text:
Designated marksman rifle

A designated marksman rifle (DMR) is a modern scoped high-precision rifle used by infantry in the designated marksman (DM) role. It generally fills the engagement range gap between a service rifle and a dedicated sniper rifle, at around 300 –.

DMRs are distinguished from sniper rifles in that they are semi-automatic to provide higher rates of fire (with some also having selective fire to switch to burst or automatic) and have larger magazine capacities (10, 20, or 30 rounds depending on the firearm and operational requirements) to allow rapid engagement of multiple targets.

DMRs have to be effective, in terms of hit rates and terminal ballistics, at application ranges exceeding those of ordinary assault rifles and battle rifles, but do not require the extended-range performance of a dedicated sniper rifle. DMRs need to function as part of squad (and possibly at close quarters) and often share some basic characteristics with sniper rifles when compared to other weapons carried in the DM's platoon. They typically have telescopic sights for more detailed observation and aiming, often also quick-deployed bipod for optimized accuracy, reduced recoil and better stability, and an adjustable stock for better ergonomics.

Comparison to sniper rifles, battle rifles, and carbines
Most designated marksman rifles are based on modified designs of an assault rifle currently issued by a nation's military, or on a battle rifle that was formerly issued. The ammunitions used are often of the same caliber as that of the machine guns within the same combat unit, typically a fully powered cartridge such as the 7.62 mm NATO. For example, battle rifles such as the M14, FN FAL, AR-10 and Heckler & Koch G3 were largely replaced during the 1980s and 1990s by modern assault rifles firing the 5.56 mm NATO intermediate cartridge for standard riflemen, but many were accurized and retained as DMRs.

Conversely, some nations have also built rifles that were designed for the designated marksman from the ground up. Examples include the Soviet SVD and Chinese QBU-88.

Sights
Some designated marksman rifles will have some type of optical sight with a higher magnification level than the standard-issue rifle. For example, the Squad Designated Marksman Rifle issued to U.S. Army marksmen is frequently fitted with a Trijicon 4× ACOG, while the standard-issue M4 carbine is often equipped with an unmagnified Aimpoint CompM2 or CompM4. Commonly, the sighting system will be the only difference between the standard rifle and the designated marksman rifle, as is the case with the F88S DMR issued to the Australian Army.

Sniper rifles tend to have even greater magnification than designated marksman rifles, fitting their increased effective range in comparison, as is the case with the M110 SASS used by the U.S. Army, equipped with a Leupold 3.5-10× variable-power scope. However, some designated marksman rifles, such as the Mk 12 Special Purpose Rifle or the Squad Advanced Marksman Rifle are fitted with scopes with similar magnification.

Barrels
In some cases, the designated marksman rifle will have a longer barrel than the standard issued rifle. For example, until October 2015, when the M4 carbine was approved as the new standard-issue rifle, the M16A4 rifle was still standard issue throughout the United States Marine Corps. The barrel on the Mk 12 Special Purpose Rifle, the current rifle used by the squad designated marksman in the USMC, is only 500 mm (18 in) long - 50 mm (2 in) shorter than the barrel on the standard rifle. This is no longer the case, however, as the M4 carbine has a barrel length of only 370 mm (14.5 in). Also, some rifles, such as the F88S Austeyr, have a barrel that is the same length as the standard service rifle. The FD-200 has an accurized barrel, also found on designated marksman rifles.

Most sniper rifles, such as the Accuracy International Arctic Warfare, have a barrel with a length of 610 mm (24 in) or greater. Only the Dragunov sniper rifle (SVD) and similar designated marksman rifles have a barrel of this length. The designated marksman rifles based on the M14 have barrels 460–560 mm (18–22 in) long.

Ammunition
In most cases, a designated marksman rifle will share the caliber and possibly even the ammunition type used by standard-issue rifles. DM rifles may be issued with standard ball ammunition, or special match grade loads, such as 7.62 mm NATO 'M118LR' sniper round. Sniper rifles are (almost exclusively) deployed with match grade ammunition in order to take advantage of their full effective range and accuracy potential; in addition, some sniper rifles are chambered for specialized ammunition, such as .338 Lapua Magnum or .338 Norma Magnum, that they do not share with common weapons.

In the U.S. military, designated marksman rifles chambered for 5.56 mm NATO have available the 5 g (77 grain) match grade Mk 262 Mod 0/1 cartridge that enhances the effective range to roughly 600-800 m.

The effective range of semi-automatic rifles chambered in .338 Lapua Magnum or .338 Norma Magnum can exceed 1400 m.

Action
All designated marksman rifles in use today are semi-automatic, some with select fire. Sniper rifles are generally bolt-action rifles, but can also be semi-automatic.

Designated marksman rifles in service by nation

 * 🇦🇷 Argentina: FAMTD is a variant of the FN FAL with an accurised barrel, sniper stock and bipod.
 * 🇦🇺 Australia
 * F88S Austeyr 5.56 NATO standard-issue rifle, fitted with an enhanced optic is issued to one rifleman in each fireteam in the Australian Army.
 * SR-25; 7.62mm NATO sniper rifle is often used to provide fire support.
 * HK417; 7.62mm NATO battle rifle, interim F88S replacement for Afghanistan deployments.
 * Mk 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle; 7.62mm NATO rifle is in limited service.
 * 🇦🇹 Austria: The Steyr AUG HBAR-T, is a longer heavier-barreled version of the Steyr AUG designed for use as a designated marksman rifle that can be fitted with a variety of optical sights.
 * 🇧🇩 Bangladesh
 * The Type 85 is the most seen weapon used as designated marksman rifle by the Bangladesh Army.
 * Different variants of the Heckler & Koch G3 7.62mm NATO rifles modified with scopes and other tactical upgrades are used as designated marksman rifle as well.
 * 🇨🇦 Canada: The Canadian Forces are phasing out the C7CT and C8CT designated marksman rifles, as well as the AR-10T. with the Colt Canada C20 DMR
 * 🇨🇱 Chile: The FD-200 is a variant of the SIG 542 with an accurised barrel, sniper stock and bipod.
 * 🇨🇳 China:
 * The QBU-88 is a designated marksman rifle deployed by the People's Liberation Army and People's Armed Police, intended for aimed semi-automatic fire at ranges beyond the capabilities of standard infantry assault rifles.
 * The QBU-191 is designated marksman rifle with an 800 m effective range, fitted with an accurized long, heavy free-floating barrel, extended handguard, 30-round box magazine and a QMK-191 variable-magnification (4-15×) telescopic sight. Selective fire with the full-auto mode is retained on the marksman rifle, improving its fire suppression capability.
 * The SVD is the designated marksman rifle in Cold War era and still remain usage in reserve forces.
 * 🇨🇿 Czech Republic: CZ BREN 2 PPS
 * 🇩🇰 Denmark: The Heckler & Koch HK417 was the main DMR in use, by the Royal Danish Army, but is pr 2021 transitioning to Colt Canada C20.
 * 🇫🇷 France: The FN SCAR is a designated marksman rifle fielded by the French Army, alongside the HK 417, retiring the FR F2 sniper rifle.
 * 🇩🇪 Germany
 * The German Army uses the G3A3ZF-DMR, a modified version of the Heckler & Koch G3 battle rifle, as a designated marksman rifle and recently introduced the G28.
 * The Heckler & Koch HK417 is chambered for 7.62mm NATO and has been adopted by several nations for use as a designated marksman rifle.
 * Galatz is standard-issue marksman rifle of Georgian Armed Forces, thought some reserve and second line units still use SVD.
 * Some Georgian Special Army and Police units use VSS Vintorez, TAR-21, AR-10 and M4A1 configured as marksman rifles
 * 🇭🇺 Hungary
 * The SVD is the main designated marksman rifle for the Hungarian Armed Forces.
 * Hungary manufactures the bull-pup designed Szép sniper rifle chambered for 7.62×51mm NATO.
 * Hungarian Special Forces uses also the M24 Sniper Weapon System.
 * Hungarian Armed Forces designed the anti-material sniper weapons family called Gepárd.
 * 🇮🇳 India
 * The SVD is the DMR for the Indian Army. Different variants of the INSAS family of weapons modified with scopes and other tactical upgrades are used as DMRs as well.
 * The IMI Tavor TAR-21 and the IMI Galil chambered for the 7.62 NATO round are issued to units of the Special Forces of India as a DMR.
 * The SIG Sauer SIG716i chambered for the 7.62 NATO Round are issued for the frontline units of the Indian Army as a battle rifle/DMR.
 * 🇮🇩 Indonesia:
 * The Pindad SS2-V4 is a designated marksman rifle said to be used by Kopassus. It is based on the Pindad SS2, with a lengthened barrel and a telescopic scope mounted on a Picatinny rail.
 * Pindad SPM-1
 * 🇮🇷 Iran: The locally produced G3A6 fitted with Hadaf 3 telescopic sight is used as a designated marksman rifle by Iran Army special forces and Iranian Police Special Unit.
 * 🇮🇶 Iraq: The Tabuk is an adaptation of the Zastava M70 assault rifle used as a designated marksman rifle by the Iraqi Army. It is chambered for 7.62×39mm
 * 🇮🇱 Israel
 * The Israel Defense Forces formerly used the Galatz as a designated marksman rifle. The Galatz is a variant of the Galil assault rifle chambered for 7.62mm NATO.
 * The M4A1 is used as a marksman rifle, equipped with Harris bipod and Trijicon ACOG telescopic sights. The M4A1 replaced the M16A2, which is still used by some infantry reserve units.
 * The STAR-21 Tavor is a variant of the Tavor assault rifle used as a designated marksman rifle by the Israeli Defense Forces. It is fitted with a picatinny rail that allows for the attachment of various optical sights (typically an ACOG scope) and a bipod.
 * The IWI Tavor X95-L, a variant of the Tavor with a longer 38 cm barrel, is used as a DMR.
 * The Barrett REC10 is used as a DMR by special forces.
 * 🇮🇹 Italy: The Beretta ARX200 is used as a designated marksman rifle.
 * 🇯🇵 Japan: The Howa Type 64 is used as a marksman rifle.
 * 🇲🇲 Myanmar:BA100, MAS-1 MK-I and MAS-1 MK-II are locally made designated marksman rifle that are used extensively in the country's counter-insurgency campaign
 * 🇳🇿 New Zealand: LMT LM308MWS; 7.62mm NATO rifle used by the New Zealand Army under the designation DMW.
 * 🇳🇴 Norway: HK417; 7.62mm NATO gas-piston battle rifle.
 * 🇵🇭 Philippines:
 * The Philippine Marine Scout Snipers developed and use the Marine Scout Sniper Rifle, a derivative of the M16 rifle.
 * The Philippine Army uses the M14 as a marksman rifle, while some units also use the SR-25 in limited numbers. Newer M16-derived marksman rifles such the Squad Designated Marksman Rifle (SDMR) and the Special Purpose Rifle (SPR) in 5.56mm NATO have been introduced to replace the M14 and have been in service with the Army's 1st Scout Ranger Regiment since 2015. More recently the SIG 716 DMR has been adopted by the Philippine Army as its new standard designated marksman rifle in 7.62 NATO, with 829 units having been delivered as of early 2020.
 * 🇵🇹 Portugal: The Portuguese Army uses the Heckler & Koch G28E and FN SCAR H PR as a marksman rifle.
 * 🇷🇴 Romania: The PSL (rifle) is a purpose-built designated marksman rifle chambered for 7.62×54mmR based on a modified Kalashnikov action. It is similar in appearance to the SVD, though the two rifles share little in common.
 * 🇷🇺 Russia
 * The SVD was the first rifle designed from the outset as what is now known as a designated marksman rifle.
 * The Dragunov SVU is a bullpup variant of the SVD rifle
 * The Chukavin SVCh is starting (2024) to replace the SVD in the Army of Russian Federation.
 * 🇿🇦 South Africa
 * Accurised former standard service South African Defence Force R1 rifles are used by the South African Army as designated marksman rifles. Being phased out in favour of the new R4 DMR modified rifle being introduced at section level.
 * Scoped and accurised Vektor R4 rifles are used as designated marksman rifles by soldiers of the South African Army.
 * 🇨🇭 Switzerland
 * The Swiss Armed Forces use the standard issue SIG SG 550 with a Kern 4×24 telescopic sight as a marksman rifle.
 * SIG716 DMR Gen2 replacing SG 550.
 * 🇬🇧 United Kingdom
 * L129A1 ; a 7.62 NATO, 16 in barrel variant of the SR-25 developed by Lewis Machine and Tool Company has been procured for use in Afghanistan. A 6× power ACOG is the standard-issue sight.
 * 🇺🇸 United States
 * The M14 rifle has formed the basis of several designated marksman rifles used by the United States Military:
 * Mk 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle: Used by the United States Army and Navy SEALs
 * M14SE Crazy Horse: Used by the 101st Airborne Division and the 2nd Infantry Division of the US Army.
 * M39 Enhanced Marksman Rifle: Used by the United States Marine Corps, replacing the United States Marine Corps Designated Marksman Rifle
 * The M16 rifle has formed the basis of several designated marksman rifles used by the United States Military:
 * Colt Model 655 and 656: Never standardized. Predecessor to other M16-based designated marksman rifles.
 * SDM-R: Used by the United States Army in limited numbers
 * SAM-R: Used by the United States Marine Corps. Replaced by the Mk 12 Special Purpose Rifle
 * Mk 12 Special Purpose Rifle: Used by the United States Navy SEALs, Rangers. Replacing the SAM-R in United States Marine Corps service.
 * M38 SDMR (Squad Designated Marksman Rifle): 5.56×45mm USMC Designated Marksman Rifle, replacing Mk 12 SPR
 * The AR-10 rifle has formed the basis of several designated marksman rifles used by the United States Military:
 * SR-25 Mk 11: Used by the United States Marine Corps, United States Navy SEALs, and the United States Army. Replaced by the SSR Mk 20.
 * M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System used by the United States Army and United States Marine Corps replacing some M39 and all SR-25 Mk 11.
 * The Heckler & Koch HK417 in variant Sniper has been adopted by Delta Force of the United States Army and SEAL Team Six of the United States Navy for use as a designated marksman rifle.
 * M110E1: A version of G28E-110 which is a derivative of a civilian variant of HK417 has been adopted by the Army to replace the M14 EBR, SDM-R, and other older DMRs.
 * The FN SCAR in variant Sniper Support Rifle (SSR) Mk 20 Mod 0 has been adopted by all branches of USSOCOM (e.g. SEALs, Rangers, Army Special Forces, MARSOC, AFSOC) replacing the SR-25 Mk 11.
 * 🇷🇸 Serbia
 * The Zastava M76 is a designated marksman rifle based on a modified Kalashnikov action. It is chambered for 7.92×57mm Mauser. It has also been chambered in 7.62×51mm NATO and 7.62×54mmR.
 * The Zastava M91 is a purpose-built designated marksman rifle based on a modified Kalashnikov action and chambered for 7.62×54mmR.
 * The Zastava M91 is a purpose-built designated marksman rifle based on a modified Kalashnikov action and chambered for 7.62×54mmR.

