text:
Talk:Bombing of Dresden/Archive 8

Please add new comments to the bottom of the page

Archive

 * Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/ Archive 1
 * Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/ Archive 2
 * Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 3
 * Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 4
 * Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 5
 * Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 6
 * Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 7

Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 7 contains the same text and the history for any edits on this page before this time stamp Philip Baird Shearer 23:12, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Request for references

 * Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 7

It is not only quotes that should be sourced

 * Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 7

Things missing from the article
Overall, the purpose of the article is apparently to make the point that the bombing of Dresden was certainly a war crime. Other points of view are either buried in long passages or simply deleted out of hand. This makes for an unbalanced article.

 * 1) It should be made clear that Churchill originally approved the bombing - with or without misgivings. And that he only AFTERWARD started to call it bad. (Unless of course he didn't actually approve it at first - in which case this should be documented.)
 * 2) The section originally entitled "Was it ... a crime?" (later, it became "Controversy") should INCLUDE one or two statements from moralists or others asserting that the bombing was not a war crime. When a question is used to introduce a section, all relevant answers should be given, not merely the SINGLE POV which a particular group of advocates is pushing.

I think I've been pretty patient so far. But I'm considering going to the next step in conflict resolution: creating an RFS. I'd rather discuss the issue here, but I'm not getting much of a response. You're leaving me little choice, Philip. Consider this my last attempt. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:04, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * Uncle Ed I like you wording but along with the Taylor comment in the opening section I would like to go back to the original wording in the initial paragraph as was agreed in a straw poll 2 months ago. Because exactly what happend before that is happening again the first section is getting bloated with POV. I would like to move both additions into the Controversy section. If you look through the archive you will see that it was throughtly debated at the time Philip Baird Shearer 20:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. If nothing else, sir, you are indeed prompt! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:01, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

The straw poll is no longer relevant because the editors who are working on the page are not the same. Philip, please stop trying to control this article. The intro is not bloated with POV. It is straightforward and short, yet it manages to explain why the issue is controversial by using a quote from a British historian, a quote which does not say the bombing was right or wrong, but which simply states why the controversy exists. SlimVirgin 01:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

More reversions
For the record, Philip has once again reverted my edits. I have restored them. Sigh. SlimVirgin 01:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * Ed, thank you for your edits. You've improved the structure of the article and the NPOV, and it's more readable now. My edits yesterday to the Controversy section, now Points of View, were reverted again by Philip. I have done my best to restore them without deleting any of your changes. If anything is missing, I apologize and assure you it was not intentional. SlimVirgin 01:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I did not revert you edits (how could I and leave the new sections in place. I have in the previous sections given you detailed reasons why I have put back the text which you removed. A conversation on the talk pages involves people talking to each other and addressing the points raised. Instead of doing me the courtesy of addressing the points I spent a considreable time writing to address the issues you raised, you have just reverted the text wich no explanation which is not the first time you have done that.  Please address each point and explain to me why you have deleted all the text again. That you edit or change some of it after a debate is one thing but just to delete it with no more explanation is not reasonable. Uncle Ed made some comments as well which you seem to have ignored completely. Philip Baird Shearer 01:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Philip, you must apply the same rules to yourself. I have asked you questions which you haven't addressed, yet you still go back and revert my edits. For example, I have asked three times why you keep repeating almost identical wording from two Churchill telegrams. You don't answer, but just keep inserting the second one. I feel it makes Wikipedia look silly, or as though the article has been badly edited and no one has noticed the repetition. You also deleted my attribution for the 300,000 refugee claim, though that provides the reader with more information than you did, and you have not explained why you did that. You also keep on inserting your personal commentary about what the claims of Grass and Simon Jenkins implied, though you have no way of knowing that; you do not quote anyone or attribute the view to anyone; you are not a historian, an international law professor or a logician — but even if you were all of these things, you would still have to attribute that statement to someone because it is an opinion.

 * Please leave Ed's edits and my edits alone. They are improvements to the text. If you feel that any of them are factually incorrect or badly written, by all means bring that discussion here. Please allow us to work with you, not against you. SlimVirgin 02:26, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Rather than discuss in general terms, or mutliple examples at the same time, I suggest we concentrate on one example at a time. Regarding the number of refugees:

Here is my version:

"Having been spared previous RAF night attacks, it was considered relatively safe, and an unknown number of refugees had fled there to escape the fighting in the east. According to British historian Anthony Beevor, there were up to 300,000 refugees in the city at the time of the raids (Beevor, 2002, p.83 ). (7)"

You keep deleting this and restoring your version, which is:

"Having been spared previous RAF night attacks, it was considered relatively safe. At the time of the raids the population had been increased by up to 300,000 refugees from the fighting in the east (7 p 83)."

Now, tell me: why do you consider your version to be so superior that you're prepared to engage in an edit war, when mine gives more information and says where the 300,000 number comes from? You just give the number (7). This means the reader has to scroll down, find your number 7 even though it's not obvious where it should be found because you have a References section and a separate footnote section, and even if they do this, they still aren't told who Anthony Beever is. My version attributes the figure 300,000 in the text, which makes it easier for the reader, and it also says that Beever is a British historian (i.e. he can probably be trusted). SlimVirgin 02:42, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * Philip, I see you haven't addressed this yet. May I suggest that we go through our disagreements one by one, discuss them separately, and resolve them before moving on to the next? If you agree with this, could you address the above first, please?  Many thanks, SlimVirgin 21:45, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Intro
Ed, I have tweaked your intro a little; no content change, but I changed the structure slightly by moving the dates and RAF/USAAF higher to the top. Hope that's okay. SlimVirgin 07:03, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

We need help
There's no doubt about it any more. SlimVirgin and Philip Baird Shearer disagree sharply even on such mundane matters as whether one has reverted the other's edits. This is simply unacceptable. We can't discuss a change to the article, if we can't even agree on whether the change did occur.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an open, cooperative project. The software lets us see WHO made a change and WHAT that change was. I am getting tired of checking the page history to decide whether Slim or Philip is right, every time they disagree over who made (or reverted) a change. In fact, I'm getting downright impatient.

I like to work with people I can trust. And so far, I trust Slim much more than I trust Philip. I'm on the verge of refusing to work any further with Philip, but that's a line a hesitate to cross. People deserve respect, and I don't want to write Philip off like a bad debt.

I call on others to help us sort this out now. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:01, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Imbalance of trust
Uncle Ed I am sorry to read that you trust SlimVirgin more that you trust me. You wrote on this talk page under :
 * "It should be made clear that Churchill originally approved the bombing" yet when I reinserted that with explanations on this talk page where the information can be sourced SlimVirgin removed it again.
 * The section [now called] The bombing was a war crime should INCLUDE one or two statements from moralists or others asserting that the bombing was not a war crime.  SlimVirgin removed these two sentences:
 * This implies that those allied commanders who ordered the action and the airmen who carried it out should have been tried as war criminals. As no Axis personnel were tried at the post-war Nuremberg Trials for participating in the decisions on, or execution of, assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory, there is no legal precedent available to indicate that these actions constituted a war crime.

Every time I re-insert them she deletes them despite the fact that she does not disagree that they are factualy accurate. She says they are original research which is like saying that if someone writes that the river Thames runs through London they have to reference an article otherwise it is original research.

To placate her, and to make it simple for other to follow the dispute, I am going to do as she suggests and insert each item separately and then discuss it with anyone who wants to join in. To help with this process I have placed an entry on Requests for comment Philip Baird Shearer 17:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, how about it, Slim? Do you agree that the, er, "deleted statements" are true? If so, aren't they relevant? (I seem to recall reading almost the same, word for word, in another article in the bombing series.)

 * See below for my reply. SlimVirgin 21:57, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * If it's that historians point of view that the Dresden bombing was a war crime -- even if no one was charged! -- then I think it should go in. But only if (a) the historian (or novelist?) really said it and (b) we make it clear that it's his POV, and/or that HE is using it to make some sort of argument.

 * The article should do nothing to take sides for or against ANYONE's point of view. That is, we should not (1) restate someone's claim + (2) list AS FACT all the reasons their claim is true. Because this smacks of making their argument for them. It's better to outline their ENTIRE ARGUMENT, and attribute the WHOLE THING to them. Bo Zeau says they were blatantly guilty (or, clearly innocent). He lists the following in support of this view, blah blah blah. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:53, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * EXACTLY. We should not state anyone's argument for them. They either said it, or they didn't. It's not for us to add: "And this is what they meant." And that's what Philip is doing. SlimVirgin 21:57, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

War crimes trials for area bombing
The disputed text is shown here in strikeout:

 * Günter Grass, the German novelist and Nobel laureate for literature, and Simon Jenkins, the former editor of The Times, have both referred to the Dresden bombing as a war crime.  This implies that those allied commanders who ordered the action and the airmen who carried it out should have been tried as war criminals. As no Axis personnel were tried at the post-war Nuremberg Trials for participating in the decisions on, or execution of, assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory, there is no legal precedent available to indicate that these actions constituted a war crime.

