Talk:Royal Radar Establishment

message: This article is a phase in the history of one single establishment  and location  that  has been the major employer in  Malvern for nearly 70 years. The focus of research and its permanent  employees has changed only slightly over the years in spite of the frequent renaming. It  has always been a facility  for the research  and development  of electronic defence tchnology. I'm suggesting a merger of all these articles into a main  article with subsections for each, leaving rediretcs. But, it's only  a suggestion...
* TRE Telecommunications Research Establishment 1942 - 1953
* RRE Radar Research Establishment 1953 - 1957
* RRE Royal Radar Establishment 1957 - 1976
* RSRE Royal Signals and Radar Establishment 1976 - 1991
* DRA Defence Research Agency April 1991 - April 1995
* DERA Defence Evaluation & Research Agency April 1995 July 2001
* QinetiQ & DSTL July 2000 - present--Kudpung (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's a difficult one, this, isn't it. I feel that  all  the establishments from  TRE to DERA should be merged into  one decent  article. The name changed a lot, and the scientific focus may  have changed a bit, but  the staff didn't. The problem  would be in  choosing  which name to  give the article and redirect  all  the others. I  suggest  using  its last  name, DERA. The bigget  changes didn't really happen until North  Site closed down.I do agree with  you however that  QinetiQ should retain  its own article. Probably  the best  thing  to  do  is to  call  for a debate. I can organise it  if you  like.--Kudpung (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: yes please do!!! I have just run into this in the course of amending John Gunn's page Michael P. Barnett (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

message: Best I could do tonight. Essentially place holders for standardization, cleanup, expansion. More anon Michael P. Barnett (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision 12/20

message: This article is developing well but let's not lose sight of the WP:MOS and WP:BLP. There should be no editing notes in the text, so if these items are not complete they can be entirely left out or stored in users' sandboxes until they are - there's no hurry. All text should preferably be in prose form unless there is good reason for it not to be.People in lists who do not have Wikipedia articles should nevertheless be able to satisfy the same requirements for notability as a stand-alone biography as outlined in WP:BASIC, and WP:ACADEMIC. In contrast to some of the reasons for leaving redlinks in articles, redlinks on people's names is probably not not a good idea and may count as unreferenced BLP and will generally be unlinked, and removed to the talk page if not sourced. For an example, see how we handle this at Malvern, Worcestershire, a Good Article. --Kudpung (talk) 02:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mos & BLP 

message: I think that there are objective criteria that make mention of Bill Bardsley unchallengeable and omission inexcusable. Your comment shows how important the principle of WP is. I did mention "single crystal growth" in the list of scientific topics to which RRE staff made major contributions. I hope that other people will add to this list, and provide names of contributors. 
Words like "famous", "distinguished", "eminent" and so on make me nervous. Can we sidestep these by something like "made significant contributions to ..."?
With Bill, the importance of the field within which he worked (crystal growth) is shown by the publication of a journal called Crystal Growth by Elsevier. There must be documentation of the importance of the aspect on which he worked (growing large single crystals) in the development of heat and infra-red detectors, in some of his papers and in any survey of these sensors and their applications. The importance of Bill's work is shown by number, time span and topics of papers that cite it. A Web of Science search on his name found that there are over 200 citations to his papers. His first paper, published in 1961, was cited as recently as 2004 and 2005 and, a little earlier, in a space science paper concerned with crystal growth on other solar system objects. 
I suppose it could be said that I am being subjective in my choice of "objective" criteria. But what more is possible. I tried to get some feedback about my concerns regarding "notability" Talk:Notability in Wikipedia#Verifying a statement that someone is or was a "significant contributor" but got no feedback. But I am scared of a situation where any one person becomes arbiter of "eminence" or suchlike value laden words. Obviously, some people merit such terms, but society has awarded them, and I don't think eminence of that kind should be prerequisite to mention.
When I typed the list last night I realized the problem of people who stayed. I think we have to keep checking around. And I think we should give credit to administrators. I cannot even remember who was Director when I was at RRE. But I was well impressed. One comment I have heard quite often is that a measure of the skill of an administrator is the lack of awareness of staff that they are being administrated. Maybe we should list successive Directors.
While I was at RRE, I put together a conference on theoretical solid state physics and we produced a proceedings. I may have a copy stashed away -- will look. John Hawgood (U. Durham), Roger Elliot (U. Aberdeen), Ernst Sondheimer (Queen Mary College, London) gave papers, but I know that Ernst is dead, so is Leo Pincherle, and there is no entry for John or Roger as Emeritii on their department web sites. Who else can we tap for memories? As regards articles which might be expected to endorse earlier comments, WP Crystal growth is actively dangerous -- I posted a comment that I hope is not breaking WP courtesy rules. The Royal Society obit on Ron Jones does not mention that he was a champion grower of large single crystals in 1954, and in close contact with us. I found one paper of Ron's paralleling Bardsley's work, but finding it was time consuming. Maybe we put in items that we think are of relevance, try to find corroboration when time permits, and expedite if challenged.
I assume that you and GyroMagician and Iccaldwell and Kudpung are in dialogue with each other and with other ex RRE people. We just have to keep remembering. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The only other RRE person I know of off hand is Alan Gibson, and you already have him on your list.
Jpg1954 (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about Bill Bardsley

