text:
Talk:Doodle

Doodling as a form of communication
When my boss communicates one of his ideas to me using drawings, are't those called doodles, too? If so, it should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.223.104.216 (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I concur. Bejamin1992 (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Portuguese Language
Please, include the Portuguese language in this page: [pt:Doodle] --Phillipe Israel (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Southern usage
In the movie Driving Miss Daisy, Miss Daisy's son says at one early point, "You're a doodle, mama." I assume that this is southern slang of some kind, but I have no idea what the meaning is. Also, perhaps relatedly, is there any particular meaning to it in the phrase "Yankee Doodle"? --LostLeviathan 02:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

German article
A German lemma could be kritzeln (translation of scribble), but currently there's no article written. -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 10:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the non-existence of a german word for doodle (which could be Kritzelei or Gekrakel) yet there is an example by a prussian Queen. Maybe we should just adopt the english word back as Dudel? It is somewhat ill conceived among us to doodle half-consciously, but it happens all the time. --85.178.164.82 (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Also a Southern expression used as a loving word for women whom had Germanic names from the 19th Century. Artrestore9 (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

External Links: DoodlerBlog as spam
Links must meet the requirements of the Wikipedia external links policies. The link to DoodlerBlog violates these policies in regard to blogs: "[Avoid] links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)." It does not matter that this link is "free" or a "collection" of "examples" of the article's subject matter. Also, the wordage of the links seems to endorse and encourage contributions to the linked site, which is not the purpose of external links. DKqwerty (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What does one need to do to become an authority on Doodles? I believe in the spirit of open-source information exchange, it was slightly distasteful for one person to call my external link vandalism, another had the audacity to call my site spam. Why don't we just have a witch hunt like in the old days. It seems now anything with any relevance to a subject such as 'Doodling' is considered spam and vandalism. I have modified the verbiage of the external link to not encourage doodling contributions. God-forbid someone from wikipedia were to make a doodle and submit it to my site. I believe if someone had a problem with this link, they could have modified it, not DELETED it. Good Day Printwithstyle (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yankee doodle
Here is the original, rude, English meaning, with refs cited you can read. The English don't always use proper English, especially when saying something rude, like calling us "yankee doodles." Where do you think "Give 'em the raspberries!" came from? ("Raspberry tart" rhymes with "fart.") Much of American, Australian, and modern English was once English slang. I've put the definitions in my edit notes. What more do you want? Yet more academic citations? -74.162.156.72 (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Synthesized?
What, exactly, is synthesized here? -MBHiii (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 * There are a number of problems in this edit. To start with the most obvious: the unsourced digression on Yankee Doodle and the meanings of "yank" are irrelevant here; they might have a place in Yankee Doodle if they can be sourced. The assertion that doodle is similar to diddle, although undoubtedly true, looks like original research. Many words are similar to "doodle": "noodle" (perhaps a musical equivalent of doodle); "tootle" (perhaps another one); "boodle" (a collection or lot of persons—doodles often depict a whole kit and kaboodle of faces and figures); "poodle" (dog whose ornate hair style suggests a doodle); "toodle-oo" (goodbye—surely related to doodling in some way), etc. etc. Such speculations need reliable sources if an etymology is being implied.

 * A rather subtle synthesis exists in this passage: "'The word doodle first appeared in the early 17th century to mean 'fool' or 'simpleton', [ref: 'doodle', n, Oxford English Dictionary. Accessed April 29th, 2009.] becoming similar to the Yiddish 'schmuck' in also meaning 'penis'. [ref: 3 cites given]'" The two cited sources I have been able to check online suggest nothing of a "becoming"; they only say that the word doodle means "fool" or "penis". By comparing these two sources against OED, you've connected the dots in a way that seems pretty reasonable but is still susceptible to charges of WP:SYNTH. You haven't provided a reference (unless it's in the 3rd source, which I haven't seen) that says that the word first meant fool and later meant penis. Nor have you provided a reference that says that the subject of this article (a type of drawing) derives its name from a term for penis. As such, this information may have no more relevance here than "cat has come to mean hipster" has in Cat, an article about domestic felines (the hipster definition is instead found at Cat (disambiguation)). Ewulp (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming overhaul
I'm gearing up for a series of revisions to this self-promotion-fest of an article. Seems like anyone who every picked up a pen while talking on the phone can just go ahead and insert their own doodles and video-clips here. Not if I have any say in the matter. Unless you're actually showing someone talking on the phone while scratching something out (movie still such as appears in the beginning of "Almost Famous"; or?), it's just someone sketching on looseleaf paper and doesn't illustrate the aspects of doodling in any particularly encyclopedic way. May be good for that person for bragging rights among friends, but unnecessary for the article. (I'm not even sure how the existing geometric sketch merits placement here but i'll be looking into that too, so I'll not go there now.) I'll begin editing slowly as time permits though the holidays will tie me up a bit. With all best in mind for the article, Penwatchdog (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

 * I vote for deleting the geometric sketch and the mention of finite subdivision rules in the article; I added it, and I regret it. There are no sources for it; the kind of sketches I was talking about were ones like these: http://cinworks.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/doodle23.jpg?w=460, where you add layer after layer according to some pattern. In a very long article, it might merit mention (but no picture) in a list of doodling techniques, but I would agree with removing it from the article as it is.Brirush (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

new external source
I've recently made note of this newly discovered site in-general on the Ballpoint Pen and Ballpoint pen artwork pages, but within the site itself is the "CULTURED" page which covers lots of ballpoint pen doodling as it appears in Hollywood films, here. I'm still reading through all the contents, but the whole website The Ballpointer actually provides or points toward topics with ties to "doodling" (Lennie Mace is already noted/sourced on wikipedia as the "DaVinci of doodlers", for one). There's a wealth of info there, I'm tracking it and sifting through it and at some point I'll hope to find ways of at least utilizing what appears to be reliable/valid reporting. Penwatchdog (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Scribble
A scribble is a type of doodle. If not merged, move interwiki links. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr Deeds goes to Town
According to the IMDB trivia page on the 1936 film "Mr Deeds Goes to Town", the origin of the words modern usage was coined for that film. Could anyone back that up or find a source to confirm it? 217.42.173.13 (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Doodles on Google search
If you go on Google search and search doodles almost all the pictures are well drawn, coloured and not at all like ones found in the school notebooks I had. I think the word doodle isn’t translated well into current media. Shouldn’t we get nostalgia from thinking about doodles as a form of childish mischief and delight not just all the images in Google search having the caption ‘1079 free doodle photos’ 213.205.200.3 (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Doodle


text:
Lucius Richard O'Brien

Lucius Richard O'Brien (or L. R. O'Brien as he was known) (15 August 1832 – 13 December 1899) was the most prominent Canadian artist of his generation, exhibiting with, and a member of, the newly established Ontario Society of Artists. He became vice-president of the society in 1873 and was chosen to be the first president of the Canadian Academy of Arts by the Governor General, the Marquess of Lorne, from 1880 to 1890. In oils and watercolour, O’Brien painted landscapes of Quebec and Ontario.

Life and career

O'Brien was born in Shanty Bay, Upper Canada, a village his father founded on the shore of Lake Simcoe.

His father was Edward George O'Brien R.N who retired from the Navy in 1830 and went out to Canada and settled in Shanty Bay. He became a J.P and Colonel of Militia. He married Sophie Gapper and died in 1875. He was a descendant of Sir Edward O'Brien, 2nd Baronet.

He graduated from Upper Canada College in 1847 and is said to have directly started work in an architect's office where he did drafting. In 1852, he won two prizes at the Ontario Provincial Exhibition for painting. In 1856, he was listed as an artist in Toronto's City Directory.

In 1872, Lucius began landscape painting, and quickly excelled in the genre. Two year later, after a dispute with artist John Arthur Fraser, O'Brien took Fraser's position as vice-president of the Ontario Society of Artists, a position he held until 1880, when he became founding President of the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts.

He is best known for landscape paintings from across Canada in oil and watercolour, such as, Sunrise on the Saguenay of 1880, which was the first academy diploma piece in the Royal Canadian Academy's first annual exhibition.

In 1880, O'Brien began to work on Picturesque Canada (1882–84), which he edited. O'Brien toured across Canada, meeting with the country's artists and commissioned artists to produce woodblock prints for illustration of the text. O'Brien's art, and in particular Picturesque Canada, aimed to celebrated Canada's natural landscape united under confederation.

O'Brien was one of the first artists invited to travel to and paint the Rocky Mountains on the newly completed Canadian Pacific Railway in 1886.

He died in Toronto, Ontario at the age of 67.

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

title: Lucius Richard O'Brien


text:
Kurt Diebner

Kurt Diebner (13 May 1905 – 13 July 1964) was a German nuclear physicist who is well known for directing and administering parts of the German nuclear weapons program, a secretive program aiming to build nuclear weapons for Nazi Germany during World War II. He was appointed the project's administrative director after Adolf Hitler authorized it.

Diebner was also the director of the Nuclear Research Council and a Reich Planning Officer for the German Army until its surrender to Allied Powers in 1945. After the war, he was incarcerated in the United Kingdom and repatriated back to West Germany in early 1946. Shortly after his return, he became director and joint owner of DURAG-Apparatebau GmbH, and was a member of the supervisory board of the Gesellschaft zur Kernenergieverwertung in Schiffbau und Schiffahrt m.b.H

Education
Diebner was born in 1905 in Obernessa, Weißenfels in German Empire. From 1925, Diebner went on to study Physics at the Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg where he gained B.S. in 1928, and M.S. in Physics from Leopold Franzens University of Innsbruck in 1930. He completed his doctorate in 1932 under Gerhard Hoffmann in Halle. His thesis was on column ionization of alpha particles.

Academic career
From 1931 to 1934, Diebner was Gerhard Hoffmann's teaching assistant at Halle University.

From 1934, Diebner was a part-time employee of the Physikalisch-Technische Reichsanstalt (PTR, Reich Physical and Technical Institute; today, the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt); he was also an advisor to the Reichswehrministerium (RWM, Reich Ministry of Defense; after 1939, the Reichskriegsministerium, RWK, Reich Ministry of War) and the Heereswaffenamt (HWA, Army Ordnance Office) on nuclear physics.

