text:
Akshardham Temple attack

On 24 September 2002, multiple Pakistani terrorists attacked the Akshardham Temple Complex in Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India, killing 33 (excluding the attackers) and injuring more than 80. India's National Security Guard intervened and ended the siege the next day, killing the terrorists. Six accused were later arrested by Gujarat Police. The Supreme Court acquitted all six persons in 2014.

Initial approach
At approximately 4:45 pm on 24 September 2002, a white Ambassador car dropped off two terrorists between the ages of 20 and 25 carrying haversacks and jackets filled with automatic weapons and grenades at Gate 3 of the Akshardham Temple Complex. When the two attempted to enter the complex, the volunteers stopped the armed terrorists for a security screening.

Bypassing the screening, the terrorists jumped over the 7-foot-high fence and started firing their guns as they began their rampage through the complex.

Main Temple infiltration attempt
The perpetrators rushed towards the central walkway of the complex while firing shots at visitors and pilgrims browsing a nearby bookstall and proceeded to the main temple while throwing hand grenades. As the Akshardham staff, including the temple supervisor, Khodsinh Jadhav, witnessed the killings, they rushed across the 200-foot walkway and shut the 15-foot doors of the main temple. As a result, the terrorists were unable to infiltrate the main temple where 35 people were offering prayers.

At 4:48 pm, three minutes after the attack began, Vishwavihari Swami, at the Akshardham Temple Complex, made an SOS call to Chief Minister Narendra Modi's office and informed them about the attack. Within minutes, Gandhinagar's district police chief R. B. Brahmbhatt was dispatched to the scene and the State Commando force was also instructed to arrive at the temple complex. Meanwhile, outside the complex, local individuals mobilized into volunteers.

Shifting targets
Thereafter, the terrorists, unable to infiltrate the main monument, moved towards the exhibition halls. Although the volunteers had locked all the doors of the exhibition halls, the terrorists entered Exhibition Hall 1, which contained the multimedia show, by prying open the exit door. Upon entering the hall, they fired shots at the audience, killing and wounding men, women and children.

By 5:15 pm, Chief Minister of Gujarat Narendra Modi called the Deputy Prime Minister L. K. Advani in Delhi and asked for the National Security Guards (NSG), commonly referred to as Black Cat Commandos. The terrorists left Exhibition Hall 1 as they had entered, through the exit door, and climbed onto and hid in the parikrama, the outer perimeter of the temple.

Pursuit and killing of the terrorists
Within 10–15 minutes of the attack, police security guards and commandos had reached the premises. The police and commandos escorted the visitors from around the complex to safety, while volunteers helped transport the injured victims to nearby hospitals. The police and commandos searched for the two terrorists, who were focused on retreating to an alternative hiding spot. During this temporary halt, the police and commandos also guided the remaining 100 visitors in Exhibition Hall 1 to a safe location outside of the complex.

At 7:30 pm, as the security guards guided 30 visitors from inside the main monument to safety, the terrorists, who had climbed atop the parikrama, opened fire at the commandos. During this attack, no one was hurt. Since the commandos had surrounded the area and continued the crossfire, the terrorists found it difficult to escape.

At 10:10 pm, two buses of NSG commandos and one bus filled with NSG equipment arrived at Akshardham. By approximately 11:30 pm, after reviewing multiple strategies, 35 Black Cat commandos positioned themselves throughout the complex in an effort to find the terrorists.

The search for the terrorists continued throughout the night. Around midnight, the terrorists jumped down from the parikrama and entered a nearby bathroom. Although the NSGs had planned to pass the night until daybreak before attempting to locate the terrorists, the guards fired in order to draw fire from the terrorists and use up their ammunition. The officers situated themselves around the complex, with the NSGs first in line, followed by men from the Rapid Action Force, the Border Security Force, the State Reserve Police and the Anti-Terrorist Squad.

As the night progressed, the terrorists moved into another area, a grove of trees near Exhibition Hall 3. By daybreak, they became desperate. The firing continued. At approximately 6:45 am, the 14-hour-long ordeal ended with the Black Cat Commandos shooting the two terrorists, who had hidden in the bushes.

By the end of the attack, at least 30 persons were killed, excluding the attackers, and more than 80 were wounded, including at least 23 police officers. Apart from the 27 people killed in the first assault, two state police officers and one commando lost their lives in the action. One more seriously injured commando, Surjan Singh Bhandari, was hit in the head with a bullet and died after nearly two years in a coma. NSG Commando Suresh Chand Yadav was awarded the highest peacetime military decoration Ashok Chakra (posthumously) for his indomitable courage and gallantry during the operation.

Government reaction
On 25 September 2002, then-Prime-Minister of India Atal Bihari Vajpayee said that the attack on the Akshardham Temple Complex was a well-thought out conspiracy and that the central government would launch a thorough investigation to get to the bottom of it.

Aftermath
The head of Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (BAPS)—which manages the temple—Pramukh Swami Maharaj, appealed to maintain peace. The Gujarat government took the stance to do so within the region and resolved to promote solidarity. Appeals for peace were also made by Prime Minister of India Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the Deputy Prime Minister L. K. Advani, Governor of Gujarat Sunder Singh Bhandari and Chief Minister of Gujarat Narendra Modi.

BAPS also organized a condolence meeting after the attack. The prayer assembly commenced with devotional prayers sung by swamis for the peace of the departed souls, grieving relatives and sympathisers. Then the entire gathering observed a two-minute silent prayer for the deceased and injured and for harmony. BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha donated:

 * Rs. 300,000 for the family of the deceased NSG Commando Suresh Chand Yadav
 * Rs. 200,000 each for the families of deceased State Commandos Shri Arjun Singh Gameti and Shri Allah Rakha Unadjam
 * Rs. 200,000 for the injured NSG Commando Surjan Singh
 * Rs. 100,000 for the 29 families of the pilgrims who died
 * Rs. 25,000 each to the soldiers who were injured
 * Compensation for the injured pilgrims

The Akshardham attack and the response to it became a case study for NSG Brigadier Raj Seetapathy, the NSG commando in charge of the rescue mission called "Operation Thunderbolt" or "Operation Vajra Shakti," asserted that the response to Akshardham terror attack had become a benchmark of clockwork achievement. He presented this case study, Akshardham Response: How to challenge an attack with calm and peace, at various centres, including the Sardar Patel Police Academy in Hyderabad and various Army training sessions.

He commented: "What Pramukh Swami Maharaj did was unbelievable. He pieced society back together. The Akshardham tragedy instilled a sense of confidence that Gujarat need not burn at every spark that is ignited. What I observed after the operation was the calm and serenity that was quickly restored. I have faced many violent encounters in my professional life but Akshardham response was a great learning both from operational and philosophical point of views.”

He went on to say that once the spiritual head decided to purify the souls of the two terrorists, the volunteers and devotees had immediately fallen silent without slogan-shouting or expression of anger for any community, a most magnanimous and exemplary act of restraint and responsibility that foiled the terrorists' plans to incite more violence.

Reopening
On 7 October 2002, 14 days after the terrorist attack, the Akshardham Temple Complex was reopened to the public. As advised by government officials, increased security measures were taken to ensure the safety of the volunteers and visitors, including stationing the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) of Gujarat at the complex, increasing the height of the boundary wall, installing CCTV's around the campus and requiring visitors to pass through a metal detector.

Summary
The intense investigation began soon after terrorists attacked Akshardham on 24 September 2002. A short summary of the Akshardham Attack Case Verdict is provided below: In July 2006, the POTA court awarded death sentence to Adam Ajmeri, Shan Miya alias Chand Khan, and Mufti Abdul Qyyum Mansuri. While Mohammed Salim Shaikh was sentenced to life imprisonment, Abdulmiyan Qadri got a 10-year term and Altaf Hussain five years. In 2008, some of the convicts appealed to the Gujarat High Court. On 30 May 2010, the Court confirmed the death sentence awarded to three persons and prison terms to three.

Later in May 2014, a Supreme Court bench composed of Justices A K Patnaik and Venkate Gopala Gowda acquitted all six persons, including those awarded the death penalty. The Court slammed the Gujarat Police for the incompetence with which it investigated the case, saying, "...[W]e are convinced that accused persons are innocent with respect to the charges leveled against them."

First phase of the investigation: Deadlock
Shortly after the end of the 14-hour ordeal at the Temple Complex, the police began their investigation. According to Brigadier Seetapathy, the gunmen carried letters in Urdu that affirmed their connection with an organization called Tehrik-E-Kasas, or Movement for Revenge, a group previously unknown to law enforcement officials. The letters suggested that the gunmen carried out the attack "because they could not tolerate what happened to children, women and Muslims during the Gujarat riots." The letters were translated for the NSG by Maulana Dawood Kausar Ashrafi of the Jama Masjid of Gandhinagar. Upon reading these letters, the officials believed that Tehrik-e-Kasas was formed specifically to avenge the Gujarat riots.

On 27 September 2002, Gujarat Police Chief K. Chakravarty interrogated the driver, Raju Thakur, and car owner, Mansukh Acharya, who had provided the white Ambassador with plate number GJ-1-U-2234 for the attack. Raju Thakur explained that he transported the terrorists from Kalupur to Askhardham for Rs. 120. Initial reports suggested that the terrorists arrived at the Kalupur railway station between 2:00 pm and 3:00 pm IST. During this interrogation, Raju Thakur and Mansukh Acharya informed the Gujarat police that they would be able to identify the militants from photos. The identity of the two terrorists was also established on 27 September. The investigators claimed that the two terrorists, Mohammad Amjad and Hafiz Yaseen, were connected with terrorist groups Lashkar-i-Taiba and Jaish-i-Mohammad. A periodical published in Pakistan that included pictures of the two men in the obituary columns was a major lead in establishing the identity of the terrorists.

