text:
Talk:Norden bombsight

Supersonic velocity
This article states that the problem of bombs falling at supersonic velocity was hard to solve. I would thik so, since no projectile has a terminal velocity in any medium higher than the speed of sound in that medium.

 * See Tallboy bomb for how a bomb can fall far faster than sound. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Copied text
I'm new here, but the text in this article copies the text found at this page:  almost exactly, with a fair amount of original extra words/facts thrown in as well. The page appears to be a US Military site, so maybe it is not a problem, but I figured I'd post this just in case.
 * Thanks; I'll add it to the list of links. Melchoir 05:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Auto-Pilot
The article omits a key point, that is short and to the point, and makes the whole article understandable to the average person. The article does not mention the simple fact that the Bombardier took over certain flight controls from the pilot, for the short duration that they approached the target. They would switch to autopilot, and the Bombardier had Auto-Pilot controls. The Bombardier "dialed in" direction headings into the Auto-Pilot. Marc S. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Lotfe-7K bombsight
Deleted uncited speculation about Lotfe-7K bombsight.

Secret
The article says both that "its existence was a closely guarded secret" and that it was "marketed as the tool to win the war; and it was often touted that the bombsight would drop bombs in pickle barrels". Where was it marketed and who was being touted to if even its existence was a secret? KarlM 06:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * First, it was guarded as a secret; then it was used for propaganda purposes. The fact that Germany, at least later in the war, could not start bomber planes at targets in Great Britain made it possible to reveal the bombsight's existence - how could the Germans profit from knowing about the Norden if they could not bomb anything? And except from Pearl Harbor I don't know of any large Japanese bombing raid; so any bombsight knowledge would not have helped them... Perhaps I should re-read that book by Stewart Halsey Ross to know the exact reasons. And remember: Even if the USAAF says it has a secret bombsight it is propaganda. --Keimzelle 21:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ask the veterans who were stationed at Wake Island, Guadalcanal, Port Moresby etc about Japanese bomb raids after Pearl Harbor, Keimzelle. ;)

The Norden Bombsight was kept a secret simply for the same reason why any "state of the art" military developement is kept a secret more or less, especially during war-time. You don't go advertizing your technology at your enemy's doorstep. If the article says anything about "advertizing", it should be obvious the original author simply used that as a phrase. "Advertizement" was probably happening between the military brass and the manufacturer, as is always.

 * I've read many WWII-era magazines and the existence of the Norden Bombsight was anything but secret, as Keimzelle implies. Its mechanism was claimed to be highly secret, though other comments on this page raise doubts about that. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, people. "We have a pretty acurate bombsight that can put a bomb into a pickle barrel from way up" was probably NOT kept "secret", because that was POSITIVE propaganda and encouraged your own side. But surely the *inner workings* of that sight was kept secret just like any other military developement during wartime - and often during peace time as well - is kept a secret. Where exactly is the part here that you don't understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.173.46.213 (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Bombsight
What's a bombsight? --Abdull 16:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Gee-I guess we may need another article. A bombsight is an optical-mechanical device used to aim free-falling bombs at their targets. -Will Beback 22:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Dither & Bombsights
Dither currently states:

 * Airplane bombers used mechanical computers to perform navigation and bomb trajectory calculations. Curiously, these computers (boxes filled with hundreds of gears and cogs) performed more accurately when flying on board the aircraft, and less well on ground. Engineers realized that the vibration from the aircraft reduced the error from sticky moving parts.

This seems to partially contradict this page which states:

 * In combat, this accuracy was never achieved - because the Norden had been tested under "artificial conditions" at the US proving grounds, for example in the absence of anti-aircraft fire and/or adverse weather.

Ewlyahoocom 14:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no contradiction, Ewlyahoocom. The second paragraph ("In combat, ...") is from me, the first one is not. The second paragraph only compares test flights (for example, at USAAF bombing ranges in the USA), which had idealized conditions – like perfect weather, no anti-aircraft fire, relatively low altitudes – to the actual bombing that took place over Japan. In both cases, bombs were dropped from flying aircraft; and the "dither" effect was always in place when bombs were dropped. Or do you honestly think that the Norden bombsight would let you drop bombs less precisely when your plane is still standing on the runway? :-)--Keimzelle 03:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Ah-ha! I misread "artificial conditions" to mean some kind of testing on the ground. Ewlyahoocom 17:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Was secret overrated?
John Lienhart of the University of Houston College of Engineering says the secrecy of the Norden bombsight was mostly hype. The device was downgraded from "secret" to "confidential" in 1935 and to "restricted," the lowest classification, in 1942. A Norden employee sold plans for the device to the Germans in 1937 for $3,000, but the Germans never used it because they practiced dive bombing, not strategic bombing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newschief (talk • contribs) 01:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Accuracy Vs. What?
This article makes a fairly big deal discussing how the Norden never lived up to its theoretical accuracy, but it is worth asking "what was the alternative?". Depending on the size of the target, 10% of bombs hitting a target from 4 miles in the air seems like it could be considered darned accurate. One must also keep in mind that practically all WWII aerial weapons were wildly inaccurate by modern standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.110.100 (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Compared to its contemporaries, for one thing. It was not notably more effective than its competitor, the Sperry bombsight or the contemporary British versions. This article (unfortunately behind a paywall) makes the case that the Sperry bombsight was better in many respects: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=90187&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel3%2F6%2F2989%2F00090187.pdf%3Farnumber%3D90187 -J Daggar

 * I would suggest that the biggest problem in WWII was not being able to bomb super accurately but to find the target. There are numerous examples of air forces bombing the wrong cities. In that respect, the Norden was no more effective than any other, just as you say. Flanker235 (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Acquired by Germany before World War II and 1940s sources
Based on these articles, the device's existence was certainly not secret at least not by 1940 and may have been acquired by Germany as early as 1938. "A government witness against 16 suspected Nazi spies testified today that he had offered to attempt to obtain the secret of the famed Norden bomb-sight for Germany in 1940; but was told not to bother 'because it already was in the possession of the gestapo'. The witness was William A. Sebold, a naturalized American citizen and former employe of the Consolidated Aircraft Co., of San Diego, Cal., his testimony was in support of United States Attorney Harold M. Kennedy's contention that Germany has had possession of the bomb-sight since 1938." from "Federal Agent says Nazis had bombsight in '38." Jefferson City Post-Tribune. Jefferson City, Missouri. Tuesday, September 09, 1941. Page 4. --Dual Freq (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"The "Mr. X" who developed the nation's No. 1 military secret —the jealousy guarded, high accuracy bombsight — is being shielded so carefully it was learned today, that authorities decline to reveal his identity lest his life be endangered." ... "Officials familiar with the sight's performance said that it was an exaggeration to say that the sight could plump a bomb into a pickle barrel unerringly from the altitude of 20,000 feet. He asserted, however, that a small group of bombers equipped with the Norden device could spread a deadly bomb "pattern" over a small target from a great altitude." from "BOMBSIGHT INVENTOR'S IDENTITY KEPT SECRET." Associated Press. Jefferson City Post-Tribune Jefferson City, Missouri. Tuesday, November 26, 1940. Page 6. --Dual Freq (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Another article from September 1941 says that the Norden bombsight was the inspiration for the film Flying Blind. "Flying Blind." Chillicothe Constitution-Tribune. Chillicothe, Missouri. Saturday, September 20, 1941. Page 6. --Dual Freq (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Inventor
Carl Noden is not mentioned in the summary. Shouldn't he deserve a mention? Sbohra 09:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Norden Bombsight Crosshairs
From family lore, my great-uncle Bailey Snider, a graduate of Berkeley and my grandfather's younger half-brother, was one of the many who worked on the development (or improvements) to the Norden bombsight. The only information the family has is about the cross-hairs. The original cross-hair materials available were either too thick for any accuracy, or were too fragile to be stretched tightly enough to provide the straight lines needed. Ultimately, the web strands (silk) of black widow spiders was used for both its strength and its fineness. I don't know the truth of this, but it makes sense, especially since there is still such a demand for this fiber that they have recently genetically modified goats to produce milk from which this same thread can be drawn on a larger scale than milking spiders.Kjj11 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC).

The Norden Bombsight crosshairs often are said to have been made using the hair of Mary Bobink Brown, who donated them in 1944. However, this has been disputed by at least one aviation museum and a few web pages. The grounds are that Ms Brown donated her hair in 1944, while the sights were trialled in 932 and in war use over germany etc for years before 1944, that there seem to be no records of it having used her hair before President Reagan's letter to her, and that all the bombsights encountered by the museum had etched glass crosshairs,and copies of the bombardier information file issued to bombardiers in 1945 specifically mention etched crosshairs.Barath s (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Female computers of WW II
One of the bombardiers in this movie indicated that the calculations these women made were fed into the Norden site.

In early December 1941, Betty Jean Jennings was a freshman completing her first semester at a rural Missouri college. In Philadelphia, Doris and Shirley Blumberg were seniors at Girl’s High and Marlyn Wescoff was completing a minor in business machines at Temple University. In an era of limited career opportunities for women, these bright students anticipated low paying careers as schoolteachers or bookkeepers. But on Sunday, December 7, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and changed these young women’s lives forever. With Pearl Harbor suddenly drawing the US in to WWII, the Army launched a frantic national search for women mathematicians. http://www.topsecretrosies.com/Top_Secret_Rosies/Project_Background.html

Can anyone verify the use and entry process of the calculations in the Norden? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentvan (talk • contribs) 16:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * AFAIK they weren't involved specifically with the Norden bombsight, what they were calculating were generalised ballistic tables: If a bomb of this weight and this shape is dropped from an aircraft travelling at such a speed, in a wind of such a strength and such a direction, how far away does it land? These offsets were of course an important part of the setup (ie during construction) of the Norden, and some of the tables of settings that a bombardier would enter into the sight before and during a mission. They knew bomb details beforehand, but they'd measure winds over the target in flight, using the drift sight. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"Blue Ox" name
The lead has a reference to the naming of this device as "Blue Ox". I read quite a bit on this machine, and have never come across this term before. Looking about at the usual suspects, I can find only a single historical reference to this term, from a Boeing advertisement that ran in a few magazines circa 1942/43. I can find no evidence in any of the other references, or talking to any of the owners or former bombardiers I know, that anyone ever used this term in practice. I am going to move it from the LEAD to the body unless anyone has a good reason not to. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The "Blue Ox" is also a reference from the WWII era bombardier school at Deming, NM. The class' publication (yearbook, of sorts) was titled "The Blue Ox". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:8803:8500:B53F:D848:4194:59BC (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Norden bombsight. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.airspacemag.com/ASM/Mag/Index/1995/FM/swpn.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.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Links to sources
I discovered that some links to sources, namely Searle and Correll, followed dead or broken links. In the case of Correll, a simple updated format was needed. In the case of Searle, the source can be found in the IEEE's database after some Googling, but requires institutional access. I found a copy of it (in better quality, too) over at http://docslide.us/documents/the-bombsight-war-norden-vs-sperry.html. Since that seems kind of sketchy (and takes forever to load), I rehosted it and changed the link. Lueking (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Confusion with angles
In the Basic operation section, two angles are defined: The Norden thus calculated two angles: the range angle based on the altitude, airspeed and ballistics; and the current angle to the target, based on the ground speed and heading of the aircraft. The difference between these two angles represented the "correction" that needed to be applied to bring the aircraft over the proper drop point. In order for this to be correct, each of the two angles must be the angle of the line-of-sight (LOS) to the target. The current angle is the LOS at any point in time during the bomb run. The range angle must be the LOS to the target at the drop point when the end of the bomb trajectory would strike the target. A diagram of this would be of great help.Tvbanfield (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Rubbish in the Lede

 * "in peacetime testing the Norden demonstrated a circular error probable (CEP)[a] of 75 feet (23 m), an astonishing performance for the era."

Not at all astonishing if the bombs are dropped from a height of 20 feet. This information about the height is missing however, which makes the statement useless at best. 91.10.31.154 (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 * As long as you're bombing the right city... Flanker235 (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Tachometric bombsights
The text explains the concept adequately by saying: "design that directly measured the aircraft's ground speed and direction, which older bombsights could only estimate with lengthy manual procedures". The jargon adds nothing useful and serves only to confuse all readers except those with the most specialized knowledge, while violating multiple guidelines that urge avoiding use of jargon in lede sections. A piped link that avoids abstruse jargon is a reasonable compromise. DonFB (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So now I've raised it at WP:ANEW you start trying to discuss it?
 * There already was a piped link for this term. You removed it: and again:
 * This term is crucial to the Norden bombsight, both to its importance and to understanding its operation. It's the canon example of the tachymetric generation of sights, which was a major innovation.
 * Yes, the term is 'jargon'. That's why it's linked. Of course the article could go into more depth to explain it. It does already at Basic operation, but this could always be improved. However deleting mention of it does none of that. Tachymetric operation is crucial to the Norden, easily enough to justify its inclusion in the lead.
 * "design that directly measured the aircraft's ground speed and direction, which older bombsights could only estimate with lengthy manual procedures". is a strongly misleading description because it omits tachymetric. It was not the only sight that measured [sic] ground speed and direction and avoided the manual work of the early sights, but it was the first that avoided having to present them to the bombardier as an offset when aiming, but instead used a tachymetric approach by use of the offset prism in order to present a single presentation of target and cross hair. This was the Norden's innovation and it needs to stay in the article.
 * Incidentally I've always opposed the term 'tachometric' here, in favour of 'tachymetric'. Both are correct and contemporary, but tachometric has the unfortunate common use associated with angular rotation (which is not relevant) and that's too confusing. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you believe the lede has "strongly misleading" text, then fix it. In such fix, you could restore the jargon--if you include a brief definition as part of the text. Standalone jargon, with a link to a long-winded passage that itself fails to explicitly define the term, is a disservice to readers who may think they need to follow a link from an abstruse term in the lede to understand the topic. DonFB (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears you are OK with bombing-related jargon like circular error probable being linked and explained, but not the term tachometric. I am at a loss what the difference might be. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That phrase is comprehensible and offers a helpful example. I doubt one in a hundred people can comprehend tachymetric. If its inclusion seems so important, why not include a brief definition in the text? The link offers virtually no help. Multiple guidelines strongly recommend avoiding jargon in the lede section of articles to better serve a wide readership. The term is used within the body of the article, for those readers who decide to delve more deeply into the topic. DonFB (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the link: it goes to a section of the Bombsight article. The lede of that article uses the term twice without actually defining it. The section that is linked has seven paragraphs. The unlucky reader who follows the link will not see the term defined until the seventh paragraph of the section, consisting of one sentence: "All of these designs collectively became known as tachometric sights, "tachometric" referring to the timing mechanisms which counted the rotations of a screw or gear that ran at a specified speed." Editors with expertise in the subject who think the term belongs in the lede of the Norden article should incorporate that information into the lede of that article. That will serve readers a lot better than expecting them to wade through seven paragraphs of material in another article. DonFB (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have restored the appropriately depictive term, and added a brief intratext note describing in brief the components of a tachometric bombsight and their integration which distinguished it from previous advanced but much more limited bombsights.
 * Anyone - Don? - is welcome to expand upon this in the body of the article (and rewrite the section on bombsights dealing with tachometric devices) as they please. Both would be helpful.  But let this be an end to the edit war.  Attempting to erase something on shallow and inapprpropriate grounds is not a gain for the encyclopedia or its readers.  Improving the above sections is.
 * It is a much greater disservice to them to mislead them with willfully over-simplified language, as such:
 * The Norden Mk. XV, known as the...was an early design that.... [my italics]
 * Which implies that the Norden was an early bombsight design, rather than the most advanced bombsight ever developed (to that point). This is a much greater offense to readers than using a proper term with a link (and now supportive intratext note) distinguishing and describing the Norden as what it is.
 * The ideal upshot of which is the growth of the encyclopedia, the opposite of an editor's censoring of content they do not care for. As it indeed entices readers with curiosity and skill to improve the existing Norden article, and the bombsight section on tachometric devices.  Which is precisely how Wikipedia grows, and improves.  Ideally with editors with proven skills in mechanical areas (like Andy) supported by others such as self-attested professional editors (like yourself, at your home page), working together to improve Wikipedia, not censor it. 2601:196:180:DC0:185C:F7EF:7739:43AC (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

To IP user 2601:196:180:dc0:f420:cbc4:36c1:1932: The section in the Bombsight article linked from the jargon in the lede of the Norden bombsight article begins: "The limitations of vector bombsights (which required a long straight run before dropping the bombs to accommodate windage) led to the development of bombsights based on the field of tacheometry." No further definition or explanation of the term is provided in that section, though you have touted the fact the section is linked as providing an explanation. You have just now removed the last paragraph of that section, which contradicted the first, but the more serious problem remains in forcing readers to chase links around the encyclopedia to learn the meaning of an obscure piece of jargon. Instead of actually defining the jargon, the Bombsight sentence I quoted offers yet another link: to tacheometry. So now the reader, who may merely have wanted a brief overview of Norden Bombsight, is led to a third article to find out what the jargon means. That third article begins by defining its subject as "a system of rapid surveying" "using a tacheometer (a form of theodolite)". Of course, theodolite is linked to its article, for people who may not know what that is. At this point, the reader might chase down that link into a fourth article, or they might happen to scroll past the five paragraphs of the Tacheometry lede into the article body and will see a little more information that may help clarify what tachymetric means.

The multiple guidelines I have cited strongly recommend against using jargon in the lede of articles, but they do say that if a highly technical term seems unavoidable, then at least provide a brief definition as part of the text. You have not made any such suggestion, and in fact you have even pointed out that the body of the Norden article is lacking explanation of the term, which is all the more reason for its exclusion from the lede. The average reader, who almost certainly does not know the jargon, has no choice but to chase the links or continue reading the lede with a sense they're missing important information, or stop reading altogether. One of the guidelines I cited literally says: "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links". Have you read that? Virtually no reader will be familiar with the jargon you think is appropriate in the lede; they are not, therefore, missing out on information meaningful to them. They can follow the link from the word design if they're curious and discover the jargon. Or if they decide to pursue the article beyond the lede, they will eventually find the jargon, although, to repeat, it remains inadequately explained, which seems like indifference on the part of editors who think the jargon is so important that it must appear in the lede, where, as I've pointed out, it would serve as a starting point to a chase three or four articles deep. This is not the way to respect and serve readers. DonFB (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Please see my response immediately above (at this point), which addresses the thrust of your issues here. The proper term is now transparent in the Norden bombsight lead; the gross misconception perpetrated by leaving it out is eliminated; and it is supported by an intratext note.
 * Indeed, you are correct that both the section on tachometric bombsights at the bombsight page, and the article on tacheometry, deserve improvement. In fact, I spend a considerable time yesterday doing so at both.  Which is precisely the sort of growth of the encyclopedia, improvement of the encyclopedia, that is spurred by using the appropriate term where it is deserved (and Andy's defense of it).  As above, perhaps you - a professional editor - can put some of the many words I assume you have left to devote to Wikipedia to advancing the related sections further.  Or, ideally, work in concert with someone of demonstrated aptitude in such mechanical matters, combining your strengths.  And grow the encyclopedia, and improve it, further.  I look forward to seeing that. It would be great. 2601:196:180:DC0:185C:F7EF:7739:43AC (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the word early did not belong in the previous version.
 * I'd like to know if you have a one-sentence definition of tachometric (or tachy- or tacheo-), using generally recognizable words. DonFB (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't right now...but I'm getting closer to it. The trick (I am discovering) is to work backwards from the Norden M-1 (the "most advanced" tachometric bombsight of its day) to the origin of tachometric efforts (which will double one back to the early '30s days of the Norden and the competing Sperry).  The net of which appears to be that the term and concept of a tachometric bombsight derive from the ability of one to apply tacheometric trigonometry (via an integrated mechanical computer) to continually update the bomb release solution.  In the simplest form they take (or are fed) simultaneous readings of the aircraft's elevation and location over the ground, identify the target (via integrated optics, in so many words, in the form of an optical rangefinder), then use trig to create a constantly updating release point solution.
 * They also became gimbaled and electrically gyro-stabilized (as a foundation for being able to do useful route and trajectory calculations), with advances that initially allowed the operator to plug in factors such as wind drift. Both the British and the Germans had generally similar tachometric bombsights (the Germans' having devolved directly from the Norden via espionage, which was at least simplified and in many opinions improved).  The British (as with so many other wartime exigencies) were stretched too thin to go further than they had proven able to (and had been unable to buy Nordens directly from the US) and simply adjudged that a simpler vector sight was a better application of their scarce resources for night time carpet bombing than a tachometric sight, and left the US (and its effectively limitless resources) to its persistence with attempting to achieve daylight "precision bombing".
 * Everything took a quantum jump for the Norden when autopilot got coupled to the bombsight proper, which also integrated real-time data (such as speed and elevation) straight from the aircraft's gauges. This  (in theory) allowed the plane to "fly itself" to the target (though the reality was that it was easier and quicker for the bombardier to keep his telescopic sight trained on the target and let the autopilot "steer" the plane there than it was to let the autopilot do all the work (which resulted in the plane inevitably falling off-course (due to what we'll just call "real world deviations"), the autopilot recognize it, then have to take measures to correct for it...forcing it to continually do a whole set of calculations and adjustments that could be eliminated by the bombardier's limited participation)).
 * I'll see if I can tighten this up and integrate it at the tachometric section of the Bombsight article, which has been improved alot but still needs both more clarity and congruence.2601:196:180:DC0:185C:F7EF:7739:43AC (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that reply would be a little longer than a one-sentence definition. Here's what I've learned: the word 'tachometric' (or tachy or tacheo) came to be identified with the Norden bombsight among the people who were involved in its development and among people--such as a few Wikipedia editors--who study the history of its development. It is not a word, of course, that the general public ever came to be familiar with. So, use of the word in the lede section of the Norden article serves to "educate" the public--as represented by Wikipedia readers--about lingo associated with the device. The word, of course, does not by itself educate anyone, as far as I can tell, because even a person, such as yourself, cannot, at present, offer even a simple one-sentence definition of the word that would inform anyone about what characteristics made the Norden different than previous devices. The question, in my view, comes down to whether Wikipedia is "educating" readers or informing them. Somewhere in Wikipedia's many policies and guidelines, can be found a statement that Wikipedia is not in the business of "educating" readers, like a textbook, for example. Inclusion of the word, of course, satisfies devotees, aficiandos and students of the Norden and its development, which obviously includes a handful of Wikipedia editors. It does nothing, repeat, nothing, to inform general readers what made the Norden different from devices that preceded it. That's because the word is all but unknown to the general public and, I believe, will always remain so. The very fact that among Wikipedia editors the very spelling of the word is unsettled demonstrates its obscurity. That is why, ultimately, the word contributes nothing useful to the lede--because it is uninformative, repeat, uninformative, and its presence does nothing more than satisfy the longings of (a handful of) students of the history of the device, among whom are a few Wikipedia editors. DonFB (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Don. You are obsessing on this.  It is a tachometric bombsight. It's what it is.  A billion dollars was spent on developing it; the Germans copied it; the British couldn't afford to continue developing one of their own for their airfleet (and reverted to a vector bombsight, except for their most powerful and important bombs, which they indeed used a tachometric bombsight of their own development for).  Just because some non-specialists are having to educate themselves in very technical matters does not make EXCISING it, CENSORING it because YOU DON'T LIKE IT, a viable way (per WP policies) to approach it.  You've got to let it alone.  It's obvious you are unwilling to contribute to improving any of the content/articles/talk page entries surrounding the matter.  You're just being obstinate, and filibustering, and hoping others will give in or go away.  Which is NOT the Wikipedia ideal, or model.  Since you won't help, please stop.  Please. 2601:196:180:DC0:A1B9:CD12:9653:EAA3 (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Please fix
"The bombardier when waited for the target to pass through the second crosshair to time the drop".--Please fix (while i fix other articles). Thanks. 2001:2020:32B:D93D:D080:1137:E89C:E7EB (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Norden bombsight


text:
Friends of Ireland (U.S. Congress)

The Congressional Friends of Ireland, or Friends of Ireland, is an organization in the United States Congress that was founded in 1981 by Irish-American politicians Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Daniel Moynihan and House Speaker Tip O'Neill to support initiatives for peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland.

"The Friends of Ireland is a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives opposed to violence and terrorism in Northern Ireland and dedicated to maintaining a United States policy that promotes a just, lasting, and peaceful settlement of the conflict that has cost more than 3,100 lives over the past quarter century", according to a statement by Kennedy in the Senate on 22 March 1994.

Representative Richard Neal (D-Massachusetts) is the current chair of this bipartisan group of senators and representatives. In chapter 9 of his book "Irish America and the Ulster Conflict 1968-1995," (Blackstaff Press, 1995) Andrew J. Wilson writes that the Congressional Friends of Ireland played a significant role in the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985.

Prior to the formation of the caucus in 1981, the phrase "Congressional friends of Ireland" was in use in the United States as early as 1920 when The New York Times wrote, "An editorial article in the current issue of The Freeman gives the Congressional friends of Ireland and the Irish vote a gentle but somewhat disconcerting prod."

Each year in March, the Irish Taoiseach visits the United States for Saint Patrick's Day. A Shamrock Ceremony takes place in the morning at the White House where a crystal bowl containing shamrock, a traditional symbol of Ireland, is presented to the President in the Oval Office. This is followed by a Friends of Ireland luncheon hosted by the House Speaker in the U.S. Capitol or the Rayburn House Office Building. The luncheon is attended by the President, Vice President, the Taoiseach, the Speaker, and other officials. In the evening, a Saint Patrick's Day Reception takes place at the White House.

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

title: Friends of Ireland (U.S. Congress)


text:
Penn State University Creamery

The Pennsylvania State University Creamery, also known as the Penn State Berkey Creamery or just The Creamery, is a producer and vendor of ice cream, sherbet, and cheese, all made through the Department of Food Science in the College of Agricultural Sciences of the Pennsylvania State University. It is the largest university creamery in the United States, using approximately 4.5 million pounds of milk annually, approximately 70% of which comes from a 210-cow herd at the university's Dairy Production Research Center and the rest local milk suppliers, and selling 750,000 hand-dipped ice cream cones per year. Offering over 100 ice cream flavors made with a butterfat content of 14.1% and ingredients from around the country and the world, the Creamery's ice cream is enjoyed by many students and alumni every day.

History
The first Creamery was built in 1865, and dairy short courses were first offered in 1892. Ice cream became a part of football weekend tradition in 1896, when Creamery ice cream was first sold to the public. By 1932, the Creamery was buying milk and cream from hundreds of nearby farmers and was selling ice cream in both State College and Altoona, Pennsylvania.

Ice cream makers Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield of Ben & Jerry's, are 1978 alumni of the Penn State Creamery correspondence course in ice cream-making, Agriculture 5150, which teaches manufacturers the basics of ice cream production.

During the 1980s the Creamery was using three million pounds of milk per year, and in 2004, it supplied the Penn State dining halls with over 225,000 gallons of milk. That same year, it produced 200,000 pounds of cheese products and 225,000 gallons of ice cream and sherbet, both selling these products and providing them for university use.

Only U.S. President Bill Clinton has been allowed to mix different flavours of Creamery ice cream. The Creamery normally does not allow mixing of flavors (i.e., having scoops of different flavors in one cone / cup). The flavors President Clinton requested were Cherry Quist and Peachy Paterno. However, when Clinton returned after his tenure as the President, Creamery workers would no longer serve him mixed flavors.

The Creamery moved from its long-time home in Borland Laboratory location to a new location in the new Food Science Building at the intersection of Curtin Road and Bigler Road in 2006. The new Creamery is closer to Beaver Stadium, the East Residence Halls dormitory complex, and a parking deck. When the move was first announced, there were some student protests, but these protests eventually subsided.

There are five Creamery ice cream flavors that have remained the most popular in recent Creamery history: Vanilla, Bittersweet Mint, Peanut Butter Swirl, Peachy Paterno, and Butter Pecan. The new creamery facility has been named the Berkey Creamery, in honor of the Berkey family who donated a large sum of money to the construction of the Food Sciences Building, which includes the new creamery facility.

title: Penn State University Creamery


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force/Breed grouping

Dog breed grouping strategies

Each dog breed, whether or not it currently has an article, should appear in at least one of the sublist articles by dog type. These include (list might be incomplete):

 * See Category:Dog types for current list of dog type articles. (Placeholder; would be good to reproduce the list here, I believe. TBD.)


text:
Enoki Films

Enoki Films Co., Ltd. (エノキフイルム株式会社) was a Japanese studio based in the Enoki Building in Shinjuku, Tokyo.

Enoki Films also had a North American division, established in 1986, headquartered in the Encino area of Los Angeles, California, United States called Enoki Films USA, Inc. Enoki Films USA acted as a middle-man between Japanese companies and American licensees such as 4Kids Entertainment and Saban. In May 2007 their content was provided as video on demand by Internet startup ReelTime.com (worldwide except Japan).

As of 2002 Enoki licensed anime but sub-licenses its licenses to various distributors instead of distributing them directly. Anime News Network wrote that "They generally only license TV shows that they hope to also license to TV broadcasters such as Cartoon Network, ABC Family and Fox Kids".

Some of the anime productions that were listed on Enoki's website are under alternate names and may list characters under different names as well. In many cases, when sub-licensed to anime home video companies, the original titles and character names have been restored. Enoki's translations of episode titles and scenarios may differ from those in the official release.

If Enoki's series had a separate movie or direct-to-video production, it is usually not licensed by Enoki, and the film or direct-to-video production may be licensed to a separate company than the series (as is the case with the Slayers movies and OVAs and the Utena movie).

Enoki Films' North American division is now defunct, since it brought its operations to an end in 2010.

In addition to distributing anime, Enoki Films USA also distributed puppet shows such as Peppermint Park and Star Fleet.

History
In 1975, Zen and Yoshi Enoki established Enoki Films Co., Ltd. in Tokyo. In 1980, they opened a liaison office in London, England, for European operations. In 1986 the California office opened; soon afterwards Yoshi Enoki opened the American division.

Anime licensed by Enoki Films USA
Some of the Enoki USA titles include:
 * 8 Man After
 * Bistro Recipe (Fighting Foodons; produced with 4Kids Entertainment)
 * Captain Tsubasa (under the titles Flash Kicker and Captain Tsubasa)
 * Cosmo Warrior Zero (under the title Cosmowarrior Zero)
 * Demon Lord Dante
 * El-Hazard: The Wanderer
 * Genshi-kun (Flint the Time Detective; produced with Saban)
 * Gensomaden Saiyuki under the title Saiyuki: Paradise Raiders)
 * Gun Frontier
 * Gokudo (as Jester the Adventurer)
 * His and Her Circumstances (as Tales at North Hills High; released under original name)
 * Honey Honey no Suteki na Bouken (as simply Honey Honey)
 * Ikki Tousen
 * Lolo the Penguin (Scamper the Penguin)
 * Lost Universe
 * Majuu Sensen: The Apocalypse (as Beast Fighter: The Apocalypse)
 * Revolutionary Girl Utena (as Ursula's Kiss; released under original name)
 * Slayers (as The Slayers)
 * Totsugeki! Pappara-tai (as The X-treme Team)

Young anime of Enoki Films

 * Pokonyan!
 * Mojacko
 * Prince Mackaroo
 * Hello Kitty's Paradise
 * Petit Petit Anime
 * The Wonderful Galaxy of Oz
 * Flint the Time Detective
 * Tomatoman
 * Kappamaki
 * Mock & Sweet
 * Hikarian
 * Serendipity Stories: Friends of Pure Island
 * Serendipity the Pink Dragon
 * Dotakon

Anime available through Enoki Films
Enoki also list many other anime series on their website that are available for sub-licensing to other companies for release on home video. As yet, the following titles remain unlicensed by any other company and thus unavailable in English:

 * The Adventures of Scamper the Penguin
 * Firestorm (Gerry Anderson anime production)
 * Forza! Hidemaru (as Forza! Mario)
 * Galaxy Gale Baxingar (J-9 series two, as Cosmo Ranger)
 * Galaxy Hurricane Sasuraiger (J-9 series three, as Wonder Six)
 * Galaxy Whirlwind Braiger (J-9 series one, as Cosmo Runner)
 * Giant Killing
 * Hikarian
 * Mission Outer Space Srungle (as Gorilla Force; previously licensed by Saban as part of "Macron 1" along with GoShogun)
 * Ruins Legend Acrobunch
 * Submarine Super 99
 * Thumbelina

title: Enoki Films


text:
New York Court of Appeals

The New York Court of Appeals is the highest court in the Unified Court System of the State of New York. It consists of seven judges: the Chief Judge and six associate judges, who are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state senate to 14-year terms. The Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals also heads administration of the state's court system, and thus is also known as the Chief Judge of the State of New York. The Court of Appeals was founded in 1847 and is located in the New York Court of Appeals Building in Albany, New York.

Nomenclature
In the Federal court system, and all other U.S. states, the court of last resort is known as the "Supreme Court". New York, however, calls its lower courts the "Supreme Court" – consisting of the trial court and the intermediate appellate court, known as the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court – and the court of last resort the Court of Appeals.

Further adding to the confusion is New York's terminology for jurists on its top two courts. Those who sit on its Supreme Court are referred to as "Justices" – the title reserved in most states and the Federal court system for members of the highest court – whereas the members of New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, are simply called "Judges".

Jurisdiction

Appeals are taken from the four departments of the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division to the Court of Appeals. In some cases, an appeal lies of right, but in most cases, permission (or "leave") to appeal must be obtained, either from the Appellate Division itself or from the Court of Appeals. In civil cases, the Appellate Division panel or Court of Appeals votes on petitions for leave to appeal; in most criminal cases, however, the petition for leave to appeal is referred to a single Justice or Judge, whose decision whether to grant or deny leave is final. In some criminal cases, some appellate decisions by an Appellate Term or County Court are also appealable to the Court of Appeals, either of right or by permission.

In a few cases, an appeal can be taken from the court of first instance to the Court of Appeals, bypassing the Appellate Division. Direct appeals are authorized from final trial-court decisions in civil cases where the only issue is the constitutionality of a federal or state statute. In criminal cases, a direct appeal to the Court of Appeals is mandatory where a death sentence is imposed, but this provision has been irrelevant since New York's death-penalty law was declared unconstitutional. Decisions by the court can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States but only in cases containing a point of federal or consitutional law.

Decisions from the Court of Appeals are binding authority on all lower courts, and persuasive authority for itself in later cases. Every opinion, memorandum, and motion of the Court of Appeals sent to the New York State Reporter is required to be published in the New York Reports.

Administration of the courts
The New York State Unified Court System is a unified state court system that functions under the Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals who is the ex officio Chief Judge of New York. The Chief Judge supervises the seven-judge Court of Appeals and is chair of the Administrative Board of the Courts. In addition, the Chief Judge establishes standards and administrative policies after consultation with the Administrative Board and approval by the Court of Appeals. The Chief Administrator (or Chief Administrative Judge if a judge) is appointed by the Chief Judge with the advice and consent of the Administrative Board and oversees the administration and operation of the court system, assisted by the Office of Court Administration. The eleven-member New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct receives complaints, investigates, and makes initial determinations regarding judicial conduct and may recommend admonition, censure, or removal from office to the Chief Judge and Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals promulgates rules for admission to practice law in New York. (The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division is responsible for actual admissions. ) The New York State Reporter is the official reporter of decisions and is appointed by the Court of Appeals.

History

The Court of Appeals was created by the New York State Constitution of 1846 to replace both the Court for the Correction of Errors and the Court of Chancery, and had eight members. Four judges were elected by general ballot at the State elections, the other four were chosen annually from among the Supreme Court justices. The first four judges elected at the special judicial state election in June 1847 were Freeborn G. Jewett (to a term of two and a half years), Greene C. Bronson (to a term of four and a half years), Charles H. Ruggles (to a term of six and a half years), and Addison Gardiner (to a term of eight and a half years). They took office on July 5, 1847. Afterwards, every two years, one judge was elected in odd-numbered years to an eight-year term. In case of a vacancy, a judge was temporarily appointed by the Governor, and at the next odd-year state election a judge was elected for the remainder of the term. The Chief Judge was always that one of the elected judges who had the shortest remaining term. Besides, the Court had a Clerk who was elected to a three-year term.

In 1869, the proposed new State Constitution was rejected by the voters. Only the "Judicial Article", which re-organized the New York Court of Appeals, was adopted by a small majority, with 247,240 for and 240,442 against it. The Court of Appeals was wholly re-organised, taking effect on July 4, 1870. All sitting judges were legislated out of office, and seven new judges were elected by general ballot at a special election on May 17, 1870. Democrat Sanford E. Church defeated Republican Henry R. Selden for Chief Judge. The tickets for associate judges had only four names each and the voters could cast only four ballots, so that four judges were chosen by the majority and two by the minority. Martin Grover was the only sitting judge who was re-elected. The judges were elected to a 14-year term, which most judges did not complete, since the Constitution mandated the retirement of the judges at the end of the calendar year in which they reached the age of 70. In case of a vacancy due to death or resignation, a judge was appointed by the Governor until a successor was chosen at the next State election. To replace retiring or appointed judges, all substitutes were elected to full 14-year terms.

In 1889, a "Second Division" of the Court of Appeals was established temporarily to help to decide the large number of cases. Its seven members were designated by Governor David B. Hill, chosen from the New York Supreme Court's General Term benches. Chief Judge was Daniel L. Follett. Among its members were Alton B. Parker and Joseph Potter. The Second Division was continued through 1890. In 1891, the State Constitutional Commission, headed by William B. Hornblower drafted an amendment to abolish the Second Division.

A constitutional amendment adopted in November 1899 permitted the Governor, at the request of a majority of the judges of the Court of Appeals, to designate up to four justices of the Supreme Court to serve as associate judges of the Court of Appeals until the Court's calendar was reduced below two hundred cases. This goal was reached only in 1921, and henceforth no more Supreme Court justices were designated under the amendment of 1899 to serve on the Court of Appeals.

Jacob D. Fuchsberg and Lawrence H. Cooke were the last judges elected by general ballot at the State election in November 1974. Afterwards the judges have been nominated by the Governor and confirmed by the New York State Senate.

Notable cases
The Court of Appeals has decided some of the most important cases in American jurisprudence.

Conflict of laws

 * Babcock v. Jackson (Fuld, J.): holding that the law of the jurisdiction governs that has the strongest interest in the resolution of the particular issue presented.

Statutory interpretation

 * Riggs v. Palmer (Earl, J): used the "social purpose" rule of statutory construction, the process of interpreting a will.

Contracts

 * Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon (Cardozo, J.): was both a minor cause célèbre at the time and an influential development in the law of contract consideration.
 * Jacob & Youngs v. Kent (Cardozo, J.): held that expectation damages arising from a breach of contract are limited to the diminution of the property's value if the undoing of the breach was an economic waste.
 * Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co. (Bergan, J.): the court granted an injunction against the cement plant for nuisance, but permitted the plant to pay permanent damages after which the court would vacate the injunction. In essence, the court permitted the plant to pay the net present value of its effects and to continue polluting.

Corporations

 * Berkey v. Third Avenue Railway Co (Cardozo, J.): held that the Third Avenue Railway Co was not liable for the debts of the subsidiary. It was necessary that the domination of the parent company over the subsidiary was required to be complete, in order for the parent company to be treated as liable for the debts of the subsidiary. It was needed that the subsidiary be merely the alter ego of the parent, or that the subsidiary be thinly capitalized, so as to perpetrate a fraud on the creditors.
 * Meinhard v. Salmon (Cardozo, J.): held that managing partner in a joint venture had a fiduciary duty to inform the investing partner of an opportunity that would arise after the scheduled termination of the partnership.
 * Walkovszky v. Carlton (Fuld, J.): refused to pierce the veil on account of undercapitalization alone.

Criminal law

 * People v. Molineux (Werner, J.): held that using 'evidence' of an unproven previous act of murder against the defendant in a subsequent unrelated trial violated the basic tenet of presumption of innocence, and, therefore, such evidence was inadmissible
 * People v. Onofre (Jones): held that it is not the function of the penal law to provide for the enforcement of moral or theological values.
 * People v. Antommarchi (Simons, J.): affirming the statutory rights of a defendant to be present during any sidebar questioning of a prospective juror concerning his or her impartiality.
 * People v. Goetz (Wachtler, CJ): held that 1) The defense of justification, which permits the use of deadly physical force, is not a purely subjective standard; the actor must not only have the subjective belief that deadly physical force is necessary, but those beliefs must also be objectively reasonable. 2) The mere appearance of perjured testimony given before the Grand Jury is not sufficient to sustain a dismissal of an indictment.
 * People v. Scott (Hancock, J.), held that the protections against unlawful search and seizure in the state constitution are broad enough that, contrary to the open-fields doctrine affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Oliver v. United States, a landowner can assert a reasonable expectation of privacy against a warrantless search of all property, not just that within the curtilage of the house, as long as they have made some effort to exclude the public such as posting or fencing the property or gating roads. New York is one of five states where courts have declined to adopt the doctrine.
 * People v. LaValle (G.B Smith, J.): The current statute of capital punishment in the state of New York was unconstitutional as it violated article one, section six of the state constitution.

Torts

 * Devlin v. Smith: The Court held that a duty to third parties "exists when a defect is such as to render the article in itself imminently dangerous, and serious injury to any person using it is a natural and probable consequence of its use." The Court further held that scaffolding to be used in the painting of a courthouse was an inherently dangerous article.
 * Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital (Cardozo, J.): established principles of informed consent and respondeat superior in United States law
 * MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (Cardozo, J.): helped signal the end of the law's attachment with privity as a source of duty in products liability. This is the foundational doctrine underlying nearly all modern product liability lawsuits.
 * Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (Cardozo, J.): was important in the development of the concept of the proximate cause in tort law.
 * Martin v. Herzog (Cardozo, J.): holding that the unexcused violation of a statutory duty is negligence per se and a jury does not have the power to relax the duty that one traveler on the highway owes under a statute to another on the same highway.
 * Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co. (McLaughlin, J.): The Court held that a plaintiff cannot recover from a defendant based on implied warranty when she does not have contractual privity with him; thus, a plaintiff cannot recover from a defendant who sold her employer food unfit for consumption, because the defendant's implied warranty extended only to the employer.
 * Tedla v. Ellman (Lehman, J.): the court held that because the violation occurred in a situation not anticipated by the drafters of the statute and was in keeping with the spirit of the statute, it did not constitute negligence.
 * Akins v. Glens Falls City School District (Jasen, J.): The Court held that the Baseball Rule, an exception to tort law under which spectators at sporting events cannot hold teams, players or venues liable if they are injured by a ball leaving the field as long as some protected seating was available, is still valid under comparative negligence, the first time it was challenged under that doctrine.
 * Trimarco v. Klein (Fuchsberg, J.): held that custom and usage is highly relevant evidence related to the reasonable person standard but it does not per se define the scope of negligence.

title: New York Court of Appeals


text:
Naval Air Station Alameda

Naval Air Station Alameda (NAS Alameda) was a United States Navy Naval Air Station in Alameda, California, on San Francisco Bay.

NAS Alameda had two runways: 13–31 measuring 8000 × and 07-25 measuring 7200 ×. Two helicopter pads and a control tower were also part of the facilities.

History
In 1927, wetlands at the west end of Alameda Island on the east shore of San Francisco Bay were filled to form an airport (Alameda Airport) with an east–west runway, three hangars, an administration building, and a yacht harbor. The airport site included the Alameda Terminal of the First transcontinental railroad (California Historical Landmark #440). By 1930, United States Army Air Corps operations referred to the site as Benton Field. Pan American World Airways used the yacht harbor as the California terminal for China Clipper trans-Pacific flights beginning in 1935. The China Clipper terminal is designated California Historical Landmark #968.

On 1 June 1936, the city of Alameda, California ceded the airport to the United States government a few months before the Army discontinued operations from the field. Pan American World Airways shifted its terminal to Treasure Island in 1939 for the Golden Gate International Exposition. Congressional appropriations passed in 1938 for construction of naval air station facilities for two carrier air wings, five seaplane squadrons and two utility squadrons. Appropriations were increased in 1940 for construction of two seaplane hangars and an aircraft carrier berthing pier. Naval operations began on 1 November 1940. – 1997 Fleet Air Wing 8 began patrol and scouting missions following the attack on Pearl Harbor. In April 1942, USS Hornet (CV-8) loaded at Alameda the 16 B-25 aircraft that would take part in the Doolittle Raid on Japan. From August through December 1944, future US President Richard Nixon was assigned to Fleet Air Wing 8 at Naval Air Station Alameda, California.

Air support training unit No. 2 at Alameda included the fleet radar operator's school, Link celestial navigation trainer school, and aviation storekeeper school. As World War II continued, Alameda became headquarters for a system of auxiliary airfields:

 * Naval Auxiliary Air Station Arcata
 * Clear Lake Outlying Field
 * Concord Outlying Field
 * Crescent City Outlying Field
 * Crows Landing Naval Auxiliary Air Station
 * Fallon Auxiliary Airfield
 * Half Moon Bay Outlying Field
 * Hollister Auxiliary Airfield
 * King City Auxiliary Airfield
 * Livermore Auxiliary Airfield
 * Monterey Auxiliary Airfield
 * Oakland Auxiliary Airfield
 * Paso Robles Outlying Field
 * San Francisco Auxiliary Airfield
 * San Luis Obispo Outlying Field
 * Santa Rosa Outlying Field
 * Treasure Island Auxiliary Airfield
 * Tulare Lake Outlying Field
 * Naval Auxiliary Air Station Vernalis
 * Watsonville Auxiliary Airfield

Alameda remained an important naval base through the Cold War. From 1949 to 1953, the Navy based the Lockheed R6V Constitution—the largest airplane ever listed on the Navy inventory—at NAS Alameda. The two prototypes regularly flew between nearby NAS Moffett Field and Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

During the Vietnam War portion of the Cold War and its later post-Vietnam era, the base was homeport to the aircraft carriers USS Coral Sea (CV-43), USS Hancock (CVA-19), USS Oriskany (CV-34), USS Enterprise (CVN-65), USS Ranger (CV-61), and USS Carl Vinson. NAS Alameda also housed a major aircraft overhaul facility employing thousand of civilian employees that was known as Naval Air Rework Facility (NARF) Alameda and later renamed Naval Aviation Depot (NADEP) Alameda.

The base was also the focus for northern California Naval Air Reserve operations after 1961, hosting various Reserve Force Squadrons attached to Carrier Air Wing Reserve 30 (CVWR-30), also known as CAG-30, equipped with aircraft such as the KA-3 Skywarrior...later replaced by the A-6 Intruder, and the A-4 Skyhawk...later replaced by A-7 Corsair II. Other Naval Air Reserve Force Squadrons external to CVWR-30 flew the Sikorsky H-34 Sea Horse...later replaced by the SH-3 Sea King, the CH-53 Sea Stallion, and MH-53E Sea Dragon. Another land-based squadron under Fleet Logistics Support Wing flew the C-9 Skytrain II. In the 1960s, a Naval Air Reserve unit also flew the P-2 Neptune before relocating to nearby NAS Moffett Field, transitioning to the P-3 Orion, and being established as Reserve patrol squadron in 1970. Runways were lengthened for jet aircraft, and the airfield was renamed Nimitz Field in 1967 following the death of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz.

The base was closed in 1997 pursuant to Base Realignment and Closure action. Its runways were also closed and the airfield was not reutilized as a civilian airport.

Post-closure uses

After the base closed on 25 April 1997, USS Hornet (CV-12) was given to the former air station to be used as a museum ship, the USS Hornet Museum.

The television series MythBusters often conducted vehicle-based experiments on the grounds of the station (referred to on-air as the "Alameda Runway"), due to the extensive safety zone that could be set up around the test site. For the same reason, this location has been used as a checkpoint for the Bullrun rally race; the lengthy airstrip allowed for the staging of a challenge involving chasing a semi-trailer.

A two-mile freeway loop was constructed on the base for the filming of a lengthy car chase sequence for the movie The Matrix Reloaded. The loop cost over $1.5 million to construct and was used solely for shooting the film's chase scenes (a seven-week-long process) before it was demolished. The route is still visible on some aerial photography on the former Runway 07/25 and Runway 13/31.

Since 2000, the city of Alameda has been planning the redevelopment of the former Naval Air Station, now known as Alameda Point. Complicating the redevelopment are several constraints: land-use constraints consisting of Tidelands Trust; soil and groundwater contamination; wildlife refuge buffer requirements; geotechnical issues; 100-year flood plans; institutional and contractual constraints with Alameda Measure A, the Alameda Naval Air Station Historic District and existing residents and leases.

In August 2001, Alameda selected Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP) as the master developer for the property. APCP was a partnership of financier Morgan Stanley, Shea Homes of Livermore, Centex Homes of Dallas and the Industrial Realty Group. The development was estimated to cost $2 billion and take 15 years to complete. Alameda Point Community Partners was selected over Catellus and Harbor Bay/Lennar, and signed a two-year exclusive negotiating contract as the property's master developer.

By 2005, only Shea Homes and Centex Homes were working on redevelopment plans, and a Preliminary Development Concept called for building 1,700 homes on the site. In July 2006, the City of Alameda and the Navy agreed to a $108 million purchase deal. In September 2006, APCP decided that it would not move forward with the development plan identified in the Preliminary Development Concept and withdrew from the project.

In May 2007, the city selected SunCal Companies as the master developer from a field of five applicant firms that sought to develop 770 acre. In July 2007, the city and SunCal entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement as SunCal began to gather community input and develop preliminary plans.

In August 2010, the Alameda City Council voted to terminate the exclusive negotiating agreement with SunCal and halt its proposal for the former Naval Air Station. Various reasons were cited in the staff report leading up to the vote, including the developer- and city-initiated ballot measure related to the project that was defeated in February 2010 by a margin of 85%.

Superfund cleanup site
NAS Alameda was listed as a Superfund cleanup site on 22 July 1999. 25 locations on the base were identified as needing remediation. The largest of the individual locations is the West Beach Landfill which occupies approximately 110 acres (44.5 ha) in the southwestern corner of the base. Tests of the landfill indicate polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination.

title: Naval Air Station Alameda


text:
ITU-D

The ITU Telecommunication Development Sector (ITU-D) is one of the three sectors (divisions or units) of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU); it is responsible for creating policies, regulation and providing training programs and financial strategies in developing countries.

Created in 1992, its secretariat is the Bureau de développement des télécommunications (BDT), known in English as the Telecommunication Development Bureau.

title: ITU-D


text:
Solomon the Wise

Solomon the Wise (original Yiddish title Shloime Chuchem) is a 1906 play by Jacob Gordin, based on French sources, and loosely based on actual events in 17th century France, during the reign of Louis XIII and the ascendancy of Cardinal Richelieu.

Solomon Kaus, the title character, was an actual Jew who lived in Paris at that time, and believed he could build a machine that could run on water power; it is unclear whether he may have had an early idea along the lines of a steam engine or if he was simply pursuing an impossibility. He was, indeed, brought before Richelieu at one point for a hearing, and imprisoned among lunatics.

In the play, his invention is a success, but he is the subject of various intrigues; he is driven insane, and his heart gives out.

The title role was originally played by Jacob Adler. A contemporary critic in the New York Dramatic Mirror wrote of himself in the third person that "in all his years as a theatregoer he has seldom seen a histrionic exhibition equal to the performance of Jacob Adler as Solomon Kaus. In fact, the impersonation will remain imprinted on his mind with very few tragic portrayals he has seen. Until confined to the lunatic asylum Adler played the part as an intellectual dreamer... his dignity heightened by his emotional restraint... The culmination of the third act was infinitely more stupendous after this quiet, normal beginning... [O]ne could see the light of understanding fade from his eyes. Then came the delirium and the pity of it. Though the last act was enough to agonize the soul of an Egyptian sphinx, it was, artistically speaking, always within bounds."

In the third act, as Lulla Rosenfeld describes it in her commentary to Adler's memoir, Kaus "gives way to madness with the wild cry, 'Solomon Kaus now rides his fiery steed!' On this line Adler executed a leap that carried him to the brink, and almost over the brink, of the footlights. It never failed to bring a gasp from the audience, a moment of electrifying 'theater' in an otherwise realistic, albeit heightened, performance."

title: Solomon the Wise


text:
Northern Westchester

Northern Westchester refers to the upper portion of Westchester County, New York, a suburban area north of New York City. Lying north of Interstate 287/Cross Westchester Expressway, these communities are distinguished by distance from New York City and their more rural character from those of Southern Westchester. The area is notable for its general affluence and high degree of watershed for New York City, being home to two major collection reservoirs supplying drinking water to it, the New Croton and Kensico.

Municipalities
In New York, there are three types of political subdivisions (i.e. municipalities) of counties: cities, towns, and villages. While cities are incorporated entities, towns are not. However, areas within a town can incorporate; when this occurs, the resulting area is called a "village". Villages have their own additional level of government along with the government of the town the village lies within. Some towns contain a village with the same name, which is usually also the town's center.

Certain areas of a town often develop their own identity, based around perhaps a school district or historic feature; the term for such areas which lack any other municipal designation is a hamlet, which may or may not be acknowledged by the United States Census for statistical purposes.

Such hamlets in Northern Westchester include:

 * Armonk
 * Bedford
 * Chappaqua
 * Mount Kisco
 * North Castle
 * Pleasantville
 * Somers
 * Katonah
 * Peekskill
 * Ossining
 * Croton
 * Pound Ridge
 * North Salem
 * Yorktown
 * Cortlandt
 * Millwood
 * Lewisboro
 * Sleepy Hollow
 * Thornwood
 * Briarcliff Manor
 * Mohegan Lake
 * Tarrytown

Notable residents

 * Bill and Hillary Clinton (Chappaqua)
 * DMX (Mount Kisco)
 * Mike Myers (Pound Ridge)
 * Richard Gere (Pound Ridge)
 * Audra McDonald
 * Alan Menken
 * Kelli O'Hara
 * Nick DiPaolo
 * Martha Stewart (Bedford)
 * Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins (Pound Ridge)
 * George Soros (Bedford)
 * Vanessa Williams (Chappaqua) (and Rick Fox, during his marriage to Williams)
 * Glenn Close (Bedford)
 * Bernie Williams (Armonk)

title: Northern Westchester


text:
Francisco Pacheco

Francisco Pacheco del Río (bap. 3 November 1564 – 27 November 1644) was a Spanish painter, best known as the teacher and father-in-law of Diego Velázquez and Alonzo Cano, and for his textbook on painting, entitled Art of Painting, that is an important source for the study of 17th-century practice in Spain. He is described by some as the "Vasari of Seville": vocal and didactic about his theories of painting and thoughts about painters, conventional and uninspired in his executions.

Early life
He was born at Sanlúcar de Barrameda, son of Juan Pérez and wife Leonor del Río, and moved to Seville at a young age. He was a student of Luis Fernandez, and did much of his learning by copying works of the Italian masters. He visited Madrid and Toledo in 1611, studying the work of El Greco, then returned to Seville and opened an art school. He married a daughter of de Miranda and had one daughter, Juana Pacheco (1 June 1602 – 10 August 1660)

Career
Pacheco's school emphasized the academically correct representation of religious subjects, not least because he was the official censor of Seville's Inquisition. His own work reflects those constraints; paintings such as the Last Judgment (convent of Santa Isabel) and Martyrs of Granada are monumental in scale but unimaginative in treatment.

Although Velázquez was a student in Pacheco's school for six years, and married Pacheco's daughter Juana on 23 April 1618, there is no trace of Pacheco's influence in the work of Velázquez besides in standards of decorum, such as depictions of the Immaculate Conception.

In addition to material on iconography, materials and technique, Pacheco's Arte de la pintura (1649) includes valuable biographical information on Spanish painters of the time.

title: Francisco Pacheco


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geylang Methodist Secondary School

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was (apparently) Deleted, perhaps because of the copyvio, and possibly ignoring the late Keep votes resulting from GRider's posts on multiple User_talk pages. The admin who deleted the article did not close the VfD in the usual way. I am just adding the closure templates. --BM 22:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was deleted as a copyvio on March 5 after being listed since February 20. dbenbenn | talk 13:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Geylang Methodist Secondary School
Article fails to establish notability. Delete.-gadfium 05:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable - 350 Google hits. Megan1967 06:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless its the only Methodist school in Siagapore or something else that would make it notable pops up --nixie 06:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep this and all school articles. They won't get better if they don't exist, and it would be amazing to have a proper article about every school in the World. Wincoote 07:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it would be detrimental. The important words are "proper article".  An encyclopaedia is not simply a directory.  It contains knowledge, not mere information.  To be worthy of a "proper article", an entity that is one of thousands (or, as in this case one of hundreds of thousands if not millions) has to stand out from the crowd for some reason.  There has to be something more than can be inferred from the fact that it is a school (and thus has all of the things that that entails, such as enrollment, teachers, songs, crests, buildings, sports teams, and so forth).  High schools in Connecticut, before its deletion, showed how large numbers of entities with lack of individual notability can be handled.  But even that approach comes with caveats. Uncle G 15:06, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
 * Delete. The vast majority of schools in the world are not notable. Make articles for the notable ones, put them in appropriate categories and Wikipedia becomes a better place. Carrp | Talk 07:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Gamaliel 07:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The reasons why notable schools get deleted while articles about fictional bus drivers get kept is due to systematic bias. If this article get deleted than I hope the delete voters won't object to deleting Ernie Prang? But no, you would all be voting keep. VFD is broken. I have seen countless articles get deleted because of this problem and this is another example. Norman Rogers\talk 09:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No, most people are voting merge on Ernie :) Other than that, concur with Carrp, Delete. Radiant! 13:44, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not vote merge for this article then? Norman Rogers\talk
 * Is this one more notable than the average secondary school? Kappa 11:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The reasons why notable schools get deleted while articles about fictional bus drivers get kept is due to systematic bias — That is a flawed argument that assumes the erroneous premise that the schools actually are notable. Out of the millions of schools in the world, the overwhelming majority are not notable (despite all of the efforts of academic boosterism to the contrary).  School articles get deleted because there is nothing of importance to say about the schools and the articles are tantamount to directory entries.  Wikipedia is not a directory. Delete. Uncle G 15:06, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
 * Notabillity is a POV, which is sculpted by systematic bias. You have the bias that schools are not notable as your POV, but realize that there are other people who think that they are notable. If you don't think that they are notable then don't read them, but getting them deleted and denying the people who do think they are notable to write about them is bad. Thats why deletionists are bad for the Wikipedia project and they must change their ways. Think KEEP, make Wikipedia more comprehensive and therefore useful, or a merge and redirect to an article in your POV is notable enough to include. For exmaple, a few weeks ago, someone wrote an article about MY former school! Instead of listing it on VFD, I merged and redirected it into the town that it was in, that is a much better soloution. See article about it. If more people kept or merged and redirected there will be less aruments on VFD and Wikipedia will be a better encyclopedia. Norman Rogers\talk 15:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Copyvio - I normally vote to keep schools, but in this case the article is a copyvio from . - SimonP 14:00, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, even if copyvio is resolved. Very few secondary schools are encyclopedically notable, and there is no reason to consider this an exception. --BM 16:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep if copyvio is resolved. Necessary to the coverage of its local area. Kappa 03:02, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge information into article about the local community and delete' - Skysmith 09:10, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Even if the copyvio is resolved, I'd need a LOT of convincing. Delete. --Calton 10:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Schools are inherently notable.--Centauri 12:42, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That may be your opinion but it is far from consensual. Radiant! 13:15, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, if the copyvio is fixed. - Mailer Diablo 13:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I vote keep. In my opinion schools are notable. --JuntungWu 14:10, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Realising that while my opinion is non-consensual, educational institutions of all sorts are still much more inherently noteworthy than the average Pokémon. May be persuaded to change my vote if we remove Pokémon-related boosterism but until then, keep and allow for organic growth and expansion.  GRider\talk 19:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Schools are not inherently notable. No evidence available that this one is notable.  Delete even if copyvio is resolved.  GRider has a good point but "Wikipedia is inconsistent."  We must take these nominations as they come to us.  Rossami (talk) 05:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable. Grue 13:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I know people of good will have strongly held opinions about inclusion of school articles, but this is ridiculous. The article lacks any meaningful content and comes very close to qualifying for speedy deletion ("very short articles with little or no context"). Delete, add mention to some relevant local article if available. RadicalSubversiv E 13:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ridiculous article, candidate for speedy deletion, exposes radical school inclusionism. Jayjg (talk) 16:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The current non-copyvio version is almost nonsensical, and the copyvio version neither establishes (nor attempts to establish) notability. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 00:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Like Aranel said. Delete.
 * Delete. Not notable. 66.188.220.252 05:22, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * ''Note: Unsigned and/or unregistered votes do not count on VfD. Please register an account with Wikipedia first and have some contributions before voting here. --Andylkl 23:43, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

 * Notice to reviewing administrator: There was an attempt to vote stack on this article. See GRider's contributions.  Votes beyond this point need to be reviewed carefully and considered carefully. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Users must consider all policies and former consensus before commenting for consensus: Please note, Deletion policy, is not the only policy to consider.
 * Votes for deletion/Precedents
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * What's in, what's out

Considerations should also be made to the following as well:
 * Google test
 * Importance

Users should remember that the Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep the article, rewrite it so it's not a copyright violation.--BaronLarf 19:32, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain. Whats the point if it's a copyvio.  RaD Man (talk) 22:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for the copyvio, I'll vote to keep if original content turns up. Wyss 23:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain. Willing to change vote if there's useful/factual content there. --Andylkl 23:43, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interesting school stub, wikipedia is not paper. --ShaunMacPherson 01:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Keep Notable -CunningLinguist 02:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. JuntungWu 12:53, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep (if copy violation is fixed). schools are notable RustyCale 13:30, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think schools are inherently notable. Further, "notability" is not listed in Deletion policy (even though I wish it were, and have tried to include it), so isn't grounds for deletion anyway. Dan100 17:52, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As others said, it has to be fixed first thou. But as a Singaporean, I have to point out that it is one of the few Methodist schools in Singapore, so it may be worthy for an elaboration on its history.--Huaiwei 20:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: In regards to claims of vote-stacking, their are large amounts of people who beleive well-written articles for schools are inherently notable. Merely bringing an article to someones attention is no more votestacking than providing a link for someone is. If you'll notice, GRider's contributions were far and wide and not concentrated on any bloc or mailing list group. Speaking for myself, I evaluated the article and voted to keep it out of sincere belief that it deserved to be kept and not out of any votestacking motivation. I have faith that the majority of the other voters did as well. Thank you for your time. -CunningLinguist 03:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


text:
User:TwoRivers

This page refers to the user TwoRivers, who enjoys learning new things on Wikipedia. Why you are here and reading this, TwoRivers has no idea. But feel free to stay a while and enjoy the scenery.

title: User:TwoRivers


text:
Wikipedia:Peer review/Yael Dayan/archive1

Yael Dayan
Author: Could someone with a greater familiarity with current Israeli politics please review this? I'm afraid most of my research was from older (1980s) sources, and I cobbled together the more recent stuff from internet research. -Thanks Fernando Rizo 05:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text: Category:Fremantle

title: Category:Fremantle


text:
Stanley H. Fuld

Stanley Howells Fuld (August 23, 1903 – July 22, 2003) was an American lawyer and politician from New York. He was Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals from 1967 to 1973.

Life
Born in Manhattan, New York City, Fuld was the son of Emanuel I. Fuld (a proofreader of the New York Times) and Hermine (Frisch) Fuld. He graduated from City College of New York in 1923, and received an LL.B. from Columbia University in 1926.

Fuld engaged in private practice until 1935, when he was hired as an investigator by Thomas E. Dewey, Special Prosecutor of Rackets in Manhattan and a schoolmate of Fuld's at Columbia. Fuld's specialty was developing new theories to prosecute racketeers, including Charles "Lucky" Luciano and James J. Hines, the Tammany Hall district leader.

In November 1937, Dewey was elected District Attorney of New York County, and appointed Fuld Head of the Indictment Bureau. From 1939 to 1943, he was Chief of the Appeals Bureau. Afterwards he resumed his private practice

On April 25, 1946, Fuld was appointed by Dewey, now Governor, a judge of the New York Court of Appeals to fill the vacancy caused by the death of George Z. Medalie. In November 1946, he was elected on the Republican ticket to a 14-year term, and re-elected on the Republican and Democratic tickets in 1960. In 1966, he was elected unopposed Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals. In that capacity, after the Attica Prison riot was brutally suppressed in 1971, Governor Nelson Rockefeller invited him and four other state judges to appoint a citizens' committee to investigate the entire affair. He retired from the bench at the end of 1973 when he reached the constitutional age limit of 70 years, and returned to private practice.

Judge Fuld authored the majority opinions in Auten v. Auten and Babcock v. Jackson, which are widely considered to be landmark cases in American choice of law revolution.

Personal life
On May 29, 1930, Fuld married Florence Geringer (d. 1975). After her death, he married Stella Rapaport. He died at his home in West Palm Beach, Florida.

title: Stanley H. Fuld


text:
Valderrama Golf Club

The Real Club Valderrama ("Royal Valderrama Club") is one of the best known golf clubs in the world. It is located in the resort of Sotogrande, San Roque in the Andalusia region of southern Spain, a few miles from Gibraltar, and has a single 18-hole course, along with a 9-hole par 3 course.

Valderrama was the traditional host of the now defunct Volvo Masters, hosting the event from 1988 to 2008, with a five-year break when the event was moved to the Montecastillo Golf Club. It also hosted the Ryder Cup in 1997, the first time the event had been held outside either the United States or United Kingdom, the WGC-American Express Championship in 1999 and 2000, and several other professional tournaments on both the European Tour and Ladies European Tour.

Golf course
Valderrama was constructed in 1974 as "Sotogrande New," to the designs of leading American golf course architect Robert Trent Jones. Renamed "Las Aves" in 1981, it was acquired by Jaime Ortiz-Patiño in 1984. The golf course was redesigned and expanded by the original architect and became "Valderrama." By 1999, Valderrama was rated the top course in mainland Europe by Golf World magazine.

Signature hole
The fourth hole, La Cascada, is the course's signature hole. It is a par 5 with a pond to the right of the two-tiered green. Before the 2016 Open de España, three national teams of four players tried to complete La Cascada in the fastest time. The French team of Raphaël Jacquelin, Alexander Lévy, Grégory Havret and Romain Wattel took four shots to complete the hole in 34.87 seconds, breaking the previous Guinness world record by half.

Tournaments hosted

 * Ladies Spanish Open: 1982
 * Volvo Masters: 1988–1996; 2002–2008
 * Ryder Cup: 1997 (the first ever held in Continental Europe)
 * WGC-American Express Championship: 1999, 2000
 * Andalucía Masters: 2010–2011, 2017–2022
 * Open de España: 2016
 * LIV Golf Valderrama: 2023

title: Valderrama Golf Club


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolivian Space Program

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. --Rhobite 21:45, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Bolivian Space Program
Does any of this make any sense? The author talks about a satelite instead of a program. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to vote keep, presuming this is accurate and verifiable. Perhaps it should be moved. Everyking 06:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep it: "OF COURSE" I'd want to keep it, I wrote it. Anyway the answer to your question Riff...is that this satellite is the Bolivian Space Program.
 * How can one satelite be the program? -- Riffsyphon1024 06:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Its a hoax, delete it. The phrase "Bolivian Space Program" gets no real hits on google, and the external link, that claims to be for a satellite manufacturer that will sell you a satellite for ~$27000 has this tid-bit in the fine print Seeking interracial movies? Click for interracial movies. Considering transsexual dating? Click for transsexual dating info. Click for Los Angeles hair replacement, & hair loss treatment; a real satellite manufacturer, I seriously doubt it --nixie 06:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice Web site. In Soviet Russia, Sputnik launches you. Anyway, Bolivia is involved in some cooperative commercial space stuff, but Brazil is doing the coordination. --iMeowbot~Mw 12:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. From comments above, the current article appears to be a hoax and should be deleted (I'm at work, so there's no way I'm clicking on that link). An article on Bolivian involvement in satellite technology may be a useful article, but not from this. Average Earthman 13:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hoax, spam for a personal page, or something. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless much better evidence provided prior to expiration of VfD. anywho.com knows of no businesses in Roswell named "CCA" or "C. L. Haan." Neither does switchboard.com. Website looks like a joke. Very odd that a business would describe itself as "Located just outside Roswell, N.M. on Highway 285" but not provide any street address. All Google hits on "C. L. Haan" are to a druggist in the Netherlands. clhaanind gets an odd variety of hits. Not indexed in archive.org, I wonder why not. whois registration of clhaanind.com is: "Ixat Corp, PMB 285, 4933 W. Craig Rd, Las Vegas, NV 89130, US 818-487-7269." Weird enough to delete unless some very good, consistent, verifiable, well-sourced explanation is provided. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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