message: In the grand scheme of things there is no need to hurry, but time is inelastic and there are unavoidable time constraints. I used one-item-per-line format with the intent of merging and extending each line today. I agree very strongly that prose should be used wherever possible and am appalled by the apparent norm of doing the opposite. I am too exhausted to do any more tonight, and would be grateful if things can be left as is for 15 hours. Two wrongs don't make a right, but I have seen a lot worse in form as well as substance. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: MOS and BLP

message: If (from the RRE page), you click on "What links here" (under toolbox) you can pick up a few more names- mostly a bit later.  Jpg1954 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names 

message: Thanks. These comments solve the problem of mentioning someone who I know is or was an FRS, because I can check on the web sites  and . But the big and unnecessary busy work that has taken up most of 1 working day is that I have been pushed into establishing the notability of people I only want to MENTION in a WP article, believing that I could do this because they are mentioned as major contributors in an article published by the Royal Society. And I have only got part way through the list of such people. If this restriction of mentionability to notability is sustained, it is quite unrealistic for me to try contributing information to the article on RRE or any other institution or laboratory that may be lost otherwise. I think that my noticing the omission of John Gunn was productive. 
I was all set to recruit other people in their 80s to pitch in. But I do not want to subject anyone else to finding themselves needing to throw good time after bad, which is what I feel I have been doing today, to put the names I typed last night into the article. And I can find dozens of WP articles which mention people who do not meet notability requirements. 
Michael P. Barnett (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, 50-somethings don't like throwing in good time after bad, either, and this certainly does suck up your time.  But I think the Worcestershire "team" has set the goal of getting as many articles as possible to "GA" status.
Jpg1954 (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael, please do not underestimate how much your contributions are appreciated by us youngsters in their sixties who are also interested in accuracy in the Wikipedia, especially those of us whose very existence is due to TRE/RRE being in Malvern in 1946. Only unsourced names have been temporarily removed while you look for the sources. Wikipedia, however, has rules about how it is compiled, and they are based on two fundamental core issues which have to be read to be understood: WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:SOURCE. Exceptions to the rules are rare, and if there appear to be, it concerns articles that were either created before they existed, or pages that have not been noticed yet, but will be reviewed sooner or later. See WP:OTHERSTUFF.  Local elected city councilors and mayors are mentioned if they  pass WP:POLITICIANKudpung (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: mentionable = notable?

message: I agree very strongly with Kudpung's reaffirmation of adherence to WP:SOURCE. I think that the obituary of R. A. Smith fits the criteria for a high quality secondary source. It was published by the Royal Society of London -- I cannot think of a more prestigious publisher. Maybe my wording was not sufficiently emphatic: 
"The Biographical Memoir of Robert Allen Smith, F.R.S., O.B.E, focuses on the development of Radar and then solid state physics that he directed.S.D. Smith, Robert Allan Smith, Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, vol.28, 479-504, 1982.. The following people are amongst those mentioned in the article: " 
Should I have repeated the citation after each name? My plan was to get the names in place, then eliminate redundancies with people from the TRE page, and then try to source other people -- I have done this for Bill Bardsley, but I do not know how to source the fact that Paul Butcher, Geoffrey Chester, David Howarth, Paul Samet (or Sammet), Robert Taylor were at RRE. I do not even know what they did. I think my affiliation is mentioned in the "about the authors" at the end of an issue of Penguin Science News (the article was about uses of mass spectrometers). 
I can show that Paul Butcher wrote respected monographs, and that Geoffrey published papers from Cornell and was a senior administrator from items picked up by Google. I suppose Manchester University and University College London and the Rutherford Lab could be contacted to confirm David, Paul Sammet, and Bob were there. But this is time consuming. I don't want to come across as a shirker, but I really think that the most useful, to WP, expenditure of my time is on things I remember from before when you all were there. I see the flags "citation needed". Could we use that for items that people provide in good faith -- this can be a prompt to a reader to provide it, whilst warning that it is unverified. I had a constructive dialogue on Garden roses in contents item 4.1 (Notable rose growers) under Empress Josephine (led to this from old photo of a rose grower in photo history of Malvern).
What I really think most useful for me to do next apropos the RRE article is to make sure appropriate mention is made of presence in RRE of people for whom there are WP articles already (as I did for Ian Gunn) and to press for articles on C. E. Bellinger, Henry Booker, George MacFarlane, Leo Pincherle and R. A. Smith, if there is a way to do this. 
I am labouring the idea of propagating data from RA's obit to multiple biographical articles because it illustrates a tactic of immense potential for WP. 
I started to apply it by propagating information from the photographic history of Malvern. It follows the principle used in the production of H. W. Wilson Company databases and Index Medicus. The methodology was my full time concern when I was Director of R & D at the Wilson Company. Each database covers a fixed set of journals. Employees, with the title "indexers", go through each issue of each of these, when it arrives, inspects each article and assigns subject headings from an authority list, to which it is relevant. These bibliographic records are sorted at the end of the indexing cycle (in 1970, typically 3 months). 
There are vast numbers of books that can be used to generate information systematically for multiple articles. Photographic histories, like the one for Malvern, are valuable. For the Leigh-on-Sea article, I put in accurate information about the church that had been mentioned already, and two more churches now considered of architectural history interest, that I took from the Essex volume of the Buildings of England series by Nikolas Pevsner.
Conceivably, someone (and here I come back to the idea of students working under supervision) could create a WP site with hundreds of items of templated data, flagged for where they should be put, and a daemon released by an appropriate administrator to distribute them (with ENORMOUS precautions against an unauthorized person doing any distributing).
Anyhow, if I can go ahead as outlined, using mention in Royal Society and other prestigious journal obits, please let me know.
Michael P. Barnett (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Misunderstanding

