text:
Carbamazepine

Carbamazepine, sold under the brand name Tegretol among others, is an anticonvulsant medication used in the treatment of epilepsy and neuropathic pain. It is used as an adjunctive treatment in schizophrenia along with other medications and as a second-line agent in bipolar disorder. Carbamazepine appears to work as well as phenytoin and valproate for focal and generalized seizures. It is not effective for absence or myoclonic seizures.

Carbamazepine was discovered in 1953 by Swiss chemist Walter Schindler. It was first marketed in 1962. It is available as a generic medication. It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines. In 2020, it was the 185th most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than 2million prescriptions.

Photoswitchable analogues of carbamazepine have been developed to control its pharmacological activity locally and on demand using light, with the purpose to reduce adverse systemic effects. One of these compounds (carbadiazocine, based on a bridged azobenzene) has been shown to produce analgesia with noninvasive illumination in a rat model of neuropathic pain.

Medical uses
Carbamazepine is typically used for the treatment of seizure disorders and neuropathic pain. It is used off-label as a second-line treatment for bipolar disorder and in combination with an antipsychotic in some cases of schizophrenia when treatment with a conventional antipsychotic alone has failed. However, evidence does not support its usage for schizophrenia. It is not effective for absence seizures or myoclonic seizures. Although carbamazepine may have a similar effectiveness (as measured by people continuing to use a medication) and efficacy (as measured by the medicine reducing seizure recurrence and improving remission) when compared to phenytoin and valproate, choice of medication should be evaluated on an individual basis as further research is needed to determine which medication is most helpful for people with newly-onset seizures.

In the United States, carbamazepine is indicated for the treatment of epilepsy (including partial seizures, generalized tonic-clonic seizures and mixed seizures), and trigeminal neuralgia. Carbamazepine is the only medication that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia.

As of 2014, a controlled release formulation was available for which there is tentative evidence showing fewer side effects and unclear evidence with regard to whether there is a difference in efficacy.

Adverse effects
In the US, the label for carbamazepine contains warnings concerning:
 * effects on the body's production of red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets: rarely, there are major effects of aplastic anemia and agranulocytosis reported and more commonly, there are minor changes such as decreased white blood cell or platelet counts, but these do not progress to more serious problems.
 * increased risks of suicide
 * increased risks of hyponatremia and SIADH
 * risk of seizures, if the person stops taking the drug abruptly
 * risks to the fetus in women who are pregnant, specifically congenital malformations like spina bifida, and developmental disorders.
 * Pancreatitis
 * Hepatitis
 * Dizziness
 * Bone marrow suppression
 * Stevens–Johnson syndrome

Common adverse effects may include drowsiness, dizziness, headaches and migraines, ataxia, nausea, vomiting, and/or constipation. Alcohol use while taking carbamazepine may lead to enhanced depression of the central nervous system. Less common side effects may include increased risk of seizures in people with mixed seizure disorders, abnormal heart rhythms, blurry or double vision. Also, rare case reports of an auditory side effect have been made, whereby patients perceive sounds about a semitone lower than previously; this unusual side effect is usually not noticed by most people, and disappears after the person stops taking carbamazepine.

Pharmacogenetics
Serious skin reactions such as Stevens–Johnson syndrome (SJS) or toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) due to carbamazepine therapy are more common in people with a particular human leukocyte antigen gene-variant (allele), HLA-B*1502. Odds ratios for the development of SJS or TEN in people who carry the allele can be in the double, triple or even quadruple digits, depending on the population studied. HLA-B*1502 occurs almost exclusively in people with ancestry across broad areas of Asia, but has a very low or absent frequency in European, Japanese, Korean and African populations. However, the HLA-A*31:01 allele has been shown to be a strong predictor of both mild and severe adverse reactions, such as the DRESS form of severe cutaneous reactions, to carbamazepine among Japanese, Chinese, Korean, and Europeans. It is suggested that carbamazepine acts as a potent antigen that binds to the antigen-presenting area of HLA-B*1502 alike, triggering an everlasting activation signal on immature CD8-T cells, thus resulting in widespread cytotoxic reactions like SJS/TEN.

Interactions
Carbamazepine has a potential for drug interactions. Drugs that decrease breaking down of carbamazepine or otherwise increase its levels include erythromycin, cimetidine, propoxyphene, and calcium channel blockers. Grapefruit juice raises the bioavailability of carbamazepine by inhibiting the enzyme CYP3A4 in the gut wall and in the liver. Lower levels of carbamazepine are seen when administered with phenobarbital, phenytoin, or primidone, which can result in breakthrough seizure activity.