German nuclear program
On 22 April 1939, after hearing a paper by Wilhelm Hanle on the use of uranium fission in a Uranmaschine (uranium machine, i.e., nuclear reactor), Georg Joos, along with Hanle, notified Wilhelm Dames, at the Reichserziehungsministerium (REM, Reich Ministry of Education), of potential military applications of nuclear energy. Just seven days later, a group, organized by Dames, met at the REM to discuss the potential of a sustained nuclear chain reaction. The group included the physicists Walther Bothe, Robert Döpel, Hans Geiger, Wolfgang Gentner, Wilhelm Hanle, Gerhard Hoffmann, and Joos. After this, informal work began at the Georg-August University of Göttingen, and the group of physicists was known informally as the first Uranverein (Uranium Club) and formally as Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Kernphysik. The second Uranverein began after the Heereswaffenamt (HWA, Army Ordnance Office) squeezed out the Reichsforschungsrat (RFR, Reich Research Council) of the REM and started the formal German nuclear energy project. The second Uranverein had its first meeting on 16 September 1939, which was organized by Kurt Diebner; formally, Diebner was director of the Kernforschungsrat (Nuclear Research Council), under General Carl Heinrich Becker of the HWA. It was then that Kaiser-Wilhelm Institut für Physik (KWIP, after World War II reorganized and renamed the Max Planck Institute for Physics), in Berlin-Dahlem, was placed under HWA authority, with Diebner as the administrative director, and the military control of the nuclear research commenced. Some of the research was carried out at the Versuchsstelle (testing station) of the HWA in Gottow; Diebner, was director of this facility as well as the experimental station of the RFR in Stadtilm. When it was apparent that the nuclear energy project would not make a decisive contribution to ending the war effort in the near term, control of the KWIP was returned to its umbrella organization, the Kaiser-Wilhelm Gesellschaft (KWG, after World War II renamed the Max-Planck Gesellschaft) in January 1942 and control of the project was relinquished to the RFR that year. However, the HWA did maintain its testing station in Gottow and continue research there under Diebner's direction until the end of the war. During Diebner's directorship at the KWIP, considerable personal animosity had developed between Diebner and Werner Heisenberg and his scientific circle, which included Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker and Karl Wirtz; when Diebner left the KWIP, Heisenberg became the acting director.

It was at the Gottow facility that nuclear fission experiments designated G-I and G-III were conducted. The G-1 experiment had lattices of 6,800 uranium oxide cubes (about 25 tons) in the nuclear moderator paraffin. The work verified Karl Heinz Höcker's calculations that cubes were better than rods, and rods were better than plates. The G-III experiment was a small-scale design, but it generated an exceptionally high rate of neutron production. The G-III model was superior to nuclear fission chain reaction experiments that had been conducted at the KWIP in Berlin-Dahem, the University of Heidelberg, or the University of Leipzig. Work was also done to explore the initiation of a nuclear reaction through the detonation of explosives.

In the latter part of World War II, in addition to his other responsibilities, Diebner was a Reich Planning Officer.

Program collapsed
Diebner was rounded up on 2 May 1945 as part of the Allied Operation Alsos, taken to Godmanchester, England and interned at Farm Hall, with nine other scientists thought to be involved in nuclear research and development. The nine others incarcerated were Erich Bagge, Walther Gerlach, Otto Hahn, Paul Harteck, Werner Heisenberg, Horst Korsching, Max von Laue, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, and Karl Wirtz. All were involved with nuclear research except for von Laue. They were repatriated to Germany in early 1946.

From 1947/1948, Diebner was director and joint owner of DURAG-Apparatebau GmbH in Hamburg.

Postwar career
From 1956, Diebner was a member of the supervisory board of the Gesellschaft zur Kernenergieverwertung in Schiffbau und Schiffahrt m.b.H (GKSS, Company for the Commercial Exploitation of Nuclear energy in Ship Building and Shipping); Erich Bagge, was the general director. From 1957, Diebner was also a lecturer at the state School of Naval Engineers in Flensburg.

Internal reports
The following reports were published in Kernphysikalische Forschungsberichte (Research Reports in Nuclear Physics), an internal publication of the German Uranverein. The reports were classified Top Secret, they had very limited distribution, and the authors were not allowed to keep copies. The reports were confiscated under the Allied Operation Alsos and sent to the United States Atomic Energy Commission for evaluation. In 1971, the reports were declassified and returned to Germany. The reports are available at the Karlsruhe Nuclear Research Center and the American Institute of Physics.

 * F. Berkei, W. Borrmann, W. Czulius, Kurt Diebner, Georg Hartwig, K. H. Höcker, W. Herrmann, H. Pose, and Ernst Rexer Bericht über einen Würfelversuch mit Uranoxyd und Paraffin G-125 (dated before 26 November 1942)
 * Kurt Diebner, Werner Czulius, W. Herrmann, Georg Hartwig, F. Berkei and E. Kamin Über die Neutronenvermehrung einer Anordnung aus Uranwürfeln und schwerem Wasser (G III) G-210
 * Kurt Diebner, Georg Hartwig, W. Herrmann, H. Westmeyer, Werner Czulius, F. Berkei, and Karl-Heinz Höcker Vorläufige Mitteilung über einen Versuch mit Uranwüfeln und schwerem Eis als Bremssubstanz G-211 (April 1943)
 * Kurt Diebner, Georg Hartwig, W. Herrmann, H. Westmeyer, Werner Czulius, F. Gerkei, and Karl-Heinz Höcker Bericht über einen Versuch mit Würfeln aus Uran-Metall und schwerem Eis G-212 (July 1943)

Selected literature

 * Kurt Diebner Der deutsche Forscheranteil, Die Zeit (18 August 1955) as cited in Hentschel and Hentschel, 1996, References, LX.
 * Kurt Diebner (alias Werner Tautorus) Die Deutschen Geheimarbeiten zur Kernenergieverwertung während des zweiten Weldkrieges 1939-1945, Atomkernenergie Volume 1, 368–370 and 423–425 (1956) as cited in Hentschel and Hentschel, 1996, References, LX.

Books

 * Kurt Diebner and Eberhard Grassmann, Künstliche Radioaktivität  (Hirzel, 1939)
 * Dieter Bagge, Kurt Diebner, and Kenneth Jay Von der Uranspaltung bis Calder Hall (Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, 1957)
 * Erich Bagge and Kurt Diebner 10 Jahre Kernenergie-Studiengesellschaft 1955-1965 (Thiemig, 1965)

title: Kurt Diebner


text:
HJ-8

The HJ-8 or Hongjian-8 is a second generation tube-launched, optically tracked, wire-guided anti-tank missile system which was originally deployed by the People's Liberation Army since the late 1980s.

Development
In 1970, China's armored corps first proposed to develop a successor to HJ-73 and this was later approved, designated as the AFT-8 or HJ-8. The missile was jointly developed by Research Institute 203 and 282nd Factory, but the program was interrupted by political turmoil. The key designers were Wang Xingzhi (王兴治) and Zhao Jiazheng (赵家铮), who developed the missile. Development was not completed until the early 1980s, after the end of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. After receiving state certification, the missile entered mass-production in 1984. HJ-8 is an optically tracked, wire guided ATGM.

HJ-8 and its variants are manufactured by NORINCO's Factory 282 (Jiangnan Machine Factory—江南机器厂), Factory 5618 (Hunan South China Photoelectricity Instrument Plant—湖南华南光电仪器厂) of China and Khan Research Laboratories of Pakistan, now by GIDS.

Design
The HJ-8 series is China’s first indigenous anti-tank missile design and it can be considered an equivalent of the US BGM-71 TOW and Franco-German MILAN / Euromissile HOT anti-tank missiles. HJ-8 is a tube-launched, optically tracked and wire-guided missile system armed with a HEAT anti-tank warhead. The HJ-8 is a combination many experts believe of three Western antitank missile systems obtained from nations in the Middle East and Asia that were then examined and reverse engineered and modified: the tripod from the US BGM-71 TOW; the tracker-control unit from the French/German MILAN; and the missile from the UK Swingfire.

There are numerous improved models following the original HJ-8, designated HJ-8A to HJ-8H, each incorporating improved features over the previous model. HJ-8E entered service in mid-1990. The HJ-8E anti-tank missile weighs 24.5 kg, has a range of up to 4,000 m, and can also defeat explosive reactive armour (ERA). It can penetrate 800–1100 mm of RHA at 0° incidence / 180+ mm RHA at 68° incidence.

Designed to be both dependable and accurate, HJ-8 is now the standard anti-tank armament of the Z-9W, Mi-17, and Gazelle (replacing the original Euromissile HOT first carried) helicopter gunships of the PLA.

Turret launch platform
A launching platform that can be installed on armoured fighting vehicles has been developed by Norinco for use as an HJ-8 launching platform, the SW-1 one-man turret. The all-steel welded SW-1 turret weighs 1,750 kg and can be installed on various tracked or wheeled vehicles. The turret is stated to be immune to 0.50 caliber armour-piercing rounds at close range (100 meters) and protection is further increased when add-on armour is installed. The turret can traverse 360 degrees and be elevated -40 to +60 degrees. The fire-control system, based on that of HJ-8H, is internally mounted.

The primary armament of SW-1 includes four HJ-8H ATGM, with two mounted in the rear location on each side of the turret. The secondary armament comprises a 30 mm main gun and a coaxial 0.30 caliber machine gun. A variety of ammo can be used and the maximum rate of fire of the main gun is around 6 rounds per second, and automatic fire can be selected at various rates. The 30-mm gun is claimed to be effective against ground targets up to 4 km away and aerial targets at 2 km, while the HJ-8H missile is effective against ground targets at ranges of 4 km away, and against low and slow aerial targets at the same range. A follow-on model that is remotely operated weighing 1.4 ton has completed its development and entered Chinese service, designed by the same designer, Wu Lixin (吴立辛). Like its predecessor, this unmanned model was also first tested by using HJ-73C ATGM. The unmanned version carries 160 rounds of 30 mm ammunition.

Bosnia and Herzegovina
The Baktar-Shikan variant from Pakistan were supplied to Bosnian government forces in the early 1993. It was used by the Bosniak army forces against Serb tanks during the 1993 offensive, helping Bosniak forces destroy Serb tanks.

