text:
Talk:Hadassah medical convoy massacre

"Massacre"
Yuber, why was the page moved? And even worse, moved without a post to talk? This is generally referred to as a massacre, just as Deir Yassin is. It certainly is not usually referred to as an "incident." Please give some justification before renaming pages. Some examples of the way the word massacre is used in context:

 * " A "take no prisoners" massacre by Arab guerrillas of a convoy of medical personnel to Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus, that included Jewish medical personnel, occurred on the 13th in Sheikh Jerakh near Mt. Scopus" From the Red Cross Report on Deir Yeissen
 * "The massacre of 77 members of a Hadassah medical convoy by Palestinian Arabs..." Encyclopedia Britannica
 * During Israel's 1948 War of Independence, Mount Scopus was cut off from the rest of Jerusalem, and convoys were organized to transport the medical staff safely past Arab troops. That April, a convoy was ambushed and 78 doctors and nurses killed in the worst massacre in Israeli history. The hospital closed and didn't reopen until the mid '70s. St. Petersburgh Times
 * ...there are many others, on both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian sites, and not a single reference I can find to an "incident"?

Please do not move pages without discussion in the future. Goodoldpolonius2 01:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah, I see from the debate around Qana Incident that this was probably a disruption to make a point. Don't do that, please, Yuber - it starts edit wars that ripple through Wikipedia, it wastes my and other editors' time, and there is no linkage between these two topics. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If we call this a response for Deir Yassin, then we should call every single asttack a response for what happened immedietly before, this is a ridiculous proposition.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

 * On the contrary. There is essential unanimity among historians that the exceptional severity of the attack, and maybe the attack itself, was largely due to the Deir Yassin massacre which occured only a few days before had every Arab (and quite a few Jews) inflamed with anger.  Eye-witnesses reported the attackers crying out "Deir Yassin".  The wording that you removed, which I will restore, only noted the temporal proximity and doesn't suggest any causal connection even though there was one.  In my opinion, that is a compromise too far in the wrong direction but I'll accept it.  --Zero 09:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Deir Yassin reference, redux
I've changed the reference to the "Battle of Deir Yassin" to the "battle and massacre of Deir Yassin". I believe this should keep both sides equally happy (or unhappy). A necessary compromise, imo. Cgingold 19:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

But Benveniste does not really say that the Hadassah massacre was retaliation for Deir Yassin:  (p. 116, already quoted). Afaik, there are historians who see the Hadassah massacre as revenge for Deir Yassin, but Benveniste is no good source (he is a good source for Kfar Etzion as retaliation for Deir Yassin, though). --DaWalda (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Two historians who actually see Hadassah as retaliation for Deir Yassin are:

 * - Yoav Gelber: Palestine 1948. War, Escape and the Emergence of the Palestinian Refugee Problem. Second, Revised and Expanded Edition. Sussex Academic Press, Eastbourne / Chicago 2012, ISBN 978-1-84519-075-0. S. 317

 * - Benny Morris: 1948. A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. Yale University Press, New Haven 2008, ISBN 978-0-300-12696-9. S. 128. DaWalda (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Event ?
I removed the word rumors because it is reffering to Deir Yasin making it sound as if it were a rumor and in general is read and understood differently by people. Now their were rumors that it was exaggerated with rape claims and higher death tolls at the time, but the fact is that it did happen and news of it happening was not false. The convoys were being attacked lightly before the massacre at Deir Yasin but became horrific on the day of the Haddas massacare clearly in response to what happened. The article also needs some minor cleaning as it has many unsourced claims. I do have some material on the massacre and will help with the sourcing and clean up of unverifiable facts. Angry Ayrab 08:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

 * What did happen for sure was the battle. The massacre itself is disputed. Writing here "massacre" and not expanding on it suggests that it's an absolute fact, and it provides a sort of justification. Rumors might hint the opposite - that it for sure never happened, which you can also claim to be POV. I suggest using "Battle of Deir Yassin" which also directs to the same article then, or alternatively to add the word "disputed" before the "deir yassen massacre" in this article. what do you think. Amoruso 11:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all the opening paragrpah is wrong: It is not an "evenet" it is a warcrime massacre of medical personal.

second, Haddas convoy was not attack because of Deir Yassin. The attacks on the hospital strted long before Deir yassin (see http://www.hadassah.org/education/content/StudyGuides/Convoy_ITAD.pdf . Zeq 10:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

 * it no longer says event which is indeed an unfitting term like you said. the link I see was added.

