![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The amount of F1 teams that have gone bankrupt and/or collapsed in the last 20 years has thoroughly disproven any connection between Super licences and financial freedom. A flip question gets a flip answer. You don't want a flip answer, ask the question with greater clarity. -- Falcadore ( talk) 02:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The series you were thinking of was Street Hawk. -- The Fifth Horseman ( talk) 14:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
– Cs-wolves (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Er, I'm probably missing something, but isn't the Cosworth article written in UK English? And if so, should it be aluminium not aluminum? 4u1e ( talk) 18:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey, fellow Prairie boy, can you give the article a look-see? I was afraid to load up on too much detail but I think most of the relevant points are dealt with. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 15:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC).
See this image:
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 04:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Re this, do you intend to create Bob McGreary? I honestly think it will be very difficult to find sources to establish notabilty, but you may know better than me. If you don't intend to create the article, do you mind if I remove the redlink per WP:REDLINK? -- John ( talk) 00:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
In re this Thanks mate. You're absolutely right, & I claim tiredness as the excuse. I'm glad you spotted it. Dick Holman. User:Archolman 19:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I managed to add myself to the project participant list. I would definately welcome your offer of help. I want to start by getting together a list of to dos and your feedback on that would be great. :-) Mutant Raccoon ( talk) 14:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 23:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
(copied from Talk:Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate for continuation)
Article seems good but completely biased. I can't believe you would completely shut-down all of those that have experienced some sort of insight on an incoming attack because of lack of documentation and then procede to come to intellectual assumptions, that itself could be waived false. You should avoid this! For example: Fact: I went to school yesterday. Your perception: "oh.. wait wasn't documented, he therefore might not have gone to school..". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.180.165 ( talk) 15:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I am actually writing an essay on pearl harbor being a set-up, would you by chance help me find good sources lol, yes Binksternet, this would be something that cannot be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.180.165 ( talk) 19:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not arguing for the benefit to the Brits, but the Americans. Either Roosevelt arranged a talk with Churchill about his plans and an agreement came abouts. Even if the warnings were sent, which I believe they were, and you are sceptical about, Roosevelt would not claim there would be. This is because, the President will not tell you what they don't want you to know, so for the little amount of alleged knowledge in this area makes it seem sceptical; as a rumor of such can not just come out of the blue. I believe where there is smoke there is fire. So to give you evidence about Roosevelt wanting to go to war will never be found, just speculated with the traces left by testimonies. It is suspicious because the Americans were not in war and they cut off the Japs oil supply, this is clear instigation. For an anology: It would be like say if, Australia was contributing to American's oil supply, then when America goes to war with another country, Austalia then cuts off their supply, that off being Australia had no affilation to the opposing country of America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.180.165 ( talk) 19:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Now for a more mundane topic. Was reading the page on Weapon Alpha, which I think you created, and have a couple questions. First, I don't understand the reference to the Soviet subs use Type XXI data. Are you refering to the Type 21 U-boats? Now matter what, it isn't clear how their using any data made Weapon Alpha obsolete. Can you clarify this? Also, in the caption to the Norfolk photo, it says that this is one the few ships to use Weapon Alpha. I don't have an exact count, but Friedman's book on destroyer design makes it seem like quite a few DDE's were armed with Alpha, and more would have been if they could have been procured more quickly. Also, are you sure Hedgehog replaced it? Again, in Friedman's book, it seems like they we contemporaries and that folks weren't too pleased with hedgehog either. Thanks Busaccsb ( talk) 06:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I've undone your undo of my edit at German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran...I don't have a source at hand, but I strongly remember that this was the term I came across while rewriting this and related articles a few years back. Howeer, I have rephrased it, hopefully to emphasise that Kormoran was pretending to be a Sperrbrecher, not was one. -- saberwyn 22:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've undone this good-faith edit. Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but it seems to me that it's better to specify the year, as FDR explicitly did. It's not a big deal to me either way, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() Year III · Issue 11 · November 1, 2010 – December 6, 2010 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Images Below is the F1 Picture of the month (found here). The picture has to be one uploaded in the last month and only from the current season.
![]() | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article of the month –
2008 Hungarian Grand Prix, current Featured Article candidate
![]() The 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix (formally the XXIII ING Magyar Nagydíj) was a Formula One motor race held on August 3, 2008, at Hungaroring in Mogyoród, near Budapest, Hungary. It was the 11th race of the 2008 Formula One season. Contested over 70 laps, the race was won by Heikki Kovalainen for the McLaren team, from a second position start. Timo Glock finished second in a Toyota car, with Kimi Räikkönen third in a Ferrari. It was Kovalainen's first Formula One victory, which made him the sport's 100th driver to win a World Championship race, and was Glock's first podium finish. The majority of the race was dominated by a duel between Lewis Hamilton and Felipe Massa, who drove for McLaren and Ferrari respectively. Hamilton started from pole position on the starting grid but was beaten at the first corner by Massa, who passed him around the outside. The two championship rivals began a battle for the lead that was resolved when Hamilton sustained a punctured tyre just over half-way through the race, giving Massa a comfortable lead. The Ferrari's engine, however, failed with three laps of the race remaining, allowing Kovalainen to win. Räikkönen set the race's fastest lap in the other Ferrari, but was hampered by a poor qualifying performance and was stuck behind Alonso and Glock in turn for almost all of the race. Robert Kubica, another championship contender, finished eighth after finding his BMW Sauber car to be uncompetitive at the Hungaroring. ( More...) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
See
2010 Formula One season for more information
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
-- Midgrid (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 23:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Copy/edit from my talk page: Re your revert of BoBr: do you disagree "in" suggests the sinking was a byproduct, rather than an aim? It does to me, which is why I changed it at all. "By" suggests it was a direct consequence or objective. I don't feel really strongly about it, tho, so I'll leave it if you do. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. A disagreement has arisen over which of two photos would be better as the main Infobox image for the Ben Templesmith article. Can you participate in this discussion? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream ( talk) 04:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
See here. Bzuk ( talk) 04:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() Year III · Issue 12 · December 6, 2010 – December 31, 2010 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Images Below is the F1 Picture of the month (found here). The picture has to be one uploaded in the last month and only from the current season.