Sri Lanka
The Sri Lanka Army acquired HJ-8 from China, during the civil conflict against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). They were mostly used to take out LTTE strucuture, including bunkers.

On at least one occasion during the 2009 Battle of Mullaitivu, the Sri Lankan Army used these weapons against fast attack craft of the LTTE's Sea Tigers naval wing.

Syria
Since June 2013, videos showing the use of the HJ-8 by Free Syrian Army rebels against Syrian Arab Army armor have surfaced and have been successful in destroying T-72 tanks.

Iraq
Since December 2014, videos showing the use of the HJ-8 by the Peshmerga against Islamic State (ISIL) have surfaced. The HJ-8 systems might have been captured from ISIL stockpiles. The HJ-8 may have been responsible for the destruction of an Iraqi Army M1 Abrams tank by the Peshmerga In The Battle Of Altun Kupri.

Pakistan
The Bhaktar Shikan variant of the HJ-8 made by Pakistan has been used in large numbers against TTP insurgents during Operation Zarb-e-Azb where it was mainly used to destroy Hideouts and caves where the insurgents would usually hide. Its use in the Line of Control was reported against Indian Army Bunkers and Checkposts on the Line of Control during border skirmishes.

Gaza Strip
On June 24, 2024, Izz Adin al-Qassam Brigades published footage of its forces targeting an Israeli Ofek APC using an HJ-8, which hit the vehicle. This is the first documented use of this weapon by Al-Qassam Brigades, although other Chinese weapons have reportedly previously been used in the Strip.

Variants
Launchers: Mounted Platforms:
 * HJ-8 – The original version. Claimed to be able to achieve a kill probability of 90%
 * HJ-8A – First upgrade of HJ-8 with greater penetration power, slightly larger than HJ-8, with range increased to 4 km.
 * HJ-8B – A HJ-8 model specifically developed for helicopters, with greater penetration power and range increased to 5.3 km.
 * HJ-8C – Specifically developed to defeat explosive reactive armour with a tandem-charge. From HJ-8C onward, all HJ-8 missiles can be carried by various platforms.
 * HJ-8D – Upgraded variant with tandem charge.
 * HJ-8E – Upgrade of HJ-8B/C with a new rocket motor with a range of up to 4 km, entered service in mid-1990. Fire-control system (FCS) is highly digitized and includes a thermal imaging system for all-weather day-night capability. The HJ-8E anti-tank missile weighs 24.5 kg, has a range of up to 4,000 m, can also defeat explosive reactive armour (ERA).
 * HJ-8F – Variant with an anti bunker warhead.
 * HJ-8FAE – Version featuring a thermobaric warhead.
 * HJ-8L – A model with reduced overall weight, L meaning "light". Using feedback from the Bosnian War, HJ-8E was designed to meet the need of a lightweight ATGM that is just as capable as heavier models. HJ-8L can accommodate two missiles, one smaller with 3 km range and one larger with 4 km range. New microelectronics are used in the fire-control system and use of composite materials in the launching/storage system reduce weight to 22.5 kg, so that HJ-8L can be carried by a crew of two.
 * HJ-8H – Upgraded HJ-8E; adopting the same fire-control system and lightweight launching/storage system of HJ-8L. Uses a new missile, capable of engaging ground targets 6 km away and low speed aerial targets such as helicopters 4 km away.
 * HJ-8S – Variant with an anti ship warhead.
 * Baktar-Shikan – Baktar-Shikan (بکتر شکن "Armour Piercing") is a variant of HJ-8 that has been manufactured under license by Pakistan at Khan Research Laboratories. The missile and launch system can be quickly disassembled into four sub-units, each weighing less than 25 kg, making the system crew-portable. Baktar-Shikan is also mounted on Pakistani  armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and a modified air-launched variant is used to arm the AH-1 Cobra helicopter gunships and other helicopters of the Pakistan Army Aviation wing. Pakistan also exports Baktar-Shikan. The export version is credited to destroy all currently known tank targets with a 90% hit and penetration probability at a distance of 3 km. Baktar-Shikan has been exported to Bangladesh and Malaysia. A multi-launcher station for four Baktar-Shikan tubes were displayed by GIDS in 2016. An indoor training simulator is also available with Baktar-Shikan. It is an exact replica of the weapon and is used to train operators by simulating various target speeds, ranges and angles. The target's movement parameters can be adapted to the progressive skill level of the operator under training. An optional laser aiming device is also under development to increase accuracy at longer ranges. According to SIPRI, between 1990 and 2022, Pakistan has produced 26,350 Baktar-Shikans.
 * HJ-11 (AFT-11): development of HJ-8 with semi-active laser guidance, received a new designation HJ-11 because it is claimed to be the third generation anti-tank missile by Chinese.
 * BJ212 HJ-8: HJ-8 launcher mounted on a Beijing BJ212 as a mobile anti-tank platform.
 * BJ2020 HJ-8E: HJ-8E launcher mounted on a Beijing BJ2020 as a mobile anti-tank platform.
 * CSK-181 AFT-11 Carrier: AFT-11 (HJ-11) launcher mounted on a CSK-181 MRAP assault vehicle.

Operators

 * 🇦🇱 Albania
 * 🇧🇩 Bangladesh – Ordered in 2000, 114 delivered in 2001. 172 Baktar-Shikan variant delivered from Pakistan in 2004-2005.
 * 🇧🇴 Bolivia: 500 HJ-8s delivered to Bolivia in 2003.
 * 🇧🇦 Bosnia and Herzegovina
 * 🇨🇲: Equip the Cameroonian army's Z-9WA attack helicopters 367
 * 🇨🇳 China: 264
 * 🇪🇬 Egypt
 * 🇪🇨 Ecuador
 * Kurdistan: Peshmerga
 * 🇰🇪 Kenya
 * 🇲🇾 Malaysia: 450 in inventory.
 * 🇲🇦 Morocco – HJ-8L: 367
 * 🇵🇰 Pakistan: Produced locally under license as the Baktar-Shikan. According to SIPRI, 26,350 produced between 1990 and 2022.
 * 🇶🇦 Qatar:
 * 🇵🇪 Peru
 * 🇱🇰 Sri Lanka: 310
 * 🇸🇩 Sudan – Made under license as the Sarib by Military Industries Corporation. Some Chinese-made captured by Sudan People's Liberation Movement-North.
 * Syria – Different Syrian insurgent factions in the Syrian civil war. Also captured by the Syrian Army. Externally supplied.
 * 🇦🇪 United Arab Emirates
 * 🇺🇾 Uruguay
 * 🇻🇪 Venezuela
 * 🇿🇼 Zimbabwe

Non-State actors

 * United Wa State Army
 * Izz adin Al-Qassam Brigades

title: HJ-8


text:
Talk:Torii Mototada

FULL TEXT OF TORII MOTOTADA'S FINAL LETTER
In my extensive rewrite of this article, I felt that this document is valuable, but ought not be included in the encyclopedia article proper. Thus I am preserving it here. The source, as indicated by the previous primary contributor(s) to the article, is William Scott Wilson's "Ideals of the Samurai: Writings of Samurai Warriors" (1982) ISBN 0897500814 LordAmeth 01:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Torii Mototada (1539-1600 AD)

IN THE YEAR 1600, TOKUGAWA IEYASU WAS TO MOVE EAST TO CAMPAIGN IN AIZU, LEAVING THE STRATEGIC Fushimi castle in the care of his vassal, Torii Mototada. It was more than likely that the forces of Ishida Mitsunari, a vassal of the Toyotomi clan in league with Konishi Yukinaga, would attack this castle after the Tokugawa forces left. Tokugawa expressed his fear that the castle's forces were insufficient, but Torii responded that the castle would fall even if its forces were multiplied ten times, and advocated that his lord take his troops from the castle's defense and employ them on his own campaign to the east. The sure destruction of both the castle and its defenders understood, vassal and lord spent their last evening together talking over old times.

The inevitable began on August 27 when a large force under Ishida and Konishi laid siege to the castle. Torii and his defenders resisted stubbornly, hoping to give Tokugawa more time to make gains in his march east, and indeed, the fortress was able to hold on for over ten days against enormous odds. The end finally came on September 8 when fire was set to the castle by a traitor from within. When suicide was recommended by his men, Torii upbraided them, explaining that now was the time to truly repay their master's kindness to them, and, with a force of about 300 troops, rushed out of the castle to attack the overwhelming forces of the enemy. After five such charges, their number was reduced to ten men and Torii returned to the castle and fell exhausted. A young samurai from the opposing forces approached and waited respectfully while the old man committed seppuku and then cut off his head. The defenders had been cut down to the last man.

The Last Statement was written by Torii to his son, Tadamasa, a few days before the investment of the castle. It is a moving account of unbending and selfless loyalty of vassal to master, and expresses in very clear terms that the true meaning of being a warrior is to die in battle. In language it is dignified and polite, and yet reveals the strong affection of a father for his son.

The Last Statement of Torii Mototada

Recently, there has been the report of an uprising in the Kamigata area, and that a large number of rebel daimyo who have fallen into the evil scheming of Ishida Mitsunari will first lay siege to this castle and are now making such preparations with large forces.

For myself, I am resolved to make a stand within the castle and to die a quick death. It would not take much trouble to break through a part of their numbers and escape, no matter how many tens of thousands of horsemen approached for the attack or by how many columns we were surrounded.

But that is not the true meaning of being a warrior, and it would be difficult to account as loyalty. Rather, I will stand off the forces of the entire country here, and, without even one one-hundredth of the men necessary to do so, will throw up a defense and die a resplendent death. By doing so I will show that to abandon a castle that should be defended, or to value one's life so much as to avoid danger and to show the enemy one's weakness is not within the family traditions of my master Ieyasu.

Thus I will have taken the initiative in causing Lord Ieyasu's other retainers to be resolved, and in advancing righteousness to the warriors of the entire country. It is not the Way of the Warrior to be shamed and avoid death even under circumstances that are not particularly important. It goes without saying that to sacrifice one's life for the sake of his master is an unchanging principle. As this is a matter that I have thought over beforehand, I think that circumstances such that I am meeting now must be envied by people of understanding. You, Tadamasa, should understand the following well. Our ancestors have been personal vassals of the Matsudaira for generations. My late father, the governor of Iga, served Lord Kiyoyasu, and later worked loyally for his son, Hirotada. My older brother, Genshichiro, manifested his absolute loyalty and was cut down in battle at Watari.