 * I think There doesn't seem to be any explanation here for the NPOV tag. Correct me if I'm wrong Zeq. so if it's not explained it should be removed. Amoruso 23:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

 * The contemporary reports in the Palestine Post are available online to anyone who cares to read them. They report British rescue attempts beginning early that morning. One was fired upon by the convoy. --Ian Pitchford 07:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I still don't understand what you're talking about. If something bothers you, correct it and remove the tag. Amoruso 07:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Question re smuggling of arms
I distinctly recall being taught when I was young (back in the mid-1960s) that Jewish forces had resorted to smuggling arms inside of ambulances (if I recall correctly, during the siege of Jerusalem). This information was imparted rather proudly, as evidence of their resourcefulness in the face of adversity. I haven't made an exhaustive search to document and confirm this, but I've been struck by it's omission from material that I've seen. Does anybody have solid information (either verifying or refuting) on this issue? And if it was taking place, did the Arab forces know about it, and if so, was it possibly a factor in this particular event? Thanks in advance for any useful replies on these questions. Cgingold 19:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a vivid memory from around ten years ago of an elderly woman boasting how she carried guns around Jerusalem under her skirt in case the Irgun men she was with were searched by the British Army. As to the question of how military was the convoy - how about the question how military was the hospital? One contempory reference that might be of interest is Thomas C. Wasson: Quotes from Wasson's reports to the United States State Department around the time of his death include:

On April 15 1948, in a report concerning the Hadassah Hospital Convoy Massacre, Wasson wrote, "American correspondent eye witnessed removal from trucks large quantities arms and ammunition and speculated whether for escort or other purpose."

On April 17 1948, he wrote " . . . queried as to whether convoy included armoured cars, Haganah guards, arms and ammunition in addition to doctors, nurses and patients, Kohn [of the Jewish Agency] replied in affirmative saying it was necessary to protect convoy."

I'm sure there's more. I'll have a look around.Padres Hana (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably, there was arms in the convoy, but there was a massacre. Also in Deir Yassin there was upon 100-120 fighters with light arms(20 or 30 men in guards, multiply by turns; 120 or 150 family, every arab adult man possesed a fire arm... Count this). And? A massacre is a massacre--83.138.204.5 (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV
seems very pro israel and particularly anti british, have balanced it a little but needs more work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.104.87 (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not anti-British at all. It extolls the heroism of Jack Churchill, who was very British, as far as I can see.--Gilabrand (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It does however refer to British forces declining to intervene, yet they had done so and were attacked by the Jews. The survivors were eventually rescued by British troops, the convoy having been entirely abandoned by Haganah. The article is not particularly biased, though clearly written from a Jewish perspective. The main problem is the title. This was an ambush of a military convoy (which did include doctors and nurses), not a massacre.122.59.167.152 (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Potential useful reference
Victims of Hadassah massacre to be memorialized, April 7, 2008, taken from this attempt to start a new article on this topic. The new article, Hadassah Massacre was a stub and now redirect here. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

recent
to Ashely: yes, the victims were jews. Amoruso (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

wp:rs
I don't think this can be considered as a wp:rs source to state that the massacre was not performed in retaliation of Deir Yassin in comparison with Lapierre and Collins who state the contrary... Ceedjee (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Arab Casualties
or should that be Palestinian casualties? I would like to note the editing of my contribution - 'The Times' (London) reported on April 14th 1948 that the 'number of Arabs killed at Mount Scopus was at least 10, the number of Jewish deaths is now 39.' into "one British soldier (no reference)". Padres Hana (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Palestinian Arab would be ok.
 * What is the source of that information ? (I mean, where did you get this ?)Ceedjee (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Times. I'll double check and get a photocopy. It'll take a few days but its not difficult.Padres Hana (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you checked yourself, that is ok for me !
 * Ceedjee (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have the photocopy in front of me: Wednesday April 14 1948: Headline: ARABS AMBUSH CONVOY - 34 JEWS KILLED -Rescue by British Troops. From Our Own Correspondent. etc 'Part of the convoy turned back to the city, but the remainder became heavily engaged.' What I hadn't noticed until today is the bottom paragraph, dated: Jerusalem, April 13: ...'One of the vehicles destroyed when a land mine blasted the two leading armoured cars was the Jewish Red Shield ambulance.' It also mentions British troops rescuing 'a score of Jewish survivors'. The Scotsman's report is second half of a report from Lake Success, headline is BATTLE FOR CONVOY - 'British Troop Rescue Jews from Arab Ambush' TWO REPORTED KILLED (sic)'Jerusalem, Tuesday - Two British soldiers were reported killed and a senior British police officer and two soldiers were seriously wounded etc' ... 'killing at least five' Arabs '...' The bodies of 35 Jews mostly burning were counted and more were scattered by the roadside.' The Scotsman 16th April has four lines at the end of a longer report headed: OVER 100 ARABS KILLED IN JEWISH ATTACK (Mishmar-Haemek)...'The Jewish death roll(sic) in the Arab attack at Mount Scopus two days ago, on a convoy going to Hadassah Hospital, is now 77. They include doctors and nurses.'Padres Hana (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sheikh Jarrah
Not an Arab neighbourhood but a mixed one, Sheikh Jarrah contained the Sephardi and Teimani neighbourhoods of Nahalat Shimon and Shimon HaTzadiq, depopulated the month before by the Arab unit al Shabab, this should be mentioned as these events were an important contributing factor leading to the event in question Spanglish (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Medical convoy

 * "The massacre of 77 members of a Hadassah medical convoy by Palestinian Arabs..." Encyclopedia Britannica
 * On this day: The Hadassah medical convoy massacre The JC