Valproic acid and valnoctamide both inhibit microsomal epoxide hydrolase (mEH), the enzyme responsible for the breakdown of the active metabolite carbamazepine-10,11-epoxide into inactive metabolites. By inhibiting mEH, valproic acid and valnoctamide cause a build-up of the active metabolite, prolonging the effects of carbamazepine and delaying its excretion.

Carbamazepine, as an inducer of cytochrome P450 enzymes, may increase clearance of many drugs, decreasing their concentration in the blood to subtherapeutic levels and reducing their desired effects. Drugs that are more rapidly metabolized with carbamazepine include warfarin, lamotrigine, phenytoin, theophylline, valproic acid, many benzodiazepines, and methadone. Carbamazepine also increases the metabolism of the hormones in birth control pills and can reduce their effectiveness, potentially leading to unexpected pregnancies.

Mechanism of action
Carbamazepine is a sodium channel blocker. It binds preferentially to voltage-gated sodium channels in their inactive conformation, which prevents repetitive and sustained firing of an action potential. Carbamazepine has effects on serotonin systems but the relevance to its antiseizure effects is uncertain. There is evidence that it is a serotonin releasing agent and possibly even a serotonin reuptake inhibitor. It has been suggested that carbamazepine can also block voltage-gated calcium channels, which will reduce neurotransmitter release.

Pharmacokinetics

Carbamazepine is relatively slowly but practically completely absorbed after administration by mouth. Highest concentrations in the blood plasma are reached after 4 to 24 hours depending on the dosage form. Slow release tablets result in about 15% lower absorption and 25% lower peak plasma concentrations than ordinary tablets, as well as in less fluctuation of the concentration, but not in significantly lower minimum concentrations.

In the circulation, carbamazepine itself comprises 20 to 30% of total residues. The remainder is in the form of metabolites; 70 to 80% of residues is bound to plasma proteins. Concentrations in breast milk are 25 to 60% of those in the blood plasma.

Carbamazepine itself is not pharmacologically active. It is activated, mainly by CYP3A4, to carbamazepine-10,11-epoxide, which is solely responsible for the drug's anticonvulsant effects. The epoxide is then inactivated by microsomal epoxide hydrolase (mEH) to carbamazepine-trans-10,11-diol and further to its glucuronides. Other metabolites include various hydroxyl derivatives and carbamazepine-N-glucuronide.

The plasma half-life is about 35 to 40 hours when carbamazepine is given as single dose, but it is a strong inducer of liver enzymes, and the plasma half-life shortens to about 12 to 17 hours when it is given repeatedly. The half-life can be further shortened to 9–10 hours by other enzyme inducers such as phenytoin or phenobarbital. About 70% are excreted via the urine, almost exclusively in form of its metabolites, and 30% via the faeces.

History
Carbamazepine was discovered by chemist Walter Schindler at J.R. Geigy AG (now part of Novartis) in Basel, Switzerland, in 1953. It was first marketed as a drug to treat epilepsy in Switzerland in 1963 under the brand name Tegretol; its use for trigeminal neuralgia (formerly known as tic douloureux) was introduced at the same time. It has been used as an anticonvulsant and antiepileptic in the United Kingdom since 1965, and has been approved in the United States since 1968.

Carbamazepine was studied for bipolar disorder throughout the 1970s.

Environmental impact
Carbamazepine and its bio-transformation products have been detected in wastewater treatment plant effluent and in streams receiving treated wastewater. Field and laboratory studies have been conducted to understand the accumulation of carbamazepine in food plants grown in soil treated with sludge, which vary with respect to the concentrations of carbamazepine present in sludge and in the concentrations of sludge in the soil. Taking into account only studies that used concentrations commonly found in the environment, a 2014 review concluded that "the accumulation of carbamazepine into plants grown in soil amended with biosolids poses a de minimis risk to human health according to the approach."

Brand names
Carbamazepine is available worldwide under many brand names including Tegretol.

title: Carbamazepine


text:
CCIR

CCIR is a four-letter abbreviation that may stand for:

 * California Coalition for Immigration Reform, a California political advocacy group for immigration reduction
 * Campaign for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, a Washington, DC organization for immigrant rights
 * Canadian Centre for Investigative Reporting, produces thoroughly researched reporting in the public interest
 * Centre for Counseling Innovation and Research (CCIR), at Kish Island, Tehran, Mashhad
 * Comité Consultatif International pour la Radio, a forerunner of the ITU-R
 * CCIR 601, the former name of a broadcasting standard promulgated by the CCIR
 * CCIR-tones, a selective calling system used in some radio communications systems in some European countries
 * CCIR-1k and CCIR-2k, noise weighting standards for audio signals
 * Commander's critical information requirement, a term in the US military

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

title: CCIR


text:
Chalcedonian Definition

The Chalcedonian Definition (also called the Chalcedonian Creed or the Definition of Chalcedon) is the declaration of the dyophysitism of Christ's nature, adopted at the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. Chalcedon was an early centre of Christianity located in Asia Minor. The council was the fourth of the ecumenical councils that are accepted by Chalcedonian churches which include the Catholic and Orthodox churches. It was the first council not to be recognised by any Oriental Orthodox church; for this reason these churches may be classified as Non-Chalcedonian.

Context
The Council of Chalcedon was summoned to consider the Christological question in light of the "one-nature" view of Christ proposed by Eutyches, archimandrite at Constantinople, which prevailed at the Second Council of Ephesus in 449, sometimes referred to as the "Robber Synod".

The Council first solemnly ratified the Nicene Creed adopted in 325 and that creed as amended by the First Council of Constantinople in 381. It also confirmed the authority of two synodical letters of Cyril of Alexandria and the letter of Pope Leo I to Flavian of Constantinople.

Content
The full text of the definition reaffirms the decisions of the Council of Ephesus, the pre-eminence of the Creed of Nicaea (325) and the further definitions of the Council of Constantinople (381).

In one of the translations into English, the key section, emphasizing the double nature of Christ (human and divine), runs: "Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He was parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us."

The Definition implicitly addressed a number of popular heretical beliefs. The reference to "co-essential with the Father" was directed at Arianism; "co-essential with us" is directed at Apollinarianism; "Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably" refutes Eutychianism; and "indivisibly, inseparably" and "Theotokos" are against Nestorianism.

Oriental Orthodox dissent
The Chalcedonian Definition was written amid controversy between the Western and Eastern churches over the meaning of the Incarnation (see Christology). The Western church readily accepted the creed, but some Eastern churches did not. Political disturbances prevented the Armenian bishops from attending. Even though Chalcedon reaffirmed the Third Council's condemnation of Nestorius, the Non-Chalcedonians always suspected that the Chalcedonian Definition tended towards Nestorianism. This was in part because of the restoration of a number of bishops deposed at the Second Council of Ephesus, bishops who had previously indicated what appeared to be support of Nestorian positions.

The Coptic Church of Alexandria dissented, holding to Cyril of Alexandria's preferred formula for the oneness of Christ's nature in the incarnation of God the Word as "out of two natures". Cyril's language is not consistent and he may have countenanced the view that it is possible to contemplate in theory two natures after the incarnation, but the Church of Alexandria felt that the Definition should have stated that Christ be acknowledged "out of two natures" rather than "in two natures".

The definition defines that Christ is "acknowledged in two natures", which "come together into one person and one hypostasis". The formal definition of "two natures" in Christ was understood by the critics of the council at the time, and is understood by many historians and theologians today, to side with western and Antiochene Christology and to diverge from the teaching of Cyril of Alexandria, who always stressed that Christ is "one". However, a modern analysis of the sources of the creed (by A. de Halleux, in Revue Theologique de Louvain 7, 1976) and a reading of the acts, or proceedings, of the council show that the bishops considered Cyril the great authority and that even the language of "two natures" derives from him.

This dyophysite position, historically characterised by Chalcedonian followers as "monophysitism", though this is denied by the dissenters, formed the basis for the distinction of the Coptic Church of Egypt and Ethiopia and the "Jacobite" churches of Syria, and the Armenian Apostolic Church (see Oriental Orthodoxy) from other churches.

title: Chalcedonian Definition


text:
Conservation law

In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves over time. Exact conservation laws include conservation of mass-energy, conservation of linear momentum, conservation of angular momentum, and conservation of electric charge. There are also many approximate conservation laws, which apply to such quantities as mass, parity, lepton number, baryon number, strangeness, hypercharge, etc. These quantities are conserved in certain classes of physics processes, but not in all.

A local conservation law is usually expressed mathematically as a continuity equation, a partial differential equation which gives a relation between the amount of the quantity and the "transport" of that quantity. It states that the amount of the conserved quantity at a point or within a volume can only change by the amount of the quantity which flows in or out of the volume.

From Noether's theorem, every differentiable symmetry leads to a conservation law. Other conserved quantities can exist as well.

Conservation laws as fundamental laws of nature
Conservation laws are fundamental to our understanding of the physical world, in that they describe which processes can or cannot occur in nature. For example, the conservation law of energy states that the total quantity of energy in an isolated system does not change, though it may change form. In general, the total quantity of the property governed by that law remains unchanged during physical processes. With respect to classical physics, conservation laws include conservation of energy, mass (or matter), linear momentum, angular momentum, and electric charge. With respect to particle physics, particles cannot be created or destroyed except in pairs, where one is ordinary and the other is an antiparticle. With respect to symmetries and invariance principles, three special conservation laws have been described, associated with inversion or reversal of space, time, and charge.

Conservation laws are considered to be fundamental laws of nature, with broad application in physics, as well as in other fields such as chemistry, biology, geology, and engineering.

Most conservation laws are exact, or absolute, in the sense that they apply to all possible processes. Some conservation laws are partial, in that they hold for some processes but not for others.

One particularly important result concerning conservation laws is Noether's theorem, which states that there is a one-to-one correspondence between each one of them and a differentiable symmetry of nature. For example, the conservation of energy follows from the time-invariance of physical systems, and the conservation of angular momentum arises from the fact that physical systems behave the same regardless of how they are oriented in space.

Exact laws
A partial listing of physical conservation equations due to symmetry that are said to be exact laws, or more precisely have never been proven to be violated:

Another exact symmetry is CPT symmetry, the simultaneous inversion of space and time coordinates, together with swapping all particles with their antiparticles; however being a discrete symmetry Noether's theorem does not apply to it. Accordingly the conserved quantity, CPT parity, can usually not be meaningfully calculated or determined.

Approximate laws
There are also approximate conservation laws. These are approximately true in particular situations, such as low speeds, short time scales, or certain interactions.

 * Conservation of mechanical energy
 * Conservation of mass (approximately true for nonrelativistic speeds)
 * Conservation of baryon number (See chiral anomaly and sphaleron)
 * Conservation of lepton number (In the Standard Model)
 * Conservation of flavor (violated by the weak interaction)
 * Conservation of strangeness (violated by the weak interaction)
 * Conservation of space-parity (violated by the weak interaction)
 * Conservation of charge-parity (violated by the weak interaction)
 * Conservation of time-parity (violated by the weak interaction)
 * Conservation of CP parity (violated by the weak interaction); in the Standard Model, this is equivalent to conservation of time-parity.

Global and local conservation laws
The total amount of some conserved quantity in the universe could remain unchanged if an equal amount were to appear at one point A and simultaneously disappear from another separate point B. For example, an amount of energy could appear on Earth without changing the total amount in the Universe if the same amount of energy were to disappear from some other region of the Universe. This weak form of "global" conservation is really not a conservation law because it is not Lorentz invariant, so phenomena like the above do not occur in nature. Due to special relativity, if the appearance of the energy at A and disappearance of the energy at B are simultaneous in one inertial reference frame, they will not be simultaneous in other inertial reference frames moving with respect to the first. In a moving frame one will occur before the other; either the energy at A will appear before or after the energy at B disappears. In both cases, during the interval energy will not be conserved.

A stronger form of conservation law requires that, for the amount of a conserved quantity at a point to change, there must be a flow, or flux of the quantity into or out of the point. For example, the amount of electric charge at a point is never found to change without an electric current into or out of the point that carries the difference in charge. Since it only involves continuous local changes, this stronger type of conservation law is Lorentz invariant; a quantity conserved in one reference frame is conserved in all moving reference frames. This is called a local conservation law. Local conservation also implies global conservation; that the total amount of the conserved quantity in the Universe remains constant. All of the conservation laws listed above are local conservation laws. A local conservation law is expressed mathematically by a continuity equation, which states that the change in the quantity in a volume is equal to the total net "flux" of the quantity through the surface of the volume. The following sections discuss continuity equations in general.

Differential forms
In continuum mechanics, the most general form of an exact conservation law is given by a continuity equation. For example, conservation of electric charge $q$ is $$\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} = - \nabla \cdot \mathbf{j} \,$$ where $∇⋅$ is the divergence operator, $ρ$ is the density of $q$ (amount per unit volume), $j$ is the flux of $q$ (amount crossing a unit area in unit time), and $t$ is time.