message: I have merged the lists of people from RA's obit and from the TRE page. Pity that Cockburn, Dippy and Sciama were moved out as non-notables because I used the wrong initials and missed out a bracket. Pincherle and Uttley had already been accepted as notable in the Malvern article. Nielson, Lawson and Young were mentioned in the next paragraph as recipients of Rank award. They are all back. I will be interested in follow up to the question of mentionable only if notable. A few more details:
1. do liquid crystals warrant 2 lines of introduction, when all the other work at RRE just has 3? Might it be better to use a catch phrase in the introduction, and a longer explanation together with longer explanations of the other topics later in the article?
2. can we get rid of the see also and external link lists by sections in the body that explain why these are relevant -- maybe sections (or subsections) headed "Related agencies", "Related histories", for the first four see also's, a paragraph on liquid crystals at RRE with a link for the fifth, and a paragraph on computing at RRE subsuming CORAL in an expanded Research section. On this score, I would like to find a reference for MOSAIC, Philip Blundel's delay line 4-address computer at Leigh Sinton that was decommisioned by transfer to Wales. 
Can the National Archives be used for verifiability?
Michael P. Barnett (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we please get the terminology right, because inclusion in Wikipedia depends on two fundamental aspects of encyclopediography: notability and verifiability. No one is saying that the names have been removed for not being notable. They were removed (temporarily) for not being adequately sourced  i.e. their notability is not yet confirmed according to WP:RS for WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. Please read upon these policies and do bear in mind that a two-line entry in a text about something else will not confer notability. FWIW I went to school with Bardsley's kids. --Kudpung (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have NOT suggested a WP page for Bill Bardsley. I have agreed with Jpg1954 that the section on research at RRE must MENTION Bill Bardsley as a significant contributor to the growth of single crystals from melts. This was essential to the development of heat detecting semiconductor sensors, which was essential to heat seeking missiles, sniperscopes, devices to detect hot spots in buildings and so on. Failure to mention Bill would misrepresent, by omission, present knowledge of the scientific history of RRE. I have provided adequate evidence of his contribution by giving the number of references to his papers on the topic in Web of Science. This criterion of significant contribution is widely accepted for grant awards, promotion and tenure in many universities. I would use phraseology along lines "Major work on the growth of crystals from melts was conducted by William Bardsley. A Web of Science search in late 2010 showed over 200 references to his papers, some within the past three years, including a  space science study of crystals on the surface of a planetary object", with reference to the paper that reports this. This would be quite sufficient for the hard print encyclopedias to which I have contributed invited articles, and for the several survey articles I have written for major chemistry journals and major computer science journals. I repeat, I am NOT suggesting an article about Bill. I am describing how he would be MENTIONED. A simple analogy. Asking the local supermarket to stock Marmite is not the same as petitioning the town council to let me open a Marmite store in town. Merry Christmas. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

text: P.S. Bill was NOT one of the people you removed. I had not put him in yet. I was working systematically through the lists first. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

text: " ... Pity that Cockburn, Dippy and Sciama were moved out as non-notables ... " - if that was Robert "Bob" Dippy then he certainly WAS notable, he more or less invented GEE and LORAN A.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Tidying up

message: 1. Reference to Bardsley is great. I could not have found it. I had learned of the existence of the Association for Crystal Growth but struck out when I tried to get more detail. I can get references to books and and to journal articles, but getting full text of articles where I spend most of my time hits a glitch with some journals (hope to fix this in next fortnight). 
2. I think I can get well informed opinion, hopefully next week, on how to reference documents such as the Bardsley piece, in context of current drive to create websites for massive archival material on durable websites, that create host of unconventional objects of reference. 
3. I have NO preference for structuring this article, beyond hoping that the "see also" and "further reading" lists can be absorbed into the main list of references, by dint of section that explains WHY readers should follow the hyperlinks. Not sure what it was you preferred -- but please adopt it. As regards dates, I thought it might be interesting to put these in for everyone, so readers could see span of ages of participants. But not a big deal.
4. I began editing this article for practice. Now, I hope it will (i) ensure remembrance of people at Malvern who contributed to science and engineering, and to its impact on war time survival and the subsequent quality of life , (ii) provide a rich example of how people from diverse backgrounds were brought together and created new science and engineering, impacting the development of these in society at large (CRT technology carried over to computing and to TV for the populace, solid state physics built up and disseminated to British academe and industry, ...), (iii) give future generations some inkling that this was done by real people in real situations, in danger (Bill Bardsley defusing bombs before his Malvern days, Blumlein killed in a test flight, R. A. Smith being flown along the French coast shortly before D-day);and in laboratories where people made things with their own hands that could blow up -- many students now see science as glossy off-the-shelf machines controlled by "user-friendly" software -- great -- but know what it was like once upon a time. 
(I am having an overdose of the "don't look at me in that tone of voice" approach to history of science, apropos the Rosalind Franklin article -- Maurice Wilkins was a friend of mine.) If other people feel the way I do about RRE, I will do what I can to help (I will do what I can however people feel). My usefulness is in remembering names -- one thing outstanding is the conference on theoretical solid state physics I put together -- John Hawgood, Ernst Sondheimer, Roger Elliott were there -- there is a remote possibility a copy of the proceedings is in basement storage; also Nigel Mott was consultant to RRE and paid friendly visits. BUT, I haven't a clue about electronic engineering or about theoretical solid state physics beyond band structure calculations as they were through the early sixties, and the hunt for organic chemicals with properties that might be symptomatic of semiconductivity, plus another activity that Hodlin put me onto, took over my time at Malvern.
Michael P. Barnett (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: reply 1/1/11