![]() New images 2010 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article of the month –
Indianapolis Motor Speedway, current
Good article nominee.
![]() The Indianapolis Motor Speedway, located in Speedway, Indiana (an enclave suburb of Indianapolis) in the United States, is the home of the Indianapolis 500-Mile Race and the Brickyard 400. It has existed since 1909, and is the original Speedway, the first racing facility historically to incorporate the word. With a permanent seating capacity for more than 257,000 people and infield seating that raises capacity to approximately 400,000, it is the largest and highest-capacity sporting facility in the world. Considered relatively flat by American standards but high-banked by Europeans, the track is a two-and-a-half-mile, nearly rectangular oval with dimensions that have remained essentially unchanged since its inception: four 1/4-mile turns, two 5/8-mile long straightaways between the fourth and first and second and third turns, and two 1/8-mile short straightaways, termed "short chutes," between the first and second, and third and fourth turns. A modern infield road course was constructed between 1998 and 2000, incorporating the western and southern portions of the oval (including the southwest turn) to create a 2.605-mile (4.192 km) track. In 2008, the road course was modified to replace the southwest turn with an additional infield section, for motorcycle use, resulting in a 2.621-mile (4.218 km) course. Altogether, the current grounds have expanded from an original 320 acres (1.3 km2) on which the Speedway was first built to cover over an area of over 559. Placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1975 and designated a National Historic Landmark in 1987, it currently remains the only such landmark to be affiliated with automotive racing history. In addition to the Indianapolis 500, the speedway also hosts NASCAR's Brickyard 400. From 2000 to 2007 the speedway also hosted the United States Grand Prix for Formula One. The inaugural USGP race drew an estimated 225,000 spectators, setting a Formula One attendance record. In 2008, the Speedway added the Indianapolis motorcycle Grand Prix, a Grand Prix motorcycle racing event. Since August 19, 1909, 248 automobile races have taken place, with 137 separate drivers winning. After winning his fifth United States Grand Prix at Indianapolis in 2006, Formula One driver Michael Schumacher holds the record for most victories between the three major events ( Indianapolis 500, Brickyard 400 and the F1 USGP), with all taking place on the Forumula One version of the road course. A. J. Foyt, Al Unser and Rick Mears each won the Indianapolis 500 four times on the traditional oval, and Jeff Gordon has also won four times on the oval in the Brickyard 400. No driver to date has won any combination of the three major events, with only one driver, ( Juan Pablo Montoya), having competed in all three, winning the Indy 500, finishing fourth in the US Grand Prix, and placing second in the Brickyard 400. Johnny Aitken holds the record for total wins at the track, with 15 victories (all on the oval), during the 1909, 1910 and 1916 seasons. ( More...) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2011 Teams and Races
|
– Cs-wolves (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Trekphiler, could you take a look at the last few sections at Talk:United States and state terrorism and maybe recommend sources and examples of how to fix up that article? Jehochman Talk 21:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
-- Kumioko ( talk) 20:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey
Bzuk (
contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
|
Hello- I created page General Motors Rotary Combustion Engine as you suggested with my original full edit. Thanks for giving me the idea! Vegavairbob ( talk) 00:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
:Copied from here
This article contains a crucial error--it ignores the fact that the U.S. was indeed committed to fight the Japanese if they attacked the British and Dutch alone.
In April 1941 there was a military conference in Singapore which concluded that action would be taken if the Japan attacked any power. It was exhibit number 50 in the 1946 Pearl Harbor investigation and can be read here. The relevant section:
26. Our collective military strength can only be developed fully if our Governments agree to act together, should any of them judge that the Japanese have taken action which necessitated active military counter-action. It is agreed that any of the following actions by Japan would create a position in which our failure to take active military counter-action would place us at such military disadvantage, should Japan subsequently attack, that we should then advise our respective Governments to authorise such action:-
(a) A direct act of war by Japanese armed forces against the Territory or Mandated Territory of any of the Associated Powers. It is not possible to define accurately what would constitute "a direct act of war". It is possible for a minor incident to occur which, although technically an act of war, could be resolved by diplomatic action. It is recognised that the decision as to whether such an incident is an act of war must lie with the Government concerned.
(b) The movement of the Japanese forces into any part of Thailand to the West of 100° East or to the South of 10° North.
(c) The movement of a large number of Japanese warships, or of a convoy of merchant ships escorted by Japanese warships, which from its position and course was clearly directed upon the Philippine Islands, the East coast of the Isthmus of Kra or the East coast of Malaya, or had crossed the parallel of 6° North between Malaya and the Philippines, a line from the Gulf of Davao to Waigeo Island, or the Equator East of Waigeo.
(d) The movement of Japanese forces into Portuguese Timor.
(e) The movement of Japanese forces into New Caledonia or the Loyalty Islands.
This document was referred to in a memorandum on 27 November:
After consultation with each other, United States, British, and Dutch military authorities in the Far East agreed that Joint military counteraction against Japan should be undertaken only in case Japan attacks or directly threatens the territory or mandated territory of the United States, the British Commonwealth, or the Netherlands East Indies, or should the Japanese move forces into Thailand west of 100° East or south of 10° North, Portuguese Timor, New Caledonia, or the Loyalty Islands.
