text:
J. Edgar Hoover Building

The J. Edgar Hoover Building is a low-rise office building located at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW in Washington, D.C., in the United States. It is the headquarters of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Planning for the building began in 1962, and a site was formally selected in January 1963. Design work, focusing on avoiding the blocky, monolithic structure typical of most federal architecture at the time, began in 1963 and was largely complete by 1964, though final approval did not occur until 1967. Land clearance and excavation of the foundation began in March 1965; delays in obtaining congressional funding meant that only the three-story substructure was complete by 1970. Work on the superstructure began in May 1971. These delays meant that the cost of the project grew from $60 million to $126.108 million. Construction finished in September 1975, and President Gerald Ford dedicated the structure on September 30, 1975.

The building is named after former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. President Richard Nixon directed federal agencies to refer to the structure as the J. Edgar Hoover FBI Building on May 4, 1972, two days after Hoover's death, but the order did not have the force of law. The U.S. Congress enacted legislation formally naming the structure on October 14, 1972, and President Nixon signed it on October 21.

The J. Edgar Hoover Building has 2800876 sqft of internal space, numerous amenities, and a special, secure system of elevators and corridors to keep public tours separate from the rest of the building. The building has three floors below-ground, and an underground parking garage. The structure is eight stories high on the Pennsylvania Avenue NW side, and 11 stories high on the E Street NW side. Two wings connect the two main buildings, forming an open-air, trapezoidal courtyard. The exterior is buff-colored precast and cast-in-place concrete with repetitive, square, bronze-tinted windows set deep in concrete frames.

Critical reaction to the J. Edgar Hoover Building ranged from strong praise to strong disapproval when it opened. More recently, it has been widely condemned on aesthetic and urban planning grounds.

Plans have been made to relocate the FBI's headquarters elsewhere, but those plans were abandoned in 2017 due to a lack of funding for a new headquarters building.

Planning
Since 1935, as an element of the United States Department of Justice, the FBI had been headquartered in the Department of Justice Building. In March 1962, the Kennedy administration proposed spending $60 million to construct a headquarters for the FBI on the north side of Pennsylvania Avenue NW opposite the Justice Department. The administration argued that the FBI, which had offices in the Justice Department building as well as 16 other sites in the capital, was too dispersed to function effectively. Initially, prospects for the new building seemed good. A House committee approved the budget request on April 11, and a Senate committee approved it a day later. But the United States House of Representatives deleted the funds when the budget reached the House floor. A budget conference committee then voted in September to restore enough funds for site selection, planning, and preliminary design.

The site selection process for the new FBI headquarters was largely driven by factors unrelated to organizational efficiency. By 1960, Pennsylvania Avenue was marked by deteriorating homes, shops, and office buildings on the north side and the monumental Neoclassical federal office buildings of Federal Triangle on the south side. Kennedy noticed the dilapidated condition of the street when his inaugural procession traversed Pennsylvania Avenue in January 1961. At a cabinet meeting on August 4, 1961, Kennedy established the Ad Hoc Committee on Federal Office Space to recommend new structures to accommodate the growing federal government (which had constructed almost no new office buildings in the city since the Great Depression). Assistant Secretary of Labor Daniel Patrick Moynihan was assigned to help staff the committee. In the Ad Hoc Committee's final report, Moynihan proposed (in part) that Pennsylvania Avenue be redeveloped using the powers of the federal government. The report suggested razing every block north of Pennsylvania Avenue from the United States Capitol to 15th Street NW, and building a mixture of cultural buildings (such as museums and theaters), government buildings, hotels, office buildings, restaurants, and retail on these blocks. Kennedy approved the report on June 1, 1962, and established an informal "President's Council on Pennsylvania Avenue" to draw up a plan to redevelop Pennsylvania Avenue.

The site selected by GSA on January 3, 1963, for the new FBI headquarters were two city blocks bounded by Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 9th Street NW, E Street NW, and 10th Street NW. GSA administrator Bernard Boutin said the site was selected after informal consultation with the President's Council on Pennsylvania Avenue and the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC; which had statutory power to approve any major construction in the D.C. metropolitan area). Boutin said construction of the new FBI building would help revitalize the Pennsylvania Avenue area as suggested by both the Ad Hoc Committee on Federal Office Space and the President's Council on Pennsylvania Avenue. Boutin emphasized that the design of the new structure would be in harmony with other buildings planned by the President's Council on Pennsylvania Avenue, and would necessitate the closing of a short section of D Street NW between 9th and 10th Streets NW. More than 100 small retail businesses were to be evicted.

Design
The early consensus was that the new FBI building would avoid the block-filling style of box-like architecture advocated by the General Services Administration. Staff at the NCPC advocated an aggregation of smaller, interconnected buildings, while President's Council on Pennsylvania Avenue architectural consultant Nathaniel A. Owings suggested that small retail shops be incorporated into the ground floor of the building. Staff at the President's Council on Pennsylvania Avenue said the council would "blow its top" if the FBI headquarters design was monolithic.

In January 1963, GSA estimated that construction on the building would begin in 1964, and be complete in 1967. In June 1963, GSA hired the firm of Charles F. Murphy and Associates to assist with the design. Stanislaw Z. Gladych was the chief architect, and Carter H. Manny, Jr. was the partner in charge. Murphy and Associates struggled to meld competing views of what the building should be. The President's Council on Pennsylvania Avenue wanted a building with a pedestrian arcade on Pennsylvania Avenue side, and retail shops on the ground level on the other three sides. But the FBI rejected this view, instead advocating a structure which was bomb-proof on the first few stories and which had but a few, tightly secured access points elsewhere. Murphy and Associates initially designed a monumental building. This approach was rejected by GSA for wasting space and because it would draw criticism for its apparent misuse of taxpayer dollars on lavishness. Murphy and Associates next designed a "Chicago school" structure. This was a rectangular building whose front was aligned along an east–west axis rather than Pennsylvania Avenue. This created a strong setback on Pennsylvania Avenue, which the architects turned into a pedestrian plaza. Although this design was largely accepted, the setback was not and the building's south side was again aligned with the avenue. Although the FBI was not extensively interested in the building's architectural design, mid- and low-level managers meddled extensively in the building's details (even while working drawings were being completed).

With design work still incomplete by April 1964, GSA pushed back the start of construction to 1966. On April 22, GSA announced that, after consulting informally with the NCPC, the FBI building would have two levels. The Pennsylvania Avenue façade would be four to six stories high, while the E Street side would rise to eight or nine stories. The goal was to avoid creating a solid front of monolithic office buildings along Pennsylvania Avenue NW.

On October 1, 1964, the NCPC approved the preliminary design of the FBI building. During the design phase, the architects discovered that the NCPC supported the FBI's desire for a highly secure building, and this influenced the structure's design significantly. The plans by Murphy and Associates called for an eight-story structure on Pennsylvania Avenue and a 12-story building along E Street. The two buildings were connected by wings along 9th and 10th Streets NW, forming an open-air courtyard in the interior. A portion of these wings would push underground into the hill which rose behind Pennsylvania Avenue. The building was set back 70 ft from Pennsylvania Avenue. It also had underground parking accessible from 9th and 10th streets. An open deck, designed to allow pedestrians to enter on E Street and stroll along the second floor of the building, existed on the east and west sides of the FBI building. The architects noted that this deck could be extended on the south (Pennsylvania Avenue) side. The NCPC voiced only one concern. It worried that the "penthouses" atop the building (which were designed to conceal the HVAC and elevator equipment) were illegal. The penthouses raised the building's height to 172 ft—12 ft higher than permitted by law.

The United States Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) reviewed the plans on October 21, 1964. GSA and Murphy and Associates had declined to make the FBI building's plans public prior to this meeting. During informal discussions with CFA staff in the initial design phase, the architects learned that the CFA wanted the FBI building to have a powerful base which appeared to anchor it to the earth. Although this was in direct conflict with the open architecture advocated by the President's Council on Pennsylvania Avenue, it was more in line with what the NCPC and FBI wanted. Since it was not clear whether the proposed design that had met with NCPC approval would be accepted by the CFA, the design was confidential so that changes could still be made without the appearance that they had been forced on the architects. The still-incomplete designs unveiled during the CFA meeting now showed a massive, three-story roof deck overhanging the main building on E Street, with glass curtain wall-enclosed walkways connecting the Pennsylvania Avenue building to the 9th and 10th street wings. The trapezoidal interior courtyard was designed to hold sculpture and accommodate public exhibits about the FBI. The façade now exhibited repetitive, angular concrete elements similar to those used by Le Corbusier in the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Chandigarh, India; Paul Rudolph in his Brutalist Yale Art and Architecture Building at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut; and Gyo Obata in the final design for the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C.

Funding and construction
Although the Commission of Fine Arts did not approve the FBI building's final design until November 1967, the first contract for land clearance and excavation was awarded in March 1965. GSA also moved ahead with funding requests for construction in 1965. But securing that funding proved elusive. A Johnson administration request for $45.8 million in initial funding was denied by the House Appropriations Committee in May. Although both administration and FBI officials expressed confidence that the money would be restored, a House–Senate budget conference committee in August declined to include the funds in the fiscal 1966 budget.

The funding request fared better in 1966. Once again, the House Appropriations Committee cut the administration's $45.7 million funding request in May. But with the land for the structure almost completely cleared, GSA would be left holding an empty lot if funding was not forthcoming. This prompted Congress to act. In October, a House–Senate budget conference committee recommended spending $11.3 million to excavate and build the foundation and to pour the first floor's concrete slab. Both chambers of Congress approved this expenditure late in the month.