message: editing the Rosalind Franklin article reminded me of another albeit very brief presence at RRE -- John Maddox! (Brenda, who wrote a book about Franklin, was his 2nd wife). He came in some kind of temporary appointment -- he was good at that. Leo Pincherle told me with feeling of the anticipation of the seminar at which Maddox was to present a definitive solution of the magnetron equations. Unfortunately (and typically) he had omitted a crucial term in the differential equations. Since this is not verifiable, no need to mention it. I am working on the Coulson article for a bit. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: more?

message: It would be nice to work in:
One of the first meetings, in England, on band structures in solid state physics,M.P. Barnett (ed), Band Structure: Theory and Experiment. Proceedings of a Symposium Held at R.R.E. Malvern on September 27th and 28th 1954. was held at R.R.E. in 1954. The session chairs and scheduled speakers, and their affiliations at the time, were R.A.Smith (RRE), L. (Leo) Pincherle (RRE), G.G. (George) Hall (University of Cambridge), S. (Stanley) Raimes (Imperial College, London), N.H (Norman) March (University of Sheffield), D.J. (David) Howarth (MIT), R.S. Leigh (AERE), Charles Coulson (University of Oxford), S.J. (Simon) Altmann (University of Oxford), E.P. (Eric) Wohlfarth (Imperial College, London), John Hawgood (University of Durham), G. C. Fletcher (University College of the South West), E.H. (Ernst) Sondheimer, R.J. (Roger) Elliott (AERE), R. Barrie (SERL), and J.M. (Michael) Radcliffe (RRE). Further discussants included O. Simpson, E.W. Elcock, D.F. Johnston, and W.M. Lomer.
I just found my own copy. For verifiability, I will try to get a copy of it into an archive asap. Norman March's paper described work he did as a Vacation Consultant. Should he be included amongst contributors to RRE? I am increasingly concerned that people who did not move on may be getting lost between the cracks.
Michael P. Barnett (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Band Structure Symposium September 27--28, 1954

message: Just noticed "focus of work has changed only slightly" in lead. NO!!! Focus originally radar. But by 1953 the solid state work at RRE was its greatest influence on British science. Even if it was only 10% of total personnel, it dominated RRE scientifically.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael P. Barnett (talk • contribs) 16:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Focus of work

message: Mention of Michael Radcliffe ok? Will provide reference tomorrow. More details welcome. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Another contributor

message: Here is VERY tentative suggested alternative to merger. Move all the material presently under RRE that is in the TRE time slot to TRE article, and shorten RRE lede to:
:The Royal Radar Establishment (RRE) was the name, from 1957 to 1976, of a British government defense laboratory in Malvern, Worcestershire. It was formed by the merger, in 1953, of two independent government laboratories, the Telecommunications Research Establishment (TRE) and the Radar Research and Development Establishment (RRDE). These did work for the Royal Air Force and the Army, respectively. The merged unit was called the Radar Research Establishment (RRE). This was renamed Royal Radar Establishment (and kept its abbreviation RRE) following a visit by Queen Elizabeth II in 1957. 
:The major specializations of RRE were research, development and production in the areas of radar, solid state physics and electronics, with particular emphasis on infra-red detectors for guided missiles, and single crystal growth, cryogenics, and experimental digital computers and information theory.
:The origins of RRE, that go back to the 1930's, are covered in the Telecommunications Research Establishment (TRE) article. This explains why TRE moved hurriedly to Malvern in May, 1942.
:RRE was part of the Ministry of Supply, initially, then transferred (in 1959) to the Ministry of Aviation, then (in 1967) to the Ministry of Technology, then (in 1970) to the Ministry of Aviation Supply, then (in 1971) to the Ministry of Defence. In 1976 RRE merged with the Signals Research and Development Establishment to form the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment, which became part of the Defence Research Agency (DRA) in 1991. The DRA split on 2 June 2001 into two parts, a government body called DSTL (Defence Science and Technology Laboratory) and a company destined for privatisation, which became QinetiQ.
What I am trying to do is to respect the time slot that RRE connotes, in contrast to TRE, whilst conveying a sense of dynamic evolution and continuity of staffing and activity. As regards the transfer of material to TRE, the dates of most of people are already in place, so verifiability should not be a worry. A comment could be put at start of Notables in RRE such as "several are mentioned in TRE article too".
But I repeat, this is completely tentative, and I have no "pride of authorship" that will be offended by counter views.
Michael P. Barnett (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: RRE lede that allows strengthening of TRE article

