text:
Information Services Procurement Library

The Information Services Procurement Library (ISPL) is a best practice library for the management of Information Technology related acquisition processes (derived from Euromethod). It helps both the customer and supplier organization to achieve the desired quality using the corresponded amount of time and money by providing methods and best practices for risk management, contract management, and planning. ISPL focuses on the relationship between the customer and supplier organization: It helps constructing the request for proposal, it helps constructing the contract and delivery plan according to the project situation and risks, and it helps monitoring the delivery phase. ISPL is a unique Information Technology method because where most other Information Technology methods and frameworks focus on development (e.g. DSDM, RUP), ISPL focuses purely on the procurement of information services. The target audience for ISPL consists of procurement managers, acquisition managers, programme managers, contract managers, facilities managers, service level managers, and project managers in the IT (Information Technology) area. Because of ISPL's focus on procurement it is very suitable to be used with ITIL (for IT Service Management) and PRINCE2 (for Project Management).

Benefits
There are four main benefits of using ISPL.
 * The customer can take advantage of the competitive market
 * Proposals of suppliers become comparable
 * The use of a strategy that really fits the situation
 * The contract can be used as a control instrument

These benefits are elaborated in the paragraphs below.

The customer can take advantage of the competitive market ISPL helps the customer organisation to construct the Request for Proposal (RFP). It even provides the customer organisation with a table of contents. A very important part of the ISPL request for proposal is the elaboration on the supplier evaluation approach. The complete transparency of the supplier evaluation approach triggers the candidate supplier organisations to issue a really competitive proposal. As a result, the customer can take full advantage of the competitive market.

Proposals of suppliers become comparable ISPL specifies the table of contents of the candidate supplier organisation's proposal. It also supplies the customer and candidate supplier organisations with one clear terminology. This makes the proposals of the candidate suppliers very easy to compare.

The use of a strategy that really fits the situation ISPL provides the user with a really extensive risk management process. Based on best practices, it helps the management to design a delivery strategy that really fits the situation of both the customer and the supplier organizations. This is a benefit for both the customer and the supplier organizations because selecting a suboptimal strategy obviously brings along higher costs. The chapter describes the situation and risk analysis and the design of a service delivery strategy.

Contract as a control instrument ISPL helps the customer and supplier organisations to set up a contract that specifies all critical aspects of the procurement. For example, the list of requirements, the budget and the delivery plan are all fixed in the contract. This provides both customer and supplier organisation with a very powerful control instrument. One of the benefits for the customer organisation is that the supplier organisation will be highly motivated to meet all the deadlines because otherwise the supplier commits contract breach. One of the benefits for the supplier organisation is that it becomes much harder for the customer organisation to change the requirements which would slow down the development process. In short, with ISPL there is a better control of costs and time-scales.

History
ISPL is developed and published in 1999 by a consortium of five European companies: EXIN and ID Research (ORDINA) from the Netherlands, FAST from Germany, SEMA from France and TIEKE from Finland. The development of ISPL was part of the SPRITE-S2 programme that was launched in 1998 by the European Commission. ISPL is derived from Euromethod and based on the research of about 200 real-life acquisitions.

Structure
Although ISPL is a best practice library it does not only consist of books. The structure of ISPL is displayed in Figure 1. In this figure the books are represented by squares and the other tools are represented by circles. The basis is formed by four practical books, the IS Procurement Management Essentials. Additionally, a specific book addresses public procurement. Plug-ins to the IS Procurement Management Essentials are provided for specific needs and situations. Currently, three plug-ins are available for which there is a large market potential. A fourth plug-in on the acquisition of product software is currently under construction.

Follow the links below to get more information on the different parts of ISPL.
 *
 *
 *

Meta-Process Model
Figure 2 illustrates the meta-process model of ISPL. This model can be used to easily link and compare ISPL to other Information Technology methods and frameworks. I will provide each process with a link to more information.

Define requirements

The definition of requirements is out of the scope of ISPL. For more information on defining requirements I would like to refer to the entry on Requirements management processes.

Specify deliverables

Both customer and supplier organisation have to specify the information and services they want to receive from the other party. More information on the specification of deliverables can be found in the chapter on.

Situation Analysis, Identify Risks, Select Strategy

The customer organisation has to conduct a situation analysis to be able to identify critical risks and mitigate them using an appropriate delivery strategy. More information can be found in the chapter ''.

Make decisions

During the execution of the delivery plan the customer and supplier make decisions at each decision point. This is the phase.

Acquisition Process Sequence
This chapter provides a high-level description of the ISPL acquisition process from a customer-supplier-interaction point-of-view. Figure 3 illustrates the sequence of customer and supplier processes during the acquisition. The following paragraphs link the processes in Figure 3 to the theoretical information that is present in this entry and thus provide a link from practise to theory.

Make RFP

To construct a request for proposal the customer first needs to describe the acquisition goal and other requirements, and perform a situation and risk analysis. Using the risk analysis a delivery plan has to be constructed. More information on all of these activities can be found in the chapter and the paragraph  in the chapter. The request for proposal is a.

Make proposal

The supplier company writes a proposal in which it clarifies how it can fulfil the acquisition goal. More information on proposals can be found in the paragraph.

Select

The customer selects a supplier. The selection activity is an important step in the process, part of the.

Negotiate contract

Customer and supplier negotiate the contract. Usually this means that the delivery plan is refined to a more detailed level. The information in the chapter can be used to update the delivery plan.

Make decisions

For each contract the delivery plan is executed. Customer and supplier make decisions at each decision point. For an individual contract the final decision is whether is reached. The deliverables used in this phase are of the type. The final decision of the complete acquisition process is the.

Managing Acquisition Processes
The ISPL Acquisition Process is the actual process of obtaining a system or service to achieve a goal contributing to business objectives and/or needs. It is one of the most important parts of the ISPL method. This chapter is a summary of [2].

Model
Figure 4 displays a model of the ISPL acquisition process. The acquisition process consists of three sequential process steps.
 * 1) Acquisition initiation
 * 2) Procurement (one or more)
 * 3) Acquisition completion

These individual process steps are discussed in more detail in the paragraphs below.

Target domain and service domain
In ISPL the terms target domain and service domain are used quite frequently.

Target domain The target domain is the part of the customer organization that is affected by the service.

Service domain The service domain is the service organization that delivers the service, i.e. the supplier.

Acquisition initiation
The first process to be executed by the customer contract authority within an acquisition is the acquisition initiation process. It consists of two sequential process steps: acquisition goal definition and acquisition planning. The final result of the process is an acquisition plan reflecting an acquisition strategy, along with a clear understanding of systems and services requirements defining the acquisition goal. The acquisition initiation process is illustrated in Figure 5.

A more detailed description of the Acquisition Initiation phase can be found here.

Acquisition goal definition
The result of this step is a sufficiently clear understanding of the requirements to the systems and services that are the goal of the acquisition and the costs and benefits for the business and its various stakeholders. This process step consists of four activities:
 * 1) Define the target domain.
 * 2) Refine the definition of the acquisition goal in terms of systems and services requirements.
 * 3) Analyse costs and benefits.
 * 4) Analyse stakes and stakeholders.

The input of business needs is ideally provided by Requirements management processes.

Acquisition planning
The goal of this phase is to define an acquisition strategy adapted to the situation, plan the main decision points of the acquisition, and establish the acquisition organisation. The acquisition planning phase consists of the following activities:

 * 1) Determine overall service delivery scenarios.
 * 2) Analyse risks.
 * 3) Design acquisition strategy within the risk management framework:
 * 4) Plan the main decision points of the acquisition.
 * 5) Setting-up the customer organisation within the acquisition

Steps two to four are discussed in detail in the chapter.

Both the acquisition goal definition and acquisition planning are activities within the phase of Acquisition Initiation. A more thorough entry of this phase can be found here.

Procurement process
The procurement step of the ISPL acquisition process embodies the obtaining of one single contract. Note that the acquisition itself can contain multiple procurements. Such a contract consists of one or more projects or ongoing services. The procurement step consists of three sequencing processes:

 * 1) Tendering
 * 2) Contract monitoring
 * 3) Contract completion

Tendering
The aim of the tendering process is to select a supplier and a proposal for the considered services and systems and to agree with the chosen supplier on a contract in which both parties’ deliveries and responsibilities are defined. A very important aspect of such a contract is the planning of the decision points. The tendering process consists of four different steps:

 * 1) preparation of request for proposal
 * 2) response preparation
 * 3) supplier selection
 * 4) contract preparation and signing

Contract Monitoring
This process aims to monitor the services defined in the contract. It has to ensure that the deliverable and services conform to the requirements in the contract. The most important activity of the contract monitoring process is the execution of the decision points. In the decision point execution the customer organization makes judgments and decisions based on the status of the procurement at any given time.

Contract Completion
The aim of this process is to ensure that all outstanding technical and commercial requirements in the procurement contract (that was written and signed in the tendering phase) have been met.