Now, could we please discuss why this text is or is not relevant to the bombing of Dresden? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:12, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

As I have already written in this discussion page above in
 * As only Axis personnel were tried Nuremberg, victors justice and all that, then it is significant that no Axis personnel were tried for bombing enemy territory because Karl Dönitz was found guilty of waging unrestricted warfare despite the US doing the same in the Pacific. At the Nuremberg Trials in accordance with the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal: "The charter also stated that official position was no valid defence against War crimes. Obedience to orders could only be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determined that justice so requires", so it follows that if any war crime was committed then all those involved were guilty.

--Philip Baird Shearer 20:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I didn't quite understand your last talk page edit. The only part I really "get" was changing the heading (a few sections above) to More reversions. It actually improves the flow of the discussion. :-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:13, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Personal essay removed for sixth time
I have once again removed Philip's opinion about the implications of what Grass and Jenkins said. They called Dresden a "war crime." I do not know what the implications of that are, as I am not an expert on military law. Even if I were, I would still have to quote someone else if I wanted to discuss the implications. Philip will not do this. He just keeps inserting his own views. I am therefore bringing this section to the Talk page and I am requesting a reference, and I will keep on removing it until a reference is supplied:

"This implies that those allied commanders who ordered the action and the airmen who carried it out should have been tried as war criminals. As no Axis personnel were tried at the post-war Nuremberg Trials for participating in the decisions on, or execution of, assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory, there is no legal precedent available to indicate that these actions constituted a war crime."

Philip might like to note that his opinion piece contradicts itself. Just as there is no legal precedent to indicate whether Dresden constituted a war crime, there is similarly no legal precedent to indicate that calling it such necessarily implies that the pilots, navigators, and bombers be tried. SlimVirgin 21:41, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to note this: if Philip's claim is as obviously correct as saying "the Thames flows through London" (which he argues above), then it will be easy to find an authoritative source for it, which is all I'm asking for. SlimVirgin 22:26, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree, it looks like original research to me. Jayjg (talk) 22:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Did Churchill approve or distance himself from the bombing
Ed, you asked my views on the above. My understanding is that Churchill had qualms about area bombing both before and after Dresden, but he did support it, yes, or else it wouldn't have happened, as he was prime minister. What I dispute about Philip's edits is the wording, and the claim that Churchill changed his mind about Dresden in response to public pressure. But I have no problem whatsoever with that claim if a credible published source is cited. That is the position with all my objections here. I don't mind if we say Churchill believed the moon was made of cheese, so long as that belief is relevant to the article and we cite a credible published source. SlimVirgin 21:50, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * For some reason, Philip redirected this page to the archive, made some changes, then deleted the redirect. I'd appreciate knowing why he did that. SlimVirgin 23:14, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I have archived the talk page. Nothing is lost the text and the edit history are in archive 7 (which along with the other archives are listed at the top of this page). It was necessary because this page had grown to 96K, 3 times the recomneded size. Initally I was going to copy back "Request for references" on down but that put the size of the new page over 32K before any new edits were added so I have put in links for those two headings for ease of access Philip Baird Shearer 23:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bombing of Dresden/Archive 8


text: User talk:84.66.97.68

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

title: User talk:84.66.97.68


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Upson

 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 KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 15:54, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Donna Upson
If you fail in your run for office as the mayor of Ottawa, receive campaign contributions from the KKK and get arrested for breach of probation, are you then notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? In this particular instance, is the sum greater than its parts? Where do you draw the line and how? GRider\talk 23:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Nah, had she been, say, a labour/social democratic (or whatever they call that in Canada) politician, receiving campaign contributions from the KKK would have made her notable, but if she is a Nazi, I don't see how it could. I'd be willing to hear Canadians on this one though. / u p p l a n d 23:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, cleanup and expand. Just passes notability for me. Megan1967 00:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems like a fairly minor candidate. If she's not from a major party/doesn't have a reasonable chance of winning, not notable--delete. Meelar (talk) 02:15, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep As I have said, running for mayor of Ottawa is notable in its own right, add the fact that she created quite a lot of controversy. There are lesser candidates for other elections who were spared deletion, I don't see why she has to be. Earl Andrew 03:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ugh! Sounds like an attack page. Is this verified? Considering that any citizen can run for mayor, I don't see how that is notable in its own right. However if she was a major news item, then that would be notable. Abstain. Radiant! 12:20, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. She is quite notable. Wanted in several places for crimes, and ran for Mayor of Ottawa. She made quite the headlines. --Spinboy 18:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Are we running out of space here? Is his article tkaing up real estate that could be used for something else? Of course not. If there can be bunches of pages dedicated to computers and fantasy games, surely there can be pages dedicated to political also-rans, especially those who are notorious by virtue of their despicable views. It kind of sounds like "I'm not from Ottawa, so this is not important to me, so it shouldn't be in Wikipedia." Kevintoronto 19:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only 365 hits, and some of those are for a guitar teacher in Philly. Couldn't find verification of being 'wanted' other than WP mirrors. I could file in the next election for mayor in either of the cities where I have apartments; would that make me inherently notable? I don't think so. I've even been arrested four times, spent close to a week combined in jail, and lived with a warrant out for my arrest for months. Still doesn't make me notable. Stupid, maybe, but not notable. Oh, and given that there is now a $75,000 fundraising drive, shortly after a $50,000 drive, I'd say yes, 'running out of space' is an issue. Niteowlneils 19:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article provides evidence that Canada is not free of racism.  It also helps to show that racism does not have popular support.  So, I believe it is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.  -- James Teterenko (talk) 20:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia policy is clear that prominent local candidates (even those on the political fringe) qualify for inclusion.  CJCurrie 00:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. She does not meet my understanding of the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies.  Being an alleged criminal is not sufficient.  Being a failed candidate for local office is not sufficient.  Being both at the same time is, unfortunately, not uncommon enough to be notable either.  Certainly does not pass the "100 year" test.  Rossami (talk) 04:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable enough to have her arrest in Atlantic Canada and subsequent run for mayor in Ottawa covered by the national media.AndyL 06:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, although I hasten to point out mayoral candidates are not inherently notable just for being candidates; they need to have some additional criteria of notability. Upson did receive national media coverage in Canada for both her criminal charges and her links to the KKK and the Nationalist Party of Canada, so IMO she qualifies. It's the national media coverage that makes the difference for me, though; there have been other controversial Canadian mayoral candidates whom I wouldn't support articles for, due to their strictly local notoriety. Bearcat 07:01, 23 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.


text:
San Diego–Coronado Bridge

The San Diego–Coronado Bridge, commonly referred to as the Coronado Bridge, is a prestressed concrete/steel girder bridge fixed-link, crossing over San Diego Bay in the United States, linking San Diego with Coronado, California. The bridge is signed as part of State Route 75.

Construction
In 1926, John D. Spreckels recommended that a bridge be built between San Diego and Coronado, but voters dismissed the plan. The U.S. Navy initially did not support a bridge that would span San Diego Bay to connect San Diego to Coronado. They feared a bridge could collapse due to an attack or an earthquake and trap the ships stationed at Naval Base San Diego. In 1935, an officer at the naval air station at North Island argued that if a bridge were built to cross the bay then the Navy would leave San Diego.

In 1951–52, the Coronado City Council initiated plans for bridge feasibility studies. By 1964 the Navy supported a bridge if there was at least 200 ft of clearance for ships which operate out of the nearby Naval Base San Diego to pass underneath it. To achieve this clearance with a reasonable grade, the bridge length was increased by taking a curved path rather than a more direct path to Coronado. The clearance would allow an empty oil-fired aircraft carrier to pass beneath it – it is not sufficient for Nimitz-class nuclear aircraft carriers in light load condition.

The principal architect was Robert Mosher. Mosher's job was to build a bridge that would provide transportation, allow ships access to the bay, and serve as an iconic landmark for San Diego. Mosher proposed a basic box and girder-style bridge for the framework, with a prestressed concrete and steel deck sitting atop steel girders and supported by towers. Mosher decided to make an orthotropic roadway, which used a stiffening technique that was new to the United States; it increased the strength and resistance of the bridge. As a result, the bridge was strong and eliminated the need for additional superstructures over the deck to disperse weight.

Construction on the San Diego–Coronado Bay Bridge started in February 1967. The bridge required 20,000 tons of steel (13,000 tons in structural steel and 7,000 in reinforcing steel) and 94,000 cubic yards of concrete. To add the concrete girders, 900,000 cubic yards of fill were dredged, and the caissons for the towers were drilled and blasted 100 feet into the bed of the bay.

The bridge opened to traffic on August 3, 1969, during the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the founding of San Diego. The 11,179-foot-long (3,407 m or 2.1 mi) bridge ascends from Coronado at a 4.67 percent grade before curving 80 degrees toward San Diego. It is supported by 27 concrete girders, the longest ever made at construction time.

In 1970, it won an award of merit for a long-span bridge from the American Institute of Steel Construction. The five-lane bridge featured the longest continuous box girder in the world until it was surpassed by the Shibanpo Yangtze River Bridge in Chongqing, China in 2008. The bridge is the third largest orthogonal box in the country – the box is the center part of the bridge, between piers 18 and 21 over the main shipping channel.

