal point lies at infinity, and the other on the opposite surface of the lens. J. Brown and A. S. Gutman subsequently proposed solutions which generate one internal focal point and one external focal point. These solutions are not unique; the set of solutions are defined by a set of definite integrals which must be evaluated numerically.

Luneburg's solution
Each point on the surface of an ideal Luneburg lens is the focal point for parallel radiation incident on the opposite side. Ideally, the dielectric constant $$\epsilon_r$$ of the material composing the lens falls from 2 at its center to 1 at its surface (or equivalently, the refractive index $$n$$ falls from $$\sqrt{2}$$ to 1), according to

 * $$n = \sqrt{\epsilon_r} = \sqrt{2 - \left( \frac{r}{R} \right)^2},$$

where $$R$$ is the radius of the lens. Because the refractive index at the surface is the same as that of the surrounding medium, no reflection occurs at the surface. Within the lens, the paths of the rays are arcs of ellipses.

Maxwell's fish-eye lens
Maxwell's fish-eye lens is also an example of the generalized Luneburg lens. The fish-eye, which was first fully described by Maxwell in 1854 (and therefore pre-dates Luneburg's solution), has a refractive index varying according to

 * $$n(r) = \sqrt{\epsilon_r} = \frac{n_0}{1 + \left( \frac{r}{R} \right)^2},$$

where $$n_0$$ is the index of refraction at the center of the lens and $$R$$ is the radius of the lens's spherical surface. The index of refraction at the lens's surface is $$n_0/2$$. The lens images each point on the spherical surface to the opposite point on the surface. Within the lens, the paths of the rays are arcs of circles.

Publication and attribution
The properties of this lens are described in one of a number of set problems or puzzles in the 1853 Cambridge and Dublin Mathematical Journal. The challenge is to find the refractive index as a function of radius, given that a ray describes a circular path, and further to prove the focusing properties of the lens. The solution is given in the 1854 edition of the same journal. The problems and solutions were originally published anonymously, but the solution of this problem (and one other) were included in Niven's The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell, which was published 11 years after Maxwell's death.

Applications
In practice, Luneburg lenses are normally layered structures of discrete concentric shells, each of a different refractive index. These shells form a stepped refractive index profile that differs slightly from Luneburg's solution. This kind of lens is usually employed for microwave frequencies, especially to construct efficient microwave antennas and radar calibration standards. Cylindrical analogues of the Luneburg lens are also used for collimating light from laser diodes.

Radar reflector
A radar reflector can be made from a Luneburg lens by metallizing parts of its surface. Radiation from a distant radar transmitter is focussed onto the underside of the metallization on the opposite side of the lens; here it is reflected, and focussed back onto the radar station. A difficulty with this scheme is that metallized regions block the entry or exit of radiation on that part of the lens, but the non-metallized regions result in a blind-spot on the opposite side.

Removable Luneburg lens type radar reflectors are sometimes attached to military aircraft in order to make stealth aircraft visible during training operations, or to conceal their true radar signature. Unlike other types of radar reflectors, their shape doesn't affect the handling of the aircraft.

Microwave antenna
A Luneburg lens can be used as the basis of a high-gain radio antenna. This antenna is comparable to a dish antenna, but uses the lens rather than a parabolic reflector as the main focusing element. As with the dish antenna, a feed to the receiver or from the transmitter is placed at the focus, the feed typically consisting of a horn antenna. The phase centre of the feed horn must coincide with the point of focus, but since the phase centre is invariably somewhat inside the mouth of the horn, it cannot be brought right up against the surface of the lens. Consequently it is necessary to use a variety of Luneburg lens that focusses somewhat beyond its surface, rather than the classic lens with the focus lying on the surface.

A Luneburg lens antenna offers a number of advantages over a parabolic dish. Because the lens is spherically symmetric, the antenna can be steered by moving the feed around the lens, without having to bodily rotate the whole antenna. Again, because the lens is spherically symmetric, a single lens can be used with several feeds looking in widely different directions. In contrast, if multiple feeds are used with a parabolic reflector, all must be within a small angle of the optical axis to avoid suffering coma (a form of de-focussing). Apart from offset systems, dish antennas suffer from the feed and its supporting structure partially obscuring the main element (aperture blockage); in common with other refracting systems, the Luneburg lens antenna avoids this problem.