Acquisition completion
This is the formal completion of all the contracts of the acquisition. The acquisition manager (often this is the customer company's contract authority) has to verify the successful conclusion of all contracts and the achievement of the acquisition goal. The acquisition completion process consists of four activities:
 * 1) Check that all contracts have been completed
 * 2) Assess the achievement of the acquisition goal
 * 3) Decide whether the acquisition is complete
 * 4) Write an acquisition report

The following paragraphs elaborate on the different activities of acquisition completion.

Check that all contracts have been completed
The acquisition manager has to check the completion of the different contracts by checking if each individual contract's completion phase has been achieved and the required reports are written. If necessary the acquisition manager has to trigger the contract completion process for contracts that need it.

Assess the achievement of the acquisition goal
Unfortunately, when all individual contracts’ goals are reached this does not automatically mean that the acquisition goal is achieved. In this activity of the acquisition completion the acquisition manager has to verify the customer company's business objectives have been met and there are no missing parts in the acquisition that have been overlooked.

Decide whether the acquisition is complete
Based on the assessment of the contract completions and the achievement of the acquisition goal the decision whether the acquisition is complete is made. This decision is generally made by the acquisition manager together with representatives of all the organizational authorities concerned with the acquisition. When one or more contracts are not completed or the acquisition goal is not reached this decision requires the involvement of the customer company's organizational authorities.

Write an acquisition report
The acquisition manager has to write an acquisition report. This report's purpose is to record all decisions made during the acquisition process, the level of acquisition completion, and lessons-to-be-learned for future acquisitions. Interesting data to be included in the acquisition report:
 * Real costs and duration versus budget and planning
 * Problems and their solution
 * Risks and an assessment of the used actions and strategies to mitigate them
 * Required expertise
 * Effectiveness of the delivery pans
 * Quality of the suppliers

The whole idea behind the extensive acquisition report is that an enterprise can only learn from its faults and experiences when these are well documented available in relevant future situations.

Managing Risks and Planning Deliveries
ISPL's form of risk management is purely based on heuristics. By describing and analyzing the situation, critical risks can be identified and mitigated by selecting actions and an appropriate strategy. ISPL provides heuristics that link risks and situational factors to mitigating actions and strategies. This chapter is a summary of [3] and also includes information from [4].

Model
The process of managing risks and planning deliveries is illustrated in Figure 6. All the different steps in the process are described in detail in the paragraphs below.

Service Description
The first step of the process is describing the service that is to be procured. It is important to note the differences between a project and an ongoing service. Both types of services are described differently. ISPL provides the user with two separate sets of guidelines

Description of ongoing services
There are two steps in describing an ongoing service. I will briefly elaborate on each of these steps in the following paragraphs.

Identify type of service
ISPL proposes two methods for identifying the type of service:
 * ISO Life Cycle Processes (ISO-LCP)
 * Public domain service packages

These methods can be used in a successive way where the ISO-LCP standard is used to identify the different process types and public domain service packages are used to refine the ISO-LCP processes. An example of a publicly available description of service packages is the one that is present in ITIL. Note that in ITIL, service packages are referred to as processes. More info on the ISO-LCP standard can be found in the Wikipedia entry on ISO/IEC 12207.

Describe service properties
The service can be described in more detail by its service properties. All service properties can be divided into three groups:
 * Investment properties
 * Functional properties
 * Quality properties

ISPL provides methods for describing all three groups of properties.

Description of projects
Projects are described by an initial and a final state, i.e. the current and the desired situation. This is done by specifying the operation items (the actual parts of the Information service to be procured), and specifying the descriptive items (documentation). A short outline of documenting the initial and final state is given in the paragraphs below. More information on describing operation and descriptive items is given in the chapter.

Document the initial state
For each component of the Information Service, contents and quality of the operation items have to be described. Secondary, an assessment has to be made on which already present descriptions of future operational items are relevant to use in the project.

Document the final state
All the operational items that will be in use at the final state have to be documented. When describing these operation items the focus should be on:
 * The difference between new operational items and ones that are adapted from initial operational items
 * Specification of manuals and support documentation
 * Conversion and migration of existing data into new operational items
 * Specification of interfaces with new and already present operation items

Not only the operational items have to be described: Descriptions of the documentation of the Information Service that is to be procured are also necessary. The client has to describe the profiles of the documentation needed for maintenance on, and further development of the Information service.

Service Planning
The service planning process consists of three sub-processes. These are:
 * Situation and risk analysis
 * Delivery strategy design
 * Decision point planning

In practice, these three sub-processes are followed by a process of risk monitoring that can give input to the situation and risk analysis process.

Complexity and uncertainty
The terms complexity and uncertainty are used quite often in this chapter.

Complexity In the context of ISPL, complexity can be regarded as the difficulty encountered in managing the available knowledge.

Uncertainty In the context of ISPL, uncertainty can be regarded as the lack of available knowledge.

Situation and risk analysis
The analysis sub-process is divided into a situation analysis followed by a risk analysis.

Situation analysis
The situation of both the customer and supplier organizations has a lot of influence in the success of the Information Service acquisition process. The situation analysis is all about identifying situational factors and their values. A situational factor value says something about the relative contribution to the overall complexity or uncertainty of the service to be delivered. For both complexity and uncertainty it can have one of the following values: high, low or medium. The ISPL method provides a set of tables which aids the user in determining the situational factor values. An example of a part of such a table can be found in Table 1.

The risk management strategy depends on the situation as is displayed in Figure 7.

When all the situational factor values are determined it is possible to determine the overall complexity and uncertainty of the service. These two factors can be used by the manager for the Design of the service delivery strategy.

Risk analysis
In the, complexity and uncertainty values have been attributed to each of the situational factors. In the Risk Analysis, these values are used to identify the possible risks and their probability. Examples of possible risks for the customer business are unpredictable/increased costs for the business, delays in system delivery and poor quality of service or system. Examples of possible risks affecting the quality of the service to be delivered are demotivate of service actors, unclear requirements and uncertain interfaces with other services or systems. ISPL provides tables that map situational factors to risks. An example of such a table can be found in Table 2.

For each of the risks found, both the probability and impact, i.e. the consequence, are assessed. The product of these two values is called the risk exposure. The risk exposure value is used to identify the risks that are critical to service delivery. The critical risks influence the and the.

Delivery strategy design
This process uses the service description, the situation analysis and the risk analysis as inputs to define an optimal service delivery strategy. The resulting service delivery strategy consists of three elements:
 * A list of actions to mitigate risks
 * Service execution approach
 * Service control approach.

Define actions
ISPL provides heuristics on how to mitigate risks and change the individual situational factors that cause them. An excerpt of these heuristics can be found in Table 3.

Service execution approach
The service execution approach determines how the service is executed. For projects, the service execution approach is referred to as the development approach. It consists of a description approach, a construction approach and an installation approach. ISPL provides the user with heuristics on what type of description, construction and installation approach fits best to the situational factors and critical risks found in the and. For example, ISPL advises to use an evolutionary construction and installation approach when both overall complexity and uncertainty are high.

Service control approach
The selection of a service control approach is based on the situational factors and overall complexity and uncertainty found in the. ISPL provides heuristics on which types of control are most suitable for various situational factors. In total there are six types of control: development, quality and configuration in a formal and frequent variant.

Check consistency and analyse impact
After defining a complete service strategy the consistency between the chosen strategy options has to be checked and possibly some choices have to be adjusted. The impact of the chosen strategy should also be analysed by checking that all critical risks have been addressed. It is also that some strategies cause new critical risks.

Decision point planning
The goal of decision point planning is to determine a sequence of decision points and give a clear description on each of the decision points, using the as input. The sequence and contents of the decision points should reflect the chosen service delivery strategy. The decision point planning is made in the following order:
 * 1) Derive basic sequence of decision points.
 * 2) Adapt basic sequence to accommodate actions.
 * 3) Describe decision points.

Derive basic sequence of decision points
The basic sequence of decision points is based on the. ISPL provides heuristics on what basic sequences should be used for different delivery strategy options.

Adapt basic sequence to accommodate actions.
The basic sequence found is adapted to the list of actions to mitigate risks of the.

Describe decision points
ISPL gives information on what information elements should be in a decision point. Think of for instance purpose and the pre-conditions. For every decision has to be determined which deliverables are required. General rule is that the deliverables must contain the right amount of information to be able to make the decision but no more than that. Too much information is costly and blurs the focus of the decision makers. More information about this topic can be found in the chapter on.

Risk monitoring
Risk monitoring takes place after the phase. Its results can serve as input for the phase of service planning if necessary. It involves the tracking, controlling and monitoring of risks and risk mitigating actions.

Specifying Deliverables
ISPL focuses on the relationship between customer and supplier. It is very important that the communication between both parties is clear and unambiguous. A deliverable is a product that is exchanged between the supplier and customer organisations (both ways). Deliverables are exchanged in all phases of the acquisition process: e.g. the Request-For-Proposal during the tendering phase, the intermediate versions during the execution of the delivery plan, and the declaration of contract completion at the end of each contract. ISPL provides guidance for the specification of all deliverables needed in the acquisition process. This chapter is a summary of [5].

