text:
Aérospatiale Alouette II

The Aérospatiale Alouette II (, "lark"; company designations SE 313 and SA 318) is a French light helicopter originally manufactured by Sud Aviation and later Aérospatiale. It was the first production helicopter powered by a gas turbine engine instead of the heavier conventional piston powerplant.

On 12 March 1955, the prototype SE 3130 performed its maiden flight. The Alouette II was a widely used type and popular with operators, with over 1,300 rotorcraft eventually being constructed between 1956 and 1975. The type was predominantly used for military purposes in observation, photography, air-sea rescue, liaison and training, but it has also carried anti-tank missiles and homing torpedoes. As a civilian helicopter, the Alouette II has been used for casualty evacuation (with two external stretcher panniers), crop-spraying and as a flying crane, with a 500 kg external underslung load.

A high-altitude derivative, the SA 315B Lama, was developed and entered operational service in July 1971. The Alouette II also was further developed into the larger and more powerful Alouette III. In 1975, production of the type was terminated, having been effectively succeeded by these newer rotorcraft. Despite it being long out of production, considerable numbers of Alouette II were still in service at the start of the 21st century.

Development
Although Sud-Est's previous helicopter design, the SE 3120 Alouette, broke helicopter speed and distance records in July 1953, it was too complex an aircraft to market successfully. With the records falling, the French government started showing interest, but with their financial backing, the state gave an ultimatum that within two years a helicopter had to be in production, otherwise all rotary wing activities would cease. SNCASE came up with seven helicopter designs powered by turboshaft engines: X.310A – X.310G. Earlier Joseph Szydlowski, the founder of Turbomeca, had successfully managed to develop the Artouste, a 260 hp single shaft turbine engine derived from his Orédon turbine. The X.310G design was chosen and, together with an improved version of the Artouste engine, was fast-tracked towards production as the SE 3130 Alouette II.

On 12 March 1955, the prototype SE 3130 performed its maiden flight; within three months, on 6 June, a pre-production Alouette II, flown by Jean Boulet, established a new helicopter altitude record of 8,209 m.   According to the manufacturer, such early demonstrations of the Alouette II had served to promote the performance and advantages of turbine helicopters over their piston-engined counterparts.

In April 1956, the first production Alouette II was completed, making it the first production turbine-powered helicopter in the world. Upon completion, several of the initial production models were dispatched for a series of evaluation flights in the Alps. On 13 June 1958, a single SE 3130, again flown by Boulet, re-took the altitude record, reaching a height of 10,984 m (36,027 ft). In 1964, a new version of the Alouette II was introduced, the SA 3180 Alouette II Astazou (originally called "Alouette Astazou"), using the Turbomeca Astazou IIA engine in place of the Artouste II. In 1975, production of the Alouette II ended after more than 1,300 had been built; in 1969, a new high-altitude variant, the Aérospatiale SA 315B Lama had been developed to replace it in this niche capacity. A slightly larger and more powerful helicopter in the form of the Aérospatiale Alouette III has also entered production, which had negatively impacted upon the demand for the older II model.

Design
The Aérospatiale Alouette II is a French light helicopter, incorporating many innovations of its time. It was powered by a single Turbomeca Artouste II turboshaft engine capable of generating a maximum output of 400 hp. The speed of the main rotor is controlled by an automated fuel supply governor, eliminating the necessity of a twist-grip throttle and a conventional link between the throttle and the collective-pitch. Instead, the Alouette II uses a simple control lever arrangement, which acts to directly regulate the collective-pitch and actuate the governor while immediately and automatically applying the correct level of power to conform with flight condition. Without a clutch, the transmission is considerably simplified in both design and maintenance aspects.

Despite being a light helicopter, the Alouette II possesses a reasonable lift capacity and can carry underslung loads on an external sling; during one high-profile public demonstration, one helicopter was able to air-lift a compact Citroen truck weighing in excess of half a ton without visible difficulty. While flying at sea level, the Alouette II uses only 300 of the powerplant's available 400 hp; accordingly, performance can be maintained while operated at a high altitude and within tropical conditions where the additional power would come into play. It was capable of flying at altitudes of up to 2,286 meters above sea level while possessing an average climb rate of 250 meters per minute and a typical maximum range of 563 miles. Various alternative landing gear configurations could be fitted, including skids, wheels, or pontoons.

The Alouette II is capable of accommodating a seating arrangement for up to five personnel, including the pilot; access to the cabin was provided via a pair of side-hinged doors. The compact cockpit was provided with a dome-shaped windscreen which provided for excellent levels of external visibility. The Alouette II also made innovative use of armaments. It was the first helicopter worldwide to be equipped with anti-tank munitions in the form of the SS.11 MCLOS wire-guided anti-tank missile. In addition to anti-tank missiles, the French Army chose to arm their Alouette IIs with machine guns, while the French Navy outfitted theirs with aerial torpedoes to conduct anti-submarine warfare (ASW) duties.

Under operational conditions, the Alouette II often proved to be a relatively maintenance-intensive rotorcraft. It required a high level of regular lubrication, the main rotorhead alone featuring 20 grease nipples that had to be re-lubricated after every five flight hours, while the drive shaft for the tail rotor was similarly demanding. Due to its high susceptibility to dust ingestion, some operators would have to remove the Alouette's rectangular sand filters after every landing in order to clean them.

Operational history

On 3 July 1956, prior to even entering civil service, the Alouette II was responsible for breaking new ground when it became the first helicopter to perform a mountain rescue mission, having been deployed to evacuate a mountaineer who had suffered from cardiac arrest at over 4,000 m. On 3 January 1957, the Alouette II was called upon again in order to rescue the crew of a crashed Sikorsky S-58, which had been searching for missing mountaineers Jean Vincendon and François Henry on Mont Blanc.

On 2 May 1957, following a series of airborne trials, the Alouette II was awarded a French domestic certificate of airworthiness, which cleared the type to enter service with civil operators. Initial production was allocated to fulfil those orders placed by the French military, as well as by civilian customers. During 1957, the first deliveries of the Alouette II were made to the French Army. Shortly thereafter, large-scale orders for the type were received from several foreign nations, including the United Kingdom, Federal Republic of Germany, and Austria.

Almost immediately upon entering service, French forces commenced active combat operations using their fledgling Alouette II fleet; the type being placed into heavy use in the Algerian War, during which it made valuable contributions to France's activities in the theatre. When used as a troop-transport, up to four fully equipped soldiers could be airlifted at a time. Additionally, a number of Alouette IIs were modified to become what has been argued by some to have been the world's first helicopter gunships; in this capacity, it would have been typically armed with Nord Aviation-built SS.10 or SS.11 anti-tank missiles.

The nation of Rhodesia emerged as a prolific user of both the Alouette II and its enlarged sibling, the Alouette III. Early operations were flown with an emphasis on its use by the Army and British South Africa Police, including paramilitary and aerial reconnaissance operations. Throughout the 1960s, the type progressively spread into additional roles, including aerial supply, casualty evacuation, communications relays, and troop-transports. Rhodesian aerial operations would typically involve flying under relatively high and hot conditions, which reduced the efficiency of aircraft in general; however, the Alouette II proved to be both hardy and relatively resistant to battle damage. In order to extend the inadequate range of the type, fuel caches were strategically deployed across the country to be used for refuelling purposes.

In order to improve performance, Rhodesia's Alouette II fleet was subject to extensive modifications, including changes to their refuelling apparatus, gun sights, cabin fittings, armouring, and armaments. Over time, the Rhodesian Security Forces developed an innovative deployment tactic of rapidly encircling and enveloping enemies, known as the Fireforce, for which the Alouette II served as a core component. The quick-reaction Fireforce battalions were centred at Centenary and Mount Darwin; emphasis was placed on locating both rotorcraft and troops as close to a current or anticipated theatre of operations as would be feasibly possible.