On 17 August 1941 President roosevelt informed the Japanese government that:
this Government now finds it necessary to say to the Government of Japan that if the Japanese Government takes any further steps in pursuance of a policy or program of military domination by force or threat of force of neighboring countries, the Government of the United States will be compelled to take immediately any and all steps which it may deem necessary toward safe-guarding the legitimate rights and interests of the United States and American nationals and toward insuring the safety and security of the United States
On 7 November 1941 Roosevelt polled his cabinet to determine whether or not the American people would support if "we struck at Japan down there" According to Stimson's notes [1]:
President Roosevelt took-"what be said was the first general poll of his Cabinet and it was on the question of the Far East-whether the people would back us up in case we struck at Japan down there and what the tactics should be. It was a very interesting talk-the best Cabinet meeting I think we have ever had since I have been there. He went around the table first Hull and then myself, and then around through the whole number and it was unanimous in feeling the country would support us. He said that this time the vote is unanimous, he feeling the same way. Hull made a good presentation of the general situation. I told them I rather narrowed it down into a following-up the steps which had been done to show what needed to be done in the future. The thing would have been much stronger if the Cabinet had known-and they did not know except in the case of Hull and the President-what the Army is doing with the big bombers and how ready we are to pitch in (tr. 14415-14416)."
In a war council on 28 November it was agreed to go to war if the British fought [2] (p. 395):
It was the consensus that the present move-that there was an Expeditionary Force on the sea of about 25,000 Japanese troops aimed for a landing somewhere-completely changing the situation when we last discussed whether or not we could address an ultimatum to Japan about moving the troops which she already had on land in Indo-China. It was now the opinion of everyone that if this expedition was allowed to get around the southern point of Indo-China and to go off and land in the Gulf of Siam, either at Bangkok or further west, it would be a terrific blow at all of the three Powers, Britain at Singapore, the Netherlands, and ourselves in the Philippines. It was the consensus of everybody that this must not be allowed. Then we discussed how to prevent it. It was agreed that if the Japanese got into the Isthmus of Kra, the British would fight. It was also agreed that if the British fought, we would have to fight. And it now seems clear that if this expedition was allowed to round the southern point of Indo-China, this whole chain of disastrous events would be set on foot of going.
"It further became a consensus of views that rather than strike at the Force as it went by without any warning on the one hand, which we didn't think we could do; or sitting still and allowing it to go on, on the other, which we didn't think we could do; that the only thing for us to do was to address it a warning that if it reached a certain place, or a certain line, or a certain point, we should have to fight.
On 29 November they actually drafted a twenty page warning the President was to deliver before Congress. It can be read on page 398 [3].
On 6 December Roosevelt decided to deliver a warning on 9 December according to an Australian telegram (see page 425 [4].)
It is simply stunning that this information, which has been available since at least 1946, has not beeen included. 71.65.71.145 ( talk) 22:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Roosevelt's goal was to deter Japan from starting a war, as was made explicit in point number eight of the April agreement: "8. Knowledge by Japan that aggression by her against one of the Associated Powers would immediately lead to united resistance by all might prevent war." Japan ignored all the explicit warnings and decided to attack the United States and Britain and the Netherlands simultaneously on Dec 7/8 1941. That is called aggression.
The April agreement was made before the July oil embargo, so they didn't know at the time that war would be forced on Japan via the embargo.
Well said. Not to mention it was Winston's express goal, too. He knew Britain had her hands full with Germany. He also knew, as Roosevelt did (but as the conspiracy loons seem not to :/), any war between the U.S. & Japan was of sole benefit to Germany.
The U.S. was already committed earlier in 1941 to take on Germany first if there was war with Japan (the Rainbow-5 plan). Obviously, Roosevelt intended to force Japan into a war and then use the war psychosis and the death of the isolationist movement to declare war on Germany sometime later, even if Germany didn't declare war first. He had already started attacking German ships in September, and on 17 November he got Congress to allow U.S. merchant ships to go into war zones which would have created numerous "incidents". You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to figure out Roosevelt wanted war with Germany, by hook or crook, and that Japan was merely a tool being used to that end.
I notice Congress never even raised the issue of declaring war when this convoy was detected. (It was this very same convoy which helped deceive DC into believing Pearl Harbor must be safe, since Japan was believed, wrongly as it turned out, incapable of mounting more than one major operation at a time.)
Congress was never consulted in the first place, and Roosevelt didn't plan to consult Congress until the last minute.
Notice no mention of Pearl Harbor. I invite you to post this to the loons page. Not that I expect it will change any minds.
I never said FDR knew about Pearl Harbor. All I'm saying is that Japan was 100% correct in assuming that the U.S. would attack it if they tried to conquer the East Indies.
I have not seen any source, however, which states that this course of action had been definitively decided upon by Roosevelt or Congress.
I just showed you that Roosevelt's cabinet made up it's mind on 28 November. Congress was going to be consulted at the last minute.
It does appear (& I confess, I was unaware of it :( ) Cabinet would have supported FDR if he moved to war. Cabinet is not Congress, & Congress blows like a weathervane. Public opinion, tho it had moved in favor of action, was still over 60% opposed to war: there was strong support of "do something" but also strong opposition to "go to war", which is a clear failure to understand the problem...
Yes but FDR intended to only consult Congress either just before or just after Japan struck the British and Dutch, thus putting Congress "on the spot". As you can see in the proposed speech draft of 29 November that I linked to, he intended to present the situation as a direct and urgent threat to American interests.
Furthermore, FDR intended to manufacture an incident. On 2 December he personally ordered that the Asiatic fleet in the Philippines charter three small vessels and then put them in the way of the Japanese invasion forces in Indochina. This was ordered in spite of the fact that air reconaissance was already being conducted, and that the Navy didn't ask for it. See page 528, note 1. [5]. 71.65.71.145 ( talk) 18:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Obviously? FDR could count on the public, & more importantly Congress, being willing to declare war on Germany while at war with Japan, which had attacked the U.S. (which Germany had explicitly avoided doing, despite serious provocation) why, exactly?