Types of deliverables
ISPL divides deliverables in various types, each with a defined set of properties. These properties characterise the knowledge that is captured by each type of deliverable. Figure 8 illustrates the different types of deliverables.

Contract domain deliverables
Contract domain deliverables are used to define and control all contracts in a procurement. There are two types of contract domain deliverables: the tendering deliverable and the decision point deliverable. In the following paragraphs each of these types is discussed in detail.

Tendering deliverable
Tendering deliverables are used in the tendering process to place requirements on all of the services within a procurement. There are four types of tendering deliverables:
 * Request for proposal
 * Response
 * Supplier evaluation report
 * Contract

ISPL provides the customer and supplier organisations with templates for each of the different types. It is important to note that all of the tendering deliverables include the delivery plan in which all delivery and decision points are fixed.

Decision point deliverable
Decision point deliverables support the decision making during the execution of the delivery plan in the phase. There are two types of decision point deliverables:
 * Decision point proposal
 * Decision point report

Each of these types has its own, more specified subtype. The contract status report is a subtype of decision point proposal that describes the current status of a contract. The contract completion report, a subtype of the decision point proposal, records whether the contract has successfully achieved its business goals. ISPL provides the tables of content of each of the decision point deliverable types and subtypes.

Service domain deliverables
Service domain deliverables describe the service domain (see paragraph for more information). They are delivered by both customer and supplier organisations to plan and control services. There are two types of service domain deliverables: service plans and service reports.

Service plan
A service plan provides information on how to meet identifies goals in terms of service levels, deliverables, schedules, resources and costs. It can for instance give guidance on how to reach targets. ISPL describes the different properties that can be included in the service plan.

Service report
In contrast to the service plan, the service reports controls the service status by reviewing service levels and results. It records the service's productivity and proposes corrective actions. ISPL gives guidance on which information should be included for each property that is described in the service report.

Target domain deliverables
The target domain is described using target domain deliverables. There are two different types of target domain deliverables: operational items and descriptive items. Both will be discussed in the following paragraphs.

Operational item
An operation item is a delivered system or system component that is or will be installed as part of the acquisition. They contribute to the functioning of the target domain. Some examples of different operational item types are listed below.
 * facilities
 * hardware devices
 * application software
 * physical data
 * user and operator manuals
 * trained actors

In practice, descriptions of operational items often already present. It is important to make the distinction between functional and quality properties.

Descriptive item
A descriptive item captures knowledge about the target domain. They can be used to describe business organisations, business processes, information services et cetera. ISPL gives guidance on describing descriptive items by providing a descriptive item profile in which all properties of the descriptive item can easily be ordered.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Harvey Logan

 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

James Harvey Logan
38 hits on google but yet the claim lies that he was the "source" for the word loganberry. Does this in turn make this horticulturist worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia? GRider\talk 20:33, 15 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.
 * I would say so. Keep.  -Sean Curtin 02:46, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, just notable enough - developer of the loganberry and Superior Court Judge. Megan1967 06:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Developing an edible and cultivated fruit means that he is notable enough. Capitalistroadster 10:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * A tiny stub that would probably serve better as a redirect to loganberry. -R. fiend 09:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect. ComCat 02:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Talk:White House travel office controversy

2005 complaints
This article appears to have as its primary source a compilation of the issues from something called "Insight on the News". The top headline on "Insight on the News" today (2/15/05) is "The Party of Hate Picks a Chief". I think we should be able to agree that this is not a source that has fairness as a prime objective.

I suggest that either the article be edited to provide balance (other than the single sentence at the bottom of the page) and to provide content (it does not seem to even mention Robert Ray, his report, or its conclusions), or it should be removed, since it is, at best, a virtually one-sided, incomplete description of the issue. [20:33, 15 February 2005 Es3200]

good grief. after the 1st two paragraphs, this articles is just 3 or 4 full pages quoted from a congressional committee report about the investigation of the matter. that belongs in wikisource to be referenced. it's hardly an encyclopedia article. [04:40, 13 March 2005 68.108.243.20]

Very disappointing article. Unfortunately, many people like me who never quite got what the Travelgate "scandal" was actually about, other than harassing Bill Clinton for partisan reasons, will be seriously misled if they read no farther. [09:39, 31 October 2005 69.3.132.100]

People, do you see the edit button on the article? Good, then use it instead of complaining. Derex @ 17:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Article name debate

 * 02:48, 29 January 2006 Derex (moved Travelgate to White House travel office controversy: npov)
 * 02:26, 9 December 2006 RWR8189 (moved White House travel office controversy to Travelgate: "White House travel office controversy" seems to be a name that exists almost exclusively on Wikipedia, it only get 82 hits on Google, and "travelgate" is much more common.)
 * 02:03, 18 December 2006 Derex (moved Travelgate to White House travel office controversy: standard npov naming convention)

BLP removal
I removed a reference to Billy Dale's plea bargain offer. I know that the offer was leaked, and there certainly is reliable sourcing for it, but (1) settlement offers are normally confidential, and are supposed to be kept confidential by DOJ regulations; (2) Dale is at best a limited public figure; and (3) I think smearing someone with his plea bargains raises WP:BLP concerns. The independent counsel report does a good job of summarizing the evidence against Dale, and I would have no objection to that stuff, but settlement offers strike me as tabloidish and inappropriate. Thoughts? TheronJ 13:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Hi TheronJ. The article is clearly highly partisan in its editing. A tempest in a teapot, it admits employees of the department "serve at the president's pleasure" (i.e. the president does not need Senate confirmation to fire or hire, and then rages on for 4 paragraphs suggesting something here is "political", dark, wrong, etc. CApitol3 03:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Typo
"Written in fall 1973..." I think this is a typo. Context implies this should be 1993 (during Clinton's term). [21:09, 1 July 2007 66.91.211.207]

 * Fixed. Wasted Time R 00:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Article expanded and reworked
I've almost completely reworked and significantly expanded the article. There are still a few aspects I'd like to fill out better, but it's all pretty much there now. Hopefully it satisfies those who have found the article disappointing or imbalanced in the past. Wasted Time R 00:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A few minor edits
I changed a few lines with obvious POV issues. Such as changing "Clinton-hating magazine" to "conservative". Unless the magazine describes itself as "clinton-hating" or it entire purpose of publishing is to spread hatred for this one individual. Also I deleted references on them doing this to increase revenue sales, it was without citation, and I can't imagine a reliable source that you can cite about their personal motives (unless it is them). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.49.120 (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
I edited again the section about "clinton-hating" magazine. I know many people here have passionate view about this, but calling a conservative magazine "clinton-hating" is inappropriate. We need to keep a NPOV and cite sources. Urbansage (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

 * There are conservative magazines and there are conservative magazines. I've now put in three WP:RS citations about The American Spectator in this era, and about the economic benefit of this and the other scandals of the time.  Note that one of the cites, the American Journalism Review article, highlights twice the comparison between American Spectator and the more traditional National Review, the benchmark conservative magazine.  That doesn't mean that everything American Spectator wrote was false; as the article says, "real and imagined" (and uses its writer David Brock later confessing to concocting some of the latter as one of its cites).  But it did hate Clinton, as the words in these cites ("flaying", "screeds", "ultimate patron of the Clinton haters", etc.) indicates.

 * Let me ask you something: did you read American Spectator during this period (I did enough) and now disagree with this article's assessment of it?  Or did you not read it, but simply think this description of it must be overbaked and non-neutral?  This answer will better help me understand your objection.  I'm not trying to edit war here, since this is a minor aspect in the overall trajectory of Travelgate.  But to do this subject justice, we have to capture the flavor of the times, and the vitriol with which some of Clinton's opponents viewed him is an important part of the historical context.   Wasted Time R (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Audit/review falsely reported here
 This section ["Initial White House actions"] first references an audit done in early 1993 by KPMG (see above reference that the White House said it had looked at an audit). Then at the end it references a review ordered just before the firings took place that was reviewed prior to the firings. Both of these events are falsely reported here. At the embezzlement trial of Director Billy Dale a KPMG accountant testified. The KPMG accountant stated that no audit was ever performed, rather a review was done. Further the testimony of the accountant was that the review was not finished until after the firings. This would be verfiable if anyone has access to the transcripts from the trial. I do not personally have access to them, but I stand by this statement as I was in the court room when the KPMG accountant testified. The claim of an audit was nothing short of a lie used as justification and to put a good spin on the firings. [21:16, November 17, 2008 67.212.58.250]

 * I'll try to see what I can find on this. We do include the phrase "According to the White House" in front of the first description of the KPMG review, but I agree we should be more definitive about what it consisted of and when it happened.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

 * It was re-inserted into the article again, but I removed it --97.87.142.31 (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've now gone back over this issue. First, our article was incorrect in suggesting there were two different KPMG review/audits; there was only one, starting May 14 and reporting May 17 of 1993. This has been fixed. Second, yes it is true that KPMG did a review not an audit during this period. This was not a revelation at the trial; it was stated by KPMG in the initial stories after the firings (see this May 20, 1993 NYT story), with the reason given that the travel office had so few records that could be audited. This has been added to the article. But everything I've read, including the GAO report, says that the review was finished at the time and the report given to the White House on May 17, contrary to what you say. Third, I've searched online but can't find anything to substantiate what you say about the trial testimony. The closest I came was this Nov 2, 1995 WaPo story on the trial. But it describes a KPMG lawyer getting upset when Dale's defense team kept questioning a KPMG accountant about why the company wouldn't let the defense team interview him earlier. So that really doesn't have anything to do with what you are remembering. Moreover, I haven't found anything that says that the KPMG report was "a lie" or otherwise a sham; indeed, the GAO report of 1994 seems to think the KPMG people did a good job on it (pp. 32-34 of the GAO report, as pointed to in the article). Of course, that doesn't mean that the findings of the KPMG report showed there was criminal behavior or justified the firing of the travel staff; those are separate issues. But pretty much everyone accepts that the travel office was a mess in terms of financial procedures, including the final IC report (in "Findings" section, again as pointed to in the article). Wasted Time R (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Casing of "travel office"
I've tried to adopt a consistent approach to casing "travel office" in the article (which before, wasn't very consistent). References to actions in the specific office in the White House are capitalized, thus for example "had started in the Travel Office in 1961". References to the controversy are not capitalized, thus "complicity in the travel office affair". The rationale for the former is that it is close to the proper name of an orgazination, although not the formal official name, which is a bit more complex, as the article now states. The rationale for the latter is that this controversy never had a formal name, or any consistent name at all (hence "Travelgate", etc) and most books and newspaper articles lowercased references to "travel office affair", "travel office controversy", etc. That seems the reasonable approach for here too. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Miniscule photos
The press corps photo example is incredibly small. There should be a larger photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 007patrick (talk • contribs) 05:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

 * If you can find a better one from that era that is public domain, point me to it and I'll add it. I've looked through usa.gov but haven't found one.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Missing from article:
You know what's missing from this article? The FBI investigation this controversy is based upon. And the outcome of that investigation. And the indictments. 73.170.156.225 (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

 * There are fifteen mentions of the FBI in the article. But it's true that the article didn't really make clear what happened to the initial FBI investigation.  I've now added material that traces its course up to the Dale indictment.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Scandal?
So the "scandal" was that Bill Clinton fired people he was allowed to fire? Goodness, the 1990s were quaint. Carlo (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebuttals to the cosmological argument

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 23:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rebuttals to the cosmological argument
Death to all POV forks must be applied irrespective of the author's merit and irrespective of the history of the article. Just stacking more pastel shaded boxes in front of the article doesn't help. Either transwiki to WikiBooks/Theology or dump into Talk:Cosmological argument for merciless editing. --Pjacobi 20:35, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
 * weak keep. I agree this needs heavy editing to improve the tone and POVness of it, however I feel that this can be done. On whether this is best presented as a separate article or as part of cosmological argument I'm neutral, but the subject matter is worthy of inclusion somewhere imho. Thryduulf 20:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If an article is too long and needs to be forked, it should not be done according to POV but by topic. — Ливай | ☺ 21:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. An inherently POV fork. By the way, this kind of article is what the Toomanyboxes template was made for (the template can be found on this BJAODN page). Szyslak 21:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I have unknowingly done what this template would have asked for this article, having wikified and removed the box! Thryduulf 21:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. An editor has apparently moved some ancient Larry Sanger text that was on Talk:Cosmological argument to a separate article. The reason this text was long ago moved to the Talk page in the first place is that despite Sanger's public posturing about the low quality and anti-elitism of Wikipedia (he presumably being part of the elite to which Wikipedia is anti-), Sanger's writing was never very good.   Often it was just disconnected lecture notes, as in this case.   Further, it doesn't make sense to have this text in a separate article.  The rebuttals for the cosmological argument should be in the article itself, and indeed there are rebuttals there already.  It is hard to see what this editor was up to, but it doesn't make sense.   It is too bad that it takes 5 days to undo dumb moves like this, but in this case it has taken five months for it to be nominated so a few more days isn't going to do any harm. --BM 22:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agreed w/ BM. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge what can be salvaged and redirect to cosmological argument, and possibly transwiki the rest to Wikibooks. Essay.   — Gwalla | Talk 23:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge what can be salvaged into cosmological argument and delete. Do not redirect. Nobody is going to be looking for an entry called "Rebuttals to the cosmological argument." Death to POV breakouts. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: You know "merge and delete" is an invalid vote.   — Gwalla | Talk 04:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You might be thinking about "redirect and delete," which wouldn't be invalid, just contradictory. Szyslak 09:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it is not an invalid vote. This has been gone over time and time again. There seems to be an urban legend that a merge-and-delete can't be achieved without violating GFDL. The truth is that a GFDL-kosher merge-and-delete can be done fairly easily if the merged material is the product of a single contributor (all that is needed is proper attribution with a suitable comment in the Talk page of the merged article), and rather more laboriously if it has a complex history (by merging histories, which can be performed by any sysop). Dpbsmith (talk) 14:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV fork. Megan1967 07:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - original research, POV fork - David Gerard 23:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research. JamesBurns 07:09, 27 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:
Constance Bay

Constance Bay is a population centre in West Carleton-March Ward in the rural northwest of the city of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Prior to amalgamation in 2001, the community was part of West Carleton Township. It is situated 25 km northwest of the suburb of Kanata. The community surrounds the Torbolton Forest (a protected and managed green-space) and is located on a peninsula between Constance and Buckham's Bay on the Ottawa River. According to the Canada 2016 Census, the population of the community was 2,314. 86% of dwellings are occupied by usual residents.

The community has services of a (licensed) general store, 2 restaurants, a bar/lounge, and a chapel. The Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 616 is also located in the village.

During the summer months the community offers 2 beaches, recreational boating, water skiing, canoeing, hiking, horseback riding, and cycling. During the winter months there is ice fishing, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, ice skating and horseback riding.

A Community Centre is located in the centre of the community, the centre's operation is overseen by the Constance & Buckham's Bay Community Association. The Community Centre includes a free skateboard park along with 2 baseball diamonds (both fully illuminated for night play), soccer fields (full and mini), play-structure, outdoor ice rink, and a concession stand operated by community volunteers.

History
The actual bay was named by French Fur Traders after Simon Constant who was a member of the Algonquin First Nation and who was in the area before white settlers arrived.

T.W. Edwin Sowter, a hobby archaeologist from Aylmer, Quebec, first identified the presence of archaeological sites at Constance Bay in the late 1800s. However, details of these sites were not available until Gordon Watson excavated a site in his Constance Bay cottage yard in the early 1970s. Watson's documented his findings in "A Woodland Indian Site at Constance Bay" available from the Ontario Archaeological Society. One item in the Watson collection is a large reconstructed ceramic vessel dating to about 2,500 years ago.

In 1946 St. Gabriel's first chapel opened for services. Father J. Lorne Reynolds appointed parish priest.

Hydro (electric service) was brought into the community in the summer of 1951.

In the spring/summer of 2005, Enbridge Gas Distribution brought Natural Gas to the community.

Nature
The 147 hectare Torbolton Forest is a managed greenspace and home to rare plant life, animals and birds. The forest has been designated by the Province of Ontario as a provincially significant Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (Life Science).

Birds
The Constance Bay peninsula including Torbolton Forest is a hotspot for birds, with almost 250 species recorded in the area as of 2021. The following list contains both species that regularly breed in the area and vagrants that have been recorded on few occasions.
 * Red-headed woodpecker
 * Red-headed woodpeckers have bred in this forest since the early 2000s if not longer, making it the only known location where this species currently breeds in Ottawa.
 * Northern flicker
 * Downy woodpecker
 * Hairy woodpecker
 * Black-capped chickadee
 * Eastern bluebird
 * Mourning dove
 * Northern cardinal
 * Baltimore oriole
 * Blue jay
 * Pileated woodpecker
 * Red phalarope
 * Greater white-fronted goose
 * Carolina wren
 * Black-legged kittiwake
 * A juvenile was reported flying downriver in October 2004
 * Boreal owl
 * Cattle egret
 * This species was reported flying southwest in November 2006
 * Great blue heron
 * Ruby-throated hummingbird
 * Red-winged blackbird
 * Common grackle
 * American crow

Mammals

 * Raccoon
 * Skunk
 * Porcupine
 * Black bear
 * White-tailed deer
 * Red fox
 * Coyote
 * Fisher

title: Constance Bay


text: Category:English football chairmen and investors


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mihael Milunovic

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mihael Milunovic
This is a short biography in broken English of a non-notable person, written by a single editor -- probably Michael Milunovic himself. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 20:39, Feb 15, 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.
 * Delete Brookie 20:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. Zzyzx11 23:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Arg. Delete --Dbroadwell 04:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text:
Avril Benoit

Avril Benoît is the executive director of Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières in the United States (MSF-USA) (as of June 2019). Previously, Ms. Benoît served as Director of Communications and Fundraising with Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) / Doctors Without Borders at its operational centre based in Geneva, Switzerland. She is a Canadian former broadcaster best known for her radio programmes and documentaries on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. From 2006 to 2012, after two decades in journalism, she joined MSF in Canada as director of communications. She has worked as a humanitarian country director and project coordinator with Médecins Sans Frontières, in Mauritania, South Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo and South Africa.