By 1975, at which point production of the type was terminated, in excess of 1,300 Alouette IIs had been constructed. The rotorcraft was also in use in over 80 countries, including 47 separate armed forces. The Alouette II was produced and sold under licence by Brazil, Sweden, India and in the United States. While succeeded in some respects by the SA 315B Lama, which was itself a derivative of the Alouette II; the French Army ultimately replaced their Alouette II fleet with a newly developed observation and reconnaissance helicopter in the form of the Aérospatiale AS350 Écureuil.

During July 2018, a single Alouette II was involved in the helicopter prison escape of the French gangster Rédoine Faïd. The rotorcraft, which had been hijacked by gang members who held the pilot hostage at gunpoint, flew into the courtyard of Réau prison, before flying to Roissy in the north-eastern suburbs of Paris; the event allegedly occurred in under ten minutes from take-off to escape.

Variants

 * SE 3130 Alouette II – Initial version powered by Turbomeca Artouste II series engine rated at 400 hp for takeoff, with maximum weight of 3300 lb.
 * SE 313B Alouette II – Version of SE 3130 powered by Turbomeca Artouste IIC5 or IIC6 engine rated at 400 hp for takeoff, with maximum weight raised to 3500 lb.
 * SE 3131 Gouverneur – Refined executive version with enclosed tailboom, which was abandoned in favour of the Alouette III.
 * SE 3140 Alouette II – Proposed version, it was going to be powered by a 298 kW (400 hp) Turbomeca Turmo II engine. None were built.
 * HKP 2 Alouette II – Swedish licence version of the SE 3130
 * SA 3180 Alouette II Astazou – Version powered by Turbomeca Astazou IIA or IIA2 engine rated at 390 kW for takeoff and 353 kW continuous, but restricted to 400 hp by rotor transmission limitations, with maximum weight of 1500 kg.
 * SA 318B Alouette II Astazou – Version of SA 3180 with maximum weight raised to 1600 kg.
 * SA 318C Alouette II Astazou – Version of SA 3180 with maximum weight raised to 1650 kg
 * SA 315B Lama – designed to meet an Indian armed forces requirement for operation in "hot and high" conditions; it combined the Artouste powerplant and rotor system of the Alouette III with a reinforced Alouette II airframe.
 * Republic Lark: Proposed production in the United States by Republic Aircraft, powered by a 600 shp AiResearch TSE-331-7 turboshaft.

Operators

 * Tunisian Air Force
 * Tunisian Air Force

 * General Directorate of Security
 * General Directorate of Security

Former operators

 * Austrian Air Force
 * Belgian Army
 * Gendarmerie
 * Military of Benin
 * Brazilian Air Force
 * Biafra
 * Biafran armed forces
 * Royal Cambodian Air Force
 * Biafra
 * Biafran armed forces
 * Royal Cambodian Air Force
 * Royal Cambodian Air Force
 * Cameroon Air Force
 * Central African Republic Air Force
 * Congolese Air Force
 * Djibouti Air Force
 * Dominican Air Force
 * French Air Force
 * French Army
 * French Navy
 * Gendarmerie Nationale
 * Securite Civile
 * French Air Force
 * French Army
 * French Navy
 * Gendarmerie Nationale
 * Securite Civile
 * German Army
 * German Federal Police
 * German Air Force
 * Guinea-Bissau Air Force
 * Indonesian Army
 * Indonesian Navy
 * Israeli Air Force
 * Ivory Coast Air Force
 * Katanga
 * Katangese Air Force
 * Khmer Republic
 * Khmer Air Force
 * Laos
 * Katanga
 * Katangese Air Force
 * Khmer Republic
 * Khmer Air Force
 * Laos
 * Royal Lao Air Force
 * Lebanese Air Force
 * Malagasy Air Force
 * Mexican Navy
 * Netherlands Air Force
 * Peruvian Army
 * Portuguese Air Force
 * National Republican Guard
 * Rhodesia:
 * Rhodesian Air Force
 * Romanian Air Force
 * Senegalese Air Force
 * Portuguese Air Force
 * National Republican Guard
 * Rhodesia:
 * Rhodesian Air Force
 * Romanian Air Force
 * Senegalese Air Force
 * Senegalese Air Force
 * Senegalese Air Force
 * 🇿🇦 South Africa
 * South African Air Force
 * Spanish National Police
 * Swedish Air Force
 * Swedish Army
 * Swiss Air Force
 * Gendarmerie General Command
 * Turkish Air Force
 * Army Air Corps
 * Air Force of Zimbabwe
 * Gendarmerie General Command
 * Turkish Air Force
 * Army Air Corps
 * Air Force of Zimbabwe
 * Air Force of Zimbabwe
 * Air Force of Zimbabwe

title: Aérospatiale Alouette II


text: User talk:64.12.116.130

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

title: User talk:64.12.116.130


text:
Talk:Biophysics

Older comments
An amateur, I'm wondering why there's no mention here of D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson. --Wetman 12:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Also Erwin Schrödinger and What is Life?. Much of the history could be better covered. WebDrake 18:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

--- The categories are too broad. Phlebas 20:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Medical Imaging (CT, MRI, PET) and their effect on biophysics in general? I am more than willing to write this section if everyone can agree on this including this point of interest. Furthermore, I consider Felix Bloch a biophysicist more than a physicist because of his work specifically in MRI and NMR. Cocoapunk 4:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a separate article on Medical Imaging, which seems to need improvement, though it's not a barren as this one. DGG 04:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

reynolds number
will someone please explain the connection between Reynolds number and molecular scale? And between traditional biology and statistical ensemble experimentation in biology? To me, as a molecular biologist ,it would seem you mean cell biology and molecular biology, but the examples are very unclear.

 * where is the part on reynolds number in the article? cant find anything on that there now. I am also a bit baffled at the statement of ensembles. Benkeboy (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It is probably not a very good idea to include cryptic sentences like those in a general page for a subject. The definition in the first section is clear, but there's a rather large jump to this. Are you trying to say that biophysics studies macromolecules at the scale that statistical mechanics is relevant? If you mean this, then say it, properly, at length, in a section.

Except for certain types of indexing, biophysics rarely deals with "individual molecules" in the literal sense.
 * but it does not mean that "individual molecules" can be studied as part of biophysics. Benkeboy (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Work with individual molecules is very much a part of biophysics research. Single-molecule imaging and manipulation are among the most active topics in biophysics. --chodges (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Famous biophysicists
Also, what is the distinction between a famous biophysicist and a merely notable one? DGG
 * should the section on famous biophysicists be omitted althogether? How would you measure the fame of a biophysicist? Benkeboy (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would support this, and rather stick to the topics and methods, many of which have their own articles where the relevant people are mentioned. -- Mietchen (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this list may be out of place here. If plain deletion may be controversial, probably the list can be moved to an independent article Famous biophysicists. Anyhow an objective criteria must be defined to include a name in such list. I propose that this criteria may be based on well recognised prizes and minimum publication influence. Eventually other softer criteria may be used for notable researchers, like being appointed head of department on a well ranked university, a smaller h-index, nominations to prices or other public recognition.Godot (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Introductory phrase
I think the current phrase Biophysics (also biological physics) is an interdisciplinary science that applies the theories and methods of the physical sciences to questions of biology. is too rough a description, as it suggests one-way traffic, whereas the development of theories and methods (and thus the enrichment of the methodological arsenal) to investigate biological phenomena is an important part of the story.

My suggestion was Biophysics (also biological physics) is an interdisciplinary science in which theories and methods of the physical sciences are used to investigate biological systems at all levels of organisation, or being developed to this end. which is indeed less digestible, as argued by Chodges who reverted it. To keep things simple, I would agree on dropping the levels of organisation (but still think they should appear somewhere else in the article).