A variation on the Luneburg lens antenna is the hemispherical Luneburg lens antenna or Luneburg reflector antenna. This uses just one hemisphere of a Luneburg lens, with the cut surface of the sphere resting on a reflecting metal ground plane. The arrangement halves the weight of the lens, and the ground plane provides a convenient means of support. However, the feed does partially obscure the lens when the angle of incidence on the reflector is less than about 45°.

Path of a ray within the lens
For any spherically symmetric lens, each ray lies entirely in a plane passing through the centre of the lens. The initial direction of the ray defines a line which together with the centre-point of the lens identifies a plane bisecting the lens. Being a plane of symmetry of the lens, the gradient of the refractive index has no component perpendicular to this plane to cause the ray to deviate either to one side of it or the other. In the plane, the circular symmetry of the system makes it convenient to use polar coordinates $$(r, \theta)$$ to describe the ray's trajectory.

Given any two points on a ray (such as the point of entry and exit from the lens), Fermat's principle asserts that the path that the ray takes between them is that which it can traverse in the least possible time. Given that the speed of light at any point in the lens is inversely proportional to the refractive index, and by Pythagoras, the time of transit between two points $$(r_1, \theta_1)$$ and $$(r_2, \theta_2)$$ is

 * $$T = \int _{(r_1, \theta_1)}^{(r_2, \theta_2)} \frac{n(r)}{c} \sqrt{(r \,d\theta)^2 + d r^2} = \frac{1}{c} \int _{\theta_1}^{\theta_2} n(r) \sqrt{r^2 + \left( \frac{d r}{d \theta}\right)^2} \,d\theta,$$

where $$c$$ is the speed of light in vacuum. Minimizing this $$T$$ yields a second-order differential equation determining the dependence of $$r$$ on $$\theta$$ along the path of the ray. This type of minimization problem has been extensively studied in Lagrangian mechanics, and a ready-made solution exists in the form of the Beltrami identity, which immediately supplies the first integral of this second-order equation. Substituting $$L(r, r') = n(r) \sqrt{r'^2 + r^2}$$ (where $$r'$$ represents $$\tfrac{d r}{d \theta}$$), into this identity gives

 * $$n(r) \sqrt{r'^2 + r^2} - n(r) \frac{r'^2}{\sqrt{r'^2 + r^2}} = h,$$

where $$h$$ is a constant of integration. This first-order differential equation is separable, that is it can be re-arranged so that $$r$$ only appears on one side, and $$\theta$$ only on the other:

 * $$d \theta = \frac{h}{r \sqrt{\big(n(r)\big)^2 r^2 - h^2}} \,dr.$$

The parameter $$h$$ is a constant for any given ray, but differs between rays passing at different distances from the centre of the lens. For rays passing through the centre, it is zero. In some special cases, such as for Maxwell's fish-eye, this first order equation can be further integrated to give a formula for $$\theta$$ as a function of $$r$$. In general it provides the relative rates of change of $$\theta$$ and $$r$$, which may be integrated numerically to follow the path of the ray through the lens.

title: Luneburg lens


text:
Bill Baxter (Victorian politician)

William Robert Baxter (born 3 November 1946) is a former Australian politician and a former Victorian State President of The Nationals. He was the Nationals member of the Victorian Legislative Council representing North Eastern Province from June 1978 until November 2006 (excepting a four-month break in 1984–85). He also served one term in the Victorian Legislative Assembly from 1973 to 1976.

Early life
Baxter was born and raised in the Nathalia area. He started high school in Nathalia, but completed his secondary schooling at the prestigious Scotch College, Melbourne, where he was a boarder in School House. He then returned to his family property at Picola, near Nathalia, and began working as a farmer and grazier. Around the same time, he began to pursue an interest in politics.

Political career
In 1966, at the age of only twenty, he became the secretary of his local Country Party branch, and a delegate to the party conference. At the 1969 federal election, he was campaign director in Deputy Prime Minister Sir John McEwen's seat of Murray.

Baxter was elected to the Nathalia Shire Council in 1970, and in 1973 became the Shire President. In the same year, he stood as the National Party candidate for the relatively safe Legislative Assembly seat of Murray Valley, replacing the retiring member George Moss. Having been easily elected, he juggled the two commitments until 1975, when he ceased to be Shire President, although he remained on the council. Throughout this term, Baxter also served on the parliamentary Road Safety Committee. In the lead-up to the 1976 state election, the Murray Valley electorate underwent major boundary changes, and as a result, Baxter chose to contest the adjacent seat of Benambra. Baxter polled the most primary votes, but although it had been a National Party seat since 1932, Benambra fell to Lou Lieberman of the rival conservative Liberal Party on preferences.

After losing his seat in the Legislative Assembly, Baxter made a comeback in 1978, when he switched to the Legislative Council and successfully contested a by-election in the safe National Party seat of North Eastern Province. He received his first parliamentary position the following year, when he was appointed as Deputy Leader of the National Party in the Legislative Council and Party Whip. He was again returned in a regular election the following year. After the election, he nominated for a position on the Public Works Committee, and served there until 1982, when he switched to the Natural Resources and Environment Committee.

In 1984, Baxter resigned from the Legislative Council to contest the federal seat of Indi, challenging sitting Liberal member Ewen Cameron. The bid was unsuccessful, as Baxter came third behind Cameron and the ALP candidate, and Cameron was easily re-elected on Baxter's preferences. Baxter subsequently contested the by-election for his old seat in February 1985, and was once again elected to the Legislative Council. Over the next three years, he served on three more committees, responsible for Economic and Budget Review, WorkCare and Social Development.

Baxter retained his previous portfolios after being re-elected in 1985, and received another promotion in 1988, when he became Leader of the National Party in the Legislative Council. In 1990, he was made Shadow Minister for Roads and Ports as part of the Liberal-National coalition opposition. Two years later, Jeff Kennett led the coalition to an election victory, and Baxter became Minister for Roads and Ports in the new government. However, the 1996 election saw a changed ratio between the two parties, and the National Party lost one of its portfolios to the Liberals. As a result, Baxter returned to the backbenches, and instead took up a position as Chairman of the Parliament House Completion Authority, which oversaw the renovation of Parliament House in order to comply with the original architectural designs.

The coalition between the Liberal and National parties again fractured after the Kennett government suffered a surprise defeat at the 1999 election. This meant that a range of new portfolios had to be filled, in order to cover all the areas that had previously been overseen by members of the larger Liberal Party. When these were allocated after the 2002 election, Baxter once again was in line for promotion, obtaining the high-profile portfolios of the treasury, finance, industry, industrial relations and the financial services industry. In addition, he was also a member of the Legislative Council Privileges and Public Accounts and Estimates Committees.

Baxter was an active member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for many years, having served on its executive committee and attended numerous conferences, going back as far as 1980. In September 2002, he made a bid for the position of executive committee chairman, but was defeated by Canada's Bob Speller.

As a result of reforms to the Legislative Council made after the 2002 election, Baxter's two-member electorate was abolished and replaced with a larger, five-member electorate. After fellow incumbent Damian Drum won the first spot on the National Party ticket, Baxter decided to transfer back to the Legislative Assembly, and he hoped to regain the seat of Benambra for the Nationals at the upcoming 2006 election. He polled third behind Bill Tilley of the Liberal Party and Labor candidate Lisa Mahood.

In early 2007 Baxter became the Victorian State President of The Nationals after the resignation of John Tanner, who became Federal President. After retiring from the presidency in 2009, Baxter was awarded life membership of the Victorian National Party.

In 2018, Baxter was inducted as a Member of the Order of Australia for services to the Victorian Parliament.

title: Bill Baxter (Victorian politician)


text:
User talk:BigO

http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~ellard/Q-97/HTML/root/node8.html http://www.cis.strath.ac.uk/~mdd/teaching/alg&comp/big_oh.html http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~hasti/cs367-common/notes/COMPLEXITY.html http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2003-April/158758.html http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2003-April/158517.html - rohan

title: User talk:BigO