All he would have to do is claim that Japan attacked at Germany's behest and then point to the Tripartite Pact as evidence. The war psychosis and attacks on U.S. ships in the Atlantic would take care of the rest.
Involving Japan was calculated to benefit Germany, not Britain.
Britain would have benefited most from a U.S. entry into the war, regardless of whether or not that meant some U.S. resources were tied down in the Pacific. Remember. Rainbow-5 concentrated U.S. resources against Germany. There was nothing Roosevelt could do to force Germany to declare war, so he tried the back door with Japan.
Again, you've missed it: neither FDR nor his Cabinet had independent authority to declare war.
This is frivolous. The point is that the Cabinet had decided that it would bring the issue before Congress, which would then proceed to declare war after Japan attacked the British and Dutch. As early as 7 November the Cabinet decided that the American people would support such a move. See my initial post.
I also think the idea was deterrence, not confrontation, since, as noted, FDR & his Cabinet could read a chart (& for those who couldn't, Stark & Marshall damn sure could) & had been asked by Churchill to help avoid a war with Japan, not manufacture one.
Then why on earth did Hull and Roosevelt, without consulting the British, submit a proposal to Japan on 26 November which they knew was totally unacceptable? Why did they do this even though they knew Japan had set a negotiation deadline for 29 November and the previous day they detected a Japanese expedition forming in southern China? 71.65.71.145 ( talk) 23:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
All I'm going to say is that there is no way Hull would have dropped his previous "three month truce" proposal and replace it with a proposal that he knew, as the Japanese told him, was totally unacceptable to Japan unless he wanted to provoke Japan.
I have provided more than enough evidence to conclude that the Roosevelt administration made joint defense plans with the British and Dutch, that he planned to consult Congress to give a warning, and that his cabinet believed he had public support if he asked for a declaration of war. The statement in the article "Because the Japanese high command was (mistakenly)[15] certain any attack on the British Southeast Asian colonies would bring the U.S. into the war" is completely false and must be replaced with the facts. 71.65.71.145 ( talk) 22:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I reverted your reversion of my edits to the above article, but that's as far as I'm going to go, so I'll just drop a line here.
I just lifted those facts from an encyclopedia article on strategic bombing. I don't see how they don't fit or how they are not useful in a section titled "Prehistory". These are not instances of strategic bombing, they are attempts or the kernels of the idea. I didn't mention the earliest incidences of aerial bombing, so I don't see how the section could be accused of just being fluff about early aerial bombing. It was an attempt to discuss the background to the strategic bombing of World War I: early attempts at bombing cities and the development of balloons intended for long-range bombing. (I admit I'm not sure how the bombing of a fort during the Mexican War would qualify, but the article I borrowed it from was terse on details.) As you can see, I recently created an article on Strategic bombing during World War I, also just from other encyclopedias, because it was needed. You removed a link to it from the World War I section of Strategic bombing. Do you have a problem with that article as well? I claim no expertise in the realm of modern military history, only an interest in the First World War and an ability to distinguish strategic bombing from other sorts of aerial bombing, and I don't see how that short section didn't fit exactly where I put it (and under what heading I put it). Srnec ( talk) 05:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() Year IV · Issue 1 · January 1, 2011 – February 7, 2011 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Images Below is the F1 Picture of the month (found here). The picture has to be one uploaded in the last month and only from the current season.
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() The 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix (formally the XXIII ING Magyar Nagydíj) was a Formula One motor race held on August 3, 2008, at Hungaroring in Mogyoród, near Budapest, Hungary. It was the 11th race of the 2008 Formula One season. Contested over 70 laps, the race was won by Heikki Kovalainen for the McLaren team, from a second position start. Timo Glock finished second in a Toyota car, with Kimi Räikkönen third in a Ferrari. It was Kovalainen's first Formula One victory, which made him the sport's 100th driver to win a World Championship race, and was Glock's first podium finish. The majority of the race consisted of a duel between Lewis Hamilton and Felipe Massa, who drove for McLaren and Ferrari respectively. Hamilton started from pole position on the starting grid but was beaten at the first corner by Massa, who passed him around the outside. The two championship rivals began a battle for the lead that was resolved when Hamilton sustained a punctured tyre just over half-way through the race, giving Massa a lead of over 20 seconds over Kovalainen. The Ferrari's engine, however, failed with three laps of the race remaining, allowing the McLaren driver to win. Räikkönen set the race's fastest lap in the other Ferrari, but was hampered by a poor qualifying performance and was stuck behind Alonso and Glock in turn for almost all of the race. As a consequence of the race result, Hamilton extended his lead in the World Drivers' Championship to five points over Räikkönen, with Massa a further three behind. Robert Kubica, who finished eighth after finding his BMW Sauber car to be uncompetitive at the Hungaroring, slipped to 13 points behind Hamilton, ahead of his team-mate Nick Heidfeld and Kovalainen. In the World Constructors' Championship, McLaren vaulted BMW Sauber for second position, 11 points behind Ferrari. ( More...) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Formula One at 17:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The amount of F1 teams that have gone bankrupt and/or collapsed in the last 20 years has thoroughly disproven any connection between Super licences and financial freedom. A flip question gets a flip answer. You don't want a flip answer, ask the question with greater clarity. -- Falcadore ( talk) 02:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The series you were thinking of was Street Hawk. -- The Fifth Horseman ( talk) 14:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() Year III · Issue 10 · October 4, 2010 – November 1, 2010 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Images Below is the F1 Picture of the month (found here). The picture has to be one uploaded in the last month and only from the current season.