So what about Biophysics (also biological physics) is an interdisciplinary science that employs and develops theories and methods of the physical sciences for the investigation of biological systems. ? -- Mietchen (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Just so I understand, your complaint is that you say the prior introductory sentence implies that biophysics doesn't develop its own theories and methods? Are you equally worried with Physical chemistry, whose introductory sentence is currently:
 * "Physical chemistry is the application of physics to macroscopic, microscopic, atomic, subatomic, and particulate phenomena in chemical systems [...]"
 * I think this change is mostly silly and results in a less digestible first sentence. I still like the original better. --chodges (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I am not talking about the sentence implying that biophysics "doesn't develop its own theories and methods". What I would like to emphasize, though, is that the application of existing physics to biological problems often leads to further development of the "parenting" physical concepts and methods. This feedback aspect can easily get lost in wordings like "applies", even though the more general phrasing in Physical chemistry somewhat mediates the effect. For ease of digestion, we could perhaps drop the "interdisciplinary science", as this is probably true for most fields of research anyway. So what about "Biophysics (also biological physics) employs and develops theories and methods of the physical sciences for the investigation of biological systems"? -- Mietchen (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree more with Mietchen's sentence, "Biophysics (also biological physics) employs and develops theories and methods of the physical sciences for the investigation of biological systems", rather than it stands, but in general, I am not that happy with biophysics being defined as physical sciences applying to biological systems. Traditionally, I would consider biophysics arising from considering biological problems through the study of forces, and most of physics is exploring forces. This is a particularly molecular motor definition, ie, single molecule measurement, and might not immediately define single molecule fluorescence work, or cell biophysics or things like that, but I think applying the physical sciences is too broad. It includes, maths, engineering, physics, etc, but we are talking ultimately about bioPHYSICS.

 * The American Biophysical Society defines biophysics as: "Biophysics is that branch of knowledge that applies the principles of physics and chemistry and the methods of mathematical analysis and computer modeling to understand how biological systems work.". Can we not use that, and source it as an external link? That is two good things? I would go with "Biophysics is the application of the principles of physics to understand biological systems".

 * Incidentally, I think the numbers of famous and notable physicists need to be severely culled, they take up too much of the article. Phatmattbaker (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

 * and, the source of that intro above, comes from the "careers in biophysics" brochure, which states: "Biophysicists use the methods of

mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology to study how living organisms work", which I think is terrible, so I'm arguing rewriting a bad sentence, into a complicated bad sentence, isn't the way forward. Admittedly the problem is that biophysics isn't well defined, but I think we should go with "...uses the principles of physics...". I'll change it tomorrow if no-one discusses further and you can revert it if you like. Phatmattbaker (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Given examples are biased?
In one of the introductory paragraphs, the following sentence appears:
 * "Studies included under the umbrella of biophysics span all levels of biological organisation and range from molecular modeling and sequence analysis to neural networks to systems ecology."

From my perspective, these are all computational or theoretical topics. I am inclined to either remove this list, or repopulate it with some experimental methods as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.182.6 (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Topics in biophysics
The list of "Topics in biophysics" doesn't look nice. Can these topics be structured in some kink of hierarchy, sub-group or categories? If no conceptual order, at least we can gain some aesthetic benefit placing them in a three column table. Godot (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The topics need more structure, are frequently too general, and not necessarily reflective of biophysics. If there is no objection, I would recommend deleting the genetics, and population modelling (not a common topic in biophysics). I would suggest the main headings "Molecular Biophysics", "Cellular Biophysics", "Organismal Biophysics", and "Techniques"--Biophysik. This link is a good place to start (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Source for this page
A very good source for the descreiption of biophysics can be found at the biophysical society website: http://www.biophysics.org/tabid/517/Default.aspx It also has a list of biophysical topics: http://www.biophysics.org/AboutUs/Committees/Education/EducationalResources/tabid/471/Default.aspx --Biophysik (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Nasif Nahle
I'm rather surprised to find Nasif Nahle's page http://biocab.org/Biophysics.html in the External Links section. Nasif's page is riddled with errors of dimensional analysis and basic algebra.

For example he presents the following formula: q = M – W – E – Q = W/m^2. He then states that "...M is the metabolic rate of human body in Mets (58.2 W/m^2 = 1 Met), W is the mechanical work produced by the human body, E is the rate of total evaporative loss due to evaporation of sweat, and Q is the total rate of energy loss from the skin..." It is mathematically impossible to add or subtract quantities with different units, and yet M is watts per square meter while W (mechanical work) has units of joules, and Q (rate of energy loss) is in watts. It's harder to guess what he means by E, but presumably it is in watts. The equation is nonsense.

Also we find a formula that he initially presents as q = e σ A [(ΔT)^4], but then later uses in the form q = 0.7 (A) (σ) (Tsur^4 - Thb^4). (ΔT)^4 can of course be written as (Tsur - Thb)^4 as ΔT is simply the difference between two temperatures. (Tsur^4 - Thb^4) is not equal to (Tsur - Thb)^4. The simplest way to demonstrate this is to plug in some numbers, like (admittedly non-biological values) of Tsur = 2 K and Thb = 1 K. (Tsur - Thb)^4 = (2 K - 1 K)^4 = (1 K)^4 = 1 K^4 whereas (Tsur^4 - Thb^4) = ((2 K)^4 - (1 K)^4) = (16 K^4 - 1 K^4) = 15 K^4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barak Thunder (talk • contribs) 03:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Quantum Biophysics
Can we get an article created for Quantum Biophysics, I do it, but have no idea how to begin the article? Space Commander Plasma (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

 * You'll have to begin with decent sources, as there is a lot of discomfort in both physics and biology when people start trying to insert QM where it's not immediately expected, and there are a very few number of processes exclusive to biology (such as to be 'biophysics' rather than simply physics or chemistry) that I am aware of that require some QM to fully understand. Basically, the article must be justified as something 'separable' from biophysics and/or biochemistry. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Main picture
The main picture in this article seems like a particularlily odd choice. E = MC^2 might be an appropriate for an article on relativity, but biophysics? There are many equations (not to mention countless pictures) that would make more sense here.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.67.95 (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 * That is not the main picture of the article but of the physics navbox. I agree, though, that it would be good to add a picture. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Removed the "general physics" infobox and substituted an image of the photosynthetic reaction center, which suggests structural biology, membrane, and spectroscopic parts of biophysics and was awarded a Nobel Prize for solution of the structure. Dcrjsr (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Beautiful image! It could use a little more detail in the caption and a citation, though. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement
Hello, all; thanks for letting me come in and make some suggestions.

This article houses many strengths in what biophysics actually is (in terms of its overlaps in the different scientific fields), but I also believe it to be lacking in its overview.

Here is a suggestion for improvement:

The organization in the Overview section is a little choppy—there is a first paragraph on molecular biophysics first and then technology usage and then structural biology and medical physics, which seems very choppy and off-putting when a lineage of overlaps (in the lead paragraphs) was initially given. The structure of this particular section seems a little incoherent. Maybe start with the lead as a structure organizer from this lead phrase in the article: “Biophysical research shares significant overlap with biochemistry, molecular biology, physical chemistry, physiology, nanotechnology, bioengineering, computational biology, biomechanics, developmental biology and systems biology." Take each of these as a section to expound upon.

PhoenyxFeatherz (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)PhoenyxFeatherz

descriptive paragraph is too general
"Biophysics covers all scales of biological organization, from molecular to organismic and populations. Biophysical research shares significant overlap with biochemistry, molecular biology, physical chemistry, physiology, nanotechnology, bioengineering, computational biology, biomechanics, developmental biology and systems biology."

I think the scope is too general and thus not informative especially for a introductory sentences. For example, here biophysics could be replaced with biochemistry or biostatistics and it would be more or less valid. Araz Zeyniyev (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Biophysics


text:
Angelo Bertelli

Angelo Bortolo Bertelli (June 18, 1921 – June 26, 1999) was an American football quarterback who played in the All-America Football Conference (AAFC). He played college football for the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, where he won the Heisman Trophy in 1943.

Early life
Bertelli was born in West Springfield, Massachusetts, on June 18, 1921, to Italian immigrant parents. At Cathedral High School in Springfield, he won all-state honors in football, baseball, and hockey, and was senior class president.