Tolls and tollbooths
Originally, the toll was $0.60 in each direction. Several years later, this was changed to a $1.00 toll collected for westbound traffic to Coronado only. Although the bridge was supposed to become "toll-free" once the original bridge bond was paid (which occurred in 1986), the tolls continued for sixteen additional years. On June 27, 2002, it became the last toll bridge in Southern California to discontinue tolls, despite objections from some residents that traffic to the island would increase. The islands upon which the toll booths sat, as well as the canopy over the toll plaza area, are still intact, located at the western end of the bridge in the westbound lanes. Though tolls are no longer collected, beginning February 19, 2009, there was talk of resuming westbound toll collection to fund major traffic solutions and a tunnel. However nothing came of the discussions, and more recently there have been discussions of removing the unused toll plaza completely.

Lanes and traffic
The bridge contains five lanes: two eastbound, two westbound, and a reversible middle lane with a barrier transfer machine system installed in 1993, which can be used to create a reversible lane in either direction in response to traffic volume. Before installation of the barrier, moveable cones were used to separate eastbound/westbound traffic. On December 7, 1981, Coronado resident Hal Willis was westbound when a drunk driver traveling eastbound at high speeds drove through the cones, hit him head-on, and caused his death. This incident began the process of implementing the barrier solution. The eastern end of the bridge connects directly to a T interchange with Interstate 5, just southeast of downtown San Diego. It is designated and signed as part of California State Highway 75. The bridge was designed entirely and exclusively for motor vehicle traffic; there are no pedestrian walkways, bike paths, or shoulders ("breakdown lanes"). Once a year, beginning in 1986, a lane was opened to pedestrians for the Navy Bay Bridge Run/Walk, a fundraiser sponsored by and benefiting the Navy Morale, Welfare, and Recreation program. Beginning in 2008, cyclists have the once-a-year opportunity to ride over the bridge in the Bike the Bay "fun ride".

Artwork
The pillars supporting the bridge on the eastern end are painted with huge murals as part of Chicano Park, the most extensive collection of Chicano art murals in the world. This neighborhood park and mural display were created in response to a community uprising in 1970, which protested the adverse effects of the bridge and Interstate 5 on the Barrio Logan community. Local artist Salvador Torres proposed using the bridge and freeway pillars as a giant canvas for Chicano art at a time when urban wall murals were rare in the United States, and he and many other artists created the murals when permission for the park was finally granted in 1973.

Suicides
The Coronado Bridge is frequently used as a suicide bridge; as of July 2017, at least 407 suicide deaths by bridge jumpers have occurred on the Coronado, trailing only the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco as the bridge most-often used for suicide in the United States. Solar-powered phones were once installed on the Skyway to offer direct help for those contemplating suicide, but have since been removed. Signs have been placed on the bridge urging potential suicides to call a hotline. However, call boxes are not provided.

After an accident in 2016, where a drunk driver drove a pickup truck off the bridge and into Chicano Park, killing 4 and injuring 9, state senator Ben Hueso proposed a state funding bill to cover safety measures on the Coronado and require reports to the state legislature on progress. In February 2017, Caltrans announced its intent to perform a feasibility study for suicide-dissuasion options for the bridge. Hueso stated, "The safety of residents and visitors traveling on the bridge, and those who gather below it in Chicano Park, is of the utmost importance." On March 26, 2018, Caltrans released its report; it outlined suicide-dissuasion options such as netting, fencing, and glass barriers.

In 1972, three years after the bridge was opened to traffic, the first "suicide" was recorded. It was subsequently reclassified as a murder after an investigation determined that Jewell P. Hutchings, 52, of Cerritos had been forced to jump at gunpoint. Her husband, James Albert Hutchings, was subsequently charged with murder and pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter.

Lighting
In April 1997, the Port released an international call for artists seeking qualifications of artist-led teams interested in developing environmentally-friendly lighting concept proposals for the bridge. In 2010, a London-based design group led by Peter Fink was chosen. The winning concept envisages illuminating the bridge with programmable LED lighting in an energy-neutral manner using electricity generated by wind turbines. In 2012, two long years after choosing Fink's project, the Port finally cut a check for $75,000 to initiate fundraising in concert with the San Diego Foundation. The Port of San Diego says no taxpayer dollars will be used. Instead, they are relying on grants and private donations to fund this lighting project, which will ideally be complete by 2019 to coincide with the bridge's 50th anniversary. As of March 2014, the working target date was 2019. Three of the bridge's columns were illuminated from November 8 to November 14, 2020, as part of a lighting field test.

Urban legend
A decades-old local urban legend claims the center span of the bridge was engineered to float in the event of collapse, allowing Naval ships to push the debris and clear the bay. The myth may have developed due to the hollow box design of the 1,880-foot center span, combined with the low-profile barges that made it appear to float on its own during construction. However, Caltrans and the bridge's principal architect, Robert Mosher, maintain that the legend is false.

title: San Diego–Coronado Bridge


text: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 18


text:
The Go! Team

'''The Go! Team''' are an English indie rock band from Brighton, England. The band initially began as a solo project conceived by Ian Parton; however, after the unexpected success of the Go! Team's debut album, Thunder, Lightning, Strike, Parton recruited band members to play for live performances and subsequent albums. Musically, the band combines indie rock and garage rock with a mixture of funk and Bollywood soundtracks, double Dutch chants, old school hip hop and distorted guitars. Their songs are a mix of live instrumentation and samples from various sources. The band's vocals also vary between performances: while live vocals are handled mostly by lead vocalist Ninja, vocals on record also feature sampled and guest voices.

2000–2004: Origins
The Go! Team began as a solo project conceived by documentary film director Ian Parton, who wanted to create music incorporating Sonic Youth-style guitars, double Dutch chants, Bollywood soundtracks, old school hip hop and electro. These ideas led towards the recording of his first extended play, Get It Together EP, which was released in 2000 by Pickled Egg Records. The EP received regular airplay by DJ John Peel, one of the original BBC Radio 1 DJs.

2004–2007: Thunder, Lightning, Strike
The Go! Team's first album, Thunder, Lightning, Strike, was released in the UK and Europe on the Memphis Industries label in September 2004. The album was recorded at Parton's parents' house while they were away on holiday, with him playing all live instruments himself. The album was co-produced and mixed by Ian's brother Gareth Parton at The Fortress Studios and Bluestone in London. Prior to the album's release, Ian Parton had failed to clear any of the samples used in the album, believing it wouldn't attract much attention. However, the album received widespread critical acclaim upon release, and the album was nominated for the Mercury Prize in 2005. Following the album's unexpected success, the Parton brothers later had to work with a musicologist to write around or recreate samples they could not use. The revised album was reissued with two additional bonus tracks in the United Kingdom and the United States the following year. The album peaked at number 48 on the UK Albums Chart in February 2006.

In June 2004, Ian Parton recruited a band to play the Accelerator Festival in Sweden after having been asked to play when no band existed. The new members of the band included British rapper Ninja, who took the role of lead vocalist; guitarist and drummer Sam Dook; drummer Chi Fukami Taylor; bassist Jamie Bell; and musician Silke Steidinger. Steidinger was later replaced by multi-instrumentalist Kaori Tschuida in late 2005. The live band is a "separate entity" to the original studio vision, as the performances became radically different from the recordings, particularly due to Ninja's freestyled vocals over what had been instrumental studio tracks.

The band's popularity increased with the re-issue of "Ladyflash" in the UK, resulting in national primetime airplay on radio stations such as BBC Radio 1, Xfm and the Atlanta, US based 99X. The song "Get It Together" from Thunder, Lightning, Strike also received popularity, being featured in trailers for the video game LittleBigPlanet. The track "The Power Is On" from Thunder, Lightning, Strike was included in "The Pitchfork 500: Our Guide to the Greatest Songs from Punk to Present."

The band announced a reissue of the record and a Fall 2024 tour to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Thunder, Lightning, Strike. The new edition of the record, due September 13 from Memphis Industries, includes a bonus disc of Parton’s original CD-R versions of the songs on both CD and vinyl reissues.

2007–2008: Proof of Youth
On 13 May 2007, the Go! Team announced the release of their new single and subsequent album on their website. The album's lead single, "Grip Like a Vice", was released on 2 July 2007, and the new album, called Proof of Youth, was released on 10 September in the UK and a day later in the US. The album featured samples and live band recordings, as well as special guests such as Chuck D, Solex, and ex-Bonde do Rolê singer Marina Ribatski. The second single from Proof of Youth, "Doing It Right", received daytime radio play from BBC Radio 1 and soundtracked the BBC's launch of the iPlayer.

The album received mostly positive reviews from critics; Rob Mitchum of Pitchfork gave the album a 7.2 out of 10, expressing "Proof of Youth mostly recaptures the enthusiasm and unique sensibility of Thunder, Lightning, Strike, further filling that niche for lo-fi sample-based old-school-noise-rap we never knew we needed filling." Jeff Weiss of Stylus Magazine gave Proof of Youth a B, considering the album a "satisfying sophomore effort", but criticising the band's inability to sonically expand from Thunder, Lightning, Strike.

A stand-alone single "Milk Crisis" was released via free download on 21 July 2008. They later released a 2-disc limited edition of the record with b-sides of the album including "Milk Crisis", "Phantom Broadcast", "A Version of Myself", and a remix of "Grip Like a Vice" by Black Affair.

2008–2012: Rolling Blackouts, hiatus
In an interview with Stereogum in August 2008, Parton spoke about recording The Go! Team's third album and the direction he was going in for the project. He wanted to make music that "flips fidelity within the same song, and make it flow like a song should", his idea of "schizo music".

On 5 August 2010, the band announced a collaboration with Satomi Matsuzaki of Deerhoof, entitled "Secretary Song", and the track listing for the new album Rolling Blackouts was confirmed on 28 October 2010. The album's first single, "Buy Nothing Day", was released on 24 January 2011 in both the UK and US on 7" vinyl. The track, which features vocals by Bethany Cosentino of Best Coast, is backed with a cover version of Betty and Karen's "I"m Not Satisfied" sung by French singer Soko. The single was A-listed for five consecutive weeks on BBC 6 Music in the UK as well as picking up "most requested" status on Triple J Radio in Australia.

Rolling Blackouts was released on 31 January 2011. The album received 4/5 reviews in a number of UK publications including Q magazine, Uncut, The Times and The Fly. Throughout 2011 and 2012, the band went on tour internationally to promote the album.

On 5 September 2011, during a Q&A at the Hot Press chatroom, Parton and Ninja confirmed that the band would split following the 2011-12 tour. Parton later explained the band's decision to disband: "[We] kind of decided it was the end of the line. [...] It was getting really hard to keep it together; people were having kids, there were side projects going on, and honestly, we'd kind of done everything that we wanted to. I knew I was going to keep on making music somehow, and it was kind of liberating to know that I could basically do what I wanted."

2014–2018: The Scene Between and Semicircle
On 11 February 2014, a fourteen-second-long video was uploaded to the Go! Team's website and YouTube, Facebook and Twitter accounts showing a montage of images with new music playing in the background. On 18 December 2014, the Go! Team announced their return by uploading a trailer for their new album. The track list and title of the album, The Scene Between, was announced on 6 January 2015.

The Scene Between was entirely written and produced by Parton himself, excluding the vocals. Despite this, Parton retained the Go! Team's name on the album: "I started the band myself, and did the first album alone, so I felt like I had the right to keep calling it the Go! Team." The album's sound was a departure from the previous two albums, which were more band-oriented and groove-based. Instead, Parton put a bigger emphasis on vocal melodies for the album: "The original plan was to write a whole bunch of songs that I thought were melodically interesting - kind of curvy, kind of dense. From there, I was going to try to build the songs out of chords I'd taken from loads of different places; I'd get the G from a sixties psych record, or the B from an old funk track, or something. [...] To some extent, I've always worked that way, but I wanted to pursue that properly this time, and it actually turned out a lot more subtle than I thought it would. It's like a balance between everything I've always loved, musically." The album features vocals from relatively unknown vocalists; Parton wanted to avoid high-profile guest appearances on the album, as opposed to the previous two albums, and put out open calls on the Drowned in Sound message board. The Scene Between was released through Memphis Industries on 24 March 2015.

The band went on tour to support the fourth album with a new band line-up. The line-up notably included the return of guitarist Sam Dook and lead vocalist Ninja. In an interview with The Line of Best Fit, Parton expressed of Ninja's return, "A live show without [Ninja] would be a completely different ball game, so I'm glad we've got her; I know she loves doing it." The new line-up also included guitarist Cheryl Pinero, drummer Simone Odaranile, and multi-instrumentalist Angela "Maki" Won-Yin Mak.

On 11 October 2017, the Go! Team announced the release of Semicircle, their fifth full-length LP. Semicircle was released on 19 January 2018. The album mainly featured vocals from Ninja and Maki, as well as guest vocals from the Detroit Youth Choir, Julie Margat, Darenda Weaver, and Amber Arcades. Exclaim! scored the album a 7 out of 10, stating that the album "is a team effort, and all the better for it."

2019–present: Get Up Sequences
In March 2021, the Go! Team announced a new line-up and the title of their sixth album, Get Up Sequences Part One, which was subsequently released on 2 July 2021. The group had begun recording for the new album since 2019. In a 2021 interview, Parton revealed that he experienced hearing loss in his right ear during the recording of Get Up: "I woke up one Thursday in October 2019 and my hearing was different in some way [...] I seem to remember listening to music was bordering on unbearable." He further added that "the trauma of losing my hearing gave the music a different dimension for me and it transformed the album into more of a life raft."

In September 2022, the Go! Team released a new single, "Divebomb", followed by releasing their seventh album, Get Up Sequences Part Two, on 3 February 2023.

Current members

 * Ian Parton – vocals, guitars, harmonica, piano, drums, triangle, glockenspiel, tambourine (2000–present)
 * Sam Dook – guitars, banjo, drums, tambourine (2004–present)
 * Ninja – vocals, drums, tambourine, recorder (2004–present)
 * Adam Znaidi – bass guitar (2018–present)
 * Niadzi Muzira – guitars, vocals, percussion, recorder (2020–present)
 * Jaleesa Gemerts – drums, percussion (2022–present)
 * Deanna Wilhelm – trumpet, vocals (2022–present)

Former members

 * Jamie Bell – bass, piano, glockenspiel (2004–2012)
 * Silke Steidinger – drums, electric guitar, keyboards (2004–2005)
 * Chi Fukami Taylor – drums, percussion, vocals (2004–2012)
 * Kaori Tscuhida – guitars, vocals, keyboards, tambourine (2005–2012)
 * Simone Odaranile – drums, percussion (2015–2022)
 * Cheryl Pinero – bass guitar, vocals (2015–2016)
 * Angela "Maki" Won-Yin Mak – vocals, guitars, melodica, recorder, tambourine (2015–2018)

Studio albums

 * Thunder, Lightning, Strike (2004)
 * Proof of Youth (2007)
 * Rolling Blackouts (2011)
 * The Scene Between (2015)
 * Semicircle (2018)
 * Get Up Sequences Part One (2021)
 * Get Up Sequences Part Two (2023)

title: The Go! Team


text:
Onegin stanza

Onegin stanza (Russian: онегинская строфа oneginskaya strofa), sometimes "Pushkin sonnet", refers to the verse form popularized (or invented) by the Russian poet Alexander Pushkin through his 1825–1832 novel in verse Eugene Onegin. The work was mostly written in verses of iambic tetrameter with the rhyme scheme aBaBccDDeFFeGG, where the lowercase letters represent feminine rhymes (stressed on the penultimate syllable) and the uppercase representing masculine rhymes (stressed on the ultimate syllable). For example, here is the first stanza of Onegin as rendered into English by Charles Johnston: My uncle—high ideals inspire him; but when past joking he fell sick, he really forced one to admire him— and never played a shrewder trick. Let others learn from his example! But God, how deadly dull to sample sickroom attendance night and day and never stir a foot away! And the sly baseness, fit to throttle, of entertaining the half-dead: one smoothes the pillows down in bed, and glumly serves the medicine bottle, and sighs, and asks oneself all through: "When will the devil come for you?" Like the Shakespearean sonnet, the Onegin stanza may be divided into three quatrains and a closing couplet (normally without stanza breaks or indentations), and it has a total of seven rhymes, rather than the four or five rhymes of the Petrarchan sonnet. Because the second quatrain (lines 5–8) consists of two independent couplets, the poet may introduce a strong thematic break after line 6, which is not feasible in Petrarchan or Shakespearean sonnets.

In Russian poetry following Pushkin, the form has been utilized by authors as diverse as Mikhail Lermontov, Vyacheslav Ivanov, Jurgis Baltrušaitis and Valery Pereleshin, in genres ranging from one-stanza lyrical piece to voluminous autobiography. Nevertheless, the Onegin stanza, being easily recognisable, is strongly identified as belonging to its creator, and its use in œuvres of any kind implicitly triggers a reading of the particular text against the backdrop of Pushkin's imagery and worldview.

John Fuller's 1980 "The Illusionists" and Jon Stallworthy's 1987 "The Nutcracker" used this stanza form, and Vikram Seth's 1986 novel The Golden Gate is written wholly in Onegin stanzas.

The Onegin stanza is also used in the verse novel Equinox by Australian writer Matthew Rubinstein, serialized daily in the Sydney Morning Herald and currently awaiting publication; in the biography in verse Richard Burgin by Diana Burgin; in the verse novel Jack the Lady Killer by HRF Keating (title borrowed from a line in Golden Gate in Onegin stanza rhymes but not always preserving the metric pattern); in several poems by Australian poet Gwen Harwood, for instance the first part of "Class of 1927" and "Sea Eagle" (the first employs a humorous Byronic tone, but the second adapts the stanza to a spare lyrical mood, which is good evidence of the form's versatility); and in the verse novel "Unholyland" by Aidan Andrew Dun. The British writer Andy Croft has written two novels in Onegin stanzas, Ghost Writer and 1948. In addition, Brad Walker used the form for his 2019 novella Adam and Rosamond, a parody of Victorian fiction.

Some stanzaic forms, written in iambic tetrameter in the poetry of Vladimír Holan, especially in the poems "První testament" and "Cesta mraku", were surely inspired by Onegin stanza.

title: Onegin stanza


text:
Helly–Bray theorem

In probability theory, the Helly–Bray theorem relates the weak convergence of cumulative distribution functions to the convergence of expectations of certain measurable functions. It is named after Eduard Helly and Hubert Evelyn Bray.

Let F and F1, F2, ... be cumulative distribution functions on the real line. The Helly–Bray theorem states that if Fn converges weakly to F, then

 * $$\int_\mathbb{R} g(x)\,dF_n(x) \quad\xrightarrow[n\to\infty]{}\quad \int_\mathbb{R} g(x)\,dF(x)$$

for each bounded, continuous function g: R → R, where the integrals involved are Riemann–Stieltjes integrals.

Note that if X and X1, X2, ... are random variables corresponding to these distribution functions, then the Helly–Bray theorem does not imply that E(Xn) → E(X), since g(x) = x is not a bounded function.

In fact, a stronger and more general theorem holds. Let P and P1, P2, ... be probability measures on some set S. Then Pn converges weakly to P if and only if

 * $$\int_S g \,dP_n \quad\xrightarrow[n\to\infty]{}\quad \int_S g \,dP,$$

for all bounded, continuous and real-valued functions on S. (The integrals in this version of the theorem are Lebesgue–Stieltjes integrals.)

The more general theorem above is sometimes taken as defining weak convergence of measures (see Billingsley, 1999, p. 3).

title: Helly–Bray theorem


text:
Australian Professional Rodeo Association

The Australian Professional Rodeo Association (APRA) is the national governing body for professional rodeo in Australia. Founded in 1944, APRA has been setting the standards for rodeo in Australia for over 60 years. The Australian Rodeo consists of many events some of which are junior and ladies' (open) barrel racing, saddle bronc riding, bull riding, bareback bronc riding, rope and tie, steer wrestling, team roping and the steer ride. Men, women and children are involved in the Australian rodeo circuit.

National Finals Rodeo
The premier event for Australian Rodeo is the Australia National Finals Rodeo. It was first held in 1960 in Queensland.

Controversy over animal welfare
Controversy currently surrounds the rodeo industry in Australia. As the APRA is a self-regulating body, concerns have been raised by animal welfare groups and the Australian Veterinary Association regarding the ethical treatment of animals used in rodeo events. These concerns include the lack of animal welfare policing at events and the non-mandatory attendance of veterinary professionals. Cattle prods and shocking devices have been seen to be used gratuitously despite this practice being in opposition to the APRA code.

Rodeo events are banned in the Australian Capital Territory.


text:
Talk:Branches of mathematics

about cryptology
Nothing on the page about either computational number theory or cryptology, as far as I can see. This makes me sceptical about the claim that all areas are covered. Charles Matthews 23:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cryptology belongs under 'Information and communication' (#94) and computational number theory belongs under 'Number theory' (#11).

What I would like to see is the raw sub-headings expanded in the same way as those under Geometry and some of the Physical sciences. Tompw 14:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other lists
Charles Matthews had some other lists/categorizations, but I can't find these now. I've been staring at bits of AMS for a while, and, while the top-level categories make sense, some of the subcategories seem insane to me. 11B in particular seemed bizarre. For example, where can we classify stuff published in "Journal of Integer Sequences"? Thus, I am lead to look for Charles other lists ... linas 18:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is helpful, but see Wikipedia:Classifications_of_mathematics_topics which I made redirect to Areas of mathematics. Oleg Alexandrov 20:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There was some non-AMS list that he'd scavenged from somewhere. I didn't much care for such questions when I first saw it. Maybe I should ask directly. linas 03:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, Intereger sequences come under 11Y55. I agree that the AMS has severe limitations when used in a context like Wikipedia. However, as the article states, the AMS classifcation "has been used as a starting point to ensure all areas are covered, and related areas are close together". I fully expect the headings to be tweaked and moved around within the article. Tompw 15:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of MSC numbers?
I note User:Tompw recently deleted, without explaination, some MSC numbers I'd just added. Why? Maybe I misunderstand the purpose of this list, but it seems that it was trying to be a cross-list to the MSC numberigng system, so I'm wondering why these are now being deleted. linas 21:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought I had replied to this, but it seems not. I didn't delete it because it had the extra AMSC numbers, I deleted it because I felt it went into too much detail for the page, although I should've stated this under the edit summary. On reflection, it would be nice to re-include them as easily comprehended areas of Number Theory. I also feel that putting in AMSC numbers below the top level makes the article less readable. (There is something to be said for removing all AMSC numbers - they are a hang over of a copy and paste of the AMSC top levels. - see first few edits). Anyway, hope tha tclears that one up. Tompw 00:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, not too big a deal, otherwise I would ave argued. I think it might be useful to have, somewhere, a cross-reference between MSC numbers and WP categories. However, this is not so urgent that I'll push on this. BTW, you may want to (re-) announce this page on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, as this may get you help filling out some missing sections. linas 23:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I think I wrote about it a while ago. I have a map between MSC and WP categories, at User:Mathbot/msc. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

about differential geometry
Wouldn´t it be more appropiate to include differential geometry in applied mathematics and appart of the algebraic structures? --anon

Most differential geometers I know would place themselves in the study of analysis, geometry, or topology rather than applied mathematics, despite its breadth of applications. FunctorialNonsense (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Intro line to analysis
I think it is misleading to say that analysis is primarily related to rates of change. Many aspects to the theory do not arise in this way. I think it would be better to say that analysis is the study of inequalities, because this is the theme that runs through every branch, at least it seems to me. To quote Krantz (from a book review of 'A Companion to Analysis: A Second First and First Second Course in Analysis') "Analysis is dirty, rotten, hard work. It is estimates and more estimates. And what are those estimates good for? Additional estimates, of course. We do hard estimates of integrals in order to obtain estimates for operators. We obtain estimates for operators in order to say something about estimates for solutions of partial differential equations. And so it goes." Any comments? I tried to change it initially myself, but instantly got reverted. :) I should have started here I suppose. Thenub314 02:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Inequalities play an important role in analysis, but this is not what the analysis is about however. I would argue that derivatives and integrals are much more important. Either way, I would suggest you copy your post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics where more people will see it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Will do thanks. Thenub314 03:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I just rewrote the introduction to analysis, incorporating most of what was already there. My goal is to add paragraphs for most of the subdivisions of analysis that are already present in skeletal form. I do have a question about content, and style, though.

 * Since the math portal points directly to this page, I think this ought to be a survey article describing things at a fairly high level. And since the non-mathematical reader is likely to look at it, I also think it ought to be lively and entertaining, to the extent that is possible. So I tried to make the lead-in to "analysis" informative, but also fun to read.

 * I'm interested in other people's opinions. Brickbats? Laurels? Whatever you think I deserve, please send it my way! Thank you. ;^>  DavidCBryant 18:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, I'm starting to understand why Thenub314 gave up and wandered away without contributing anything to this article. My new intro to analysis lasted exactly 45 minutes. And it took almost an hour to write it! That's pretty discouraging.

 * Just so it will still be easy to find, I'm going to quote it here. If I don't get some feedback in a couple of days, I'll probably drag this whole discussion over to the general math forum and see what kind of response I can elicit over there. Oh -- here's the intro to analysis as I rewrote it.

 * "More than 2,500 years ago, Heraclitus of Ephesus taught the ancient Greeks that the world itself is change."

 * "Within the world of mathematics, analysis is the branch that focuses on change: rates of change, accumulated change, and multiple things changing relative to (or independently of) one another. From Archimedes to Zeno, the ancient Greek mathematicians and logicians embraced Heraclitus's idea, thus planting the seeds that would finally spring into full flower with the advent of Newton's and Leibniz's calculus during the seventeenth century."

 * "Modern analysis is a vast and rapidly expanding branch of mathematics that touches almost every other subdivision of the discipline, finding direct and indirect applications in topics as diverse as number theory, cryptography, and abstract algebra. It is also the lingua franca of science itself. In chemistry, biology, and physics, from astrophysics to X-ray crystallography, the language of analysis is spoken."

 * I'm still hoping to get some feedback! DavidCBryant 19:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * theres nothing about the subdivisions of analysis! Brad7777 (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Added a blurb about subdivisions, feel free to build on it. FunctorialNonsense (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC) FunctorialNonsense

Combinatorics
I don't see the reason for classifying combinatorics under algebra. It is not algebra. Some combinatorics is algebraic, much is not. Any replies? (Is this the wrong place for this comment?) Zaslav 06:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

 * seems ok to me. go ahead and split it. Mct mht 06:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

mere stub, with an "appendix" of citing the American Mathematical Society's Mathematics Subject Classification
This "article" is a mere reproduction of American Mathematical Society's Mathematics Subject Classification. It does not even establish basic facts that Analysis is commonly divided in two major branches. It does not meet C criteria but is a mere stub. Mootros (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm making an effort to clean up the article. It looks like the material can be divided naturally with encyclopedic information with external sources given here and a page for navigating withing WP at List of mathematics lists. I've already moved some the purely MSC listings to the MSC article.--RDBury (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While I support removing the AMSC numbers (see my comments a few sections up), please ensure that the areas they refer to are still covered. It looks like the numebrs have been removed without adding any real content in their place... for example, there is now nothing on group theory, differential equations, sequences/series or game theory. Tom pw (talk) (review) 01:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggested reading
Suggested reading for editors of this page:

. --Siddhant (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add Timothy Gowers, June Barrow-Green, Imre Leader (editors): The Princeton Companion to Princeton University Press, Jul 18, 2010, Part IV: Branches of Mathematics.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Areas of mathematics. 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/20100815034900/http://www.math.niu.edu:80/~rusin/known-math/index/tour_div.html to http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/index/tour_div.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Innovation is one thing, but...
Since when is it good form to craft our own punctuation to effect language functions already fulfilled by long-established norms? Or should I say long:established ones. At first, I thought it was just a typo, but as I stopped to consider a helpful edit, I noticed that it's actually the usage decided on for the article. Personally, I don't believe the use of terms such as point:like or real:world has any merit that would lead us to replace the established versions. Wanting to do so seems a bit silly. Aboctok (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I made the edit. Hopefully I did not miss any of them. Ebony Jackson (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

An Ambigous Sentence
This sentence is ambigous and/or wrong and should be changed:

"In addition, as mathematics difficult by some subjects, often the most active, which straddle the boundary between different areas."

I will remove it temporarily. You can replace it with something better if you want.

Mojtabakd (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Differential Equations
Differential equations should have its own sub-category under applied mathematics, preferably written by someone who knows more about the subject than I. I would imagine most folks who study differential equations would consider themselves applied mathematicians, but would raise their eyebrows if referred to as an analyst, so I would argue the template at the bottom should be modified accordingly, but I leave it up to an actual researcher of differential equations (as opposed to myself) to make said call. FunctorialNonsense (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC) FunctorialNonsense

"language of science" remark
In the introductory section of the Analysis subsection it is written "It is also the language of science itself and is used across chemistry, biology, and physics, from astrophysics to X-ray crystallography" when describing analysis as a whole. While analysis and particularly differential equations are widely used for modelling various phenomena in science I don't see any particular reason for why analysis should be called "the language of analysis" which would probably be better used to describe mathematics as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by STEMster42 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Branches of mathematics


text:
User:The Confessor

I am The Confessor.

My interests include television series & serials, epic fantasy novels, and music.

title: User:The Confessor


text:
Sal Bando

Salvatore Leonard Bando (February 13, 1944 – January 20, 2023) was an American professional baseball player and general manager. He played in Major League Baseball as a third baseman from 1966 to 1981, most prominently as the team captain for the Oakland Athletics dynasty that won three consecutive World Series championships between 1972 and 1974.

A four-time All-Star player, Bando averaged 23 home runs and 90 runs batted in over an eight-year span. Although he was often overshadowed by his contemporary, Hall of Fame third baseman Brooks Robinson, Bando finished second, third, and fourth in the American League (AL) Most Valuable Player Award voting from 1971 to 1974. He ended his playing career with the Milwaukee Brewers.

After his playing career, Bando served as a special assistant with the Brewers before serving as the team's General Manager from October 1991 until August 1999. He was inducted into the National College Baseball Hall of Fame in 2013 and, in 2022 Bando was inducted into the Athletics Hall of Fame.

Playing career
Bando attended Warrensville Heights High School, where he played baseball, football, basketball, and ran track. He attended Arizona State University, where he played college baseball for the Arizona State Sun Devils under coach Bobby Winkles. He was a member of the 1965 College World Series champions and was named the College World Series Most Outstanding Player.

The Kansas City Athletics of Major League Baseball (MLB) selected Bando in the sixth round of the 1965 MLB draft. He made his MLB debut for the Athletics in 1966. Manager Hank Bauer named Bando team captain on May 30, 1969. He was named the starting third baseman for the American League in the 1969 MLB All-Star Game.

During the "Swingin' A's" era of 1971 to 1975, Bando was named to three consecutive All-Star Games (1972–1974) and he was runner-up for the 1971 American League (AL) Most Valuable Player Award, won by teammate Vida Blue, after helping lead the team to the first of five straight division titles. In 1973, he led the American League with 64 extra-base hits, 32 doubles, and 295 total bases. Bando remained a strong MVP candidate through Oakland's championship run, finishing third and fourth in the voting in 1973 and 1974.

After years of combative relations with team owner Charlie Finley, Bando signed a five-year contract worth $1.5 million with the Milwaukee Brewers after the 1976 season, spending his last five seasons with the club.

During spring training in 1981, he announced that it would be his last season. Bando batted 5-for-17 (.294) with three doubles in the 1981 American League Division Series, Milwaukee's first MLB postseason appearance. Bando retired after the 1981 season. In a 16-season career, Bando had a .254 batting average with 242 home runs and 1,039 RBIs in 2,019 games played.

At the end of his career, Bando ranked third in AL history with 1,896 career games at third base, and also ranked fourth in league history in assists (3,720), tied for fourth in double plays (345), and tenth in putouts (1,647); his 235 home runs as a third baseman ranked third in AL history. His 789 RBI as an Oakland player were a record until Mark McGwire passed him in 1996, and his 192 home runs with the team were a record for a right-handed hitter in Oakland until Jose Canseco passed him in 1991.

Post-playing career
After retiring, Bando became a special assistant to Milwaukee's general manager, Harry Dalton, focusing on scouting and coaching during spring training. He served in the part-time position until 1991. He served as a color analyst for NBC, teaming with Bob Costas in 1982.

Bando was named the team's general manager on October 8, 1991, succeeding Dalton. That month, he fired manager Tom Trebelhorn and hired Phil Garner, a former teammate with the Athletics, to succeed him; Garner had no managerial experience. Bando and Garner had only one winning team, the 1992 Brewers.

After the 1992 season, the club did not negotiate with free agent Paul Molitor or offer him salary arbitration until close to the deadline. At the time, Bando said that the team would view Molitor as a designated hitter rather than a position player. Molitor, who had entered the offseason wanting to re-sign with the Brewers, signed with the Toronto Blue Jays, who won the 1993 World Series with Molitor named the World Series MVP. Bando held his position as GM until August 12, 1999, resigning the position after Garner was fired. Bando was replaced by former Atlanta Braves assistant GM Dean Taylor.

Bando did a voice cameo in the 2006 episode of The Simpsons titled "Regarding Margie."

Bando was CEO of The Middleton Doll Company, a Columbus, Ohio, enterprise with multiple other businesses associated with it. Both he and Jon McGlocklin established the firm, which was originally the Bando McGlocklin Capital Corporation, in 1979. The name changed to its current form on May 4, 2001, to reflect its acquisition of Lee Middleton Original Dolls Inc.

The National College Baseball Hall of Fame inducted Bando in 2013. He was an inaugural member of the Milwaukee Brewers Wall of Honor in 2014 and was inducted into the Oakland Athletics Hall of Fame in 2022.

Personal life
Bando was born in Cleveland on February 13, 1944, to Ben, a carpenter, and Angela, a homemaker. He then grew up in nearby Warrensville Heights, Ohio, with younger siblings, Chris and Victoria. Chris was a catcher for the Cleveland Indians.

In 1969 Bando married Sandy Fortunato. The couple had three sons, Salvatore Jr., Sonny and Stefano.

Sal Bando, Jr., was the head baseball coach at High Point University from 2001 to 2008. Since 2010 Bando Jr. has been the head baseball coach at Marquette University High School, leading the team to two straight state championship appearances in his first two seasons there.

Bando was a Roman Catholic and was involved in some Catholic organizations.

Death
Bando died of cancer on January 20, 2023, in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, at age 78.

title: Sal Bando


text:
A Toast to Those Who Are Gone

A Toast to Those Who Are Gone is a 1986 compilation album of recordings that Phil Ochs made in the early to mid-1960s, mostly between his contracts with Elektra Records and A&M Records. In line with recordings made on the former, Ochs espouses his left-leaning views on civil rights on songs like "Ballad of Oxford", "Going Down To Mississippi" and "Colored Town", his views on worker's rights on "No Christmas in Kentucky", his attack on the American Medical Association on "A.M.A. Song", and the unwilling hero (perhaps Ochs himself) on the title track.

The CD carried an extra track, "The Trial", and the liner notes were by noted Ochs fan Sean Penn.