title: Designated marksman rifle


text: Category:Television stations in Saskatchewan

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


text:
User:SterlingNorth

I would like to thank Wikipedia for my newfound obsession over Wonder Woman. And especially, I want to thank Taco Deposit for causing me to search for the mysterious birdman who won Wonder Woman's heart. How I hate you so. ;-)

I blog (shudders) at http://sterlingnorth.livejournal.com

I basically fix typos or other obvious errors as I come across them in Wikipedia. Though I did start the Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive article, and started changing the WBDC-TV article when the station became WDCW. But those aren't really things to be proud of.

title: User:SterlingNorth


text:
User talk:Holzi

Chigorin Defense
Thanks for your nice work fixing up the main variations of the Chigorin Defense and adding more detail. If you like, please look at the other articles on the chess opening found in Category:Chess openings; you can probably help make those articles better too. I also invite you to join WikiProject Chess. Quale 00:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Holzi


text:
Category:Socialites

A socialite is a person of social prominence who spends substantial time and resources entertaining or being entertained.

title: Category:Socialites


text:
Reptile centre

A reptile centre is typically a facility devoted to keeping living reptiles, educating the public about reptiles, and serving as a control centre for collecting reptiles that turn up in populated areas. Most are public-access, run as private business or state-sponsored. Some centres work with venomous reptiles as venom research labs. Others are simply privately run zoos devoted to solely to reptiles or are incorporated into larger zoos or organizations.

One example is the reptile centre in Alice Springs, Australia, devoted to indigenous reptiles. Many are collected from local homes, yards, or from areas about to be burned under the controlled burning program to keep summer grass fires from threatening the local homes. Most of the reptiles end up being relocated to uninhabited areas. The Alice Springs centre also doubles as a snake call centre, with the owner and staff coming out to homes to remove venomous snakes from inconvenient places.

In America, Black Hills Reptile Gardens is the nation's largest collection of reptiles. It is located at Rapid City, South Dakota in the heart of the Black Hills. It was founded in 1937.

Also in the United States, the St. Augustine Alligator Farm Zoological Park is the only complete collection of the world's crocodilians. In 1893 the St. Augustine Alligator Farm started as a small facility, displaying the American Alligator. It is accredited with the AZA (Association of Zoos and Aquariums).

A Burmese Python at the reptile centre Serpent Safari in Gurnee, Illinois was billed as the heaviest living snake in captivity. In 2005, it weighed 183 kg at a length of 8.2 m. The snake was named Baby.

title: Reptile centre


text:
L'Île-Perrot

The Town of Île-Perrot (French/official name: Ville de l'Île-Perrot) is a town and municipality on Île Perrot in southwestern Quebec, Canada. The population as of the Canada 2016 Census was 10,756. The town is at the western end of Lake Saint-Louis, and borders the local island communities of Terrasse-Vaudreuil, Pincourt and Notre-Dame-de-l'Île-Perrot. It also includes Dowker Island and the small Claude and Bellevue Islands (Île Claude and Île Bellevue).

History
The island was granted on October 29, 1672, to François-Marie Perrot (1644-1691), captain in the Picardy Regiment and governor of Montreal in 1670. In 1786, the place received its first parish priest.

In 1845, the Municipality of l'Isle-Perrot was founded, abolished in 1847, and re-established in 1855 as the Parish Municipality of Sainte-Jeanne-Chantal-de-l'Isle-Perrot (partially taking the name of the Sainte-Jeanne-Chantal Parish established there in 1832). In 1946, its name was changed to L'Île-Perrot, and in 1955, it changed statutes from parish municipality to ville.

In 1949, L'Île-Perrot greatly reduced in size when a large part of its territory was split off to form the new Parish Municipality of Notre-Dame-de-l'Île-Perrot.

Demographics
In the 2021 Census of Population conducted by Statistics Canada, L'Île-Perrot had a population of $11,638$ living in $4,997$ of its $5,150$ total private dwellings, a change of NaN% from its 2016 population of $10,756$. With a land area of 5.46 km2, it had a population density of in 2021.

Local government
List of former mayors:

 * Ludger Stocker (1955)
 * Florian Bleau (1955–1973)
 * Marcel Rainville (1973–1977)
 * René Émard (1977–1981)
 * Pierre Bleau (1981–1989)
 * Michel Martin (1989–1990)
 * Claude Girouard (1990–1993)
 * François Grégoire (1993–1997)
 * Marc Roy (1997–2017)
 * Pierre Séguin (2017–present)

Transportation
Autoroute 20 runs through the town, with three at-grade intersections serving as exits. The east side of L'Île-Perrot is bordered by a branch of the Ottawa River with a crossing via Autoroute 20 over the Galipeault Bridge (Pont Galipeault) to Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue on Montreal Island.

There is a shuttle bus service operated by CIT La Presqu'Île connecting to the Île-Perrot station on the Vaudreuil-Hudson commuter rail line.

Education
There are 3 francophone elementary schools (Virginie Roy, François-Perrot and La Perdriolle) and an adult education centre in L'Île-Perrot, all run by the Commission Scolaire des Trois-Lacs.

Lester B. Pearson School Board operates Anglophone schools. The community is zoned to Dorset Elementary School in Baie-d'Urfé.

title: L'Île-Perrot


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinotes

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete for being a self-promotional article. (Posted by User:ChrisO)

Wikinotes
More self-promotion. --W(t) 00:22, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
 * Comment If it's a mediawiki project, doesn't it at least deserve an article? Ryan Prior 01:17, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a mediawiki project, not a wikimedia project. Also, even wikimedia projects should live up to the same standards of inclusion as the subjects of other articles under avoid self-reference. It's just the this happens rather quickly due to the association with wikipedia. --W(t) 01:27, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
 * delete - they've also tried inserting links to their wiki, even on subjects where they have no content. -- Solipsist 05:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -CunningLinguist 06:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. -Sholtar | talk 06:49, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Self-promotion. Jayjg (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * D Fawcett5 04:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Talk:Ararat anomaly

I don't get what the problem really is
Why hasn't anyone climbed up there and checked that thing out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.158.246.65 (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Wiki link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Ararat) "Ararat is inaccessible, both by reason of its great height, and of the snow which perpetually covers it". But I wonder the same thing. I wish an expedition with technological advancement would investigate today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.42.223 (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

NPOV tag
'''Good thing you tagged the article with a {NPOV} as it is really disputed in real life. -- Svest 00:24, May 29, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Would the discovery vindicate the whole of the Christian Bible, or would the discovery merely vindicate the old testament (or even just a portion of the old testament)?

Family Folk History
My great-uncle, the late Vahan Pampayan, used to tell about Noah's ark on Mt. Ararat:

After the flood, Noah and his family found the earth devoid of life - so they dismantled the ark to build dwellings at the base of the mountain. Here, Noah planted vineyards and had more children. These children stayed home, at the base of Mt. Ararat, and did not have their language corrupted at the Tower of Babel. So it is that the Armenian language is the original language of The Garden of Eden.

I cannot reconcile this story with modern linguistic and anthropological studies that say Armenians are Aryan.''' But this is the story I heard at the feet of my Grandfather's brother-in-law, who had been there.

 * John Elder 06:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is the dispute?
There is nothing on this page which indicates a dispute. Please remove the NPOV tag
 * Edit boldly - you could have done this!!! I zapped the phrase about conspiracy theories and then the NPOV tag - while sceptics may not accept the claim that this is Noah's Ark, the article does not claim it to be the ark. It discusses the anomaly in a WP manner, without taking sides. Some external references to sceptics would help make this an even more solid article, though. John Elder 17:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Voting for deletion
I want to start the discussion here before putting this in for Votes for Deletion.

I think this entry and Noah's Ark hoaxes and misconceptions are equally POV attempts to create "articles" which implicitly support one point of view. To speak of "Noah's Ark hoaxes" is to beg the question whether they are hoaxes. To refer to the "Ararat anomaly" is to beg the question whether there is one. The present article includes some NPOV language, but the overall effect of giving this "topic" its own page is rather like giving a page to "Evidence George Bush is the devil"—even if you carefully balance pro- and anti-devil evidence, the article remains inherently POV. Besides being inherently POV, the article has more than enough regular POV language, always with a dash of NPOV. Thus, we get a whole slew of POV links to bogus archaeologists* with one "sceptical" link thrown in at the end.

(*Oh, how unfair! But does even one of them have a degree in archaeology? A BA? The major proponent of the "Ararat Anomaly" was a nurse anesthetist for crying out loud!)

In any case, I don't see why hoaxes, misconceptions and anomalies can't all be folded into sections in Noah's Ark?

Any comments before I list this for deletion and start the process?

Let me also note that all this talk of secret photos of the "Ararat anomaly" should have lost its interest when dozens of visitors have visited the site on foot and taken pictures. Except for a link the article never mentions this. This isn't the "face on the moon." This is talking about the Great Wall of China as an space-imaging perplexity—Lordy, what ever could that long snaky thing be? Lectiodifficilior 06:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I think the article is a masterpiece of NPOV-ness. Would Lectiodifficilior please be specific about the POV that he thinks this article is putting forward? Would he please say which links constitute the "whole slew of POV links"? -- RHaworth 08:21, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Coordinates
the coordinates given seem to be wrong. at least, they point to an area significantly west of Ararat. dab (ᛏ) 3 July 2005 14:04 (UTC)

Re-write
Re-wrote this article as it had major problems.

First, it confused two separate sites, the anomaly and a quite separate place called Durupinar - they'er almost 20 miles apart.

Second, it needed tightening up, which I've done.

PiCo 04:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Durupinar
Note. I slapped "merge" tags on Durupinar and Ararat anomaly before I saw PiCo's claim that the two sites are different. I have left the tags in place because, even if there are two sites (and I am slightly sceptical of that), I think it would be better to combine the articles so that the two sites can be compared and contrasted better, since both sites have been identified as Noah's Ark.

If you really feel they should be separate articles: the external links to the images on Rex Geissler's pages should be moved to Durupinar and not pretend to illustrate a different Ararat anomaly. Some photos of the Ararat anomaly would be welcomed.

Is it a coincidence that PiCo and Tuckerresearch have been contributing in this area on the same day? -- RHaworth 08:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

 * They are seperate sites that are often misten for each other because of the ark connection. They are close to each other but close only counts in, well, you know. I suggest the tages be removed but an additonal section be added to properly explain the misconception and differences, as well as a like to each other in the See Also section. Pattersonc(Talk) 9:45 AM, Sunday; January 29 2006 (EST)

Durupinar vs. Ararat
Yes, it is just a coincidence that PICO and I worked on it the same day. I was working on David Fasold while RHayworth was changing the Durupinar and Ararat anomaly links. I had noticed that someone had confused the two. Ark on Ararat proponents and Ark elsewhere proponents are very fiercely adamant that their opponents are wrong. I think it best to keep Durupinar and the Ararat anamoly separate, and mention the varying claims at Noah's Ark, with links to Mount Ararat, Al Judi, Durupinar, the Ararat anamoly, et cetera there. But that's just me. -- Tuckerresearch 2006-01-28 18:03:14
 * In a tricky area like this, please remember to sign your contris with ~ . -- RHaworth 19:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to prove that Tuckerresearch and PiCo are two different people, I support merging Durupinar and the anomaly. :) Have a look at Noah's Ark - a lot of recent work there, including a revamped section called The Search for Noah's Ark. It mentions Durupinar and the anomaly as the two leading contenders for the honour of hosting the Ark. (There's a third, the Ahora Gorge (not sure of the spelling), but it seems to have fallen out of favour in recent years). It has links to Mount Ararat, Durupinar, the Ararat Anomaly, and even Noah's Ark hoaxes and misconceptions, but not to Al Judi. (Perhaps Al Judi exists as Mount Judi or Mount Cudi?) Anyway, I think articles are proliferating a bit too fast, and some merging is called for. Maybe a single article called The search for Naoh's Ark, so that the Noah's Ark article could be shortened? PiCo 08:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I support the merge but I object to any title that mentions Noah - NPOV demands that we allow for those who consider these features to be purely geological. -- RHaworth 11:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not totally opposed to a merge, but I think there should be redirects - so if someone looks for Durupinar it goes to "The Search for Noah's Ark" or if they search for Ahora Gorge (which is a gorge on Mount Ararat) they get there or "Mount Ararat" etc - as to RHaworth's suggestion that we take out "Noah," I think that would be pointless. True, some consider it to be purely geological, some don't think Noah or the ark existed, but people are going to look up "Noah's Ark" and "Noah" and "The Search for Noah's Ark" and the like - on the pages, to achieve NPOV that is where you say it's likely just an odd geological formation.  To make my point, there is an article on the Priory of Sion, which discusses the medieval Priory much ballyhooed in The Da Vinci Code and The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail - but any objective historian realizes that it was elaborate hoax perpetraded by Pierre Plantard and his ilk.  Yet the so-called story of the Priory remains.  Another example, Mu and Lemuria are geologically improbable (okay, impossible) but their articles remain.  See what I'm trying to get at? TuckerResearch 00:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Any moves on this merge? I say keep it as is - I added a photograph to the Durupinar article -- TuckerResearch 05:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Gee, I just noticed this very old discussion to merge the Ararat "anomaly" and the Durupinar discussions, and since I see that this has not happened, I assume it is a dead issue... but folks, the Ararat "anomaly" and the Durupinar site aren't even in the same ball park. The so called "anomaly" is a fuzzy "CIA photograph" and a shadow observed from the town of Doğubeyazit in the valley below. No investigation has been done there and I don't know of anyone who has even visited it recently (ever?). The Durupinar site on the other hand is undeniably physical, accessible, and has been the subject of on-site study by a number of groups. The "anomaly" like the Ahora Gorge, is a great place about which to speculate concerning the Ark because no one can reach these places to conform or deny the rumors. Durupinar, on the other hand, stands or falls based on the science that has, is, or will be done there. The "anomaly" will live on in the halls of rumor and speculation while Durupinar will eventually be irradiated, probed, excavated, and sampled until it is conclusively accepted or dismissed (and yes, there are those who have already made up their biased minds based on cursory quick looks or on the strength of papers by academic pundits who have never even set foot on the site (e.g., Collins)). I would therefore oppose any merging of articles about rumored sites (most of which fall on Mt. Ararat) with a measurable object like the Durupinar site or the "striated rock" that Cornuke found in Iran. -- Firewall 20:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Biblical literalism
J.L.Main is right about one thing: the number of Biblical literalist cranks is growing, so I have not reverted his additions to their side of the argument. I suppose that sometimes we have to apply the NPOV principle between science and myth.

In their time, the authors of Genesis would have had very little knowledge of the earth's long term history, they would only have had veroius myths and legends, occasionally vaguely based on historical fact but more often based on tall stories that people believed because they wanted to believe. But if the authors of Genesis had written "um, er, we're not really sure about the history of the earth", Genesis would not have sold. It is like that today, people buy and believe what they want to buy and believe. That is why there are so many elected liars in politics today.

But believers in Biblical literalism cannot be selective. They should read Numbers 31 and pay particular attention to verse 18. Do they really want to believe that God commanded Moses to kill all the Midianite men, boys and married women, but spare the Midianite virgins for Hebrew gratification? They should also read Revelation 22 verse 18 about adding to Biblical prophesies; it might explain to them why there has been so much friction between literalist Christians and literalist followers of the prophet Mohammad.

Most people regard the story of Noah highly for its symbolic value. That is the way it should be. Viewfinder 08:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Viewfinder's version vs later versions
I've reverted to Viefinder's version of 6 April as being the last reasonably sensible version. I'm pasting the depeted version as found at 7 April here, with reasons why it's not acceptable in a serious encyclopedia:

''A growing number of Biblical literalists, Jews, and Muslims believe that the anomaly is in fact Noah's Ark. However, the anomaly has yet to be explored. An expedition which was to have been mounted to the summit in July 2004 by Honolulu businessman Daniel McGivern was called off when permission was refused by the Turkish authorities (the area is within a restricted military zone) [1]. The McGivern expedition was labelled a "stunt" by National Geographic News, which pointed out that the expedition leader, a Turkish academic named Ahmet Ali Arslan, had previously been accused of faking claimed photographs of the Ark (or anomaly) [2].

(Comment: "A growing number of etc etc believe the anomally is in fqact Noah's Ark." They do? Give a reference for a claim like that please.)

''"The "Noah's Ark" claims are not taken seriously by mainstream archaeology, where the object is thought to most likely be rock formation that happens to have the approximate length to width ratio, 6:1, of Noah's Ark as described in Genesis (300 by 50 cubits, while the anomaly is roughly 1,015 by 170 feet), although some have acknowledged that it may be a non-biblical man made structure such as a fortress. The problem with these two positions is that the object seems to have moved since its initial discovery. This could be because its location was not charted accurately in 1949, or else because it was moved by the glacier it is caught in. The second possibility would seem to prove that it is neither a rock formation nor a stationary man made structure.

(Comment: What's this about "some have acknowledged...it may be a fortreess"? No reputable archaeologist would dream of "acknowledging" that anyone would build a fortress far above the snowline, within a glacier, tens of miles from anything worth guarding. Ancient people weren't so stupid. If anyone has a reference from a genuine archaeologist saying this, let us know.)

''Sceptics often point to the fact that one cubit is the distance from the tip of a person's middle finger to his/her elbow which is normally about 18 inches, so 300 cubits would be about 450 feet, not 1,015 feet. Supporters of the anomaly being Noah's Ark point to the fact that if the person doing the meeasuring was larger than a normal person the cubits would be larger. There is a theory in some Christian circles that people of Noah's era were 11-13 feet tall on average, so a cubit of the time would not have been 18in but closer to 40in, although mainstream science responds that there is no historical or archaeological evidence in support of this and plenty of evolutionary evidence against it. Others say that object looks bigger than it really is because it is encased in so much ice.

(Comment: The "fact" that "if" Noah were 13 feet tall his cubit would be larger? An "if" is not a fact, it's a speculation. In this case, it's a speculation so far outside accpeted scientific or historical thought as to be laughable. Thje rest6 of this paragraph is equally silly. If anyone wants this to stay in, please produce reputatble citations (which means, not citations from fringe religious sects).

''Skeptics further point out that the Ark claim implies that the Genesis flood waters rose to the anomaly's 4,724m elevation, which they claim impossible to achieve with the known water resources on the planet. Supporters often appeal to the theories which are discussed on the flood geology page.

(Comment: Flood geology is a crank belief, and not widely accepted, even in Christian circles. Fringe beliefs that have no business in a mainstream encyclopedia. The bit about the height of the waters of the Flood is case-arging - but we don't need to argue for against the historical reality of the Flood, just to describe the anomally).

''The Defence Intelligence Agency, which has custody of the images, has analysed the anomaly as showing "linear facades in the glacial ice underlying more recently accumulated ice and snow" [3].

(Comment: This is about as much as needs to be said). PiCo 11:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

 * If there are no further edits from others, then there will be no further edits from me either. It seemed to me that the water level point was relevant, but I will not re-insert it. As for flood geology, of course I agree that it's crank stuff, but there is a long Wikipedia article about it. Perhaps you should request its deletion. Viewfinder 13:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Biblical literalists only?
I've deleted 2 pointless, misleading and NPOV references to biblical literalism. One doesn't have to be a biblical literalist to believe that Noah's Ark existed. Biblical literalism is the belief that ALL of the Bible should be interpreted in its most obvious literal sense. Belief that the Ararat anomaly may be the remains of Noah's Ark is merely acknowledging that ONE select passage of the Bible may be literally true. Referring to biblical literalism falsely equates a specific theory with a wider worldview, and implies that it is only literalist Chrisitans who believe in a worldwide or regional deluge of the area, when in actual fact many non-literalist Christians as well as Jews, Muslims and people of other faiths share the belief. Caleby 12:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

 * No non-literalist Christians believe in a world-wide deluge or in Noah's Ark (or if you know of any, please cite them). Those Jews and Muslims who believe in the deluge and the Ark are equally literalist . PiCo 03:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Rejectors of "Durupinar Claims" is not universal
Dear PiCo, I agree that there are those who reject the claims of Wyatt, but there are plenty who still look to the Durupinar site as viable: Some examples for which I can supply references (but won't right now for sake of time) are:  WAR (obviously), Don Patten (author/researcher), Dave Deal (author/researcher), Henri Nissen (author), Anchor Stone (researchers), Bill Shea (former senior archeologist for the Seventh Day Adventist Church-- now retired), Dr. Salih Bayraktutan (geologist over the Durupinar site working out of Ataturk University in Erzurum, Turkey, now geologist for BOTAS), etc.... these are just a few that come to mind of the top of my head. The broad brush statement that you were defending is misleading and incorrect. I recommend that the subject of who supports Durupinar really has no place in an article about the Ararat Anomaly which is really only supported by a subset of those looking for the Ark on Agri Dagi. Firewall 02:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I guess your last sentence is correct - this is an article about the Anomaly, and the only erason Durupinar is mentioned is to clear up any confusion between the two. Ok, leave it as you edited it. PiCo 02:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What is it meant to be?
Sorry to miss the point, but in the article nothing really says what we are looking at in the picture – can x mark the spot? Julia Rossi 10:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

 * It's nothing more than a twinkle in the minds of a handful of Biblical literalists. Viewfinder 11:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

 * The external link has a much better aerial shot (in that special, creationist sense of the word "better"), and there's a ground level shot in the "Notes" section. None present anything other than evidence for pareidolia (the picture that heads up the article is priceless in this regard).  --Plumbago 12:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

 * thanks people – it reminds me of a cartoon to the effect that kids are looking at clouds and one says, I see hannibal with his elephants crossing the alps, and another one says, I was gonna say I saw a puppy, a teddy and a snowman, but I changed my mind. I can't even see the twinkle! Julia Rossi 10:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

 * hi darlings, wheres the pix! you guys are missing out. I will have to put some up, lol!  Some nice high-res TIFFs perhaps.
 * Nice helpful pix. Now I get it. Julia Rossi 06:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

err... sorry people, what exactly are we supposed to be looking at here? ha ha ha! If you squint your eyes you can kinda see a grumpy face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.7.177 (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Biblical Literalists Revisted
I am not a biblical literalist, but I'd be keen to go investigate Ararat, and would be willing to consider the anomaly an ark if the evidence were good. Similarly, I'm not a classical literalist, but I see no reason for rejecting Schliemann's assertions regarding Troy. I'm not an Egyptological literalist, but I don't have any reason to conclude the Merneptah Stele is not what it is supposed to be.

I concur with Caleby, I would like to see references to "biblical literalists" removed unless sources could be provided.A.J.Chesswas 00:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

 * To my mind you both have an eccentric idea of literalism. It means simply taking something literally - Schliemann was a literalist vis-a-vis the Iliad (i.e., he took it to be history as well as poetry), and anyone who takes the Noa's Ark story in the bible literally (as history rather than, say, allegory) is also being a literalist. It's just a matter of definition. Nor do you have to take the entire bible literally to be a literalist about the Ark chapters. PiCo 01:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

 * So a person could be a biblical literalist if he believed the ancient temple at Jerusalem to be true, but didn't believe Noah's Ark was a true story? Wouldn't this mean that you could be just as likely to believe Noah's Ark wasn't for real even as a literalist?

 * Ie:

 * 1. Believe something [x] in the bible is literally true = biblical literalist
 * 2. Believe the Jews built a temple [x] after being returned from exile, which was subsequently destroyed = biblical literalist.
 * 3. Believe in temple [x], but not ark = biblical literalist
 * THEREFORE
 * Being biblical literalist is not a qualifier for belief in Noah's Ark
 * BECAUSE
 * "you don't have to take the entire bible literally to be a literalist about [x]" - PiCo 01:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Surely to be a biblical literalist is to be committed to the literalism of the whole Bible, including the 6-day creation and young earth, otherwise one would simply be a Noah's Ark Literalist, or a Second Temple at Jerusalem Literalist, or a Young Earth Creationist.

 * Lets remove the labels so people can see the anomaly without somebody's personal biases, UNLESS you can provide references.

 * There must be a wikipedia policy somewhere to back me up on this, if an appeal to common sense does not suffice. A.J.Chesswas 02:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

 * "But believers in Biblical literalism cannot be selective. They should read Numbers 31 and pay particular attention to verse 18...They should also read Revelation 22 verse 18 about adding to Biblical prophesies..." Viewfinder 08:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC) This is perhaps the greatest critique of literalists - that they are inconsistent. There is an underyling notion, then, that the term Biblical Literalism implies belief in literalism across the board. I restate my case; one need not be a biblical literalist on the whole to believe Noah's Ark was an historical event. A.J.Chesswas 03:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

 * GOING ONCE... A.J.Chesswas 20:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Sorry for slowness, I was seeing Angkor Wat (it was more fun than Wikipedia). Anyway, biblical literalism and Noah: well, the bible is the only place you'll find Noah's ark mentioned, so if you believe that it might be on Mt Ararat (or anywhere else), it's because you read it in the bible. And if you read it in the bible and believed it might be true, then you took the Noah's ark story literally. Therefore... PiCo 23:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

 * So if I read about Israel being captive in Egypt for generations and believed it might be true, does that make me a Biblical Literalist? If I read about the Peloponnesian War in classical literature and believed it might be true, does that make me a Classical Literalist?  Even if in spite of this belief I think the battle of Troy never happened? A.J.Chesswas 02:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

 * "So if I read about Israel being captive in Egypt for generations and believed it might be true, does that make me a Biblical Literalist?" Yes.
 * "If I read about the Peloponnesian War in classical literature and believed it might be true, does that make me a Classical Literalist?" Strictly speaking, yes. I guess the main difference is that you'll have public opinion on your side on this one - everyone agrees that the Peloponnesian War happened, even if they couldn't quite tell you where or when. Classical historians, however, would look at you pityingly if you said you took everything in Thucydides at face value.
 * "Even if in spite of this belief I think the battle of Troy never happened?" I don't see the connection between the P. War and the T. War - it's perfectly possible to believe the first happened and the second didn't. It's all a matter of how you regard your sources - presumably in this case you have trust in Thucydides to write good history, but look on Homer as more interested in the poetry angle. PiCo 05:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

 * It's wierd, because by your interpretation a literalist would be more broad-minded than one who wasn't. Because he considered a text may have historical merit he is more likely to make a dig at Ararat, or at Troy, whereas a non-literalist would not even consider it.

 * I still think the use of the term "biblical literalism" here gives the impression that the only people interested in the history of the Ararat account are closed-minded and committed to a dogma that prioritises sacred text over archaeology. Yet the very fact that those interested in Ararat are interested in archaeology would suggest otherwise. A.J.Chesswas 21:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

 * You're right about my definition of biblical (or Homeric) literalism - it's a belief in the literal, take-it-at-face-value truth of the text. But archaeologists don't go looking for Noah's Ark because the evidence is all against it being there. This isn't an absence of positive evidence, it's the presence of real evidence. Geology has ruled out a global flood (not enough water to cover the earth for one thing), geobiology also (that's the science of how creatures got to where they are today - if you believe that all the animals started off with 2 pairs each on the slopes of Ararat, then you can't explain how kangaroos got to Australia), even shipbuilding technology (big wooden boats don't float too well - the timbers warp in the swell and they spring leaks all over). Plus, of course, biblical scholars have concluded that Genesis was written no earlier than the 6th century BC, that Noah's Ark is based on Babylonian myths, and that the person who wrote it had theological objectives, not scientific or historical ones. So for all these reasons archaeologists don't go looking for Noah's Ark. They might be wrong, of course - maybe you might go there one day and find the Ark and make them all look silly. But if you're genuinely interested in archaeology, you'd know beforehand why it is that aracheologists would tell you your chances of finding the Ark are zero. PiCo 01:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

 * An interest in archeology on Mt Ararat is not an indication of whether one is closed or open minded. It is the possible presence of a large wooden boat that drives the biblical literalists to an interest in archeology in the Middle East. It is rather telling that there are not hourdes of people scouring Mt Ararat for a boat. Finding such a boat up there would be a huge boost for those who wish to prove the Bible stories. We will ignore the work of Ron Wyatt since it is not taken seriously. -- Alan Liefting talk 02:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Easy way to solve this:
 * "The Ararat anomaly is...advanced by some believers in Biblical literalism as the remains of Noah's Ark."

 * 1. Who advances the Ararat anomaly?
 * 2. Have these people all, or generally, described themselves explicitly as "biblical literalists", or are they any MORE "biblical literalists" than Christians in general?
 * 3. Can you provide evidences/sources to show this to be true?

 * If you can link all of these people clearly with the "biblical literalist" label then it has utility in the article. If you can't, then its use is evidence of the biases and presuppositions of the article's authors.
 * Thank you for your time. A.J.Chesswas 03:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(Reducing indent). We've been through this. Question: Who advances the Ararat anomaly? Answer: Believers in biblical literalism - nobody else believes in Noah's Ark. Question: Have these people described themselves as literalists? Answer: They don't need to, they're literalists by definition, since they believe in a literal interpretation of the Ark story. Are they any more literalist than Christians in general? Yes, they are - I've never seen any evidence that a majority of Christians believe in Noah's Ark, but if you have it, please produce it. PiCo 04:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The references supplied, particularly reference 3 to the satellites, are not working references, nor does the reference title provided appear to have anything to do with this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:196:4701:25B9:8912:2CF4:6A34:FC20 (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

WHAT IS THE TOPIC HERE?
This as far useless pseudo-article doesn't give an answer to the most basic and necessary question: '''What is it? Is there anything there, or is it just a shadow which only shows under specific lighting & perspective conditions'''?

Don't remove it from Wikipedia, because people want to learn about the topic - but from this "article" they can't learn anything useful yet.

I have removed from the lead the misleading noun, "object". Not even "structure" is as vague a term as required here; who has a better word? A set of ice surfaces are kind of a nothing, which photographed from a certain angle might remind those inclined to do so of a certain shape ("Jesus on a slice of toast"-style). Arminden (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

 * There is none. This should be just deleted. 2001:A61:5D3:7B01:8D80:9244:9CE4:6A8C (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ararat anomaly


text:
Olympic Stadium (Amsterdam)

The Olympic Stadium (Olympisch Stadion, ) is a sporting venue which was used as the main stadium for the 1928 Summer Olympics in Amsterdam. The venue is currently used mostly for athletics, other sports events and music concerts.

When completed, the stadium had a capacity of 31,600. Following the completion of the rival De Kuip stadium in Rotterdam in 1937, the Amsterdam authorities increased the capacity of the Olympic Stadium to 64,000 by adding a second ring to the stadium. In 1987 the stadium was listed as a national monument.

AFC Ajax used the Olympic Stadium for international games until 1996, when the Amsterdam Arena, since 2018 renamed Johan Cruyff Arena, was completed. Renovation started in 1996, and the stadium was refurbished into the original construction of 1928. The second ring of 1937 was removed, reducing capacity to 22,288, and the stadium was made suitable for track and field competitions again.

Since 2005, the stadium is home to a sports museum, the Olympic Experience Amsterdam.

Architecture and design
The Olympic Stadium was designed by architect Jan Wils, and is one of the finest examples of Amsterdamse School architecture, complementing the surrounding neighbourhood designed by H.P. Berlage. The design won the Olympic gold medal in the architecture competition at the 1928 Olympics. The concrete second ring that was added in 1937 to the north and south wing of the stadium was also designed by Jan Wils.

Development history
The original plan of Jan Wils consisted of an extension of the Harry Elte stadium that was situated next to the current Olympic Stadium. This plan was rejected as the municipal government of Amsterdam had planned an important urban development programme in that area, and wanted to demolish the stadium as soon as possible. The second plan was almost fully executed, and consisted of a new Olympic Stadium that was situated more westward. In January 1926, the Amsterdam municipal government, the National Olympic Committee and the NV Nederlandsch Sportpark—the owner of the Harry Elte stadium—reached an agreement; after the Olympic Games of 1928, the Harry Elte stadium would be demolished and the NV Nederlandsch Sportpark would be the owner of the Olympic Stadium. Starting in January 1926, the area in which the stadium was to be built was elevated by means of 750,000 cubic metres of sand. This phase was completed in October of that year and in the same month the construction of the pile foundation began. On 18 May 1927, the ceremonial first stone was placed by Prince Hendrik. Some two million stones would follow.

Characteristics

The football pitch measures 114 by 75 metres. The athletics track around it is eight metres wide and has a perimeter of 400 metres. The cycle track around the athletics track was nine metres wide had a perimeter of 500 metres. It also hosted the equestrian jumping, field hockey, gymnastics and korfball (demonstration) events.

The capacity of the stadium is subject to controversy as the exact capacity was kept secret to press and public during the Games to evade the remark that the stadium's capacity was only marginally bigger than the Harry Elte stadium. It is said that two configurations could be set up in the stadium; one with 21,537 seats and 12,618 standing rooms (33,255 total) and one with 16,197 seats and 25,236 standing rooms (41,433 total). After the Games the NOC admitted that the capacity of the stadium was somewhere near 31,600. Additional seats could be added on the cycle track, which would increase the capacity with 5,900.

The 1928 Olympics introduced the idea of the Olympic Flame. The flame burned for the first time ever in a tall tower, known as the Marathon tower, adjacent to the Olympic Stadium. In the top of the Marathon tower, four balconies are situated which were used during the Games by horn blowers. Above these balconies four speakers from Philips were attached, from which results and messages were broadcast into the Olympic area, a novelty at the time. The bowl on top which carried the Olympic flame was known to Amsterdammers as "the ashtray of KLM pilots". A permanent Olympic flame burning during the tournament was also an Olympic first.

1996 renovation
In 1987 the city government announced plans to demolish the stadium. The stadium was saved, however, when it was listed as a national monument. Renovation started in 1996, and the stadium was refurbished into the original construction of 1928. The second ring of 1937 was removed, and the stadium was made suitable for track and field competitions again. The original bicycle track was also removed to enable the use of the space beneath the seats for offices. The stadium was reopened by the Prince of Orange on 13 May 2000.

In 2007, the area around the stadium was renovated as part of larger urban renewal project covering the entire Olympic area. North of the stadium 969 houses were completed in 2008. In the same year, the islands in the river Schinkel to the west of the stadium were suited with tennis fields and football pitches, an athletics track and a park. The Stadionplein square in front of the stadium was also recently renovated.

Two new bridges were also built around the stadium: to the south there is a new bridge suitable for all traffic, the Na Druk Gelukbrug, and to the Schinkel islands in the west there is a cyclists and pedestrian bridge, called Jan Wilsbrug.

Use after the Olympic Games
The stadium hosted several international matches of the Netherlands national football team, the first one being the game against Uruguay (0–2) during the Summer Olympics on 30 May 1928. The last one was a friendly on 6 September 1989 against Denmark (2–2).

After the Olympics, the stadium was used regularly for various sporting events, including athletics, speedway, field hockey and cycling. The 1954 Tour de France, for example, started outside the stadium. However, it was football that remained the most popular. It was both the home ground of Blauw Wit and BVC Amsterdam (later merged into FC Amsterdam), while AFC Ajax used the stadium for games in which the crowd was expected to exceed the capacity of its own De Meer Stadion (in practice, most of their international matches) or for midweek games which required the use of floodlights, with which the De Meer was not initially suited. Ajax continued this arrangement until the completion of the Amsterdam Arena in 1996, since 2018 renamed the Johan Cruijff Arena.

The Olympic Stadium was the host venue for the 1987 FIM Speedway World Championship Final. The event, held for the first and only time over two days (thus consisting of two separate meetings with the riders aggregate score determining their placing), was won by defending World Champion Hans Nielsen from Denmark. Second was fellow Dane and former twice (1984 and 1985) World Champion Erik Gundersen, while finishing third was American rider Sam Ermolenko (himself a future World Champion in 1993). The speedway track was laid out over the stadiums existing 400 m athletics track. The only Dutchman in the field Henny Kroeze (who had been seeded to the Final so as to have at least one Dutch rider in the field), finished 16th and last in the Final after scoring only one point over the two days with the point coming in his 5th and final ride of the first day.

The Amsterdam Admirals played their inaugural season in the World League of American Football in 1995, and the 1996 season, at the stadium, prior to moving to the Amsterdam Arena. The stadium hosted World Bowl '95.

The stadium hosted the 2016 European Athletics Championships. Because of this, an athletics track was added to the plan for the nearby Park Schinkeleilanden at the last moment. The athletics track in that nearby park, which could be a warming up track when using the main track in the Olympic Stadium for racing, was opened in 2008. The stadium also serves as the start and finish of the Amsterdam Marathon, held every October.

In 2014, the stadium was temporarily fitted with a long track speedskating rink, and hosted the Dutch national championship in Allround and Sprint. This was repeated in 2018 to host the World Allround Championships.[9]

The stadium is also a tourist attraction. Tourists especially come from the Netherlands, Germany, Greece, Belgium, and Canada, and tours are available in Dutch, German, Greek, English and French.

The Olympic stadium now also offers spaces around the field for over 30 business.

Famous football games
Famous games, apart from the Olympic Games, include:
 * 1962 European Cup Final between Benfica and Real Madrid, ended 5–3 for Benfica.
 * "De Mistwedstrijd" ("The Fog Match"); Ajax's 5–1 victory over Liverpool FC on 7 December 1966.
 * 1972 Intercontinal Cup 2nd leg between Ajax and Independiente from Argentina. The contention between the winners of the European Cup and the Copa Libertadores. The match ending in a 3–0 home win, after a 1–1 draw in Argentina.
 * 1977 European Cup Winners' Cup Final between Hamburger SV and RSC Anderlecht, which the German team won 2–0.
 * The second leg of the 1981 UEFA Cup Final between Ipswich Town and AZ Alkmaar (then known as AZ '67). The match ended 4–2 to AZ but with Ipswich winning the first leg 3–0 at Portman Road, Ipswich won the trophy 5–4 on aggregate.
 * The second leg of the 1992 UEFA Cup Final between Ajax and Torino F.C. The match ended in a 0–0 draw, but as the result of the first game in Stadio delle Alpi had been another draw (2-2), Ajax won the trophy on away goals.
 * The 2nd leg of the 1995 UEFA Super Cup between Ajax and Spanish Real Zaragoza on 28 Februari 1996. After a 1-1 draw in Spain, Ajax won the home game with 4-0.

title: Olympic Stadium (Amsterdam)


text:
Bidding stick

A bidding stick  (sometimes also referred to as a budstikke,   war arrow, or stembod ) is a term for a wooden object, such as a club or baton, carried by a messenger and used by Northern Europeans, for example in Scotland and Scandinavia, to rally people for things (assemblies) and for defence or rebellion.

Scotland
In Scotland, such a token (Scottish Gaelic: crann-tara,   translated as "fiery cross" or "cross of shame" ) was used to rally clan members to arms. The practice is described in the novels and poetry of Sir Walter Scott. A small burning cross or charred piece of wood would be carried from town to town. A widely known use was in the 1715 Jacobite rising, although it was used more recently among Scottish settlers in Canada during the War of 1812. In 1820, over 800 fighting men of the Scottish Clan Grant were gathered, by the passing of the Fiery Cross, to come to the aid of their Clan Chief and his sister in the town of Elgin.

The name Crann Tara was used for a Scottish Gaelic current affairs programme on Grampian Television (ITV) and a political magazine edited by Norman Easton between 1977 and 1982.

Scandinavia
When an enemy had arrived, bidding sticks (Old Swedish: buþkafle (sg.)) were sent in all directions. In Sweden, they consisted of clubs, or just wooden chunks; in Norway, there were repurposed arrows. Sometimes the bidding sticks had a string attached to one end and were charred on the other end; Olaus Magnus (1555) relates that those who did not bring the club to the next village would be hanged and their homesteads burnt down.

When the people were assembled to a thing, the object was in the shape of an axe, or if the meeting concerned blasphemy, it was a cross.

The objects were signed with runes or other marks in order to indicate the reason for the assembly (e.g. election of king at the Stone of Mora), and who had sent them. During the Middle Ages, using buþkaflar was the official method of assembling people, and they were only allowed to be carved by certain officials, e.g. governors and sheriffs.

They were especially efficient, however, when they were used to levy people against royal oppression and high taxes. After the Dalecarlian rebellion of 1743, strong checks were placed on the use of bidding sticks.

In Sweden, the bidding stick was standardized during the village reorganizations in 1742, and it was at the village level that they were frequently used. During the 19th and 20th centuries, more specific messages were attached to the clubs or inserted into a hollow space. Still in the early 20th century, there was a paragraph in Swedish law that stated that the bidding stick would be sent between the villages if there was a forest fire. — Similar paragraphs were also present in the Finnish legislation concerning the correct use of arpakapula, or budkavle in Finland’s Swedish, till the 20th century.

Newspapers
The concept of the bidding stick has been used as the name for several newspapers, including the Norwegian papers Budstikka, Budstikken, and Bremanger Budstikke, and the Faroese paper Tingakrossur.

title: Bidding stick


text:
The Grand Pecking Order

The Grand Pecking Order is the first album by American rock band Oysterhead, released on October 2, 2001. The album was recorded in guitarist Trey Anastasio's Barn recording studio. Oysterhead was intended to be a single performance, but the project spawned this album and a mini-tour in support of the album.

Many of the songs from that first performance are on the album, including "Little Faces" (a reworked version of "I Am Oysterhead"), "Mr. Oysterhead," "Rubberneck Lions," "Pseudo Suicide," and "Owner of the World." The song "Oz is Ever Floating" refers to the album's recording engineer, Oz Fritz, and his beliefs in psychoanalyst Dr. John C. Lilly. The song "Birthday Boys" is about the temporally-proximate birthdays of Claypool (September 29) and Anastasio (September 30) while in Las Vegas in 2000. The song "Radon Balloon" would appear as a reworked instrumental version on Anastasio's self-titled album as "Ray Dawn Balloon." The song "Wield the Spade" was based on a speech by Romania's final communist leader, Nicolae Ceauşescu.

Eventually, the release of this album was supported by a brief tour of North America.

Reception
Allmusic gave the album praise, remarking "It would be a difficult task to even find three musicians with voices as uniquely dissimilar as those of Trey Anastasio, Les Claypool, and Stewart Copeland, much less attempt to effectively fuse them together within the same band -- and yet, this is precisely what Oysterhead manages to pull off on their debut album." They clarified that "the characteristic trademarks of each member are still firmly in place -- Anastasio's fluid guitar passages, Claypool's monstrous low-end bass tone, and Copeland's deft hi-hat and cymbal work -- but unlike many albums by previous supergroups[...] the musicians seem to be carefully listening and playing off of one another at all times -- and enjoying themselves doing so."

Track listing
All songs, unless otherwise noted, are music: Trey Anastasio, Les Claypool, and Stewart Copeland; lyrics: Anastasio and Claypool.

Personnel

 * Trey Anastasio - guitar, lead and backing vocals
 * Les Claypool - bass, lead and backing vocals
 * Stewart Copeland - drums, miscellaneous percussion, spoken word on "Wield the Spade"

Credits

 * Mixed by Toby Wright
 * Recorded by Oz Fritz (see also TapeOp #75 Oz Fritz interviewed by Eli Crews)
 * Layout and Design Zoltron
 * Cover painting and illustrations: Tim Slowinski
 * Photography: Danny Clinch

Chart performance

 * No. 41 on the Billboard 200 albums chart

title: The Grand Pecking Order


text:
Talk:List of World Heritage in Danger

Dispute over Jerusalem
A dispute has been brought to the Mediation Cabal at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-03 List of World Heritage Sites in danger and I have agreed to try to help sort it out. To clarify my understanding of the problem, I see three edits for the "Old City of Jerusalem" entry:

1. Under Israel header:
 * Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (1982)
 * Site proposed by Jordan in 1981. However, it now belongs to Israel.
 * proposed by User:FatCatIL (and is the current version) with the edit summary "A compromise - it is now stated in the article that the site was proposed by Jordan, AND that it now belongs to Israel".

2. Under Jerusalem header
 * Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (1982)
 * Site proposed by Jordan in 1981, without political or sovereignty claims by any individual State.
 * Proposed by User:A51Abductee, with edit summary "Jerusalem is not listed under any particular state on the official UNESCO list, as now stated in the article. Please stop politicizing or adding POV to the list".

3. Under Jerusalem header
 * Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (1982)
 * Since the official status of the city relative to the concerned authorities has remained unsettled, the property is listed as a "State Party" in itself.
 * Last version by User:Joey80, with no edit summary.

The versions are listed going back in time with (1) being the latest.

There appears to be two issues, the header and the content. The article hinges around one source, the UNESCO Listings. The reference given has this to say:
 * "The site of Jerusalem was nominated in 1981 by Jordan, it being agreed at the time that inscription should in no way be regarded as a means for registering political or sovereignty claims by any State."

Thus there was a deliberate attempt to keep politics out of it. Of course that was 1981 and the issue politically is now whether it should be in Israel or Palestine. Can we continue to keep politics out of it?

The UNESCO list has this site under the heading "Jerusalem (Site proposed by Jordan)". Can we use that? One would need very strong arguments to go against the source.

For content, I wonder whether this is OK:
 * Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (1982)
 * Site proposed by Jordan in 1981, without political or sovereignty claims by any individual State. However, the site is now de facto part of Israel.

This avoids using the word "belong", but recognises that maintaining the site as a Heritage site is really now the responsibility of Israel as the de facto power.

Please give you views on this compromise or suggest other compromises. --Bduke 06:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This dispute appears to have ended. I'll close the mediation. Thanks, everyone. --Bduke 07:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I notice that somewhere along the line, the Jerusalem property was again listed under Israel. I'd like to revert this to "Jerusalem (Site proposed by Jordan)", the phraseology used by UNESCO owing to the unresolved status of the city. Maybe with a footnote explaining the situation? --
 * Tokyo tintin (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for picking up on that User:Tokyo tintin, I've reinstated the previous wording. It turns out an IP made the change back in May without trying to establish consensus. Nev1 (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Azerbaijan
The World Heritage Committee removed the Walled City of Baku from its endangered list and in fact praised Azerbaijan for its efforts to preserve it, see here. By this I removed Azerbaijan from the list. Baku87 (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Planned improvements
Looking for feedback on improving this list. Thanks. bamse (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments
The lead feels a little bit thin, I think it would be useful to talk about how a sites ends up on the danger list, for example do states suggest it to UNESCO or is it done on UNESCO's initiative? Do sites on the danger list get any extra protection or funding, or is it simply to raise awareness? Is there some background to why the danger list was introduced, a particular site or issue that triggered it? Maybe have a little about the criteria as they're included in the table? It might not be practical to have a map given how spread out the sites are, but List of World Heritage Sites of the United Kingdom uses in conjunction with coordinate templates with names, ie: 51.78°N, -3.08°W, so that a link is produced to Bing and Google maps showing the location of the sites. Caveat: if you read the FLC for where the map is mentioned you'll see that's it's not uncontroversial and it is preferred to use an on-wiki alternative if possible, although I think using Google and Bing in this way works very well. The table makes sense to me; I thought maybe there'd be a description of each site, but given the important thing is why they're listed I suppose that's not necessary and why it's been included. Is the key correct? It says: "Year" is the year of listing as site in danger, but the ear column looks more like when the site was first inscribed on the WHS list and the endangered column is when it was listed as endangered. Overall, a very good list. Nev1 (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback and suggestions. The list was very recently expanded so it is still a bit rough around the edges. In fact there used to be a description column in one of the older revisions (see article history), but I (and Ericleb01) decided not to repeat the description which is/(should be) present in the respective continent lists of WH sites. This is a list about sites in danger and we should therefore focus on the reasons/threats. Do you think that the list of former WH sites in danger (at the bottom of the article) should be transformed into a table format like the present sites in danger? Naturally the references are all UNESCO pages. Is this a problem for WP:FL? Lastly, are you interested/willing to help with the intro? bamse (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

 * references
 * ,, , , , , ,

 * ideas for expansion
 * add statistics/diagram from

 * non-unesco sources
 * ,

Salonga National Park
The entry for the Salonga National Park indicates that the site was endangered from 1984 to 1992. However, the source does not reflect this, and UNESCO is saying that it was only inscribed from 1999 onwards. Is the information missing a source or was it never endangered prior to 1999? This would help for the lead over at the African list. Thanks. Eric Leb 01 (Page | Talk)  19:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, haha, you placed the same date as the Garamba National Park by mistake. I went ahead and fixed it. Eric Leb 01 (Page | Talk)  19:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fix. bamse (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem! Eric Leb 01 (Page | Talk)  23:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

2012 update
. Removed Pakistan, but somehow Panama wasnt even here. (Lihaas (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)).
 * Panama was added to UNESCO's list just two days before you said that ;) Eric Leb 01 (Page | Talk)  22:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sites should not be removed from the article if they cease to be on the danger list! Move them from the first ("Currently listed sites") to the second ("Previously listed sites") table instead. I put back the Lahore site. And started with the 2012 additions. Should be finished today. bamse (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Update complete. bamse (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Overweight Introduction
In its current form the introduction to this article leaves much to be desired.

What would help tremendously would be subdividing it into, for example:

Introduction: The Organisation Intro: Natural Sites Intro: Historic Sites Intro: Future Outlook

These headings were derived from a cursory reading, and should be considered a suggestion only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.15.144.54 (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Just to clarify, is all you recommend to introduce section headings or something else? Please note that part of the introduction applies to both natural and historic sites (e.g. "potential dangers"), so a division in natural and historic sites makes not much sense IMO. bamse (talk) 08:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Well the entire lead right now is one massive section. And per FA requirements (dont know how it was FL'd) leads needs to be shortened to refelct article content not to inclue all condent not on the list.Lihaas (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

 * No idea about FA requirements, but writing a summary style lead for lists seems a bit strange to me. If you have a look at other featured lists, they typically write about the non-list subject (here "World Heritage in Danger") and perhaps refer to some examples in the list or give some statistics based on the list, just like this lead section does. Featured list criteria say that the lead should be engaging, introduce the subject, and define the scope and inclusion criteria. I believe the present lead satisfies these criteria. The first paragraph defines scope and inclusion criteria in general terms. The second paragraph illustrates this with examples. The third paragraph tells about how sites end up on this list or how they get removed. The fourth paragraph deals with external (non-UNESCO) opinion on the list. Personally I think that all of this is relevant for this article/list and I would not want to cut. If you think the lead is too long, feel free to split off part of it in sections (as in 1st Academy Awards for instance) or list it at WP:FLRC. bamse (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any real issues with the lead. The leads in FLs are significantly different to those in FAs, as lists need more comprehensive and often longer leads as they typically do not have any other sections. The lead was approved just a year ago at FLC—a strong indication it is well-written for the purpose. In my opinion the logic of the lead as it is, is better than the proposal by 196.15.144.54, as that overlooks many important aspects. I will remove lead as it definitively does not need to be re-written. Arsenikk (talk)  12:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of the "in danger" category
The World Heritage in Danger category is being discussed at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_10. One reason for proposing the deletion of the category is that updates to the status of sites should be made on this article rather than in category space. DexDor (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Updated needed
The list should be updated with the Heritage Sites in Syria that were disignated as in Danger in June 2013. Crispulop (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Done! Tokyo tintin (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Still needs update, like the lead still said "as of 2012..."--Jarodalien (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Everglades sea level rise
It's possible that sea level rise should be considered for the Everglades/Everglades National Park, since the southern portion is about a single meter elevation against a likely rise of that much this century, either killing it directly, or facilitating more damaging tides and storm surges. B137 (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of World Heritage in Danger. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/61F7YBBDB?url=http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1257 to http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1257

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) 02:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of World Heritage in Danger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1257
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205165943/http://whc.unesco.org/archive/1987/sc-87-conf005-9e.pdf to http://whc.unesco.org/archive/1987/sc-87-conf005-9e.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) 10:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of World Heritage in Danger


text:
Heavy Vegetable

Heavy Vegetable was a rock band based in Encinitas, California, which featured guitarist and lead singer Rob Crow, singer Eléa Tenuta, bassist Travis Nelson and drummer Manolo Turner. 11 years after their final studio album was released, Crow, Nelson, and Turner reunited as Other Men and produced the album Wake Up Swimming, which was released in 2007.

Discography

 * A Bunch of Stuff EP7 (1993, The Way Out Sound)
 * The Amazing Undersea Adventures of Aqua Kitty and Friends (1994, Headhunter/Cargo)
 * Frisbie (1995, Headhunter/Cargo)
 * Mondo Aqua Kitty (2000, Headhunter/Cargo)

V/A Compilations

 * Eyesore: A Stab at the Residents (1996, Vaccination Records) – "Time's Up"

title: Heavy Vegetable


text:
Primera división

Primera división (Spanish for First division) can refer to multiple top-division football leagues and other sports:

CONMEBOL (South America)

 * Argentine Primera División
 * Bolivian Primera División
 * Chilean Primera División
 * Paraguayan Primera División
 * Peruvian Primera División
 * Uruguayan Primera División
 * Venezuelan Primera División

CONCACAF (Central and North America)

 * Costa Rican Primera División
 * Primera División de Fútbol de El Salvador
 * Liga MX or Primera División, Mexico
 * Nicaraguan Primera División

UEFA (Europe)

 * La Liga or Primera División, Spain
 * Primera Divisió, Andorra
 * Primera División (women)

title: Primera división


text:
True Love Waits (album)

True Love Waits: Christopher O'Riley Plays Radiohead is the first tribute album by classical pianist Christopher O'Riley of songs by the alternative rock band Radiohead.

The concept of reinterpreting Radiohead's works is not new. Most notably, jazz pianist Brad Mehldau recorded covers of "Exit Music (For a Film)", "Everything in Its Right Place" and "Paranoid Android". Perhaps the most interesting part of O'Riley's album is his selection of Radiohead songs: he has chosen a broad view of the band's music, including tracks from earlier work ("Black Star", "Fake Plastic Trees", "Bulletproof") as well as more conceptual work, such as "Airbag", "Subterranean Homesick Alien", and "Motion Picture Soundtrack".

True Love Waits was followed in 2005 by O'Riley's second Radiohead tribute album, Hold Me to This.

Track listing
All songs by Radiohead (Colin Greenwood, Jonny Greenwood, Ed O'Brien, Phil Selway, and Thom Yorke), arrangements by Christopher O'Riley.
 * 1) "Everything in Its Right Place" – 4:06
 * 2) "Knives Out" – 4:38
 * 3) "Black Star" – 3:35
 * 4) "Karma Police" – 4:37
 * 5) "Let Down" – 5:31
 * 6) "Airbag" – 3:47
 * 7) "Subterranean Homesick Alien" – 4:15
 * 8) "Thinking About You" – 2:00
 * 9) "Exit Music (For a Film)" – 4:29
 * 10) "You" – 2:55
 * 11) "Bulletproof" – 3:02
 * 12) "Fake Plastic Trees" – 4:57
 * 13) "I Can't" – 2:37
 * 14) "True Love Waits" – 5:00
 * 15) "Motion Picture Soundtrack" – 4:48

title: True Love Waits (album)


text:
Spanish league

Spanish league may refer to:

Sports

 * Liga de Fútbol Profesional (Professional Football League), commonly known as La Liga, Primera División, and the "Spanish League," the professional football league in Spain
 * Liga ACB, men's basketball
 * Liga Femenina de Baloncesto, women's basketball

Others

 * League (unit), Spanish league, an archaic unit of measurement

title: Spanish league


text:
2005 Boston Red Sox season

The 2005 Boston Red Sox season was the 105th season in the franchise's Major League Baseball history. The Red Sox finished second in the American League East with a record of 95–67, the same record as the New York Yankees. The Yankees were deemed the division winner, due to their 10–9 head-to-head record against the Red Sox during the regular season. The Red Sox qualified for the postseason as the AL wild card, but were swept by the American League Central champion Chicago White Sox in the ALDS.

On offense, the Red Sox led Major League Baseball in runs scored (910), hits (1,579), doubles (339), RBI (863), walks (653), batting average (.281), OBP (.357), OPS (.811) and sacrifice flies (63). Red Sox pitchers hit opposing batters with 89 pitches, the most by any major league pitching staff in 2005.

Offseason
The Red Sox made a few notable offseason moves coming off their 2004 World Series championship. The team brought back Jason Varitek by re-signing the veteran catcher to a 4-year $40 million deal. Outfielder Dave Roberts – who played a key role as a base stealer during the 2004 postseason – was traded to the Padres in exchange for shortstop Ramon Vazquez and left fielder Jay Payton.

Management sought to fill the void left by Orlando Cabrera and Pokey Reese at shortstop by signing free agent Édgar Rentería to a 4-year $40 million year with a 5th year option. The move sat well with fans because Rentería was coming off a very successful 2004 campaign with the St. Louis Cardinals. Rentería hit .287 with 10 home runs and 72 RBI in 2004.

The Red Sox front office looked to bolster their starting pitching by signing two veteran pitchers. The need for starting pitching was a point of emphasize due to the departure of Pedro Martínez to the New York Mets after 7 years in a Red Sox uniform. The first pitcher signed was former Padres starter David Wells. Wells was coming off a surprising 2004 season with the Padres in which he posted a 3.73 ERA over 195 innings pitched at the age of 41. The second pitcher signed was former Cubs starter Matt Clement. Clement was coming off a season in which he posted a respectable 3.68 ERA over 181 innings pitched.

Notable transactions

 * December 17, 2004: David Wells and John Halama were signed as free agents with the Red Sox.
 * December 19, 2004: Édgar Rentería was signed as a free agent with the Red Sox.
 * December 20, 2004: Jay Payton, Ramón Vázquez and David Pauley were acquired by the Red Sox from the Padres in exchange for Dave Roberts.
 * December 22, 2004: Matt Clement and Wade Miller were signed as free agents with the Red Sox.
 * January 11, 2005: David McCarty was signed as a free agent with the Red Sox.
 * May 2, 2005: David McCarty was released by the Red Sox and granted free agency.
 * May 2, 2005: John Olerud was signed as a free agent with the Boston Red Sox.
 * June 7, 2005: Jacoby Ellsbury was drafted by the Boston Red Sox in the 1st round (23rd pick) of the 2005 amateur draft. Player signed July 1, 2005.
 * June 7, 2005: Clay Buchholz was drafted by the Boston Red Sox in the 1st round (42nd pick) of the 2005 amateur draft. Player signed June 23, 2005.
 * July 7: 2005: Alex Cora was acquired by the Red Sox from the Indians in exchange for Ramón Vázquez.
 * July 13, 2005: Chad Bradford was acquired by the Red Sox from the Athletics in exchange for Jay Payton.
 * July 19, 2005: Alan Embree was released by the Red Sox.
 * July 19, 2005: Tony Graffanino was acquired by the Red Sox from the Royals in exchange for Chip Ambres and minor leaguer Juan Cedeño.
 * July 26, 2005: John Halama was released by the Red Sox.
 * August 9, 2005: Ricky Bottalico was signed as a free agent with the Boston Red Sox.
 * August 9, 2005: Mike Remlinger and cash were acquired by the Red Sox from the Cubs in exchange for minor league pitcher Olivo Astacio.
 * August 19, 2005: Mark Bellhorn was released by the Red Sox.
 * August 25, 2005: Ricky Bottalico was released by the Red Sox.
 * August 28, 2005: Mike Remlinger was released by the Red Sox.

Starters by position
''Note: Pos = Position; G = Games played; AB = At bats; H = Hits; Avg. = Batting average; HR = Home runs; RBI = Runs batted in''

Other batters
''Note: G = Games played; AB = At bats; H = Hits; Avg. = Batting average; HR = Home runs; RBI = Runs batted in''

Starting pitchers
Note: G = Games pitched; IP = Innings pitched; W = Wins; L = Losses; ER = Earned run average; SO = Strikeouts

Other pitchers
Note: G = Games pitched; IP = Innings pitched; W = Wins; L = Losses; ERA = Earned run average; SO = Strikeouts

Relief pitchers
Note: G = Games pitched; W = Wins; L = Losses; SV = Saves; ERA = Earned run average; SO = Strikeouts

ALDS
The Chicago White Sox swept the Red Sox in the American League Division Series. The White Sox went on to win the World Series that year against the Houston Astros. The Red Sox entered the 2005 postseason as a wild card team even though they had the same regular season record as their division rival, the New York Yankees because they lost the regular season head-to-head matchups 10–9.

A crucial moment of the series came in Game 2 when Red Sox second baseman Tony Graffanino made a crucial error that led to the White Sox scoring three unearned runs in the fifth inning. A slow groundball hit to the right side of the infield was able to get past Graffanino and a key double play was not turned. Later in the inning, White Sox second baseman Tadahito Iguchi hit a three-run home run to give the White Sox a one-run lead. Red Sox pitcher David Wells was pitching well in the game until the error. The error is viewed by many fans as having the Red Sox lose Game 2 and eventually the American League Division Series.

Red Sox ace Curt Schilling did not start a game in the American League Division Series after pitching in the last game of the season against the Yankees.

Awards and honors

 * David Ortiz – Silver Slugger Award (DH), AL Player of the Month (September)
 * Manny Ramirez – Silver Slugger Award (OF)
 * Jason Varitek – Silver Slugger Award (C), Gold Glove Award (C)

 * All-Star Game
 * Matt Clement, reserve P (roster replacement)
 * Johnny Damon, starting CF
 * David Ortiz, starting DH
 * Manny Ramirez, starting LF
 * Jason Varitek, starting C

Farm system
The Wilmington Blue Rocks replaced the Sarasota Red Sox as the Class A-Advanced affiliate, and the Greenville Bombers replaced the Augusta GreenJackets as the Class A affiliate.

VSL cooperative was with the San Diego Padres. Source:

title: 2005 Boston Red Sox season


text:
National Board of Review

The National Board of Review of Motion Pictures is a non-profit organization of New York City area film enthusiasts. Its awards, which are announced in early December, are considered an early harbinger of the film awards season that culminates in the Academy Awards.

Origins
The organization, which is now a private organization of film enthusiasts, has its roots in 1909 when Charles Sprague Smith and others formed the New York Board of Motion Picture Censorship to make recommendations to the Mayor's office concerning controversial films. It quickly became known as the National Board of Motion Picture Censorship. In an effort to avoid government censorship of films, the National Board became the unofficial clearinghouse for new movies. The Board's stated purpose was to endorse films of merit and champion the new "art of the people", which was transforming America's cultural life. In March 1916 the Board changed its name to the National Board of Review of Motion Pictures to avoid the controversial word "censorship".

Producers submitted their films to the board before making release prints; they agreed to cut any footage that the board found objectionable, up to and including destroying the entire film. Thousands of films carried the legend "Passed by the National Board of Review" in their main titles from 1916 into the 1950s, when the board began to lose financial support, partly due to the NBR being overshadowed by the MPAA regarding film censorship.

In 1930, the NBR was the first group to choose the 10 best English-language movies of the year and the best foreign films, and is still the first critical body to announce its annual awards. In 1936 executive secretary Wilton A. Barrett explained the Board's workings:"The National Board is opposed to legal censorship regarding all forms of the motion picture...It believes that far more constructive ...is the method of selecting the better pictures, publishing descriptive, classified lists of them and building up audiences and support for them through the work of community groups..."

Publications
The NBR has also gained international acclaim for its publications, which collectively constitute the oldest film review and commentary publication in the US. Many back issues can now be viewed at the Media History Digital Library.
 * Film Program (1917–1926)
 * Exceptional Photoplays (1920–1925)
 * Photoplay Guide to Better Movies (1924–1926)
 * National Board of Review Magazine (1926–1942)
 * New Movies (1942–1949)
 * Films in Review (print: 1950–1997; online: 1997–present)

Award categories

 * Best Film + Top 10 Films
 * Best Director
 * Best Actor
 * Best Actress
 * Best Supporting Actor
 * Best Supporting Actress
 * Best Acting by an Ensemble
 * Breakthrough Performance
 * Best Adapted Screenplay
 * Best Original Screenplay
 * Best Animated Film
 * Best Documentary Film
 * Best International Film
 * Spotlight Award
 * Best Family Film
 * Top 5 Documentaries
 * Best Directorial Debut
 * Top 10 Independent Films
 * NBR Freedom of Expression
 * Special Filmmaking Achievement
 * Top 5 International Films
 * Special Achievement in Producing
 * William K. Everson Film History Award
 * Career Achievements in Production: Cinematography, Music, FX
 * Best Acting (1937–1944, retired)

title: National Board of Review