message: I strengthened the TRE article by moving people there and putting more info about them, but this depleted the RRE article. However, I put in mention of the Royal Society talk by RA and the parliamentary answer.
If no objection to suggested revised lede, will put it in, with later name change history moved to body of article.
Michael P. Barnett (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Update Feb 7

message: Just did substantial update to mention more about work done at RRE. 
It can be reversed if anyone does not like it.
I think information about people in first list who just have one line at moment can be expanded from obituary of RA and paper he presented to Royal Society. Cannot do this now. Also, if no one objects, will subsume non redundant items under awards into paragraphs about individuals to whom they apply, and delete the others.
Wish someone could provide more information about Uttley. My recollection he was transferred to NPL when TREACLE had become a lost cause, with rank of CSO -- was that possible? Also, when I arrived, TREACLE seemed to be entirely his concern, not Philip's. Was TREACLE rather than TREAC a joke -- I was told the name covered the fact that it always stuck.
Michael P. Barnett (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Update Feb 8

message: I am not sure how you are doing references, but here are two for Alan Gibson.
This one 
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/329367.pdf
Talks about his work at the Central Laser Facility, with reference to his time at U Essex.
This one 
http://www.jstor.org/pss/770027
Is the Royal Society obit/biography.  But I don't have a JSTOR account, so I can not see the whole thing.
Jpg1954 (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alan Gibson 

message: I wrote the following before Jpg1954 bailed me out with Uttley in Sussex and ran into edit conflict when it was being posted.
I should have left well alone. 
Robin Smith's Royal Society lecture thanked W. J. Richards, the Director. I ran a Google search on him, and found an Honours List (primarily or entirely for RAF and related defence work) in which he was named Companion of the Order of the Bath. When I tried to find it again, I could not. But I struck the Cold War Hot Sciences site   This contains extensive information of TRE, RRDE (enough for a short article on RRDE) and the successor organizations to RRE. There is enough about departments outside Physics in RRE to provide good balance. Also extensive information on outside contractors, names of projects. It gives verifiability to Uttley's move to NPL. Then I looked at the Penley archives  These mention many senior people, outside physics department, and in RRDE as well as TRE (one at RRDE sufficiently senior to have been knighted already). Unfortunately, some of the links are blind.
Then, the Google search on Richards gave me verifiability of his CB, almost. I get hit  for article about Richards in New scientist, Volume 11, Issues 242-254, but without a full reference, and I do not have access to this magazine. Also, I get hit  to article in Aeroplane volume 93, page 524, with the teaser "Delegates were welcomed by Mr. WJ Richards, CB, CBE. B.Sc, Director of RRE," that shows his Companion of Bath status. But I cannot get to this magazine either. 
Can these hits be used for verifiability, or is detailed reference needed.
I am trying to dig out, and seem to be digging deeper.
Michael P. Barnett (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Embarrassment of riches

message: Just needed to look at Cold War, Hot Science apropos non-WK matters, and made the current changes while I had material at hand. Also, can get to material re Richards CB in near future. Concerned that article is still very skewed towards Physics Division. The Cold War, Hot Science has a lot more to help unskew, but not now. Have started process to get Band Structure conference proceedings in durable DataSpace. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes March 6

message: Michael J. Radcliffe is listed twice.  Not sure which one should be removed.
Jpg1954 (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate entry 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Royal Radar Establishment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121213162814/http://www.rankprize.org/opto-electronics1.htm to http://www.rankprize.org/opto-electronics1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified