text:
y France?
In the "Client and puppet states" or "Belligerents", should France not be mentioned? Between 1940 and 1944, the Vichy government was the officially-recognised government of France by the Allies (not to mention the Axis). Surely they can be on both sides of the box to reflect that France was on the side of the Allies for 9 months of the war and on the side of the Axis for 4 years? Even if the distinction is made of "France (Third Republic)" vs "France (Vichy)". Currently the article is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just checked, and the French language Wikipedia has both listed as above. Can we take a lead from that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

 * It is a grey area, the Vichy regime was officially neutral for its entire existence, though the Free French engaged in what was effectively a civil war with active British support for the entire duration. There was never any declaration of war against Vichy or by the Vichy regime against anyone, so it would be inaccurate to describe them as an Axis belligerent. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition, Vichy fought against Japan and Japanese led Thailand in Indochina, which makes the issue of belligerence even more confusing...--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mediatech492 and Paul; Vichy France had a unusual position, and can't be comfortably fitted into the infobox as it was never a co-belligerent of Germany (aside from some tiny German forces which supported the Vichy forces in Syria in 1941). Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (Note that this is also being discussed at: Template talk:WW2InfoBox) Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is a bit of a grey area, but Vichy was not just a silent partner.
 * The British (and most of the empire) were de facto at war with Vichy. Vichy bombed Gibraltar, the French fleet was attacked and other ships interned, there was fighting in the Middle East, Africa, and Madagascar that was not just part of the undeclared French Civil War (ala the Vichy and Free French fighting on another). In addition, Vichy provided arms and supplies to the Iraqi rebels during the Anglo-Iraqi War during 1941, as well as providing bases for German and Italian warplanes to interfere in that conflict too.
 * The article on Vichy Frances notes that the Vichy government "collaborated with the Axis powers during the Second World War. ... It lasted from July 1940 to August 1944. ... In November 1942, ... the southern zone was ... occupied. The Nazis now closely supervised all Vichy officials, who were little more than puppets."
 * The article also notes Vichy help in the rounding up of Jewish people, and that its diplomatic relations with the various world powers changed over time (i.e. the Soviets recognized the French State until Operation Barbarossa).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

France in WWII
In the article, it says that France was one of the victorious allies along with Britain, US and the Soviet Union, But wasn't France invaded and infiltrated by the Nazis and not to mention Vichy France? (Slurpy121 (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC))
 * Yes, but the Free French continued to fight, and the country was almost entirely liberated in 1944, after which France fielded a large army. Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * France wasn't just a European country at that time, it also had a global Empire. When Metropolitan France was invaded and occupied the rest of the Empire was largely untouched. Some colonies submitted to Vichy France but others refused to capitulate and remained active with the allies as part of the Free French forces. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrong flag for Canada
The flag of Canada is wrong. It should be the flag they had during World War II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me at least - I've gone ahead and made the change. Anotherclown (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears someone has changed it back to the incorrect modern flag. It should be this 🇨🇦 Canada SaintDaveUK (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 February 2013
Of the 56 nations Germany went to war with and fought through either political constructs or aggression, only did Germany ever declare official War against any nation except - the United States of America, on 11 December 1941, as Hitler invoked the war article of the Axis Tripartite pact between Germany, Italy and Japan.

Sveltica (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sveltica (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source, and I do not understand where you want me to add this request. For now, request declined, but feel free to reactivate the template once you have fixed this. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 20:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC) hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Bethany Station, Ohio
In 1942, in the midst of World War II, the United States government contracted with the Crosley Broadcasting Corporation to build a radio station capable of broadcasting its message around the world. The Crosley Broadcasting Corporation chose to build the installation on six hundred acres of land in Union Township, Ohio, approximately twenty-five miles north of Cincinnati, Ohio. The site became known as Bethany Station. The program broadcast from the site became known as Voice of America.

The company chose this site due to its relatively high altitude and also because of its flatness. These two conditions made the location ideal for constructing radio towers and for broadcasting. In 1944, the Crosley Broadcasting Corporation completed the installation's construction. The station originally required 3.5 million watts of electricity to operate and consisted of ten transmitters and twenty-two antennas. Once the Crosley Broadcasting Corporation completed the station, the radio program began to broadcast.

The station broadcast its telecasts in fifty-three different languages at first, hoping to provide people around the world with information on the United States' efforts during World War II. The United States government intended the Voice of America to provide hope to people around the world and to counteract the propaganda espoused by America's enemies in this conflict. When Bethany Station began operating, the broadcaster stated, "We shall speak to you about America and the war. The news may be good or it may be bad, but we will tell you the truth." Adolf Hitler, the dictator of Germany and one of the United States' main opponents in World War II, often referred to the Voice of America as "the Cincinnati Liars," hoping to convince his diminishing supporters that Germany still could and would succeed in the conflict.

The Voice of America continued to broadcast during the Cold War. During this conflict, Bethany Station focused on building support for capitalism and democracy around the world, hoping to prevent communism's acceptance. With the United States' victory in the Cold War and subsequent budget cuts, Bethany Station ceased broadcasting the Voice of America in 1994.

Since 1994, commercial development has occurred on part of the site, but other areas remain undeveloped. Part of Bethany Station is now under the control of Butler County MetroParks, which hopes to construct a museum in commemoration of the Voice of America. Miami University also operates approximately twenty acres of the site as a learning center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriarosca (talk • contribs) 20:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

 * All very interesting, but very little of it is actually relevant to the article topic, which is World War II. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request (typo)
This footnote has a stray 'B' in front of the publisher's name, Alfred A. Knopf. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

American flag
the u.s. flag is wrong the flag should be a "48" star flag because at the time Alaska and Hawaii were still territories back then they became later states in 1949 or 1959 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamond oracle (talk • contribs) 22:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC) both were admitted in '59, but I don't think that there is a huge diff like with canada that requires it, especially for a size that small. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 05:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

 * There already is a 48-star US flag (used 1912-1959) in the infobox - or at least ought to be, I can't really tell the difference in this scale.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Aunva6
Thanks for the message on my Talk page. Remind me what a PR is, I've forgotten the jargon. If you are asking me whether I have any outstanding issues with this article, the fist thing that comes to mind is the controversial issue of France, which has tended to prompt a hot argument of two sides among editors. Note Slurpy's query above here on Feb 19, which would likely have been answered by re-reading the article but he may have been puzzled by the infobox. Plenty of scholars say listing France as a major winning power was a propaganda measure by the Allies with flimsy grounding in reality, the counter-thesis is that Vichy French troops never left their territory to support Axis campaigns. Unfortunately the issue much hinges on the infobox, which is a vast simplification of an intensely complex subject. We now have a section for Axis 'clients'. Vichy France certainly was a client and I'd support adding it there. Vichy French troops in defense of their territories in e.g. Morocco and Syria killed American, British and Australian troops even as some Vichy forces in Asia sided with the Allies. Tweaking note [b] to that effect would help. The infobox also gives other indications that afaik are untrue, for example that Japan and The United Kingdom were at war throughout the conflict. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * PR is peer review. see the template up in the header. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 14:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, so please note this problem with the inaccurate infobox. It's not just Japan and UK. China afair wasn't in a state of war against Hungary, etc. And others... -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Being a neutral country, Vichy France had a right to defend itself. Therefore, by merely fighting against Allied invasion Vichy didn't make itself an Axis client. However, I agree that France was hardly a major winning power. The problem is, however, that, to the best of my knowledge, majority of history books describe France as a major ally. I admit my knowledge may be incorrect or obsolete, so if you can support your claim that "plenty of scholars say listing France as a major winning power was a propaganda measure..." with the references to reliable and mainstream sources, we can return to this issue again.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the infobox too long? [was: Template:WW2InfoBox]:
Recent changes to Template:WW2InfoBox.... think this should be talked about before an editwar ensues. So lets see what others have to say about all this...I personally would rather see the images removed long before the country content being removed....but thats just me.Moxy (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * old version
 * new version
 * I don't think that the images, which are part of hooking readers into the article, are the problem; it's the twenty-one countries that are in a list down the left side of the infobox. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Am I allowed to like all the pretty flags? ;D LudicrousTripe (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, the flags aren't extending the infobox any farther vertically. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's great that this article is so perfect that there's nothing left to do but edit war over the infobox! I personally think that it needs a fair bit of work, which would pay off with an A class and FA assessment in due course. But that's just me. (comment motivated by the history of this infobox, rather than Ed's changes which I broadly endorse). Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it would probably be much better off being merged back into this article; I think the extra scrutiny would lower the amount of conflicts when given a little time. But that's just me. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox the Battle of Wanjialing and Japan date of 1937
In the infobox there is an image of the Battle of Wanjialing from the Second Sino-Japanese War long before the time frame of WW2. This was mentioned over at Template talk:WW2InfoBox were the time frame for entry into WW2 for Japan is 1937 - and has lead to an edit war. What should be done is 1937 ok for the infobox for Japan and is the image from 1938 really about WW2? What do others think about this.Moxy (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Oppose - China and Japan had already been in total war starting in 1937, nearly two full years before the German invasion of Poland which widely agreed upon as the starting point of WW2. The point of the official start date isn't the rigorously limit active participation of nations by a rigid date, the point of the 1939 start date is to illustrate when total war erupt across the world's continent, and not to preclude the existence of total war in one region of the world, or another. esp. as the Second-Sino Japanese war is widley considered a major subset of the Pacific theatre of WW2. To suggest otherwise would set a dangerous precedent of characterizing history in grand black and white boundaries, which is the antithesis of how history usually unfolds.Phead128 (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Question do you believe that we should change the dates of entry into the war for Russia (Soviet–Japanese border conflicts) or Italy (Second Italo-Ethiopian War) aswell?Moxy (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you know why Soviet invasion of Manchuria is distinguishable from Soviet–Japanese border conflicts? One is full-scale declaration of total war, and the other is minor border skirmishes. Also, does Second Italo-Ethiopian War coincide with German invasion of Poland? How does Italian invasion of Ethiopia qualify as relevant to WW2 when it doesn't even overlap with WW2 dates?<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So to be clear in your opinion WW2 started in 1937 with the Marco Polo Bridge Incident correct? Do we have any sources for this?Moxy (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Red herring argument, as the issue at hand is whether to impose rigid dates of 1939 in a black and white boundary fashion at the expense of a major subset of WW2, not the official start of WW2 itself. As the Second Sino-Japanese war is a major subset of WW2 and overlaps with the entirety of 1939-145, you cannot exclude 1937-1939 just because China/Japan didn't initiate total war when Germany invaded Poland. Nobody reads history in such black and white boundary details, and it's a dangerous precedent to set such a standard now. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the recommended changes to the article by Moxy are redundant and unnecessary, as per stated above. Deadpoolfan77 (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok to be clear you think a date of 1937 for Japan and China is correct entry for the infobox - or  the image is ok because we talk about that time frame here in the artice?Moxy (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Second Sino-Japanese war merged into a global war of WW2 in 1939, but nobody in their right minds rigorously imposes the rigid date of 1939 as a cut off boundary for what to include/exclude in the WW2 article, as history does not neatly unfold in a black & white boundary fashion. What part of this do you not get?Phead128 (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Was wondering if you could take the time to read over Consensus before you go reverting more editors again and again. We have basic conduct expectations from our editors. If you find the out come of the talk about the template needs more input from more people pls see Requests for comment.Moxy (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Addable pictures showing German Reich before Adolf Hitler and before 2. WW & funny USA propaganda picture

Can anybody add pictures mainly the german reich pictures showing that way changes through 2. WW ? Maps after 2. WW are known as actual maps but many people don`t know map before also before A.H. ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh, I think that would ruin the neutrality of the article. Teh PlaneFreak!   talk  03:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that, on the contrary, the addition of such pictures will contribute to the necessary neutrality of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent addition of material asserting the US forced Japan into war
I've just reverted the recent addition of material claiming that the US deliberetly made the Japanese dependent on them for oil, and the decision to attack Pearl Harbor was undertaken "to preserve some hope of future economic and military autonomy". As far as I'm aware, this viewpoint sits outside the consensus on why Japan went to war, and is advancing a viewpoint of Japan somehow being a victim of the US. The Japanese leadership didn't have to go to war with the US - the oil embargo was an end result of the attempts by the US to reign in their aggression in China, and would have been removed had Japan agreed to withdraw from China. Nick-D (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Nick. Well, from this editor's point of view, you have made a series of claims and yet have not provided any sources to back them up. My sources are both from scholarly journals, and David S. Painter is the leading expert on US foreign policy as regards the issue of oil. I have two RS backing up what I am saying; you have none to support your contentions. I feel that the ball is in your court. LudicrousTripe (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Here's another one from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, where the Americans' use of the leverage stemming from Japan's 80% reliance on their oil is described as an "oil weapon" and that the "Pearl Harbor attack was [. . .] a countermeasure for the oil weapon. The episode suggests that if an importer's supply routes are vulnerable or if a single exporter can deny most supply, the oil weapon has power." LudicrousTripe (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

 * The US wanted to lean very hard on Japan to get them to quit beating on China. This is very, very different than trying to force Japan into war. FDR and Churchill were instead in perfect agreement that the European threat of Hitler was the paramount problem to solve. War with Japan would have (and did, in the event) taken a great deal of US materiel and manpower away from the European conflict. FDR was never interested in starting a war with Japan, even if newspaper photographer Robert Stinnett argued so in his much-maligned book Day of Deceit. Binksternet (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing within that quote is in contradiction with what Nick said—"the oil embargo was an end result of the attempts by the US to reign in their aggression in China, and would have been removed had Japan agreed to withdraw from China"—so I do not see the issue. The business about the US deliberately fostering an overwhelming Japanese dependence on American oil—for the purposes of having an "oil weapon" to use as a threat (or actually use, if it ever came to it) whenever Japan thought about threatening (or actually threatened) US in the Far East—is, you will perhaps agree, also not relevant here, either. All we are interested in establishing is the direct connection between the American oil embargo and the decision to Japanese decision go to war. That's all. The issue over whether war in East Asia was avoidable is a separate issue, one that we aren't dealing with. Perhaps this confusion is down to me, and if so I obviously must take the blame. With these clarifications in mind, I'm not really sure where the controversy lies. LudicrousTripe (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I feel that a misreading of what Painter says has crept in, so I'm going to deal with it. Here's Painter: "The United States cut off oil exports to Japan in the summer of 1941, forcing Japanese leaders to choose between going to war to seize the oil fields of the Netherlands East Indies or giving in to U.S. pressure. This situation thus led directly to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and other U.S. bases in December 1941."

 * Let's next take the Lehmann quote: all it does is assert the existence of an American "oil weapon" aimed at Japan:

 * "The Japanese attacked the United States to preserve some hope of future economic and military autonomy in the face of their economic dependence on the United States, which was purposefully created by the United States and based primarily on oil from the middle 1920s forward. The United States had the luxury of holding the 'noose' of an economic embargo around its enemy's neck because it built a controlling position over both its friends Britain and the Netherlands and its dependent enemy Japan in the 1920s."

 * You could argue the the first bit—"The Japanese attacked the United States to preserve [...] hope of [...] autonomy"—is not in line with this still yet unsourced consensus, but there is no reason to deny readers the opportunity to at least acquaint themselves with differing views, else Wikipedia descends into the realm of Pravda. The remainder of the quote simply seeks to inform the reader of how and why the United States came about this "noose" or "oil weapon" in the first place. You might not like its description of US policy, but I'm still awaiting an RS source that points out that its wrong. Even if an RS is provided, I refer you to the previous comments about denying readers knowledge of a plurality of views. We can re-phrase if you like—"According to some scholars, the Americans deliberately cultivated Japan's dependence on their oil so they would have an "oil weapon" available, if they ever needed it"—but the threat of Pravda otherwise looms large. In truth, I really don't see what the big deal is. LudicrousTripe (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes, Painter's article is pretty standard (and provides an good summary of the role of oil in geopolitics during this era) It's the quote from Lehmann which is a bit out-there given that he seems be be arguing that Japan had no choice but go to war with the US as a result of American policies. There's no question that the US attempted to use oil as a means of halting Japanese aggression in 1941, but Lehmann's view that this forced war on Japan is dubious. Most historians note that the US put the Japanese leadership in a difficult position in 1941, but this came at the end of a lot of other warnings and sanctions and that withdrawing from China, playing for time or striking for the NEI without attacking the US directly were also realistic options, and much better ones than attacking the US given how this worked out over the longer run. Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

 * OK. So perhaps Painter can get an agreed tick. How do you feel about my way of trying to fit Lehmann into the article, add some caveats etc.? I guess I am happy to forgo Lehmann, since WWII article is perhaps not best place to mention the history of the American "oil weapon"? LudicrousTripe (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Historically, the approach to developing this article has been to stick to consensus views of events given that it covers such a huge topic, and leave the historiographical debates for the more specialised articles. I'd suggest that this belongs in the Pacific War article (which needs a lot of work). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

 * OK, so it's been productive working with you, and thank you for keeping your responses to me polite and constructive. As for the reasoning behind adding Lehmann's article about the American "noose" it had placed around Japan's neck via oil dependency, I was motivated by the (already sourced) bit about how some Japanese commanders saw the embargo as an act of war. The "noose"/"oil weapon" was meant to lend some non-Japanese-military support to the commanders' take on the embargo. LudicrousTripe (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It is well to remember that Japan would be losing 80% of its oil, not 100%. They figured that what they had left would allow them to continue on their major war footing in China for 18 more months. Which is quite a while, considering that most of Japan's oil use was going toward its Chinese war. The "oil weapon" wasn't going to make Japan starve or freeze, but simply give up its war of aggression, which it wasn't willing to do. The noose wasn't around Japan's neck but merely its weapons-- navy and airforce. .

It's well to remember that the US didn't just decide suddenly in mid-1941 to cut too Japan's oil to force it to withdraw from the 2/3rds of China it already held. The preciptating factor was France's fall to Germany in May 1940, leaving a power vacuum in French Indochina (today's Vietnam). Which Japan proceeded to fill, taking Saigon in 1941 and threatening Thailand, Philippines, Malaya, and Singapore. The US offered Japan (July 24, 1941) access to French Indochina's resources if Japan would simply stop taking over all of Southeast Asia, but Japan ignored the U.S. and of course bullied the powerless Vichy French. There was not much else to do but get Japan's attention by freezing their assets, which the Dutch and British were only too happy to help do. All Japan had to do was stop burning oil in continuing to taking over their part of the globe. The alternative to using an oil embargo was to allow Japan to continue to use that oil to take over China and Southeast Asia completely, including the remains of the Dutch and British colonies there. But from 1936 on, Japan was ruled by warlords and addicted to a war-and-pillage econonomy and wasn't going to switch to a trade economy. The die was really cast in 1937 when Japan embarked on that course, and wouldn't stop in 1941 in Indochina, despite all warnings. This article should probably point out some of that, and the cite above is a good place to get into the vast literature on the subject. S B Harris 04:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

 * The attack on Pearl Harbor was in direct response to the illegal US oil embargo. (JimRodgers1 (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC))
 * What are you-- today's troll? What is illegal about deciding you don't want to do business with somebody? Japan was fighting two wars of aggression in China and Indochina. Why don't you discuss the legality of that? S  B Harris 15:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

 * How was that any different from the US annexing Cuba, the Philippines, Texas and New Mexico? (<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC))
 * This is a sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you really have to ask? Texas fought a successful war of independence against Mexico and came into the US by treaty, already an independent nation. However, Mexico irrationally considered Texas theirs, notwithstanding that they had lost Texas the same way they had gained it previously, having taken it (like New Mexico) from Spain in 1821. They attacked the Texas border and killed US soldiers in 1845 and got themselves a war. After the US took Mexico City in that war, it certainly could have simply annexed all of Mexico. Instead it took New Mexico, paid Mexico for it, and returned most of Mexico to the Mexicans. Does that sound like Japan’s actions to you?

Cuba and the Philippines were long time Spanish colonies, both undergoing their own revolutions at the time of the Spanish-American war, which these rebellions precipitated. In both cases the US promised them, even before the war, eventual independence after revolution. This promise was kept almost immediately in Cuba. Had it not been, there would be no Castro there now, but it would instead be US territory like Puerto Rico. However, Cuba didn’t want that and the US allowed Cubans their democracy. It would have been better for Cuba if it had asked to be US territory. It’s now a stagnant and unfree place (have you been there? I have).

The Philippines are your best argument, but have you noticed they’ve been independent since 1946? Though promised independence from Spain from the beginning of the Spanish-American war, the US indeed stayed far too long there, and did some terrible things. Partly this stay was due to the fact that there was no infrastructure for self-rule at all after three centuries of Spanish rule (which had been fairly direct). To its discredit, the US committed atrocities in the Philippines after the Filipinos fought the US (committing atrocities also). Partly that early war was a communications failure. To Philippine discredit, it did not realize that if the US had left in 1900, the Philippines would immediately have been snapped up by the other colonial powers in the region, first Germany, and then (after The Great War) Japan (much like New Guinea and the Marianas and other parts of South Pacific). Indeed, Japan DID take the Philippines from the US in 1941. But had Japan never existed, the Philippines would have been granted full independence from the US in 1944. The war delayed that by two years. Again, although late for independence, this hardly sounds like Japanese-style colonialism.

The US is a strange “colonial” power, inasmuch as most of the territory conquered by the US outside its present contiguous borders, has long since been returned to independence, like the Philippines and Malaya. Guam is an exception only because just 4% of Guam voted for independence from the US in 1982 (half want to be a US territory, which they are, and a quarter want to be a US state). Even Iraq, which the US gratuitously attacked in a fit of paranoia in 2003, will never be a US territory and will eventually be completely independent. By contrast, if not confronted, Japan would still now still rule everything it had taken at the end of 1941. Japan never voluntarily returned any territory for independence in its entire history. Like Spain, Germany, and France, they had to be thrown out by force. The US has never been thrown out of anywhere, with the possible exception of South Vietnam. And that was hardly a colony. S B Harris 21:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

 * The US was thrown out of Canada during the War of 1812. (<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC))
 * This is a sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually want to come back to this, since the more I read, the more I encounter the view. Here's another one, from a book by James Wood (Charles Keller Professor of History at Williams College) published by Rowman & Littlefield:
 * [T]he threat to Japan was not purely economic. Strategic moves by the United States, such as the adoption of a massive navy building program, the movement of the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, secret military talks with the so-called ABCD group (America-Britain-China-Netherlands), and the belated but significant buildup of U.S. ground and air forces in the Philippines (as well as Commonwealth Malaya) also greatly alarmed the military. The threat to Japan's continued national existence as a great power and her preeminence in Asia could not have been clearer. [ . . . ] American hostility to Japan's position in Asia was manifest and, in retrospect, the conclusion that the United States was bent on war was in no way a misreading of American intentions. click

Is it possible to get mention of this point of view, however small, into a footnote? A literal "some scholars argue..." followed by a listing of the sources collated here (I have others I'd like to mention, but I reckon that'd be pushing it). Mainstream academic publishers like Rowman & Littlefield and things like the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America most assuredly count as reliable sources. LudicrousTripe (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Japan had already decided on war when it invaded China. It knew that meant real trouble with China's backers esp the USA. As for oil, indeed Japan could not be autonomous until it went to war with Dutch & Brits and seized their oil fields. One warlike act leads to another.  As for US "forced" Japan ???? --the US was forcing Japan to be a peaceful nation & by late 1940s was remarkably successful in doing so. Compare the force against North Korea today. Rjensen (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent additions of material
Given that this material was added to the article without discussion, or even the use of edit summaries, I thought that it would be good to discuss it. I think that the material added by is a bit too British-centric, and is written from a British point of view (for instance, "The British scored a much-needed public morale boost in May 1941 by sinking the German flagship Bismarck" and "Perhaps most importantly, during the Battle of Britain the Royal Air Force had successfully resisted the Luftwaffe's assault, and the German bombing campaign largely ended in May 1941."). The addition of material claiming that Hitler was willing to consider peace with the USSR in November 1940 is simply wrong - he'd already decided to invade the USSR by this time (in his book Fateful Choices Ian Kershaw states that the initial decision to invade was made in July 1940, and the invasion was locked in as unchangeable policy early December that year - see pages 84-85). I also don't think that we need an entire paragraph on the handful of small skirmishes between German and US forces prior to December 1941, interesting though they are. Do other people have any thoughts on this? Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree with Mr Nick. And the article is fast becoming an ibiblio chronology of WWII. LudicrousTripe (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nick, you are not right. The directive No 21 ("Case Barbarossa") was signed in mid December, after Hitler-Molotov negotiations in Berlin failed, and most authors (Roberts, Koch, et al) directly connect its signing with the failure of the negotiations. The fact that Hitler was probably contemplating a possibility of the attack of the USSR before that date does not imply any real plans existed on that account. By the way, an indication that Hitler, sooner or later, would attack the USSR can be found even it his Mein Kampf, however, that is hardly relevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Um, I didn't add any of the British material you refer to, I merely relocated it from one part of the article to another.

The major flaws I'm trying to fix is the almost total neglect of political and diplomatic aspects of the war. I clearly stated that Hitler was already considering to eliminate the USSR. However, it is a fact that the actual directive was not issued until after the failed November 1940 negotiations. I presume that the Germans would not be making these propositions if they were already dead set on war anyway.

The small skirmishes you refer to are of note not because of their military significance but because they describe the political and diplomatic process in which Roosevelt was drawing the U.S. into the war.

It is not an "ibiblio" chronology, I am merely using sources posted on ibiblio for convenience. CJK (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks go out to Nick-D who is rightly keeping such material out of this article. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

 * War is politics by other means, and all that, and I had the some wonderings as CJK. I checked the 'See also' section, but see no articles listed there for dealing with diplomatic history, and this draws no suggestions. Even if there are disparate articles on each of the conferences, not having one that draws them together is a major gap. It is obvious, but if this article is confined to the military side of WWII, that precludes some extremely elementary questions about the non-military side from even being raised. Is it unreasonable to suggest the article be renamed as Military History of World War II, for that is what it is and appears set to remain. Military history is an extremely stunted discipline, even though shelves and shelves of schlock of it appear in every public library, and, by itself, can only capture one aspect of WWII. If there is, indeed, no article that discusses the diplomatic aspects of the war in a comprehensive way, Wikipedia has a glaring omission on a major topic. Nothing profound in what I am saying, all obvious enough, but I am just curious, as a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, how things work and are supposed to work. I presume there is nothing to stop CJK and I and whoever else starting a beginning-to-end effort of the diplomatic and strategic aspects of WWII? LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