![]() | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article of the month –
2008 Hungarian Grand Prix, currently undergoing
WP:PR
![]() The 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix (formally the XXIII ING Magyar Nagydíj) was a Formula One motor race held on August 3, 2008, at Hungaroring in Mogyoród, near Budapest, Hungary. It was the 11th race of the 2008 Formula One season. Contested over 70 laps, the race was won by Heikki Kovalainen for the McLaren team, from a second position start. Timo Glock finished second in a Toyota car, with Kimi Räikkönen third in a Ferrari. It was Kovalainen's first Formula One victory, which made him the sport's 100th driver to win a World Championship race, and was Glock's first podium finish. The majority of the race was dominated by a duel between Lewis Hamilton and Felipe Massa, who drove for McLaren and Ferrari respectively. Hamilton started from pole position on the starting grid but was beaten at the first corner by Massa, who passed him around the outside. The two championship rivals began a battle for the lead that was resolved when Hamilton sustained a punctured tyre just over half-way through the race, giving Massa a comfortable lead. The Ferrari's engine, however, failed with three laps of the race remaining, allowing Kovalainen to win. ( More...) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
See
2010 Formula One season for more information
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
– Cs-wolves (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Er, I'm probably missing something, but isn't the Cosworth article written in UK English? And if so, should it be aluminium not aluminum? 4u1e ( talk) 18:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey, fellow Prairie boy, can you give the article a look-see? I was afraid to load up on too much detail but I think most of the relevant points are dealt with. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 15:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC).
See this image:
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 04:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Re this, do you intend to create Bob McGreary? I honestly think it will be very difficult to find sources to establish notabilty, but you may know better than me. If you don't intend to create the article, do you mind if I remove the redlink per WP:REDLINK? -- John ( talk) 00:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
In re this Thanks mate. You're absolutely right, & I claim tiredness as the excuse. I'm glad you spotted it. Dick Holman. User:Archolman 19:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I managed to add myself to the project participant list. I would definately welcome your offer of help. I want to start by getting together a list of to dos and your feedback on that would be great. :-) Mutant Raccoon ( talk) 14:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 23:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
(copied from Talk:Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate for continuation)
Article seems good but completely biased. I can't believe you would completely shut-down all of those that have experienced some sort of insight on an incoming attack because of lack of documentation and then procede to come to intellectual assumptions, that itself could be waived false. You should avoid this! For example: Fact: I went to school yesterday. Your perception: "oh.. wait wasn't documented, he therefore might not have gone to school..". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.180.165 ( talk) 15:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I am actually writing an essay on pearl harbor being a set-up, would you by chance help me find good sources lol, yes Binksternet, this would be something that cannot be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.180.165 ( talk) 19:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not arguing for the benefit to the Brits, but the Americans. Either Roosevelt arranged a talk with Churchill about his plans and an agreement came abouts. Even if the warnings were sent, which I believe they were, and you are sceptical about, Roosevelt would not claim there would be. This is because, the President will not tell you what they don't want you to know, so for the little amount of alleged knowledge in this area makes it seem sceptical; as a rumor of such can not just come out of the blue. I believe where there is smoke there is fire. So to give you evidence about Roosevelt wanting to go to war will never be found, just speculated with the traces left by testimonies. It is suspicious because the Americans were not in war and they cut off the Japs oil supply, this is clear instigation. For an anology: It would be like say if, Australia was contributing to American's oil supply, then when America goes to war with another country, Austalia then cuts off their supply, that off being Australia had no affilation to the opposing country of America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.180.165 ( talk) 19:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Now for a more mundane topic. Was reading the page on Weapon Alpha, which I think you created, and have a couple questions. First, I don't understand the reference to the Soviet subs use Type XXI data. Are you refering to the Type 21 U-boats? Now matter what, it isn't clear how their using any data made Weapon Alpha obsolete. Can you clarify this? Also, in the caption to the Norfolk photo, it says that this is one the few ships to use Weapon Alpha. I don't have an exact count, but Friedman's book on destroyer design makes it seem like quite a few DDE's were armed with Alpha, and more would have been if they could have been procured more quickly. Also, are you sure Hedgehog replaced it? Again, in Friedman's book, it seems like they we contemporaries and that folks weren't too pleased with hedgehog either. Thanks Busaccsb ( talk) 06:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I've undone your undo of my edit at German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran...I don't have a source at hand, but I strongly remember that this was the term I came across while rewriting this and related articles a few years back. Howeer, I have rephrased it, hopefully to emphasise that Kormoran was pretending to be a Sperrbrecher, not was one. -- saberwyn 22:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've undone this good-faith edit. Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but it seems to me that it's better to specify the year, as FDR explicitly did. It's not a big deal to me either way, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() Year III · Issue 11 · November 1, 2010 – December 6, 2010 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Images Below is the F1 Picture of the month (found here). The picture has to be one uploaded in the last month and only from the current season.
![]() | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article of the month –
2008 Hungarian Grand Prix, current Featured Article candidate
![]() The 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix (formally the XXIII ING Magyar Nagydíj) was a Formula One motor race held on August 3, 2008, at Hungaroring in Mogyoród, near Budapest, Hungary. It was the 11th race of the 2008 Formula One season. Contested over 70 laps, the race was won by Heikki Kovalainen for the McLaren team, from a second position start. Timo Glock finished second in a Toyota car, with Kimi Räikkönen third in a Ferrari. It was Kovalainen's first Formula One victory, which made him the sport's 100th driver to win a World Championship race, and was Glock's first podium finish. The majority of the race was dominated by a duel between Lewis Hamilton and Felipe Massa, who drove for McLaren and Ferrari respectively. Hamilton started from pole position on the starting grid but was beaten at the first corner by Massa, who passed him around the outside. The two championship rivals began a battle for the lead that was resolved when Hamilton sustained a punctured tyre just over half-way through the race, giving Massa a comfortable lead. The Ferrari's engine, however, failed with three laps of the race remaining, allowing Kovalainen to win. Räikkönen set the race's fastest lap in the other Ferrari, but was hampered by a poor qualifying performance and was stuck behind Alonso and Glock in turn for almost all of the race. Robert Kubica, another championship contender, finished eighth after finding his BMW Sauber car to be uncompetitive at the Hungaroring. ( More...) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
See
2010 Formula One season for more information
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
-- Midgrid (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 23:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Copy/edit from my talk page: Re your revert of BoBr: do you disagree "in" suggests the sinking was a byproduct, rather than an aim? It does to me, which is why I changed it at all. "By" suggests it was a direct consequence or objective. I don't feel really strongly about it, tho, so I'll leave it if you do. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. A disagreement has arisen over which of two photos would be better as the main Infobox image for the Ben Templesmith article. Can you participate in this discussion? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream ( talk) 04:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
See here. Bzuk ( talk) 04:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() Year III · Issue 12 · December 6, 2010 – December 31, 2010 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Images Below is the F1 Picture of the month (found here). The picture has to be one uploaded in the last month and only from the current season.
![]() New images 2010 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article of the month –
Indianapolis Motor Speedway, current
Good article nominee.
![]() The Indianapolis Motor Speedway, located in Speedway, Indiana (an enclave suburb of Indianapolis) in the United States, is the home of the Indianapolis 500-Mile Race and the Brickyard 400. It has existed since 1909, and is the original Speedway, the first racing facility historically to incorporate the word. With a permanent seating capacity for more than 257,000 people and infield seating that raises capacity to approximately 400,000, it is the largest and highest-capacity sporting facility in the world. Considered relatively flat by American standards but high-banked by Europeans, the track is a two-and-a-half-mile, nearly rectangular oval with dimensions that have remained essentially unchanged since its inception: four 1/4-mile turns, two 5/8-mile long straightaways between the fourth and first and second and third turns, and two 1/8-mile short straightaways, termed "short chutes," between the first and second, and third and fourth turns. A modern infield road course was constructed between 1998 and 2000, incorporating the western and southern portions of the oval (including the southwest turn) to create a 2.605-mile (4.192 km) track. In 2008, the road course was modified to replace the southwest turn with an additional infield section, for motorcycle use, resulting in a 2.621-mile (4.218 km) course. Altogether, the current grounds have expanded from an original 320 acres (1.3 km2) on which the Speedway was first built to cover over an area of over 559. Placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1975 and designated a National Historic Landmark in 1987, it currently remains the only such landmark to be affiliated with automotive racing history. In addition to the Indianapolis 500, the speedway also hosts NASCAR's Brickyard 400. From 2000 to 2007 the speedway also hosted the United States Grand Prix for Formula One. The inaugural USGP race drew an estimated 225,000 spectators, setting a Formula One attendance record. In 2008, the Speedway added the Indianapolis motorcycle Grand Prix, a Grand Prix motorcycle racing event. Since August 19, 1909, 248 automobile races have taken place, with 137 separate drivers winning. After winning his fifth United States Grand Prix at Indianapolis in 2006, Formula One driver Michael Schumacher holds the record for most victories between the three major events ( Indianapolis 500, Brickyard 400 and the F1 USGP), with all taking place on the Forumula One version of the road course. A. J. Foyt, Al Unser and Rick Mears each won the Indianapolis 500 four times on the traditional oval, and Jeff Gordon has also won four times on the oval in the Brickyard 400. No driver to date has won any combination of the three major events, with only one driver, ( Juan Pablo Montoya), having competed in all three, winning the Indy 500, finishing fourth in the US Grand Prix, and placing second in the Brickyard 400. Johnny Aitken holds the record for total wins at the track, with 15 victories (all on the oval), during the 1909, 1910 and 1916 seasons. ( More...) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2011 Teams and Races
|
– Cs-wolves (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Trekphiler, could you take a look at the last few sections at Talk:United States and state terrorism and maybe recommend sources and examples of how to fix up that article? Jehochman Talk 21:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
-- Kumioko ( talk) 20:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey
Bzuk (
contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
|
Hello- I created page General Motors Rotary Combustion Engine as you suggested with my original full edit. Thanks for giving me the idea! Vegavairbob ( talk) 00:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
:Copied from here
This article contains a crucial error--it ignores the fact that the U.S. was indeed committed to fight the Japanese if they attacked the British and Dutch alone.
In April 1941 there was a military conference in Singapore which concluded that action would be taken if the Japan attacked any power. It was exhibit number 50 in the 1946 Pearl Harbor investigation and can be read here. The relevant section:
26. Our collective military strength can only be developed fully if our Governments agree to act together, should any of them judge that the Japanese have taken action which necessitated active military counter-action. It is agreed that any of the following actions by Japan would create a position in which our failure to take active military counter-action would place us at such military disadvantage, should Japan subsequently attack, that we should then advise our respective Governments to authorise such action:-
(a) A direct act of war by Japanese armed forces against the Territory or Mandated Territory of any of the Associated Powers. It is not possible to define accurately what would constitute "a direct act of war". It is possible for a minor incident to occur which, although technically an act of war, could be resolved by diplomatic action. It is recognised that the decision as to whether such an incident is an act of war must lie with the Government concerned.
(b) The movement of the Japanese forces into any part of Thailand to the West of 100° East or to the South of 10° North.
(c) The movement of a large number of Japanese warships, or of a convoy of merchant ships escorted by Japanese warships, which from its position and course was clearly directed upon the Philippine Islands, the East coast of the Isthmus of Kra or the East coast of Malaya, or had crossed the parallel of 6° North between Malaya and the Philippines, a line from the Gulf of Davao to Waigeo Island, or the Equator East of Waigeo.
(d) The movement of Japanese forces into Portuguese Timor.
(e) The movement of Japanese forces into New Caledonia or the Loyalty Islands.
This document was referred to in a memorandum on 27 November:
After consultation with each other, United States, British, and Dutch military authorities in the Far East agreed that Joint military counteraction against Japan should be undertaken only in case Japan attacks or directly threatens the territory or mandated territory of the United States, the British Commonwealth, or the Netherlands East Indies, or should the Japanese move forces into Thailand west of 100° East or south of 10° North, Portuguese Timor, New Caledonia, or the Loyalty Islands.
On 17 August 1941 President roosevelt informed the Japanese government that:
this Government now finds it necessary to say to the Government of Japan that if the Japanese Government takes any further steps in pursuance of a policy or program of military domination by force or threat of force of neighboring countries, the Government of the United States will be compelled to take immediately any and all steps which it may deem necessary toward safe-guarding the legitimate rights and interests of the United States and American nationals and toward insuring the safety and security of the United States
On 7 November 1941 Roosevelt polled his cabinet to determine whether or not the American people would support if "we struck at Japan down there" According to Stimson's notes [1]:
President Roosevelt took-"what be said was the first general poll of his Cabinet and it was on the question of the Far East-whether the people would back us up in case we struck at Japan down there and what the tactics should be. It was a very interesting talk-the best Cabinet meeting I think we have ever had since I have been there. He went around the table first Hull and then myself, and then around through the whole number and it was unanimous in feeling the country would support us. He said that this time the vote is unanimous, he feeling the same way. Hull made a good presentation of the general situation. I told them I rather narrowed it down into a following-up the steps which had been done to show what needed to be done in the future. The thing would have been much stronger if the Cabinet had known-and they did not know except in the case of Hull and the President-what the Army is doing with the big bombers and how ready we are to pitch in (tr. 14415-14416)."
In a war council on 28 November it was agreed to go to war if the British fought [2] (p. 395):
It was the consensus that the present move-that there was an Expeditionary Force on the sea of about 25,000 Japanese troops aimed for a landing somewhere-completely changing the situation when we last discussed whether or not we could address an ultimatum to Japan about moving the troops which she already had on land in Indo-China. It was now the opinion of everyone that if this expedition was allowed to get around the southern point of Indo-China and to go off and land in the Gulf of Siam, either at Bangkok or further west, it would be a terrific blow at all of the three Powers, Britain at Singapore, the Netherlands, and ourselves in the Philippines. It was the consensus of everybody that this must not be allowed. Then we discussed how to prevent it. It was agreed that if the Japanese got into the Isthmus of Kra, the British would fight. It was also agreed that if the British fought, we would have to fight. And it now seems clear that if this expedition was allowed to round the southern point of Indo-China, this whole chain of disastrous events would be set on foot of going.
"It further became a consensus of views that rather than strike at the Force as it went by without any warning on the one hand, which we didn't think we could do; or sitting still and allowing it to go on, on the other, which we didn't think we could do; that the only thing for us to do was to address it a warning that if it reached a certain place, or a certain line, or a certain point, we should have to fight.
On 29 November they actually drafted a twenty page warning the President was to deliver before Congress. It can be read on page 398 [3].
On 6 December Roosevelt decided to deliver a warning on 9 December according to an Australian telegram (see page 425 [4].)
It is simply stunning that this information, which has been available since at least 1946, has not beeen included. 71.65.71.145 ( talk) 22:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Roosevelt's goal was to deter Japan from starting a war, as was made explicit in point number eight of the April agreement: "8. Knowledge by Japan that aggression by her against one of the Associated Powers would immediately lead to united resistance by all might prevent war." Japan ignored all the explicit warnings and decided to attack the United States and Britain and the Netherlands simultaneously on Dec 7/8 1941. That is called aggression.
The April agreement was made before the July oil embargo, so they didn't know at the time that war would be forced on Japan via the embargo.
Well said. Not to mention it was Winston's express goal, too. He knew Britain had her hands full with Germany. He also knew, as Roosevelt did (but as the conspiracy loons seem not to :/), any war between the U.S. & Japan was of sole benefit to Germany.
The U.S. was already committed earlier in 1941 to take on Germany first if there was war with Japan (the Rainbow-5 plan). Obviously, Roosevelt intended to force Japan into a war and then use the war psychosis and the death of the isolationist movement to declare war on Germany sometime later, even if Germany didn't declare war first. He had already started attacking German ships in September, and on 17 November he got Congress to allow U.S. merchant ships to go into war zones which would have created numerous "incidents". You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to figure out Roosevelt wanted war with Germany, by hook or crook, and that Japan was merely a tool being used to that end.
I notice Congress never even raised the issue of declaring war when this convoy was detected. (It was this very same convoy which helped deceive DC into believing Pearl Harbor must be safe, since Japan was believed, wrongly as it turned out, incapable of mounting more than one major operation at a time.)
Congress was never consulted in the first place, and Roosevelt didn't plan to consult Congress until the last minute.
Notice no mention of Pearl Harbor. I invite you to post this to the loons page. Not that I expect it will change any minds.
I never said FDR knew about Pearl Harbor. All I'm saying is that Japan was 100% correct in assuming that the U.S. would attack it if they tried to conquer the East Indies.
I have not seen any source, however, which states that this course of action had been definitively decided upon by Roosevelt or Congress.
I just showed you that Roosevelt's cabinet made up it's mind on 28 November. Congress was going to be consulted at the last minute.
It does appear (& I confess, I was unaware of it :( ) Cabinet would have supported FDR if he moved to war. Cabinet is not Congress, & Congress blows like a weathervane. Public opinion, tho it had moved in favor of action, was still over 60% opposed to war: there was strong support of "do something" but also strong opposition to "go to war", which is a clear failure to understand the problem...
Yes but FDR intended to only consult Congress either just before or just after Japan struck the British and Dutch, thus putting Congress "on the spot". As you can see in the proposed speech draft of 29 November that I linked to, he intended to present the situation as a direct and urgent threat to American interests.
Furthermore, FDR intended to manufacture an incident. On 2 December he personally ordered that the Asiatic fleet in the Philippines charter three small vessels and then put them in the way of the Japanese invasion forces in Indochina. This was ordered in spite of the fact that air reconaissance was already being conducted, and that the Navy didn't ask for it. See page 528, note 1. [5]. 71.65.71.145 ( talk) 18:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Obviously? FDR could count on the public, & more importantly Congress, being willing to declare war on Germany while at war with Japan, which had attacked the U.S. (which Germany had explicitly avoided doing, despite serious provocation) why, exactly?
All he would have to do is claim that Japan attacked at Germany's behest and then point to the Tripartite Pact as evidence. The war psychosis and attacks on U.S. ships in the Atlantic would take care of the rest.
Involving Japan was calculated to benefit Germany, not Britain.
Britain would have benefited most from a U.S. entry into the war, regardless of whether or not that meant some U.S. resources were tied down in the Pacific. Remember. Rainbow-5 concentrated U.S. resources against Germany. There was nothing Roosevelt could do to force Germany to declare war, so he tried the back door with Japan.
Again, you've missed it: neither FDR nor his Cabinet had independent authority to declare war.
This is frivolous. The point is that the Cabinet had decided that it would bring the issue before Congress, which would then proceed to declare war after Japan attacked the British and Dutch. As early as 7 November the Cabinet decided that the American people would support such a move. See my initial post.
I also think the idea was deterrence, not confrontation, since, as noted, FDR & his Cabinet could read a chart (& for those who couldn't, Stark & Marshall damn sure could) & had been asked by Churchill to help avoid a war with Japan, not manufacture one.
Then why on earth did Hull and Roosevelt, without consulting the British, submit a proposal to Japan on 26 November which they knew was totally unacceptable? Why did they do this even though they knew Japan had set a negotiation deadline for 29 November and the previous day they detected a Japanese expedition forming in southern China? 71.65.71.145 ( talk) 23:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
All I'm going to say is that there is no way Hull would have dropped his previous "three month truce" proposal and replace it with a proposal that he knew, as the Japanese told him, was totally unacceptable to Japan unless he wanted to provoke Japan.
I have provided more than enough evidence to conclude that the Roosevelt administration made joint defense plans with the British and Dutch, that he planned to consult Congress to give a warning, and that his cabinet believed he had public support if he asked for a declaration of war. The statement in the article "Because the Japanese high command was (mistakenly)[15] certain any attack on the British Southeast Asian colonies would bring the U.S. into the war" is completely false and must be replaced with the facts. 71.65.71.145 ( talk) 22:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I reverted your reversion of my edits to the above article, but that's as far as I'm going to go, so I'll just drop a line here.
I just lifted those facts from an encyclopedia article on strategic bombing. I don't see how they don't fit or how they are not useful in a section titled "Prehistory". These are not instances of strategic bombing, they are attempts or the kernels of the idea. I didn't mention the earliest incidences of aerial bombing, so I don't see how the section could be accused of just being fluff about early aerial bombing. It was an attempt to discuss the background to the strategic bombing of World War I: early attempts at bombing cities and the development of balloons intended for long-range bombing. (I admit I'm not sure how the bombing of a fort during the Mexican War would qualify, but the article I borrowed it from was terse on details.) As you can see, I recently created an article on Strategic bombing during World War I, also just from other encyclopedias, because it was needed. You removed a link to it from the World War I section of Strategic bombing. Do you have a problem with that article as well? I claim no expertise in the realm of modern military history, only an interest in the First World War and an ability to distinguish strategic bombing from other sorts of aerial bombing, and I don't see how that short section didn't fit exactly where I put it (and under what heading I put it). Srnec ( talk) 05:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() Year IV · Issue 1 · January 1, 2011 – February 7, 2011 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Images Below is the F1 Picture of the month (found here). The picture has to be one uploaded in the last month and only from the current season.
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() The 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix (formally the XXIII ING Magyar Nagydíj) was a Formula One motor race held on August 3, 2008, at Hungaroring in Mogyoród, near Budapest, Hungary. It was the 11th race of the 2008 Formula One season. Contested over 70 laps, the race was won by Heikki Kovalainen for the McLaren team, from a second position start. Timo Glock finished second in a Toyota car, with Kimi Räikkönen third in a Ferrari. It was Kovalainen's first Formula One victory, which made him the sport's 100th driver to win a World Championship race, and was Glock's first podium finish. The majority of the race consisted of a duel between Lewis Hamilton and Felipe Massa, who drove for McLaren and Ferrari respectively. Hamilton started from pole position on the starting grid but was beaten at the first corner by Massa, who passed him around the outside. The two championship rivals began a battle for the lead that was resolved when Hamilton sustained a punctured tyre just over half-way through the race, giving Massa a lead of over 20 seconds over Kovalainen. The Ferrari's engine, however, failed with three laps of the race remaining, allowing the McLaren driver to win. Räikkönen set the race's fastest lap in the other Ferrari, but was hampered by a poor qualifying performance and was stuck behind Alonso and Glock in turn for almost all of the race. As a consequence of the race result, Hamilton extended his lead in the World Drivers' Championship to five points over Räikkönen, with Massa a further three behind. Robert Kubica, who finished eighth after finding his BMW Sauber car to be uncompetitive at the Hungaroring, slipped to 13 points behind Hamilton, ahead of his team-mate Nick Heidfeld and Kovalainen. In the World Constructors' Championship, McLaren vaulted BMW Sauber for second position, 11 points behind Ferrari. ( More...) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Formula One at 17:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC).