text:
Talk:Four corners (Canada)

Not a Four Corners?
Are you sure that Canada has a "Four Corners"? Have a look at that "spot" with mapquest.com. You can zoom right in on it. See what I mean?
 * No, I'm not sure what you mean. I looked at Mapquest and it doesnt' show any gap; there appears to be a four corners spot.

http://www.mapquest.com/directions/main.adp?go=1&do=nw&rmm=1&un=m&cl=EN&ct=NA&rsres=1&1ffi=&1l=&1g=&1pl=&1v=&1n=&2ffi=&2l=&2g=&2pl=&2v=&2n=&1pn=&1a=&1c=Miami&1s=FL&1z=&2pn=&2a=&2c=Flin+FLon&2s=MB&2z=&r=f (Please pardon the strange title of (driving directions from Miami to Flin Flon). I wanted a zoomed out map and don't know of any towns in the area.) By definition, the corner is at the intersection of 60°00′00″ North and 102°00′00″ West. It doesn't even make sense that such an offset would exist. The area is remote, so there are no towns to consider when creating the borders. The area is not of strategic imporantance either, so there's no reason why one territory or province would be "given" a little bit of extra land. I'm deleting this erroneous "did you know" from the article unless someone has a source. Ufwuct 19:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I just linked the coordinates. Of the 2 maps available from the coordinates that show the boundries, Mapquest shows no offset but Google maps do when you click on hybrid. However the external link to the Government of Canada's map shows no offset. You need to zoom in to see it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

MSN Maps also shows this as an exact four-corners. But as CambridgeBayWeather noted, Google Maps dows show an offset. It would be interesting to find out what source material Google Maps used. Most likely, there are arguments on both sides as to whether there actually ought to be an offset or not. The reason has to do with differing geodetic systems. The current Manitoba-Saskatchewan boundary was set by the Manitoba Boundaries Extension Act (1881) and the Saskatchewan Act (1905), in terms of "road allowances" and so forth. That boundary really could not be exactly the same as what a GPS unit would today identify as 102° W longitude, because GPS uses the WGS84 geodetic system, which is standard today but had not yet been developed in 1881 or 1905. The obelisk referred to in the article is apparently at 59º59'59.6"N 102º00'22.3"W under the NAD27 reference, which converts to 60º00'00"N 102º00'25"W under WGS84. In other words it is about 25 seconds of longitude west of the 102nd meridian under the WGS84 datum, a distance of approximately 387 metres. The Nunavut Act (1993) defined the western boundary of Nunavut as commencing at precisely 60°00'N 102°00'W (presumably according to WGS84 although that doesn't seem to be specified expressly). However, it goes on to describe that point as "being the intersection of the Manitoba, Northwest Territories and Saskatchewan borders". --Mathew5000 22:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The google map now has no offset . I have transplanted a statement of doubt from the quadripoint article as it belongs here more than there. jnestorius(talk) 22:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The NRC's "Canadian Geopolitical Boundaries - CANADA" page defines a clear offset. Should we reword the article to clarify that this is not actually a quadripoint? Jkshapiro (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No. That's just a map, not a legal definition. The law is unclear, so it's right to say that it's possibly a quadripoint. Bazonka (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not known by the proper name and should not be the title this whack of ongoing original research, likewise Quadripoint which is a neologism propagating itself via Wikipedia; and is ultimately WP:TRIVIA. Aside from that if it's only possibly a "quadripoint" (and it's not, those maps are derived from legal land surveys which are the boundaries; the legal definitions are not boundaries, they are prescriptions only and if there are different legal definitions varying between provinces and/or the federal government, "Houston, we have a problem".

 * That no genuine third-party source other than sites made by "quadripoint enthusiasts" uses this name, and it does not appear on maps, the title is not a proper name. About boundaries vs legislation, this is why the 49th Parallel boundary isn't exactly on the 49th Parallel; but the terms of the treaty, as with other legislation, only establish the survey lines; the line physically surveyed IS the boundary, not what the treaty (=legislation, effectively) says.  Same with the Alaska boundary with NW BC and SW YT; it's the surveyed monuments that define it, not'' the documentation.

 * To me this article and its title are pure WP:Original research as well as TRIVIA-based wiki-fiction. Other long-time editors have commented in the past, given failed AfDs to delete it, and the Quadripoint article, that it gives people something to do to keep them away from creating serious content, or messing with same.

 * Whatever, I'm not going to try and AfD it again, but just observing that the original research and now entirely speculative nature of this non-place ("possibly a quadripoint", asserted without any understanding of the legalities just explained above, notwithstanding the OR-fiction "quadripoint" itself) in no way justifies the use of caps as if it were a proper name and widely-known. It's not, it was created by a few individuals and its now-world presence is due entirely to Wikipedia, and the speculative geo-fiction continues and continues and continues.

 * It's not called Four Corners by any one by its theorists, and it's just geotrivia; as are all the multipoints proliferating on the Quadripoint article; a topology of theoretical line-intersections spanning the planet as a date-mapping hobby; not a valid subject for an encyclopedia, and not of any relevance in the real world no more than its title is not part of the Canadian vernacular nor has any penetration in the public mindset save through Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skookum1 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not "possibly a quadripoint", either it is, or it isn't. Jkshapiro, I've reverted you. 117Avenue (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Yes, it either is or isn't, but as others have pointed out (and as is noted in the article) this depends on the results of the survey. Therefore "possibly". The problem with the reverted wording of "theoretically" is that it implies there's no practical way to determine the matter. Jkshapiro (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ...by the writer, which would original research. I see your point. 117Avenue (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge with Nunavut ?
Could this not be merged with Nunavut? There is not very much new information in this stub that wasn't already in the main Nunavut article that linked to this entry. Dunro 17:25, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
 * It takes four jurisdictions to make four corners. Nunavut is only one. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This only became a quadripoint when the boundary of Nunavut was established, less than twenty years ago. 173.77.96.171 (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

category
Does Wikipedia have a category for tripoints and quadripoints? Or even a list of them? Tripoint does not even seem to be a real article. --Mathew5000 02:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Assessment
I have assessed this as a Stub, as it only contains the basic information on the subject, and of low importance, as I do not feel that this topic is essential for understanding Canada. Cheers, CP 01:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

More info
Here's some additional info that can help clear up some of the discussion.. Also, I have just come back from this location, so if you have any questions, let me know and I can probably add more color: "Although both the Nunavut Act and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement state the intersection of 60°00'N latitude and 102°00'W longitude as the boundary between Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and the Northwest Territories, the actual, legal boundary point is marked by a survey monument boundary marker placed by the Manitoba Saskatchewan Boundary Commission in 1962.[27] According to Natural Resources Canada, Geodetic Survey Division, that monument's precise location is 59°59′57.98511″N 102°0′27.24027″W (NAD83), or about 400 metres (1,300 ft) west and slightly south of 60°N by 102°W." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.84.160.135 (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for this survey? Five decimal places on the second is very precise, and cannot be achieved with a hand held GPS. 117Avenue (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadripoint#cite_note-nunavut-29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadripoint#cite_note-28

"Canadian Spatial Reference System Online Database, Natural Resources Canada, Geodetic Survey Division. GSD LONG Report for: "MON 157 (name), 674002 (unique number)" (online database requires free registration)."

I was just there and can tell you that 60 x 102 was in the middle of nowhere with no markers (i.e. accurate location of the intersection of the 2 provinces + 2 territories per most maps), but the obelisk/marker was Definitely not there.. it was closer to the coordinates specified by the Canadian Spatial Reference/Natural Resources Canada/Geodetic Survey Division: 59°59′57.98511″N 102°0′27.24027″W (NAD83), about 400m west. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlugassy (talk • contribs) 04:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Added. Do you mind releasing an image of the obelisk? You can follow the instructions at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard. 117Avenue (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Just uploaded one (have plenty more..:)

It's at:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:4_Corners,_Canada,_Obelisk.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlugassy (talk • contribs) 07:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Added, thanks. 117Avenue (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Manitoba Saskatchewan border
Whether there is an exact quadripoint or a surveying error was discussed above. However, as someone suggested, the Manitoba Saskatchewan border maybe is not meant to be at exactly 102°W. I am finding quite a few sources saying exactly this. Geography of Saskatchewan says so without a reference I can make sense of. This and this hint at it, this shows it (you'll have to zoom in) and this says it. None of these references is fully satisfactory but I'll keep looking. Even if the "four corners" is not exact (but out by a few hundred metres) the article is still worth having and the anomaly worth discussing if it can be done with reference to reliable sources, Thincat (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The error between the survey practices back then compared to what we now use for latitude (the international border isn't exactly 49°) and longitude is a well known fact, and common knowledge in the surveying world. I know this is OR, but all you have to do is drive to the nearest meridian (Range Road 10), and look at your GPS. 117Avenue (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The border is as surveyed, and enabling legislation prescribing a meridian is only a guideline (haven't seen a quote of the MB-SK border description or an NT-NU border description). AS with the BC borders with WA and AK, the actual physical lines and surveyed monuments do not match with the 49th Parallel in the one case, or any fixed "line" though the peak-to-peak survey in the latter case was where those specific points are; what I'm saying is that it's not the theoretical line that's the boundary, but the boundary as surveyed.  Which is why there's a hundred yards or so of WA that should be in BC in the Lower Mainland area; divergence easts of the Rockies means the Americans came out better in total acreage "gained".....this so-called "quadripoint" is fictional, as is the name and subject of this article, which IMO should be deleted as "original research" which it most definitely is, in many ways.Skookum1 (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Date and years
This image shows 1959 and 7 years in jail. I emailed the lodge to see if they can send us an image of the top of the marker. I assume the 59 was stamped in at time of placement so 1962 and five years in jail would be wrong in the article. 1962 may have been the estimated completion time of the project and they had all the obelisks stamped with that.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What an interesting photo. The "five years" comes from a rather bloggy source (and I guess it could be wrong) but it claims to quote exactly what is inscribed on the obelisk itself including "1962" and the photo of the obelisk confirms 1962. The article strictly does not say the obelisk was erected in 1962 but says it is "inscribed to say it was erected in 1962". I remember writing that bit, knowing that pedants would be scrutinising every key press for OR. The new photo you have uploaded indicates Manitoba on one side and NWT on the other (which by my OR suggests Nunavut now). I think the legend could be re-written "A 1959 survey marker indicating the boundary of Manitoba and Northwest Territories near Hasbala Lake." Thincat (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I just added 5 more images to the commons category. There are two markers close to each other and both are in the article now. When the photographer goes to the obelisk again he may send us a picture of the top of it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The title of this article and the lead
I would be happy to rename the article "four corners" or "Four corners" (including the quotes in the title) since that seems to be the common name, probably with (Canada) appended to disambiguate from Four Corners. My reasoning is that that is what the several sources seem to call the place.

In many ways I'd be happier if the lead, instead of saying "where four political subdivisions hypothetically meet" said "where four political subdivisions come close together or meet" except no-one seems to have found a source saying anything like that. The sources seem to say (possibly wrongly) that the boundaries cross. The article should not be (and isn't) claiming a precise quadripoint (or that it is not one). Do we know if this particular location on the NU-NWT boundary has been surveyed yet? If not, and from what I understand from earlier discussion the 102° is something of a guideline, until the surveyors have reported we cannot know the situation. If this part of the survey is complete, it is a great pity none of us seem to know the result. Of course, piecing together the various evidence seems to show no exact crossing but without a reliable source reaching that conclusion, we may not claim it in the article.

Finally I have just noticed that, back in 2009, material was copied from here to quadripoint hence the admonition near the top of this talk page. Thincat (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

 * As far as I can tell via googling, the NWT-NU boundary surveys so far have concentrated on areas near settlements and those near mineral claims. Pfly (talk) 10:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Must not be very much surveyed then.......well, the diamond claims get pretty extensive I guess......no diamonds near the 60th Parallel and the SK/MB boundary yet, but if it comes down to NT/NU/SK/MB squabbling over whose jurisdiction gets royalties, it'll get surveyed and darned fast LOL.Skookum1 (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Since some believe that the title is original research, I was thinking something like the "Borders of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut", or "Intersection of the Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut borders". But that's a long title. 117Avenue (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am okay with "four corners" with quotes and no caps. Are we sure that we didn't create the label though? Some RS use this term but may have taken it from us. We could still join the four surveyor forums that I brought up in the AfD. We could let them neverendum it and then get back to us. They would be the world experts on it I assume. They may have valuable input to improve the article as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The title should be Four corners (Canada), without quotes. Four Corners is not the proper name for this place, so we should use a descriptive name. There are four corners (whether they all meet at the same point or not...), so it is an accurate description, and it reflects the obvious parallel with the Four Corners in the US (which is a proper name). Per WP:TITLEFORMAT we should not use quotes or a capital C, but the initial F should be a capital. Bazonka (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me too. Pfly (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Having started this bit of the discussion I forgot all about it but I am happy with the result. It hadn't actually occurred to me that there are four corners whether or not they all come together! As for the initial capital letter that is WP's way of doing titles except under highly unusual circumstances. I think the geometrical uncertainty adds to the interest but that is a matter strictly for the talk page. Thincat (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Distance
I made File:Geodatata for Sask Man NWT and Nan.png and pixel counting in GIMP works out to 386.5m. Do we have an accurate number for what it should be?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's close to the "about 400 m" I calculated some years back. I got that number by dropping the two coordinates (60°00'N 102°00'W and 59°59′57.98511″N 102°00′27.24027″W) into some online distance calculator, perhaps the measure tool in Google Earth. Your map is interesting, but I'm not sure about its ultimate accuracy. It comes from OpenStreetMap, yes? OSM is a Wikipedia-like source, in which anyone can make edits. I haven't used it in a long time but have an editing account, so I went in and tried to determine who entered those boundaries and what their source was. I'm not very good with OSM, but it seems that all the boundaries in that area say their source is "geobase", meaning, I assume, GeoBase (geospatial data). As our article on GeoBase says, when it comes to geopolitical boundaries, "This data layer contains the international, inter-provincial, and territorial boundaries, as well as the boundaries of Canada’s exclusive economic zone. It is not intended for legal use, and should be utilized for cartographic purposes only." And, for what it's worth, neither of the coordinates on your OSM map are the same as those given by Natural Resources Canada, CSRS Online Database, station number 674002 (MON 157) (Established by : Legal Survey Of Canada - Nrcan), which I just checked again (register/login here ) and got the same coordinates already on our page here: N59° 59' 57.98511", W102° 00' 27.24027" (NAD83). To convert between decimal and DMS coordinates I use, which for the survey monument gives 59.99944,-102.007567. Inputing the CSRS coordinate and 60.0N102.0W into  gives 424.9870362099465 m. All that said, "about 400 m" seems good to me! Pfly (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, for what it's worth, the high-res topo maps of Canada (NRCan made) appear to still be available online via "mytopo.com", this link should show the MT-SK-NWT "tripoint" marked with a survey monument symbol and the number "157". There are no topo maps at this scale just to the east, including where the NU-NWT boundary is shown on smaller scale ("lower res") topo maps. I'm not sure why that is. The topo cutoff is marked "District of Mackenzie", a pre-Nunavut name whose boundary was along 102°00'W, although never surveyed on the ground. It seems the District of Mackenzie/Nunavut was never mapped with topo maps at this scale. Pfly (talk) 05:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you go to the link I got the map image from there are more maps there that may help. That was the only CC-by one that we can license at commons though. My dad was a surveyor for highways. He said there should be a marker ever square mile in Canada. He may have only been talking about south of 60 though. Sites like http://www.waymarking.com/ seem to enjoy finding and posting pictures of them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Getting an exact distance is possible through converting the coordinates to UTM. The toolserver includes this function (59.99944°N, -102.00757°W, 60°N, -102°W). Simple Pythagorean theorem will tell you it is 427m. Topo maps do exist east of 102°, the topoquest link, also found through the toolserver, has them. However can only show one side of 102° at a time, because of how the National Topographic System divides its map sheets. 117Avenue (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Do we know where the two Survey markers are on my map? Readers may wish to know where the two markers are in relation to 102°, 60°, and the actual two border lines. If the one is damaged then the government may pop up and fix it if I complain through email that 'Borders are very important and this marker should be verified as accurate or someone could lose an eye.' If we suck up the minister they may even take some photos for us. My lightest camera is still to heavy for Kite aerial photography or I would take a trip up and try some shots myself.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? Have you not read the article? An obelisk marks the point where the Manitoba–Saskatchewan border meets the Northwest Territories, at 59°59′57.98511″N 102°00′27.24027″W (NAD83), 427m west of 60°N 102°W. The Northwest Territories–Nunavut border is unmarked, and is either at 102°W or 102°00′27.24″W. 117Avenue (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am just wondering where our 4 - 6 points are in relation to each other. We have legal borders that don't match 102/60, we have two markers that were placed, and we have true 102/60. I assume that the markers are at the legal border limits. Is the N/S marker precisely on 60 and where is it E/W? There should be a government account of where it was last found which may vary slightly from where they thought it was when it was placed. If we can find at least these two points then we should be able to create a diagram from the data. 102/60 we don't really need from OSM since it is simple trig. We just need to place our two markers as last found in relation to those two trig lines. This will give the readers some nice eye candy so they can actually 'see' where they are. Without the last surveyed locations of two more markers we shouldn't draw the legal borders in though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by "we have two markers that were placed". There is the obelisk at N59° 59' 57.98511", W102° 00' 27.24027" (NAD83), placed before the creation of Nunavut and marking the tripoint of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and NWT. What other marker is of concern? Pfly (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The N/S only one not far from it. See the image in the article?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering you are the one who uploaded it, wouldn't you be the one to know? 117Avenue (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Canoe1967, do you mean the picture of the disc, "marking Manitoba's north border, east of the obelisk"? I'm not even sure why that picture is on this page. There are hundreds of survey markers along the provincial boundaries. Is that one special? I can get its coordinates from the CSRS Online Database if you'd like, although even if it is closer to 60°00'N 102°00'W I'm not sure how it would matter... Pfly (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But, in case it does matter and I'm confused, the next survey marker along Manitoba's northern boundary, east of the tripoint obelisk, is, according to Natural Resources Canada, CSRS Online Database, station number 674004 (MON 1) (Established by : Legal Survey Of Canada - Nrcan), N59° 59' 58.01195", W101° 59' 49.04294" (NAD83). Thus 179.895 metres from 60°00'N 102°00'W. So, closer to 60-102 than the tripoint obelisk. Maybe that is what you were getting at? If NRCan decides to use 60N,102W they will end up making a new tripoint located a bit closer to the disc marker than the obelisk (and slightly south of 60.0 N, presumably)—which would also mean there is no true quadripoint or "four corners". Of course if they decide to use the existing tripoint obelisk, making a true quadripoint, then the disc marker is irrelevent, right? Pfly (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The lodge owner that sent me the other images said that one is near the obelisk. I am not sure if is exactly on 60, in 1959 they didn't have GPS so it is doubtful that it is. I don't think he has sent permissions to OTRS so the other shots may be deleted if he has changed his mind about licencing them. He should be back up there by now and was willing to take a picture of the top of the obelisk disk for us. I may yet email the government survey ministry and see if they can provide images and more info on how they plan to survey. Eventually they may decide on a true quadripoint and then we can discuss the article title again. There is a way to lower case the F in four that we may yet decide to do.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We should not change the F to lower case. The initial character of an article name should only be lower case in the special situations where the name always starts lower case - and this only really applies to companies and band names etc., for example k.d. lang and eBay. "Four corners" would have a capital F if it is used at the start of a sentence. Bazonka (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

New images
I uploaded pics of the top of the obelisk, since that seemed of interest.. I have many more pics of the area if needed..sorry if I posted this in the wrong spot since I'm still a little newbie to wikipedia..:) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Disk_on_top_of_Obelisk_at_4_Corners_Canada_1.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Disk_on_top_of_Obelisk_at_4_Corners_Canada_2.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlugassy (talk • contribs) 06:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pictures. It is fine to post here on the talk page. I will get them in the category over at commons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Corners/quadripoint
I don't like the revisions that has made. Removing "four corners meet" and "four corners are located", and adding "potential four corners", "If it does, then this creates a Canadian four corners", and "potential four corners". I think Jkshapiro has confused "four corners" with quadripoint. There is no question there are four corners, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut (four) all have corners; this fact is what kept the article at the four corners name. What is unclear is if there is a quadripoint. Quadripoint is what should be described as "might" and "potential". Jkshapiro's current sentence with the bolded article title name, "If it does, then this creates a Canadian four corners", implies that the name of this article is original research, which has been disputed in the past. 117Avenue (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

 * If this article is not about a quadripoint then it requires significant rewriting and some new sources. The cited sources all interpret "four corners" as a place where four administrative divisions meet. Jkshapiro (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't follow. I don't think you have argued against my points at all. Where are you seeing a definition for "four corners"? Since I believe that you have not provided good reasoning for your changes, I encourage you to explain your position more, and I will be reverting you in the spirit of WP:BRD. 117Avenue (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a few issues here. Let's take them individually.
 * 1. What does "four corners" mean?
 * In my opinion, this term is inextricably linked to the American Four Corners and must refer to a quadripoint if it has any meaning at all. But I'm no more the owner of this article than you are, so let's look at the sources quoted in the article.
 * Hill: "(This means Canada now has a 'four corners' point like the one where Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah meet.)"
 * Canada Tourism Development Corporation: "The creation of Nunavut created Canada's only 'four corners', at the intersection of the boundaries of Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, at 60°00' north, 102°00' west, on the southern shore of Kasba Lake."
 * Butler: "The boundary junction of Manitoba, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Saskatchewan is marked by a meter high aluminum obelisk."
 * All of these are referring to a single point where four regions meet.
 * 2. Is there a quadripoint?
 * We know that this is indeterminate. The law provides two contradictory definitions of the Nunavut/NWT border. Therefore the borders don't "hypothetically" or "theoretically" meet; rather they "potentially" or "might" meet, depending on whether the surveyors decide to connect that border with the Manitoba/Saskatchewan border.
 * 3. Do the provided sources support the thesis of the article?
 * Not really. As noted above, they claim there is a quadripoint, full stop. If we want to avoid original research then that's where this article needs to stop too. My rewrites didn't go that way, because I think it's a disservice to the truth, but the current wording doesn't do that either.
 * 4. Are the provided sources high quality?
 * Hill gives one brief parenthetical remark in a book on a different subject, and the other two are tourism websites. I would love to find a source more fitting to serve as the source for an encyclopedia article; I suspect the reason we can't find one is because the place under discussion is not known to be a quadripoint so there's nothing to say.
 * 5. Is the article written clearly and in the style of an encyclopedia?
 * It could use some help. That's why I made three separate edits: the first two were simply to clean up the wording without changing the meaning of the article; the third was the one where I tried to highlight the essential ambiguity around the very existence of this quadripoint. By reverting the first two edits along with the third, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
 * That is the reasoning for my changes. I hope you and the other editors find it "good". Jkshapiro (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I've sounded rude about this, I've only been going by memory. I was hoping the users involved in the move discussion would be involved with this discussion as well. But it looks like there was only a handful, and the vocal one is currently blocked. Both sources put four corners in quotation marks. I think they don't know the term quadripoint, and are using four corners for lack of a better term. I agree the term is drawing from the American Four Corners, but I thought that removing the capital C, and with the lead saying "the four corners of Canadian subdivisions meet", would give "four corners" a different meaning. Does quadripoint provide good references for its definition? I now realize that we discussed before about the terms "theoretically" and "potentially". I think this depends on if the decision has been made or not. If the decision on the quadripoint has been made, and we aren't aware of it, it is theoretically a quadripoint. If a surveyor has yet to make the decision, it is potentially a quadripoint until that time. I've read your first two edits again, and agree that it does help with grammar, and flow of the article. However, if I could be nitpicky, is there still a place for "extremely remote and inaccessible", and "the pre-existing boundary of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, as surveyed, does not fall precisely on the meridian"? 117Avenue (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Also, if you can find a way to address the more basic problems with this article then that would be very welcome.
 * For the record, I'd never encountered the term quadripoint either before coming here.... Jkshapiro (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It could use some help. That's why I made three separate edits: the first two were simply to clean up the wording without changing the meaning of the article; the third was the one where I tried to highlight the essential ambiguity around the very existence of this quadripoint. By reverting the first two edits along with the third, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
 * That is the reasoning for my changes. I hope you and the other editors find it "good". Jkshapiro (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I've sounded rude about this, I've only been going by memory. I was hoping the users involved in the move discussion would be involved with this discussion as well. But it looks like there was only a handful, and the vocal one is currently blocked. Both sources put four corners in quotation marks. I think they don't know the term quadripoint, and are using four corners for lack of a better term. I agree the term is drawing from the American Four Corners, but I thought that removing the capital C, and with the lead saying "the four corners of Canadian subdivisions meet", would give "four corners" a different meaning. Does quadripoint provide good references for its definition? I now realize that we discussed before about the terms "theoretically" and "potentially". I think this depends on if the decision has been made or not. If the decision on the quadripoint has been made, and we aren't aware of it, it is theoretically a quadripoint. If a surveyor has yet to make the decision, it is potentially a quadripoint until that time. I've read your first two edits again, and agree that it does help with grammar, and flow of the article. However, if I could be nitpicky, is there still a place for "extremely remote and inaccessible", and "the pre-existing boundary of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, as surveyed, does not fall precisely on the meridian"? 117Avenue (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Also, if you can find a way to address the more basic problems with this article then that would be very welcome.
 * For the record, I'd never encountered the term quadripoint either before coming here.... Jkshapiro (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'd never encountered the term quadripoint either before coming here.... Jkshapiro (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Four corners (Canada). 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/20051228112441/http://www.canlii.org:80/ to http://www.canlii.org/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Four corners (Canada). 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.canlii.org///ca/sta/n-28.6/part297109.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130429214946/http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/06/28/nwt-nunavut-border-under-the-microscope/ to http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/06/28/nwt-nunavut-border-under-the-microscope/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

surveys, maps, mining districts, etc
Sorry if this post is longer than the article itself. Sorry if some of it is a repeat of what has been said above. I have provided links to field notes and reports for several surveys. Each of these links points to a details page. Each details page provides a link to one PDF file. The PDF files are all high resolution scans of original survey documents; all of the files are large.

1871: commencement of Dominion Lands Survey

 * The Second Meridian of the Dominion Land Survey was defined as being 102°W.

1905 Saskatchewan borders defined

 * The northeast corner of Saskatchewan was defined as he intersection of the Second Meridian in the system of Dominion lands surveys and 60°N.
 * The exact location of the northeast corner was not surveyed or marked on the ground.

1912: Manitoba extended to 60°N

 * Manitoba was extended north such that its northwest corner coincided with the northeast corner of Saskatchewan.
 * This effectively formed a tripoint where the boundaries of Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba all met.
 * The exact location of the tripoint remained unsurveyed and unmarked.

1962: SK/MB boundary survey
I feel compelled to include here an irrelevant snippet from the survey report:
 * The last and most northerly section of the SK/MB boundary was surveyed between January and April of 1962.
 * The survey crew installed 85 survey monuments (#73 - #157) as they worked their way north along the Second Meridian to the NWT border.
 * The entire line (including parts surveyed in the previous winter) runs about 27 arcseconds west of 102°W(NAD83) or about 25 arcseconds west of 102°W(NAD27).
 * On April 6,1962 the survey crew installed its final survey monument (#157) at the NWT border; this officially marked the location the NWT,SK,MB tripoint.
 * Unlike other simple monument markers along the border, Monument 157 was (and still is) a 30 inch tall Aluminum obelisk; it was bolted to a 8 foot galvanized pipe which was buried 6 feet into the ground.

In Camp No. 2 approximately fifty per cent of the crew had influenza. While some were able to continue with their work, others had to remain off work for a few days. One man developed virus pneumonia and was taken to hospital and was unable to return until the latter part of February. On Jan 16th the temperature dropped to -57°F and then climbed to -40°F, accompanied by strong winds. The line at this state was going through burnt over county. At noon we walked out to work, but as many of the men received frost bites on the walk to the line, it was decided to return to camp immediately.

1967: reinstallation of Monument 157

 * Over the next few years, Monument 157 became disturbed by frost action. Photos show that the pipe had pushed about two feet out of the ground. In May of 1967 the monument was temporarily removed so that a  new concrete pad could be laid. On June 7,1967 the monument was affixed to the new pad.

1993: NT/NU boundary defined
From the 1993 Nunavut Act:

Commencing at the intersection of 60°00′N latitude with 102°00′W longitude, being the intersection of the Manitoba, Northwest Territories and Saskatchewan borders; thence due north to the intersection of 102°00′W longitude and 64°14′N latitude near the south shore of the Thelon River; thence west northwesterly in a straight line to the intersection of 64°50′N latitude and 109°20′W longitude, north of Gloworm Lake; ...

It is impossible to interpret any legal or inferred meaning from this legal text for two reasons: Cartographers were forced to guess where the boundary is supposed to be. This led to much inconsistency between maps; nobody could claim any map was right or wrong.
 * 1) The act does not specify the the datum for which to interpret the coordinates; i.e. the act does not state whether to use NAD27, NAD83, or WGS84.
 * 2) The intersection of the NWT, SK, and MB borders is not (and never has been) located at 60°00′N 102°00′W regardless of which datum one decides to use.

1994: alternate use of Monument 157
In addition to being a boundary marker, Monument 157 is also cataloged as a 2D passive control station in the Canadian Spatial Reference System (CSRS). Data is given as follows:
 * Name: MON 157.
 * Station ID: is 674002.
 * Coordinates: 59°59′57.9851″N 102°0′27.2403″W(NAD83)
 * Year of publication: "1994-01-01 00:00:00.0"

1999: Nunavut separated from the Northwest Territories

 * Nunavut became a territory on April 1, 1999.

2000: mining districts established
The federal government created formal definitions for the Northwest Territories Mining District and the Nunavut Mining District. Northwest Territories Mining District is defined as:

All that area that includes all that part of Canada north of the sixtieth parallel of north latitude and west of the boundary described in Schedule I to the Nunavut Act that is not within the Yukon Territory.

There is nothing in this definition that makes the boundaries of the Northwest Territories Mining District any different than the boundaries of the Northwest Territories. Nunavut Mining District is defined as

All that area that includes (a) all that part of Canada north of the sixtieth parallel of north latitude and east of the western boundary of Nunavut described in Schedule I to the Nunavut Act that is not within Quebec or Newfoundland; and (b) the islands in Hudson Bay, James Bay and Ungava Bay that are not within Manitoba, Ontario or Quebec.

There is nothing in this definition that makes the boundaries of the Nunavut Mining District any different than the boundaries of the Nunavut.

2013: survey conducted 472km north of four corners

 * In 2012 The Surveyor General Branch (SGB) of Natural Resources Canada contracted out a survey of 329km of boundary between the Northwest Territories Mining District and the Nunavut Mining District.
 * This is the section that was legislated to run from 64°14′N 102°00′W to 64°50′N 109°20′W. It starts roughly 472km north of the four corners and heads WNW.
 * The survey was completed in March 2013.
 * The survey included the installation 36 new Canada Lands Survey monuments; the only one relevant to this four corners article is Monument 201 at 64°14′00.0000″N 102°00′00.0000″W(NAD27) or 64.23366°N, -102.0006°W(NAD83).

2014: survey conducted at the four corners
The Notice of Proposed Procurement is still online for viewing. It contains the following blurb:
 * In 2014 The Surveyor General Branch (SGB) of Natural Resources Canada contracted out a survey of 472km of boundary between the Northwest Territories Mining District and the Nunavut Mining District.
 * This is the section that is supposed to start somewhere in the vicinity of the four corners and head north to 64°14′N 102°00′W.

Natural Resources Canada Surveyor General Branch (North) is responsible for the management of the legal surveys of the administrative boundaries of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut mining districts. This requirement is for the legal survey and demarcation of approximately 472 kilometres of artificial boundaries separating these two mining districts.

The Request for Proposal is also online. It contains the following requirements:

The requirement is for the legal survey and demarcation of the administrative boundary shown on the sketch “Course A-B” (Attachment I), starting at Monument ‘157’, being the northerly most monument on the Saskatchewan Manitoba boundary and going in a Northerly direction on the geodesic to Monument ‘2-1’, as shown on Plan 101887 CLSR. Note that the NAD83 (CSRS) coordinates shown on Plan 101887 CLSR are epoch 2013.

ARPENTAGE des TERRES CANADA LANDS SURVEY TERRITORIES DU NORD-OUEST NORTHWEST TERRITORIES 2014 monument number
 * note: Monument 2-1 is the same as Monument 201.
 * The survey was completed in September 2014.
 * The survey crew demarcated the boundary with 48 new survey monuments that all lie in a 472km geodesic line between Monuments 157 and Monument 201.
 * The survey determined the location of Monument 157 to be 59.99944°N, -102.00755°W(NAD83). Maximum error on the survey is listed as being 5cm or better.
 * The new monuments were all standard Canada Lands Survey (CLS) monuments.
 * Each new monument cap was inscribed with the following names/words/numbers:
 * The words "MINING" and "DISTRICT" do not appear on the survey monuments (not for this survey or for any of the surveys conducted along the mining district boundary).
 * The surveyed line does not touch or intersect with 102°W(NAD83).
 * The surveyed line does touch W102°(NAD27), but only at its northern termination point (Monument 201).
 * The location of the surveyed line results in a quadripoint at Monument 157.

2016: SGB biennial review published
The Surveyor General Branch (SGB) 2014-2016 biennial report has this to say:

There is a footnote that reads:
 * The wording in that section of the report makes it clear that the SGB expects the newly surveyed boundary to ultimately be treated as the true boundary between the two territories even though we know it was conducted on the premise of being a mining district boundary.
 * Mining rights are mentioned, but there is zero mention of mining districts or mining district boundaries.
 * Note also that the boundary was not established in 1999 as the article states; it was established in 1993 but only became relevant in 1999 when Nunavut became a territory.

2018: SGB biennial review published
The Surveyor General Branch (SGB) 2014-2016 biennial report has this to say:

2021: New maps on Wikimedia Commons
MapGrid (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have created a couple of "four corners" maps that show locations of both the surveyed boundary lines and the survey monuments.
 * Just like the survey monument caps, the maps do not include the words "MINING" or "DISTRICT". No regrets.
 * I have treated the surveyed NT/NU boundary as being the true territorial boundary even if it has not been officially sanctioned in legislation. I do not think there is a more reasonable option available.
 * File:Canada four corners map - en.svg
 * File:Canada four corners map closeup - en.svg

 * Well, thank you for this which I have read with fascination. That the boundary should matter so much! If I understand right the surveyors are (suggesting) making the NT/NU boundary start at the 157 marker but this only applies to mining areas pending legislative approval for the legal territory boundary. Thincat (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @Thincat: I think that in general you have drawn the same conclusions that I have. However, technically the surveyors are the people that got hired to demarcate the boundary; they just followed instructions from the SGB (Surveyor General Branch of the Ministry of Natural Resources). I realize that I am nitpicking by stating that, but it needs to be clear that the decision as to where to start the NT/NU boundary was strictly made by government as opposed to being made by a survey crew.
 * Ultimately the federal government under the direction of the SGB forked out millions of dollars to have the entire NT/NU boundary demarcated with legal survey markers. This tell me that the surveyed boundary should probably be treated as more than just a suggestion... even if it has not yet been officially endorsed as a legal territorial boundary. MapGrid (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand now. This article was under some risk of deletion at one time and I think it needs to stay carefully referenced. The paragraph you added here has no reference at the end. Would be sufficient? I also see the marker is located at an approximate elevation of 348 m and this may be worth adding. Thincat (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @Thincat: I went ahead and reworded most of the article. I added the extra reference and the elevation.  I also removed one or two references that did not appear to provide any relevant information.  Now in all honesty, I far prefer cartography to writing.  If you want to rewrite the whole thing and/or revert my last edit I won't be terribly upset.MapGrid (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Four corners (Canada)


text:
Talk:Maruti Esteem

Untitled
Oddly, the website mentions the engines' power in terms of bhp, although it uses SI measurements in every other category. I'm leaving it that way in the article. --Milkmandan 22:19, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 18:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Maruti Esteem


text:
Kam Air Flight 904

Kam Air Flight 904 was a scheduled passenger domestic flight from Herat Airfield in Herat to Kabul International Airport in Afghanistan's capital Kabul. On 3 February 2005 the aircraft crashed in mountainous terrain killing all 97 passengers and 8 crew on board.

The incident took place shortly after 4:00 p.m. local time (UTC+4:30) when the Kam Air Boeing 737-200 operated by Phoenix Aviation went missing on approach to Kabul. At the time of the incident a heavy snowstorm was observed in the area.

The crash is the deadliest air disaster in the history of Afghanistan.

Accident
The aircraft lost communication during the worst winter snowstorm for 5 years. The cause of the loss of communication and the subsequent crash is unknown. Taliban leader Mullah Dadullah stated that his guerrilla fighters had not shot down the plane and expressed sadness at the crash. Air traffic control for the Kabul area was provided by the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

At the time of the accident, there was no established intra-governmental agency plan in Afghanistan to deal with a major aircraft crash. Initially, it was proposed that the Ministry of Transportation be responsible for not only the investigation but also human remains identification and recovery and wreckage recovery. When the logic of this concept fell apart because of the small size of the MOT and its almost total lack of resources, these duties were divided among the Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Health (human remains), the Ministry of the Interior (wreckage recovery), and the MOT (the actual accident investigation).

Recovery operation and investigation
A rescue operation was launched under atrocious weather conditions by the ISAF and Afghan National Army (ANA), and two Dutch Apache helicopters sighted the tail of the plane at around 9:30 a.m. UTC.

The ISAF made numerous unsuccessful rescue attempts by helicopters of victims presumed to be alive. When those attempts failed, the Afghan Ministry of Defense ordered the ANA's Central Corps to assemble a team to attempt a rescue. The Afghan National Army Commando responded on foot but were forced to leave due to a snowstorm. On the fourth day after the crash, an ISAF rescue team was able to reach the crash site and confirmed that all passengers and crew were dead.

The crash site was at an altitude of 11,000 ft on the peak of the Chaperi Mountain, 20 mi east of the Afghan capital of Kabul.

The helicopter crew confirmed the wreckage site with the aircraft sensors and reported back their find. The crash site was on a high mountain ridge called Cheri Ghar at some 3000 m. The ridge was a daunting place; sheer on one side, steeply sloping on the other with deep snowfields, and swept by high winds or covered in freezing fog. The snow hid any local tracks or paths and the approach roads from nearby villages were impassable to vehicles, despite several attempts by ISAF and ANA patrols to find a way to the summit. The winter weather did not give another opportunity until 7 February when a window of clear weather allowed an ISAF Spanish Cougar helicopter to set down a 5-man team of Slovenian mountain rescue troops onto the ridge summit. Pushing on through the waist-deep snow and conscious of the possible mine threat, the team reached the site. Although the team found no human remains, the badly broken up debris scattered along the ridgeline and the extreme conditions made it very unlikely that anyone had survived the crash.

It was discovered that all 105 passengers and crew on board were killed, and the plane was completely destroyed. The flight data recorder was found after an extensive and extremely difficult search and turned over to US National Transportation Safety Board analysis. The recorder did not contain any valid data from the flight. The cockpit voice recorder, which would provide crucial information about the actions of the flight crew prior to the impact, was never located.

The accident site itself was compact horizontally, but not vertically. The aircraft struck a ridge line on an easterly heading near the crest of the mountain about 50 ft down from the top. The final flight path probably had some amount of upward vector to it, because the fuselage forward of the wing box was propelled, in fragments, over the crest and fell over the cliff side into the valley below. The actual wreckage documentation during five site visits was difficult because most of the parts were either buried under several feet of snow and inaccessible, outside the mine-free cordon and inaccessible, or down the cliff side and, therefore, also inaccessible to all without mountain climbing training. The most prominent and recognizable piece of wreckage present was the vertical stabilizer and a small portion of the rear fuselage. Most of the visible wreckage was located between two stacked-stone, roofless structures that were observation posts used by Mujahadeen fighters to monitor Soviet troop movements in the Kabul valley during the 1980s. Within a 200 ft circle, after a lot of arduous snow removal, investigators identified portions of both engines, both wings, the left main landing gear assembly, many aft galley components, the horizontal stabilizer, human remains and personal effects, and much miscellaneous debris. Some material, such as an escape slide and some right engine components, were located outside the landmine-free area. These items were documented with binoculars and digital camera zoom features.

The investigative team faced very challenging weather conditions, difficult terrain, and potential landmine hazards. The evidence recovered from the site was insufficient to determine a definite cause for the crash, but the location suggested that the crew had descended below the minimum descent altitude for the phase of the approach that they were in. Without the cockpit voice recorder, survivors, witnesses, or a valid flight data recording, the investigation stalled. In 2006, the Civil Aviation Operation of the Ministry of Transport of Afghanistan released their final report concluding that the plane flew into terrain below the ideal approach path, most likely as a result of pilot error.

Casualties
Of the 105 people on board, 97 were passengers and eight were crew. At least 25 were foreign nationals: 9 Turkish, 6 Americans, 4 Russians, 3 Italians, 1 Dutch, and 1 Iranian, as well as the first officer, who held dual citizenship in Canada and Russia. According to reports, the Russians were crew members, the Turkish were civilians working for Turkey-based firms, and the Italians included an architect working for the United Nations, Andrea Pollastri, as well as another Italian civilian and a navy captain. Three of the six Americans on board were women working for the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based NGO Management Sciences for Health (MSH), and one was a Dutch water resources engineer, team-leader for a development project in the western basins. The crew on the flight consisted of pilot in command Vasily Simonov (50), first officer louri Zotov (46), cabin crew members Ksenia Silikhova (20), Ekaterina Pigasova (24), Victor Novoslougine (36), Aliona Coritchi (27), and cabin crew trainees identified as Haseena Sarwari D/O Abdul Rhiam (19) and Obaidullah S/O Abdul Wakil (21).

Kam Air
Kam Air is a private airline established in 2003 operating a fleet of leased Boeing and Antonov aircraft on both domestic and international routes. The plane that crashed during flight 904 was a Boeing 737-200 registered EX-037, which was originally delivered to Nordair as C-GNDR in 1980. It had been leased by Kam Air and operated by Phoenix Aviation, a firm based at Sharjah, United Arab Emirates.

title: Kam Air Flight 904


text:
Karen Redman

Karen Redman ( Longo; born January 8, 1953) is a Canadian politician who currently serves as the chair of the Region of Waterloo. Previously, she was a member of the House of Commons of Canada from 1997 to 2008, representing the riding of Kitchener Centre for the Liberal Party. She served as Chief Government Whip in the 2004 to 2005 Parliament, and was the Chief Official Opposition Whip in the 2006 to 2008 parliament. She was defeated in the 2008 federal election. She was elected to Waterloo Regional Council in the 2014 municipal election and has been the Waterloo Regional Chair since 2018.

Life and career
Redman was born in Kitchener, Ontario. After completing high school at Eastwood Collegiate Institute, Redman went on to graduate from the University of Waterloo, receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in English in 1974. She subsequently worked as a writer, and was a member of the Kitchener-Waterloo Learning Disabilities Association and the Canadian Federation of University Women. She has been an elder in Kitchener's St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church since 1991.

Politics
Redman served as a trustee on the Waterloo County Board of Education from 1988 to 1994, and was a city councillor for the Kitchener City Council and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo from 1994 to 1997.

She was first elected to parliament in the federal election of 1997, defeating former Progressive Conservative MP John Reimer by over 10,000 votes. She was re-elected by comfortable margins in the elections of 2000, 2004, and 2006.

Redman served as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment from 2000 to 2003. She was named Chief Government Whip and sworn into the Queen's Privy Council for Canada on July 20, 2004, an important role in a minority government situation. Following the Liberal defeat in the 2006 election, she was named Chief Opposition Whip.

In the 2008 federal election, she lost to Stephen Woodworth of the Conservative Party of Canada by 339 votes.

On November 17, 2009, upon a reconstitution of the Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition under Chief of Staff Peter Donolo, Redman was named Caucus Liaison, a role drawing on her "strong and deep ties with her former – and future – caucus colleagues."

Redman was renominated as the federal Liberal candidate for the riding of Kitchener Centre in the 2011 election, yet lost again to Conservative Stephen Woodworth.

She was elected to Waterloo Regional Council in the 2014 municipal election. In 2018 she successfully ran for and became the chair of the Waterloo Regional Council, receiving over 62% of the votes.

title: Karen Redman


text:
TBG

TBG may refer to:
 * Thyroxine-binding globulin, a transport protein
 * TBG AG, the investment arm of the Thyssen family
 * Traditional Britain Group, a far-right British pressure group
 * Tønsberg, a city in Norway

title: TBG


text:
Jörg Friedrich (author)

Jörg Friedrich (sometimes spelled Joerg or Jorg in English) (born 17 August 1944 in Kitzbühel) is a German author and historian. Friedrich is best known for his publication Der Brand (2002), in which he portrays the Allied bombing of civilian targets during World War II as systematic and in many ways pointless mass murder. An English translation, The Fire, was published in 2006 by Columbia University Press and met with widespread critical approval. For example, the New York Times said it "describes in stark, unrelenting and very literary detail what happened in city after city as the Allies dropped 80 million incendiary bombs on Germany..... There is... an edginess to Friedrich's writing and commentary, an emotional power."

Friedrich was formerly considered a left-wing antiwar activist and described as a student Trotskyist. His books have sold hundreds of thousands of copies in Germany, and some have also been translated into English, Dutch, French and many other languages. He is well connected in German political and military circles and is a friend of former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. He has published interviews with Rudolf Bahro and Raul Hilberg when their books were published. His new book "14/18 Der Weg nach Versailles" focusses on the First World War.

For his work The Law of War: The German Army in Russia Friedrich has been awarded an honorary doctorate by the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands.

Life and career
Born in Kitzbühel in 1944, he spent his childhood in Essen. Jörg Friedrich became a Trotskyist and, during the Vietnam War, an antiwar protester. Following thereon, he began to write books on the history of the war in Germany and work as an independent historian, researching postwar justice and the Nuremberg Trials. His books have always been controversial and have largely sold through this controversial analysis and the publicity surrounding them.

Criticism of Friedrich's position
As a historian who has written strongly on the horrors committed by the German state under the Nazis, Friedrich's position has always been assumed to be anti-Nazi with antiwar tendencies focused towards Germany's taking responsibility for its actions during the war.

 * "his previous work examining Wehrmacht crimes and Nazi justice enables him to approach the subject without risking automatic dismissal as a right-wing apologist." (from the Peifer review of Der Brand)

Friedrich admits that Germany initiated bombing of civilians in the UK by bombing London, although he claims the first raid was accidental, thereby leaving Britain as the first nation to deliberately bomb nonmilitary targets. This entirely ignores the German bombing of English cities during the First World War, using Zeppelin and other rigid airships. In April 1937, during the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), German airplanes bombed the town of Guernica, which had no military use or value.

Less well-known bombings, such as that of the Polish town of Wieluń within the first two hours of the war and prior to any attack on Germany, either by air or land, are left out. Friedrich mentions the British use of explosive weapons followed by incendiary, a mixture designed to create large fires. He also mentions that the technique to create firestorms was a German development first seen in the bombing against British cities, such as the Coventry Blitz (14 November 1940) and the Second Great Fire of London (29/30 December 1940).

Friedrich was persuaded to publish his book of Dresden photographs by former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, with the condition that equivalent photographs of Polish and British victims should also be shown.

Friedrich has specifically attempted to claim the position of an objective historian, making no judgement about the morality of Allied bombing. Many reviews of his books have pointed out that the language Friedrich uses in his books, with words such as "Einsatzgruppen" (task force in English) used to describe allied pilots and "crematoria" (as in the crematoria of Auschwitz) to describe the air raid shelters in which Dresden residents died.

One explanation offered for Friedrich's recent books and their choice of topics is that he maintains strong antiwar feelings, and with the looming War in Iraq and other global conflicts, he wanted to join in the general German antiwar feelings and implicitly criticise the policy of attacks on foreign nonmilitary targets in Iraq. Friedrich has himself rejected this explanation, stating that he is "dismayed that The Fire has bolstered the pacifist argument against German participation in an Iraq war".

Other related historians
Other German historians closer to the mainstream of historical research have also covered the suffering of the German people during the war. The bombing of Dresden had been covered in detail by Götz Bergander prior to Friedrich's book.

Influence on German and international debate on the war
Friedrich's books have not been well received by some media outlets in Germany. ARD, a public television channel, wrote off "the Fire" ("Der Brand") as a "provocation", and Süddeutsche Zeitung recommended throwing his latest book, Places of Fire, directly into the garbage bin.

Even with these strong criticisms, Friedrich has had considerable public success. Der Brand was serialised in the German tabloid Bild and has had a serious influence on German national debate. Friedrich has claimed that this has meant that German civilians who had never previously talked about their wartime experiences have begun to tell about this phase in history, which was previously documented primarily from the point of view of influence on the war. At other times, revision of the outlook on the war has taken place, with Klaus Naumann, a former NATO General and friend of Friedrich's, saying, during a joint promotional interview with Friedrich, that he now doubted the legality and military need for Churchill's decision to attack Dresden, thereby implying that the attacks were war crimes.

Both in Germany and abroad, neo-Nazi groups have seized on the book as proving that the air war was begun by the UK. Claims that the book shows that bombings of German towns in 1940 were the first attacks on civilians of the war, based on the omission of attacks in Poland, are common. The equating of the bombing of Dresden with the Holocaust is made explicit and even inverted (?), with the actions towards Jews described as a decision of Hitler for strategic reasons whilst the needless incineration of hundreds of thousands of defenseless German civilians is reappraised as a war crime and a massacre.

It was not until 15 May 1940, two days after the Rotterdam Blitz, that the British abandoned their policy of using aerial bombing only against military targets and against infrastructure, such as ports and railways west of the Rhine, which were of direct military importance. It is also alleged that Rotterdam was bombed by mistake.

Reviews
Due to the level of controversy it has raised, a number of reviews of the German edition of "Der Brand" have been written in English and published in English language journals and/or made available on the Internet. These reviews, made shortly after the publication of the book and prior to Friedrich's public statements, have tended to treat the inaccuracies and omissions in Friedrich's books as carelessness, although criticism of the language used has been almost universal.

Comparison of reviews made in Germany with those in the U.S. and the UK is also interesting. Some of the differences may be seen as being due to different points of view; however, specific aspects of the book (for example, the most commonly mentioned failure to provide context) are reliably mentioned in English language reviews whilst being included strongly in some German reviews and missing entirely in others.

 * Review: Der Brand: Deutschland im Bombenkrieg, 1940-1945, Douglas Peifer, Air and Space Power Chronicles, Spring 2004
 * Peifer provides a detailed review of the book, which finds that it is "Highly effective as a literary dirge and lamentation, it comes up short when judged by the standards of the history discipline". Perhaps more importantly he states that the language is "deliberately provocative", that the book's unclear chronology can be misleading and that the lack of clear references included makes it unverifiable.  Even given these flaws, Peifer finds that "for those willing to make the effort, reading the piece is worthwhile".

 * Review of Jörg Friedrich, Der Brand. Deutschland im Bombenkrieg 1940-1945; A Narrative of Loss, Joerg Arnold, Department of History, University of Southampton,
 * Perhaps best summarised by its final line, "As a narrative of loss, Der Brand succeeds like few other texts, but as a historical treatment of the allied air war, it is seriously deficient." this review analyses in particular the use of sources within Friedrich's work and also his refusal to apply analysis to the reasons for the bombing. A particularly strong criticism is in Arnold's contrast between Friedrich's overt claim that the bombing had nothing to do with the holocaust and his implicit linkage of the two subjects through his use of the language of the holocaust to describe the effects of the bombings; however, Arnold fails to clarify what exactly he means with 'language of the holocaust' and why it should not be used in relation to atrocities perpetrated against Germans.

 * Jörg Friedrich: Der Brand, Franz Kaessl, Öbib online (German Language).
 * From its opening sentence "The fate of German civilians in the Second World War was treated as a taboo topic for many decades", this review contrasts strongly with most English language reviews. It points to the example of Günter Grass as an author recently discovered the suffering of the war, whilst reviews elsewhere have claimed that Grass's work of the 1960s is actually a far more powerful portrait of the effects of wars on civilians.  In the end the review concludes that the book should give a new view on history, not a new assignment of blame.

 * The Destruction of Germany, Ian Buruma, in The New York Review of Books
 * In a footnote to his article "Targeting the city: Debates and silences about the aerial of World War II", published in the International Review of the Red Cross, Charles Maier (Leverett Saltonstall Professor of History at Harvard University) collates several reviews of Der Brand:
 * See the excellent reviews submitted to the H-German network by Joerg Arnold, 3 November 2003, and Douglas Peifer, 4 November 2003, which appropriately address, I believe, the strengths and weaknesses of this work — Peifer's with more emphasis on the military and political issues, Arnold's with greater emphasis on the moral and conceptual problems. Others have also indicated the deficiencies of the book as a scholarly source. See for instance Horst Boogs’ summary list of errors in his contribution to Ein Volk von Opfern? Die neue Debatte um den Bombenkrieg 1940-45, Rowohlt, Berlin, 2003. Obviously many issues are contentious in this debate. The most parochial issues are those that concern historians as such. To what extent can the historian merely report or dissect the differing positions without engaging his own sense of moral judgment? Second, what sort of rhetoric is legitimate in a historical account?

The review on H-German network by Joerg Arnold is online.

title: Jörg Friedrich (author)


text:
Quadrupole

A quadrupole or quadrapole is one of a sequence of configurations of things like electric charge or current, or gravitational mass that can exist in ideal form, but it is usually just part of a multipole expansion of a more complex structure reflecting various orders of complexity.

Mathematical definition
The quadrupole moment tensor Q is a rank-two tensor—3×3 matrix. There are several definitions, but it is normally stated in the traceless form (i.e. $$Q_{xx} + Q_{yy} + Q_{zz} = 0$$). The quadrupole moment tensor has thus nine components, but because of transposition symmetry and zero-trace property, in this form only five of these are independent.

For a discrete system of $$\ell$$ point charges or masses in the case of a gravitational quadrupole, each with charge $$q_\ell$$, or mass $$m_\ell$$, and position $$\mathbf{r}_\ell = \left(r_{x\ell}, r_{y\ell}, r_{z\ell}\right)$$ relative to the coordinate system origin, the components of the Q matrix are defined by:

 * $$Q_{ij} = \sum_\ell q_\ell\left(3r_{i\ell} r_{j\ell} - \left\|\mathbf{r}_\ell \right\|^2\delta_{ij}\right).$$

The indices $$i,j$$ run over the Cartesian coordinates $$x,y,z$$ and $$\delta_{ij}$$ is the Kronecker delta. This means that $$x,y,z$$ must be equal, up to sign, to distances from the point to $$n$$ mutually perpendicular hyperplanes for the Kronecker delta to equal 1.

In the non-traceless form, the quadrupole moment is sometimes stated as:

 * $$Q_{ij} = \sum_\ell q_\ell r_{i\ell} r_{j\ell}$$

with this form seeing some usage in the literature regarding the fast multipole method. Conversion between these two forms can be easily achieved using a detracing operator.

For a continuous system with charge density, or mass density, $$\rho(x, y, z)$$, the components of Q are defined by integral over the Cartesian space r:

 * $$Q_{ij} = \int\, \rho(\mathbf{r})\left(3r_i r_j - \left\|\mathbf{r}\right\|^2\delta_{ij}\right)\, d^3\mathbf{r}$$

As with any multipole moment, if a lower-order moment, monopole or dipole in this case, is non-zero, then the value of the quadrupole moment depends on the choice of the coordinate origin. For example, a dipole of two opposite-sign, same-strength point charges, which has no monopole moment, can have a nonzero quadrupole moment if the origin is shifted away from the center of the configuration exactly between the two charges; or the quadrupole moment can be reduced to zero with the origin at the center. In contrast, if the monopole and dipole moments vanish, but the quadrupole moment does not, e.g. four same-strength charges, arranged in a square, with alternating signs, then the quadrupole moment is coordinate independent.

If each charge is the source of a "$$1/r$$ potential" field, like the electric or gravitational field, the contribution to the field's potential from the quadrupole moment is:
 * $$V_\text{q}(\mathbf{R}) = \frac{k}{|\mathbf{R}|^3} \sum_{i,j} \frac{1}{2} Q_{ij}\, \hat{R}_i \hat{R}_j\ ,$$

where R is a vector with origin in the system of charges and R̂ is the unit vector in the direction of R. That is to say, $$\hat{R}_i$$ for $$i=x,y,z$$ are the Cartesian components of the unit vector pointing from the origin to the field point. Here, $$k$$ is a constant that depends on the type of field, and the units being used.

Electric quadrupole

A simple example of an electric quadrupole consists of alternating positive and negative charges, arranged on the corners of a square. The monopole moment (just the total charge) of this arrangement is zero. Similarly, the dipole moment is zero, regardless of the coordinate origin that has been chosen. But the quadrupole moment of the arrangement in the diagram cannot be reduced to zero, regardless of where we place the coordinate origin. The electric potential of an electric charge quadrupole is given by
 * $$V_\text{q}(\mathbf{R}) = \frac{1}{4\pi \varepsilon_0} \frac{1}{|\mathbf{R}|^3} \sum_{i,j} \frac{1}{2} Q_{ij}\, \hat{R}_i \hat{R}_j\ ,$$

where $$\varepsilon_0$$ is the electric permittivity, and $$Q_{ij}$$ follows the definition above.

Alternatively, other sources include the factor of one half in the $$Q_{ij}$$ tensor itself, such that:

 * $$Q_{ij} = \int\, \rho(\mathbf{r})\left(\frac{3}{2}r_i r_j - \frac{1}{2}\left\|\mathbf{r}\right\|^2\delta_{ij}\right)\, d^3\mathbf{r}$$, and
 * $$V_\text{q}(\mathbf{R}) = \frac{1}{4\pi \varepsilon_0} \frac{1}{|\mathbf{R}|^3} \sum_{i,j} Q_{ij}\, \hat{R}_i \hat{R}_j\ ,$$

which makes more explicit the connection to Legendre polynomials which result from the multipole expansion, namely here $P_2(x) = \frac{3}{2}x^2 - \frac{1}{2}.$

Generalization: higher multipoles
An extreme generalization ("point octopole") would be: Eight alternating point charges at the eight corners of a parallelepiped, e.g., of a cube with edge length a. The "octopole moment" of this arrangement would correspond, in the "octopole limit" $\lim_{a\to 0} {a^3 \cdot Q} \to \text{const. } $ to a nonzero diagonal tensor of order three. Still higher multipoles, e.g. of order $$2^{\ell}$$, would be obtained by dipolar (quadrupolar, octopolar, ...) arrangements of point dipoles (quadrupoles, octopoles, ...), not point monopoles, of lower order, e.g., $$2^{\ell-1}$$.

Magnetic quadrupole

All known magnetic sources give dipole fields. However, it is possible to make a magnetic quadrupole by placing four identical bar magnets perpendicular to each other such that the north pole of one is next to the south of the other. Such a configuration cancels the dipole moment and gives a quadrupole moment, and its field will decrease at large distances faster than that of a dipole.

An example of a magnetic quadrupole, involving permanent magnets, is depicted on the right. Electromagnets of similar conceptual design (called quadrupole magnets) are commonly used to focus beams of charged particles in particle accelerators and beam transport lines, a method known as strong focusing. There are four steel pole tips, two opposing magnetic north poles and two opposing magnetic south poles. The steel is magnetized by a large electric current that flows in the coils of tubing wrapped around the poles.

A changing magnetic quadrupole moment produces electromagnetic radiation.

Gravitational quadrupole
The mass quadrupole is analogous to the electric charge quadrupole, where the charge density is simply replaced by the mass density and a negative sign is added because the masses are always positive and the force is attractive. The gravitational potential is then expressed as:
 * $$V_\text{q}(\mathbf{R}) = -\frac{G}{2|\mathbf{R}|^3} \sum_{i,j} Q_{ij}\, \hat{R}_i \hat{R}_j\ .$$

For example, because the Earth is rotating, it is oblate (flattened at the poles). This gives it a nonzero quadrupole moment. While the contribution to the Earth's gravitational field from this quadrupole is extremely important for artificial satellites close to Earth, it is less important for the Moon because the $${1}/{|\mathbf{R}|^3}$$ term falls quickly.

The mass quadrupole moment is also important in general relativity because, if it changes in time, it can produce gravitational radiation, similar to the electromagnetic radiation produced by oscillating electric or magnetic dipoles and higher multipoles. However, only quadrupole and higher moments can radiate gravitationally. The mass monopole represents the total mass-energy in a system, which is conserved—thus it gives off no radiation. Similarly, the mass dipole corresponds to the center of mass of a system and its first derivative represents momentum which is also a conserved quantity so the mass dipole also emits no radiation. The mass quadrupole, however, can change in time, and is the lowest-order contribution to gravitational radiation.

The simplest and most important example of a radiating system is a pair of mass points with equal masses orbiting each other on a circular orbit, an approximation to e.g. special case of binary black holes. Since the dipole moment is constant, we can for convenience place the coordinate origin right between the two points. Then the dipole moment will be zero, and if we also scale the coordinates so that the points are at unit distance from the center, in opposite direction, the system's quadrupole moment will then simply be
 * $$Q_{ij} = M\left(3x_i x_j - |\mathbf{x}|^2 \delta_{ij}\right) $$

where M is the mass of each point, and $$x_i$$ are components of the (unit) position vector of one of the points. As they orbit, this x-vector will rotate, which means that it will have a non-zero first, and also a non-zero second time derivative (this is of course true regardless the choice of the coordinate system). Therefore, the system will radiate gravitational waves. Energy lost in this way was first observed in the changing period of the Hulse–Taylor binary, a pulsar in orbit with another neutron star of similar mass.

Just as electric charge and current multipoles contribute to the electromagnetic field, mass and mass-current multipoles contribute to the gravitational field in general relativity, causing the so-called gravitomagnetic effects. Changing mass-current multipoles can also give off gravitational radiation. However, contributions from the current multipoles will typically be much smaller than that of the mass quadrupole.

title: Quadrupole


text:
Richard McCourt

Richard "Dick" McCourt (born 12 August 1976) is an English entertainer and presenter. He is best known as one half of the comic duo Dick and Dom, with the other being Dominic "Dom" Wood.

Career
McCourt gained his experience in Sheffield presenting Hospital Television and local television throughout the early '90s. He is best known for co-presenting, with Dominic Wood, Dick & Dom in da Bungalow. The show ran on CBBC and BBC One, from 2002 to 2006 and was famous for its zany games, often played in public places. Dick and Dom had other CBBC hits including The Legend of Dick and Dom, Diddy TV and Absolute Genius with Dick and Dom. From 2007 to 2008 McCourt and Wood hosted the daytime version of Are You Smarter Than A 10 Year Old? on Sky One.

In 2011, McCourt and Wood appeared in the Feature film Horrid Henry: The Movie, playing 2 Cool 4 School presenters. From 2014 - 2019 they took their live show Dick vs Dom to various festivals including Camp Bestival, The Big Festival, Kendal Calling, CarFest, Chalfest, Wychwood, Standon Calling, Hay Festival and BST in Hyde Park.

Charity work
In 2008, McCourt received the Association of Colleges Gold Award, in recognition of his success in media. The award cited his work advising students interested in media careers. He is an ambassador for Alzheimer's Society and Alzheimer's Research UK and he supports Dreamflight, WellChild and Children in Need. In April 2010, he ran the London Marathon. He ran the London Marathon again in 2021. He has also taken part in several Bupa' Manchester 10k and Great Yorkshire Run's to raise funds for the Alzheimer's Society. In 2006 and 2009 he cycled from London to Paris and has trekked the Great Wall Of China all in aid of Dementia research.

Personal life and education
McCourt was educated at Tapton School, a state comprehensive in Sheffield. At Norton College, building on his experience as a volunteer at Sheffield's hospital radio station, he studied audio, video and print media, receiving the BTEC National Diploma in media production in 1994. His older brother is fellow television presenter James McCourt.

McCourt supports his home city club Sheffield Wednesday and Manchester United.

McCourt currently resides with his long-term partner Katrina Bryan who he has been dating since 2015. In 2019, Bryan confirmed their engagement via her Instagram page.

In 2021, McCourt announced the birth of his first child on Instagram.

Television

 * In-vision continuity 'Broom Cupboard' presentation at CBBC (1996–2000)
 * On Safari on CITV (2000)
 * Bring It On Children's BBC 1 (2001–2002)
 * CBBC Channel 'Presentation' (2002–2003)
 * Dick & Dom in da Bungalow CBBC (2002–2006)
 * Ask the Family BBC 2 (2005)
 * Are you Smarter than a 10 Year Old SKY ONE (2007–2008)
 * The Legend of Dick and Dom CBBC (2008–2011)
 * Da Dick and Dom Dairies (Best of Da Bungalow) CBBC (2009)
 * Dick and Dom Go Wild CBBC (2010–2011)
 * Bananas in Pyjamas V/O (2011–2012)
 * Splatalot! CBBC (2011–2013)
 * Dick and Dom's Hoopla CBBC (2012)
 * Blue Peter: You Decide! (2013)
 * Absolute Genius with Dick and Dom CBBC (2012–2016)
 * Diddy Movies CBBC (2012–2014)
 * Diddy TV CBBC (2016–2018)

Radio

 * Hospital radio Sheffield Children's Hospital (1988–1996)
 * Local radio (1993–1996)
 * BBC Radio 1's Sunday morning 10am – 1pm show, co-hosting with Dominic Wood (2007-2008)
 * BBC Sounds' Diddy Pod (2019–2020)
 * Cash From Chaos (2019)
 * The Dick and Dom Debate (2020)

Stage
On stage, McCourt has appeared in many productions, including:

 * Aladdin at the Empire Theatre in Sunderland (1999/2000)
 * Cinderella at the Derngate Theatre, Northampton (2000–2001)
 * Aladdin at the Theatre Royal, Bath (2001/2002)
 * Dick Whittington at the Lyceum Theatre, Sheffield (2002/2003)
 * "Spamalot" at the Playhouse Theatre in London's West End (Lead role) (2013/2014)
 * Butlin's Dick vs Dom (Stage show) (2014/2016/2018)
 * Cinderella at the Birmingham Arena (2015/2016)
 * Peter Pan at the Worthing Pier Pavilion Theatre (2016/2017)
 * Dick vs Dom (Stage show) (UK tour)
 * Beauty and the Beast at the De Montfort Hall in Leicester (2017/2018)
 * Edinburgh Festival Dick vs Dom (Stage show)
 * Peter Pan at the Empire Theatre in Sunderland (2018/2019)
 * Beauty and the Beast at the Fairfield Halls in Croydon (2021/2022)
 * Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs at the New Wimbledon Theatre (2022/2023)
 * Dick & Dom in da Bungalow 20th Anniversary (UK tour)

title: Richard McCourt


text:
Gordon D'Arcy

Gordon William D'Arcy (born 10 February 1980, in Ferns, County Wexford ) is a retired Irish rugby player who played most of his career at inside centre. He played for Irish provincial side Leinster for his entire professional career and is second on the record  list for most Leinster appearances at 257, behind Devon Toner and is third on the all time Leinster try list with 60. He was registered to club side Lansdowne.

D'Arcy retired from rugby in 2015 having won three Heineken Cups, a Challenge Cup and four league titles with Leinster, two Six Nations titles with Ireland, including a Grand Slam in 2009, and travelled on two British & Irish Lions tours.

Early life and education
D'Arcy graduated from Clongowes Wood in 1998. He enrolled in UCD 1st year arts for the academic year 2007/08.

Rugby playing career
D'Arcy was a promising fullback for schools side Clongowes Wood in the late 1990s, and on the eve of his Leaving Cert was called into the Irish squad for the tour of South Africa by coach Warren Gatland. However, because of his studies he declined the opportunity. On leaving school he joined the Lansdowne Football Club and made his Ireland debut on 15 October 1999 as a substitute against Romania during the World Cup.

Following a falling out with his provincial coaches regarding his attitude – which almost drove him to retire from the game – D'Arcy was left out of the international setup for three years. His second game for his country came on 17 November 2002 as a late substitute in Ireland's 64–17 win over Fiji. He made a further three appearances as a substitute during 2003. He was not selected for the Irish squad for the 2003 Rugby World Cup in Australia, but was picked for the Leinster team during the absence of its World Cup players. It was then that he came into his own, playing some of the best rugby of his career at fullback/wing, where he displayed delightful skill in running from deep and finishing off the moves that he had started. After the World Cup, an injury to Brian O'Driscoll, his Leinster teammate, saw D'Arcy move to outside centre, where he made a great impression.

Owing to the further absence of O'Driscoll from the Irish squad for the first match of the Six Nations in that season against France, D'Arcy found himself in the number 13 jersey at international level. Such was his form that, on O'Driscoll's return, he kept his place, allowing the selectors to experiment with O'Driscoll at inside centre.

He was voted player of the Six Nations tournament in 2004 as he helped inspire his country to the Triple Crown for the first time since 1985. What most impressed supporters was his ability to wrong-foot the flat-defence off passes from O'Driscoll and to create space out of nothing; this was particularly appreciated in his performance against England at Twickenham. It seemed that a new type of centre partnership had been created, which superseded the grinding format preferred by international coaches, of using a crash centre at no.12 and ignoring the possibilities of quick offloads in the centre of the field. The new centre combination was also impressive in its hard and intelligent defence, which often converted into successful counter-attack. D'Arcy was nominated for IRB Player of the Year in 2004

Despite an injury plagued 2004–05 season, D'Arcy was named in the British & Irish Lions squad for their 2005 tour to New Zealand. But his performances during the tour were generally poor, and he reputedly refused to play in the final test against New Zealand, though he vehemently denies this. There were fears at that stage that his form during the 2003–04 season would prove to have been a flash in the pan. However, he has been back fully fit for Leinster and Ireland in the 2005/06 season and has impressed in a new-look, much more attack minded Leinster team.

D'Arcy played in all of Ireland's 2006 Six Nations matches, he beat more defenders than any other player, and showed his talent. His return to top form continued during the autumn international series where his performances against Australia and South Africa contributed to back – to – back victories for the Irish team. D'Arcy usually played at inside centre for Leinster and Ireland with O'Driscoll outside him. He played in all of Ireland's 2007 Six Nations matches, he was nominated for RBS Six Nations Player of the Tournament in 2007. After sustaining a multiple fracture in his arm in the opening match of the 2008 Six Nations, versus Italy, D'Arcy missed the remainder of the season and only returned to Leinster in December 2008. He was a member of the victorious Ireland team that won the 2009 Six Nations Championship and Grand Slam.

In May 2009, D'Arcy was named in the Barbarians squad to play England and Australia along with Ireland teammate Geordan Murphy and Leinster colleague Rocky Elsom., the Barbarians ended up beating England by 33 points to 26, with D'Arcy scoring one of the tries. On 3 June 2009, D'Arcy was called up for the British & Irish Lions squad for the tour in South Africa due to injuries in the squad. He featured for Ireland against Fiji and South Africa during the 2009 November Tests, and started every game in the 2010 Six Nations. He started against New Zealand in the 2010 Summer Tests and scored 1 try, but a groin problem kept him out of Ireland's remaining test against Australia. He earned his 50th cap against South Africa on 6 November 2010.

D'Arcy was named in the Ireland Rugby World Cup 2011 squad. In the Australia v Ireland match at the 2011 World Cup, D'Arcy and O'Driscoll set the world record for most appearances as a centre partnership together in international rugby, at 45 appearances. This broke the previous record set by Will Carling and Jeremy Guscott.

Career after rugby
D'Arcy combined writing opinion pieces for the Irish Times focused on rugby

Personal life
In July 2012, D'Arcy married model Aoife Cogan at St. Macartan's Cathedral, Monaghan. The couple are also business partners in Form School, a reformer pilates studio on Grattan Street, in Dublin. In February 2015 it was announced that Gordon D'Arcy and his wife Aoife Cogan were expecting their first child and a baby girl, named Soleil, was born in May 2015.

D'Arcy grew a beard which attracted much attention and was shaved off by Jonathan Sexton after Ireland won the 2014 Six Nations Championship.

Gordon D'Arcy is a patron for Barretstown charity.

Honours

 * Individual
 * Six Nations Player of the Tournament: (1) 2004

 * Leinster
 * Celtic League: (4) 2001–2002, 2007–2008, 2012–2013, 2013–2014
 * Heineken European Cup: (3) 2008–2009, 2010–2011, 2011–2012
 * Amlin European Challenge Cup: 2012–2013

 * Ireland
 * Six Nations Championship: 2009, 2014
 * Grand Slam: 2009
 * Triple Crown: 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009

title: Gordon D'Arcy