This was a medical convoy, and the title should reflect this. ' Ankh '. Morpork  20:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Benny Morris refers to this as the Mount Scopus Convoy. (1948, Index p. 517). There were 10 trucks in the convoys : 2 armored cars, 2 buses (with the doctors, nurses and students) and 6 others trucks (p.128). The last 4 were trapped and coud not escape.
 * Could you please, on your side, profide wp:rs (not internet website but books written by scholars) who refer to this event with other words ?
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit) This is not a wp:rs but it is interesting to point out that people who have the higher claim about the event refer to {http://www.hadassah.org.il/English/Eng_MainNavBar/News/Press+messages/The+Hadassah+Convoy+annual+memorial+ceremony.htm Hadassah Convoy massacre]. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

New lead
According to what is brought here above, I propose this new lead :
 * The Hadassah convoy massacre took place on April 13, 1948, when a convoy escorted, by Haganah militia bringing medical and military supplies to the Hadassah enclave on Mount Scopus, was ambushed by Arab forces

Pluto2012 (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've no problem with that. I think one should add what de Reynier highlights at the end of the lead, namely that, as a result of the Hadassah incident, a strict separation of military activities from humanitarian aid was established, to avoid the kind of confusion which led to this tragedy.Nishidani (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Revenge attack?
Another issue about this article: a great number (probably a majority) of sources call this massacre a response or revenge for the Deir Yassin massacre of a few days before. This used to be in the article but it was edited out. It should be mentioned. Zerotalk 21:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The simplest solution would be to find the passage wrongfully removed, and, if well sourced, restore it.Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you both. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"led by Haganah tanks and armoured cars equipped for battle"
Well... De Reynier may not be the most reliable source. Have in mind his 254 bodies for Deir Yassin. This sentence is another example that discredits his testimonies. Haganah had no tank. They stole (or received) 2 Cromwell's some days around 15 May. And the only equipment for battle that the cars were equipped was armoured plates... So talking about "armoured cars equipped for battle" gives an unfair description of what was the situation.

This should be removed. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

 * I suspect he referred to a type of armoured vehicle as a "tank" despite the military inaccuracy. He wasn't the only one to do that. We should delete this part. Zerotalk 09:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pluto. Just the sort of lynx-eye we need round here. The text I translated runs:
 * "il n'est pas moins vrai qu'il était précédé et suivi de tanks et de voitures blindées équipées pour le combat"
 * 'Haganah shouldn't be there but it was run by them, the rest is what de Reynier asserts. I take your word for it re "tanks". I'm less sure about "armoured cars" (the somew buses were "armoured" weren't they? It certainly looks like de Reynier has 'spun' the story to split what sources often called an 'armoured convoy' in order to make a difference between a battle-readied armoured escort and the vehicles carrying the hospital personnel). There's considerable confusion in the reportage of where what Ben-Gurion called 'escort cars' were.Nishidani (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't speak French, but from what I can make out De Reynier's book appears to be a personal memoir (of someone personally involved in the events) written in 1950. I don't think it meets the standards of an RS for facts. It would seem more appropriate that we find a modern historian to interpret his memoir rather than try to do it ourselves. Dlv999 (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Isn't that what Laurens does? Zerotalk 11:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is only one citation to Laurens in the article and 6 citations directly to De Reynier's 1950 memoir. (unsigned statement by Dlv999)
 * Hi Nish,
 * You translation is perfect as ever, no worry about this :-).
 * As Zero says, Laurens gives credit to De Renier but after the comment of Dlv999 I wonder if this one is an excerpt from Laurens quoting De Reynier or is this directly from De Reynier ?
 * If this is from Laurens this is embarrassing and just reminds us that 'errare humanum est'.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Laurens uses several sources, al-Arif, abu Gharbieh, Kurzman, Reynier, and Junod. I don't see where he slipped up (he says the convoy had 'l'enseigne du bouclier de David' and the Australian tipped off the Arabs, and that the medical convoy also served to supply the enclave's troops with reinforcement and ammunition). I'll leave it to you guys to decide how to work this, but personally I think Reynier's text utilisable, at least regarding the subsequent negotiations (repeated also in Laurens) in which he managed to get the Haganah to separate military and civil operations. He wasn't an observer of the convoy incident. But he was involved in the subsequent negotiations. I'd prefer as always a secondary source, but, in this area, all too often (that's why I like Laurens) secondary sources ignore a lot of perfectly valid (and balancing) information that somewhat complicates a rather simplistic picture. History is always messy, and no one comes out clean. :)Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding primary sources, we also have Dov Yosef and Harry Levin cited, both of them leading Jewish participants. (Levin was in charge of Haganah radio broadcasts, i.e. a professional propagandist.) At least de Reynier was not a member of either side. I'm not convinced about the arguments for his unreliability. The boundary between "tank" and "armored vehicle" is not clear to a non-military person and I've seen other cases of this inaccurate language use. Besides that, it doesn't effect his story in a significant fashion. The Deir Yassin matter is also not an argument for unreliability. It is clear from his account that he accepted the figure of 200+ from the Irgun leader on-site and didn't actually count bodies. Zerotalk 22:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Nish, "'l'enseigne du bouclier de David'" is in agreement with de Reynier and your translation is a bit misleading there. De Reyier's "Bouclier Rouge" is a red Magen David. The word "Magen" is Hebrew for "shield". De Reynier never calls a red cross by that name, he uses "Croix Rouge". Zerotalk 23:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must have been unclear, but that's exactly how I took it. Laurens in brackets said that the Red Shield (Magen) was never recognized by the Red Cross.p.76 It's just that when translating stuff like this, a bloke has to be an idiot, and give the literal reading without adding her interpretation, so that more informed readers are not mislead and can then use to figure out what was going on. I basically agree with you re Reynier, but when Pluto came up with his point about tanks, thought we must modulate the text. We can't use the word tank evidently. 'Armoured cars' is fine, much better than 'escort vehicles'.Nishidani (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it might be better to paraphrase more, following Laurens in bulk but citing de Reynier as well on points he supports. Btw, I missed the chance to examine Kurzman this week; I'll try again next week. Zerotalk 08:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we all agree that bad editing comes from haste, which only suggests that an editor is trying to prove a point. Probably the best shot is to wait on the Kurzman results before proceding. No hurry. Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a detailed description of the whole battle in Martin Levin,It Takes a Dream: The Story of Hadassah, Gefen Publishing House, 2002 pp.219 I recommand all editors consult it,Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources on casualties
p.259Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Henry Laurens:76 dead (Laurens 3:76)
 * Meron Benvenisti 78 killed, 24 wounded. (Remains of 24 victims never located) (Sacred Landscape: Buried History of the Holy Land Since 1948, p.116)
 * Meyer Wolfe Weisgal 77 killed. (So Far: The Autobiography, Transaction Publishers, 1972 p.259*

NPOV title
This was a battle, not a massacre. The Jews admitted that the convoy was armed, and it is clear that there was a battle lasting several hours. It should be described as an ambush or battle, not a massacre.122.59.167.152 (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2023
"in which Zionist militant groups of Irgun and Lehi massacred at least 107 Arab Palestinian villages, including women and children" should have villageRs. (People, not settlements) 2A02:908:2619:D3A0:8883:35D3:AE31:5C78 (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  αvírαm  | (tαlk) 04:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅  reliable sources are not needed to fix typos. Zerotalk 09:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hadassah medical convoy massacre


text:
Cara DeLizia

Cara DeLizia is an American former actress. She is best known for her role as Fiona "Fi" Phillips in the Disney Channel Original Series So Weird. She is the younger sister of Melissa DeLizia, and the youngest daughter of James DeLizia and Sherry DeLizia.

Early career
DeLizia got her start in acting at the age of five doing theater productions. She was later discovered and starred regularly in the WB's Nick Freno: Licensed Teacher. Later she had guest spots on Mad About You, 7th Heaven, The West Wing (in "The Stackhouse Filibuster"), Strong Medicine, and ER. She has also starred in several TV movies and had minor roles in several motion pictures such as Sleepless in Seattle and Avalon. She co-starred in You're Invited to Mary-Kate and Ashley's Sleepover Party, starring former Full House stars Mary-Kate Olsen and Ashley Olsen.

So Weird
In her breakout role on So Weird, DeLizia played Fiona "Fi" Phillips, an adolescent girl obsessed with the paranormal. She left the show after the first two seasons and was replaced by Alexz Johnson. To that point, the show had been "darker" for a Disney show in the vein of The X-Files, but when DeLizia departed, the show took on a lighter tone for the remainder of its run.

Later work
DeLizia's other major role was as Marcy Kendall on the FOX drama Boston Public, where she played the assistant to Chi McBride's Principal Harper.

She voiced Z, a minor character introduced in the spinoff Rugrats series, All Grown Up. In 2002, DeLizia co-starred in Anna's Dream alongside former Caitlin's Way star Lindsay Felton.

Personal life
DeLizia became engaged to Robert Chambers in 2001. The couple married in 2004 and lived in Burbank, California. In 2006, the couple divorced.

In December 2009, she married Nick Rich.

As of 2012, DeLizia has retired from acting and voice acting.

Her father is a consultant.

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

title: Cara DeLizia


text:
Backdoor progression

In jazz and jazz harmony, the chord progression from iv7 to ♭VII7 to I (the tonic or "home" chord) has been nicknamed the backdoor progression or the backdoor ii-V, as described by jazz theorist and author Jerry Coker. This name derives from an assumption that the normal progression to the tonic, the ii-V-I turnaround (ii-V7 to I, see also authentic cadence) is, by inference, the "front door", a metaphor suggesting that this is the main route to the tonic.

The ♭VII7 chord, a pivot chord borrowed from the parallel minor of the current tonic major key, is a dominant seventh. Therefore, it can resolve to I; it is commonly preceded by IV going to iv, then ♭VII7, then I. In C major the dominant would be G7: (the notes GBDF), sharing two common tones with B♭7: (the notes B♭DFA♭). The notes A♭ and F serve as upper leading-tones back to G and E (when the chord moves to the tonic, C major), respectively, rather than B♮ and F serving as the lower and upper leading-tones to C and E in a conventional G7-C major (V7-I) cadence.

A backdoor IV-V is also possible, moving from ♭VIM7 to ♭VII7 to I. This is also commonly known as "Mario Cadence".

Alternative usage

The term "Backdoor" has been used by author Shelton Berg to refer to another entirely unrelated progression. The unexpected modulation created through the substitution of the highly similar Imaj9 for iii7 (in C: CEGBD and EGBD) at the end of the ii7-V7 turnaround to a tonicized iii (ii7/iii=♯iv7, V7/iii=VII7, iii), arrives at 'home' (the temporary tonic of iii) through unexpected means, the 'back door' instead of the 'front door'(iii7, the individual notes EGBD, being entirely contained within Imaj9, the individual notes of the C major chord, CEGBD, and the seventh of the dominant seventh chord still resolving downward). The resolution of a dominant seventh chord up a step (in this case a half-step, also called a semitone) is called a deceptive cadence.

title: Backdoor progression


text:
Meadowbank railway station, Sydney

Meadowbank railway station is located on the Main Northern line, serving the Sydney suburb of Meadowbank. It is served by Sydney Trains T9 Northern Line services.

History
Meadowbank station opened on 1 September 1887 as Meadow Bank, being renamed Meadowbank on 6 November 1927.

To the south of the station, the line crosses the Parramatta River via the John Whitton Bridge. This opened in May 1980 replacing the original iron lattice bridge.

Transport links
Busways operates two bus routes via Meadowbank station, under contract to Transport for NSW:
 * 507: to Gladesville and Hyde Park
 * 518: Meadowbank ferry wharf to Macquarie University via Top Ryde and Denistone East

Meadowbank station is served by one NightRide route:
 * N80: Hornsby station to Town Hall station

title: Meadowbank railway station, Sydney


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiversity2

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus, kept. -- Jonel | Speak 06:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikiversity
Has already been VfDed and deleted here, but was recreated in good faith and I suppose it could have gained notability by now. However, it didn't, so I'm proposing we delete it again. --W(t) 01:14, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

 * Keep : Please. This will be used to create lesson for students.
 * Keep :D This is a great idea.--AI 01:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * We're not voting on whether it's a great idea, otherwise we'd have kept combined nose hair trimmer and coffeemaker. --W(t) 01:31, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
 * That nose hair trimmer and coffee maker would make an ideal fathers day gift though. JamesBurns 10:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete but certainly support re-creation when & if it gets off the ground. I agree that it's a cool idea.  Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  01:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Self-reference, plus it isn't notable, plus it isn't really enrolling or doing. Geogre 02:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete until it gets going. Great idea though and where can I find info on the combined nose hair trimmer and coffeemaker? That should get me awake and presentable in the morning. Double Blue  (Talk) 02:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted content. Whether or not it was recreated in good faith is irrelevant to whether a recreation should be kept (good faith is instead relevant to whether the recreator should be sanctioned).  Whether or not it has gained notability since the last VfD is an issue for Votes for undeletion—it should have been listed there first by anyone who wished to recreate it.  Postdlf 07:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've reconsidered because the subject matter was only proposed at the time of the original VfD; that it now exists is more than a mere question of notability, and I think this change does make the issue different enough from that which the original voters faced so as to not make that vote binding. But merge and redirect to Wikibooks, because it doesn't seem to have any real independent significance from that topic.  Postdlf 16:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Wikibooks. It's mentioned there, but could use some expansion. - Mgm|(talk) 09:17, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or turn into a redirect page. This takes up very little space and may help someone find their way to the Wikibooks area.  A redirect would also be OK but may leave someone who is not experienced in the Wiki Foundation a little confused since you are now in a different area with a different log in. DS1953 17:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: for the reasons already stated. -- Taku 07:44, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems like a serious project so why shouldn't it have its own entry. Incomplete yes but if you poke around you'll find some extensive stuff in it.
 * Delete - not notable enough yet - if this was any other than a wikimedia site it would be deleted pretty quickly. -- Joolz 13:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * strong keep - we are working on classes for the project (Oceanography) and try to get more faculty associated - it needs an information base within Wikipedia - it will be good for students worldwide, especially the havenots - Professor Dr. habil. Uwe Kils  Klönschnack 00:57, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't think it's appropriate that we should have one standard for websites and another standard for mediawiki websites. It's simply not notable enough to deserve an article, regardless of whether one would help attract faculties or help the 'havenots'. -- Joolz 01:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not understand that "standard" - to what rule does it refer? there is space enough on the server - good ideas all started small on the web, why delete so much? Nobody is forced to read this or contribute - Uwe Kils  Klönschnack 03:06, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * keep - good idea Vikings 01:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn. Radiant_ >|< 18:57, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * keep It is not listed as a project on the front page. How would anyone know about the nascent project if there is no article about its development?  There are plenty of nonsense articles to keep Vfd'ers busy without trying to banish things that could actually be useful.. --Blainster 19:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to Wikipedia namespace or merge with Wikibooks. To keep as a seperate article would be like having an article about Willy. Alphax τεχ 09:17, 21 Jun 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:
Marie Charette-Poulin

Marie-Paule Charette-Poulin (born June 21, 1945) was a Canadian senator until resigning in April 2015 and was the president of the Liberal Party of Canada from 2006 to 2008. She is married to international portrait artist Bernard Poulin.

Education
Born Marie-Paule Charette in Sudbury, Ontario, on June 21, 1945, she was raised in Sudbury and Haileybury. She was a classmate and friend of MP Diane Marleau in high school; Charette-Poulin and Marleau remained friends throughout their careers.

She was educated at Laurentian University, graduating magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts in 1966, and the Université de Montréal, obtaining her Master's of Social Science in 1969. In 1995, Laurentian awarded her an honorary Doctor of Laws. Charette-Poulin received an LL.B. from the University of Ottawa in 2007.

Professional life
In the earlier part of her career, Charette-Poulin worked as a program producer, researcher and university lecturer. She was then a deputy minister in the government of Canada and a broadcast executive. As Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet at the Privy Council Office, she oversaw all government communications and consultations. As Vice-President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, she held various portfolios: Human Resources and Industrial Relations; Secretary General to the Board; and Regional Radio and Television Broadcasting Operations. Prior to her national experience at the CBC, she was founding Director of the Corporation's Northern Ontario French Services, which included launching the Sudbury radio station CBON and establishing over 30 retransmitter antennae in northern Ontario

Political life
In 1995, following the death of Jean Noël Desmarais, Charette-Poulin was appointed to her Senate seat by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. She represented the senate division of Northern Ontario for the Liberal Party of Canada.

Charette-Poulin was a member of the Senate Committee on National Finance and a past member Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, of the Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages, of the Senate Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, of the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence and of the Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. She chaired the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications and as Chair of the Communications Subcommittee, and led the review on Canada's national and international position in communications and telecommunications. Charette-Poulin was the first woman to chair the Senate Liberal Caucus and the first senator to chair the Northern Ontario Liberal Caucus. From December 2006 to April 2008, she served as President of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Senator Charette-Poulin's professional achievements and participation on the boards of various organizations have earned her national and international recognition over the years, including the "Prix Marcel Blouin" for the best radio morning program in Canada in 1983, the "Médaille du Conseil de la vie française" in 1988, the "Ordre de la Pléaide" in 1995, an honorary Doctor of Law degree from Laurentian University in 1995, the insignia of "Officier de l'Ordre national de la Légion d'Honneur de la France" in 2003, the insignia of the Order of St. John in 2004, "Trille de Platine" in 2008, and "Personnalité Richelieu International 2008."

Charette-Poulin has served on the Bell Globemedia board as well as on several hospital boards, university and college boards, chambers of commerce, arts and culture boards, and United Ways. She was a member of the Implementation Committee for Bill 8 in Ontario and a founding director of La Cité collégiale and the Regroupement des gens d'affaires (RGA). She was the first woman to chair the RGA. She currently sits on the board of Governors of the ACTRA Fraternal Benefit Society and the "CEO of the Year Award." She was the Canadian president of the Fédération Canada-France, and as Vice-Chair of the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group, she was a member of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum.

As a senator, she was a member of the Senate committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, and the Senate committee on National Security and Defense. As well, she was a past member of the committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. She chaired the Senate committee on Transport and Communications and the subcommittee on Communications; leading the review of Canada's national and international position in communications and telecommunications.

She was the first woman to chair the Senate Liberal caucus, and the first senator to chair the Northern Ontario Liberal caucus.

Charette-Poulin ran for the presidency of the party at the party's leadership convention in 2006. She defeated former MP Tony Ianno and party activist Bobbi Ethier to win the election. She was the second woman and first francophone woman to hold this position.

Charette-Poulin suffered a mild stroke in April 2008. Although she was expected to make a full recovery, she said that she would be stepping down immediately as Liberal Party President, saying that she now tires easily and was unable to put in the 40 or 50 hours of week that the party job demanded.

In February 2009, Charette-Poulin was kissed by U.S. President Barack Obama during his visit to Canada. Charette-Poulin said that she was wondering "whether the honour [she] experienced [Thursday] with President Obama really happened." Charette-Poulin was the only Canadian woman that Obama kissed on his first foreign visit. When Charette-Poulin met Obama, she told him that she was the "future mother-in-law of Jean-Michel Picher." Obama replied that "Jean-Michel is one of my favourite people," then kissed her on both cheeks.

On January 29, 2014, Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau announced all Liberal Senators, including Charette-Poulin, were removed from the Liberal caucus, and would continue sitting as independents. According to Senate Opposition leader James Cowan, the Senators will still refer to themselves as Liberals even if they are no longer members of the parliamentary Liberal caucus.

Charette-Poulin resigned from the Senate on April 17, 2015 for health reasons. In June 2015, she was named as one of nine senators whose expenses were referred to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for a criminal investigation. In 2016, all nine Senators were exonerated : The Royal Canadian Mounted Police concluded that no further action was required (source needed).

Personal life
Charette-Poulin is married to international portrait artist Bernard A. Poulin. They have two adult daughters, Elaine and Valerie.

title: Marie Charette-Poulin


text:
User talk:Grfiv

GRFIV is the monicker of George Fisher email grfiv@bellatlantic.net web http://members.verizon.net/grfiv blog http://members.verizon.net/grfiv/blog

Greetings, and welcome to Wikipedia. I think that you should check out WP:VANITY, as all of your edits are merely links to your personal webpage. -- Mtruch 04:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * In response to a private email sent to me by User:Grfiv: I stand by my original claim; all of your edits (to wikipedia pages, not to your own user page) are merely links to your personal webpage. I am not claiming that your webpage is bad, or you're using it to profit monetarily, or even that your statement  “It is not commercial or in any way inappropriate and it is written in what I take to be the Wiki spirit of sincere, informed sharing of knowledge” is not true.  However, you are using wikipedia to promote your own page, which seems to clearly fall into the vanity links definition on WP:VANITY.  Furthermore you're not providing wikipedia with any other content, which does violate the spirit of the Wiki, in that your sincere, informed sharing of knowledge is freely available for other people to use, edit, modify, and delete.  It is one thing to provide useful information to a wikipedia article and then in the links section link to ones own personal page about further details of such a topic.  It is another to use wikipedia as part of a link farm and nothing more.  Mtruch 13:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Grfiv


text: User talk:83.31.148.93

title: User talk:83.31.148.93


text:
Hallicrafters

The Hallicrafters Company manufactured, marketed, and sold radio equipment, and to a lesser extent televisions and phonographs, beginning in 1932. The company was founded by William J. Halligan and based in Chicago, Illinois, United States.

In 1966 Halligan sold the company to the Northrop Corporation and Halligan family involvement ended. Northrop ran the company until the early 1970s, but by this time, fierce Japanese competition was putting pressure on the US domestic electronics market. Northrop sold the company name (but kept the factory, by then located in Rolling Meadows, a Chicago suburb) in 1975, bringing non-military electronics production to an end, and turning the plant into Northrop Corporation's Defense Systems Division.

History
William J. Halligan (1898–1992), founded Hallicrafters Company in Chicago in late 1932. Prior to this, he had been involved in radio parts sales for some years but decided the time was right for a handcrafted amateur radio receiver - the company name being a combination of Halli(gan) and (hand)crafters.

The new company was located at 417 North State Street and immediately ran into patent difficulties when RCA decided to sue them for building radio sets without an RCA patent license. An opportunity came to purchase the concern of Silver-Marshall Inc. in 1933 and, with it, an RCA patent license as the most valuable asset.

In order to meet their financial obligations, Hallicrafters produced radios for other manufacturers until they were financially able to begin production of their own line of communications receivers, starting with the SX-9 'Super Skyrider', in late 1935.

By 1938, Hallicrafters was doing business in eighty-nine countries and manufactured the most popular sets in the USA. That year, the company began to produce radio transmitters. With the outbreak of World War II, the company prepared for wartime production, and was responsible for new designs and innovations for use by the U.S. troops; probably the best-known were the HT-4/BC-610 and related equipment used in the military SCR-299 communications package.

Production of Ham radio gear and other items was suspended until 1945. After the war, focus was again on consumer electronics, including radio phonographs, AM/FM receivers, clock radios and televisions.

The boom years for Hallicrafters were from 1945 to 1963, during which the company produced equipment considered by many to be superbly designed, including the famous S-38 receiver, which received a cosmetic "makeover" by industrial designer Raymond Loewy. In 1952 Hallicrafters' main plant in Chicago housed general offices and the factory and was a block long. In addition to the main plant was a 3-story building of 72000 sqft two blocks away, a 1-story coil plant of 12000 sqft on Chicago's north side, and 150000 sqft of production and storage space in three other buildings within a five-mile radius of the main plant. The company employed 2,500 people.

During the Cold war era, the company took active participation in the Blue Streak (UK) and Atlas (U.S.) missile projects, helped to develop capability for many areas of electronic warfare and in missile field, including code translator data systems, ground support equipment, electronic countermeasures testing and antenna systems, infrared homing techniques, also company provided tactically deployed maintenance and technical support teams for mentioned missile systems, it supplied airborne target simulator system for Nike Zeus, electronic countermeasure systems for Douglas EB-66E and Boeing B-52 aircraft. Its R&D divisions (Manson Laboratories in Wilton, Connecticut, and Military Electronics Division in Chicago) developed penetration aids for intercontinental ballistic missiles and participated in various other classified programs. In the words of its advertising sloganry, the company supported “America’s defense umbrella.”

In 1966 Halligan sold the company to the Northrop Corporation and Halligan family involvement ended. Northrop ran the company until the early 1970s, but by this time, fierce Japanese competition was putting pressure on the US domestic electronics market. Northrop sold the company name (but kept the factory, by then located in Rolling Meadows, a Chicago suburb) in 1975, bringing non-military electronics production to an end. The Hallicrafters plant became Northrop Corporation's Defense Systems Division.

The name and assets of Hallicrafters were traded over the following years, even though there were no products bearing the name. Since around 1988, the remaining assets and rights to the 'Hallicrafters' name and logos have been held by court-appointed trustees. (Note: one known 1980s product bearing the Hallicrafters name does exist - a 4-line plus intercom telephone. )

Hallicrafters equipment remains in use by collectors and vintage amateur radio enthusiasts.

Pre-war
Some of the more well-known Hallicrafters equipment from the pre-war period include:

 * Super Skyrider, model SX-9 (1936), equipped with a large German silver tuning dial, and one of the first receivers to use the new "all-metal" vacuum tubes.
 * Ultra Skyrider, model SX-10 (1936), able to tune what were then sometimes referred to as "UHF" bands (frequencies above 30 megahertz).
 * Skyrider Diversity (1938), actually two complete multi-tube receivers side-by-side. This enabled the operator to connect two different antennas to the set and counteract the effects of fading. A huge set and today, one of the most sought-after models.
 * HT-4 Transmitter (1938), an efficient high-performance transmitter for the Ham bands, later to become famous in World War II as the BC-610. It was sold well into the late 1940s.
 * Model S-19 Sky Buddy (1938), an octal tube version of the Hallicrafters 5-T receiver.
 * Skyrider 23, model SX-23 (1939), famous for its innovative "art-deco" cabinet design.
 * Super Skyrider SX-28, (1940–43) and SX-28A (1944–46), one of the most popular Hallicrafters receivers. Its design was state of the art for the time, and featured excellent external styling. The SX-28 was notable for audio that sounded better than many expensive home receivers. It is still easy to find today, and remains a favorite of collectors.

Wartime

 * SCR-299/399 (1942), complete mobile HF station on frequencies from 2-8 MHz (and 1-18 MHz using conversion kits), entire unit came in a K-51 truck except Power Unit PE-95 which was in a K-52 trailer.
 * SCR-543/593 (1944), also sold after the war as the model BC-669-B, a medium-range (25–100 nm) portable vehicular and ground set for CAC.
 * SCR-593 was a portable receiver.
 * S-36A Ultra High Frequency Communications Receiver. Covering 27.8 to 143 MHz in AM or FM

Post-war
Postwar Hallicrafters models include:

 * Model S-38 (1947), a "beginner's" receiver. Simple and inexpensive, yet it introduced many to shortwave listening, case designed by Raymond Loewy.
 * Model S-38A (1948) Used regenerative IF to serve as a BFO, eliminating a dedicated BFO tube.
 * Model S-40 (1946) A multiband single conversion radio with 455 kHz IF. Covered Broadcast Band (Medium Wave) to 44 MHz.
 * Model SX-42 (1948), a massive receiver featuring the new FM band. It, too, was popular for its appearance, styled by the famous industrial designer Raymond Loewy. The SX-42 was a dual-purpose receiver; it provided not only shortwave reception, but standard AM broadcast and FM reception.
 * Model SX-62 (1949), an updated version of the SX-42, with improved circuitry and cabinet styling.
 * Model S-77 (1950), an Amateur-Receiver with the ability to receive AM radio signals.
 * Model SX-73 (1952), a professional receiver aimed mainly at the military market, but also available on the civilian market. It was Hallicrafters' answer to the Hammarlund SP-600 Super-Pro.
 * Model HT-20 (1952), an all-purpose shortwave transmitter, featuring multi-band switching.
 * Model S-85 (1954-5), general coverage (560 kHz-30 MHz/4 bands), single conversion), amateur bandspread (10-80m), dual tuning dials, RF and audio gain controls, beat frequency oscillator (controllable frequency), transmit/receive switch, sold for $119.95 at Sears, Roebuck and Co.
 * Model SX-88 (1954), at the time, the finest commercial receiver available. The SX-88 was designed for the operator for whom cost was not a concern, and featured outstanding performance and appearance. Less than 100 are known to exist, as such they are highly prized by ham radio operators.
 * Model SX-96 (1954-5), general coverage (560 kHz-30 MHz/4 bands), double conversion, S-meter, crystal filter, amateur bandspread (10-80m), dual tuning dials, RF and audio gain controls, beat frequency oscillator (controllable frequency), transmit/receive switch, sold for ~$169.
 * Model HT-30 (1954), The first single-sideband transmitter made by Hallicrafters.
 * Model SX-100 (1955), a double conversion superhet general coverage receiver with SSB capability and bandspread tuning for the 10-80 meter amateur bands.
 * Model SX-101 (1956), the first ham band only receiver built by Hallicrafters
 * Model HT-32 (1957), the most popular SSB transmitter made by Hallicrafters
 * Model HT-37 (1959), a lower cost version of the HT-32, using phasing type SSB generation. A well-designed transmitter, and many are still in service today.
 * Model SX-110 (1959-1962) A large receiver for the Amateur Radio (Ham) market.
 * Model HT-40/SX-140 (1960) The new "Hallicrafter Twins" were a budget-minded transmitter and receiver for the Novice/Technician market offering 75 watts from 80 - 6 meters AM and CW, crystal controlled; offered as a kit or fully assembled.
 * Model SX-115 (1961), yet another large receiver for the Amateur Radio market. It featured a huge central dial, and is another model prized by collectors.
 * Model S-119 (1961), commemorative Sky Buddy model celebrating the 100th receiver model produced since the original S-19.
 * Model SX-117 (1965), triple conversion receiver, covered 10-80 meter amateur radio bands with added 10 MHz WWV.
 * Model HT-44 (1962), transmitter with continuous wave (CW) and single-sideband (SSB) capability on 10- to 80-meter amateur radio bands. The HT-44 was the matching transmitter for the SX-117 receiver.

title: Hallicrafters