 * There were quite a few discussions of the inclusion of diplomatic negotiations in the article a year or so ago, and the consensus was to exclude all but the major developments and summits as including the various negotiations would greatly expand the size of the article beyond readable levels, and that the military events were generally the best use of the available space. I certainly agree that a Diplomatic history of World War II article would be worthwhile, and there are many thousands of references which could be drawn upon in writing it! CJK, in regards to the November 1940 negotiations, you need to remember that the Nazis almost routinely negotiated in bad faith during diplomatic meetings (hence the appeasement saga of the 1930s where the British and French kept trying to strike a deal with Hitler, only for Hitler to violate the spirit and/or letter of the agreements). Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I see. Thanks for taking the time to explain things to me. Well, perhaps I will begin a diplomatic history, though it is such a major undertaking that I can't think about doing so just yet! Best wishes. LudicrousTripe (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Even a stub or a B-class article would be better than the not-very-much we have now ;) But, yeah, it's a huge topic. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not including all diplomatic activity, far from it. I'm including only summaries of the most relevant aspects of the record, without which the war is difficult to understand. Your point about Hitler not being reliable is neither here nor there. Hitler was proposing a direct deal with the USSR and there is no reason for him to do this if he was planning to attack in 1941 either way. Whether or not he intended to maintain it in the long run is outside the scope of short-term strategy that I am talking about. The Munich agreement was fundamentally different because it promoted aggressive German expansionism at Czechoslovakia's expense, and only stopped short of a full takeover because Britain and France agreed to Hitler's public demands. Hitler's aggressive demands on Czechoslovakia in 1938 are in no way comparable to his 1940 proposals to the Soviets which did not threaten the Soviets by demanding territorial or economic concessions. CJK (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I fully understand you. You write that there is no reason to doubt that Hitler, who proposed a deal with the USSR, had no intentions to attack it, however, you admit that he probably didn't want to maintain peaceful relations with the USSR in the long run. However, that means that the deals Hitler was signing were dictated mostly by tactical, not strategic consideration. In other words, had Hitler been able to persuade the USSR to join the Axis as a junior partner (that was the essence of his 1940 proposals), he would probably not attach it in 1941. Does it mean he would not attack it at all? Who knows. Thus, Hitler did not attack Hungary, who, unlike the USSR, became a junior Axis member in 1940, however, he did attack it later. Your example does not refute the claim that Hitler was not reliable.
 * Regarding Munich vs 1940 deal, I am not sure it is correct. Firstly, whereas the Munich agreement was signed, the Soviet-German talks failed, so we can only speculate what the final text of this agreement would be. Secondly, in contrast to the Munich agreement, the prospective Soviet-German treaty would be a full scale military alliance (although, again, since it had never been signed, and even no draft had been prepared, because there was no agreement among the parties even about the basic principles, I see no reason to discuss it seriously). Therefore, I don't understand what concrete idea did you want to demonstrate by this comparison.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I also noticed the significant change of the "Course of the war" section has been made during last few days. In my opinion, that goes against the overall article's logic. The article's aim is to demonstrate a global character of the war, not to split it onto several sub-theatres. Since LudicrousTripe made many useful technical changes, it would be incorrect to fully revert all edits made without discussion. In connection to that, I propose LudicrousTripe to restore the article's structure he modified without discussion, otherwise I'll have to do that by myself, but in that case I cannot guarantee all recent technical edits will not be reverted too.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Just to clarify: All I've been doing is gradually (just doing a few each day) changing the footnoting to . The only additions I've made were: to a footnote regarding the upswing in Germany atrocities in Italy; the smallest rewrite of the Bismarck going down (again, that was essentially to the relevant footnote); and, the most recent one, when I switched to Evans (2008) for the VE Day sourcing, which necessitated a minor rewording, plus I deleted some superfluous detail. In terms of structural revision and major additions, I have made none. These large-scale additions and revisions without discussion, the ones of which you speak, and the attendant mass introduction of ibiblio, have all been performed by CJK. LudicrousTripe (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood. Sorry.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hitler's "reliability" is neither here nor there, I am merely noting the thrust of his strategic thinking in 1940-41 with no implications as to whether he was "reliable" after 1941 or not. I split it into subsections because I thought it was less confusing and disjointed. Furthermore, I wanted to have the major strategic decisions of the Allies discussed separately. CJK (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The need in this splitting is still not obvious to me. I need to think about that, and, if I'll find that it is not an improvement, I'll have to restore the old structure. The main idea of the "Course of the war" section was to show a deep interconnection between the events in different theatres, so your splitting hardly serves to this goal. We already have separate articles devoted to each major theatres, so if a reader who wants to learn about each theatre separately can easily do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

They aren't interconnected to any great extent. That's why they are regarded as independent theaters. There is certainly no language in the article that would illustrate any impact of such large interconnectedness. The Western Allies and the Soviets planned their operations independently from each other and the Pacific and European theaters were, in all but name, completely separate wars. CJK (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I'll agree with CJK. They were treated separately by the Allies: "The US deliberately chose to concentrate on winning the war against Germany before that against Japan, and to concentrate its resources accordingly. The calculation was correct. It took another three-and-a-half years to defeat Germany, after which Japan was brought to its knees in three months." —The Age of Extremes, p. 41. LudicrousTripe (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, it was not the US, but the USSR who concentrated on winning the war against Germany, and this decision was fully supported by other Allies, who correctly decided that the European theatre was more important. Thus, Churchill said: "Russian declaration of war on Japan would be greatly to our advantage, provided, but only provided, that Russians are confident that will not impair their Western Front".
 * Secondly, as you probably know, the US joined the was in Europe (I mean de facto participation in the hostilities, not formal war declaration) only after the most crucial battles (Battle of Moscow and Battle of Stalingrad) had been won by the Allies, and it became clear Germany could not win the war.
 * Thirdly, the US joined the European war as a result of Japanese attack of Perl Harbor. Japanese decision was a responce on the American oil embargo, which, in turn, was a responce on the Japanese activity in South East Asia, which was a result of weakening of European colonial powers (Britain, France, Belgium) due to German successes in Europe.
 * Fourthly, Japanese decision to expand to South East, not to Soviet Far East was a results of the Soviet victory in the European theatre (I mean the Battle of Moscow). Japan considered a possibility to attack the USSR seriously, and the Soviet defeat in the West would trigger Japanese invasion in the East. Clearly, there would be no Perl Harbor in that case.
 * All of that is a demonstration of the deep interconnection between different theatres of war in 1941.
 * Moreover, 1941 was the year when the two theatres, European and Pacific, merged together into a single world war. The stable article's version conveyed this idea quite clearly, and the splitting in hardly an improvement. I think I'll have to merge these sections back (I need to think how concretely that could be done).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, Paul Siebert. I did not mean to give the impression—and I feel sure CJK would say the same—that I felt that there is no connection between the two theatres. If nothing else, a decision to focus on one theatre over another requires a comparison be made between the two, an event that instantly forges a connection between them. I must next observe that you did not provide any sources for what you said. I provided a reliable source for asserting that the US chose to focus on Germany first, but your contradictory comment—"it was not the US, but the USSR who concentrated on winning the war against Germany"—was not supported with a reliable source. In terms of the extent of the linkage between the two theatres—our topic for discussion—I am uncertain as to the relevance of your second point, since it only makes mention of the European theatre. With regard to your third point—"the US joined the European war as a result of Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor"—you provide no source, and would you not agree that a key reason for the Americans joining Europe was Hitler's declaration of war, a few days after Pearl Harbor? And the American military build-up, though it accelerated after Pearl Harbor, began with Roosevelt's announcement in May 1940 (The Wages of Destruction, p. 405), well before the Japanese attack of December 1941. The Age of Extremes, p. 39, ascribes the Japanese reluctance to attack the Soviets to the Imperial Army's being "badly mauled" by "the Red army in an unofficial but substantial war on the Siberian-Chinese border in 1939", not to the "the Soviet victory in the European theatre", as you suggest—and I must emphasise, again, that you did not cite a source for your suggestion. I hope the tone of my remarks comes across in the way I intended them, just as polite discussion. And I will, unfortunately, be unsympathetic to CJK if his revisions do end up getting undone, since the article clearly states that editors should not undertake drastic revisions to the text without consultation. This he failed to do. LudicrousTripe (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I provide no sources because I refer to obvious facts. Of course, I can provide needed sources upon request, however I prefer to do that only when my opponent really doubt in what I am saying. Do you really believe what I am writing is not true? If yes, please, read such authors as David Glantz or Chris Bellamy.
 * Secondly, yes, the US leadership correctly concluded that Japanese domination in Pacific posed no real danger for continental US, so the defeat of Nazi Germany was more important task, so they joined the Anglo-Soviet anti-Hitler alliance (after the most decisive battles had been already won by the Allies), however, I am not sure how that fact proves your point (that the Pacific and European theaters should be considered separately). By the way, although I fully agree that European theatre was more important than Pacific one, I don't think that fact is clear from the article.
 * Thirdly, regarding my third point, yes, I provided no sources, simply because we are talking about universally accepted facts: the US joined the war against Germany because Hitler declared a war on the US - Hitler declared a war on the US because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and Germany, being Japan's ally had an obligation to do so - Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because it needed oil, which it could obtain either from the US or from South East Asia, but the US imposed an oil embargo on Japan, so the only thing Japan could do was to seize Indonesian oil and expel the US from East Asia - the US imposed an oil embargo because of increased military activity of Japan in East Asia - Japan's activisation was a consequence of weakening of the influence of European colonial powers there, as a result of German military successes in Europe. Tell me please, which of those facts is not universally accepted, and which of those facts needs a source?
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hitler declared a war on the US because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and Germany, being Japan's ally had an obligation to do so. Sorry, but this is a widely held but historically false belief. The German-Japanese treaty obligated Germany to go to Japan's defense if Japan were attacked, but certainly did NOT if a war started because Japan was the aggressor, as in Pearl Harbor. Germany had no obligation to declare war on the US whatsoever. Hitler could have sent regrets about the Japanese attack and history would probably have been quite different, as the US would then have had to concentrate on Japan. Hitler declared war as an afterthought and without really thinking very hard about the long-term consequences. Clearly, however, it was his second-worst blunder (the first being Barbarossa). Hitler certainly did NOT expect that under any circumstances that U.S. would focus first on Europe, once they had been actively attacked by Japan. But very unwisely, he then proceeded to gave them the perfect pretext for doing so! I should also answer the rather cynical view put forth above that: the US joined the was in Europe (I mean de facto participation in the hostilities, not formal war declaration) only after the most crucial battles (Battle of Moscow and Battle of Stalingrad) had been won by the Allies, and it became clear Germany could not win the war. This view presupposes that de facto participation in a full scale armored division war on the other side of an ocean, is something a country can decide on, then execute immediately. But that the US somehow didn't until it was sure of a German loss. That's complete nonsense. It takes any industrial nation a year to two years to prepare for a big war and take part in one without getting destroyed, and I know of no exceptions to the rule (it took both the USSR and UK that long, once THEY declared war). The US was two years behind the UK and there was no instant catching-up. The US spent 1942 and some of 1943 doing just this, and used North Africa as a training ground for European war because it really had no other choice. It had a hard enough time getting up to full readiness in North Africa (see Atkinson's _An Army at Dawn_ for a book length treatent of this [ http://www.amazon.com/An-Army-Dawn-1942-1943-Liberation/dp/0805087249 ]). S  B Harris 00:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is just a mistaken impression—if so, do accept my apologises—but your tone is becoming slightly grouchy. I'd ask you to check that, since I do not want our discussion to degenerate into into a heated polemic, despite the fun the latter may provide to any audience we may have here. My reason for repeated use of Eric Hobsbawm's book is that, firstly, as a major historian, he counts as a reliable source, and, secondly, I thought I detected in you a certain sympathy with the Soviet Union's actions during the war. As you will know, Hobsbawm held the USSR in tender regard, and so he is my attempt at gaining immediate traction with you, a way of avoiding dismissal of my sources with ad hominem attacks. Let us take your first point: "I provide no sources because I refer to obvious facts." Well, regardless of how you feel about what you are saying—obvious facts or otherwise—one must still provide sources. I also regard my own position as built upon "obvious facts", yet had the humility to provide sources. I am simply asking for you to conduct yourself in a similarly humble fashion. "I provide no sources because I refer to obvious facts … I provided no sources, simply because we are talking about universally accepted facts … Tell me please, which of those facts is not universally accepted, and which of those facts needs a source?" Following on from what I just said, I must insist that, the moment one enters into disagreement, however amicable, on some point or other, every statement requires a source. "Do you really believe what I am writing is not true?" I mean to impugn neither your honesty nor your breadth and depth of knowledge. You obviously feel strongly about WWII, and that means you will have had, or developed, the motivation to read a considerable amount on it. Yet surely you must agree with me that something is not true because you or I say it is, but rather because that's what the experts tell us is so. Let us not get distracted with conjecture about my opinions and motives; let us stick to a fruitful exchange of sourced opinion. And the only properly sourced opinion so far is mine. Furnishing me with an imperative to go and read such-and-such a historian is not sufficient. I want the books and I want the page numbers. I am responsible for sourcing what I say; you are for what you say. Let us proceed in this fashion. After saying that, "yes, the US leadership correctly concluded that Japanese domination in Pacific posed no real danger for continental US, so the defeat of Nazi Germany was more important task", you state "I am not sure how that fact proves your point (that the Pacific and European theaters should be considered separately)." Well, I will re-emphasise something I said before: "I did not mean to give the impression … that I felt that there is no connection between the two theatres." The only thing I am trying to defend in this engagement with you—and I am doing this partly by arguing that, after an initial assessment, the Allies treated the two theatres separately—is my original agreement with CJK that there is no real problem with his edits that have had the effect of downplaying the interconnectedness of the war in Asia with the war in Europe. I agree with you regarding the US actions that precipitated the considerable expansion of Japanese aggression, and wanted to squeeze the background to this, and an emphasis of it, into the article, but I conceded defeat (see above). LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm swaying back, Paul Siebert! My views are tumbleweed in a breeze that won't make up its mind! Still, it does make for good entertainment. I'll post something to show what I mean later! LudicrousTripe (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

 * "On 11 May 1943, … Churchill and his chiefs reached New York … [for] the Trident Conference … He suspected the Americans were quietly going back on their 'Germany first' policy." —Beevor, The Second World War, p. 487 LudicrousTripe (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

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

title: Talk:World War II/Archive 48


text:
User:Its shanu

Nasir Hussain is a Pakistani businessman and the owner of Hussain groups of companies. He is also ceo of Hb's co,

title: User:Its shanu


text:
Invertebrate Zoology/Authors

This study guide to invertebrate zoology is a textbook at Wikibooks filed under Zoology and intended to establish a course of study in the subject of Invertebrate Zoology, mostly utilizing articles found in Wikipedia, with links to other relevant web sites as appropriate. Contributors are encouraged to spend time developing the relevant articles at Wikipedia, maintaining this textbook as a guide to those articles. At some future time, it may be desirable to simply import whole articles over to build a Zoology textbook rather than a "guide book", however the present approach seems to be a good one for getting a useful text at Wikibooks based upon the initial author's experience with Botany. Another Wikibook, Ecology, follows a similar approach, but requires more text per page, because of less congruence between chapter material and articles at Wikipedia.

The contributors to this book included:

 * Eric Guinther, biologist and environmental consultant living in Kaneohe, Hawaii envisioned this "project" and developed the approach.
 * AFriedman (talk), a User who also performs research in this field on Wikiversity

title: Invertebrate Zoology/Authors


text:
Chumanka

Chumanka (Чуманка) is a rural locality (a selo) in Plotavsky Selsoviet, Bayevsky District, Altai Krai, Russia. The population was 193 as of 2013. There are 3 streets.

Geography
Chumanka is located 44 km northwest of Bayevo (the district's administrative centre) by road. Plotava is the nearest rural locality.

title: Chumanka


text:
Richard Boyle (journalist)

Richard David Boyle (March 26, 1942 – September 1, 2016) was a journalist, photographer, and author from the United States. He wrote the 1972 book Flower of the Dragon: The Breakdown of the U. S. Army in Vietnam: An Eyewitness Account of the Day-to-Day Environment of American Soldiers in Vietnam. He co-wrote the 1986 movie Salvador with Oliver Stone. He covered the revolution in Cambodia, The Troubles in Ireland and the civil war in Lebanon. In the Republic of Vietnam, he documented the resistance of U.S. troops against the war. Salvador was nominated for two Academy Awards: Best Actor in a Leading Role (Woods) and Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen (Stone and Boyle). Boyle was played in Salvador by James Woods and the cast included Jim Belushi, Michael Murphy and John Savage. He taught journalism in Southern California colleges. He also ran as a gadfly for public office, including for Supervisor and City Treasurer in San Francisco, the latter two runs in 1977, and for the 42nd District of the California State Assembly in 1988. He died in the Philippines while covering the beginning of the reign of President Rodrigo Duterte.

Publications

 * Flower of the Dragon: The Breakdown of the U. S. Army in Vietnam—An Eyewitness Account of the Day-to-Day Environment of American Soldiers in Vietnam. San Francisco, Calif.: Ramparts Press (1972). ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>.
 * GI Revolts: The Breakdown of the U.S. Army in Vietnam. San Francisco, Calif.: United Front Press (May 1973).
 * "The Strange Death of Clay Shaw." True (Apr. 1975), pp. 54-57, 78-79.

title: Richard Boyle (journalist)


text:
First Secretary of the Communist Party of Tajikistan

The First Secretary of the Communist Party of Tajikistan was the head of the Communist Party of Tajikistan and the highest Executive power in the republic of Tajikistan from 1924 until November 1990.

History
Shortly after the Soviet Union was formed in 1922 a position of First Secretary of the Communist Party was created in each Soviet Republic. The Tajik Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was created in 1924 as a subunit of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic and the first Acting Secretary of the Communist Party of Tajikistan was appointed that year. In 1929 Tajikistan received full republic status separate from Uzbekistan and in 1930 the position of First Secretary of the Communist Party of Tajikistan was created. The position changed hands numerous times during the 1920s and 1930s due to Stalin's fear of keeping leaders in power for long periods of time. A number of the former leaders of the Communist Party of Tajikistan perished in the Great Purge of the 1930s. The leaders of Tajikistan were usually ethnic Tajiks with the exceptions of Mirzo Dovud Guseinov, Dmitri Protopopov and Grigory Broydo: the first one was an ethnic Azerbaijani while the last two were ethnic Russians who were appointed during the height of Stalin's rule. After World War II every appointed First Secretary was a Tajik from the region of Leninabad, now named Sughd. This was a reflection of the fact that the leadership of Uzbekistan highly influenced the appointment of leaders in Tajikistan and chose leaders from Leninabad because of its historic ties to Uzbekistan's urban centers in the Fergana Valley. There have even been accusations that some of the Leninabadi leaders of Tajikistan were actually Uzbek because their dialect of Tajik had a number of loan words from Uzbek. The Leninabai monopoly on power was a key factor in igniting the civil unrest that followed Tajikistan's independence in 1991 and led to the Tajikistani Civil War.

The longest serving First Secretary was Jabbor Rasulov, who came to power in 1961 and died in office in 1982. Rasulov's successor was Rahmon Nabiyev, who was ousted in a corruption scandal in 1985. The position First Secretary was downgraded in November 1991 when then First Secretary Qahhor Mahkamov was appointed to the newly created executive position of President of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic. Mahkamov was the last First Secretary of the Communist Party of Tajikistan to also serve as head of state of Tajikistan when he resigned his office on August 31, 1991, following his support of the August Coup in Moscow. One of the most celebrated First Secretaries was Bobojon Ghafurov, a renowned scholar who wrote numerous works on the history of Tajikistan.

List of secretaries

 * Chinor Emomov (1924–1927); Acting secretary.
 * Mumin Khojaev (1927–1928); Acting secretary.
 * Ali Shervoni (1928–1929); Acting secretary.
 * Shirinsho Shotemur (1929–1930); Acting secretary.
 * Mirzo Dovud Guseinov (1930–1933); First secretary.
 * Grigory Broydo (1933–1934); First secretary.
 * Suren Shadunts (1934–1936); First secretary.
 * Urunboi Ashurov (1936–1937); First secretary.
 * Dmitri Protopopov (1937–1946); First secretary.
 * Bobojon Ghafurov (1946–1956); First secretary.
 * Tursun Uljabayev (1956–1961); First secretary.
 * Jabbor Rasulov (1961–1982); First secretary.
 * Rahmon Nabiyev (1982–1985); First secretary, later President of Tajikistan (1991–1992).
 * Qahhor Mahkamov (1985–August 31, 1991); First secretary and later inaugural President of Tajik SSR (November 1990 – August 31, 1991).


text:
Electric (software)

The Electric VLSI Design System is an EDA tool written in the early 1980s by Steven M. Rubin. Electric is used to construct logic wire schematics and to perform analysis of integrated circuit layout. It can also handle hardware description languages such as VHDL and Verilog. The system has many analysis and synthesis tools, including design rule checking, simulation, routing, Layout vs. Schematic, logical effort, and more.

Electric is written in Java, and was released as part of the GNU project in 1998 under the GNU General Public License.

In 2017, Electric development ceased, but support and bug fixes continue.

Alternative design style for integrated circuits
Unlike other systems that design integrated circuits (ICs) by manipulating polygons on different layers of the wafer, Electric views IC layout as connected circuitry, similar to the way schematic capture systems work. In Electric, designers place nodes (transistors, contacts, etc.) and connect them with arcs (wires). This has advantages and disadvantages.

One advantage is that circuits are always extracted, so analyses that need to know the topology (Layout vs. Schematic, simulation, etc.) can run faster. Also, by presenting a schematic-capture-like user interface, the system offers a uniform user experience for both IC layout and schematic design. And finally, the nodes-and-arcs view of a circuit makes it easy to add layout constraints to the arcs which allow the designer to "program" the layout so that it stays connected as changes are made.

This style of design also has disadvantages. One disadvantage is that designers are not used to such an interaction and require training in order to use it. It has been observed that people with no previous experience in IC layout are comfortable with Electric's unusual style, but those who have done IC layout on other systems find Electric difficult to use. Another disadvantage is that it is hard to import polygons from traditional systems because they have to be node-extracted, and the polygons don't always match the set of nodes and arcs provided by Electric. Furthermore, it is not possible to execute polygon commands directly as a result of nodal interference caused within the software itself.

History
Originally written in C during the 1980s, Electric was distributed for free to universities and sold by Applicon as "Bravo3VLSI" during the mid 1980s.

In 1988, Electric Editor Incorporated was founded to sell Electric, and starting in 1998 it is distributed as free software by the Free Software Foundation and by Static Free Software starting in 2000.

In 1999, development moved to Sun Microsystems, and in 2003 the original C version of Electric was discontinued in favour of a Java version, which was completed in 2005.

Active development of Electric stopped in 2017, but fixes and support continues.

title: Electric (software)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valentin rimdjonok

The result of the debate was speedy deleted (CSD G4) by User:Alex Bakharev — Kimchi.sg | Talk 16:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Valentin rimdjonok
Clearly non-notable vanity (and yet another confirmation of Geogre's Law, though there are some claims that could be construed as attempts to establish notability. Speedy delete (db-bio) tag was removed by creator.  dbtfz talk 06:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind; it has been speedily deleted.  dbtfz talk 06:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


text:
Phrynoidis asper

The Asian giant toad (Phrynoidis asper), sometimes referred to as the river toad, is a species of true toad native to Mainland Southeast Asia and the Greater Sundas. It is a medium-large toad, but it is easily confused with its larger relative, the giant river toad (P. juxtasper).

Description
Phrynoidis asper is generally a dark grey, green, black or brown in color, and is heavily covered in tubercles. Females can reach up to 14 cm in snout–to–vent length and males up to 10 cm. They can be commonly found near stream and rivers.

title: Phrynoidis asper


text:
Austin Springs, Washington County, Tennessee

Austin Springs is an unincorporated community in Washington County, Tennessee. Austin Springs is located northwest of Johnson City.

History
A post office called Austin's Springs was established in 1875, and remained in operation until it was discontinued in 1900. The community was named for one or both of the Austin brothers who started a hotel at the site of a mineral spa.


text:
Talk:Tropical Storm Danielle (1986)

GAN
Just a note, this GAN is not a WikiCup nomination, as all of the work was done before this year. 20:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tropical Storm Danielle (1986)


text:
futangiu

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  fucker

Usage notes
This word is generally not used in the same pejorative manner as in English. It describes a person who has sex frequently.

title: futangiu


text:
Sphenomorphus leptofasciatus

Sphenomorphus leptofasciatus is a species of skink. It is found in Papua New Guinea.

Sphenomorphus leptofasciatus is often found in or under decaying foliage and logs. It is the only skink species that the Kalam people of Papua New Guinea do not consume, although the Kalam frequently consume other skink species.

Names
It is known as ñgñolom in the Kalam language of Papua New Guinea.

title: Sphenomorphus leptofasciatus


text:
Half-mask

A half-mask is a mask that covers half the face. It may mean:

 * a mask covering from below the eyes to below the chin
 * a dust mask
 * a filtering facepiece respirator
 * an elastomeric respirator

 * a mask covering the eyes and perhaps the forehead and/or nose, but not the mouth.
 * a half-face diving mask

title: Half-mask


text:
Tom Modrak

Tom Modrak was an American football executive who was the general manager for the Philadelphia Eagles from May 1998 until his dismissal in May 2001, and was most recently the Vice President of College Scouting for the Buffalo Bills from 2001 before being relieved of duties on May 4, 2011. Before Philadelphia, he was in charge of scouting for the Pittsburgh Steelers. He was elected to the Pittsburgh Pro Football Hall of Fame in 2014.

Modrak died on April 11, 2017, at the age of 74.

title: Tom Modrak


text: User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/User talk:Vanished user 278d8b9e769f74365327e651fab9a44b/Archives/2019/June


text:
Sekret Machines: Book 2 – A Fire Within

Sekret Machines: Book 2 – A Fire Within is a science-fiction thriller novel based on actual events, created by Tom DeLonge, American musician, co-lead vocalist/guitarist of Blink-182 and Angels & Airwaves and British-American novelist A. J. Hartley. The first edition was released through DeLonge's To the Stars company on September 18, 2018. It's the second novel in the fictional Sekret Machines series following 2016's Sekret Machines: Book 1 – Chasing Shadows, and third book in the broader franchise following 2017's non-fiction novel Sekret Machines: Gods.

Background
Whereas Chasing Shadows focused on hardware and machines, its sequel A Fire Within focuses on themes of "consciousness and the human mind". Co-author Hartley said, "Book One focused primarily on the machines themselves–hardware, if you like–but in the second installment of the series we push the story into the gray areas between the normal and the paranormal in more clearly human terms, exploring the idea that as technology might make exponential evolutionary progress, so might people themselves. The result continues the story of the first novel, picking up pretty much where it left off, but shifts the tonality of the narrative into new territory, new adventures and new sekrets."

To promote the book, To the Stars released a digital copy of the A Fire Within ' s first three chapters for download.

Synopsis
A Fire Within continues the story of Jennifer, Timika, Alan and Barry from Chasing Shadows. After being chased by a powerful corporation, Barry and Alan explore "Dreamland" while Timika and Jennifer track down an ancient tablet.

As with the previous fiction novel in the series, Chasing Shadows, the story is a work of fiction loosely based on true stories obtained by DeLonge through top military and intelligence officials.

Reception
A Fire Within was generally met with positive reviews from critics. Duke Brickhouse of ExoNews said, "It is not surprising that such an accomplished writer as A.J. Hartley, a USA Today and New York Times bestselling author of adventure books geared toward young adults, would create yet another highly regarded novel. What is surprising is the depth of information that the story conveys, which the world is only now on the brink of perceiving." In Bookwormex ' s review, the author wrote, "Ultimately, Sekret Machines Book 2: A Fire Within is a nice work of science-fiction, and while it might be cookie-cutter and even average in some segments, on the whole I found it to be an engaging and fast-paced story with the ability to push me to think for myself. If you have read the first book in the series and enjoyed it, I believe you will also be quite pleased with this second one... especially if you felt book one moved a bit too slowly."

title: Sekret Machines: Book 2 – A Fire Within


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghulam Muhammad A. Fecto

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Ghulam Muhammad A. Fecto

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability is not inherited. His group might be notable but he fails WP:GNG.  Greenbörg  (talk)  12:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep He appears to have been a major industrialist of the 1980s . I also found some mentions on Google Books.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 12:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly notable, "Fecto Group owns and controls following companies and playing its due role in the industrial fields of the country under the command of its Chairman, Mr. Ghulam Mohammad A. Fecto" .... "A.Fecto, the founder of the Fecto group was known as Ghulam Mohammed Adamjee.in East Pakistan but while setting up the business in West Pakistan, now Pakistan, he dropped the name Adamjee in favor of the acronym Fecto and thus", "...he is a well-known Industrialist of East Pakistan..."  --Soman (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


text:
Tamalika Karmakar

Tamalika Karmakar (born 2 July) is a Bangladeshi actress and model. Her notable film roles were in Ei Ghar Ei Songshar (1996), Kittonkhola (2000) and Ghetuputra Komola (2012). Tamalika won Bangladesh National Film Award for Best Supporting Actress for her role in Kittonkhola. In July 2017, she performed, with Aranyak Nattaydal theatre troupe, in Rarang, on their 180th rendition.

Early life
Karmakar was born on 2 July. She started acting at the age of 3. Gowhor Jamil, folk and classical dancer, was her dance teacher.

Career
Karmakar has been associated with the theater group Aranyak Nattaydal since January 1992. She debuted in the theater play Pathor, written and produced by Mamunur Rashid and Azizul Hakim. She went on to play other plays including Khela Khela, Iblish, Prakritojon and Joyjointhi.

Awards
National Film Awards is the most prominent film award ceremony in Bangladesh. Established in 1975 by Government of Bangladesh. This is the only film awards given to the Government of Bangladesh. Tamalika Karmakar received this Award for Best Supporting Actress for movie Kittonkhola in 2000 directed by Abu Sayeed. Tamalika Karmakar got Mega Start Music and Entertainment award in recognition of her outstanding and continuous achievement in acting and theater Performance organized by Mega Start Music & Entertainment 2 October 2016. International Theatre Festival of Kerala (ITFOK) is an international theatre festival held every year in December in Thrissur city of Kerala State, India. The festival is organized by Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Academy and Cultural Department of Government of Kerala. The festival was started in 2008. This was given to Tamalika Karmakar as a memorandum in International Theater Festival of Kerala 2008 Television Dorshok Forum of Bangladesh (TDFBD) is the community for award giving of the Various Television Program by the voting of the Viewers of Bangladesh. It also gives life time awards to various celebrities. Tamalika Karmakar received this award as best actress in 2005. Ekota Performance Award is given by Ekota Cultural and Social Organization. Every year they arrange a program to honor best artists all over the country. Tamalika Karmakar received that award as best actress of drama in 2004.
 * Bangladesh National Film Award for Best Supporting Actress
 * Mega Start Music and Entertainment award 2016
 * International Theatre Festival of Kerala (ITFOK) 2008
 * Television Dorshok Forum of Bangladesh (TDFBD) (2005)
 * Ekota Performance Award 2004

Tamalika won the Award for best actress in stage by DPL Media City Showbiz Award in 2010. This award is arranged By Dhaka Cultural Reporters Unity
 * DPL Media City Showbiz Award (2010)

Tamalika Karmakar received Ekota Samajik Sangskritik Sangstha honor for her remarkable acting in Bangla telefilm Kurukkhetro, this is the certificate of this award given at 2002 In 1982 Tamalika Karmakar again received Bangladesh National Television Child Artist Award (Nutun Kuri) in the category of story telling. This awards was just the beginning of her colourful Career. Tamalika Karmakar Received International Pen-Palls Club Award in 1989 for bring up the Heroic acts of the myrters in 1971 libaration war to the children. She won the honorable medal from Aronnok Natto Dol in their 50th stage show. Aronnok is a prominent theater group in Bangladesh. Tamalika Karmakar got the Bornochora Natto Goshthi Award in their 32 years anniversary. Bornochora Natto Goshthi is a very old theater and performance group in Bangladesh. Dhaka Theater had given Tamalika Karmakar Faojia Yasmin Shibli Podok in Shelim al Din Jonmoutshob 2008 for her extraordinary talent and performance in theater for this long years. Honorary Award from the North American Bangladesh Cultural Society.
 * Ekota Samajik Sangskritik Sangstha Award (2002)
 * BTV Child Artist Award (Nutun Kuri) 1982
 * International Pen-Palls Club Award (1989)
 * Aronnok Natto Dol Award
 * Bornochora Natto Goshthi Award
 * Shibli Award by Dhaka Theatre
 * North American Bangladesh Cultural Society Award

title: Tamalika Karmakar


text:
Abstract Algebra/Hypercomplex numbers

The terms group theory and ring theory are refinements of algebraic understanding that developed in the era of electronics and aircraft, the 20th century. The term hypercomplex number harkens back to the age of steam. For the most part, the hypercomplex systems have been assimilated through the resolution of vision provided by groups, rings, and fields, and the term has been retired from use other than historic reference. Similarly, the field of complex numbers $$C = \{ z = x + i y, \ x,y \in R \} ,\ i^2 = - 1, $$ has an insufficiently descriptive name, and might be better described as division binarions C according to composition algebra theory.

Hypercomplex numbers grew out of William Rowan Hamilton's construction of quaternions in the 1840s. The legacy of his vision continues in spatial vector algebra: for vectors $$v = ai + bj + ck$$ and $$w = di + ej + fk ,$$ the well-known products are These products are the severed remnants of Hamilton’s quaternion product: $$\ \ v w = - v \cdot w + v \times w \in R^4 .$$
 * Dot: $$ v \cdot w = ad + be + cf \in R$$
 * Cross: $$ v \times w = (bf - ec) i - (af - dc) j + (ae - db) k \in R^3 .$$

In 1845 John T. Graves and Arthur Cayley described an eight-dimensional hypercomplex system now referred to as octonions or Cayley numbers. They extend quaternions but associativity of multiplication is lost. James Cockle challenged the presumption of quaternions in four dimensions by presenting associative hypercomplex systems tessarines (1848) and coquaternions (1849). Hamilton had his own eight-dimensional system (biquaternions) that were explored in his Lectures on Quaternions (1853), but virtually ignored in Elements of Quaternions (completed by his son in 1865) and in the version edited by Charles Jasper Jolly in 1899.

Quaternions feature the property of anti-commutativity of the basis vectors i, j, k:
 * $$ij = -ji = k, \quad jk = -kj = i, \quad ki = -ik = j.$$ (in coquaternions $$jk = -kj = -i $$).

Due to anti-commutativity, squaring a vector leaves many cancelled terms:
 * $$(ai + bj +ck)^2 = - a^2 - b^2 - c^2 ,$$  thus for $$r = ai + bj + ck ,$$
 * $$(a^2 + b^2 + c^2 = 1) \ \equiv \ (r^2 = -1) .$$

For any such r, the plane {x + y r : x,y in R} is a complex number plane, and by Euler's formula the mapping $$ ar \mapsto \cos a + r \sin a$$ takes the ray through r to a wrapping of the unit circle in that plane. The unit sphere in quaternions is composed of these circles, considering the variable r. According to Hamilton, a unit quaternion is a versor; evidently every versor can be known by its parameters a and r.

When the anti-commutativity axiom is changed to commutativity, then two square roots of minus one, say h and i, have a product hi with square $$(hi)^2 = hi hi = h^2 i^2 = (-1)(-1) = +1 .$$ James Cockle’s tessarines are based on such an imaginary unit, now with plus one for its square. Cockle initiated the use of j, j2 = +1, to represent this new imaginary unit that is not a square root of minus one. The tessarines are z = w + z j where z, w are in C. The real tessarines $$D = \{a + b j : a, b \in R \}$$ feature a unit hyperbola, contrasting with the unit circle $$\{a + b i : a^2+ b^2 = 1 \} \subset C .$$ Whereas the circle surrounds the origin, a hyperbola has radii in only half of the directions of the plane and requires a conjugate hyperbola to cover the other half, and even then the asymptotes, that they share, provide even more directions in the plane. In 1873 William Kingdon Clifford exploited the real tessarines to modify Hamilton's biquaternions: where Hamilton had used elements of C (division binarions) for coefficients of a biquaternion q = w + x i + y j + z k, Clifford used real tessarines (now called split-binarions D). Clifford’s construction illustrated a process of generating new algebras from given ones in a procedure called tensor products: Hamilton’s biquaternions are $$C \otimes H $$, and the split biquaternions of Clifford are $$D \otimes H .$$

Clifford was precocious, particularly in his anticipation of a geometric model of gravitation as hills and valleys in a temporal plenum. But he lived before set theory, modern logical and mathematical symbology, and before abstract algebra with its firmament of groups, rings and fields. One of the realities of light is its finite speed: a foot per nanosecond, an astronomic unit in 500 seconds, or a light year in a year. When a diagram uses any of these pairs of units as axes, the diagonals through the origin represent to locus of light, one for the left beam, one for the right. The diagonals are asymptotes to hyperbolas, such as $$a j \mapsto \cosh a + j \sinh a, $$ a real tessarine. Eventually, over decades of deliberation, physicists realized that this hyperbola was the answer to a linear-velocity problem: How can v + w be the sum of two velocities when such accumulation may run over the speed of light?

The hyperbola lies between the asymptotes and will not run over the speed of light. In the real tessarine system the points of the hyperbola are $$ e^{a j}$$ and $$ e^{b j} ,$$ representing two velocities in the group $$ \{ e^{x j} : x \in R \} ,$$ a hyperbola. The sum of two velocities is found by their product $$e^{aj} e^{bj} = e^{(a + b)j} ,$$ another element of the hyperbola. After 1911, the parameter a was termed rapidity. Evidently this aspect of special relativity was born of real tessarines.

The electromagnetic work of Clerk-Maxell and Heinrich Hertz demanded a fitting context for theorizing with the temporal variable included. Maxwell had used Hamilton’s del operator
 * $$\nabla = i \frac{\partial}{\partial x} + j \frac{\partial}{\partial y} + k \frac{\partial}{\partial z} $$ in A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism,

but the quaternion algebra is unsuitable: it is implicitly a Euclidean 4-space since $$q q^* = w^2 + x^2 + y^2 + z^2, $$ the square of the Euclidean norm.

In the 1890s Alexander Macfarlane advocated Space Analysis with a hypercomplex system that exchanged Hamilton's sphere of imaginary units for a sphere of Cockle's imaginary units that square to +1. He retained the anti-commutative property of quaternions so that $$q q^* = w^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2 .$$ Then in this system of hyperbolic quaternions, for any r on the sphere, $$\{x + y r : x,y \in R \}$$ is a plane of split binarions, including unit hyperbola suitable to represent motion at any rapidity in direction r. The hyperbolic quaternions looked like an elegant model for electromechanics until it was found wanting. The problem was that the simple property of associative multiplication broke down in hyperbolic quaternions, and though it was a hypercomplex system with a useful model, loss of this property put it outside the purview of group theory, for instance.

Once the axioms of a vector space were established, hypercomplex systems were included. The axioms require a commutative group of vectors, a scalar field, and rules of operations. Putting the axioms of a vector space together with those for a ring establishes the meaning of an algebra in the study of abstract algebra.

For associative hypercomplex systems, Joseph Wedderburn removed all the mystery in 1907 when he showed that any such system could be represented with matrix rings over a field. For instance, 2 x 2 real matrices form an algebra M(2,R) isomorphic to coquaternions and 2 x 2 complex matrices form an algebra M(2,C) isomorphic to biquaternions. These algebras, along with R, C and tessarines form the associative composition algebras which are noted for the property
 * $$(pq)(pq)^* = (p p^*)(q q^*) .$$

About 1897 four cooperative efforts changed mathematics for the better. Giuseppe Peano began to assemble his Formulario Mathematico, Felix Klein spearheaded the mathematical encyclopedia project, the quadrennial series of International Congresses of Mathematics was begun, and the International Association for Promoting the Study of Quaternions and Allied Systems of Mathematics published a bibliography and annual review.

Peano's effort gave mathematicians the symbolic language to compress concepts and proofs using set theory. Klein's encyclopedia upheld German as the primary medium, and the Congresses drew together all nations. The Quaternion Society was the primary arena addressing hypercomplex numbers, and was dissolved after 1913 upon the death of its president, Alexander Macfarlane.

title: Abstract Algebra/Hypercomplex numbers


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/maroctelecom.club

Links

 * maroctelecom.club resolves to [//<IP_ADDRESS> <IP_ADDRESS>]
 * maroctelecom.club is hosted on wikipedia.org
 * wikipedia.org resolves to [//<IP_ADDRESS> <IP_ADDRESS>]
 * Link is not on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the domainredlist.
 * Link is not on the Monitorlist.
 * None of the mentioned users is on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link is not on the monitor list.
 * Link is not on the Monitorlist.
 * None of the mentioned users is on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link is not on the monitor list.

Users
No users found.

Additions
No additions recorded.


text:
Talk:Gerald McRaney

Birthyear
It is mentioned in the article, but was Gerald born in 1947 or 1948? Hotwine8 03:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC) There is no mention of Gerald's outstanding performance as George Hearst in the HBO Series, "Deadwood". — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

In 1999, Gerald McRaney starred as 'Cal', in the 90 min. film "A Song for the Season" with Naomi Judd & Andy Griffith, along with a young actress, Alison Pill, who played his niece. I don't presently see this work listed on Wikipedia. Gerald McRaney (along with all the other actors) was wonderful in this piece, and it is a lovely Christmas movie to enjoy. Credits on my DVD for this state: "1999 Pebblehut Productions Inc. in Association with Jaffe/Braunstein films Ltd. Licensed by Fremantlemedia Enterprises to Echo Bridge Home Entertainment". Don't Quote Me (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gerald McRaney


text:
case history

Noun

 * 1) The details of the history of some case (often medical).
 * After consulting her case history, the doctor prescribed methotrexate.
 * The case history of a sample design from inception to final marketing was presented to the students.

title: case history


text:
User:Dancronin

The greatest possesor of talent and ability of all who have walked the Earth. This is knowledge based upon Plato's 3rd definition in Theætetus.

title: User:Dancronin


text:
Ali Shahrokhi

Ali Shahrokhi (born 11 March 1988) is an Iranian male discus thrower, who won an individual gold medal at the Youth World Championships.

title: Ali Shahrokhi


text:
riesa

Etymology
Probably borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1) nuisance, annoyance, peeve
 * 2) pain in the ass, pain in the neck

title: riesa


text:
San Michele Arcangelo, Trecasali

San Michele Arcangelo or St Michael Archangel is a Baroque style, Roman Catholic parish church in Trecasali, Province of Parma, Italy.

A church at the site is documented since the 13th, century, however, the present structure was built 1740–1766. The interior has frescoes by Paolo Ferrari depicting: St Michael defeats the Demons, the Story of Moses, the Story of St Michael, The Four Evangelists, and St Peter in Glory within stucco decoration by Fortunato Rusca.

The main altarpiece depicts St Michael defeating the Devil (1768), by Gaetano Callani, a copy of a Raphael's St. Michael Vanquishing Satan found in the Louvre museum. The frame of the altarpiece was created by Ignazio Marchetti.

title: San Michele Arcangelo, Trecasali


text:
stříbrný

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) silver made from silver
 * 2) silvery, silver having a color like silver

title: stříbrný


text:
User:Alliecat55

I have been a public librarian for 20 years working in a mid-sized public library in the Northeast and I am interested in contributing to articles in Wikipedia and improving information literacy to the population our library serves.

Conflict of Interest Statement

I, Alliecat55, an employee of the Buffalo and Erie County Public Library, will adhere to the policies of Wikipedia. My editing interests are varied and I may, from time to time, add links or create an article based on library resources. I will modify my editing behavior based on problems cited by other editors or if my editing conflicts with any Wikipedia guidelines. I ask that other editors do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page if it appears I am going against anything I have stated in this declaration.

title: User:Alliecat55


text:
William Harrison (Archpriest of England)

William Harrison (c.1553–1621) was an English Roman Catholic priest. He was the third and last archpriest of England.

Life
Born in Derbyshire circa 1553, he entered the English College, Douai in 1575. Ordained a deacon, he afterwards went to Rome. The records of the English College, Rome contain an entry to the effect that "Pater Gulielmus Harrison", then aged 25 years, and a priest studying Theology in the College, took the mission oath on 23 April 1578. He left the College for England on 26 March 1581, having previously, as usual on such occasions, had an audience with the Pope. From 1581 to 1587, he served the English mission, and in the last named year, went to Paris and became Licentiate in civil and canon law.

In 1590, he was entrusted by Father Robert Persons with the government of a small school for English in Eu, Normandy, and remained there until it was broken up by civil war, in 1593. Harrison then became the Procurator of the English College at Reims, took his degree of Doctor in Theology in 1597. Having returned to Douai when the college was restored there, he took his doctorate in divinity, in 1597, in that university, and was professor of theology at the English College until 1603.

He then went to Rome for five years, where he gained wide experience in ecclesiastical affairs. Harrison returned to Douai on 29 October 1608, and left it on 19 June 1609, when he set out on his way back to the mission in England.

Following the death of George Birkhead in 1614, Harrison was appointed archpriest of England by Pope Paul V on 23 February 1615. His brief was dated 11 July 1615. Besides the usual faculties, Pope Paul V granted to Harrison "Facultates pro archipresbytero Angliæ, in regnis Angliæ, Scotiæ, Hiberniæ, Monæ, et aliis locis dominii regis Magnæ Britanniæ, ac pro personis eorundum regnorum et dominiorum tantum" on 23 July 1615.

On 9 March 1617, Harrison issued a prohibition wherein secular priests under his jurisdiction were forbidden to attend plays by common players upon common stages, under penalty of losing their ecclesiastical faculties. In 1621 he sanctioned a protest sent to Rome by ten representatives of the secular regarding the institute established by Mary Ward as being opposed to the decrees of the Council of Trent.

His general policy was to restore peace between the secular clergy and the Jesuits while endeavouring to secure the independence of the former. To this end he aided Dr Matthew Kellison, president of the English College, Douai, in lessening the influence of the Jesuits there. He also aimed at restoring episcopal government in England. His influence ultimately secured this, though he himself died on 11 May 1621, just as his envoy was setting out for Rome.


text:
Talk:Organic Chemistry/Cover

Splash page
I decided to make this page a "splash page" or a sort of bookcover. Just the title, welcome comment, link to the contents and a pretty, ochem-related piece of artwork. --Karl Wick
 * What a good idea! I'm going to do the same Theresa knott 09:16, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Organic Chemistry/Cover


text:
Cookbook:Loukoumas (Greek Donuts with Honey) I

| Greece | Dessert

Loukoumas is a Greek fried pastry, similar to a doughnut.

Ingredients

 * 1.36 kg (48 oz / 6 cups) all-purpose flour
 * ½ teaspoon salt
 * 2 cups undiluted evaporated milk
 * 4 eggs
 * 2 tablespoons baking powder
 * 1 cup white granulated sugar
 * Ground cinnamon
 * 1 teaspoon vanilla extract
 * 4 teaspoons dry yeast dissolved in ½ cup of warm water
 * Soy or corn oil for frying
 * Honey

Procedure

 * 1) In a large mixing bowl, mix the flour, salt, milk, eggs, baking powder, sugar, cinnamon, and vanilla.
 * 2) Mix the yeast and water together.
 * 3) Add the yeast mixture to the other ingredients and stir. The mixture should look like smooth cake batter.
 * 4) Cover the bowl and leave it for 4 hours.
 * 5) Place 5 cm of oil in a pot and heat it up.
 * 6) With a tablespoon, drop the batter in and roll. Loukoumades should be sphere-shaped once fried and should look golden or brown from all sides.
 * 7) After they are fried, remove them from the oil and pour honey over them. Use the cinnamon for extra flavour. You can also use sesame seeds for flavour.


text:
palinsesto

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1) palimpsest
 * 2)  a listing of broadcast programs, e.g. a TV guide

title: palinsesto


text:
Talk:Vladimir Bradonjić

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Paok fc.png

title: Talk:Vladimir Bradonjić