Benoît's documentaries from Kenya, Burundi, India and Brazil aired on CBC Radio One's flagship show, The Current. Her hour-long television documentary Slum Cities: a Shifting World aired on CBC News: Correspondent  on CBC Newsworld. In 2004-2005 she was a Southam Journalism Fellow at Massey College, University of Toronto. Her graduate research focussed on human rights, global governance and official development assistance.

From 1999 to 2004, Benoît hosted and produced Here and Now, CBC Radio One's newsmagazine weekday afternoons on CBLA-FM in Toronto. She co-hosted, with Michael Enright, CBC Radio One's former flagship show This Morning from 1997 to 1999. Before that she hosted an open-line show on CJAD in Montreal and was a political commentator. Benoît anchored numerous breaking news programmes and election night specials.

Benoît's journalistic career included stints as a reporter, writer and host with CBC-TV; a reporter with CBC Radio in Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City; and a news anchor with the Canadian Forces Network in Germany. Her print background includes covering the 1990 presidential elections in Haiti for The Globe and Mail, and editing The Record daily newspaper in Sherbrooke.

Benoît is a bilingual native of Ottawa, Ontario and Mont-Tremblant, Quebec.

She is the niece of former Ottawa Mayor Pierre Benoit.

title: Avril Benoit


text:
WRR (FM)

WRR (101.1 MHz) is a listener-supported, non-commercial FM radio station in Dallas, Texas, which provides a full-time classical music radio format. While it is municipally-owned by the City of Dallas, it is operated by North Texas Public Broadcasting, the owner of news-talk public radio station KERA 90.1 FM, public television station KERA-TV channel 14, and adult album alternative station KKXT 91.7 FM. WRR's studios are in the Fair Park complex in South Dallas.

WRR is a Class C station. It has an effective radiated power (ERP) of 100,000 watts, and transmits an HD Radio signal. The transmitter tower is on West Belt Line Road in Cedar Hill.

Over the years, private broadcasters in the Dallas-Fort Worth radio market have made numerous but unsuccessful calls for privatizing the station. In January 2023, it transitioned from a commercial radio station to non-profit and listener-supported.

Early years
WRR-FM began experimental broadcasts in 1948. It officially signed on the air on. It began as a sister station to WRR (now KTCK 1310 AM), which is the oldest station in Dallas, first licensed for municipal and police transmissions on August 5, 1921. It received an AM band broadcasting station license on March 13, 1922.

In its first few decades, WRR-FM would mostly simulcast its AM counterpart. The stations were network affiliates of the Mutual Broadcasting System and carried its schedule of comedies, dramas, news and sports during the "Golden Age of Radio". WRR-AM-FM later switched to the NBC Red Network.

Classical music
As network programming shifted to television, WRR-FM began airing classical music full time, while the AM station concentrated on news, talk and information. The City of Dallas sold WRR 1310 to Bonneville International in 1978, which switched the call sign to KAAM. Meanwhile, the Dallas government kept WRR-FM, which continued its classical format.

Also in the 1970s, the station increased its power to 100,000 watts, from its previous output of 68,000 watts.

Dallas City Council
As part of its municipal ownership, WRR began broadcasting Dallas City Council meetings in 1978. They usually took place every other Wednesday at 9 a.m. In later years, however, Portable People Meter (PPM) evidence showed that the meetings, which interrupted the classical format, caused a significant drop in the station's ratings. The station averages more than 11,000 listeners on weekdays, according to Nielsen Audio; that number dropped to 1,900 during council meetings. In 2018, station management was able to convince the city council to end the broadcasts. The meetings are still available on cable television in Dallas, as well as online.

In July 2021, the Dallas city government began seeking applications for a new management structure for WRR. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, advertising revenue dropped; prior to the pandemic, however, the City of Dallas Office of Arts and Culture issued a press release saying the station has been losing money for eight years. The statement said the city government believes steps are needed "to ensure it remains a City-owned classical music format radio station". In recent years, most classical music stations in large U.S. cities have switched from commercial operations to listener-supported models, including WQXR-FM in New York City, KDFC in San Francisco, WCRB in Boston and KING-FM in Seattle. WRR was one of the few classical stations to earn its revenue from advertisers. In June 2022, Dallas City Council voted to award management of the station to North Texas Public Broadcasting, which runs KERA (FM), changing the funding model from commercial to sponsorships while continuing to broadcast classical music. WRR dropped its remaining brokered programming on November 25, and transitioned to KERA management on January 3, 2023.

Unusual callsign
While most radio stations in Texas have four-letter call signs beginning with a K, this station has three-letter callsign beginning with a W. Many stations going on the air in the early 1920s received three-letter call signs. The AM station with which WRR-FM had once been partnered dates back to 1921. WRR (AM) was the first licensed radio station west of the Mississippi and among the earliest in the country.

With the introduction of land-based U.S. radio station licensing in late 1912, it had been the practice to assign call signs starting with "K" in the west and "W" in the east. (Ship-based stations were just the opposite.) The original boundary line was located along the Texas-New Mexico border, and it wasn't until the shift in early 1923 to the Mississippi River that new stations going on the air in Texas received K instead of W call signs. However, existing stations were allowed to keep their non-conforming callsigns, which included such stations as WRR, WBAP in Fort Worth and WOAI in San Antonio. When WRR put the FM station on the air in 1949, the FCC allowed it to use the same call sign, plus the "-FM" suffix.

After the AM station was sold and its callsign changed to KAAM, WRR-FM dropped the no longer required "-FM" suffix from its call sign, effective May 15, 1978.

Notable personalities
The station was the starting point of John Peel's radio career. Peel, who later became a British disc jockey, notably covered the arraignment hearing of Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before Oswald was shot and killed.

Transmitting tower
The WRR (FM) lattice radio tower was located in the Fair Park complex. The tower was visible across Dallas and in the Fair Park vicinity. The FM antenna on top of the tower was removed in 2003. The tower was used as a cell tower for the last few years and was eventually dismantled in December 2015. The current transmitter is located at the Cedar Hill Antenna Farm in Cedar Hill.

title: WRR (FM)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Pierre Schecroun

 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 no consensus; kept

Jean-Pierre Schecroun
This art forger receives 15 hits on google. What are the determining factors in deciding if this individual should be included on Wikipedia or not? How do they differ from the others? GRider\talk 20:40, 15 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.
 * Delete, a non notable criminal - less than 24 Google hits. Megan1967 05:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, he is famous enough to be included in places like History of Art Forgery and Art Forgery - Master forgers - Skysmith 10:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. There was a big controversy when this guy's forgeries were revealed as such.   — Gwalla | Talk 23:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, just not notable. JamesBurns 06:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * keep. successful art forgers are. Mikkalai 21:31, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text: User talk:66.173.10.61

title: User talk:66.173.10.61


text:
War at Sea

War at Sea is a strategic board wargame depicting the naval war in the Atlantic during World War II, published by Jedko Games in 1975, and subsequently republished by Avalon Hill in 1976 and more recently by L2 Design Group in 2007.

It is also the basis for the design of the subsequent Avalon Hill game, Victory in the Pacific.

Game summary
Units represented in the game are individual ships of heavy cruiser size or larger, with provisions also given for convoys, submarines (specifically 'U-boats'), and air power. Each turn represents a period of roughly six months. The board represents the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea, which are divided up into six zones. Control of as many of these zones as possible, for as many turns as possible, is the goal of the game. One player assumes the role of the Allied player, and controls the British, Soviet, and American navies. His or her opponent is the Axis player, and controls the German and Italian navies. In addition to the units representing individual ships, both players have one unit each that represents land-based airplane squadrons, and the Axis player has units that represent squadrons of U-boats.

Ships are represented by a single counter which typically gives three factors: gunnery, armor, and speed. While these are the essential statistics for surface vessels, this system keeps them all highly abstracted, as each is just a simple number, falling within a range of 0 to 9. Aircraft carriers have a fourth factor, in this case representing the naval air-power on board. The land-based air units each represent three air attacks (against three different targets).

Each turn begins with both players' ships in ports. The Allied player's ports include England, the United States, Leningrad, "Russia" (actually Murmansk, on the Arctic Ocean), and Malta, in the Mediterranean. The Axis player's ports include Germany, France (after Turn Two, when it is assumed that Germany conquers France by land, just as it did in the real war), and Italy. Each turn, each player (the Allied player first, and then the Axis player) moves all, some, or none of his ships into sea areas that are adjacent to the port in which those ships started the turn. Ships can also attempt to move one additional sea area if the first area was not controlled by the enemy on the previous turn; to accomplish that, the ship must roll a die and get a result less than that ship's speed factor. Ships that have a speed factor of seven or eight are thus automatically able to move two spaces, and are therefore very valuable. The proviso that the first area may not have been controlled by the enemy allows either player (usually the Allied player) to make certain that areas of the sea are unreachable to the enemy fleet due to intervening controlled areas. Ships that remain in port instead of moving are able to repair damage that they may have sustained in previous turns (see the paragraph on combat, below). When the Allied player is finished, the Axis player moves his ships. U-boats are able to move to any sea area and are therefore the only ships that cannot be blockaded by enemy control.

If only one player's ships occupy a sea area after movement is finished, that player controls the sea area for the turn, and he or she scores points for it (the number of points varies, depending on which sea area is controlled by which player). If there are ships from both sides in the same sea area, the two fleets must fight at least one round of combat.

Combat is resolved with each ship picking a target and rolling one die per gunnery factor, and each 'hit' (generally, a roll of six) is re-rolled to produce the amount of damage generated, which is applied to the target's armor factor. If the amount of damage exceeds the armor factor, the ship is sunk. Air attacks are resolved by rolling one die for each attack at a number of targets equal to the air factor. On a roll of five, the ship is disabled, which means that it is forced to return to port.

This method generates a lot of dice rolls, and gave the game the nicknames 'Dice at Sea' and 'Yahtzee at Sea', with critics arguing that it depended too much upon luck, and supporters countering that the high number of die rolls actually allows the luck to even out.

Minor rules include provisions for U-boat combat, the 'neutral port' of South America (which is where disabled ships in the South Atlantic sea area must go, and which they have to leave the following turn, lest the owning player lose points), convoys (which score additional points for the Allied player if they make it to England or Russia), and the possible internment of the Italian fleet if the Allies control the Mediterranean Sea for much of the game.

Variations
Numerous variations (or 'variants,' to use the word preferred by Avalon Hill) were published for War at Sea in the years since it was released. Many of them appeared in the General, Avalon Hill's house magazine. Among these variations are rules for the French Navy (which is interned early in the war), the Greek Navy, a third Russian port on the Black Sea, Allied mini-submarines (such as the 'X-craft' submarines that were used to attack the German battleship Tirpitz late in the war), and additional ships that were not represented in the original game. These variations add simulation detail to the game (meaning that they made it more like the real war at sea), but at the expense of making it slightly harder to play.

Tournaments
During the early 1980s War at Sea was played in Israel as part of a historic educational effort by Bnei Akiva beginning in Rehovot and then in Jerusalem with later to become famous participants such as Israeli media tycoon Shlomo Ben-Zvi and Rosh yeshiva Nehalim Shlomo Lorincz.

War at Sea is still played in many competitive tournaments today, including the World Boardgaming Championships, PrezCon, and by PBEM on the BPA Tournament, and PBEM Ladder all for decades running, and still maintains AREA Ratings for players as well.

Reception
In his 1977 book The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming, Nick Palmer noted that the playing time of this game was only an hour, and called it "a pleasant little contest without being a full-fledged wargame in the more sophisticated sense." In his 1980 sequel,  The Best of Board Wargaming, Palmer described War at Sea and its sister Victory In The Pacific as "excellent introductory fare to entice newcomers into the hobby" with the former having a mere four pages of rules. He criticised the mechanism whereby damaged ships “sprout wings” (albeit affected by the ship’s individual speed factor) and return to port as “the most outrageous element in a pair of games with scanty claims to realism”. However, the games offer “light relief and fast movement” although they can also be played as “deadly serious contests of logic and mathematics”; the games are “primarily for beginners or statisticians, but also quite good as an occasional change from weightier things”. He praised the “honesty in advertising” by which War At Sea admits that it is only loosely a “simulation” in that it is based on “historical data” about ship design and is intended as a fun introductory game. He gave the game a high rating for excitement (70%) but a derisory 5% for realism.

In the 1980 book The Complete Book of Wargames, game designer Jon Freeman called this "the simplest real wargame on the market and ideal for introducing newcomers to the hobby." Freeman concluded by giving the game an Overall Evaluation of "Good", saying, "Although it's no great shakes as a simulation, and the bane of adherents of the SPI school of realism-by-complexity, it's a pleasant little game."

In The Guide to Simulations/Games for Education and Training, Martin Campion commented on its use as an educational aid, saying, "In spite of its historical distortions and lack of realism, War at Sea is some help in seeing the situation in the Atlantic and shows why the British feared the small German Fleet." Unlike other critics, Campion did not think this was a good introduction to wargaming, pointing out that "its system is not even distantly related to the systems used in more complex games."

Other reviews and commentary

 * Casus Belli #16 (Aug 1983)
 * Campaign #76 & #103
 * Fire & Movement #62
 * Panzerfaust #70
 * Games & Puzzles #61

title: War at Sea


text:
Talk:Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash

Untitled
Yes! We finally got a good picture up there... i'll have to hunt around for an image of the infamous playing card... Coolgamer 20:44, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash. 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/20070203231215/http://counterpunch.org/spinoza05082003.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/spinoza05082003.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash. 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/20060821190442/http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ABDCF59C-1951-43B0-92AE-220BFFC052E0.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ABDCF59C-1951-43B0-92AE-220BFFC052E0.htm

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) 17:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash


text: User talk:140.203.16.53

title: User talk:140.203.16.53


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John David Crow

 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) 02:19, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

John David Crow
Not notable Brookie 20:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Currently, Wikipedia has separate articles for a majority of the Heisman Trophy winners. Zzyzx11 23:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment -- At the very least, we should mark it as a sports-related stub. Zzyzx11 23:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Extremely notable. Keep and expand.  RickK 23:25, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Guy won a Heisman, and it's not like '57 is all that far back.  There should still be enough info about him out there to make a decent entry.  Stub, sure, but shouldn't be deleted. – Beginning 02:10, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * keep Wolfman 06:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Expand, and Wikify. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Apart from his stellar college career, played in 4 Pro Bowls. Notable NFL player. Capitalistroadster 10:50, 16 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:
Neo Psychiko

Neo Psychiko (Νέο Ψυχικό) is a town and a suburb in the northeastern part of the Athens agglomeration, Greece. Since the 2011 local government reform it is part of the municipality Filothei-Psychiko, of which it is a municipal unit. The municipality has an area of 1.000 km2.

Overview
It is located 5 km northeast of central Athens, between Kifisias Avenue to the northwest and Mesogeion Avenue to the southeast. Formerly part of Chalandri, Neo Psychiko was recognised as a separate community in 1946 and as a municipality in July 1982.

title: Neo Psychiko


text:
User:Max rspct/Tools

TOOLS:
How to edit a page Image upload page Editing/thumbnailizing images Sandbox Wikiquette Wikimedia core philosophies and principles (editable of course!) village pump Template messages/Disputes village pump policy disscussion BAD LINK - ABOLISHED the future of Wikimedia

|Wikipedia policy think tank answers to criticsms of wikipedia list of wikipedia bureaucrats Adminstrators' reading list wikipedia status List of UK wikipedians UK Wikipedians' notice board WEBCRAWLER search engine -better than google

my stuff

my scrap

User:Max rspct/monobook.js

title: User:Max rspct/Tools


text:
Jean Leon Gerome Ferris

Jean Leon Gerome Ferris (August 8, 1863 – March 18, 1930 ) was an American painter best known for his series of 78 scenes from American history, entitled The Pageant of a Nation, the largest series of American historical paintings by a single artist.

Early life and education
Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Ferris was the son of Stephen James Ferris (1835-1915) : a portrait painter who was a devotee of Jean-Léon Gérôme (his teacher after whom he was named), and also an admirer of Mariano Fortuny. He grew up around art; he was trained by his father and his uncles Edward Moran and Thomas Moran were both acclaimed painters.

Ferris enrolled in the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts in 1879 and trained further at the Académie Julian beginning in 1883 under William-Adolphe Bouguereau. He also met his namesake Jean-Léon Gérôme, who greatly influenced his decision to paint scenes from American history. Ferris wrote, "[Gérôme's] axiom was that one would paint best that with which he is most familiar".

Career
His early subjects were Orientalist in nature since that movement was in vogue when he was young. In 1882, he exhibited a painting entitled Feeding the Ibis which was valued at $600. By 1895, he had gained a reputation as a historical painter, and he embarked on his dream of creating a series of paintings that told a historical narrative.

In 1898, he sold General Howe's Levee, 1777, but he later realized that such a series could not be complete if the separate paintings could not be kept together. Consequently, he never sold another, but he did sell the reproduction rights to various publishing companies. This had the effect of greatly popularizing his work, as these companies made prints, postcards, calendars, and blank-backed trade cards to use in advertisements. Laminated cards of these works were still being sold as late as 1984.

Personal life
Ferris married Annette Amelia Ryder in 1894, and the couple had a daughter named Elizabeth Mary. He died in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1930 at age 66.

Legacy
The paintings showed idealized portrayals of famous moments from American history. The complete series was shown at Congress Hall in Philadelphia from 1913 to 1930. In later years, it was shown in a number of locations, including the Smithsonian Institution, before being returned to the Ferris family. His works were widely popular for many years, but modern critics are far less generous in their praise.

The American Philosophical Society claims that his historical paintings confuse "verity with verisimilitude", and art historian Gerald Ackerman describes them as "splendid in the accuracy of accessories, clothing and especially in the details of land conveyances and ships", but "extremely dry in execution and rather monotonous in composition."

title: Jean Leon Gerome Ferris


text: Category:Slaves

title: Category:Slaves


text:
Talk:Union Pacific Big Boy

Need to add a criticisms section
I have a fairly recent issue of Trains magazine that includes an intelligently written article arguing that most 'superpower' steam was more about marketing hype than anything else, and that many later steam locomotives were poorly chosen for the tasks they had to perform. It included criticism of the UP Big Boys. In essence, the argument is that by building an 80 mph locomotive when a 60 mph one would have done (given that the service requirement was for only 60 mph) the UP let hype and publicity overwhelm good sense. A locomotive built for a 60 mph top speed would have a horsepower curve that would have delivered more real power and tractive effort at the speeds that the Big Boys really operated at. The UP sacrificed low-speed lugging ability for a top speed ability they never needed.

Another criticism of the Big Boy was its use of an exhaust steam injector instead of a feedwater heater. The exhaust steam injector is more efficient in its steam utilisation than the feedwater heater, but it does not heat the water nearly as much and in the end is less efficient overall. In addition, the crews hated the exhaust steam injector and generally did not use it, using only the regular injector instead.

I'll add these to the article, but I think it needs more reorganisation first than I have time to do right now. —Morven 20:45, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

In response to "Morven" who cites the "Trains" magazine article:

While there may be something to say in connection with the designing of what could be said to be "an 80 mph engine for 60 mph service" I don't believe the author was addressing the correct aspects of the design. Not having the design data at hand, I very seriously doubt the mechanical engineers at American Locomotive Co. and UP's headquarters "Mechanical Dept." did not have the operating conditions of the Wahsatch fully in mind when putting together the main proportions of the design of these locomotives. Having not seen this article for some years I can't recall it in detail, however if it fails to note that what is actually meant by "designing the engine for 80 mph" is in actuality designing for the forces present at that speed (meaning counterbalance and other forces), not the point at which maximum power was to be developed. Another example is the second and third series of UP's 4-8-4's, the 820-844 groups. They were designed for forces existing at 110 mph. Not that they regularly attained anything near that, merely the factor of mechanical safety. The result was engines with few failures such as broken frames, rods, etc.

Again, it's possible a case could be made that these engines could have moved more tonnage if equipped with 63" driving wheels or if certain other characteristics had been adjusted to one extent or another. However, any attempting to make such statements today are only writing in conjecture as no one alive today knows exactly what was in the minds of the men working on that project.  There is one thing which is certain:  Union Pacific was developing power with National Defense traffic in mind, and speed was of the essence.  A great deal of effort was put into the development of power which was going to be capable of high speeds.  This was a joint effort of UP and Alco engineers.  So, while someone may attempt to say these engines weren't optimized for this or that, they can only do so from the standpoint of looking at things outside the box.  Some of the finest locomotive design minds in the nation produced the late UP power and it's highly unlikely mistakes of the sort mentioned by the author of this "Trains" article were made.

Regarding the exhaust steam injector, I have spoken with four surviving Big Boy and Challenger engineers. Each has told me they suffered little trouble with the Elesco Type TP injector fitted to both 4000's and big Challengers. Nor were they familiar with claims that these units were any less reliable than other locomotive water feed appliances. However, each did say that they liked the feedwater heaters better. In addition, I don't believe it's generally understood just how much influence costs bore in the selection of appliances and other elements of locomotive design, purchase and operation on Union Pacific. More, the influence of salesmen and their acceptance in UP mechanical circles was a factor. I have seen correspondence indicating the exhaust steam injector was considerably less expensive than the Worthington S-type feedwater heaters. Personally, I have no doubt the combination of cost, relationships and possibly influences at Alco resulted in the use of the Elesco Type TP injectors. As important as the Big Boys were, I also have little doubt the engines would have been re-fitted with Worthington systems had the TP's performed to the point the engines were regularly using the Nathan 4000 live steam injectors. UP changed feed water arrangements on locos with great frequency.

 * it's a pity the second commentator didn't indent his contribution. In any event, both commentators are largely correct.  It seems UP's thinking during the design phase was that the Big Boys should be able to take fruit blocks as far as North Platte or even Omaha, which would have required speeds in the 40-60mph range.  Designing for 80mph would be a reasonable margin of safety.  Since they were actually used almost exclusively on mountain divisions at speeds around 20mph, Morven makes a valid critisism that UP should have designed the engines for the service they were used in, with a much lower maximum speed.  The second commentator is incorrect in saying UP was designing for "National Defense" traffic; it is clear the Big Boys were designed to move fruit blocks (i.e. trains of refrigerator cars), since that was a very profitable traffic which did not allow slow, drag-freight style operation in the mountains.

 * they are likewise largely correct with regard to the exhaust steam injector. It is correct that it was much less expensive than a feedwater heater; UP for some reason chose to be cheap.  And while they weren't unreliable, they don't work while the engine is standing (by design); I think many crews simply got in the habit of using the injector which always worked (Kratville alludes to the issues with the exhaust steam injector in his book).  The lack of a feedwater heater is part of the reason why the Big Boy was considered a poor steaming locomotive, as compared with the C&O H8 and the N&W A (the main reason, of course, was the shallow firebox design).  It is possible UP might have added feedwater heaters later, but it's unlikely; Jabbelmann seems to have disliked them (the later Challengers also lacked feedwater heaters).

BIG BOY TV SHOW
In the 1950's there was a TV Show called "Big Boy." I understand that UP participated in filming and there was quite a lot of footage taken and a company called "Pentrex" has recently put a DVD out about it.

Unsupportable comments
There are a couple of unsupportable statements:

"Their performance in moving a huge volume of war material throughout WWII was repeatedly cited and the Big Boys are generally acclaimed as having made a huge contribution to the war effort."

Strictly that may be correct if they are acclaimed. However, there were only 25 of them! The Germans built 7000+ Kriegsloks. 25 locos did not make a huge contribution to the war effort.

Secondly: "However, in overall performance and reliability, among all the "heavy iron" prototypes the Big Boys were unsurpassed."

The article is honest in flagging that it is difficult to identify a category in which the Big Boys can be called the "largest" loco. However, the performance and reliability claim needs some susbtantiation to move beyond a subjective view.

I stumbled upon this page having been sent a picture of the museum display notice for 4006 which claims this achieved 1,064,625 miles by retirement in 1961, the highest for the class. To me, this seems extraordinarily low, perhaps 60,000 per annum and undermines the statements above.Crantock (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons
OK, I agree that this article may not be the best place for the material below. It seemed to me, however, that since the biggest, heaviest, etc. issue constantly comes up in any discussion of Big Boy, that this article might be a good place for it. It certainly refutes a variety of claims made both here and at other large locomotive articles. I also also reject the comment that it's a "steaming non encyclopedic pile of original research". Aside from that being on the bare edge of civility, certainly everything below is documented and the principal points are supported by quotes from an expert.. . . . Jim. . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please thoroughly review WP:NOT and WP:OR, and remember that Wikipedia is also NOT the Guinness Book of World Records. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  18:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Where's the OR? Each of the facts stated below is documented. It isn't WP:OR to say that 1,104,200 pounds is heavier than 1,066,100 if both numbers are documented. The fundamental conclusions are supported by quotes from an expert.
 * As for the Guinness Book, true, Wikipedia is not Guinness, but we have an awful lot of articles that compare longest, highest, biggest:
 * Extreme points of the United States (and 68 other countries)
 * List of tallest buildings in the world
 * List of world's longest ships
 * List of highest mountains
 * List of longest consumer road vehicles
 * List of heaviest bells

 * Would you object to a List of the largest steam locomotives? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the section in question: Comparisons

The text states that all except numbers 4005 4006 and 4017 are in the open without protection from the elements. This is untrue. I live about 5 miles from 4006, and can attest that even though this locomotive has been covered in several coats of heavy paint to protect it from the elements, it too, is sitting out in the open with no overhead protection. There are some locomotives at this museum that sit under protective cover, but there are also a lot that are out in the open at this museum (St. Louis, MO). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJKeller568 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It is widely debated whether the Big Boy was the largest steam locomotive ever built. Weight, length, horsepower and tractive effort are all categories in which a locomotive can be ranked, and in each of them a locomotive "larger" than a Big Boy might be found.

Without a tender, the Big Boy is longest. Its boiler is the smallest of the five listed below; in fact, its nominal size is half that of the Virginian AE. It often asserted that the H-8 Allegheny was somewhat heavier than a Big Boy, but a comparison of weights from the same sources show that this is not correct. Alfred Bruce, Director of Steam Locomotive Engineering at Alco and, therefore, an authoritative source says, "[Big Boys] are still the heaviest steam locomotives in the world today [1952] with reciprocating pistons and direct-rod drive."

While it is true that the Norfolk and Western Y6bs had a higher tractive force while operating in single expansion mode, they were designed as compounds and operated single only while starting. In normal operation, the Erie Triplexes actually had the highest tractive force of any steam locomotive ever built, but were not successful because their grates were too small. Bruce says of them, "These locomotives exerted the maximum tractive force (160,000 lb compound) over short periods ever exerted by a steam locomotive with reciprocating pistons, but they were soon retired from active service." The Virginian Class AE 2-10-10-2s, however, had a tractive force of 147000 lbf while operating in their normal, compound, mode, so they win the crown for highest tractive force (they had 175000 lbf when operating in single expansion mode}}.

Sustained horsepower is hard to measure in a steam locomotive, and even harder to compare, because it depends, among other things, on both altitude and quality of fuel. The Big Boys were handicapped in both of these, but given that they had roughly fifty percent more grate area than three of the others, it's likely that only the C&O H-8s were near them in horsepower. It's a question that could only be answered if one of each were put in front of a dynamometer car at the same altitude using the same fuel. This is not likely since none of the surviving examples of either are operable.

Therefore, it is fair to say that Big Boys are the longest and heaviest steam locomotives of all time. They did not have the highest tractive effort and they were either first or second in horsepower.

As the figures below illustrate, it's important to have comparable numbers, preferably from the same source. Big Boys and H-8s carried around 250000 lb of coal and water in their tenders and around 75000 lb of water in their boilers, so there's a 325000 lb difference between their weights, dry and empty on the scales at the factory, and fully loaded for a run.

 * "it is fair to say that Big Boys are the longest and heaviest steam locomotives of all time."

 * It's fair, but that doesn't mean it's right. The 4-8-8-4 may have been the longest reciprocating steam locomotive, as long as we don't include the tender. It certainly wasn't the longest including the tender, and engine-only it may have been shorter than the C&O and N&W turbines.

 * As for heaviest: no reason to assume Bruce was an authority on how much the 2-6-6-6s weighed. Why should he be?

 * As for OR: hard to see why anyone would think it's an issue here. Tim Zukas (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

 * By the way: notice that the TE figures you give for the compounds aren't calculated by the same formula. As I recall 2-10-10-2 compound TE is around 135,000 lb if you use the same formula as N&W did. Tim Zukas (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

 * there's a lot of tricky things with a comparison table like this. For instance, Big Boy is shown as having a 150 sq ft firebox, which is accurate.  But the front 30" were blocked off by a brick wall, because the stoker couldn't throw coal that far.  The actual grate area, per Kratville, was 108 sq ft.  This is very close to the N&W A, 101 sq ft grate, and much less than the C&O H-8, which had 135 sq ft grate area.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.227.37 (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Better Pictures?
Can we get some better pictures of this train? Neither of these pictures shows a side view of the train which is necessary for appreciating it. You can't see the double set of wheels or anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.94.227 (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Three of four shots are from the exact same angle, and so all but one of those three do the reader no good. 98.102.149.62 (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I suspect with the tour of 2019 there will be a lot of better pics available. I have a few from today (11-6-2019) but will wait to upload. FB and the rest of the WWW is absolutely flooded with pics, some are very suitable for this article. Ken (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Big Boy Return to service?
This article says maybe!

Union Pacific studying Big Boy restoration project Trains Magazine

Anyone want to add this to the page?

B4Ctom1 (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

4018 is scheduled to move this weekend. Its location should be updated once it reaches its final location. http://www.museumoftheamericanrailroad.org/Frisco/TheBigMoveRollingStock.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.120.37 (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

A citation for the 'Preservation' section
The 'Preservation' section is marked as needing a source. I think this article should serve nicely, but doing the actual editting is outside my wheelhouse.

http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20Reference/Hot%20Spots/2012/12/Where%20are%20the%20Union%20Pacific%20Big%20Boys%20now.aspx

Benthatsme (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Big Boy #4005 Wreck of 1953/Edit Request 6/22/15
Could someone add a section on the article about Big Boy #4005's wreck on April 27, 1953? There's a link below me that will tell about the wreck and I will have a brief dissolution how the wrech as well.

On April 27, 1953, Union Pacific #4005 was pulling a fright train through southern Wyoming jumped the switch track at 50 miles per hour (MPH), throwing the engine onto its left side and derailing its tender and the first 18 freight cars of the 62-car train. Two people (the engineer and fireman) were killed insistently on impact, and the brakeman would later die in a hospital a few days later from his injuries. The cab of the locomotive was destroyed by the tender and the loads from the 18 derailed cars were littered everywhere! Scattered about the scene was the train’s load: tractors, dead hogs, typewriters, sewing machines, and other merchandise. Some domestic pigs that survived the wreck regained consciousness and with a terrific grunt would take off running through curious bystanders. After this incident, 4005 was repaired by Union Pacific at its Cheyenne facility. It is possible a different tender was used in the rebuilding. The Big Boy shows very little evidence of the wreck damage today. It was likely that the accident was caused either by the 500 ton locomotive going too fast over the switch or from the switch not being set properly. Here is the link. I hope it is souceful infomation: http://forneymuseum.org/News_BigBoyWreck.html --75.68.122.13 (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Jacob Chesley the Alternate Historian

I added the info about the accident to the article. However, I'm not sure how well I've made the section. Hopefully, someone can fix any mistake I made by accident. --75.68.122.13 (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Jacob Chesley the Alternate Historian

Surviving Tenders
So we have surviving tender numbers for all Big Boys except 4005. Rumor has it that the number fell off years ago, but someone else was able to figure it out. Does anyone know the story on 4005's current tender? Davidng913 (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox photo
Fan Railer has changed the infobox photo to one that is, in my view, markedly inferior. It is much farther away from the locomotive and of lower quality. Fan Railer undid my revert with the edit summary "Opinion on quality is subjective; newer photos provide wider perspective and include visible stack exhaust. Not every photo needs to be taken 5 inches from the locomotive." Notwithstanding that the "5 inches away from the locomotive" part is nonsense, I am concerned that Fan Railer is attempting to add their own images regardless of if they are the best fit or not. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

 * It depends on a bunch of things. On many occasions, the photos he has taken are indeed of high quality and actually do provide a good view of the engine. But in other cases like this one, a pic of the whole train does not always work. Fan Railer is a good person, and many of the pictures he has uploaded are (mostly) of great quality, but sometimes what he chooses as a infobox picture is not the best. Just go with your gut and stand by what you believe and why you stand by it. But beware: his replies may be rough if you really piss him off. Davidng913 (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Big Boy is (Not) a Mallet
Okay, I don’t know why but Grachester says that the Big Boy is a Mallet. A Mallet is a compound articulated locomotive, not a simple articulated locomotive. Big Boy is simple articulated, not compound articulated therefore it is not a Mallet. Fact, not my opinion. Aitraintheeditorandgamer (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * He says that because the Big Boy is a Mallet articulated (as opposed to a Garrett or any of the other systems of articulation used with steam locomotives). It is, and has been for decades, common practice to call locomotives using the Mallet system of articulation "Mallets".  Your uneducated opinion is not fact.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.227.37 (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Union Pacific Big Boy


text:
Manual communication

Manual communication systems use articulation of the hands (hand signs, gestures, etc.) to mediate a message between persons. Being expressed manually, they are received visually and sometimes tactually. When it is the primary form of communication, it may be enhanced by body language and facial expressions.

Manual communication is employed in sign languages and manually coded languages, though sign languages also possess non-manual elements. Other systems of manual communication have been developed for specific purposes, typically in situations where speech is not practical (such as loud environments) or permitted, or where secrecy is desired.

Examples

 * Charades
 * Diving signals — hand communication methods while scuba diving
 * Flag semaphores — telegraphy systems using hand-held flags, other objects, or the hands themselves
 * Finger counting
 * Chinese number gestures
 * Open outcry hand signaling
 * Fingerspelling or manual alphabets
 * Gang signals — signs used to signify allegiance to a gang or local gang branches
 * Hand signals in traffic
 * Monastic sign languages — symbolic gestural communication used by monastic communities
 * Rueda de Casino — a dance that uses hand motions to "call" other dancers
 * Tic-tac — a traditional method of hand signs used by bookmakers in horse racing
 * U.S. Army hand and arm signals

title: Manual communication