College career
When Bertelli entered Notre Dame in 1940, he was 6 feet 1 inch and 173 pounds, a skinny but highly regarded tailback in the single-wing formation used by most college teams. When Coach Elmer Layden left to become commissioner of the National Football League, Notre Dame's new coach Frank Leahy immediately noticed Bertelli's passing talents.

As a sophomore, Bertelli, still a single-wing tailback, led the nation with a 56.9 percent passing average, completing 70 of 123 attempts. In 1942, Leahy switched to a modified T formation, in which Bertelli would play under the center and take every snap. As he told his budding star, "Bert, you're the finest passer and the worst runner I've ever coached." That summer, preparing for his new role, Bertelli said he took "a thousand snaps...maybe a million." Bertelli and the T-formation were an immediate success. He passed for 1,039 yards and 10 touchdowns. Celebrated sportswriter Grantland Rice referenced Bertelli as "the T-formation magician."

During his senior year in 1943, the Marine Corps activated Bertelli after six games of Notre Dame's 10-game season. In the six games Bertelli started in, he threw 36 passes, completing 25 with 10 touchdowns. Bertelli's six-game 1943 performance was enough to win the Heisman Trophy earning 648 votes; he was informed of his Heisman win while in boot camp at Parris Island. During Bertelli's three seasons, Notre Dame lost only three games. In 1943, Notre Dame won 43 to 5 on average.

Bertelli's collegiate career earned him multiple awards. He was named to the 1942 and 1943 All-American teams. In the Heisman voting for America's outstanding college football player, Bertelli finished second in 1941 and sixth in 1942 before capturing the trophy in 1943. Though he was on active duty with the Marine Corps, the Boston Yanks selected Bertelli as their number one draft choice in 1944. Bertelli was inducted to the College Football Hall of Fame in 1972.

Military service

While at Notre Dame, Bertelli enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserves in 1942 prior to his activation to active duty in the fall of 1943. In 1944, Bertelli was promoted to the rank of second lieutenant, where he served as an infantry and recreation officer. After stops at Quantico, Camp Lejeune and Camp Pendleton, Bertelli embarked to participate in combat operations in the Pacific. After arriving from Guam in February 1945, he served in the Battle of Iwo Jima as a liaison officer with the 21st Marine Regiment, where he was nearly killed when a Japanese mortar shell landed 15 feet away from his position; four others were also caught in the explosion, with a doctor suffering serious wounds but surviving.

Bertelli returned to Guam in March 1945 and served in Sasebo, Japan. When World War II ended, Bertelli was stationed in Nagasaki with the 2nd Marine Division as a second lieutenant. On January 1, 1946, he captained a Marine football team, the Nagasaki Bears, in the Atom Bowl against National Football League star Bill Osmanski and his Isahaya Tigers, where he threw two touchdown passes in the first half; although the two had promised to ensure the game end in a tie to promote unit morale, Osmanski scored the game-winning extra point in the 14–13 Tiger win. Bertelli's son Mike quipped in 2005, "My dad didn't lose any sleep over it, but of all the games he played in, he remembered that incident."

Bertelli later entered the United States Marine Corps Reserve where he was promoted to the rank of captain and served until 1957.

Professional career
After returning to the United States in 1946, Bertelli signed with the Los Angeles Dons of the AAFC; he also recruited Atom Bowl players Bill Joslin and Gorham Graham, who were still stationed in Japan, to play with him. Bertelli played for the Chicago Rockets between 1947 and 1948. After several knee surgeries, he retired prior to the 1949 season. After his retirement from professional football, Bertelli moved to Clifton, New Jersey, and operated several businesses, with Bertelli Enterprises, Inc. becoming a retail liquor outlet.

He was the color analyst for the Princeton University football games broadcast on radio station WVNJ, 620 AM and 100.3 FM in the 1950s and 60s.

Death and family
On June 26, 1999, Bertelli died at the age of 78 after a losing battle with brain cancer. He was buried in Immaculate Conception Cemetery, Montclair.

He was survived by his wife, the former Gilda Passerini whom he married in 1944, and four children. Bertelli is the father of Robert Bertelli, better known as Bob Bert, a musician who played in Sonic Youth and other bands.

title: Angelo Bertelli


text:
User talk:JonBarton

JFW | T@lk  12:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:JonBarton


text:
Local Government Act 1988

The United Kingdom Local Government Act 1988 is an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. It was famous for its controversial section 28. This section prohibited local authorities from promoting, in a specified category of schools, "the teaching of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship". The Act did have other effects also, and was rather a mixed bag of changes. Part I introduced compulsory tendering of contracts for certain types of activities. Part II dealt with aspects of public sector contracting. Part III allowed housing authorities to provide financial assistance to people living in private property. Section 38, part of the "miscellaneous and general" coverage of Part IV, abolished dog licences.

Section 17
Section 17(1) stipulates that public bodies covered by the Act are not permitted to take "non-commercial considerations" into account when carrying out their functions relating to awarding contracts. The Act lists non-commercial matters relating to public supply or works contracts, including terms and conditions of employment offered by contractors to their workers, the involvement of contractors with irrelevant fields of Government policy, and the conduct of contractors or workers in industrial disputes.

In 2000, the Employment Sub-committee of the House of Commons Education and Employment Select Committee suggested that this requirement needed to be amended so that local councils could address local employment gaps by including local labour clauses in appropriate contracts.

title: Local Government Act 1988


text:
Stained-glass ceiling

The stained-glass ceiling is a sociological phenomenon in religious communities similar to the concept of the "glass ceiling". This concept revolves around the apparent difficulty for women who seek to gain a role within church leadership. The use of the term "stained-glass ceiling" is metaphorical, indicating a certain level of power or authority within structures that women tend not to rise above within church hierarchies. This could range from a group's de jure barring of women from positions like priest, bishop, pastor, rabbi, or similar clerical figures, to gender discrimination at the level of local congregations that prevent women from rising to any role of particular status or power.

The stained-glass ceiling is a particular aspect of a broader trend of gender segregation and discrimination in religious communities, by use defined social roles and barriers typically justified by either tradition, dogma, or doctrine of the church group.

The phrase "stained-glass" refers to the frequent placement of stained-glass artwork in places of Christian worship.

Statistics
Among the most significant examples of resistance to female clergy has been in the position of senior pastor in large church settings. For example, in the United Methodist Church only two female ministers have ever led churches with membership numbers within the top 100 of United Methodist churches in the U.S. The most recent national data (2005) indicates that there are no female ministers currently leading top 100 membership UMCs. Resistance has eased more rapidly for the position of bishop in the United Methodist Church. For 2004–2008, 15 of the 50 (30%) United Methodist bishops serving the U.S. are women.

Notable people

 * Marjorie Matthews, elected bishop in the United Methodist Church in 1980. She was the first woman elected as a bishop by a U.S. mainline Christian denomination.
 * Julie Pennington-Russell, Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church (Decatur, Georgia)(8/2007–present). The largest church affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention with a woman as senior pastor (weekly worship attendance of 483/ 2,696 members "1,804 resident and 892 non-resident").
 * Barbara Harris – the first woman ordained as a bishop in the Anglican Communion (1989)
 * Katharine Jefferts Schori – the first woman elected as a primate of the worldwide Anglican Communion (2006)
 * Elizabeth Eaton – the first woman elected as presiding bishop in the Evangelical Church in America (2013)

title: Stained-glass ceiling


text:
The Man Who

The Man Who is the second studio album by the Scottish rock band Travis. The album was released on 24 May 1999 through Independiente. It saw a change in musical direction for the band, moving away from the rockier tone of their debut Good Feeling (1997). Four singles were released: "Writing to Reach You", "Driftwood", and the top 10 hits "Why Does It Always Rain on Me?" and "Turn".

The Man Who initially received mixed reviews and sold slowly. Boosted by the success of "Why Does It Always Rain on Me?" and the band's appearance at the 1999 Glastonbury Festival, it eventually spent a total of 9 weeks at number one on the UK Albums Chart and brought the band international recognition, with retrospective reviews being more positive. , according to Concord Music, The Man Who has sold over 3.5 million copies worldwide. It was among ten albums nominated for the best British album of the previous 30 years by the Brit Awards in 2010, losing to (What's the Story) Morning Glory? by Oasis.

Background and recording
The Man Who was produced by Nigel Godrich and partially recorded at producer Mike Hedges' chateau in France. The majority of the songs were written before the band's debut album Good Feeling (1997) was released; "Writing to Reach You", "The Fear" and "Luv" were written around 1995–96, while "As You Are", "Turn" and "She's So Strange" date back as far as 1993 and the Glass Onion EP. The band continued recording at studios including RAK Studios and Abbey Road Studios in London. "[Good Feeling] was recorded with no trickery and it became this supposedly 'schizophrenic' record," said bass guitarist Dougie Payne. "[The Man Who] was recorded over six months in six different studios, using more instrumentation, and it's turned into this weirdly cohesive piece of work."

The title The Man Who is derived from the book The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat (1985) by neurologist Oliver Sacks. The album's sleeve notes include a dedication to film director Stanley Kubrick, who had died a few months prior to the album's release.

Reception
The initial reception of The Man Who was mixed, with some publications that had previously praised the band's more rock-oriented album Good Feeling criticizing the shift towards melodic and melancholic material. Stuart Bailie of NME expressed dissatisfaction with the band's decision to move away from the "rowdy" elements of Good Feeling and create an album filled with ballads. Despite acknowledging some good songs, he suggested that Travis would be better off if they moved away from making sad classic records. Danny Eccleston of Q magazine noted that The Man Who loses its momentum after the first four songs, and the rest of the album is excessively tasteful, missing some of the enchanting qualities found in Good Feeling. However, Steve Lowe of Select found the album to showcase the band's ability to create pretty music, describing them as ordinary guys crafting extraordinary melodies and being good songwriters without trying too hard.

Although The Man Who initially appeared to follow the success of Good Feeling by entering the UK Albums Chart at number five, it faced a decline in the charts due to limited radio play of its singles and its lukewarm critical reception. However, the third single from the album, "Why Does It Always Rain on Me?", gained significant popularity and helped raise awareness of the band. Travis' performance of the song at the 1999 Glastonbury Festival, where rain began to fall as soon as the first line was sung, garnered media attention and increased word-of-mouth interest. Coupled with radio play of "Why Does It Always Rain on Me?" and the album's other singles, The Man Who eventually climbed back up the charts and reached the number one spot on the UK Albums Chart. It went on to become the third best-selling album of the year in the UK.

By the end of the year, the album's critical standing had improved dramatically. Select named The Man Who the best album of 1999, and the album also placed on the year-end lists of publications such as Melody Maker, Mojo, NME and Q. The Man Who won the award for Best Album at the 2000 Brit Awards, with Travis being named Best British Group. At the Ivor Novello Awards, Travis frontman Fran Healy won the awards for Best Songwriter(s) and Best Contemporary Song for "Why Does It Always Rain on Me?" The Man Who received a belated American release in early 2000, and the same year Travis undertook an extensive 237-gig world tour, including headlining the 2000 Glastonbury, T in the Park and V Festivals, and a US tour leg with Oasis.

Legacy
In 2006, The Man Who was named the 70th greatest album of all time by Q. At the 2010 Brit Awards, it was nominated for the Best Album of the Past 30 Years award, losing to Oasis's (What's the Story) Morning Glory? The album was included in the book 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die. , The Man Who has sold 2,687,500 copies in the UK.

Personnel
Travis
 * Fran Healy – vocals, guitar, piano
 * Andy Dunlop – guitar
 * Dougie Payne – bass guitar
 * Neil Primrose – drums

Additional personnel
 * Nigel Godrich – mixing, production
 * Sally Herbert – string arrangement (tracks 2 and 10)
 * Mike Hedges – production (tracks 6, 7 and 9)
 * Ian Grimble – co-production (tracks 6, 7 and 9)
 * Sarah Willson – cello (track 7)

title: The Man Who


text:
Talk:Anime Expo

Updates
Replaced speculative elements of the previous revisions with factoids whose sources aren't so hard to cite. Things that could be added: --67.161.73.117 12:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Upload AX logo
 * Upload a photo or two from AX
 * Comprehensive list of AX guests of honor
 * Attendance figure for each year's convention

AX Logo
The Anime Expo Logo, and the Society of the Promotion of Japanese Animation Logo are copyrighted by their respective users. Without explicit consent, those logos may not be uploaded to the Wikipedia. --AllyUnion (talk) 1 July 2005 10:53 (UTC)

 * That would be trademarked, not copyrighted. Although look at other articles on corporations, trademarked corporate logos are shamelessly uploaded all the time.--67.180.209.147 9 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)
 * Why could they not be copyrighted as well as trademarked? -- Seitz 09:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose you can copyright a logo, but a trademark offers stronger protection, so it's a moot point to do so. Would you like a crash course in intellectual property rights?--208.54.15.129 23:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm always happy to learn something new. I was thinking of comic book and cartoon characters, which are commonly copyrighted and trademarked.  My understanding is that copyright and trademark each offer protections that the other does not.  For example, I don't think a trademark would prevent the logo from being uploaded to Wikipedia, since the logo is not being used to imply that Wikipedia is a product or service of Anime Expo.  However, a copyright might prevent Wikipedia from using the logo, unless it qualified under "fair use". -- Seitz 05:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I think about it, the logo is already copyrighted. Works are now automatically copyrighted by default.  They may not have registered the copyright, but it is still protected under copyright law. -- Seitz 04:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyrights apply to a specific instance of creation. So going by comic book character examples, you can't copyright a character. A story with a character in it, or even just an illustration with the character, can be copyrighted, but that does not apply to the concept of a character. Similaraly, you can't use copyright to protect all instances of a logo. That's where you have trademarks that protect the design and concept. Also, copyright and trademarks work differently. Yes, all works are implicitly protected by copyright. For a trademark, you need to put on the (tm) symbol next to your logo. However, that is a weak form of protection and is on weaker ground for defence in court. The better form of trademark is the registered trademarkt, which needs to be filed with the US Patent Office. Then, you can legally put on the (R) symbol. Now, while copyright is almost universal, trademarks need to be registered individually country by country. That means a logo that's printed with (R) in one country may not be legal to be printed that way in another country.--208.54.15.129 01:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that AX has a Service Mark on the logo. This may have been upgraded to a TM, but I'm not aware of it. Daroldhiga 23:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

AnimeCon 91
The history section starts with Anime Expo 92 and makes no mention of Anime Con 91. I've been out of touch with California anime fandom for ages; are people still trying to forget that? Wyvern 03:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

 * AnimeCon '91 is not Anime Expo and was not run by the SPJA. It was a separate event that just happened to share a lot of the same staff.  --PatrickD 16:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The political history of AX dictates that AnimeCon 91 and AX be considered separate. But there wasn't anything forgettable about AnimeCon, and it wasn't bad blood either. There wouldn't be AX without AnimeCon, so it has a place in AX history as a footnote. Short of spinning the yarn about a subjective memoir, that might as well be all to say about it.--208.54.15.129 23:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I added a mention of AnimeCon to the History section a few months ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anime_Expo&diff=53274225&oldid=49839605 -- Seitz 05:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

In terms of Anime Expo's political history, you could also footnote the splinters of Anime America and Pacific Media Expo.--208.54.95.1 16:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Side note: Userbox
I just made a userbox for AX for anyone who is a fan of the con:  十  八  05:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Editorialized History, Error in Organizational Structure
As full disclosure, I have been involved with AnimeExpo and the SPJA since 1992. In any case, I am changing the HISTORY portion, since being the largest does not automatically mean "premeire" and this may be interpreted as editorialized content. It would be best for all if this page were more neutral and not inject value terms like "premeire." Also there is an error in the Organizational Structure. Chair position was compensated in 2005 and 2006. In 2005 Chair and two vice-charis were compensated. Not all officers in the SPJA are compensated, its more accurate to mention that the CEO and the CFO are compensated. Also it should be noted that most compensation is not a "full time" salary. The CEO and CFO in theory can live off of the salary, but it is not a wage that can in any way be called market-competitive given the titles or responsibilities. Should this be moved to a separate SPJA page? I will make a few changes here in any case, if someone moves it to an SPJA page that is fine with me.Daroldhiga 23:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Please start the SPJA article.--Outis 23:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I violated my own rule here, "far below" is editorializing on the salary. Will remove the word "far." Daroldhiga 16:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Attendance
Can you really attribute 40% growth purely to a change in management? I think this is not very responsible. I will edit it. If someone disagrees with me they can change it back, but even with the political reorganization that occured in the 2003-2004 period, I think this might be a bit disingenuous. Daroldhiga 23:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, using the official numbers from the AX website (I had to calculate this once myself, but the figures sound about right) there was an average annual growth of 25% prior to 2004. In addition, since 2004, the average growth was 32% then 21% in 2006, suggesting that attribution of this jump in attendance to a change in management is not good public discourse. I will make corrections on the page, but I justify it here, but do the math yourself:

Daroldhiga 00:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Edited Table Daroldhiga 01:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Fixed error on Table Daroldhiga 01:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to mention two things regarding attendance: 1) The more important value -- regular attendee growth -- is around 15%. As far as I know, this has remained constant longer than the up and down growth of all attendees (which includes exhibitors, industry, press, staff, etc.). The 2007 value will seem like no growth but the regular attendee level still went up 15%. (There were far less exhibitors.) 2) Since I oversaw Registration for two years (2006 and 2007), I have the data but I'm not sure if I should be posting data because that seems like self-referencing/self-publishing which is awkward. Even more awkward for me is having to wait until the AX site is updated in order to reference it.DrSlump (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no sources for the attendance numbers of 2023! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.31.86.235 (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Mike Tatsugawa and Anime Con
I'm interested to know why Mike Tatsugawa was written out of the history section. He certainly played an important enough role in the convention's creation and history. A page detailing his numerous endeavors has been created. I can understand how the PMX split is also a sore issue, but there's no debating it happened. Maybe if it can be written in a NPOV manner it can all be put back in. For the purposes of his own article, I simply said there was a "management dispute" and left it at that.

Also, Anime Con is certainly relevant, but probably not embedded in this article. I created one specifically for it and did a minor edit to this article to hyper link to it.

Kensuke Aida 12:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Man-Faye?!
Ugh. Does Man-Faye really need the additional exposure in this article? I have nothing personal against the guy, but it doesn't exactly seem NPOV to claim: "but one that has stood out was Man-Faye" in the sentence about cosplay at AX. I mean, honestly now. That's a matter of personal opinion and can distort people's views as to the type of cosplay that is more common at AX.

I'm trying to be fair and neutral about this. He has his own article on Wikipedia about him and his dispute with the SPJA, which is all good and fine. A link to that would be preferable if it needs to be included. Kensuke Aida 07:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 05:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Anime Expo → Anime Expo (event) — I've seen some people throw around the term "anime expo" to describe any of these "conventions". I request that this be moved to "Anime Expo (event)" and this redirect to anime convention with one of those "Anime Expo redirects here. For the anime convention named Anime Expo, see Anime Expo (event). I could have done this, but I just am wishing to see some consensus before we do this. Note, just like AFD discussions, I am not using this as a poll. I am using this for consensus. —ViperSnake151 00:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

 * Oppose Every time I've seen the term "Anime Expo" used—note the caps, it is always in reference to the convention. I have not seen the term used in a different manner. And even if it was by a small minority, an appropriate hatnote would take care of the confusion. But moving this article to Anime Expo (event) will just add more confusion. --Farix (Talk) 01:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the term Anime Expo is not generally used in place of anime convention. I agree with Farix that a hat note would be more appropriate, as Anime Expo, with caps, is the most common usage of the term. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I've never seen it used except to refer to the convention by that name. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Anime Expo is an event by default. I do not see any other referebce for "Anime Expo". KyuuA4 (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

I'll be adding a hatnote. ViperSnake151 02:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I've removed it because you have not demonstrated that it is really necessary. You need to first demonstrate that the term is being used differently other then referring to Anime Expo. Can you provide examples showing the term "anime expo" used in place of "anime con" or "anime convention"? --Farix (Talk) 17:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

 * A hatnote would seem to be fine either way. Hatnotes aren't very intrusive, are they? Dekimasu よ! 04:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cosplayer image
I have removed the image of the cosplayer because it is an extremely poor image. It is very blurry and show very little detail. It looks like it was taken on a cellphone. We shouldn't be adding images just to be decorative, but that is exactly what this image is doing for the article, and even fails at that. --Farix (Talk) 01:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed it too. Kopf1988 (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

 * And has restored it once again without engaging in a discussion or explaining why the image in necessary or what the image is suppose to be illustrating. All right, I've requested for additional input from WP:ANIME. --Farix (Talk) 15:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Image placement
Having the image on the left creates more far more white space between the infobox and the first section. It also disrupts the reading flow of the text since the eye naturally wants to follow a line down the left side, but the image indents the text and disrupts that line. By placing the image on the right, it fills in much of the white space and doesn't disrupts the flow of the text. That is why you never see profectional article place "interruptions" on the left or only in the first couple of lines. is claiming that it creates white space between the lead and the TOC, but it does not. There is no more or less white space between the lead and TOC whether the image is on the left or right. Given Ucla90024's previous history on this article over a different image (see above), I suspect that he is not editing in good faith. --Farix (Talk) 00:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 * That is not true. There are lot of white space when photo on the right side. You are not doing editing in good faith. You are very stubborn. Ucla90024 (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I clearly see more white space between the infobox and the first section when the photo is on the left, but there is no additional white space between the lead and the TOC when the photo is on the right. And given that you have removed the previous discussion above in violation of WP:TALK gives a good indication that you are not editing this article in good faith. --Farix (Talk) 20:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * My monitor show lot of white space as well. Don't know what The Farix is talking about. 206.170.104.70 (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What same size? 206.170.104.63 (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Cosplay Photo
Cosplay is an important element of the conventions. Thousands participated. Ucla90024 (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Good articles do have more pictures than we generally have on our anime convention articles, yes (furry convention even is a GA, but that's a more general scope). I agree with having a picture, but I'm not sure about the placement and I am against that picture. It's fuzzy. Plus there's a 'thing' in the bottom left corner. Here's a better example, and I could ask if it could be licensed under CC-Share-alike-Att. Thoughts? Kopf1988 (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

 * What part of the article is this image suppose to illustrate? The image was located in the history section, which mentions nothing about cosplay. While it may be a free-use image, it should still serve a purpose in illustrating the content of the article instead of being exhibitionist. If more images are to be added to this article, it should be images of events or actives occurring at the convention. --Farix (Talk) 11:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The so called "better example" picture has photographers in front at lower left corner. The placement was done so as not interfere with the info box. Since so many people participated in cosplay (not "majority" of attendees, less than 1/2 of the 44,000 attendees participated), it is an important part of the expo. Ucla90024 (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The example Kopf1988 is better in that it illustrates an activity at the convention, i.e. people taking photographs of cosplayers. The cosplay image you are attempting to include doesn't add anything to the article. And please stop stalking me around or you will be reported to an administrator. --Farix (Talk) 15:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Not that picture is better; he can post it if he wants. Stop taking off other's picture and insert your own narrow minded views. This is for everybody, not just your own view. Apply some common sense and be bold and let others participate. Stop stalking me since every time I posted, you deleted. You will be reported to an administrator. Ucla90024 (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I completely disagree and I've not been the only one who has in the past. The image doesn't illustrate anything in the article and is purely for decorative/exposition purposes. In fact, I see no grounds to add such images to the article at this point. The fact that people who attend the convention cosplay isn't something that is worth mentioning in the article. The convention's cosplay programing is worth mentioning, but the image doesn't illustrate that. --Farix (Talk) 17:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

 * The image is not useful to the article at all. It is not specific to this conference only and adds nothing but decoration. Wikipedia is not here to be your personal image gallery. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If based on your definition, half of photos in wikipedia are "decoration" and should be removed. As an example,what is the purpose of an old picture of a 2004 Anime Expo's exterior so useful? It just shows some people outside of some place, without any identification without any sign of AX. Have you been to this expo and know something about it? Don't know what your agenda is, just because the photo is not to your liking. Both of you have no journalism skill and are sick. Ucla90024 (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Please keep the personal attacks to yourself. Please comment on the content, not the editors. As for journalism skill, Wikipedia is not a news source and journalism skills are irrelevant here. If you want to practice journalism, I suggest going over to Wikinews or finding some other outlet. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add that Wikipedia articles are not intended to be image galleries - that's what Wikimedia Commons is here for. We include only the types and quantities of images that would be of encyclopedic value to an article. If an image is not to be used for this article, that's okay; it can remain on Commons. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion to avert Edit War
Recently there has been the beginnings of an edit war between two interested editors, both feeling that they are working in the best interest of the article. The content is as follows: "In 2009, various members of the SPJA requested a vote of no confidence against the Board of Directors and the new CEO due to "multiple internal issues". The letter is quoted saying "... could possibly have cost us the chance to put on AX2010 or an AX2010 that the attendees truly deserve" and calls into question the $8,400 spent in airline tickets by the new CEO in a visit to Japan, among other things."

This was to be placed in its own section at the end of the article before the references. In one removal, the summary read: "Reverted 1 edit by Zeno McDohl; Rv; not a controversy nor a reliable source. using TW" and in the second removal the summary read:"Reverted 1 edit by Zeno McDohl; Not based on a reliable source and WP:UNDUE. (TW)"

Now that being said, the placement of the content does not fall under WP:UNDUE, IMHO. However, it may fall under removal under WP:NOTNEWS, unless it can be shown that significant coverage can be found regarding the event. Furthermore, it is my opinion that the information most likely would belong in the previously deleted stub article Society for the Promotion of Japanese Animation, or in the section Anime Expo as a subsection, as well as a move of other conventions hosted by the Non-profit organization into subsection of that section. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

 * There is no edit war, as Zeno McDohl is the only one who has supported the content at this point, and it is not just between two editors. Further, he already started a discussion at Help desk in which he claims that both Farix and I reverted his addition because we somehow have a conflict of interest by falsely claiming we had both attended the convention at least once and that somehow made it a COI (for the record, neither of us has). He then claimed I had a COI because I made a post in 2005 to my personal blog giving my reactions to some the licensing announcements that year. As for the content itself, as noted in the other discussion, the source is clearly not a reliable source (a two man blog site), and is a clear WP:BLP violation without verification in an actual, high-quality reliable source as it is potentially defamatory towards the CEO. ZM's lack of editing history before this additional also makes his push for it and determination to discredit anyone who disagrees with it rather circumspect, IMHO.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. I created this section to avoid rounds of addition and reversion by the editor attempting to add the content.  The actions of said editor, are as you said, questionable.  Yet maintaining assumption of good faith, I was hoping that creating said discussion could lead to a consensus regarding inclusion or exclusion of the content, and give a chance for said editor to provide reliable source references regarding the supposed controversy to persuade us one way or another regarding possible inclusion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The claimed source is based on a letter of unknown origin reported by an obscure self-published website that is barely a year old. The letter has not been picked up by any other anime news sources, including AnimeNewsNetwork.com, AnimeCons.com, or Mania.com, in the month that the letter was supposedly released. Since there is no way to verify the authenticity of the letter, it's contents shouldn't be included in the article pro forma. But even if the letter is authentic, this type of "con drama", unless reported by a reliable source like the ones mentioned above, has no place on Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 01:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

 * AnmaFinotera has shown she has no intention of a civil discussion. The initial edit I made was reverted without an attempt at discussing it, and when I brought it up on the Helpdesk looking for a neutral party, a "discussion" broke out there when she replied to me. I only made 2 edits which were reverted, and I did not continue in order to prevent an edit war and instead went to the Helpdesk. I have provided the only source I know of right now and I have no intention to continue discussing this with the way I've been attacked. I'll post any more sources here if I find them. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Now you were the one that first attack AnmaFinotera and I with this statement, "I do not think 2 people who have a conflict of interest over this matter count." When AnmaFinotera asked on what bases you were making your COI claim, you state, "You both have at the least attended the con," even though you had absolutely no evidence to back up your claim and it was quickly refuted by both of us. Up until then, AnmaFinotera has been very civil towards you and didn't question your motives behind the edits. But your followup comments clearly showed that you lacked good faith towards both AnmaFinotera and myself. This type of behavior indicates to us that you are simply attempting a POV push. As for starting a discussion, you need to read WP:BRD as it is incumbent on you to start a discussion about a reverted edit instead of either AnmaFinotera or I. —Farix (t | c) 02:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You consider that an attack? Hoo boy... Regardless, it doesn't warrant attacking right back with things like "You are some no name nobody represented by pixels on a screen". --Zeno McDohl (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comments were very much an ad hominem attack as you were deliberately trying to discredit both AnmaFinotera and I by claiming we had a conflict of interest based on no evidence whatsoever instead of explaining why Animenews.biz should be considered a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 03:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "I do not think" means it is what I think, not what I'm trying to prove. I didn't provide evidence initially for the COI I think you two have because I'm not here to prove that. If I was, I would have included that in my rv edit note and asked about what to do in the case of a COI on the Helpdesk instead of asking about valid sources. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Those two love to disagree, don't they? 206.170.111.187 (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have re-added this now that ANN confirms it. This should also confirm animenews.biz is a reliable source. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, one story that ended up being true does not automatically turn a 2 man blog into a reliable source. I agree with both AnmaFinotera and Farix on this one.  StryyderG  (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There seems like late comers like to take over the edits here recently. No one is allowed unless he or she is doing them, even if the information had came from the Anime Expo's official site or facebook. They put the information out before press release them to other organization. He or she only prefer one reference site. If came from another source, he or she will take them out. What is the purpose? There are all kinds of mistakes in Wikipedia. Just because no one cares to correct them doesn't mean they are all correct. Then you have admins who are careless about fairness or correctness. A little power goes straight to their head. 64.183.42.63 (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * By your comment, I'm going to assume that you were the person I blocked for having a long, long history of edit warring, even going so far as to open up a few sockpuppet accounts to make it seem like you had backup. As was said below, the reason that the content was removed was because all that AE had confirmed was the years of the convention. You put in dates that were essentially original research, as you cannot predict what days that AE will hold an event - they have postponed for various reasons in the past and it's entirely possible this could happen in the next few years. They were also most certainly incorrect, since the con coincides with fourth of July weekend (usually) but is not always held on July 1 - 4. If they kept their typical schedule, the dates you gave were pretty easily proven wrong. I also explained below that Wikipedia is culpable for any misinformation that is added to the page. Like it or not, people pull information from Wikipedia and because of that, we need to make sure that we do not add information that is not 100% confirmed by the official sources. If we put in the wrong information that poses a potential legal issue and the last thing we need is for AE to file an official email with Wikipedia saying that we are allowing someone to deliberately spread around misinformation because they misinterpreted a press release. All we have so far are years, which is not enough to add to the template, especially since this fact is already in the article elsewhere. So in other words, the information you were trying to add was not correct except for the years. As far as sources go, not all sources are equal. Official sources are best for this sort of thing, followed by very trusted news sources. However some sources will report on rumors (or misinformation on Wikipedia) without actually verifying the information. Some sites rely entirely on fans reporting information, which again - can be spread around via incorrect data on Wikipedia. That is why typically Wikipedia prefers to use only a select amount of sites for sources. If you have a question about a new source, ask about it, especially if the source is contested. There's usually a good reason. Now as far as your tone goes, please be aware that these are considered WP:ADHOMINEM attacks since you're essentially accusing specific editors (which you do not name, but it's pretty obvious) of improper behavior. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I also need to say that if you are the account that I blocked, posting and editing under an IP address will be considered block evasion. There are ways to check for this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Photo

 * Thanks to Kisuka for posting the new picture, much better than the previous one. You have the good sense to change it. One man may say "not your call to make", but I disagree. Bband11th (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio?
I am asking if this image is copyvio. File:Anime-Expo-2009.jpg in wiki commons and G4TV Anime Expo coverage. I do not see any evidence that this image was released by its author. --KrebMarkt 20:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Good spotting. I've nominated the image for deletion at Commons as it violates Commons' ban on non free-use images. —Farix (t | c) 22:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Umm... I had permission to use it, but whatever, I'll just post a new one once AX2010 starts. Kisuka (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

 * do=due? pubisher=publisher? Thanks for the correction. Also this "One of the main causes of the tension is SPJA's new CEO, Michael Lattanzio, decision to cancel the SPJA's contract with BAM! Marketing, Publicity, & Promotions, a public relations firm that provided services to the SPJA since 2004." is not grammatically correct. Who did it? Ucla90024 (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Attendance

 * When "Lattanzio noted that this year's total through-the-doors attendance exceeded 100,000 (which should not be confused with actual passes sold). From a financial standpoint, Lattanzio said that numbers were up 15% from last year." How can it be down from last year? Through-the-doors means people in the convention center during the 4 days. Turnstile is the number of passes sold? Or did they actually count the people? Bband11th (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 * The original 2016 & 2017 information was correct. But someone wants to do extra work? You can only lead a horse to water, but you can't make him to drink. 64.183.42.70 (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Michael Lattanzio

 * What is going on? He said it was best Expo ever! Ucla90024 (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Photos
Can't believe some people think an old picture is better that a new one or no illustration is better. Can't understand "recent" objection at all. There are many articles with recent pictures. Just no common sense. It is interesting to note that Youtube has many videos and Flickr has lot of pictures of anime expo and cosplays. Ucla90024 (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because there are recent images shouldn't mean that it should be nearer to the top. Please read WP:RECENT.
 * Images needed are images of the 2002 AX held in New York, and the 2004 AX held in Los Angeles. Both are unique one offs of the ones held in California. Only problem that I have found is I have not found ones that can be used under the "fair use" criteria required by WikiPedia.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

additional citations for verification
55 citations apparently not enough. Maybe 100 will be adequate or the article should be as long as the list of citations? Ucla90024 (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Content not supported by inline reference can be removed per WP:BURDEN. If the content here is to remain, it should be supported by such references, otherwise it can be removed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Separate SPJA page
With the Society for the Promotion of Japanese Animation's recent event additions (Project Anime, Anime Conji) as well as the scope and history of Anime Expo itself, I propose extracting information relating specifically to the SPJA to a new page devoted to the organization, its history, filing status, and governance. This is in the interest of avoiding repeated information about the SPJA, leadership, org structure, etc., when Anime Conji and Project Anime are added and expanded upon in the future. This page for Anime Expo can then remain focused on only the event's history, venue, guests, attendance, etc. While the precedent seems to have been set for major anime convention pages to have their parent organization's details married to the event page, it may need to be reevaluated for organizations that operate multiple events. Modernotaku (talk) 08:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The question is does Anime Conji and SPJA pass WP:GNG, it appears that AC was declined, but if someone can argue that the subject is notable, than I don't see why both cannot have an article. SPJA would have to meet WP:ORG as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is an article primarily about for Anime Conji:
 * However, it does not appear to be enough to pass WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * However, it does not appear to be enough to pass WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Anime Conji
Noticed that there is no article or sub-section for Anime Conji which started as an independent anime convention, and later ran by SPJA. Should that be a stand-alone article, or a section of this article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Cinefantastique Anime Conji 2011: It’s back, and this time it’s inter- and intra-personal and Anime News Network Anime Expo 2012 The Future of Anime Expo panel are the only other sources I know that could be useful. I'm not sure Conji has enough sourcing for an independent article yet, so a section would probably be best. Esw01407 (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Contract extension
Per press release: "Los Angeles Convention Center (LACC) is thrilled to announce that the venue will host Anime Expo (“AX”) for the next five years (through 2019)". Some people just don't under the meaning of "through 2019". Ucla90024 (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You have misrepresented the source in multiple ways.

 * 1) No dates listed, you have assumed that those are the dates. Official webpage does have the 2016 dates.
 * 2) This is a press release, so it has the usual amount of sourcing issues.
 * Can you provide a reliable source that these are the dates for the convention? The only event that should be listed unless you can is 2016 as the official webpage has posted the date. It seems that this is a continuation of your sourcing issues User:Ucla90024, I've made every attempt to communicate with you and show good faith, but this could have to end up at administrators noticeboard. Esw01407 (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Ucla90024, please do not list exact dates for the upcoming conventions. Until AE announces the dates for the upcoming conventions you should not be posting these. Ideally you wouldn't list these at all since we don't have anything beyond the year and as such, listing these aren't really all that helpful. The thing is, while LACC has confirmed that they'll be holding the events AE has not confirmed dates. While it's likely that this will be held in early July, there is no guarantee of this and a look at the con's history shows this since some of the cons have been held in late June. (And if they keep the same schedule, this is likely what's going to happen for 2017 and 2018.) You might figure "what's the harm" but the harm here is that people pull information from Wikipedia on a pretty regular basis and proclaimed it official. What you've done here by listing July 1-4 for 2017 - 2019 is basically original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. I don't want misinformation to spread because someone came on to Wikipedia and read something that, as of this point in time, is technically incorrect date-wise. The only thing that has been confirmed about AE is the years. At no point has AE actually confirmed any dates, which is an entirely different beast. I also need to point out that this could prove problematic with AE and it'd be entirely within their rights to complain to Wikipedia that we have the incorrect information. You may mean well, but this is still misinformation and it's doing Wikipedia and its readers a disservice. Please do not re-add these dates to the article, as the norm for Wikipedia is to only list the dates of an event when the exact date has been confirmed. No one is denying that the con has been extended. What they're objecting to is that you've taken it upon yourself to make up convention dates before the con itself has actually set them. Since we have no exact dates, there's no reason to add 2017-2019 to the table. This is turning into a revert war and if you do not stop you run a risk of being blocked. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I also note that you've been warned about this back in June. If you revert back to your edits I will very likely block you for a short period of time. You've already been given one warning so you're already well aware that edit warring is not acceptable. The press release does not give official dates for all of the years and should not be considered a guarantee that the cons for 2017 - 2019 will be held at these dates. In general you should not be adding any exact details unless you have a source that explicitly states that they will be attending. In this situation it would preferably be an official source like the con's website or a press release. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure enough, the 2018 dates recently announced do not match the dates he put. 🙄
 * Alyssa3467 (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Since he's continued to re-add this despite specifically being asked not to - and he's not discussing this on the talk page, he's getting blocked for a short period of time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm indeffing given that he's been edit warring since 2008. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Also I need to note that we should probably edit some of the phrasing in the article since the convention is typically held over the first weekend in July, which usually coincides with the 4th of July. This clarification would probably be a good idea. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Anime Expo. 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.spja.org/career/chief-executive-officer-ceo-for-the-society-for-the-promotion-of-japanese-animation-spja/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728045413/http://www.spja.org/news/?p=29 to http://spja.org/news/?p=29

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) 09:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Anime Expo. 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/20141204121933/http://ajw.asahi.com/article/cool_japan/anime_news/AJ201211030031 to http://ajw.asahi.com/article/cool_japan/anime_news/AJ201211030031

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) 05:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Convention Start Dates
Should the table in the History section be using the "Day 0" date as the start of the convention? The schedule this year was *very* sparse, and the admission media said "Pre-Show" for Day 0 and "Four Day" for the rest of the convention.

Alyssa3467 (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The San Diego Comic-Con doesn't count Preview Night, so I don't think this article should either.
 * Alyssa3467 (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Source

 * https://web.archive.org/web/20000308040603/http://headline.gamespot.com/news/97_07/08_anime/index.html

title: Talk:Anime Expo