Initially, the local crime branch was investigating the case; but after much deliberation, the case was transferred to the Anti-Terrorist Squad. Consequently, approximately two weeks after the attack, the Forensic Science Laboratory received a set of articles collected from the temple premises and bodies. The FSL planned to analyze these materials to trace the origins of the conspiracy. In addition to the terrorists' belongings, the FSL also received samples of grenade splinters and cartridges to ascertain their origin. Although investigation agencies had suggested that the terrorists were foreigners, the evidence collected thus far suggested otherwise because the terrorists' undergarments, clothes and dry fruits had all been purchased locally from the Kalupur area.

During the initial months of the investigation, insufficient evidence resulted in conflicting reports and dead ends. Police officers and investigators claimed that they did not have sufficient information to establish basic information like "whether the killers came by train at all, and who their accomplices were." Over a month after the attack, the investigators claimed that they had no vital leads. Leena Mishra, a Times of India journalist, noted that there was "only conflict about their identity and confusion about their number."

On 27 December, the Anti-Terrorist Squad identified the two terrorists as Kashmiris, affiliated with Lashkar-e-Taiba and based in Jammu, and ruled out the possibility of local contacts in the first breakthrough after claiming that this case reached a deadlock. In the subsequent months, the investigation continued.

Second phase: Chand Khan’s revelation
On 29 August 2003, City Police Commissioner K. R. Kaushik told the media that five people connected with the Akshardham case were arrested from various parts of the city. Furthermore, Kaushik stated that the conspiracy to attack Akshardham had been planned in Riyadh and hatched by militant outfits, Jaish-I-Mohammad, Lashkar-I-Taiba and ISI Inter-Services Intelligence. In September, reports suggesting that Hyderabadis had been involved in the Akshardham attack conspiracy surfaced; however, City Police Commissioner M V Krishna Rao dismissed these reports as mere speculation. Three days after the police claimed that there was no link between the Akshardham attack and Hyderabad, the Hyderabad police officials admitted that they were unaware of the investigations being carried out by the Gujarat counterparts. Even a year after the investigations began, conflicting reports continued.

Although the Gujarat police claimed they solved the case in August 2003 by arresting five individuals involved in the Akshardham Attack Conspiracy, a senior officer of the Jammu Kashmir police force claimed that Chand Khan of Bareilly was one of the main individuals involved in the case. The Jammu Kashmir police arrested Khan on his way from Anantnag. This evidence contradicted the claims made by Ahmedabad police, who had arrested five individuals: Salim Hanif Shaikh, Altaf Akbar Hussain Malek, Aadaam Suleman Ajmeri, Mufti Abdulqayyum Mansuri and Maulana Abdullamiya Sayyed. The Ahmedabad police claimed that the Akshardham attack had been planned in Riyadh and discussed in Ahmedabad. However, the Jammu Kashmir police claimed that the attack was planned in Anantnag.

Chand Khan spoke to the Times of India while in custody and stated that he and two Lashkar-e-Taiba militants from Pakistan, Shakeel and Abdullah, had left Anantnag on 19 September 2002 for Ahmedabad in an Ambassador car (license no KMT-413), on orders from Lakshar's Anantnag commander Abdullah Mansoor. First, Chand Khan and the two militants had gone to Bareilly, his home town, to drop off his wife and daughter. Thereafter, they had taken a train to Jaipur on 21 September 2002. During their travels, they carried their weapons in a bedding roll.

From Jaipur, the three men boarded a bus for Ahmedabad on 22 September. Upon arriving in Ahmedabad on 23 September, they checked in at the Gulshan Guest House. At 2:00 pm the next day, they checked out of the guest house and hired a taxi from the railway station to the Akshardham Temple Complex. Shakeel and Abdullah carried the haversack with arms and ammunition. The two fidayeen militants then carried out the attack, while Chand Khan headed back to Kashmir. Upon returning to Kashmir, the Anantnag LeT chief Yasin awarded Chand Khan Rs 30,000 in reward. Even though Chand Khan allegedly confessed and revealed the origins of the conspiracy, the Gujarat police believed that Khan, who was in the custody of Jammu Kashmir police was not telling the whole truth.

D G Vanzara, DCP (crime), before leaving for Jammu Kashmir to interrogate Chand Khan, questioned the validity of his statements by stating, "Khan claims he reached Ahmedabad on 23 September 2002 and helped the two LeT terrorists accompanying him to attack the temple the very next day. This is next to impossible [without local support]." Once the conspirators were in police custody, the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) Judge Sonia Gokani extended the remand for Adam Suleman Ajmeri and Abdul Qayum Mansoori until 29 September.

Special Prosecutor Harshendra Dhruv told the court that "the revelations made by the accused during the interrogation made it essential to seek further remand of the accused who now needed to be interrogated in the presence of Chand Khan." Dhruv submitted certain incriminating documents containing the details of expenses incurred in various activities that were found in Suleman's brother's house. Further investigation of Mansoori was required on the grounds that the handwriting experts confirmed that the two notes recovered from the terrorists were written by him. After gathering the afore-mentioned information, the Joint Commissioner of Police, PP Pandey, informed reporters that "the temple attack was a joint operation conducted by several modules of Jaish I Mohammad, Lashkar-i-Taiba having their network from Riyadh in Saudi Arabia to Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad and other cities."

On 7 September 2003, Jammu Kashmir Agricultural Minister Abdul Aziz Zargar denied reports which claimed that his Manzgam residence had been a hideout from where the Akshardham Temple attack was masterminded. Media reports quoted Chand Khan as saying that two LeT militants had made Zargar's residence their hideout before leaving for the attack in Gujarat. However, Zargar stated, "We are not involved in militancy at all. Instead we are under threat and many attacks have been carried out by militants on me and my family members in the past, records of which are filed with the police." The Jammu Kashmir minister Abdul Aziz Zargar resigned on 12 September amid allegations that the terrorists who carried out the Akshardham Temple attack Ahmedabad had planned the operation at his native house. While Zargar denied any connection with LeT, Chand Khan, claimed they started their journey for Gujarat from his residence.

On 30 September, the POTA court extended the police custody of Chand Khan until 6 October so that the Detection of Crimes Bureau (DCB) could uncover additional facts about the conspiracy and gather information about the absconding conspirators. Special Prosecutor Dhruv stated that several questions remained unanswered because there were contradictions between Chand Khan's statements recorded by the Jammu Kashmir police and the DCB. According to Dhruv, the investigating officers were "yet to ascertain the identity of the person who brought the two terrorists from Bareilly to Ahmedabad while it is still unclear as to whose behest Chand Khan and two other persons came to Ahmedabad." On the other hand, Hashim Qureshi, representing Chand Khan, stated that if Khan—who had been in police custody for over two months, first with the Jammu Kashmir police and now with the DCB, faced further interrogation—he might lose his mental balance.

Upon hearing both sides, POTA judge Sonia Gokani announced that Khan would have six additional days of remand. On 21 November she upheld the application filed by the DCB seeking to keep the names of the 11 witnesses of the Akshardham attack case a secret to protect them from those who were still absconding.

On 29 November, Bharuch police began investigating the alleged involvement of four individuals from their district in the Akshardham attack. The charge sheet filed in the case with the POTA court included the names of Gulah Laheri, Majid Patel, Iqbal Patel and a 35-year-old unidentified individual. Even though the evidence suggested that these individuals resided in Bharuch and provided financial support for these terrorist activities, the Bharuch police explained that these individuals had left Bharuch several years ago and did not live in the town any more. Amarsinh Vasava, Bharuch District Police Superintendent, explained that evidence suggested that they did reside in Bharuch but that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that money had been routed through Bharuch.

On 4 December, the POTA court hearing the Akshardham attack case issued warrants against 26 accused, including Dawood Ibrahim and Chhota Shakeel. POTA Judge Gokani issued non-bailable arrest warrants against Ibrahim and Shakeel, along with Mufti Sufiyan Rasool Parti and others who had allegedly conspired and aided in transpiring the Akshardham Temple attack.

Third phase: Trial
The Akshardham attack case trial began on 18 December 2003. Special Prosecutor Dhruv opened the case before POTA Judge Sonia Gokani and stated that “six persons including Kashmir based terrorist Chand Khan had allegedly conspired to attack the Akshardham Temple along with the slain terrorists.” All the six accused individuals were present at the trial. Even though the trial began on 18 December, the matter was adjourned until 26 December. While the six accused were put on trial, 26 other individuals were still absconding.

In January 2004, Chand Khan's confessional statement mentioned that the motivating factors behind his involvement in the terrorist conspiracy were twofold, a sum of Rs. 30,000 and "the wish to avenge humiliation meted out to him by a corrupt police official in Jammu Kashmir." This confessional statement clarified some of the discrepancies present in Khan's initial remarks to Jammu Kashmir and DCB officials. His involvement in the Akshardham attack had been primarily motivated by his desire to kill a police inspector, Basir Ahmad, who consistently failed to pay the appropriate charges whenever he sent his car to Chand Garage in Bareilly. Frustrated by the situation, Khan had approached a friend, Mohammad Yasin, and asked for a bomb so that he could blow up the police officer's car. In June 2002, Yasin had requested him Khan to accompany him to Pokarnag to purchase some explosives. Khan had borrowed a car from his garage and met with Abdulla Mansur aka Manzoor Chaudhary upon reaching Pokarnag. Manzoor had agreed to provide Khan the explosives as long as he helped Chaudhary with his plan.

The Jammu Kashmir police claimed that Chaudhary had planned the attack in Gujarat to avenge the deaths of Muslims during the communal riots. After this meeting, he was killed in an encounter with Jammu Kashmir security forces. Thereafter, Khan did not make any reference to his plans for vengeance. Police officers believe that his desire for money took precedence. Khan made trips to Majhgaon and became involved in the Akshardham attack conspiracy allegedly involving LeT terrorists like Mohammad Zuber. Khan and Yasin bought an Ambassador car (KMT 423) worth Rs. 35,000. Khan was compensated for his purchase and promised a sum of Rs 30,000 for smuggling the arms that the two terrorists used during the Akshardham attack. Khan drove the Ambassador to Bareilly with his daughter, wife, Yasin and two LeT terrorists, Abdulla and Safiq, who were shot down by NSG commandos at Akshardham. There, Khan parted ways with the terrorists, who reached Ahmedabad on their own. Khan and Mohammad Safir brought the arms to Ahmedabad hidden in two bedrolls on the Ala Hazrat Express.

On 21 February 2004, Yasin Butt was arrested by the Jammu Kashmir police upon receiving intelligence from Chand Khan. Gujarat Police claim that Butt travelled separately to Ahmedabad with the two militants who carried out the attack and received the assistance of five associates, who had also been arrested by the police.

In 2004, the Ahmedabad city police, upon seeking Scotland Yard's help with regard to the Akshardham attack case, named Abu Hamza the mastermind behind the Akshardham attack. On 27 May, Hamza was arrested before dawn in London by Scotland Yard. D G Vanzara stated that formal and informal inquiries related to Hamza's arrest and his links to the Akshardham case had been initiated and that developments relating to Hamza were being closely monitored. According to the DCB's charge sheet, Hamza had planned the Akshardham attack in Saudi Arabia to avenge the communal riots, and that with co-conspirators including Saudis Abu Sifiyan and Abut Talah they had taken the help of Salim Shaikh, who worked in Riyadh but was from Ahmedabad, India. Salim was among the first to be arrested while the others were still hiding out.

In April 2006, the Gujarat Police submitted a progress report to the POTA court, suggesting that the police might have again reached deadlock in the Akshardham attack case and that 26 individuals were still hiding. The DCB had no pictures of them. Among the accused who left India for Saudi Arabia were Mohammad Hanif Shaikh, Abdul Rashid Suleman Ajmeri and Mohammed Kadri. Sudhir Brahmbhatt explained that the accused could not be brought to India because there was no extradition treaty among Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and India. Furthermore, the DCB also claimed that Majid Patel, Iqbal Patel and Gulam Laheri had sought refuge in Saudi Arabia.

On 2 July, Adam Suleman Ajmeri, Abdul Qayyum alias Mufti Saheb Mohammed Mansuri and Chand Khan alias Shan Miya were awarded the death sentence by the POTA court. Mohammed Salim Hanif Shaikh was sentenced to life imprisonment. Altaf Hussain Akbar Hussain Malek and Abdullahmiya Yasinmiya Kadri were sentenced to five and ten years of imprisonment, respectively. It was ruled that all the six accused had to pay a fine ranging between Rs. 85,000 and 100,000 under the sections of POTA and Indian Penal Code.

When the verdict was announced, the investigators thanked JJ Patel, a handwriting expert who had helped them solve the case by finding Abdul Qayyum Mohammed Mansuri alias Mufti Saheb through studying the letters found on the two slain terrorists. According to Patel, the letters were written in Urdu and had an Arabic touch, while the letters and style clearly pointed towards Mansuri. Patel's verdict was later upheld by the forensic science laboratory in Delhi. After the officials concluded that Mansuri had written the letters, the officials questioned him, which unveiled the entire terrorist plot and revealed the other individuals involved in planning and executing the attack.

Fourth phase: Appeals
On 26 March 2008, the Gujarat High Court began hearing the appeal by six persons convicted in the Akshardham attack case. Majid Memon, senior criminal lawyer representing the convicts, raised questions regarding the letters recovered from the bodies of the terrorists. He contended, "The investigating agency's approach towards the two chits was very casual even though it claimed that these letters were the only evidence available in the initial stage." Furthermore, Memon claimed that the handwriting experts did not know Urdu and that the prosecution had failed to mention when these letters were recovered before the POTA court.

On 19 October, Majid Patel was arrested by the Bharuch local police, after which the Ahmedabad DCB took him into custody.

On 19 July 2009, a suspected LeT operative allegedly involved in the Akshardham attack, Shaukatullah Ghauri, was arrested by a counter-intelligence cell in Hyderabad. Ghauri and Farhatullah, his brother, were wanted by the Gujarat Police and an arrest warrant had been pending against the two under POTA after the Akshardham attack.

On 20 July, the POTA court sent Ghauri to 15 days of police remand against a demand of a 30-day remand as the eighth person caught out of a total 26 accused in the Akshardham attack. He was accused of hatching the conspiracy, providing financial and logistical support and arms and ammunition to the two terrorists who stormed the temple. In the remand application, the DCB stated that it was necessary to know which terrorist outfits Ghauri was in touch with and the name of the other individual involved in the attack.

In November, Adam Ajmeri, Shan Miya alias Chand Khan and Mufti Abdul Qayyum Mansuri approached the court and urged judges to pronounce a verdict on their appeal against the POTA court's order of 2006. A petition was filed by Ajmeri, Qadri, Shaikh and Mansuri, contending that the court started hearing their appeal with the state government's appeal for confirmation of capital punishment on 14 March 2008. The petitioners' lawyer, Ejaz Qureshi, cited a Supreme Court judgment requiring finalization of a case wherein capital punishment is awarded within six months, and that in case the High Court bench could not pronounce its order in detail, it should at least pronounce the operative part of it.

On 29 January 2010, the Gujarat High Court adjourned the hearing of an appeal filed by the accused of the Akshardham case to 1 March. A bench of the High Court had already heard the appeal against the order of the designated POTA court sentencing the accused and reserved the judgment. However, the judgment was not delivered after a year and half. As a result, the convicts motioned a plea.

On19 March, Shaukat Hussain Ghauri contended that Ashfak Bhavnagari and Jalal Patel, who appeared as prosecution witnesses, were also supporting terrorist activities, having been present during the meetings in Saudi Arabia and having collected monies for the Akshardham attack. However, the Gujarat High Court rejected Ghauri's plea because the advocate for the State highlighted that under Section 50 of the POTA, which was applicable in the Akshardham case, the designated judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged involvement of witnesses in the attack. Furthermore, no inference about their involvement in terrorist activity could be made.

On 1 June, the Gujarat High Court upheld the POTA court's verdict, awarding death sentences to three accused in the Akshardham attack case. Justice R M Doshit and K M Thakar confirmed the death sentence of three convicts and various prison terms of the three others, expressing that they did not deserve leniency. The Akshardham attack case was the first judgment of the designated court under the now-repealed POTA that was affirmed by the Gujarat High Court.

On 7 September, Ajmeri and Qayyum, who were convicted by the POTA court in Gujarat and awarded death sentence in connection with the attack case, told the Supreme Court that the investigation was faulty. Nevertheless, the Gujarat High Court had affirmed the POTA court verdict. On their plea that challenged the High Court verdict, "the Supreme Court stayed the death sentence and issued notice to Gujarat."

In October, David Coleman Headley, a Pakistani-American Lashkar operative, informed US and Indian investigators that Muzzamil, aide of LeT's Chief Military commander Zaki-ur-Rehman Lahvi, was involved in planning and executing the Akshardham Attack.

On 25 December, the bench of Justices AK Patnaik and HL Gokhale directed the trial court to speed up the proceedings, while refusing bail for one of the two accused, Shakuatullah Ghauri. Ghauri and Majid Patel were arrested after the POTA court completed the trial against six persons in the case and charged with hatching the conspiracy and providing financial assistance in carrying out the terrorist activities. The accused filed appeals against their conviction in the apex court after the Gujarat High Court upheld the POTA court's verdict.

The Supreme Court decision
On 16 May 2014, a Supreme Court bench composed of Justices A K Patnaik and Venkate Gopala Gowda acquitted all six persons, including those awarded the death penalty. The Supreme Court slammed the Gujarat Police for the incompetence with which it investigated the case. The bench's decision held that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused, declaring: "We intend to express our anguish about the incompetence with which the investigating agencies conducted the investigation of the case of such a grievous nature, involving the integrity and security of the nation. Instead of booking the real culprits responsible for taking so many precious lives, police caught innocent people and got imposed the grievous charges against them which resulted in their conviction and subsequent sentencing... On the basis of the issues, we have already answered the facts and evidence on record and on the basis of the legal principles laid down by this court, we are convinced that accused persons are innocent with respect to the charges leveled against them."

In popular culture
The 2021 direct-to-video film State of Siege: Temple Attack, directed by Ken Ghosh, is a fictional retelling of the attack.

title: Akshardham Temple attack


text:
Northeast Consortium

The Northeast Consortium is a group of high schools in northeast Montgomery County, Maryland, composed of James Hubert Blake High School, Paint Branch High School and Springbrook High School. Each school in the consortium is part of a "signature program", that established specialized programs at each of the schools. While Sherwood High School was not included in the consortium despite initial plans to include the school, it established a signature program in International Studies, similar to the three consortium schools.

Blake High School's signature program is Fine Arts and Humanities, while Springbrook's program focuses on "Information Technology in a Global Society" and International Baccalaureate. Paint Branch High School's signature program is Science and Media.

The program was established in 1998, coinciding with the opening of Blake High School. With the program, students can opt out of attending their local high school and choose one of the other schools. Students are guaranteed a spot at their "base" school if they wish to remain.

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

title: Northeast Consortium


text:
Brownlow Committee

The President's Committee on Administrative Management, commonly known as the Brownlow Committee or Brownlow Commission, was a presidentially-commissioned panel of political science and public administration experts that in 1937 recommended sweeping changes to the executive branch of the United States government. The committee had three members: Louis Brownlow, Charles Merriam, and Luther Gulick. The staff work was managed by Joseph P. Harris, director of research for the committee.

The committee's recommendations formed the basis of the Reorganization Act of 1939 and the creation of the Executive Office of the President.

History
President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the committee on March 22, 1936, and charged it with developing proposals for reorganizing the executive branch. The three-person committee consisted of Louis Brownlow, Charles Merriam, and Luther Gulick. Gulick's POSDCORB served as the basis and framing idea and not all parts of their team's research were used. Their work revealed a profound constitutional understanding and confidence, not only about improving public management, but how to improve democracy within the American administrative state. On January 8, 1937, the committee released its report, famously declaring "The President needs help,"

Roosevelt submitted the Brownlow Committee's report to Congress and on January 12, 1937, sought legislative approval to implement the committee's recommendations.

Recommendations
The committee delivered a 53-page report, which included 37 recommendations. Some of its most important recommendations included the creation of aides to the president to deal with administrative tasks of the president. It also suggested that the president should have direct control over the administrative departments. In its third suggestion, the committee said that the managerial agencies – the Civil Service Administration, the Bureau of the Budget, and the National Resources Board – should be part of the Executive Office.

The committee warned that the existing agencies had grown increasingly powerful and independent, and proposed reforms designed to tighten the president's control over these agencies. The committee proposed a plan to consolidate over 100 agencies into 12 departments and allowed the president to appoint several assistants.

The committee advocated a strong chief executive, including a significant expansion of the presidential staff, integration of managerial agencies into a single presidential office, expansion of the merit system, integration of all independent agencies into existing Cabinet departments, and modernization of federal accounting and financial practices.

Effects
The Reorganization Act of 1939 incorporated two of the committee recommendations, and provided President Roosevelt with authority to make changes so that most of the existing agencies and government corporations became accountable to cabinet-level departments.

The most important results of the actions taken by Roosevelt were the creation of the Executive Office of the President and the creation of a group of six executive level assistants. Roosevelt combined several government public works and welfare agencies into the Federal Works Agency and the Federal Security Agency. He also transferred the powerful Bureau of the Budget from the Treasury Department to the Executive Office of the President. The new law also made possible in 1940, the Office of Emergency Management, which enabled the immediate creation of numerous wartime agencies. The reorganization is best known for allowing the President to appoint numerous assistants and advisers. Those who built a network of support in Congress became virtually independent "czars" in their specialized domains.

Criticism
Most Americans opposed giving the president any more power, as a Gallup poll found in April 1938.

Nevertheless, after winning the approval of Congress, Roosevelt signed the Reorganization Act of 1939 and then established the Executive Office of the President, which increased the president's control over the executive branch.

Other similar commissions

 * Hoover Commission, two commissions in 1947–1949 and 1953–1955.
 * Grace Commission, 1982–1984
 * National Partnership for Reinventing Government, 1993–1998
 * Project on National Security Reform, 2006–present

Precursor commissions and committees

 * Committee on Department Methods, 1905
 * Commission on Economy and Efficiency, 1910–1913

title: Brownlow Committee


text:
First United Methodist Church (Douglas, Georgia)

The Douglas First United Methodist Church was founded in Douglas, Georgia in August 1888.

Early history
The early history of Douglas First United Methodist Church was published in A Centennial History by Elizabeth Lott and others in 1988.

The church today
The congregation is led by Rev. Doug Walker who was appointed at Annual Conference in 2016. The Church is a member of the South Georgia Annual Conference of The United Methodist Church.


text:
Category:Political parties in the Dominion of Newfoundland

Political parties operating in the Dominion of Newfoundland before 1949.


text:
Talk:1995 NHL entry draft

Andrei Samokvalov
Andrei Samokvalov is not Russian, he's Kazakh. --AnatolyPm (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

These redlinked draft picks meet WP:NHOCKEY

 * Sergei Fedotov (ice hockey) - 1
 * Pavel Smirnov (ice hockey) - 1
 * Ryan Pepperall - 2
 * Mike Martin (ice hockey) (Q1933300) - 1
 * Bill McCauley (ice hockey) - 3
 * Lloyd Shaw (ice hockey) - 2
 * Henrik Rehnberg (Q6066585) - 1
 * Pavel Kriz - 1
 * Jan Labraaten (Q64761630) - 1
 * Anatoli Ustyugov - 1
 * Konstantin Golokhvastov (Q85696535) - 1
 * Marian Menhart (Q12035357) - 1
 * Eduard Pershin - 1
 * Boyd Olson - 2
 * Timo Hakanen (Q16298480) - 1
 * Cory Murphy (ice hockey, born 1976) - 1
 * Juha Vuorivirta (Q16991337) - 1
 * Robert Jindrich - 1
 * Ryan Gillis - 2
 * Fredrik Lovén (ice hockey) (Q65194675) - 1
 * Anatoli Koveshnikov (Q20436819/Q85611454) - 1
 * Vasili Turkovsky - 1
 * Frederic Henry (ice hockey) - 2
 * Sergei Luchinkin - 1
 * Jiri Antonin - 1
 * David Lemanowicz (Q17558308) - 3

Note: Articles must also meet WP:GNG. --75.88.89.194 (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:NHL Entry Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:1995 NHL entry draft


text:
Talk:1989 NHL entry draft

These redlinked draft picks meet WP:NHOCKEY

 * Rick Corriveau - 3
 * Veli-Pekka Kautonen (Q11900834) - 1
 * Jackson Penney (Q1431951) - 2
 * Bryan Schoen (Q850386) - 1
 * Mark Montanari - 3
 * Tommi Pullola (Q11898067) - 1
 * Tracy Egeland - 2
 * Alex Nikolic - 2
 * Phil Huber (Q1724808) - 2
 * Greg Spenrath - 2
 * Andrew Wolf - 3
 * Martin Maskarinec - 1
 * Roman Bozek (Q43301027) - 1
 * Steve Jaques - 2
 * Andrei Sidorov - 1
 * Alexander Yudin - 1
 * Steve Chartrand - 3
 * Peter Larsson (ice hockey) (Q746859) - 1
 * Jan Bergman (Q108841161) - 1

Note: Articles must also meet WP:GNG. --75.88.89.194 (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:NHL Entry Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:1989 NHL entry draft


text:
2002 Khankala Mi-26 crash

On 19 August 2002, a group of Chechen fighters armed with a man-portable air-defense system brought down a Russian Mil Mi-26 helicopter in a minefield, which resulted in the death of 127 Russian soldiers in the greatest loss of life in the history of helicopter aviation. It is also the most deadly aviation disaster ever suffered by the Russian Armed Forces, as well as its worst loss of life in a single day since the 1999 start of the Second Chechen War.

Attack

On 19 August 2002, Chechen separatist fighters launched a Russian-made 9K38 Igla shoulder-fired, heat-seeking surface-to-air missile which hit an overloaded Mil Mi-26 heavy transport helicopter of the 487th Separate Helicopter Regiment, causing it to crash-land and burn at Khankala military air base near Chechnya's capital city of Grozny. The helicopter was ferrying 142 soldiers and officers belonging to various units, mostly from the 20th Guards Motor Rifle Division, from the Russian Air Force base at Mozdok, Republic of North Ossetia–Alania.

According to Russian military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer, "The missile hit one of the engines as the Mi-26 was approaching Khankala, and the helicopter crash-landed in a minefield that made up part of the federal military headquarters' perimeter defenses. Some of the survivors, attempting to abandon the wrecked Mi-26, are reported to have been killed by 'friendly' anti-personnel mine explosions."

The interior of the helicopter flooded with fuel and its jammed doors could not be opened. Only the crew of five and 29 passengers managed to escape through the small cockpit exit hatch. Fourteen of the survivors died over the next few days from severe burns.

Russian forces from Khankala launched a search for the attackers immediately after the crash, but only managed to recover the spent tube that had contained the Igla missile.

Aftermath
On 21 August 2002, a national day of mourning was declared for the following day by the Russian President Vladimir Putin in connection with the catastrophe, which the media called "the second Kursk". The separatist news agency Kavkaz Center described the crash as the "greatest act of sabotage by Chechen fighters in two years". Some Russian media, including Izvestiya, voiced anger at an apparent cover-up attempt, accusing the military of "as usual" trying to conceal the casualties. The crash led to the suspension of the Russian Army's Aviation commander, Colonel-General Vitaly Pavlov, who later resigned from his post in September. The regimental commander of the 487th, Lieutenant Colonel Anatoly Kudyakov, was convicted of negligence of allowing the helicopter to be overloaded but ultimately acquitted of the charges.

On 24 September, footage of the helicopter downing was obtained by the Associated Press from a Turkish news agency along with a statement by separatist Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov announcing: "Here is a helicopter that is on fire and falling near Khankala. It was hit by our Igla anti-aircraft missile." It was also the first video that showed Maskhadov using Islamic insignia and flag, instead of Chechen ones, and referring to the fighters around him as "our mujahideen", in what was seen as his apparent and abrupt turn towards Islamism.

In an undated tape, Maskhadov recalls the Russian investigators' early official version that the helicopter crashed because of technical difficulties before announcing that it was shot down; he then presents a handgun to the fighter said to have downed the helicopter. The tape was also aired on television in Chechnya when the separatists used the REN TV frequency to broadcast it locally during that same month.

It was believed that the missile that destroyed the helicopter was launched from one of the many battle-damaged five-story apartment blocks on the outskirts of Grozny. The Russian military responded to the loss of the Mi-26 by demolishing several blocks in the already half-destroyed Khankala residential area adjoining the base in November, in spite of protests from the pro-Russian Chechen administration. It was initially flatly denied by Colonel Boris Podoprigora, but later admitted by the Russian military spokesman Major-General Ilya Shabalkin, who said that the action was carried out with the goal of preventing the fighters from using the area to lay ambushes close to the base.

As a result, around 100 families were left homeless and NTV reported they were given barely any time to leave and could take only some personal belongings. Regarding this, General Shabalkin commented that the local residents "had been watching the bandits preparing terror attacks and failed to inform law enforcers of their plans" which "is considered to be abetting illegal armed formations, and complicity in a criminal plot".

In response, the Russian State Duma deputy for Chechnya, Aslambek Aslakhanov, demanded an explanation from the top military command in Chechnya. The area had been also shelled in August following an unrelated crash of a Mil Mi-8 helicopter carrying two high-ranking Russian military officials, killing everyone on board, which was allegedly caused by a missile launched from the Oktyabrsky district of Grozny.

The Mi-26 helicopter was designed to carry 80 troops, while the one that was destroyed was loaded with 142 passengers (according to Timur Aliyev, "an indication in itself that the Russian military is reluctant to travel by road, even in areas like northern Chechnya far from the rebel heartlands" ). According to the BBC, citing Kommersant, "The Mi-26 often flies to Khankala with 100–110 people on board, plus a huge amount of cargo, including cheap Ossetian vodka."

Felgenhauer wrote: "I once had a ride on a Mi-26 from Mozdok to Grozny, together with some 50 service personnel and journalists on top of a stockpile of crates with tons of artillery shells and other munitions." In 2003, the Russian officer in charge of dispatching the helicopter, Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander Kudyakov, was charged and convicted of negligence and violating flight regulations. Pravda commented that he "had to become a scapegoat" and according to Kudyakov himself the judge told him that he should have refused to go to Chechnya in the first place.

A Chechen accused of transporting the missile, preparing it for launching, and filming the attack, 27-year-old Grozny resident Doku Dzhantemirov, was found guilty of planning and carrying out "an act of terror" in April 2004. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for "terrorism, premeditated murder with special cruelty, banditry, and attempted murder of servicemen", and was also ordered to pay 100,000 rubles ($3,500) to the relatives of each victim and 50,000 rubles ($1,720) to each of the survivors. At his trial, Dzhantemirov maintained that he was not a terrorist but a soldier of the State of Ichkeria. Four other Chechens accused of taking part in the attack were still being sought.

title: 2002 Khankala Mi-26 crash


text:
Talk:Pacific Coast Athletic Association

if the PCAA changed its name to Big West Conference we should merge the pages under Big West ConferenceSmith03 05:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * ALthough I am not absolutely certain, I recall that the change was not a simple name change, rather it was a fundamental change in structure which resulted in the PCAA disbanding and a new conference being formed from a few of the remaining members. Perhaps someone could find us some information on the Big West Conference website which we could link to for further information on this subject? Streltzer 22:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

from www.bigwest.org/history The league considers the PCAA/BW as the same

About the Big West Conference The Big West Conference enters the 2006-07 season with yet another milestone  the 38th year of Big West existence marks a historic return to its roots as an all-California member conference. For the past 30 years, eight different schools from six different states have joined the Big West family and represented the conference proudly, but separated the Big West from obtaining its original mission of providing a competitive athletic conference for institutions in the great state of California. In 2005-06, what was a dream nearly four decades ago is now a reality  the Big West is the California conference.

The Big West Conference is not only the home of competitive athletics; it is also the home to prestigious California institutions that are at the forefront of academic success. The Big West is now the governing body for eight California member schools that will compete in 17 sports this season. The Big West hosts a dynamic blend of schools from the University of California system and the California State University system, and a private institution that includes: Cal Poly, Cal State Fullerton, Cal State Northridge, Long Beach State, UC Irvine, UC Riverside, UC Santa Barbara, and Pacific.

Long Beach State, UC Santa Barbara, and Pacific are the conferences longest tenured members, and are three of the original charter institutions. Long Beach State is the only school that has held membership every year in the conference since its inaugural season in 1969. Cal State Fullerton and UC Irvine have both been Big West members for over three decades, with Cal Poly entering its ninth year of affiliation. Cal State Northridge and UC Riverside are the Big Wests most recent members, as the two schools joined the conference in 2001-02. The Big West is also set to add a ninth conference member with UC Davis coming aboard in the 2007-08 season.

Big West Success Found in all Sports The Big West rolls into the 2005-06 season fresh off a successful 2004-05 campaign that produced 32 All-Americans and 434 Academic All-Conference student-athletes. The conference includes nationally renowned athletes and programs in every sport, allowing the Big West to attain a high level of athletic and academic achievement each year.

Year-after-year, the Big West owns a reputation as one of the top conferences in the country in womens volleyball, and the 2004-05 season was no different. In womens volleyball, the Big West sent six teams to the 2004 NCAA Tournament for a second consecutive year, joining the Pacific-10, the Big 12, and the Big Ten as the only conference with six or more representatives. UC Santa Barbara and Pacific also remained as only two of four teams in NCAA history to compete in all 24 womens volleyball NCAA Tournaments.

The Big West is also known nationally as a powerhouse in baseball, and added to its storied history last season. The 2004 national champion Cal State Fullerton Titans were ranked No. 1 in the nation for several weeks during the year, and surpassed the 45-win mark for the fifth time in six seasons. The conference had six teams finish with records above .500, and Cal State Fullerton and Long Beach State both received No. 1 seeds in the NCAA Tournament. The Big Wests long tradition of baseball excellence was also highlighted with a conference record 44 Big West baseball players selected in the 2005 Major League Draft, surpassing the previous high of 38 players chosen in 2001. Among the 44 draftees, the Big West had two players go in the first 10 picks for the first time since 1986.

In 2004-05, the Big West also remained on the national scene in the sports of mens and womens basketball, softball, and track and field. In mens basketball, the Big West sent two teams to the NCAA Tournament for the first time since 1993. Pacific earned the most national recognition in program history by posting a perfect 18-0 regular season conference record, becoming the first Big West team in 12 years to win NCAA Tournament games in consecutive seasons, and finishing the season ranked No. 22 in the nation after spending several weeks in the top 25 during the regular season.

In womens basketball, UC Santa Barbara continued its reign as a national contender by making its ninth consecutive NCAA Tournament appearance in 2005. UC Santa Barbara senior Kristin Mann was also selected with the 11th pick in the first round of the 2005 WNBA Draft, becoming the second highest selection of a Big West player in draft history. In softball, the Big West earned its 21st consecutive season of sending multiple teams to the NCAA Tournament, with Long Beach State and Cal State Fullerton each advancing to regional championships.

Big West track and field ran, jumped, and threw itself into the national scene in 2005 by advancing 29 track and field athletes to the 2005 NCAA Championships, with six Big West athletes finishing in the top-10 in their respective events. Cal Polys Sharon Day was the conferences top finisher, as she won the womens high jump national championship. Day won the high jump event with a school and Big West record mark of 6-04.00, and became 13th athlete in Big West history to win a track and field national championship.

Although the Big West has been a permanent fixture to the national scene in baseball, womens volleyball, and basketball, the conference made a burst onto the national stage in mens soccer. For the first time in conference history, the Big West placed a team in the NCAA mens soccer College Cup championship match. The UC Santa Barbara mens soccer team made an impressive run to the 2004 College Cup, playing before a crowd of 13,601 in the championship. The Gauchos finished runner-up to 2004 champion Indiana after tying the Hoosiers 1-1 at the end of regulation and two overtime periods, and falling 3-2 in penalty kicks. Although the Gauchos came up short at claiming their first-ever College Cup, UC Santa Barbara was successful at bringing Big West mens soccer national recognition. The 2004 Gauchos held a No. 1 national ranking for much of the season, knocked off ACC power-house Duke in the College Cup semifinals, and finished the season with a record of 21-3-1.

THE BEGINNING The Big West Conference was formed as the Pacific Coast Athletic Association on July 1, 1969. However, the unofficial history of the conference pre-dates that point of time, extending back to 1967. Cal State LA, Fresno State, Long Beach State and San Diego State were members of the California Collegiate Athletic Association, long recognized as the nations premier college circuit. That conference was classified college division, and therein lay a major source of dissatisfaction. Since 1963, the four institutions had captured 16 national titles. The number swelled to 21 if the mythical football championships were included. With no more territory to conquer at the college division, a step up to university ranks had to be considered. At the time, San Jose State, UC Santa Barbara and Pacific were members of the West Coast Athletic Conference but were enduring a strained relationship due to the limit of conference sports sponsored. That, plus the fact that national football figures UOP and SJSU were already competing as independents, led the schools to pursue a more broad-based conference alignment. Therefore, officials of the seven colleges and universities assembled as a body in May of 1969, tied up loose ends and less than two months later the PCAA was born. Direction in the early days of the conference came from such men as Dr. Stephen Goodspeed, vice-chancellor at UC Santa Barbara, the first president and chairman of the founders committee. J. Kenneth Fagans provided guidance as the leagues first commissioner. Jesse T. Hill, one of the nations most successful directors of athletics at USC, followed Fagans as the conferences first full-time commissioner. SJSU was already labeled a university division school in all sports when the PCAA emerged. San Diego State and Pacific were granted university division status in the summer of 1970 and the remaining conference members shed the college division moniker by 1972. The original PCAA lineup changed in the early years and by 1975, charter members UCSB and CSLA had dropped football and SDSU left the conference in football only. In 1974, Cal State Fullerton moved into the conference. By 1977, UC Irvine joined the Big West and UCSB was back in  both as non-football playing institutions  while Utah State became the first non-California member of the circuit, transforming the PCAA into a regional conference. UNLV (1981) and New Mexico State (1984) soon followed suit, bringing the leagues membership to 10 universities. In the fall of 1983, the PCAA became the first western conference to incorporate womens athletic programs into the conference. Charter womens members UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbara and UNLV competed in five championships. By the end of 1985, Pacific, Hawaii, Cal State Fullerton, Long Beach State, San Diego State, Fresno State and San Jose State had joined the womens conference. The PCAA upped its womens sponsorship to eight championships.

FROM THE PCAA TO THE BIG WEST CONFERENCE The PCAA began its 20th year of existence in 1988 by changing its name to the Big West Conference. With the inclusion of the states of Utah, Nevada, and New Mexico, the term Big West more accurately represented the conference. Since the name Big West has been used, conference teams have won nine NCAA team championships, establishing the Big Wests winning identity that is recognized nationally. Even though the Big West is again an all-California conference, the name Big West still embodies the identity, history, and tradition of excellence the conference has achieved, making it a well-known entity in collegiate athletics.

BIG WEST MEMBERSHIP School Season Joined Length of Membership Enrollment Cal Poly 1996-97 9 years 18,000 Cal St. Fullerton 1974-75 31 years 32,143 Cal St. Northridge 2001-02 4 years 32,596 Long Beach St. 1969-70 36 years 34,566 UC Irvine 1977-78 28 years 24,200 UC Riverside 2001-02 4 years 17,000 UC Santa Barbara 1969-70 and 76-77 34 years 19,080 Pacific 1971-72 34 years 6,000

BIGWEST.ORG 03:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pacific Coast Athletic Association


text: Category:Parts of a theatre

title: Category:Parts of a theatre


text:
Talk:Big Six Conference

I think both Big six and Big Seven should be redircts to the Big Eight Conference since it is the same conference just with a different nameSmith03 05:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Big Six Conference


text:
Category:Political parties in Upper Canada

Political parties operating in Upper Canada/Canada West (modern-day Ontario) before Canadian Confederation in 1867.


text: User talk:139.80.180.249

title: User talk:139.80.180.249


text: User talk:203.213.141.124

title: User talk:203.213.141.124


text:
Casing (borehole)

Casing is a large diameter pipe that is assembled and inserted into a recently drilled section of a borehole. Similar to the bones of a spine protecting the spinal cord, casing is set inside the drilled borehole to protect and support the wellstream. The lower portion (and sometimes the entirety) is typically held in place with cement. Deeper strings usually are not cemented all the way to the surface, so the weight of the pipe must be partially supported by a casing hanger in the wellhead.

Casing that is cemented in place aids the drilling process in several ways:
 * Prevents contamination of fresh water well zones.
 * Prevents unstable upper formations from caving in and sticking the drill string or forming large caverns.
 * Provides a strong upper foundation to allow use of high-density drilling fluid to continue drilling deeper.
 * Isolates various zones, which may have different pressures or fluids, in the drilled formations from one another.
 * Seals off high pressure zones from the surface, minimizing potential for a blowout.
 * Prevents fluid loss into or contamination of production zones.
 * Provides a smooth internal bore for installing production equipment.

Optimum design of the casing program decreases the well construction costs, enhances the efficiency of operations and also diminishes the environmental impacts.

A slightly different metal string, called production tubing, is often used without cement inside the final casing string of a well to contain production fluids and convey them to the surface from an underground reservoir.

Design
In the planning stages of a well, a drilling engineer, usually with input from geologists and others, will pick strategic depths at which the hole will need to be cased in order for drilling to reach the desired total depth. This decision is often based on subsurface data such as formation pressures and strengths, well integrity, and is balanced against the cost objectives and desired drilling strategy.

With the casing set depths determined, hole sizes and casing sizes must follow. The hole drilled for each casing string must be large enough to accommodate the casing to be placed inside it, allowing room for cement between the outside of that casing and the hole. Also, subsequent bits that will continue drilling obviously must pass through existing casing strings. Thus, each casing string will have a subsequently smaller diameter. The inside diameter of the final casing string (or penultimate one in some instances of a liner completion) must accommodate the production tubing and associated hardware such as packers, gas lift mandrels and subsurface safety valves.

Casing design for each size of designed pipes is done by calculating the worst conditions that may be faced during drilling and over the producing life of the well. Mechanical properties such as longitudinal tensile strength, and burst and collapse resistance (calculated considering biaxial effects of axial and hoop stresses), must be sufficient at various depths. Pipe of differing strengths often comprises a long casing string, which typically will have the greatest axial tension and perhaps highest internal burst pressure differentials in the upper parts, and the greatest collapsing loads deeper in the well from external pressure vs lowered internal pressure.

Casing strings are supported by casing hangers that are set in the wellhead, which later will be topped with the Christmas tree. The lower members of the wellhead usually are installed on top of the first casing string after it has been cemented in place.

Intervals
Typically, a well contains multiple intervals of casing successively placed within the previous casing run. The following casing intervals are typically used in an oil or gas well:

 * Conductor casing
 * Surface casing
 * Intermediate casing (optional)
 * Production casing
 * Production liner

The conductor casing serves as a support during drilling operations, to flowback returns during drilling and cementing of the surface casing, and to prevent collapse of the loose soil near the surface. It can normally vary from sizes such as 18 to 30 in.

The purpose of surface casing is to isolate freshwater zones so that they are not contaminated during drilling and completion. Surface casing is the most strictly regulated due to these environmental concerns, which can include regulation of casing depth and cement quality. A typical size of surface casing is 13+3/8 in.

Intermediate casing may be necessary on longer drilling intervals where necessary drilling mud weight to prevent blowouts may cause a hydrostatic pressure that can fracture shallower or deeper formations. Casing placement is selected so that the hydrostatic pressure of the drilling fluid remains at a pressure level that is between formation pore pressures and fracture pressures.

In order to reduce cost, a liner may be used which extends just above the shoe (bottom) of the previous casing interval and hung off downhole rather than at the surface. It may typically be 7", although many liners match the diameter of the production tubing.

Few wells actually produce through casing, since producing fluids can corrode steel or form deposits such as asphaltenes or paraffin waxes and the larger diameter can make flow unstable. Production tubing is therefore installed inside the last casing string and the tubing annulus is usually sealed at the bottom of the tubing by a packer. Tubing is easier to remove for maintenance, replacement, or for various types of workover operations. It is significantly lighter than casing and does not require a drilling rig to run in and out of hole; smaller "service rigs" are used for this purpose.

Cementing
Cementing is performed by circulating a cement slurry through the inside of the casing and out into the annulus through the casing shoe at the bottom of the casing string. In order to precisely place the cement slurry at a required interval on the outside of the casing, a plug is pumped with a displacement fluid behind the cement slurry column, which "bumps" in the casing shoe and prevents further flow of fluid through the shoe. This bump can be seen at surface as a pressure spike at the cement pump. To prevent the cement from flowing back into the inside of the casing, a float collar above the casing shoe acts as a check valve and prevents fluid from flowing up through the shoe from the annulus.

Casing Wear
A prolonged, recurrent axial and rotational movement within casing would cause wear to the casing interior, with the probability of blowouts, production loss, and other hazardous and costly complications.

The following conditions contribute to casing wear:

 * Drill pipe weight
 * Mud and additives
 * RPM and ROP
 * Tool joint coating
 * Well path and dogleg

The following are recommendations for preventative measures to minimize casing wear:

 * Minimization of dogleg severity and expect real dogleg at least 1.5 times higher than the planned value.
 * Usage of casing friendly tool joint materials.
 * Minimize rotor speed and use downhole motor.
 * Increase ROP.
 * Select proper mud type and add lubricants to minimize wear and friction.
 * Usage of drill pipe protectors.
 * Usage of thick wall casing in the anticipated wear section area.
 * Usage of software to reduce risks.

title: Casing (borehole)


text:
Talk:Big Seven Conference

Untitled
I think both Big Six Conference and Big Seven should be redircts to the Big Eight Conference since it is the same conference just with a different name Smith03 05:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Big Seven Conference


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruffiansoldier

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. H e rmione1980 00:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Ruffiansoldier
Vanity page. Jake 05:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. - Jake 05:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ganymead 06:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn --Anetode 06:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * delete per nom.  [[Image:Smilie.gif|20px]] Molotov [[Image:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif|25px]]   (talk)
 * Delete per nom. -feydey 22:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Vanity. *drew 05:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NN --Rogerd 04:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
53rd General Assembly of Nova Scotia

53rd General Assembly of Nova Scotia represented Nova Scotia between October 6, 1981, and November 6, 1984, its membership being set in the 1981 Nova Scotia general election. John M. Buchanan led the Progressive Conservatives to a Majority Government.

Division of seats
The division of seats within the Nova Scotia Legislature after the General Election of 1981

List of members
† denotes the speaker

title: 53rd General Assembly of Nova Scotia


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GNAE

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

GNAE
This is blatant advertising spam. Even if it were completely rewritten to avoid the self-promotional tone, it hardly seems noteworthy. — HorsePunchKid → 龜  05:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as obvious advertising. And phew...I was worried this was a European branch of the GNAA, at first. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Copyvio from . Unfortunately outside 48 hours speedy time. --GraemeL (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all blatant copyvios, speedily if possible. Capitalistroadster 00:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above --Rogerd 04:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GNAE


text:
Talk:Classical education movement

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kelsey.rakoczy. Peer reviewers: Jiletka, FawnTail, Emmaschroder, Mbannon6182.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Overlapping modern/classical content?
The "secondary" section appears to discuss how modern "classical education" is taught, in contrast to the classical "classical education" in the rest of the section. I suggest someone with a better understanding of the subject than myself move the inapropriate material to the "modern" section below. If this material is correctly placed, then the stuff about the Socratic method being preferable needs to be rewritten to be more NPOV. matturn 14:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It is now 2009 and the preceding comment has still not been appropriately addressed. I am not very familiar with this movement and I turn to Wikipedia for an explanation. But the article bounces back and forth between the past tense and present tense. It is very unclear what elements of medieval education are being practiced in the modern movement. There still needs to be a clear separation so that people like me can understand the background (in one section) and the modern movement (the main article). --seberle (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is a mess. Nothing in the two preceding comments has been addressed. It is impossible to know what is historical background and what is description of current practice in the classical education movement. I am adding a tag until this article makes sense.--seberle (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this article could benefit from a compare/contrast with modern education around the world. This article could also benefit from a presentation of the opposing viewpoint about classical education and it's effectivenesss, as of now, the article seems to be biased in favor of classical education. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.45.51 (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the compare to "modern education" suggestion, at least specifically in this article. That is because trying to shoehorn two fundamentally incompatible POVs would make the article excessively politicized and full of contention between their adherents. All the more so given that one of the POVs is heavily favored in the media and "studies have shown" and so, per Wikipedia rules, would have a major edge pushing its claims running roughshod over opposition. Indeed, the two viewpoints are so incompatible that they disagree even with factual basis of foundational claims of the other side, e.g. classical educationists considering modern educationists' claim of teaching "creativity" to be a blatant lie. So I think it is preferable to keep the bulk of this article mostly focused on "pro classical" POV and have comparisons and/or criticisms either in separate section or, even better in a separate article along the lines of "Comparison of classical and modern education based on media claims and latest edschool research". 76.119.30.87 (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It is now 2011 and these concerns have still not been addressed. The confusion in this article between the modern classical education movement and the Medieval university is spilling over into other articles as well (e.g. math education). A clear distinction needs to be made between the two. What elements of medieval education are actually being included in the modern movement? --seberle (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I am attempting to help clarify this article. Most of the pieces appear to be here, but the intro in particular is awkward. I have made an attempt to make this more integrated by rewriting the into. The picture was also very distracting and has been modified. Discussion of Figure moved into history rather than left in logo. --CCeducator (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I spent a while trying to integrate the entire "miss mosh." I think by clarifying the header names, adding some subsections and cleaning up the references (some) it reads more clearly. Part of the problem was that "modern education" and "classical education" use different methodologies. In particular, modern education does not like the idea of grammar (rote learning) and wants to impart understanding from the beginning (answering why - before the building blocks exist to answer why). This is much oversimplified, but I think the first heading was somewhat misleading in the parallels to modern education. I left the words, but tried to point out the contrast. Hopefully it makes sense. --CCeducator (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Reading through these comments I just want to add that I agree with them all. But Ihave read the article this morning, thirteen years after concerns were first raised about it above and eight since the last comment on this particular thread, and nothing seems to have been substantially improved. Or rather - since I don't want to disparage the efforts of those of you have tried to improve it - I can't believe how bad it must have been before those improvements, since large parts of it remain nonsensical today. At least some of it seems to me to have been written as spoof or deliberate provocation. The 'one to amuse companions and another to decorate one's domicile' passage certainly reads that way, and that whole central section on 'the three stages' is unsupported. It is a article which needs a complete overhaul. As someone said above, it is just a total mess. Liamcalling (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

resource for teaching using socratic method
Michael Strong's book "Habit of Thought: From Socratic Seminars to Socratic Practice"

Primary Education
So was the trivium taught to younger students (as the this article implies) or to entering students at medieval universities (as the trivium article states)?

Article misnamed
Everything in the article as it stands is exposition of the contemporary American Classical education movement, and this is how the page should be renamed. There is some information about ancient and medieval trends that have inspired the movement, but the lens and assumptions are those of the contemporary world. This is extremely simple to prove: Herodotus' Histories were an important source for teaching history...for whom? Not for anyone in the Medieval West, obviously. Children are sponges for vocabulary acquisition...as discussed by what ancient or Medieval author? "To amuse companions, and...to decorate one's domicile" were goals in the cathedral schools or universities serving clerics in the Medieval West? There is no answer to any of these questions, and there is no prospect of converting an article on this subject to an article on the entirely different subject of education in the past ages. I'm not saying the historical content needs to go (it clearly provides the background theory for the modern movement), although such ludicrous statements as that Plutarch's Lives were a textbook in the Middle Ages need to be discarded. My diagnosis can moreover be inferred from the previous comments on this page. If there is any valid information on the subject of Medieval education that can be attributed to a reliable source, perhaps it would be welcome at the better article on that subject, Medieval university. Wareh 20:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As there was no discussion here, I have completed the move. Classical education will still point readers to this page, in addition to encyclopedia articles that provide some historical treatment of the educational practices of antiquity and the Middle Ages.  Wareh 00:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Whoever wrote this incoherent farrago is absolutely clueless about the history of education, not to mention history in general. Medieval education and classical education are not the same thing at all, but instead are complete opposites. Returning to the education of the Middle Ages and its uncouth, garbled Latin would be a step back into ignorance and barbarism.

In the Middle Ages, Greek was not taught and Latin grammar strayed far away from Classical Latin, becoming a subject of derision and ridicule for later scholars. In the Middle Ages, teachers used anthologies and little excerpts, which students copied from dictation. They did not actual texts or whole books because there weren't enough of them. The actual texts were hidden away in monasteries. During the Renaissance scholars went to the monasteries and had multiple copies made of these manuscript which then then collated with manuscripts from other monasteries, filling in gaps and systematically correcting errors. This (philology) was the great accomplishment of humanism. The most important author for these humanists was Cicero, the inventor of humanism. Cicero recommended educating the "whole person" so as to form an orator who could participate in civic affairs and talk intelligently on many subjects.

Renaissance educators abandoned the Medieval Trivium and Quadrivium in favor of Cicero's studiae humanitatis, restored the teaching of Greek and Hebrew, and reformed Latin grammar reformed to make it agree with the grammar of Cicero. They also introduced a clear handwriting, even before the introduction of printing.

Renaissance Humanist scholars reintroduced the educational use of whole texts in the original languages, newly edited to get rid of the copyists many many mistakes.

The modern "Great Books" program teaches so-called great books in (often very mediocre) English translation, which is completely contrary to the Classical (and Renaissance) spirit, etc., etc. 173.77.111.82 (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Aristotle's Logic
The article refers to a work called "Aristotle's Logic", but there is no such work. This section is unsourced so I'm not sure whether the writer meant the Organon, one of the particular works on logic, or some course derived from Aristotelian logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.77.26 (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Main problem with this article
The primary reason this article is confusing is that it is not clear when the article is addressing medieval education and when it is describing the modern American movement which partly imitates medieval education. This problem has persisted for over five years without any attempt at correction. It would be really good if an expert could edit this article. See the first discussion section above. --seberle (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Do not merge with Classical Christian education
The movement(s) for classical education are many. Classical Christian education refers to a specific flavor.

The modern Classical Christian education movement in the USA refers to a growth in schools based on. The article Classical Christian education basically discusses this specific flavor.

AFA-NCF (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am removing the tag. No argument has been advanced for this merge, despite the fact that the tag has been there for over two years. StAnselm (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Expanded flavor by adding some external links
Attempting to add relevant external links is being met with arbitrary deletion. Jasonmhood (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Included link to international Classical Christian Schools (I am sure there are just Classical ones, but I do not know them). Added some good classical external links=> Latin Library & Classical Page. I would encourage others to add some relevant links. CCeducator 01:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFA-NCF (talk • contribs)

Globalization
Work appears to have been done to relate classical education to the historical Western definition and to include information on other non-western perceptions of classical. I have therefore removed Globalize If you believe this is inappropriate please discuss what you believe is missing. User:CCeducator (User talk:CCeducator) CCeducator 21:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This page reads like an advertisement
It needs a section on criticisms and alternative approaches. In the meantime, it would benefit from a flag about the subjectivity of its content. 2600:1700:3681:5000:4DF3:CB9B:E6B7:20AF (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Good point. Will consider how to improve in this regard. -- Jjhake (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

 * I've tagged it as unbalanced. Tried to fix it a bit but it still needs a lot of work. Mvolz (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry missed this comment before I replied to you at more length in a new section below. Thank you for the work and the tag as unbalanced (which I agree is a key aspect involved with improvement of this article). -- Jjhake (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Clarity on the topic sorely needed
This entry is called the "Classical education movement," which in large part has become a movement in love with a grave misunderstanding. It is a misunderstanding of the (almost worshiped) article, "The Lost Tools of Learning" by Sayers, which is referenced in the entry. Sayers did not intend for her article to be a paradigm of education; she was merely exploring an interesting correlation between the trivium of the liberal arts and a very simplistic model of child development. Classical education, on the contrary, is just that: an education in the classics. And in order to learn the classics, you need to learn Latin and Greek. (See Tracy Lee Simmons's book Climbing Parnassus for an excellent explanation of classical education.) That being said, there are two issues that need to be addressed concerning this entry:

1. Although largely mistaken, this movement does exist, and deserves to have an entry. It also needs to be distinguished from real Latin-Greek education.

2. This entry needs to be extremely clear in the fact that the pop-classical movement is less of a classical movement per se, and more of a move both to a liberal arts education and a simple developmental paradigm. --Nathanael Hahn (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

 * Helpful thoughts here to consider. I'd be interested to chat more about your thoughts on possible improvements. Is there article content somewhere already on Latin-Greek education? Do you think that that The Liberal Arts Tradition by Ravi Jain and Kevin Clark involves more of an actual renewal? -- Jjhake (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Move article to "Classical education renewal"
More of the literature and the secondary sources seem to refer to a "renewal" than a "movement" so having this current title redirect to "Classical education renewal" as the primary name seems best. Thoughts? -- Jjhake (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the move. This needs a lot more discussion, and should be done via WP:RM. ("Perform requested move" is also a bit strange for an edit summary when you requested it yourself!) It is doubtful that "renewal" is the most common name (what is your evidence?) and "movement" is certainly used to describe it: e.g. Classical Education: The Movement Sweeping America. StAnselm (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback. Makes sense. I'll pull together and share a survey of the terminology that I'm seeing. -- Jjhake (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * below are a few quick examples. I'm seeing "renewal" very broadly and increasingly in the sources over the past couple of years. It would be difficult to do a complete numerical analysis of history of usages, but I'll keep looking over the history of names used since the early 1980s when the history of the renewal more movement began. Glad to get your thoughts and input as well.
 * https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-growing-movement-to-restore-classical-education
 * https://catholicliberaleducation.org/recommendations-for-renewal/
 * https://classicalacademicpress.com/blogs/classical-insights/the-legacy-and-modern-renewal-of-classical-education
 * https://christopherperrin.substack.com/
 * https://societyforclassicallearning.org/the-impact-of-the-classical-renewal-movement-on-higher-education/
 * https://chalkboardreview.com/doug-wilson-on-pioneering-the-classical-education-renewal-movement/
 * Jjhake (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, the first one has two bob each way: "classical renewal movement". StAnselm (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The standard thing is to provide all of the common names and redirect to the one most widely showing up. These are the two most common, and there may be a couple of others. I'll update the article opening along the lines of what I'm thinking is pretty standard. Jjhake (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

unbalanced tag and work
the unbalanced tag makes sense, and I appreciate the work you've done so far in addressing some of the unbalanced concerns. However, in reviewing a few of your specific edits so far, I'm seeing some that do not have a reason that is clear to me. These seem to be worth more discussion or explanation on a first glance: Your section on "Criticism" was badly needed (and needs further development, no doubt). Several other edits by you also have clear reasons. Thanks for the help with this article. I hope several folks can sustain ongoing improvements. --Jjhake (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) As noted in the "Prevalence" still, there are hundreds of public charger schools that are shaped by ideas in the classical renewal, so I'm not sure why this should be removed entirely from the lead section. Better sources and more specific numbers are needed, but I suspect from what I have seen that charter classical schools are close or ahead in number of students served to independent classical schools.
 * 2) It seems notable to keep at least the reference to "peer-reviewed" in place with the description of the new Principia journal.
 * 3) Why remove The College Fix as an example of a new story citing the classical renewal?
 * 4) Several other books are critical of the "three stages" ideas including Liberal Arts Tradition by Clark and Jain as well as Wisdom and Eloquence: A Christian Paradigm for Classical Learning by Littlejohn and Evans. These should be cited along with VanDamme in this regard.

 * As someone who just found this article (through a link from trivium), and who has no strong feelings for or against the merits of the described movement: This article gushes with breathless enthusiasm; therefore it is difficult to take it seriously. The "Recent history" section (why "Recent"?) is weighed down with accounts of media posts from the last two years or so, with the dates of their appearance — giving a naive sense that history is changing before our eyes.

 * This is not the way to write an encyclopedia article. Less presentism, please. Don't try to anticipate events or trends. Don't lard the article with terms like "growing movement." Be neutral and as concise as possible. Believe it or not, that kind of article will better serve classical education advocates (and almost all other readers) than will and an advocacy piece disguised as an encyclopedia article. — ℜ ob C. alias ALAROB 00:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Classical education movement


text:
User talk:Primatal ooze

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC) COCKMONKEY?--Primatal ooze 05:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — HorsePunchKid → 龜  06:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Stop_hand.png|left|30px]]
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Tito xd (?!?) 07:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Tito xd (?!?) 07:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs you
Hi,. You have helped with a number of articles in the past, but you haven't edited any articles in a while. Could you make some new contributions soon to help make Wikipedia better? I hope you decide to become a more active contributor again. Feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. -- ForteTuba 03:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Check out the Community Portal to help you find articles that need work.

title: User talk:Primatal ooze


text:
File:Breastsincontext.jpg

Summary
Self-made photo -- name confidential to protect subject's privacy. No other copy exists on the Net.

title: File:Breastsincontext.jpg


text:
Machine drawn cylinder sheet glass

Machine drawn cylinder sheet was the first mechanical method for "drawing" window glass. Cylinders of glass 40 feet (12 m) high are drawn vertically from a circular tank. The glass is then annealed and cut into 7 to 10 foot (2 to 3 m) cylinders. These are cut lengthways, reheated, and flattened.

This process was invented in the USA in 1903. This type of glass was manufactured in the early 20th century (it was manufactured in the United Kingdom by Pilkingtons from 1910 to 1933).

Other historical methods for making window glass included broad sheet, blown plate, crown glass, polished plate and cylinder blown sheet. These methods of manufacture lasted at least until the end of the 19th century. The early 20th century marks the move away from hand-blown to machine manufactured glass such as rolled plate, flat drawn sheet, single and twin ground polished plate and float glass.

title: Machine drawn cylinder sheet glass


text:
Talk:Calcium hypochlorite

Untitled
Should be merged with calcium oxy-chloride, as they are the same compound.
 * This chemical is known more commonly (on HTH3 packaging, etc) as Calcium hypochlorite, infact I've never heard oxy-chloride used in a chemical sense. 208.103.65.75 (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Calcium hypochlorite reacts with hydrochloric acid to form calcium chloride
the formula seems unbalanced.

I don't know Chemistry. But they are adding Bleaching Powder to the water in the tank from where water is supplied to all residents of this building who use the water for cooking, washing etc.

Is this safe?

I hope somebody knowledgeable can guide. yes it is very safe.. it is used as disinfectant... for purifying water  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.234.239 (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Not directly relevant to this section, but on its "chemical properties" chart, it mentions its "solubility in other solvents", but does not specify what the "other solvents" are ... could someone please rectify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.89.174.172 (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Reaction is unbalanced. there should be 3 H2O and NaClO. But I don't understand what for is sodium process? Reaction of NaOH and Cl2 is separate thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.46.42 (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Chlorine Bombs section
The "Chlorine Bombs" section should be refined to show more chemistry, as it's a good way to get teenagers excited about that kind of stuff, and it's not too dangerous as it's pretty much in it's own world of explosives. More importantly, make sure that you caution it's exothermic properties, while the reaction is going on, it's not unheard of for things with a low flash point to ignite. 208.103.65.75 (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

 * This section looks like an incitation to make bombs at home with household products. Is it Wikipedia's role to excite people in such a fashion? This encyclopedia ought to be neutral and not to "get teenagers excited". This article is explaining things that ARE potentially dangerous. Some people got killed by mixing bleach and acid. To boot, what should we think of the last sentence? Basically, one get to know how to make a bomb that can injure even more! "Hey guys, use glass, not plastic!" Pathetic! 150.237.47.38 (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Whats pathetic is you think if something is dangerous it should be censored, I suggest making a small subsection noting it's use and  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.159.169 (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

removal
Removed this:

The sodium process proceeds as follows:

 * 2 + 3  + 2 NaOH →   +  + 2  + 2 NaCl

Makes no sense, reaction not balanced.Sf5xeplus (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm
I removed the redundant Ca(OH)2, I don't have the book but as a powder there is no liquid left, so by H2O do you mean crystal of hydration? Do companies not react all the Ca(OH)2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.159.169 (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

household bleach powder
This seems to be the main WP article about household chlorine bleach powder. As such, it is extremely disappointing -- hardly even a stub -- just a little basic chemistry and industrial uses... This has been a basic consumer product for at least a century. It should have photos of such products. Who invented it, what is the history of the first uses and brands? What are typical hazards as experienced by consumers, how many of what injuries annually? -71.174.183.177 (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, why don't you improve it? (Just read up on how to contribute and click edit!) Tomásdearg92 (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible error?
I know nothing about chemistry, but in the section entitled Sanition, there appears this sentence: "As a swimming pool chemical, it is blended with other chemicals less on than other forms of chlorine, due to dangerous reactions with some common pool chemicals." I was wondering if "less on" should actually be "less often"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B8F3:50E0:A59C:B9D0:ACB4:AFE4 (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Calcium hypochlorite


text:
Wikipedia:Peer review/The Indian Institute of Planning and Management/archive1

The Indian Institute of Planning and Management
Reasons

 * 1) So called detractors not identified. Most of the article is based on hearsay. No facts provided
 * 2) Please verify sources.
 * 3) For personal attack and opinion
 * 4) Most of the article has the tone, its believed, detractors have said, etc.
 * 5) The article is heavily depended on single source JAM magazine.  There are hundreds of article about IIPM in reputed Indian newspapers, Websites. None of them have been cited in this article.
 * 6) Refer to the quote in the beginning of the discussion page, which broadly states the agenda of this article, which in itself is against the spirit of this wiki

" IIPM will pay heavy price for misleading indian. Business in the name of Business education won't work anymore"