Design issues continued to plague the project, however. Throughout 1966, private developers fought with the General Services Administration in hearings before the NCPC, which was closing in on a decision to give final approval to the project. At issue were the 20 ft high equipment penthouses atop the building. Private developers demanded that they be given the right to raise their buildings by the additional height as well, while other government agencies argued that giving the FBI building a height waiver would set a bad precedent and weaken government height restrictions along Pennsylvania Avenue. With the overhanging roof deck of the FBI building already having lost one of its three stories, the NCPC agreed to the waiver on December 1, 1966. Meanwhile, the President's Council on Pennsylvania Avenue was still pushing for an arcade on the ground level along Pennsylvania Avenue NW. The Council argued that all buildings along Pennsylvania Avenue should include an arcade so that pedestrians could walk along the street somewhat protected from the elements. The FBI and private developers both opposed the arcade requirement. The Council believed that if the FBI were given an exemption from the requirement, it would be unable to enforce it with other builders. The FBI won the day by arguing that rapists and muggers would hide in the arcades, making Pennsylvania Avenue unsafe for pedestrians and workers. The NCPC agreed, and voted in favor of an exemption on September 14, 1967.

Congress appropriated a total of $20.5 million in fiscal 1968, 1969, and 1970 to complete work on the substructure. The first contract for construction of the three-story substructure was awarded in November 1967. By October 1969, construction of the substructure was under way. By June 1970, however, the cost for the FBI building had ballooned to $102.5 million. GSA officials blamed inflation for the cost increase. At the same time, GSA said that the contract for construction of the third story of the substructure was due to be awarded in March 1971. That contract went to Blake Construction. Construction of the eight-story Pennsylvania Avenue building, 11-story E Street building, and wings was estimated in June 1970 to begin in late 1973 or early 1974.

Bids for work on the $68 million superstructure were opened in May 1971, and the job again awarded to Blake Construction. In December 1971, GSA announced that the cost of the building had risen by $7 million in the past year (to $109 million) due to inflation, a major design change, and the cost of the building's unusual features. The design change added 15800 sqft of office space, but also included special blast-proof paving around the building. Just a month later, in January 1972, GSA reported that the cost of the building had risen to $126.108 million. A new completion date of July 1974 was also announced. GSA later capped the building's cost at $126.108 million in August 1972. The agency blamed the cost increase on inflation; the use of different contracts for excavation, substructure construction, and superstructure construction; the construction of a pneumatic tube system, reinforced flooring, and a special fire detection and suppression system; and the unique requirements of the areas for the fingerprinting bureau. The agency also said that NCPC and CFA alterations increased the cost by $7.465 million.

By August 1972, the substructure was complete; the floor, columns, and roof of the first floor installed; and second floor columns poured. Although Congress had authorized $126.108 million for the FBI building, it had yet to appropriate the money.

The FBI building neared completion in 1974. The first FBI personnel began moving into the building in October 1974, and FBI Director Clarence M. Kelley moved into his office in May 1975. By June 1975, the structure was 45 percent occupied. Construction on the building was due to end in September 1975, with the final personnel arriving in November 1975.

President Gerald Ford dedicated the J. Edgar Hoover Building on September 30, 1975.

Naming
Although the FBI building originally had no name, there were expectations that it would, in time, be dedicated to J. Edgar Hoover. Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus speculated in June 1971 that Hoover's name would be eventually attached to the building. Reporter Abbott Combs made the same claim in December 1971.

J. Edgar Hoover died on May 2, 1972. On May 3, the day after Hoover's death, the United States Senate passed a resolution asking that the then-incomplete FBI building be named for Hoover. The following day, President Richard Nixon directed the General Services Administration to designate the structure as the J. Edgar Hoover Building. Neither the Senate resolution nor Nixon's order had the force of law, however.

On May 25, 1972, as part of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Bicentennial Civic Center Act, the Senate passed legislation (S. 3943) legally designating the FBI building as the J. Edgar Hoover Building. A similar bill in the United States House of Representatives (H.R. 16645) was also moving forward. The House bill was amended several times. The House subsequently passed S. 3943 on October 3, after amending it to include the amended language of H.R. 16645. The Senate agreed to the House amendments on October 14. Nixon signed the legislation into law as Public Law 92–520 on October 21, 1972.

Architecture
At the time it was completed, the J. Edgar Hoover building was reported to have 2.4 e6sqft to 2.535 e6sqft of interior space, of which 1 e6sqft were usable office space. According to more current information provided by the FBI, the building contained 2800876 sqft of interior space in 2010. Its internal amenities included:
 * An amphitheater
 * A 162-seat auditorium
 * An automobile repair shop
 * A two-story basketball court
 * An eighth-floor cafeteria, with access to a roof garden
 * Classrooms
 * Cryptographic vault
 * Developing laboratories for both still photography and motion pictures
 * Exercise rooms
 * A film library
 * A firing range
 * 80000 sqft of laboratory space
 * A medical clinic
 * Morgue
 * A printing plant
 * A test pattern and ballistics range
 * A 700-seat theater

The structure has three floors below ground. Originally only two below-ground floors were planned, but a third was added during the review process. The top two floors of the northern (E Street) structure housed the fingerprint bureau. Special features of the building included a pneumatic tube system and a conveyor belt system for handling mail and files. A special, reinforced, extra-thick "protection slab" existed beneath the second floor to help protect the building from street-level explosions. A gravel-filled dry moat ran along the building on E Street NW.

The building's corner piers contained the mechanical services (elevators, HVAC, etc.). A dual elevator system was installed, one for use by the public and one for use by staff. A dual set of hallways also existed in portions of the buildings. The smaller set of dual hallways was for public use. The public elevators connected only to the public hallways, isolating the public from FBI workers. Several portions of the public hallway contained glass partitions through which the public could see FBI personnel at work.

The J. Edgar Hoover Building is in an architectural style known as Brutalism. The term is derived from the French term béton brut ("raw concrete"); in Brutalist structures, unprocessed concrete surfaces are commonly used to create "rugged, dramatic surfaces and monumental sculptural forms." The concrete of the Hoover Building shows the marks from the rough wood forms into which the liquid concrete was poured. The exterior is constructed of buff-colored precast and cast-in-place concrete. The intent was to attach sheets of polished concrete or granite to the exterior. The exterior walls were built to accommodate these attachments, but this plan was abandoned as the building neared completion. The windows were of bronze-tinted glass. The cornice line is 160 ft high on the E Street side. The interior, as built, consisted of white vinyl floor tiles, and polished concrete ceilings and floors painted white. The open-air courtyard was paved with grayish-beige stone, and contained an arcade to shelter employees as they moved around its edge.

Critical reception
The J. Edgar Hoover Building was widely praised when first erected. Washington Post architectural critic Wolf Von Eckardt called it "gutsy" and "bold" architecture in 1964. It was, he asserted, "...masculine, no-nonsense architecture appropriate for a national police headquarters. It is a promising beginning for the new Pennsylvania Avenue." Chicago Tribune critic Paul Gapp was more equivocal. Writing in 1978, he felt the uneven cornice line gave "the taller facades of the building a rather intimidating, temple-like look vaguely reminiscent of an old Cecil B. Dé Mille set". He also criticized the open second deck for having a dark, cavernous look and the interior for being "Federal drab". But on balance, Gapp wrote, while the FBI building "falls considerably below C.F. Murphy's general level of design excellence[,] ...it is not the visual disaster some of its detractors have made it out to be." He declared it mediocre architecture, but not worse than any other federal building built in Washington, D.C., the past decade. New York Times architecture critic Ada Louise Huxtable was also less enthusiastic. Although she enumerated several of the building's flaws, she nonetheless felt the design did a "superior job" in reconciling numerous problems facing the site and the uses to which the structure would be put.

Von Eckardt's views on the FBI building changed radically between his initial assessment in 1964 and the structure's completion in 1975. At its dedication, he called the building Orwellian, "alien to the spirit of the capital", and an "overly dramatic and utterly miscarried play of forms". He criticized the interior as "a drab factory with harsh light, endless corridors, hard floors and no visual relief". Von Eckardt did not blame the architects for the building's design, but rather the CFA. Paul Goldberger, writing for the New York Times, echoed Von Eckardt's harsh assessment. He felt the design banal and dull, "an arrogant, overbearing concrete form that dares the visitor to come close." He noted that the high, strong massing on E Street was reminiscent of a similar rear massing on Le Courbousier's Priory at Sainte Marie de La Tourette, but lacked the dramatic hill behind it to give the massing a counterpoint. "This building," he concluded, "turns its back on the city and substitutes for responsible architecture a pompous, empty monumentality that is, in the end, not so much a symbol as a symptom—a symptom of something wrong in government and just as wrong in architecture."

More recently, the J. Edgar Hoover Building has been strongly criticized for its aesthetics and impact on the urban life in the city. In 2005, D.C. architect Arthur Cotton Moore harshly condemned the building for creating a dead space in the heart of the nation's capital. "It creates a void along Pennsylvania Avenue. Given its elephantine size and harshness, it creates a black hole. Its concrete wall, with no windows or life to it, is an urban sin. People should be strolling down America's main street. Nobody strolls in front of the FBI Building." The following year, Gerard Moeller and Christopher Weeks wrote in the AIA Guide to the Architecture of Washington, D.C. that the FBI building was the "swaggering bully of the neighborhood...ungainly, ill-mannered..." They also blamed the structure's poor design for undermining the redevelopment of Pennsylvania Avenue: "the impenetrable base, the shadowy courtyard, and looming upper stories bespeak security and surveillance. The prototype for the Pennsylvania Avenue redevelopment plan devised under the direction of Nathanial Owings, it helped to ensure that the full plan would never be realized." Five years later, in 2011, Washington City Paper reporter Lydia DePillis noted that the building has "long been maligned as downtown D.C.'s ugliest edifice". Architecture for Dummies author Deborah K. Dietsch said in April 2012 that it was "disastrous", "insensitive", and "hostile", and that it and the James V. Forrestal Building topped the list of the city's ugliest buildings. A list compiled by Trippy.com and Reuters declared the J. Edgar Hoover Building the world's ugliest building, and found it to be a "dreary 1970s behemoth". Los Angeles Times travel writer Christopher Reynolds remarked that the Hoover building is "so ugly, local historians say, that it scared authorities into setting higher standards for pedestrian friendliness among buildings along [Pennsylvania Avenue]".

Perhaps the most critical—and most important—criticism has come from the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts themselves. In 2009, the two agencies released a major new strategic study and plan for the future of the city of Washington, D.C., the Monumental Core Framework Plan. Although the two agencies stopped short of asking the federal government to tear the J. Edgar Hoover Building down, the two agencies were trenchant in their criticism:
 * ...the FBI's security requirements have prevented street-level public uses around the entire block of the J. Edgar Hoover Building between 9th and 10th Streets. The building's fortress-like presence is exacerbated by security installations, the moat that surrounds three sides of the building, the scale of its architectural features, and the absence of street-level activity. ...[R]edevelopment of the J. Edgar Hoover Building site with cultural, hospitality, commercial, and office uses can bring new urban vitality to Pennsylvania Avenue.

Artwork
The courtyard of the building includes the sculpture Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity by Frederick Charles Shrady. In January 1975, the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI passed a resolution to create a memorial to J. Edgar Hoover. The memorial, which cost $125,000, was funded through contributions. The artist was selected through a design contest, and the sculpture dedicated on October 13, 1979. The piece, made of bronze (15 ft wide and 5 ft deep), shows three figures which represent Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity. The figures are placed against a backdrop of a large United States flag, which appears to wave in the breeze. Fidelity, a female, is on the right, seated on the ground and looking up at a male figure of Bravery. To the left of Bravery is Integrity, a male figure who kneels on one knee, with his left hand on his heart. He looks towards Bravery, who stands flanked by the two other figures. The figures are simple with little detail. The sculpture rests on a rectangular base 2 ft by 10 ft by 7 ft made of slabs of black marble and mortar. The front of the base is carved and painted with the words "Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity". In 1993, the piece was surveyed as part of the Smithsonian Institution's Save Outdoor Sculpture! and was described as needing conservation treatment.

Decay and potential replacement
The FBI immediately closed the second-story pedestrian observation deck for security reasons when the building opened in 1975. It has not been reopened to the public since. The agency suspended public tours of the J. Edgar Hoover Building in the wake of the September 11 attacks. The tours remained suspended as of April 3, 2019.

Structural problems with the J. Edgar Hoover Building became apparent around 2001. That year, an engineering consultant found that the building was deteriorating due to deferred maintenance and because many building systems (HVAC, elevators, etc.) were nearing the end of their life-cycle. The consultant rated the building as in "poor condition" and said it was not at an "industry-acceptable level".

Additional studies of the building were made over the next several years. In 2005, a real estate consultant reported that the FBI's scattered workforce (then housed in the Hoover building and 16 other leased sites throughout the D.C. metropolitan area) and the Hoover building's inefficient interior layout were creating workforce inefficiencies for the FBI. Security upgrades, building systems replacements, and other renovations were suggested. At this time, GSA estimated that it would take three years to develop a replacement headquarters and identify a site, and another three years for design, construction, and move-in. The FBI began studying the costs and logistics of moving its headquarters later that year.

In 2006, GSA estimated the costs of renovating the Hoover Building at between $850 million to $1.1 billion. Additional problems also became apparent that same year. A piece of the concrete façade came loose and fell onto the sidewalk on busy Pennsylvania Avenue NW. A contractor was hired to remove loose concrete from the exterior. Construction netting was hung around the upper floors to prevent additional pieces of concrete from crashing to the ground. The total cost of the concrete removal and safety netting installation was $5.9 million. In 2007, an architectural design and planning consultant reported that the cost of these renovations and the disruption to FBI work and staff were not justifiable. The consultant recommended building a new FBI headquarters.

In 2008, a real estate appraisal firm was hired by GSA to further evaluate the J. Edgar Hoover building. The firm rated the construction of the building as average and the condition of the building below average. The consultant also said the Hoover building was inferior in both design and construction in comparison to other office buildings built at the same time. The appraiser also said that even if GSA made all $660 million in identified urgent renovations, the J. Edgar Hoover Building would still not be classified as "Class A" office space.

The onset of the Great Recession forced the FBI to suspend its efforts to build a new headquarters. In 2010, GSA downgraded the Hoover building from a "core asset" (a structure whose useful life is longer than 15 years) to "transition asset" (a structure whose useful life is six to 15 years). In making the downgrade, GSA decided to limit renovations to the building.

In 2011, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) inspection of the Hoover Building revealed additional major deterioration. Water seeping from the interior courtyard had corroded the concrete ceiling of the parking garage below. McMullan & Associates, a structural contractor, reported that the parking garage was "severely deteriorated", and that loose pieces of concrete were in "imminent danger of releasing" from the garage roof. McMullan & Associates called the issue life-threatening, and removed loose concrete to mitigate the problem. GSA also reported that the building basement was prone to flooding when it rained. GAO concluded that the building was "aging" and "deteriorating", that the Hoover Building's original design was inefficient, and that the building could not be easily reconfigured to create new workspace or encourage intra-agency cooperation.

The GAO report also identified major security risks to FBI personnel in the D.C. metropolitan area because of the Hoover building's limitations. The Hoover building is surrounded on all sides by busy city streets which are just a few feet from the structure. Additionally, because the Hoover Building is too small to accommodate the FBI's post-9/11 activities, the agency has leased space in 21 locations throughout the metro area, nine of which are in multi-tenant buildings. The FBI admitted its internal security forces are not stationed at these leased spaces, but merely patrol them periodically.

The Government Accountability Office in November 2011 recommended four options for the J. Edgar Hoover Building:

 * 1) Do nothing.
 * 2) Renovate the Hoover Building over 14 years at a cost of $1.7 billion.
 * 3) Demolish the Hoover Building and rebuild at the same site. This would take nine years and cost $850 million.
 * 4) Build a new headquarters elsewhere. This would take seven years and cost $1.2 billion.

The FBI, in agreeing with the GAO's report, said its highest priority was to abandon the J. Edgar Hoover Building and to construct a new, larger headquarters capable of bringing the FBI's scattered workforce under one roof, improving intra-agency efficiency, and reducing building operational and maintenance costs.

Following on the heels of the GAO report, in December 2011 the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works voted unanimously to authorize and direct the GSA to identify a firm to build a secure rental facility containing up to 2.1 e6sqft on a federally owned site of up to 55 acre within 2 mi of a Washington Metro rail station to accommodate all FBI headquarters staff in the National Capital Region. Under this scheme, the federal government would provide guarantees to help finance the structure, which would then be leased to the federal government for two decades—after which time the government would take ownership of the building. Three suburban counties, Fairfax and Loudoun in Virginia and Prince George's in Maryland, all expressed interest in hosting the new headquarters. In April 2012, the Washington Business Journal speculated that the a new FBI building might be built in a neighborhood of Washington, D.C., in need of revitalization and urban renewal (such as Ward 7 or Ward 8). At that time, GSA's commissioner of the Public Building Service, Bob Peck, said that GSA preferred to sell the Hoover building and its site to a private developer and not specify whether the structure should be maintained or demolished. But the Senate resolution was not adopted by the House of Representatives, and did not become law in the 112th United States Congress. However, on November 29, 2012, the Fairfax Times reported that Fairfax County officials believed Congress would consider this legislation anew in 2013, and the county moved to hire lobbyists to encourage construction of the new FBI headquarters on a government-owned location near the Franconia-Springfield Metro station.

Building swap proposal of 2013
On December 3, 2012, the General Services Administration announced that it would entertain proposals from private-sector developers to swap the J. Edgar Hoover Building for a larger parcel of land outside the city. GSA asked interested developers to offer undeveloped property as well as cash for the Hoover building. GSA Acting Administrator Dan Tangherlini said the agency hoped the cash infusion would enable the FBI to build its new headquarters. A deadline of March 4 was established for proposals. A few weeks later, Montgomery County, Maryland officials said they were soliciting private developers to help them form a bid for the new FBI headquarters as well.

The GSA held an "industry day" on January 17, 2013, to judge interest in the proposal and informally solicit ideas from developers. According to GSA officials, the overflow crowd of 350 people made the event "the largest for any such offering in memory". Patrick G. Findlay, FBI assistant director for facilities and logistics services, said that any new FBI headquarters must be at least 2.1 e6sqft in size, accommodate 11,000 employees, and contain 40 to 55 acres of land. GSA Acting Administrator Dan Tangherlini affirmed that the GSA still believed it would be too costly to renovate the J. Edgar Hoover Building, or to demolish it and rebuild on the same site. Tangherlini also said the GSA would take into consideration the 2011 Senate resolution's requirements that any new FBI headquarters be located within 2 mi of a Metrorail station and no more than 2.5 mi from the Capital Beltway. GSA announced a new deadline of March 24, 2013, for "expressions of interest" and said it was likely to issue a formal request for proposals by the end of 2013.

Before the GSA "industry event" D.C. officials also expressed interest in keeping the FBI headquarters within the city limits. D.C. Mayor Vincent C. Gray said the city would also submit its proposals, and Gray suggested using Poplar Point—a 110 acre parcel of federally owned land bordered by the Anacostia River, South Capitol Street, Interstate 295 (also known as the Anacostia Freeway), and the 11th Street Bridges. Gray said on February 26 that, although it had conducted FBI relocation studies before, a new cost-benefit analysis of moving the FBI headquarters to Poplar Point would be complete in 60 days. The Washington Post reported that Gray and D.C. City Council member Tommy Wells appeared to doubt the value of keeping the FBI in the District. "While politics might demand that the District not bow out of the regional derby entirely," reporter Mike DeBonis said, "a sensible look at the city's future growth might also demand concluding that a high-security government compound is not a wise use of a prime development parcel."

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) also joined the bidding for the new FBI headquarters. WMATA has 78 acre of land near its Greenbelt Metrorail station in Prince George's County. WMATA previously signed an agreement with real estate development company Renard (formerly Metroland Developers) under which the company would develop the empty land (generating property lease income for WMATA). Metro officials proposed amending the agreement to permit Renard and Prince George's County officials to submit the land for consideration by GSA. If the proposal is accepted, Renard would be required to buy the land at market value. Alternatively, Renard could transfer its development rights to Prince George's County, which could then submit a bid. WMATA officials noted that the site is served by Metrorail, and there are 3,700 parking spaces and 17 Metrobus bays at the Greenbelt station. WMATA believed that the federal government would pay to improve Capital Beltway access to (which is currently very limited) and upgrade WMATA facilities at the station (at no cost to the transit agency).

Real estate developer Donald Trump expressed his interest in redeveloping the Hoover building in September 2013. Trump obtained a 60 years lease for the Old Post Office Pavilion across the street in the summer of 2013, and plans to invest $200 million and plans to remodel it in order to convert it into a luxury hotel. Trump estimated that the FBI would not vacate the Hoover Building until 2016.

Formal site selection process
On November 14, 2013, GSA opened a formal process for selecting the site of a new FBI headquarters. The agency said it received 38 informal proposals from area governments and developers, which demonstrated enough interest from viable projects that it should move ahead with a formal relocation. The agency set a deadline of December 17, 2013, for formal proposals, and said it would choose one or more of locations for additional discussion in early 2014. A single location and development partner was likely to be chosen by mid-2014, and a formal agreement signed in 2015.

GSA said its requirements for a new headquarters site included:

 * 50 acre of land, or 2.1 e6sqft of office and parking space.
 * Within 2 mi of a Washington Metro station
 * Within 2.5 mi of the Capital Beltway
 * The site must be within the District of Columbia; Montgomery or Prince George's counties in Maryland; Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, or Prince William counties in Virginia; or the independent cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Herndon, Manassas or Vienna in Virginia.
 * Level V security, the highest standard required by the federal government.
 * Access to public utilities.

Because of their distance from Metrorail and the Beltway, Loudoun and Prince William counties were effectively eliminated from the competition. Victor Hoskins, D.C.'s deputy mayor for planning and economic development, acknowledged that the city's proposed site, Poplar Point, was also eliminated due to the small size and environmental concerns. Several prominent Virginia politicians, including Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, U.S. Representatives Gerry Connolly, Jim Moran, and Frank Wolf, and Governor Terry McAuliffe have come together to lobby for the new site to be built in Springfield after "site-selection guidelines all but eliminated other Northern Virginia locations". The entire Maryland congressional delegation has united to lobby for Prince George's County as the new location.

Environmental impact statement
In July 2014, GSA announced that the FBI headquarters would relocate from downtown Washington to a suburban campus at a site in Greenbelt or Landover in Maryland or in Springfield, Virginia. In early September 2014, GSA issued a notice of I intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed FBI headquarters consolidation and the exchange of the J. Edgar Hoover Building. The notice described the three site alternatives and announced a scoping process that GSA will conduct from September 8 through October 23, 2014. The scoping process is intended to aid in determining the alternatives to be considered and the scope of issues to be addressed, as well as to identify the significant environmental issues that GSA should address during the preparation of a draft EIS. The process includes four open-house type public meetings that GSA will conduct in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., during late September and early October 2014 and opportunities for the submission of written comments.

Recent developments
In January 2016, the GSA issued Phase II of its Request for Proposals for the project.

The University System of Maryland has bolstered the Maryland sites' bids with its National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism proposing a new Maryland Academy for Innovation and National Security that would be a partnership between the FBI and the University of Maryland, Baltimore and the University of Maryland, College Park.

In October 2016, it was announced that the final site selection for the project, among the three finalist sites of Greenbelt, Maryland; Landover, Maryland; and Springfield, Virginia, would be announced by the end of 2016, although this was subsequently delayed to spring 2017. In July 2017, the GSA announced that it would not proceed with the project, citing lack of adequate funding for the property swap and construction.

In October 2018 some members of Congress sent a letter to Emily Murphy, administrator of GSA, attributing the decision to abandon plans to relocate the FBI building to Donald Trump.

In November 2023, the GSA announced that it had selected a site in Greenbelt, Maryland for construction of the new headquarters. However, the following day in an internal message to employees, FBI Director Christopher Wray voiced concerns on the decision due to conflicts of interest in the selection process.

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

title: J. Edgar Hoover Building


text:
Phalaborwa

Phalaborwa (translated to English as better than the south; phala means better than and borwa means south) is a town in the Mopani District Municipality, Limpopo province, South Africa.

Name
The name "Ba-Phalaborwa" was given to the area by the Sotho tribes who moved there from the south. It means "better than the south".

History
The Sotho mined and smelted copper and iron ore there by 400 AD.

Geography
It is located near the confluence of the Ga-Selati River and the Olifants, halfway up along the western border of the Kruger National Park in the Lowveld.

It is the only town in South Africa that borders Kruger National Park. The border with Mozambique is two hours away. Various private game reserves nearly surround Phalaborwa. Hans Merensky Golf Estate is situated on the outskirts.

Nearby natural attractions are Blyde River Canyon, the Three Rondavels, God's Window and Bourke's Luck Potholes; the Tzaneen fruit farms and Hoedspruit game farms can all be visited within a day.

Masorini, near Phalaborwa gate, is a reconstructed Ba-Phalaborwa hill village, with huts, grain storage areas, and an iron smelting site.

Two townships, Namakgale and Lulekani are where the Pedi and Tsonga reside. Rural areas such as Mashishimale, Humulani, Kurhula (Matshama Hi Nkano), Ben Farm (Majeje), Makushane and Ga-Maseke.Ga-selwane.majeje 3 and prieska are there.

Mining
Phalaborwa is home to Palabora Mining. The massive open pit mine, nearly 2,000 meters across, is Africa's widest manmade hole. Founded in 1951, Foskor's Mining Division in Phalaborwa mines phosphate rock (foskorite and pyroxenite), from which Foskor's Acid Division in Richards Bay produces phosphoric acid and phosphate-based granular fertilisers for local and international markets. The opencast mine in Phalaborwa, in South Africa's Limpopo Province, has the capacity to yield 2.6 million tons per annum of phosphate rock concentrate from processing 35 million tons of ore per annum. Once crushed, milled, concentrated and dried, most of the phosphate rock concentrate is railed to Foskor's processing plant in Richards Bay, 800 km away on the country's east coast.

Tourism
Tourism and wildlife play a dominant role in the economy.

Transport
Phalaborwa Airport is a commercial airport serving the town.

Notable people

 * Tshepo Mangena: cricketer
 * Rivoningo Mhlari: businessman
 * Dale Steyn: South African cricketer
 * Daniel Mminele: South African banker and corporate executive
 * Ryan Coetzee: Swimmer who won a bronze medal at the 2018 Commonwealth Games
 * Ethy Mbhalati: Cricketer
 * Alley Moca: Musician
 * Pule Mabe: Politician

Climate
This area is also known as the Valley of the Olifants. Rainfall is low. It has the highest winter temperature in South Africa, with an average winter temperature range from 9 °C to 26 °C.During summer the average temperatures vary from 20 °C to 33 °C with occasional heavy rainfall. The highest recorded temperature was 50 °C in December 2018.

title: Phalaborwa


text:
Neil O'Donnell

Neil Kennedy O'Donnell (born July 3, 1966) is an American former professional football player who was a quarterback in the National Football League (NFL) for 14 seasons. He played college football for the Maryland Terrapins and was selected by the Pittsburgh Steelers in the third round of the 1990 NFL Draft. During his six seasons with the Steelers, O'Donnell received Pro Bowl honors and helped lead them to a Super Bowl appearance in Super Bowl XXX. After leaving Pittsburgh, he was a member of the New York Jets for two seasons and the Cincinnati Bengals for one. O'Donnell spent his last five seasons mostly as a backup with the Tennessee Titans.

Early life
O'Donnell grew up in Madison, New Jersey, and played high school football there at Madison High School. Neil Kennedy O’Donnell was born July 3, 1966, in Morristown, New Jersey. Neil's four older brothers played for local coaching legend Ted Monica and won state championships. Stephen O’Donnell was an All-State quarterback who went on to play for Duke. Coach Monica had retired by the time Neil enrolled at Madison High School, but mentored him throughout much of his young football life. O'Donnell was the star of the Dodgers varsity team as a sophomore and junior, but the team won just three games in those two seasons. During his senior year, as quarterback, O'Donnell led the team to a respectable 4-2-3 season in 1985. Coach Bobby Ross recruited him to the University of Maryland despite lacking the stats and honors of other high school stars.

College career
At the University of Maryland, College Park, O'Donnell redshirted the 1986 season, then played for the Terrapins for three seasons and was the starting quarterback in the 1988 and 1989 seasons. He played under head coach Joe Krivak, who was promoted from quarterback coach after Bobby Ross left the program in 1986. The Krivak era was marked by mediocre results and the O'Donnell years featured an especially tough out-of-conference schedule. The Terps finished 5-6 in 1988 and 3-7-1 in 1989, notably tying Penn State, only the second time Maryland had avoided losing to the Nittany Lions in the series up to that point. The Terps failed to reach a bowl game during O'Donnell's career there. He was backed up by QB Scott Zolak, who pushed O'Donnell for playing time during both of his seasons as a starter. O'Donnell wore #14 for the Terps and for most of his Pro Career. He was awarded the Ray Krouse Award for Maryland team MVP in 1989, and finished his Maryland career with 26 touchdown passes, 3 rushing touchdowns, and 5,069 total yards.

Pittsburgh Steelers
O'Donnell was drafted by the Pittsburgh Steelers with the 70th overall pick in the 1990 NFL draft. After sitting on the bench for his entire rookie season, he started in eight games during 1991 before becoming the team's primary in 1992.

In the 1992 NFL season, O'Donnell threw for 2,283 passing yards, 13 touchdowns, and 9 interceptions, receiving the only Pro Bowl selection of his career. In perhaps his best regular season game of the year, O’Donnell scored three touchdowns (two passing, one rushing) in a 23–6 victory over the San Diego Chargers. The Steelers finished 11-5 and took the AFC Central division title, but lost to the Buffalo Bills 24-3 in a divisional playoff game.

In 1993, he had another great season, throwing for a career-high 3,208 passing yards, 14 touchdowns, and 7 interceptions finishing with a 1.4 interception percentage, the second lowest in his career.

O'Donnell led the Steelers to Super Bowl XXX, but threw two interceptions to Dallas Cowboys cornerback Larry Brown to set up short touchdown drives in the second half. He became a free agent at the end of the season.

New York Jets
The Steelers made an offer to O'Donnell, however on February 29, 1996, he signed a 5-year $25 million contract with the New York Jets that was both more money than Pittsburgh but also close to his home in Madison, New Jersey. He went 0–6 in his first season as starter before suffering a season-ending shoulder injury, despite throwing for 292 or more yards in three of these starts. His performance improved the following season under new coach Bill Parcells the following year. He eventually fell out of favor with Parcells and lost his starting job to Glenn Foley. O'Donnell refused to re-negotiate his contract, which paid him $6.65M for the upcoming season, Parcells chose to waive O'Donnell. He stated later that he had no regrets, stating, "It was exciting, but the change was hard, I'll be honest with you. I mean the locker room change, the environment change. We were at Hofstra [University on Long Island], which was horrible. I never thought it would affect me, but every game was an away game. That's how it felt. It was a constant battle even to get to a so-called home game at Giants Stadium."

Cincinnati Bengals
On July 7, 1998, O'Donnell signed a 4-year $17M contract with the Cincinnati Bengals. In the 1998 NFL season, with the then-1–3 Bengals, O'Donnell threw a 25-yard touchdown pass to Carl Pickens with 20 seconds remaining to score the winning touchdown against 3–1 Pittsburgh. O'Donnell's 90.2 passer rating was sixth among regular starting quarterbacks in the NFL and third in the AFC. However, due to a struggling defense, the Bengals went on to finish 3–13. O'Donnell was released at the end of the season to make room for rookie quarterback Akili Smith.

Tennessee Titans
On July 24, 1999, O'Donnell signed a multi-year contract with the Tennessee Titans, where he served as Steve McNair's backup. He performed well, winning four of his five starts for an injured McNair in 1999, leaving a perennial .500 team at 5–1 upon McNair's return. Later, O'Donnell came off the bench and led Tennessee to a 47–36 victory over Pittsburgh in Week 17 en route to the AFC Championship and Super Bowl XXXIV, in which he was not an active participant.

O'Donnell retired after the 2002 season, but was talked into coming back for one game in December 2003 when McNair and Billy Volek were injured. He started in the regular season finale and delivered a strong performance, completing 18 of 27 passes for 232 yards and two touchdowns, leading the Titans to a 33–13 victory over the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

O'Donnell ended his career with the lowest interception percentage in NFL history, averaging just 2.11 interceptions for every 100 pass attempts. Aaron Rodgers has since eclipsed the record (1.46 interception percentage through the 2018–19 season). O'Donnell also wore number 14 during most of his career except during his one-year stint with the Bengals, where he wore number 12. The Bengals did not issue number 14 after the retirement of former quarterback and West Coast offense pioneer Ken Anderson in 1986 until Andy Dalton started wearing number 14 for the Bengals in 2011.

Post-football career
O'Donnell permanently retired after the 2003 season. In 2004, he declined head coach Bill Cowher's offer to return to the Steelers after starting quarterback Tommy Maddox and backup quarterback Charlie Batch both sustained injuries.

O'Donnell found work as a sports analyst, primarily covering the Titans at WTVF, Nashville's CBS affiliate (2005–2007). He is currently a sales representative for FieldTurf in Kentucky and Tennessee.

title: Neil O'Donnell


text:
Talk:Droid (Star Wars)

This is not a general Droid article
This article is not about droids in general, this is about Star Wars Droids, in particular, C-3PO and R2D2. -- Joecool94 11:41 PM, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree - this is what struck me when I read the opening paragraphs to this article, which I expected to be about "intelligent" robots in general. From the text, it appears that the word originated from a contraction of "android", which first appeared in a Star Wars novel.  I move that this article be generalised more, as I think the word has entered common usage. Leevclarke (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

 * This independent article should stay because of the extensive advertising of the Verizon Droid smart phone and the citing of Lucasfilm's ownership of the word at the end of each of these commercials. In my opinion, the article should transform to address this interesting ambiguity more directly. Simkiott (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation Message
Has anyone else noticed the current disambiguation message is humorously similar to the often quoted, "these are not the droids you're looking for" line from the movie? Was this intentional, and if so does it break the "serious" theme that Wikipedia has come to be known for? Just a thought. --Aethumus 08:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be surprised if it was unintentional. I wouldn't change it because it does make sense. --Lyght 23:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I put back the older message back. Not the "go about your business" one, but the one this article had before it. It's still encyclopedic and factual, and it was the accepted one for a long time. If you disagree, please feel free to remove it.72.51.179.30 21:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"Not the droids you are looking for"
This -and variations of it - is a famous and widespread catch-phrase. That should be mentioned somewhere. Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Behaivour
"They exhibit human-like behaviour, however, e. g. react emotionally, think intelligently and self-reflective, and require sleep"- Do droids really need sleep? While they enter sleep mode, like R2 did in Episode 4, I never heard it was a requirement-just a way to save power when there was nothing better to do. Furthermore, lot's of them aren't that intelligent or emotional, or even sentient. -LtNOWIS 17:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I changed it say that some droids exhibit human-like behavior. I also removed the part about requiring sleep since I agree that it's not true. If someone else has a source for saying it's required, they can add it back in (of course, unless they state their source, it will probably be removed again). --Aidje 17:11, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

 * Wow. I just realized that my changes never got saved. *smacks forehead* I guess I'll go do it now. --Aidje 15:59, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

 * Do they eat?79.76.244.22 (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page Now Needed
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-10384994-266.html (October 28, 2009) reports: "Verizon Wireless customers will soon be able to get their hands on the much anticipated Google Android phone called the Droid."

Trademarking
Anyone know if the word "droid" is trademarked by Lucas? I heard it was in the case of the "Droids" TV show back in the 80's, but since the word is a take off of Asimov's "android" and that word is freely used, can "droid" be used in the same fashon without permission from Lucasfilm? --Cyberia23 16:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See the section titled "Disambiguation Page Now Needed" above

 * A trademark search in the US shows that there are some live trademark claims by Lucasfilm LTD:,  ("toys, games and playthings, namely, skateboards")  ("Toys, games and playthings, namely, hand held units for playing electronic games; skateboards; toy action figures and accessories; construction toys; toy building blocks and connecting links for the same.")  ("Providing news and information programming in the field of edutainment, and entertainment relating to motion picture films, and to science fiction via a global computer network and other electronic networks. ),  ("Entertainment services, namely, providing audiovisual entertainment in the field of edutainment and entertainment via global computer networks; providing audiovisual entertainment in the field of science fiction via a global computer information network or other electronic computer networks; providing news and information in the field of education and entertainment relating to science fiction topics via global computer networks and other electronic networks; providing news and information in the field of education and entertainment relating to motion picture films via global computer networks."),  ("computer peripherals; interactive entertainment software and CD-ROMs featuring science fiction."), http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=k418l1.2.5 ("toy action figures and related accessories.")

 * As well as some dead/abonded claims including ("housewares, namely, mugs, plates, bowls, lunch boxes, lunch pails, vacuum flasks, thermal insulated containers for food and beverage, drinking glasses and cups, paper cups, plastic cups, paper plates, paper bowls, hair combs, hair brushes, electronic and non-electronic toothbrushes, non-metal decorative boxes, serving trays not of precious metal, decanters, pitchers, figures, figurines, sculptures, and statuettes made of terra cotta, earthenware, glass, porcelain, resin, crystal and china, wastepaper baskets, soap dishes, toothbrush holders, china ornaments, wind chimes, plastic coasters, cocktail picks, comb cases, commemorative plates, cookie cutters, cosmetic brushes, corkscrews, soap dishes, dispensers for liquid soap, drinking flasks, toothpick holders, pepper mills, pastry molds, pudding molds, powder puffs, salt shakers, and all purpose portable household containers; back scratchers; cookie jars; drinking steins; shot glasses; sports bottles sold empty; non-metal coin banks; children's dinnerware; candlesticks not of precious metal; coffee service not of precious metal, flasks")

 * I'm no lawyer, but I believe you'd be safe using "droid" or "droids" within fiction, but you might be weary of using it as your book's title.—Pengo 00:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that on all the commercials there is fine print at the end noting that "Droid" is a trademark of Lucas Films, so I would put that up there.DonConquistador (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The citation link given in the article for the trademark status of the term "droid" is a link to thefreedictionary.com, which itself references a now dead page  (results in a 404-style page served up by the domain). Therefore, I am marking that section of the article with a "Citation needed", and will remove the link. I think thefreedictionary.com is a questionable source for a Wikipedia article, at any rate; a claim like this needs a little more support IMHO. 151.151.16.8 (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I'll leave the link but still add the citation needed markup. Someone else should take another look at this. 151.151.16.8 (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As there is precedence in 80's film Robocop, ED-209 being referenced as being short from "Enforcement Droid", you probably are safe. -J — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.67.7.132 (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism?
the changes on 16 December appear to be vandalism, most likely accidental, if there is no objection I will remove it after seven days time. I have sent a message to the user asking them to clarify or remove the edit.--Kent Witham 04:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

 * unable to find user as it seemed to be an anonymous edit. Therefore I justremoved it, if the original editor would like to add what they were attemting to add they could certainly do so.--Kent Witham 04:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:A new hope 2.jpg
Image:A new hope 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced bizarre comment
"A philosophy held by many fans of the original Star Wars Episode IV is that a droid by definition is a servant robot completely devoted to its sentient master; any robot not so devoted was simply a robot." I have been a fan of the original Star Wars for 30 years, and this is the first time I have ever heard of this. This is not a "a philosophy held by many fans". -- 76.104.46.56 (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

R2-D2 is not a Droid
"Droid" is an abbreviation of "Android", which literally means "like a man". This term can only be applied to humanoid robots, and R2-D2 clearly does not fit that definition. Regardless of the terminology Lucas mistakenly used, it is simply a fact that the term "android" does not apply to R2-D2. Since this is an encyclopedic website, I feel that the information should be accurate. SpACatta (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it not correct that "droid" as used by Star Wars is an invention of the work in the sense that the audience is expected to assume this is an idiomatism unique to the SW universe, like BSG's frak? If so then in fact the term "droid" applies precisely because Lucas chose to use it, regardless of what etymology you may propose. "Droid" is first and foremost the name SW gives to robots, and R2-D2 is referred to by it as a(n astromech) droid, numerous times.--Ar-Pharazôn (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. While R2 doesn't LOOK like a man, he certainly acts like one. He gets pissed off, he whines, he screams when shocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.139.1.68 (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * "Android" refers to the body, i.e. Asimo and C3PO are androids, R2D2 is not. "Droid" in the Star Wars context just means "robot", but sounds cooler/more scifi. 79.232.82.116 (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Should not be the default result for "Droid"
Although it is most likely that previously any queries regarding "droid" would pertain to Star Wars, with the introduction of Motorola's eponymous (is this the right prefix by the way?) phone this is bound to change. Usage of "droid" is not prevalent in science fiction (although it has been used in certain prevalent science fiction) and is usually self explanatory. I think the majority of people entering "droid" in the search field nowadays are expecting to (or possibly will expect to in the near future) arrive at the article regarding the phone.

The phone article is also more complete.

I'm not sure what exactly wikipedia policies regarding this are, but it seems logical to have "droid" redirect to either "Motorola Droid" or "Droid (disambiguation)". Thoughts/comments/objections? --Ar-Pharazôn (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but eponymous isn't a prefix at all let alone the right one. 129.139.1.68 (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Why yes. ep- is the prefix, obviously. ;-) --Ar-Pharazôn (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

1977 star wars info
I added:

 * The use of the circumcised android to droid, originated in the first of the Star Wars series of movies back in 1977.

98.231.142.70 (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

 * "Circumcised"? I've changed it to the technical term 'clipping'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.21.15 (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Link to Android operating system article
The context of the link clearly indicates that it is speaking about the Android operating system. However, the word "Android", in this context, is a hyperlink to the robotics article "Android", not the Operating system. Can this be fixed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.102.154 (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved page to Droid (robot), redirected "Droid" to disambiguation
Sorry if I did this all wrong, but I copied all the article and discussion to a newly created "Droid (robot)" article, then turned the original article into a redirect to the disambiguation. Now some bots think this article is a duplicate. Guess there's a better way to go about this, but either way it seems to work fine. There's no way searching for "droid" should take you directly to a Star Wars page now that it has become such a commonly used term, especially relating to phones using the Android operating system.Rob Hingle (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems like Droid (Star Wars) would be the most appropriate title. ―cobaltcigs 07:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Image
, I'm not understanding your edit summary, what is it you think is more appropriate about this image? The primary droid shown is (as far as I can tell) an abstract version of a Star Wars droid. This article is about the franchise, so representative images should be of replicas that illustrate what the article is talking about. The other image has not only a canon-looking R2-D2, but also an R5-D4 in the foreground.— TAnthonyTalk 16:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The image I inserted is not used anywhere else and gives a better view of another droid not commonly seen in the films. It's also good to use new images rather than recycle old ones. The droid in the image you put is already clearly seen in Episode IV--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

 * This image is not, to my knowledge, in use anywhere else in Wikipedia. Are you saying the the white and orange droid in the image (known as R5-D4) is pictured in another article? I do not see it illustrated in the Episode IV article. In any case, the point I was trying to make is that (though I'm no droid expert LOL}, I do not recognize the blue R4 droid in the foreground of your image from a film. I know it is "incomplete" in that you can see the guts, but as far as I can tell the R4s in the films have been other colors but not dark blue, and the only blue one is in Star Tours (though that's a lighter blue). I see some dark blue R4s as toys but I haven't seen a designation or attribution to a film. I think I'd rather use droids from canon works before we go into derivative ones. Also, I don't 100% agree with your suggestion that we should always use "new images", we should use the best available image to illustrate a topic within an article. If that happens to be one used elsewhere, so be it. Images are readily available online for those seeking to find them, our goal is not to provide a varied repository of images of a topic. That said, once we identify your droid, I don't see why we can't have gallery of available Commons images of droids in the article.— TAnthonyTalk 22:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

, you are correct that it's not useful but the quality. Both droids are already seen in the movie in Episode IV and I thought showing a new droid from the expanded universe improves the quality. However (oh that word!) if you insist that's no good, I'll compromise for third image that should be acceptable to the both of us. Oh and on the subject of however, are you up for improving Technology in Star Wars? I'm pretty much done with the article on the long term. I will add more details when The Force Awakens comes out on netflix so I can watch again and enter more details of the technology from that film into the article, otherwise nobody's in your way.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Which one of these videos should we use?
. The second video has star wars droids in them, fully active.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Droid (robot). 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/20081023174856/http://www.starwars.com:80/databank/droid/fourlom/ to http://www.starwars.com/databank/4-lom

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

— TAnthonyTalk 04:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 19:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Droid (robot) → Droid (Star Wars) – Per WP:CONSISTENCY with all other Star Wars related articles that all use "Star Wars" for disambiguation. Gonnym (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Supoort on top of the previously mentioned reasons the current name gives the impression that is a general article anout a type of real life robot not fictional robots from a single film franchise.--76.65.40.44 (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom; I've added a hatnote that I hope is helpful. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 16:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Original disambiguation may have to be deleted as confusing rather than retained as a redirect.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Like the others, I'd argue the current disambiguation is misleading. 'Droid' does have a heavy association with Star Wars, and Lucasfilm have a trademark on it, but it's not the only instance of droid being used to refer to robots or as a shortening of android; clarifying the page with '(robot)' points the reader in the wrong way. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 00:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * SWCA - From Droid Builder's Club Room (17015328980)-Cropped.jpg

Orphaned references in Droid (Star Wars)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Droid (Star Wars)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "recycledstarwars": From List of Star Wars Rebels characters:  From List of Star Wars characters:

Reference named "TNY": From List of Star Wars characters:  From Rogue One:  From Jyn Erso:  </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

copyright violations?
https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Droid+%28Star+Wars%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs)

 * Looks more like a copy-and-paste by the cited site rather than the other way around. --EEMIV (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It even days it's reusing Wikipedia material on the page. oknazevad (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Droid (Star Wars)


text:
Bhagavad-Gītā As It Is

The  is a translation and commentary of the Bhagavad Gita by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, founder of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), commonly known as the Hare Krishna movement. This translation of Bhagavad Gita emphasizes a path of devotion toward the personal God, Krishna. It was first published in 1968 in English by Macmillan Publishers, and is now available in nearly sixty languages. It is primarily promoted and distributed by members of ISKCON.

Contents
For each verse, the book (in complete editions) includes the Devanagari script, a Latin transliteration, word-for-word Sanskrit-English meanings, and English translation. An extensive commentary by Prabhupada is given throughout, based on various Gaudiya Vaishnava works, including: Ramanuja Bhasya (in Sanskrit); Sarartha-varsini-tika (Sanskrit) by Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakura; Gita-bhusana-tika (Sanskrit) by Baladeva Vidyabhushana; and Bhaktivinode Thakur's Bengali commentaries.

The narrative in the concerns a dialogue between Lord Krishna and a mighty warrior named Arjuna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra. In the narrative, Krishna has descended to earth to aid Arjuna in his battle against Kauravas and their army. Krishna assumes the role of Arjuna's chariot driver and aids him in the battle and reveals to Arjuna several divine truths about human existence in the material plane, the true nature of the supreme personality of God, and the method of eternal progression and release from the earthly cycles of death and rebirth through the practice of bhakti yoga. The narrative teaches that achieving Krishna consciousness and attaining the inner realization that all life is a manifestation of the eternal energy of Krishna will release an individual soul from the cycles of reincarnation (death and rebirth). The narrative culminates with Krishna revealing to Arjuna his universal form which encompasses all life and material existence. One notable event in the narrative is when Arjuna gazes at the opposing army and sees his relatives fighting for the opposing army, he is filled with grief and remorse that he must kill his own flesh and blood. In reply, Krishna reveals his true form to Arjuna and tells him that it does not matter if his relatives die in the battle today because they will eventually die anyway, and that Arjuna's duty to the supreme lord and his own self-realization transcends his material attachments to his relatives. The central message of the text is that nothing ever truly dies and that all life is in a continual cycle of death and rebirth, and that one has a duty to the process of self-realization and progression in order to manifest the supreme personality of God and achieve Krishna Consciousness, thereby escaping the eternal cycles of death and rebirth.

The book advocates the path of bhakti toward Krishna, who is seen as the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself. It establishes that Krishna is not an incarnation, but the cause of all causes and source of all incarnations. He is even the cause of Vishnu. It teaches the loving service of the transcendental personality of the Lord.

is written in the tradition of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, whose followers regard the Bhagavad Gita as the essence of the Vedic knowledge and the Upanishads, and consider the book authoritative and literally true.

Some abridged editions of the Gita come with prefaces by the poet Allen Ginsberg and the theologian Thomas Merton. The 1972 Macmillan "Complete Edition" includes a foreword by Professor Edward C. Dimock, Jr. from the University of Chicago.

Substance
suggests a way of life for the contemporary Western world, and is derived from the Manu Smriti and other books of Hindu religious and social law. In this way of life, ideal human society is described as being divided into four varnas (brahmana – intellectuals, kshatriya – administrators, vaishya – merchants, shudra – workers). Within his writings, Prabhupada supports the view that one becomes a member of one of the varnas, not by one's birth (lineage), but by one's personal qualities and the type of work (karma) one actually performs (BG 4.13). Society is described as best ruled by a benevolent kshatriya sovereign, who is to govern according to rules set by scriptural tradition and preserved by self-controlled and pure-hearted spiritual leaders (brahmanas). The kshatriya sovereign (like courts in many democratic states) may also order capital punishment.

Brahmanas, elders, women, children and cows are said to deserve special protection, with animals, especially cows, being preserved from slaughter at all costs. Prabhupada encouraged readers to adopt a lacto-vegetarian diet and gives agriculture as the ideal economic basis of society. Prabhupada concluded that the society should be "Krishna conscious"—enlightened by devotion (bhakti) to Krishna (God).

Edition history
A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the author, arrived in the United States in 1965. In 1966, he had founded the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) in a storefront at 26 2nd. Ave, New York City. At that time, he was very anxious to publish his Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Macmillan Publishers agreed to publish a 400-page version in 1968, but the original manuscript was over 1000 pages, so the first Macmillan edition was known as the "Abridged Edition".

By 1972, the "Abridged Edition" sales were substantial, and Macmillan agreed to publish the "Complete Edition".

After Srila Prabhupada had passed away in 1977, the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT) published in 1983 a "Revised and Enlarged" posthumous edition containing at least one thousand substantial changes. The changes were justified as being "closer to the original manuscript". This edition has been very controversial among the followers of Srila Prabhupada.

In 2001, Krishna Books Inc (KBI), who are licensed by the BBT, reprinted the 1972 "Complete Edition", so now both the "Complete" and "Revised and Enlarged" editions are available.

Distribution
Prabhupada's translation is sold outside India due to the efforts of Hare Krishna members on the streets, in airports, and in other public places. The book also enjoys brisk sales within India. It has been published in fifty-nine languages, including French, German, Danish, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese, Italian, Swedish, Russian, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Latvian, Ukrainian, Macedonian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Georgian, Croatian, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, Hebrew, Persian, Nepali, Hindi, Bengali, Assamese, Gujarati, Kannada, Marathi, Malayalam, Odia, Tamil, and Telugu.

Trial
In June 2011, a group linked to the Russian Orthodox Church had demanded a ban owing to an alleged "conflict of interests" between the Russian followers of Krishna and local authorities in the Siberian region of Tomsk. The case was dismissed by a federal judge on 28 December 2011.

Russian ambassador Alexander Kadakin condemned the "madmen" seeking the ban, underlining that Russia was a secular country: Russia is a secular and democratic country where all religions enjoy equal respect... Even more applicable it is to the holy scriptures of various faiths -- whether it is the Bible, the Holy Quran, Torah, Avesta and, of course, Bhagavad Gita -- the great source of wisdom for the people of India and the world. About 15,000 Indians in Moscow and followers of ISKCON in Russia asked the Indian government to intervene to resolve the issue. The move triggered strong protests by Members of Parliament as they wanted the Indian Government to take up the matter strongly with Russia. The final hearing in the Tomsk district court was then scheduled on 28 December, with the court agreeing to seek the opinion of the Russian Ombudsman on human rights in the Tomsk region as well as Indologists from Moscow and St Petersburg. The prosecutor's office filed an appeal against the judge's ruling, but on March 21, 2012, the appeal court upheld the decision of the lower court, rejecting the prosecutor's petition.

title: Bhagavad-Gītā As It Is


text:
HMS Minerva (1895)

HMS Minerva was an Eclipse-class cruiser protected cruiser built for the Royal Navy in the mid-1890s.

Construction and operational history
The ship was laid down at Chatham Dockyard, Kent, on 4 December 1893, and was floated out on 23 September 1895.

Pre-1914
HMS Minerva served in the Channel Squadron after her launch. She again served in the Channel Squadron from March 1901, including as guard ship at Cowes in early 1902. . At the 1901 Census of England and Wales she was recorded as being at Gibraltar with the Training Squadron. She was used in the spring of 1902 for a series of trials to compare her cylindrical boilers with the Belleville boilers of HMS Hyacinth, with the performance of the boilers being compared at various powers in tests in the English Channel, followed by long sea runs to the Mediterranean Sea and back. While the Belleville water-tube boilers of Hyacinth proved to be more efficient than Minervas cylindrical boilers, and lighter, but on the long runs to and from the Mediterranean, Hyacinths boilers proved prone to leaks, and suffered a burst boiler tube. The results of these and similar trials led to the use of Belleville boilers in new construction to be stopped.

She took part in the fleet review held at Spithead on 16 August 1902 for the coronation of King Edward VII, and visited the Aegean Sea with other ships of the Channel squadron and Mediterranean Fleet for combined manoeuvres in September and early October 1902, returning to Chatham on 20 October. Captain Doveton Sturdee was appointed in command on 17 October 1902.

The ship was present at the relief operations in Sicily after the great earthquake and tsunami in the Strait of Messina, 28 December 1908. The crew qualified for the Medal of Merit for Participation in the Relief of the Earthquake in Calabria and Sicily, instituted by the King of Italy Vittorio Emanuele III.

Minerva transferred from the Mediterranean to the United Kingdom in 1912, taking part in the rescue attempts when the submarine HMS B2 was sunk in a collision in October 1912.

First World War
On the outbreak of the First World War in August 1914, Minerva was part of the 11th Cruiser Squadron based in Ireland, but was detached to join the 5th Cruiser Squadron in September, with the responsibility of intercepting enemy merchant shipping trying to return to Germany or Austria. During these operations it captured and scuttled the Austrian merchant ship Bathori off Vigo, in North-West Spain on 3 September 1914.

Minerva escorted a troop convoy from Britain to Egypt in November 1914, and formed part of the Allied naval forces supporting the Gallipoli Campaign. When the Turkish torpedo-boat Demirhisar attempted to attack Allied troop ships near Chios on 16 April 1915, Minerva, together with the destroyers Jed, Kennet and Wear, forced Demirhisar to run aground, where the Turkish torpedo boat was later destroyed. Minerva supported the landing at Cape Helles in April and at Suvla Bay in August.

Minerva was deployed to the China Station in 1916, and then to the Indian Ocean and Red Sea in 1917, then remaining off East Africa until the end of the war. She returned to Queenstown, Ireland in 1920, and was sold for scrapping on 5 October 1920.

title: HMS Minerva (1895)


text: Category:Nazi propagandists

title: Category:Nazi propagandists


text:
Eastern Yar

The River Yar on the Isle of Wight, England, rises in a chalk coomb in St. Catherine's Down near Niton, close to the southern tip of the island. It flows across the Lower Cretaceous rocks of the eastern side of the island, through the gap in the central Upper Cretaceous chalk ridge of the Island at Yarbridge, then across the now drained Brading Haven to Bembridge Harbour in the northeast.

For most of its course, the river passes through rural areas. At Alverstone, a small weir uses water from the river to power a water mill.

The Yar is one of two rivers on the Isle of Wight with the same name. It is referred to as the Eastern Yar if it is necessary to distinguish between them with the other river being known as the Western Yar.

title: Eastern Yar


text:
Vera Cruz (film)

Vera Cruz is a 1954 American Western film directed by Robert Aldrich and starring Gary Cooper and Burt Lancaster, featuring Denise Darcel, Sara Montiel, Cesar Romero, Ernest Borgnine, Charles Bronson and Jack Elam. Set during the Franco-Mexican War, the film centers on a group of American mercenaries tasked with transporting a large shipment of Imperial gold to the port of Veracruz, but begin to have second thoughts about their allegiances. It was produced by Hecht-Lancaster Productions and released by United Artists on 25 December 1954.

The picture's amoral characters and cynical attitude towards violence (including a scene where Lancaster's character threatens to murder child hostages) were considered shocking at the time and influenced future Westerns such as The Magnificent Seven (1960), The Professionals (1966), Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch (1969), and the Spaghetti Western films of Sergio Leone, which often featured supporting cast members from Vera Cruz in similar roles. Its influence on Leone's work led some critics to label it "the proto-Spaghetti Western."

Plot
During the Franco-Mexican War, ex-Confederate soldier Ben Trane travels to Mexico seeking a job as a mercenary. He falls in with Joe Erin, a younger gunslinger who heads a gang of cutthroats. They are recruited by Marquis Henri de Labordere for service with Emperor Maximilian. Maximilian offers them $25,000 to escort the Countess Duvarre to the city of Veracruz. Trane gets the emperor to double the offer.

During a river crossing, Trane notices that the stagecoach in which the countess is traveling is extremely heavy. Erin and Trane later discover that hidden inside are six cases of gold coins. The countess informs them that it is worth $3 million which is intended to pay for reinforcements from Europe. They form an uneasy alliance to steal and split the gold. Unbeknownst to them, the marquis is listening from the shadows.

The Juaristas, led by General Ramírez, attack the column several times. Pickpocket and Juarista undercover agent Nina joins the convoy. When Trane, Erin and their men are surrounded by the Juaristas, Trane persuades Ramirez to join forces and agree to pay them $100,000. The marquis succeeds in getting the gold to Veracruz. In the Juarista attack, the French are defeated, but most of Erin's men are killed. Erin attempts to steal the gold for himself by getting the countess to reveal the location of the ship she had hired to transport it. He even kills one of his own men. However, Trane arrives in time to confront him. They face off in a showdown that ends in Erin's death. Trane and Nina leave, while women search the dead for their loved ones.

Production
Burt Lancaster and Harold Hecht had just signed a contract with United Artists to make two films, starting with Apache, also directed by Robert Aldrich. Just before filming on that movie began in October 1953, Lancaster announced their second film would be Vera Cruz with himself and Gary Cooper, based on a story by Borden Chase.

In December 1953, after Apache finished filming, Lancaster announced Aldrich would direct Vera Cruz.

United Artists were so happy with Apache they changed the two-picture deal with Hecht and Lancaster into a two-year deal covering seven films.

Casting
Before taking the role of Ben Trane, Gary Cooper was advised by Clark Gable not to work with Burt Lancaster, fearing the younger actor would upstage him.

Mari Blanchard was meant to play the female lead and Hecht signed to borrow her from Universal. However, there was a clause forbidding her to appear on television which Hecht disagreed with. Instead they cast Denise Darcel. Mamie Van Doren claimed in her autobiography Playing the Field that Lancaster interviewed her for the role of the Countess, but she lost the part after refusing to sleep with him.

Charles Bronson was billed under his real name, 'Charles Buchinsky', in the film. This would mark the last time he would be credited that way, before he adopted his more well-known stage name.

Shooting
Filming started in February 1954. Vera Cruz was the first American film production to be shot entirely in Mexico. Though set in the city of Veracruz, the majority of the film was actually shot in and around Cuernavaca. Exterior shots were filmed at Chapultepec Castle in Mexico City, the ruins of Teotihuacan, and the climax was shot at Molino de Flores Nezahualcóyotl National Park in Texcoco de Mora. The interiors were filmed at Estudios Churubusco.

Vera Cruz was also the first production to use the SuperScope widescreen process, which was designed to achieve anamorphic prints from standard flat 35mm negatives. Shot at a conventional 1.37:1 aspect ratio, the film was cropped to 2:1 in post-production, given a CinemaScope-compatible (2x) squeeze, and blown up to normal frame height.

Aldrich and Lancaster got along well on Apache but as to Vera Cruz, the director said "we probably had a less amicable relationship than we anticipated. This was because Burt, until he directed The Kentuckian, thought he was going to be a director and when you're directing your first great big picture you don't welcome somebody else on hand with directorial notions. There were a few differences of opinion about concepts and about action." Lancaster recalled that Cooper demanded rewrites to his character to make him less morally-gray and more conventionally heroic.

According to Eli Wallach, the Mexican authorities were appalled at the unflattering depiction of their country, so any subsequent Hollywood productions (including The Magnificent Seven) were thoroughly overseen by state censors.

Reception
The film earned an estimated $5 million at the North American box office during its first run and $9 million overall.

In 1963, Aldrich announced he was working on a sequel There Really Was a Gold Mine but it was never made.

Legacy
Critic and historian Dave Kehr would later cite Vera Cruz as one of the most influential films of the 1950s, inspiring later Westerns by such directors as Sam Peckinpah and especially Sergio Leone. Kehr also praised Cooper and Lancaster's performances in the film, writing that "the generational transition from an aging star to his up-and-coming replacement has seldom been handled with better humor or more biting wit."

Home media
Vera Cruz was released to DVD by MGM Home Video on March 20, 2001, and to Blu-Ray on June 7, 2011. Kino Lorber re-released the film on Blu-ray on October 12, 2021.

title: Vera Cruz (film)


text: Category:Municipalities of Limburg (Belgium)


text:
Category:Propagandists

This category is for people with articles who are described by Reliable sources as being associated with propaganda promoted by a cause, ideology, party or state. This may include presenters or hosts on a broadcast network, artists, writers, film directors, and others who have engaged in propaganda or worked for organizations which Reliable sources describe as propaganda organizations.

title: Category:Propagandists


text:
Sega Classics Arcade Collection

Sega Classics Arcade Collection is the name of two compilations released for the Sega CD. Despite their titles, both versions of Sega Classics Arcade Collection include only the Sega Genesis ports of all the games included.

Sega Classics Arcade Collection 4-in-1
Released in 1992, the 4-in-1 version of Sega Classics was sold with the Sega Multi-Mega/CDX, and retailed at $59.99. In some instances it was also bundled with the Sega CD version of Sherlock Holmes: Consulting Detective and with the Sega CD itself.

Games:
 * Columns (1990)
 * Golden Axe (1989)
 * The Revenge of Shinobi (1989)
 * Streets of Rage (1991)

The version of Revenge of Shinobi included in this collection is software revision 1.02, including only the Spider-Man boss-fight, with Godzilla and Batman replaced with substitute enemies.

Golden Axe is the only game in the collection that has external CD audio (aside from Columns but only the title screen track uses CD audio) and it uses the arcade version's soundtrack. However, it is heavily based on the Mega Drive port with the voices changed to higher quality voices (none of them, besides the townspeople screaming in Turtle Village, are from the Genesis or Arcade version).

In the Japanese version, Streets of Rage goes by its western name rather than its Japanese name Bare Knuckle. Streets of Rage is generally the same as the Genesis version aside from the voices, which are CD quality enhanced.

Sega Classics Arcade Collection 5-in-1
It was only sold as a pack-in game with the Sega CD, the collection added Super Monaco GP but was otherwise identical, including the version of Revenge of Shinobi included. In Europe, where only this version was released, the compilation was re-titled as Sega Classics Arcade Collection Limited Edition.

Games:
 * Columns (1990)
 * Golden Axe (1989)
 * Revenge of Shinobi (1989)
 * Streets of Rage (1991)
 * Super Monaco GP (1989)

Reception
Sega Force's reviewers felt that the compilation would only be a good purchase for players who had not played the games, with one suggesting that Sega retry with better titles.

title: Sega Classics Arcade Collection


text:
National Autistic Society

The National Autistic Society is a charity for autistic people and their families in the United Kingdom. Since 1962, the National Autistic Society has been providing support, guidance and advice, as well as campaigning for improved rights, services and opportunities to help create a society that works for autistic people.

The National Autistic Society is funded through UK government grants and voluntary contributions. The Chief Executive as of 2024 is Caroline Stevens. She took over from Mark Lever in 2019, after being Chief Executive at Kids for six years.

History
The organisation was founded on 23 January 1962 as the Society for Psychotic Children by parents of autistic children living in the area, with the assistance of a member from the Spastics Society (later Scope). Its origins were as a self-help group involving both parents and professionals. It was renamed the Society for Autistic Children later that year, the National Society for Autistic Children in 1966, and the National Autistic Society in 1975.

In 1963, Gerald Gasson, a parent and member of the executive committee, designed the primary symbol for autism: a puzzle piece with a picture of a crying child inside of it, which was first used as logo by the NAS itself. In 1965, The Society School for Autistic Children was established, later renamed as the Sybil Elgar School after their first principal. It was described as "the first of its kind in the UK, and, it is thought, the world", and quickly became an example for how autistic people should be taught, and influenced the TEACCH methods in the US.

Activities
The National Autistic society is a member of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Autism. It is also a founding member of Autism-Europe.

Organisation
Over 3,000 people work for the National Autistic Society in schools and services as well as training, fundraising, policy and campaigns teams. Its president is Jane Asher and the patron is the Duchess of Edinburgh.

Present schools and facilities
The National Autistic Society manages a number of schools in the United Kingdom: The National Autistic Society also runs services for autistic adults.

Past schools and facilities
The National Autistic Society had also managed 3 former schools that no longer existed since the changes of the NAS logos.

Liberty Academy Trust schools and former NAS facilities
Academies that have left the National Autistic Society after 10 years or under, and since between 2022 and 2023 are now under the Liberty Academy Trust.

title: National Autistic Society


text: Category:1928 songs

title: Category:1928 songs


text:
User:PaulP~enwiki

I'm a retired computer geek, living in beautiful St. Mary's county, Maryland. I discovered Wikipedia recently, and started by looking up one of my passions, dog obedience training. To my delight, I discovered that information was needed that I could provide.

I'm also a volunteer Court Appointed Special Advocate working with abused and neglected children in the foster care system. I am planning an article on this for Wikipedia.

title: User:PaulP~enwiki


text:
User talk:Nytannon

Hi, welcome to wikipedia. Are you sure that the stuff you're adding to Invisible Man shouldn't be in The Invisible Man instead? They're about entirely different books. -- John Fader 17:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nytannon