Track listing
All songs by Phil Ochs.
 * 1) "Do What I Have to Do" – 2:36
 * 2) "The Ballad of Billie Sol" – 2:24
 * 3) "Colored Town" – 3:00
 * 4) "A.M.A. Song" – 2:17
 * 5) "William Moore" – 3:07
 * 6) "Paul Crump" – 3:34
 * 7) "Going Down To Mississippi" – 3:04
 * 8) "I'll Be There" – 2:10
 * 9) "Ballad of Oxford (Jimmy Meredith)" – 2:51
 * 10) "No Christmas in Kentucky" – 3:04
 * 11) "A Toast to Those Who Are Gone" – 3:31
 * 12) "I'm Tired" – 2:20
 * 13) "City Boy" – 1:58
 * 14) "Song of My Returning" – 5:17
 * 15) "The Trial" – 2:44
 * 16) * Bonus track on CD only

Personnel

 * Phil Ochs – guitar, vocals
 * A. N. Other – bass, piano, guitar, mandolin

title: A Toast to Those Who Are Gone


text:
Forensic handwriting examination

Forensic handwriting examination may refer to:

 * questioned document examination
 * forensic palaeography or diplomatics

title: Forensic handwriting examination


text:
Démodé

Démodé is Jean-Jacques Goldman's first solo album sung in French, set in 1981. It was recorded at the Studios Pathé in Paris and the Studio Vénus in Longueville. The album has also been released under the names A l'envers and Jean-Jacques Goldman. It was certified platinum in France for sales of 300,000 copies.

Track listing
All tracks by Jean-Jacques Goldman

 * 1) "A l'envers" – 3:54
 * 2) "Sans un mot" – 3:29
 * 3) "Brouillard" – 5:11
 * 4) "Pas l'indifférence" – 4:12
 * 5) "Il suffira d'un signe" – 5:50
 * 6) "Je t'aimerai quand-même" – 4:54
 * 7) "Autre Histoire" – 4:19
 * 8) "Quelque chose de bizarre" – 4:00
 * 9) "Quel exil" – 2:59
 * 10) "Le Rapt" – 4:27
 * 11) "Juste un petit moment" – 1:33

Personnel

 * Jean-Jacques Goldman: Acoustic and electric guitars, acoustic and electric piano, vocals
 * Patrice Tison: Electric guitars
 * Max Middleton: Keyboards
 * Georges Rodi: Synthesizers
 * Guy Delacroix: Bass
 * Clément Bailly: Drums, percussion
 * Bernard Illouz: Additional vocals

title: Démodé


text:
Fred Waite

Frederick Tecumseh "Dash" Waite, occasionally spelled Fred Wayte (born September 23, 1853 – September 24, 1895) (Chickasaw) was noted for a period when he was a cowboy in New Mexico and a member of Billy the Kid's gang. He was also known for later serving as a legislator in the Chickasaw Nation government, and as its Attorney General.

As a young man, Waite left Indian Territory to work as a cowboy in the New Mexico Territory. While working for John Tunstall as a ranch hand, he met Bill Bonney and several other men. After Tunstall was killed in the Lincoln County War, Bonney, Waite and the others pursued Tunstall's killers as vigilantes, calling themselves the Regulators. As they turned to criminal activities, they became known as the "Billy the Kid gang."

In 1880 at about age 27, Waite left the gang and returned to the Chickasaw Nation to build a more settled life. He married, became a rancher, and started a family. He lived a law-abiding life thereafter and became involved in Choctaw and Chickasaw politics. He was elected to the Chickasaw legislature both as a representative and as a senator. When serving as a representative, he was elected for three sessions as Speaker of the House. He was appointed by the council and chief as Attorney General of the Chickasaw Nation. He died of rheumatism at the age of 42.

Early life
Fred Waite's middle name of Tecumseh was after a prominent Native leader. He was born in the Chickasaw Nation at Fort Arbuckle, in what is now Garvin County, Oklahoma. He was the son of Catherine (née McClure) Waite and Thomas Fletcher Waite. His father was a farmer who also operated a trading store and stage stop southeast of Pauls Valley in the Chickasaw Nation, Indian Territory. His mother was mixed race (as was he and his siblings) and his maternal grandparents were Ela "Ellen" Teecha (Chickasaw) and the Rev. A.J. McClure, an English missionary who immigrated to the Nation to serve the Chickasaw. The missionary met and married Ela Teecha after he arrived in the Chickasaw nation.

During the Civil War, the Waite family supported the Union. They were pursued by Confederate soldiers as the conflict reached the Nation, and fled to the Sac and Fox reservation in Kansas, which supported the Union. After the war, they returned to Indian Territory.

Reportedly, Fred was sent to school first at the Illinois Industrial University, for education in European-American ways. He moved to St. Louis, Missouri, where he graduated from Mound City Commercial College in 1874. After his father's death, Waite returned to the Fort Arbuckle to manage the family store. He also managed a crew of thirty ranch hands who were looking after about a thousand head of cattle.

Life in New Mexico
As Fred grew older, he decided to become a cowboy. He left home in 1875, intending to go to Colorado. He wound up in Lincoln County, New Mexico, where he got a job as a ranch hand with John Chisum in 1877. Waite later worked for John Tunstall, a rancher who was later to be one of the leaders of the Tunstall-McSween vs. Dolan war, better known as the Lincoln County War. Waite worked as a farmer for Tunstall.

On February 18, 1878, after Tunstall was killed, Waite became a member of the Regulators. They originally collected as a posse led by Dick Brewer to serve arrest warrants on Tunstall's killers. Through the posse, Waite met Billy Bonney, Jose Chavez y Chavez (American Indian), Henry Brown, Jim French, and Charlie Bowdre. They later formed what became known as Billy the Kid's gang, led by Bonney.

The gang came into conflict with law enforcement and also attacked a suspect in Tunstall's murder. Waite was allegedly behind a wall with the gang when they killed William J. Brady, sheriff of Lincoln County, New Mexico. He was also present when the gang killed Buckshot Roberts, a suspect in the murder of Tunstall.

Return to Indian Territory
Waite was said to have stayed with the Regulators long enough to become the subject of one county and two federal arrest warrants. The gang split up, and Waite headed back to Indian Territory. He settled in the Washita Valley. He married Mary E. Thompson on December 1, 1881, moved to the Chickasaw Nation, and started a family.

Serving the Chickasaw
Determined to turn his life around, Waite tried several different occupations. First, he began ranching, then he worked as a lawman for the U.S. Indian Police. They had jurisdiction for certain crimes under federal law.

Waite became involved in tribal politics. He became a delegate to an inter-tribal conference. He was elected as a representative from his home district, and then as a senator in the Chickasaw government. It had two houses for its legislature. While serving as representative, he was elected by other members as Speaker of the House for three sessions. After that he was appointed by the chief as Attorney General of the Chickasaw Nation. While in this position, he died of rheumatism on September 24, 1895.

title: Fred Waite


text:
Ranwood Records

Ranwood Records is an American record label started in 1968 by Randy Wood (after he left Dot Records) and Lawrence Welk. Lawrence Welk owned all of the recordings that he released on Dot as they were produced and manufactured by Teleklew Productions and leased to Dot. These were repackaged for reissue on Ranwood. Welk did not own or buy those recordings he made for Coral and they continue to be owned by Universal Music.

Most of Welk's later recordings were released on Ranwood. The label released albums by The Lawrence Welk Show's cast members, including Jo Ann Castle, Guy & Ralna, Clay Hart, Tom Netherton, Ava Barber, and Bob Ralston. Welk acquired Wood's interest in the label in 1979. Ranwood's releases were mostly albums and 45 rpm singles.

Musicians who recorded for Ranwood but were unrelated to Welk's TV show included The Mills Brothers, Jim Nabors, Sounds of Sunshine, The Exotic Guitars, The Charles Randolph Grean Sounde and Damita Jo. During the mid-1980s, the label was folded into Welk Music Group, which also acquired Vanguard and Sugar Hill.

In 2015, Welk Music Group sold the Vanguard and Sugar Hill labels to Concord Bicycle Music while retaining ownership of the Ranwood catalog. Welk licensed the Ranwood catalog to Concord Music Group for ten years.

title: Ranwood Records


text: User talk:81.76.115.49

title: User talk:81.76.115.49


text:
Aryk

In Central Asia, an aryk (Turkic: arıq; арык) is a relatively small aqueduct supporting agriculture and providing water to inhabitants of the area.

Many places in Central Asia have the word "aryk" in their names:.

title: Aryk


text:
Hamilton Records

Hamilton Records was an American record label started in 1958 as a subsidiary label of Dot Records. It was named after Christine Hamilton, the then-vice president of sales for Dot Records. Performing artists included the Lennon Sisters.

Its catalog is now owned by Universal Music Group and managed by Geffen Records.

title: Hamilton Records


text:
Association of American Schools in South America

The Association of American Schools in South America (AASSA) is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) organization that was established in 1961 "to discover and develop ways and means for improving understanding through international education. " All schools in the organization are private, college preparatory schools that offer a predominantly American curriculum taught in English. All Full Member schools must meet accreditation standards set by the AASSA board.

Currently, they have 50 full members and 33 invitational members.

Argentina

 * Asociación Escuelas Lincoln

Bolivia

 * The American International School of Bolivia

Brazil

 * American School of Belo Horizonte
 * American School of Brasília
 * American School of Recife
 * American School of Rio de Janeiro
 * Associacao Escola do Futuro
 * Associacao Escola Guaduada de Sao Paulo
 * Chapel School-Escola Maria Imaculada
 * Escola Americana de Campinas
 * International School of Curitiba
 * Our Lady of Mercy School, Rio de Janeiro
 * Pan American Christian Academy
 * Pan American School of Bahia
 * Pan American School of Porto Alegre
 * Rio International School
 * School of the Nations (Brasília)

Cayman Islands

 * Cayman International School

Chile

 * International School Nido de Aguilas

Colombia

 * Colegio Albania (Albania School)
 * Colegio Karl C. Parrish
 * Colegio Nueva Granada
 * Colegio Jorge Washington (also The George Washington School)
 * Colombus School
 * Colegio Granadino
 * Colegio Bolivar
 * Knightsbridge Schools International Bogotá (Bogotá)

Curacao

 * International School of Curacao

Ecuador

 * Academia Cotopaxi
 * Alliance Academy International
 * American School of Quito
 * Colegio Alberto Einstein
 * Colegio Menor de San Francisco (Quito & Samborondon Campuses)
 * Inter-American Academy of Guayaquil

El Salvador

 * Escuela Americana El Salvador

Guatemala

 * American School of Guatemala

Guyana

 * Georgetown International Academy

Honduras

 * Alison Bixby Stone School
 * American School of Tegucigalpa

Jamaica

 * American International School of Kingston

Panama

 * Crossroads Christian Academy
 * Magen David Academy

Paraguay

 * American School of Asuncion

Peru

 * Colegio Franklin D. Roosevelt

Trinidad and Tobago

 * International School Port of Spain

Uruguay

 * Uruguayan American School

Venezuela

 * Centro Educativo Internacional Anzoategui
 * Colegio Internacional de Carabobo
 * Colegio Internacional de Caracas
 * Colegio Internacional Puerto La Cruz
 * Escuela Bella Vista
 * Escuela Campo Alegre
 * Escuela Las Morochas
 * International School of Monagas
 * The British School Caracas

Bolivia

 * American Cooperative School
 * Santa Cruz Cooperative School

Brazil

 * Avenues Sao Paulo Fuducacao Ltda.
 * Escola Beit Yaacov
 * Escola Pueri Domus/global Education
 * Sant'Anna American International School

Colombia

 * Asociacion Colegio Granadino
 * Colegio Albania
 * Colegio Bilingue Richmond
 * Colegio Bolivar
 * Colegio Bureche
 * Colegio Jorge Washington
 * Colegio Panamericano
 * GI School
 * La Sierra International School
 * The Victoria School

Costa Rica

 * Kabe International Academy
 * Lincoln School

Cuba

 * International School of Havana

Dominican Republic

 * Carol Morgan School

Ecuador

 * ISM International Academy

El Salvador

 * Escuela Americana El Salvador

Guatemala

 * Colegio Interamericano de Guatemala
 * Colegio Maya

Haiti

 * Union School

Honduras

 * Escuela Internacional Sampedrana

Mexico

 * American School Foundation of Monterrey
 * Colegio Atid
 * Peterson Schools
 * The American School Foundation
 * The American School Foundation of Guadalajara A.C.
 * Westhill Institute SC

Panama

 * The International School of Panama
 * The Metropolitan School of Panama


text:
Talk:Noon Gun

[Untitled]
They obviously don't do this for navigation anymore, but it'd be nice to know which noon is signalled. Kwantus 23:10, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

12:00 noon SAST (UTC+2) - noon our time. I hear it every day. Wizzy 08:12, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Note on the external link fix
The external link "Picture of Noon Gun being fired" pointed to http://www.saao.ac.za/~wpk/gallery/pics/noongun1.html - which is a page containing a picture of the gun being loaded. The picture of the gun being fired is at http://www.saao.ac.za/~wpk/gallery/pics/noongun2.html. Since I think latter is the more interesting picture, I've fixed the link to suit the description, rather than the description to suit the link.

Just a head's up. -pinkgothic 10:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Source Noon Gun shooting on the arrival of ships
Shooting the noon gun to signal arrival of new ships: is there a source for this available? - ghoemalive 22:47, 28 October 2007

Marine chronometer time checking
I have my doubts that the cannon was used to check marine chronometers, as stated in the article. Why? I'll therefore be removing the bit about the gun being used for setting chronometers unless someone adds a reliable reference (such as navigational instructions)  Socrates2008 ( Talk )   12:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The custom in the British Empire was to signal local time at 1pm, not 12 noon, as observations had to be made at the observatory at midday to determine local time (i.e. the observatory staff were very busy at 12pm).
 * I have a reliable reference that mentions a time ball on Signal Hill being used to relay time from the observatory at 1pm.
 * The drop of the time ball could be anticipated (when it was raised), while a single gun report could not (not very condusive setting your chronometer accurately).
 * The statements about setting chronometers and watching for the smoke instead of listening for the sound are unreferenced, and therefore probably OR.

While it does devote two paragraphs to the time-balls in Cape Town, the Seaman's Guide to the Navigation of the Indian Ocean and China Sea, published in 1867, makes no mention of gun signals for time signalling. The book, which would be equivalent to a modern Almanac or Sailing Directions, covers all aspects of navigation in Table Bay, so it appears that the guns were not used for signalling time to shipping. Perhaps they were used as a backup to sight signals in poor visibility, but again, the book makes no mention of that.

A bit of original research: Sound takes three seconds to travel one kilometre. Signal Hill is two kilometres from the dockside (the current-day V&A Waterfront) and 12 kilometres from Robben Island at the north of Table Bay, so a gun signal would take between six and 36 seconds to reach a ship in the bay. The puff of smoke, if artificially augmented and viewed through a good old spy-glass, would give an instantaneous time signal all around the bay. Scartboy (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I see a reference here, that mentions :- and since 1806 one was fired daily – initially at sunset, thereafter at 1pm, and finally at noon. and also The main purpose of the Noon Gun was to provide shipping captains with a time signal to set the ships’ chronometers. 200 years ago, ships were not equipped with advanced GPS navigation systems, and fixing their position was not as easy as pressing a button. Captains could fix their latitude by observing the stars, but calculating longitude depended on exact time keeping – and chronometers in the early 1800s were not the precision timepieces of today..

 * I also find this, with some more opinion .. Wizzy… ☎ 16:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Noon gun
The generic, encyclopedic article would discuss the phenomenon of a noon gun. A condensed version of this article will make a good section of that one. Anyone want to make the encyclopedic article on this?--Wetman (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Other guns section
I've removed this section again for the following reasons:  Socrates2008 ( Talk )  14:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was completely unreferenced. Other Wikipedia articles do not suffice as references, as these would be self references.  Some of the articles linked make no mention of a time gun.
 * The article on Cape Town's time gun is not the right place to maintain an exhaustive list of time guns at Wikipedia, particularly as it was getting so long. Perhaps a list article like List of time guns would work if the existing Category:Time guns is not already sufficient?

No ″first time in 200 years″ event, but an obvious error...
Quite at the end of the article it tells us:

 * ″On Friday 7 January 2005, both the main gun and backup gun failed to fire owing to a technical difficulty. This was the first time in 200 years that the noon gun had not fired as scheduled.″

And that 200 year fact is obviously wrong; however sadly, my observation is pure original research and my lonely source is a wikipedia-article on the Noon Gun, which - just one sentence earlier - had told me:

 * ″One day in June 1895, the gun fired at 10:30 rather than 12:00 when a spider interfered with the relay used to remotely fire the gun.″

Now some simple, however — as far as I know — yet unpublished, calculations easily demonstrate that from June 1895 to January 2005 it's not even close to 200 years. So i've obviously found an — admittedly quite little — error, but can't back my findings by citation of a reputeable source, while the article keeps misinforming his readers — even backed by citing an error-page ′404 - page not found′ of some South African news site.

Trying to find that old news piece there, got me lucky then, but in an unexpected way. While I didn't succeed in finding that ″first time in 200 years″ article from 2005, I did find a report of another Noon Gun failure in April 2000. So the 2005 event had only been a ″first time in almost 5 years″ thing, which might even be the reason for that other article's disappearance.

So that's the basic facts I've found as a result of stumbling over that little factual mistake, but now I'm absolutely not sure how to best fix the article, as I could think of at least three different options:

 * Should just that ″for the first time in 200 years″ sentence, which is definitely wrong be removed?

 * Should that mention of the 2005 event be completely removed from the article, if no current source for it could be found, as it's then basically unsourced trivia?

 * Or should the report of that 2005 failure be completely removed regardless of finding a current source for it — as it was obviously not that extraordinary an event, that would have mandated for it's inclusion, especially as the article on the ″April 2000 delay″ cites some guy from the South African Astronomical Observatory telling that such problems could easily happen and about lots of different possibilities what could go wrong during the signal's transmission from the observatory to the Noon Gun?

-- 212.95.5.218 (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Noon Gun