When the present Lord Ieyasu was a child and sent to Suruga, the Governor of Iga accompanied him as a guardian. later, at the age of 19, Ieyasu returned to Okazaki, and the Governor of Iga served him with unsurpassed loyalty, living more than 80 years with unswerving steadfastness. Lord Ieyasu, for his part, regarded the Governor as a matchless vassal. When I was 13 and Lord Ieyasu seven, I came before his presence for the first time, and the blessings I have received since must not be forgotten for all the generations to come.

Because Lord Ieyasu is well aware of my loyalty, he has left me here in charge of the important area of Kamigata as Deputy of Fushimi Castle while he advances toward the East, and for a warrior there is nothing that could surpass this good fortune. That I should be able to go ahead of all the other warriors of this country and lay down my life for the sake of my master's benevolence is an honor to my family and has been my most fervent desire for many years.

After I am slain, you must lovingly care for all your younger brothers, beginning with Hisagoro, in my stead. Your younger brothers must earnestly look to you as they would to their father, and must never disobey you.

As they grow up, they should one by one present themselves to the Lord Ieyasu, make efforts with their own various talents, do whatever they are commanded, be on friendly terms with one another, and remain forever grateful to their ancestors, by whose blessings our clan was established and its descendants succored.

They must be determined to stand with Lord Ieyasu's clan in both its ascent and decline, in times of peace and in times of war; and either waking or sleeping they must never forget that they will serve his clan, and his clan alone. To be avaricious for land or to forget old debts because of some passing dissatisfaction, or to even temporarily entertain treacherous thoughts is not the Way of Man.

Even if all the other provinces of Japan were to unite against our lord, our descendants should not set foot inside another fief to the end of time. Simply, in no matter what circumstances, unify with the heart of one family - of elder and younger brothers - exert yourselves in the cause of loyalty, mutually help and be helped by one another, preserve your righteousness and strive in bravery, and be of a mind never to stain the reputation of a clan that has not remained hidden from the world, but has gained fame in military valor for generations, especially since the days of the Governor of Iga.

At any rate, if you will take it into your mind to be sincere in throwing away your life for your master, you will not have the slightest fear or trembling even with the advent of innumerable impending calamities.

I am now 62 years of age. Of the number of times that I have barely escaped death since the time I was in Mikawa I have no idea. Yet, not once have I acted in a cowardly way. Man's life and death, fortune and calamity are in the fate of the times, and thus one should not search out after what he likes. What is essential is to listen to the words of the older retainers, to put to use men of skill and understanding, to not commit acts of adolescent self-will, and to receive the remonstrance's of your retainers.

The entire country will soon be in the hands of your master, Lord Ieyasu. If this is so, the men who served him will no doubt hope to become daimyo by his appointment. You should know that if such feelings arise, they are inevitably the beginning of the end of one's fortunes in the Way of the Warrior.

Being affected by the avarice for office and rank, or wanting to become a daimyo and being eager for such things ... will not one then begin to value his life? And how can a man commit acts of martial valor if he values his life? A man who has been born into the house of a warrior and yet places no loyalty in his heart and thinks only of the fortune of his position will be flattering on the surface and construct schemes in his heart, will forsake righteousness and not reflect on his shame, and will stain the warrior's name of his household to later generations. This is truly regrettable. it is not necessary to say such a thing, but you should raise the name of your ancestors in this world yet a second time. Moreover, as I have already spoken to you about the management of our clan's affairs, there is no need to speak of that again. You have already seen and heard of what has been regulated from years past.

Be first of all prudent in your conduct and have correct manners, develop harmony between master and retainers, and have compassion on those beneath you. Be correct in the degree of rewards and punishments, and let there be no partiality in your degree of intimacy with you retainers. the foundation of man's duty as a man is in "truth." Beyond this, there is nothing to be said.

Bushido page - merging some info
I've noticed that there's a lot of info on the Bushido page that seems like it would be a good merge with the Torii Mototada page. I propose that some (if not all) of this info is transferred across to this page. Any objections? --OzzieB 08:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good. As long as the focus of this here article remains Torii Mototada, and not bushido... LordAmeth 12:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I've inserted the text (removed some commentary specific to bushido)...--203.173.57.106 04:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Site of Sekigahara
Near the end of the first section: "Tokugawa Ieyasu would raise an army of 90,000 and confront Pro-Toyotomi forces at Sekigahara in open battle on the Kanto plain". Sekigahara was fought neither on a plain, nor in the Kanto. It was fought in a valley in Mino province. Maproom 19:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Factually inaccurate?
Every source I've found on Torii Mototada suggests quite a different take of events. Actually, there was apparently trechery within his ranks, which accordingly mounted the odds against him.

Here's one... Mototada served Tokugawa Ieyasu from childhood (whom he attended to while both were hostages of the Imagawa at Sumpu) and was served in many campaigns, including Nagashino (where he helped erect that battle's well-known palisades) and the abortive 1585 attempt to bring Sanada Masayuki of Shinano into line. Following the 1590 Odawara Campaign he was given a fief in Shimosa (Yahagi, 40,000 koku) and at the opening of the Sekigahara Campaign (1600) was entrusted with Fushimi castle (Yamashiro province). Once hostilities commenced, Fushimi was besieged on 27 August and fierce fighting continued until 8 September, at which point, with his garrison all but eliminated and undone by treachery, Mototada committed suicide. His final parting with Ieyasu just prior to the start of the campaign (made in the knowledge of the inevitability of Mototada's death) was said to have been quite moving, and the news of his death reportedly saddened Ieyasu greatly.

http://wiki.samurai-archives.com/index.php?title=Torii_Mototada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.165.41 (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Torii Mototada. 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/20110720092132/http://kms1.isn.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/24250/ipriadoc_doc/4F394AD4-6520-46C4-90FD-CBD3DFD95E44/en/1038_ToriiMototada.pdf to http://kms1.isn.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/24250/ipriadoc_doc/4F394AD4-6520-46C4-90FD-CBD3DFD95E44/en/1038_ToriiMototada.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720092132/http://kms1.isn.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/24250/ipriadoc_doc/4F394AD4-6520-46C4-90FD-CBD3DFD95E44/en/1038_ToriiMototada.pdf to http://kms1.isn.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/24250/ipriadoc_doc/4F394AD4-6520-46C4-90FD-CBD3DFD95E44/en/1038_ToriiMototada.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Torii Mototada


text:
Talk:Basser College, University of New South Wales

Old Basser College
These plans are roughly to scale with each pixel being approximately 3 or 4 inches. They were drawn from memory and many photographs supplied by friends and the few that are on the internet.

The design was unique in that every room opened onto one of the quadrangles, not a hallway.

The plans are placed here for the enjoyment of the many thousand students that lived there before it was demolished.

AutoElectEngr (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

dates needed
When was the fountain removed and why ? I know it was before 2000.

When were phones and internet access put into the rooms ?

I was a fresher in 1967, and stayed there in 1968-70; AutoElectEngr. — AutoElectEngr (talk • contribs) 21:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

stub
Oh, blast. How do I get this Edu-Stub to work?

 * Like so... - Randwicked 06:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Ha, I had no idea that it was case-sensitive. Cheers. Captainmax 06:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


text:
User:Xiong/Bh

Black Hole

title: User:Xiong/Bh


text:
User:Zechenia

AJ (1986-???? hopefully a long time) Born in Southern California, now residing in Spokane, Washington and attending Washington State University in Pullman, Washington.

title: User:Zechenia


text:
John Hatfield (United States Navy)

John Hatfield (about 1795 – 27 April 1813) was a midshipman in the United States Navy during the War of 1812.

Hatfield was appointed Midshipman 18 June 1812 upon the outbreak of war. He volunteered for duty under Commodore Isaac Chauncey on Lake Ontario where he served in Lady of the Lake. Midshipman Hatfield was killed during the attack on York, Upper Canada, 27 April 1813.

Legacy

 * USS Hatfield (DD-231) was named for him.

title: John Hatfield (United States Navy)


text:
Talk:Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927

Constitutional significance of the Act
"Its second, and more important function, was ... to replace the concept of a single crown ruling the British Empire with multiple crowns."

This notion is also mentioned at Monarchy in Canada, and elaborated later in the present article, but the original documents don't seem to bear it out.

The 1927 Act and Royal Proclamation both refer to the Crown in singular. The change in title is due primarily to the changed status of Ireland; the "of" in "... and of the British Dominions" makes clear in the original title that the British Dominions were not part of the UK. This "of" is not necessary in the new title, which grants Ireland the same semantic status as the British Dominions, but it doesn't appear to me to change the status of the latter.

The 1931 Statute of Westminster also refers in singular: "the members of the British Commonwealth ... are united by a common allegiance to the Crown." Also, in stating that "any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom" it does not manifestly allow for those Styles and Titles to be different in different realms, only that every Parliament must approve any changes.

The 1953 Act (UK) and corresponding Royal Proclamation again refer in singular to "the Crown as the symbol of their free association and of the Sovereign as the Head of the Commonwealth". The equivalent statute in Canada establishes the following Royal Styles and Titles: "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."

Of course, parts of the former Empire have become increasingly independent of the UK: the process started well before 1927 and continued well afterwards. The most significant political change was probably in 1931. The most significant impact on royal titles appears to me to have been in 1953, not 1927: the 1953 Acts depart from the 1931 procedure, because each Act was approved only in its own Parliament, and the Acts are not the same. But note that the UK wording includes Canada under "other Realms" and the Canadian wording includes the UK explicitly. Even in 1953 it does not seem to me true to say that there were multiple crowns. In Justice Rouleau's judgement at the Ontario Superior Court in the recent O'Donohue case (challenging the applicability of the Act of Settlement in Canada), he cites Canadian Prime Minister St. Laurent from Hansard in the 1953 debate: "Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada but she is the Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom. ... It is not a separate office, it is the sovereign who is recognized as the sovereign of the United Kingdom who is our Sovereign". Rouleau also argues from the above preamble to the Statute of Westminster that the rules for succession must be unanimous: these arguments applied to the Royal Styles and Titles suggest that the Statute of Westminster, far from dividing the crown, in fact strengthened its symbolic unity (until 1953), whilst also downgrading the pre-eminence of the UK.

It remains to be seen, of course, what changes may occur around the time of the next coronation.

Perhaps a constitutional historian could comment further on the origins of the "multiple crowns" idea. Should we separate the ideas of the crown as a unifying role in the Commonwealth and as a constitutional player in each separate realm? But the division of the latter was effected by the Statute of Westminster (amongst much other legislation, such as the British North America Acts), not the Titles Act.

G Colyer 02:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another subtlety is that HM the Queen in Right of Canada and HM the Queen in Right of Ontario (for instance) can act to some extent independently; yet Ontario is not (I think) a separate "realm".

G Colyer 02:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I've been involved in drafting the current article but the "multiple crowns" claim comes from another editor. I'm far from an expert but I've been a little worried about this for some time because there seems to be contradictory information in different articles, some claiming 1927 as the significant date and others 1953. The theory about multiple crowns is actually pretty radical because it seems to amount to a claim that before 1927 the Commonwealth was one kingdom but afterwards it was a collection of separate kingdoms in personal union (of the kind found in England & Scotland from 1603-1707). It seems a bit hard to believe that such an obscure act would have such radical implications and, If I understand you right, you seem to be saying that the Commonwealth is still one kingdom (or under one crown at least) even today.

 * There does seem to have been some important constitutional change in 1927 vis-a-vis the monarch and its relation to the Irish Free State. Various articles claim that it was by virtue of the 1927 Act that the Free State assumed the right to choose the governor-general, exclusively advise the King and receive ambassadors. It also seems that, in all of the realms, around 1927 the office of High Commissioner was established as a separate position from Governor-General. So my questions would be:

 * 1) By virtue of what did these changes occur in the Free State? Was it because, as you say, the Act "grants Ireland the same semantic status as the British Dominions"?
 * 2) Did the appointment of High Commissioners have anything to do with the Act or did it just, perhaps, come out of a separate agreement reached in the Imperial conference?

 * I think we need to appeal to proper authorities on this. So far as I'm aware none of the articles that currently make the "multiple crowns" claim cite any sources to back it up. But can you cite any academic texts in support of your own interpretation of the 1927 Act? Iota 15:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The actual (not merely semantic) status of Ireland had already changed in 1922. Perhaps envoys are appointed by Prerogative outside the ambit of Parliament. Note that according to King-Byng Affair the Governor General refused (in 1925 or 1926) to refer the crisis to the British government, which he represented as well as the King. So there was already some notion of the separation of the Crown's constitutional roles in Britain and Canada. This is likely to have been true in any case since 1867 or even earlier.

 * I'm not claiming that there was only one kingdom, at any time in the 20th century. It seems clear that sharing the same monarch does not imply a single kingdom: consider England and Scotland before the Act of Union. In the present context, the last "of" in the old title indicates that the British Dominions were not, even previously, part of the "United Kingdom". In the new title, the omission of this "of" if anything emphasizes the unity of the Crown. There is certainly no duplication of "King", and no change from "King of" to "King in" (a distinction I've seen made somewhere).

 * I agree that we need to appeal to the proper authorities. Who are they? I can't cite any further references myself. For information, here is a link to the O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003 CanLII 41404 (ON S.C.) judgement. G Colyer 20:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Here's my proposed course of action. I've put pointers to this discussion at Talk:King-Byng Affair, Talk:Nickle Resolution and Talk:Monarchy in Canada. Iota, your comment above suggests that you know about other pages, which refer to 1953; perhaps you could put similar pointers on any relevant ones of those. Then, if no further contributions happen here within the next couple of weeks, I suggest some bold editing to reword some of these references in a slightly more conservative fashion. G Colyer 13:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's a definitive answer, it's a matter of interpretation and shifting interpretation at that. I believe Canadian PM St. Laurent said in a House of Commons debate in the 1950s that Canada is headed by the British crown (and this was echoed a year or so ago by a divisional court judge in Ontario ruling on a suit by Tony O'Donohue which claimed the Act of Settlement was in violation of Canada's Charter of Rights). Current constitutional theory seems to prefer the "multiple crown" interpretation. Without any rulings by higher courts, however, it's all just talk. AndyL 14:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * References (preferably authoritative) for that "current constitutional theory" are what we're looking for, if you can provide any. It doesn't have to be definitive, just documented. G Colyer 23:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure if I'm really going to help the situation here, but, as far as I understand it, the 1931 Statute of Westminster granted complete political autonomy to the governments of the Commonwealth Realms, but their Constitutions remained Acts of the Westminster Parliament. Thus Canada, for example, now had complete control over its own domestic and international affairs, but could not ratify any constitutional changes without the permission of the British parliament.

 * This would mean that while the Canadian federal and provincial parliaments now operated with more sovereignty under the Crown in Right of Canada, and the Crown in Right of (insert province), constitutionally (and thus ultimately) the Crown remained British. So, PM St. Laurent was correct in stating, at that time, that Elizabeth II was Queen of Canada because she was Queen of the UK.

 * But that was in 1953. Since then every Commonwealth Realm has patriated its constitution from the UK-- Canada did so in 1982.  This meant that all the rules and laws regarding the Crown and monarchy were inherited from Britain and became Canadian constitutional law, making Canada a completely seperate and independent kingdom, even though it shares it's Crown.  As it was explained to me, the Crown has now transcended all Realms, even the UK, and operates seperately and equally within each country.  So while there is indeed one Crown, it is fragmented in its operation, and because it is shared in the manner that it is, it is not British unless one speaks of its operation in Britain, it is not Canadian unless one speaks of its operation in Canada, and so on.

 * While it is now completely within each Realm's power to alter their line of succession, or change the monarchy or Crown in any way in regards to their constitutions, the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, which is also, I think, constitutional law, creates the convention that no Realm should do so without the agreement of the other 15.

 * Justice Rouleau comments about the British Crown simply reflect the fact that no proper name has been created for this pan-national institution, and that the preamble to the 1867 Constitution Act mentions the Crown of the United Kingdom.

 * Most of this was explained to me by Mr. Richard Toporoski, a veritable constitutional and monarchical expert-- he's also a member of the Monarchist League of Canada. I'm sure he can be contacted through the League at . gbambino

Title, capitalisation, etc
I've done a few tidies (feel free to flame me on my talk page if I was Doing It Wrong(tm) ;-)), but shouldn't this be under Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 rather than Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, as per our (and the UK Parliament's, at least) standard for naming Acts? Any complaints? James F. (talk) 14:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think we should move the article. I think there's only one "Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act" so I'd see adding the date as unnecessary disambiguation. The full correct short title should of course be given in the first line of the text.

 * On a separate stylistic point, you've removed all of the commas from the short title of the act in the article. The law itself reads "This Act may be cited as the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927" (with the comma included) so surely we should go with the name the act uses to refer to itself? Iota 01:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we should always include the year. We do not know if in one year or ten a new Act by this name might be passed. By then wikipedia may have 1 million or 2 million articles. It makes sense to be specific now rather than have to disambigulate a far bigger wikipedia in the future should a new Act use this name (and they might use this name to cover things like Camilla's title when her husband becomes king alongside ongoing changes in the structure of parliament. Better to be safe than curse ourselves in years to come for having to disambigulate a far bigger number of articles in a far bigger encyclopaedia. Fear ÉIREANN  01:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * We do, in fact, always include the year, and similarly always refer to Acts as "Foo Act 1234", the modern citation form, even though the Acts themselves often.
 * See Talk:List of Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom where I laid our conventions out after a bit of discussion a year ago or so.
 * It's now been 6 weeks since I suggested the move with one comment either way... I think I will probably just go ahead, then.
 * James F. (talk) 18:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think some writers may be reading too much significance into this act. After all, all that changed in regards to the "British Dominions Beyond the Seas" is the removal of the word "of". It wasn't until 1953 that the different commonwealth realms actually adopted different titles for the monarch and I don't see how the 1927 act can be credited with that. The changes referred to in the relationship between the King (and the UK) and the dominions seems to flow from the Imperial Conference of 1926 and the subsequent Statute of Westminster, 1931 rather than this particular act. AndyL 02:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Theorists"
This article has been quite absolute that "Constitutional theorists" unanimously credit this Act with changing the relationship between Crown and Dominions. All the British and Canadian constitutional theory I've read refer to the Statute of Westminster, 1931 or the Balfour Declaration, 1926... I've never seen this Act referred to at all. Can someone name the constitutional theorists who refer to it as crucial? It's a bit shocking to imply constitutional theorists are unanimous on this point (it would be one of the few they are unanimous on) without anyone actually being referenced. AndyL 11:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Now that AndyL raises this point, he may well be right. I seem to recall the Act being mentioned as influential in conjunction with the Statute of Westminster, but not as the sole cause of the modern "many crowns in one crown" status. It is certainly the Statute of Westminster which is usually more focused on. --gbambino 13:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it's more logical to conclude that this act, and later the Statute of Westminster, were influenced by the Balfour Declaration rather than say the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act led to what followed. I suspect we've stated this act to be the cause when really it's part of the effect of Balfour. AndyL 13:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

original research
I've removed the following given the lack of a citation (which constitutional scholars?)
 * According to some constitutional theorists, a second, and more important function, was to modify the King's title, proclaiming that George V was not king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions but rather of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions. The change in the wording of the King's title is subtle, but has the effect of creating a list of nations of which he is king rather than grouping those nations all together as if under one government. In so doing, this replaced the concept of a single Imperial British Crown over the Empire with one Crown operating seperately but equally in each Realm.  In this way, by means of the act, each of the Empire's Dominions became a separate kingdom. The Act was thus an important step in the evolution of the Dominions towards full independence. The full title of the Act was An Act to provide for the alteration of the Royal Style and Titles and of the Style of Parliament and for purposes incidental thereto. This change was likely a product of an agreement at the Imperial Conference of 1926 changing the relationship between Britain and the dominions as outlined in the Balfour Declaration of 1926. It was the Balfour Declaration in which it was agreed that the United Kingdom and the dominions were "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations".

AndyL02:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Funny how others are criticized for removing "facts" they don't like, but you are free to do the same. But let's make one thing clear, the factual information you removed and cited as 'original research' is supported by many secondary sources as provided at Talk:Commonwealth Realm/Mediation on Crown section. Your "facts" still remain without grounds. --gbambino 16:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

As discussed above, much of this information may be more appropriate at Statute of Westminster 1931, but that does not warrant its complete deletion. --gbambino 16:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind the points being made, I just am unaware of anything backing them up and making them anything other than conjecture. Cite a source and it can go back in. AndyL16:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rather than trying to connect these trends (themselves certainly noteworth) with specific legislation, perhaps a whole new article "Evolution of the Commonwealth" or something, would work better. Peter Grey 16:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The removed section refers to "some constitutional theorists". I'm not aware of any constitutional theorists who actually refer to this Act or its alleged importance so if the article is going to make a point and attribute it to an authority then that authority needs to be named. So, gbambino, your task should you wish to reinstate the removed section is to identify the constiutional theorists in question so we can name them and get rid of the anonymous attribution. Not too much to ask. I'm sure you're up to the task. Andy 16:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

gbambino, given that earlier on this talk page you said

 * Now that AndyL raises this point, he may well be right. I seem to recall the Act being mentioned as influential in conjunction with the Statute of Westminster, but not as the sole cause of the modern "many crowns in one crown" status. It is certainly the Statute of Westminster which is usually more focused on. --gbambino 13:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a bit odd now for you to be defending a passage you had doubts about earlier. Have those doubts been resolved or did you just forget you had them?Andy 16:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

And what did I say today? "As discussed above, much of this information may be more appropriate at Statute of Westminster 1931, but that does not warrant its complete deletion." Do you know how to read, or did you simply ignore it? --gbambino 17:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Complete deletion is warranted until someone can name one of the constitutional theorists who supposedly holds this view. Until then the material doesn't belong in any article, be it this one or Statute of Westminster. So go off and find a theorist who agrees with the passage. Andy 17:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Back in 1927
A lot of this material seems, well, exaggerated, and maybe a little confused. (Kind of like AndyL's "theory" about Canada accidentally turning itself into a colony.)

 * One direct consequence of the change in the royal title was that the British government lost... It made an important political statement, but the only consequence in law was a change in the King's formal title.
 * shattered the previous concept of the shared monarch, replacing it with... one monarch Huh?
 * The government of the Irish Free State put the changes introduced by the Act into immediate effect This is unconvincing; I'm pretty sure the actions of the Irish Free State were based on the Irish Free State Act and the Statute of Westminster.
 * Most Dominions were slower than the Irish Free State to respond to the constitutional changes of 1927 and 1931... Highly biased - it implies a response was needed, which mostly the dominions did not consider to be the case before India in 1947.
 * An interesting consequence of the 1927 Act was that Edward VIII's abdication That can't be right - this was based on the Statute of Westminster, presumably unrelated to the royal title.
 * In that year the practice was begun... In 1953 the Dominion governments agreed that the practice ... should continue Did the practice begin, or did it continue?

The act made a statement about how the British Empire was evolving, and that is noteworthy. But the other consequences seem questionable. Peter Grey 02:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts. The British government was not involved in any way in the selection of the second Governor-General of the Irish Free State, James McNeill due entirely to the Act. From the Act on, the relationship between the dominion government and the monarch was direct and excluded Britain, not indirect and through the British government. So whereas legally it HMG who advised the King to appoint the first governor-general in 1922, it His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State who directly advised the King to appoint McNeill only a short time after the Act received the Royal Assent.

Secondly, the Act constitutionally replaced the concept of 'one crown, one king' with 'multiple crowns, one king' and so was used by dominions, starting with the Irish Free State, to have the King sign treaties as their own monarch. This was implemented in Ireland in 1931 when a treaty was signed personally by His Majesty as King of Ireland whereas before the Act he had been King in Ireland. In doing this he was attended by the Irish Minister for External Affairs, not a British minister (who staged a tantrum and boomed 'how dare they?' until it was pointed out by the Irish Department of External Affairs that it was as a result of the 1926 conference, implemented in the 1927 Act). The fact that each state got its own state seal was again a direct result of the Act. Prior to the Act, all states used the UK's Great Seal of the Realm, and in theory were in effect subsets of the UK with their citizens referred to as "British subjects". After 1927, each state in constitutional theory became a constitutional monarchy on its own, subject to the supremacy of UK law (in turn abolished by the Statutes of Westminster). Concepts of separate citizenship, and not just Empire-wide British citizenship, flowed directly from the 1927 Act.

Thirdly, the Irish state did put the policy into immediate effect by
 * excluding the UK from any role in selecting its governor-general (1928)
 * instituting a methodology by which its governor-general could accept Letters of Credence and Letters of Recall,
 * having its Minister for External Affairs, Patrick McGilligan, to the fury of the British government, meet the King without any British minister present. The Irish minister met King George as King of Ireland, and as King of Ireland, based on the 1927 Act, he broke new Commonwealth ground by signing a treaty between a dominion and another state, the Portuguese Republic.

Fourthly, by creating separate crowns and separate constitutional monarchies, the issue of sucession to the multiple thrones became an issue for all the parliaments in all the dominions. How this was to be done was clarified, not initiated, in the Statutes of Westminster.

Fourthly, it is a matter of record that the Irish were far quicker than other states to use the Act. They were the first to insist on the exclusion of Britain from the selection of its governor-general before the ink was even dry on the Act. They were the first to have a one-to-one meeting between its ministers and the King, again with British ministers excluded. They were the first to insist on replacing the Great Seal of the Realm with their own state seal, the Great Seal of the Irish Free State, the first to have the king as their king sign an international treaty on their behalf, the first to have a governor-general accept Letters of Credence - Lord Stamfordham, the King's Private Secretary, was furious over that one, especially as the Irish governor-general, on his government's advice, opened the letters rather than sending them unopened to the King, as Stamfordham wanted, the first to develop the concept that its residents were its citizens and not simply citizens of the Commonwealth, etc etc etc. Other states did these years later (some waited for many years), though they were legally empowered to do so from 1927 on by this Act.

I don't think, Peter, that you grasp the significance of the Act or how it revolutionalised the position of the King with his dominions. Fear ÉIREANN \(caint) 17:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

All interesting but we really should have a source eg a constitutional theorist or historian, that can be cited. Andy 18:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Even before 1927, the Irish Free State was a special case, so it's not obvious how much can be generalized to the other Dominions. (In Canada independance was opposed so politicians hid the fact as long as possible.) Peter Grey 18:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems that, at least, FearÉIREANN understands the concept of many Crowns within one, as AndyL cannot. --gbambino 18:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems that the only purpose of your post above was to make an ad hominem attack. I suggest you familiarise yourself with wikipedia policies on that issue. Andy 19:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi everyone. This all makes interesting reading and I think there quite a few good points being made. If I may be so arrogant as to summarise:

 * The Act is significant because it changed the status of Ireland within the Empire.
 * Shortly after the Act, Ireland led the charge of dominions exerting their independence.
 * The fact Ireland successfully exerted their independence can be interpretted as meaning that the Act itself divided the crown. This is supported by the apparent novelty of Ireland's actions as cited by FearÉIREANN.
 * Alternatively, it can be argued that the crown had already been divided, but the other dominions had not yet chosen to exert their independence. This is supported by the fact that the Act says nothing explicitly about the crown, and the wording of the new title makes the other dominions seem more connected to the crown of Great Britain, not less.

It's kind of like having a herd of elephants who've grown up with their legs chained to pegs in the ground. When they were young they couldn't break loose, so they assume they still can't. When Ireland, a newly pegged but fully-grown elephant, is let lose, it just rips the peg out of the ground and the other elephants slowly follow realising they can do the same thing.

It becomes a philosophical question as to what point were the elephants empowered to go free. When the cage was replaced with a peg while they were still small? When they grew large enough to rip the peg out and walk off? When the Irish elephant was pegged and showed them how to do it?

Anyway for all I know I'm inventing a historical fiction here. But fundamentally I agree with those who say we should cite a credible academic source if we're going to draw a connection between this piece of legislation and the division of the crown. We also need to explain how removing the of makes any legal difference.

Ben Arnold 11:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Division of the crown: c.f. the Cook Islands
I find the Cook Islands an interesting case study when it comes to the question of when the dominions became independent. The Cook Islands are considered to be part of the Realm of New Zealand. The Queen in right of New Zealand is head of state of the Cook Islands. However, the Cook Islands have as much (if not more) legal independence than was granted to the New Zealand by the Statute of Westminster.

The Cooks have their own Parliament, their own Prime Minister, even their own Governor-General (called the Queen's Representative). New Zealand cannot pass laws for the Cook Islands without their permission. The Cooks are empowered to pass "external" laws. The Cooks have diplomatic relations with 18 other countries. There is a Cook Islands High Commissioner in Wellington, and a New Zealand High Commissioner resident in Rarotonga.

The only legal difference between the Cook Islands today and New Zealand in the 1970s is the division of the crown. Yet New Zealand was regarded as a sovereign nation in the 1970s and the Cook Islands is regarded as a dependent territory today. This indicates that division of the throne is a neccessary condition for independence. That begs the question, when did division of the throne occur?

Which is why this article is so interesting to me.

(The reason I say 1970s is that in 1983? a Letters Patent was issued that explicitly established the Realm of New Zealand. In 1987 the Statute of Westminster and New Zealand Constitution Act were repealed, removing the ability for the UK to legislate for New Zealand.)

Ben Arnold 11:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Repealed where, the UK or New Zealand? The former seems improbable in the case of the Statute of Westminster; the latter calls into question your claimed consequence. (It was a UK Act that had this effect for Canada in 1982.) G Colyer 22:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Repealed in New Zealand. In 1947 New Zealand gained the right to modify its own constitution without limitation, but the U.K. still retained the power, under the Statute of Westminster, to legislate for New Zealand with the latter's request and consent. The Constitution Act 1987 (NZ) repealed the Statute of Westminster, removing that power. 217.33.200.148 14:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Royal title
I have removed this entire section. My reason is that this has been disputed and we have no source for this assertion. Once we have an official source I am happy for it to be restored. Ben Arnold 12:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The Act did not modify the King's title directly. Rather it permitted the King to do so by Royal proclamation, provided the proclamation was issued within six months. Before 1927, King George V reigned as king in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Irish Free State, South Africa, etc. Each of these states, in effect, amounted as Dominions to a subdivision of the United Kingdom. After 1927, however, he reigned as King of Australia, King of New Zealand, King of Ireland, King of South Africa, etc.'' The form of use in the royal title as issued by George V did not mention the Dominions by name, but referred to them as the "British Dominions beyond the Seas". Nonetheless the Act shattered the previous concept of the shared monarch, replacing it with one of multiple crowns, all worn by one monarch.

 * ''One direct consequence of the change in the royal title was that the British government lost the right to formally advise the monarch on the exercise of his or her powers in the Dominions. Rather, the government of each Dominion acquired the exclusive right to do so. This difference was significant because, by constitutional convention, the monarch must, in almost all circumstance, act in accordance with the 'advice' of his or her ministers.

 * ; Title before : George V, By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India''
 * ; Title afterwards : George V, By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India.''

Did the Act change the name of the United Kingdom?
I think it did, by stating "(2) In every Act passed and public document issued after the passing of this Act the expression "United Kingdom" shall, unless the context otherwise requires, mean Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Pondle (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

 * That doesn't prove it wasn't called that before. There often seems to be a time lag in changing official titles. When Ireland became a republic in 1949, nobody seems to have bothered changing the royal title officially to reflect this. That is, there doesn't seem to have been any Act of Parliament or royal proclamation to change it, though most subsequent documents did have the new form. Similarly, in 1952 the Queen was proclaimed with different titles in the various dominions, but this was only officially legalized by the Royal Titles Act 1953. And of course British monarchs usually called themselves King/Queen of Great Britain from 1604 on, though their separate kingdoms continued to give them separate titles until the union of 1707. Peter jackson (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Text rewritten
I have completely rewritten this article, mostly to remove quite a hefty chunk of text that made some rather extraordinary assertions regarding the consequences of this very simple Act.

It would appear that the effects of this Act have been confused by one or more past Wikipedia editors with the decisions of the 1926 and 1930 Imperial Conferences, the effects of the Statute of Westminster 1931, and changes made to the royal style and titles in 1953. The relatively trivial impact of the Act is perhaps best demonstrated by the fact that, out of some 1200 pages, the 2nd edition (published in 1928) of Keith's standard work Responsible Government in the Dominions mentions the Act only in one paragraph buried within the preface!

The 1927 Act was passed in consequence of the 1926 Imperial Conference, which had concluded that the royal titles did not correctly reflect the altered constitutional circumstances in Ireland. Even the removed text shows that this is the only part of the royal titles that was actually changed. The Conference's conclusions were also explicitly referred to by the Home Secretary when moving the House of Commons' second reading of what would become the Act [HC Deb 09 March 1927 vol 203 cc1251-66]; this was reiterated by the India Secretary when moving the Lords' second reading [HL Deb 23 March 1927 vol 66 cc721-32].

The Act did not affect the unity of the Crown (how could it?) and is not treated by the literature as having done so; that change is dated as a principle to the 1926 Imperial Conference, and as a legal fact to the Statute of Westminster 1931.

The Act also did not affect the basis of appointment of the various Governors-General (how could it?), nor with the relations between a Governor-General, his Government, and with the United Kingdom's Government (how could it?). Those changes did not in fact require any legislative sanction, and thus never received any. Unsurprisingly, none of the British parliamentary debates relating to the Act's passage make any reference to these matters.

The removed text also makes various other unsupported assertions that are completely at variance with any of the literature. The biggest howler is probably: "Many Dominions waited until the accession of Elizabeth II in 1952 to codify their new autonomy into domestic law"!

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC).


text:
Kontra-Punkte

Kontra-Punkte (Counter-Points, or Against-Points) is a composition for ten instruments by Karlheinz Stockhausen which resolves contrasts among six instrumental timbres, as well as extremes of note values and dynamic levels, into a homogeneous ending texture. Stockhausen described it: "Counter-Points: a series of the most concealed and also the most conspicuous transformations and renewals—with no predictable end. The same thing is never heard twice. Yet there is a distinct feeling of never falling out of an unmistakable construction of the utmost homogeneity. An underlying force that holds things together—related proportions: a structure. Not the same Gestalten in a changing light. But rather this: various Gestalten in the same light, that permeates everything."

History
The first, untitled version, written in 1952–53, was a sparse-textured, "punctual" composition scored for flute, E-flat clarinet, contrabass clarinet, contrabassoon, trumpet, contrabass tuba, piano four hands, harp, violin, and double bass. This score was almost immediately rejected by the composer, who created a new version in the spring of 1953 for flute, clarinet in A, bass clarinet, bassoon, trumpet, trombone, piano (one player), harp, violin, and cello. This version has the distinction of being "Nr. 1" in the composer's catalog of works, although the Klavierstücke I–IV, designated "Nr. 2", were actually composed in the previous year.

The hyphenated title signifies a "counter-action" against the punctual style currently in vogue in the early 1950s, an action embodied in the composition itself as a process of transforming dissociated "points" into cohesive "groups" of notes, and therefore from an essentially static condition to an audibly dynamic one. The title also implies a criticism of Stockhausen's own earlier composition Punkte, as well as of his friend Pierre Boulez's 1951 work Polyphonie X—a criticism for which Boulez seems to have forgiven Stockhausen.

Kontra-Punkte was first performed during the ISCM World Music Days in Cologne on 26 May 1953 by members of the WDR Symphony Orchestra, conducted by Hermann Scherchen. This performance, however, was only of roughly the first two-thirds of the work, owing to lack of sufficient time for the pianist to prepare the extremely difficult closing part. Later that same year, Scherchen conducted the first complete performance on a Domaine musical concert in Paris. One review of the 1953 (partial) premiere reported that Scherchen immediately repeated the piece because, shortly after the beginning of the first performance, the pianist had gotten two bars behind, despite being assisted by the composer "who from time to time played a note obviously not within the capacity of ten fingers but required by the score".

Somewhat confusingly, an earlier, orchestral work by Stockhausen was titled "Kontrapunkte" (without the hyphen: "Counterpoints"). This work, suppressed by the composer at the time on grounds that it was unplayable, was drastically recomposed in 1962 and issued under the title Punkte (Points), by which name the original work is also now called.

Analysis
"A 'punctual' ensemble style using ten soloists divided into six sound groups ((1) flute-bassoon, (2) clarinet–bass clarinet, (3) trumpet-trombone, (4) piano, (5) harp, (6) violin-violoncello) is transformed irregularly but steadily into a soloistic style articulated by 'groups', gradually focussing on the piano part". This version adds progressively longer insertions of denser note groups, often in single instruments, while at the same time gradually replacing more and more long notes with groups of rapid, shorter ones in a technique called Ausmultiplikation. This gradual erosion of the originally sparse texture, reflected in the hyphenated title (meaning "Against Points"), complements three parallel processes already present in the first version: (1) the heterogeneous timbres of the full ensemble are gradually reduced to the "monochrome" of the solo piano; (2) widely fluctuating durations reduce to similar values; (3) wide-ranging dynamics reduce to a generally soft level. This unidirectional process has been compared on the one hand to that of Maurice Ravel's Boléro, and on the other to Haydn's "Farewell" Symphony. Countless minor changes have been introduced in subsequent revisions, the last of which, in January 2004, replaced the A clarinet with the B-flat instrument.

Discography
In chronological order of recording.

 * Les Concerts du Domaine Musical: IVe Concert—Saison 1956. Anton Webern: Symphonie op. 21; Deux Lieder, op. 8; Quatre Lieder, op. 13. Luigi Nono: Incontri. Karlheinz Stockhausen: Kontra-Punkte. Pierre Boulez: Le marteau sans maitre. Solistes du Domaine Musical; Pierre Boulez, cond. LP recording, 1 sound disc: 33⅓ rpm, monaural, 30 cm. Series: Présence de la musique contemporaine: Serie artistique. Vega C 30 A 66. [Paris]: Vega, 1956. Reissued on CD1 of: Pierre Boulez: Le Domaine Musical, 1956–1967. Vol. 1. CD recording, 5 sound discs: digital, mono, stereo, 12 cm. Accord 476 9209 (set): 476 8858, 476 8859, 476 8860, 476 8861, 476 9210. [France]: Accord; Universal Music France, 2006.
 * The New Music. Karlheinz Stockhausen: Kontra-Punkte; Krzysztof Penderecki: Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima; Earle Brown: Available Forms I; Henri Pousseur: Rimes pour différentes sources sonores. Frederic Rzewski, piano; Members of the RAI Rome Orchestra; Bruno Maderna, cond. LP recording, 1 sound disc: analog, 33⅓ rpm, stereo, 30 cm. RCA Victrola VICS 1239. New York, N.Y.: RCA Victrola, 1967. Reissued as Musica Nova vol. 1. LP recording. RCA 940044. [Paris]: RCA France, 1969. Also issued as disc 2 of 3-LP set: La Musica Nuova. LP recording, 3 sound discs: analog, 33⅓ rpm, stereo, 30 cm. RCA Italiana SLD-61005; [Italy]: RCA Italiana, [1960s]. Reissued on CD: 1 sound disc, stereo, 12 cm. Sony 49996 (88765499962). New York: Sony Music Entertainment, 2013.
 * Stockhausen: Kreuzspiel, Kontra-Punkte Zeitmaße, and Adieu. London Sinfonietta (Sebastian Bell, flute; Antony Pay, clarinet; Roger Fallows, bass clarinet; William Waterhouse, bassoon; John Miller, trumpet; David Purser, trombone; John Constable, piano; Elizabeth Fletcher, harp; Marcia Crayford, violin; Christopher van Kampen, cello); Karlheinz Stockhausen, cond. (Kontra-Punkte recorded in the CTS Studio, Wembley (London), 8 July 1973) LP recording, 1 sound disc: 33⅓ rpm, monaural, 30 cm. DGG LP 2530 443. [Hamburg]: Deutsche Grammophon, 1974. Reissued together with Zeitmaße and Adieu from this same LP, with the addition of Stop (1965) from DGG LP 2530 442, on Stockhausen Complete Edition CD 4. Kürten: Stockhausen-Verlag, 2002.
 * Karlheinz Stockhausen: Kontra-Punkte, Refrain, Zeitmaße, Schlagtrio. The ensemble recherche (Martin Fahlenbock, flute; Shizuyo Oka, clarinet; Mario Kopf, bassoon; Uwe Möckel, bass clarinet; Markus Schwind, trumpet; Andrew Digby, trombone; Jean-Pierre Collot, piano; Beate Anton, harp; Melisa Mellinger, violin; Åsa Åkerberg, cello; in the other works: Jaime González, oboe; Florian Hasel, cor anglais; Klaus-Steffes Holländer, celesta; Christian Dierstein and Mariko Nishioka, percussion), Rupert Huber (conductor), cond. CD recording, 1 sound disc: digital, stereo, 12 cm. Wergo WER 6717 2. Mainz: Wergo, a division of Schott Music & Media GmbH, 2009. Disc reissued as part of Music Of Our Time: 50 Years: 1962–2012. 5-CD set. Wergo 6946. Wergo, a division of Schott Music & Media GmbH, 2012.

title: Kontra-Punkte


text: User talk:24.43.22.197

title: User talk:24.43.22.197


text:
George P. L. Walker

George Patrick Leonard Walker (2 March 1926 – 17 January 2005) was a British geologist who began his career studying mineralogy and later made significant contributions to volcanology. He was widely regarded as one of the pioneers of modern quantitative volcanology.

Biography
Walker was born in Harlesden, London in 1926. He was the only child of Leonard Walker, an insurance salesman, and Evelyn Frances (nee McConkey), a nurse. He went to school at Acton Lane Elementary School, and won a scholarship to Willesden County School in 1937. In 1939, Walker and his mother were in Ballinderry, County Antrim, when World War II broke out. They stayed in Ballindery, and Walker completed his schooling at Wallace High School, Lisburn. Walker went to Queen's University, Belfast to study geology and graduated with a BSc in 1948, and an MSc in 1949. He then went on to study for a PhD at the University of Leeds, under the supervision of W Q Kennedy. His dissertation focused on the secondary (alteration) minerals in the igneous rocks of Northern Ireland. In the summers of 1952 and 1953, Walker joined Kennedy on geological expeditions to the Ruwenzori Mountains and the Belgian Congo.

Career and research
In 1952 Walker took up an assistant lectureship in mineralogy at Imperial College, London. He was promoted to lecturer in 1954 and finished his PhD in 1956. For the next ten years, Walker turned his attention to the study of alteration minerals in lavas of eastern Iceland, spending each summer from 1955 to 1966 mapping in Iceland. This work earned him an international reputation as a meticulous mineralogist, and provided the first evidence for how the crust grows at oceanic ridges. In 1964, Walker was promoted to Reader at Imperial college. Following the eruption of Surtsey from 1963-1967, Walker began to take an interest in active volcanism. This led to some of his pioneering studies, first of basaltic volcanism and lava flows on Mount Etna; and later, on pyroclastic rocks and the products of explosive volcanic eruptions, in Italy, the Azores and Tenerife.

In 1977, Walker was awarded a Captain James Cook Fellowship of the Royal Society of New Zealand, which he took up at the University of Auckland. Although this began as a visiting position, in 1978 Walker resigned from Imperial College, and moved to New Zealand with his family. In 1981, he moved to the newly created Gordon Macdonald Chair in Volcanology at the University of Hawaiʻi. He remained in post until retirement, in 1996.

Awards and honours
Walker received many awards and fellowships in recognition of his meticulous and influential work.
 * Icelandic Order of the Falcon, conferred by the president of Iceland in 1977.
 * Election as Fellow of the Royal Society in 1975.
 * McKay Hammer award of the Geoscience Society of New Zealand in 1982.
 * Lyell Medal of the Geological Society of London in 1982.
 * University of Hawaiʻi Board of Regents Award for Excellence in Research in 1985.
 * Honorary Fellowship of the Royal Society of New Zealand in 1987.
 * Fellowship of the Geological Society of America in 1987.
 * Fellowship of the American Geophysical Union in 1988.
 * Honorary D.Sc. from the University of New Zealand in 1988.
 * Dr. scient. hon. c. from the University of Iceland in 1988.
 * Thorarinsson Medal (IAVCEI) in 1989.
 * Wollaston Medal (Geological Society of London) in 1995.

Personal life
In 1958, Walker married Hazel Smith. They had a daughter, Alison, and a son, Leonard.

title: George P. L. Walker


text:
Jandakot, Western Australia

Jandakot is a southern suburb of Perth, Western Australia, located within the City of Cockburn local government area. It is best known for Jandakot Airport that is situated entirely within the suburb, the airport being "the busiest general aviation airport in Australia in terms of aircraft movements", the sixth-busiest civilian airport in Australia in the fiscal year ending 30 June 2018, and in the 2011 fiscal year even the busiest civilian airport in Australia.

History
Jandakot was originally named after Lake Jandakot, which was renamed lake Forrestdale in 1973. Maps of the Swan River Colony produced in the early 1830s show a lake of vast extent situated south west of Kelmscott. The name of the first European to find the lake remains unknown but, in February 1833, Surveyor-General Septimus Roe found the size of the lake had been greatly exaggerated. It became well known as a watering place on the original track between the Canning River and Pinjarra and in 1844 its Aboriginal name was recorded as Jandacot by surveyor  Gregory, brother of Augustus Gregory. During subsequent years, the name was recorded variously as Jandicott, Jandakoot and Jandakott, but the spelling eventually adopted was Jandakot. The Aboriginal meaning of the word is said to be "place of the Whistling Eagle".

Geography
It is bounded to the north by the Roe Highway, Kwinana Freeway to the west, Johnston Road to the east and to the south by Fraser Road, Jandakot Road, Solomon Road and Armadale Road. The northeastern boundary of the suburb is also the municipal boundary of the City of Melville and the eastern boundary is the municipal boundary of the City of Canning.

Jandakot Airport
Jandakot is best known for Jandakot Airport located within it. Jandakot Airport serves pilot testing and domestic plane flights. It is the busiest secondary airport in Australia. A popular feature is the cafe that overlooks the runway. The airport was opened in 1963.

A land development company is keen to redevelop the land occupied by Jandakot Airport in exchange for a new airport more than 70 km from many airport customers. In contrast to the tens of thousands of people now living in its vicinity, there is stiff opposition from the aviation community. The aforementioned land development company received a further setback in 2006 when the Minister for Transport wrote advising them that the airport was to be operated in its current location and in accordance with their lease from the Federal Government. This will include major re-development of the airside facilities including a new parallel 12/30 runway.

Green hydrogen project
In 2018, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), an independent government agency, announced A$1.5 million in funding for Australia's first green hydrogen project, called the ATCO Hydrogen Microgrid, at Jandakot. The project involved a trial by ATCO to produce, store, and use renewable hydrogen to power a microgrid and assess the feasibility of a similar process on a larger scale. After solar energy has been used to separate hydrogen molecules from water, the hydrogen was captured and injected into a micro-grid system at the Clean Energy Innovation Hub (CEIH) at Jandakot. The total project cost was A$3.53m, with A$1.79m coming from ARENA, and the project was completed on 30 November 2019.

Bus

 * 233 Cockburn Central Station to Gosnells Station – serves Beeliar Drive and Armadale Road
 * 515 Jandakot to Murdoch Station – serves Berrigan Drive
 * 518 Cockburn Central Station to Murdoch TAFE – serves Beeliar Drive and Armadale Road
 * 523 Cockburn Central Station to Treeby – serves Beeliar Drive and Armadale Road
 * 527 Cockburn Central Station to Aubin Grove Station – serves Beeliar Drive and Armadale Road

Rail

 * Mandurah Line
 * Cockburn Central Station

Climate
Jandakot gets the comfortable climate of the Perth area with cool, wet winters and hot, dry summers. Summer temperatures can get as high as 45 C, winter weather gets mild temperatures around 15 C. Jandakot holds the record for the lowest temperature in the Perth metro area, of -3.4 C, and regularly drops below freezing in winter.

title: Jandakot, Western Australia


text: User talk:63.206.118.191

title: User talk:63.206.118.191


text:
Talk:Tadpole (film)

Untitled
The plot summary on this page is the same, verbatim, as the IMDB's plot summary for this movie (link at bottom of article). I don't know if this copied that, that copied this, the same guy wrote both, he granted permission, or what. Is this content legit?

 * I wrote this a while ago, so IMDB copied Wikipedia. This summary is way too long and to detailed for this article, but this was one of my first edits.  I promise everything here is true, so anyone who wants should cut it down to size.  I will try to eventually.  --Darnedfrenchman (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Improvement of "critical response" section
Roger Ebert has quite an interesting and insightful review of this movie here. I will have to leave it to another editor to incorporate relevant parts into the "critical response" section at this time. Nodekeeper (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tadpole (film)


text: User talk:66.68.32.156

title: User talk:66.68.32.156


text:
Zona reticularis

The zona reticularis (sometimes, reticulate zone) is the innermost layer of the adrenal cortex, lying deep to the zona fasciculata and superficial to the adrenal medulla. The cells are arranged cords that project in different directions giving a net-like appearance (L. reticulum - net).

Cells in the zona reticularis produce precursor androgens including dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) and androstenedione from cholesterol. DHEA is further converted to DHEA-sulfate via a sulfotransferase, SULT2A1. These precursors are not further converted in the adrenal cortex if the cells lack 17β-Hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase. Instead, they are released into the blood stream and taken up in the testicles and ovaries to produce testosterone and the estrogens respectively.

ACTH partially regulates adrenal androgen secretion, also CRH.

In humans, the reticularis layer does contain 17α-hydroxylase; this hydroxylates pregnenolone, which is then converted to cortisol by a mixed function oxidase. In rodents, the lack of 17α-hydroxylase results in the synthesis of corticosterone instead of cortisol as in the human.

title: Zona reticularis