If we assume that the motion u of the charge is a continuous function of position and time, then $$\begin{align} \mathbf{j} &= \rho \mathbf{u} \\ \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} &= - \nabla \cdot (\rho \mathbf{u}) \,. \end{align}$$

In one space dimension this can be put into the form of a homogeneous first-order quasilinear hyperbolic equation: $$ y_t + A(y) y_x = 0 $$ where the dependent variable $y$ is called the density of a conserved quantity, and $A(y)$ is called the current Jacobian, and the subscript notation for partial derivatives has been employed. The more general inhomogeneous case: $$ y_t + A(y) y_x = s $$ is not a conservation equation but the general kind of balance equation describing a dissipative system. The dependent variable $y$ is called a nonconserved quantity, and the inhomogeneous term $s(y,x,t)$ is the-source, or dissipation. For example, balance equations of this kind are the momentum and energy Navier-Stokes equations, or the entropy balance for a general isolated system.

In the one-dimensional space a conservation equation is a first-order quasilinear hyperbolic equation that can be put into the advection form: $$ y_t + a(y) y_x = 0 $$ where the dependent variable $y(x,t)$ is called the density of the conserved (scalar) quantity, and $a(y)$ is called the current coefficient, usually corresponding to the partial derivative in the conserved quantity of a current density of the conserved quantity $j(y)$: $$ a(y) = j_y (y)$$

In this case since the chain rule applies: $$ j_x = j_y (y) y_x = a(y) y_x $$ the conservation equation can be put into the current density form: $$ y_t + j_x (y) = 0 $$

In a space with more than one dimension the former definition can be extended to an equation that can be put into the form: $$ y_t + \mathbf a(y) \cdot \nabla y = 0 $$

where the conserved quantity is $y(r,t)$, $⋅$ denotes the scalar product, $∇$ is the nabla operator, here indicating a gradient, and $a(y)$ is a vector of current coefficients, analogously corresponding to the divergence of a vector current density associated to the conserved quantity $j(y)$: $$ y_t + \nabla \cdot \mathbf j(y) = 0 $$

This is the case for the continuity equation: $$ \rho_t + \nabla \cdot (\rho \mathbf u) = 0 $$

Here the conserved quantity is the mass, with density $ρ(r,t)$ and current density $ρu$, identical to the momentum density, while $u(r, t)$ is the flow velocity.

In the general case a conservation equation can be also a system of this kind of equations (a vector equation) in the form: $$ \mathbf y_t + \mathbf A(\mathbf y) \cdot \nabla \mathbf y = \mathbf 0 $$ where $y$ is called the conserved (vector) quantity, $∇y$ is its gradient, $0$ is the zero vector, and $A(y)$ is called the Jacobian of the current density. In fact as in the former scalar case, also in the vector case A(y) usually corresponding to the Jacobian of a current density matrix $J(y)$: $$ \mathbf A( \mathbf y) = \mathbf J_{\mathbf y} (\mathbf y)$$ and the conservation equation can be put into the form: $$ \mathbf y_t + \nabla \cdot \mathbf J (\mathbf y)= \mathbf 0 $$

For example, this the case for Euler equations (fluid dynamics). In the simple incompressible case they are: $$ \nabla\cdot \mathbf u = 0 \,, \qquad \frac{\partial \mathbf u}{\partial t} + \mathbf u \cdot \nabla \mathbf u + \nabla s = \mathbf{0}, $$

where:
 * $u$ is the flow velocity vector, with components in a N-dimensional space $u_{1}, u_{2}, ..., u_{N}$,
 * $s$ is the specific pressure (pressure per unit density) giving the source term,

It can be shown that the conserved (vector) quantity and the current density matrix for these equations are respectively:

$$ {\mathbf y} = \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ \mathbf u \end{pmatrix}; \qquad {\mathbf J} = \begin{pmatrix}\mathbf u\\ \mathbf u \otimes \mathbf u + s \mathbf I\end{pmatrix};\qquad $$

where $$\otimes$$ denotes the outer product.

Integral and weak forms
Conservation equations can usually also be expressed in integral form: the advantage of the latter is substantially that it requires less smoothness of the solution, which paves the way to weak form, extending the class of admissible solutions to include discontinuous solutions. By integrating in any space-time domain the current density form in 1-D space: $$ y_t + j_x (y)= 0 $$ and by using Green's theorem, the integral form is: $$ \int_{- \infty}^\infty y \, dx + \int_0^\infty j (y) \, dt = 0 $$

In a similar fashion, for the scalar multidimensional space, the integral form is: $$ \oint \left[y \, d^N r + j (y) \, dt\right] = 0 $$ where the line integration is performed along the boundary of the domain, in an anticlockwise manner.

Moreover, by defining a test function φ(r,t) continuously differentiable both in time and space with compact support, the weak form can be obtained pivoting on the initial condition. In 1-D space it is: $$ \int_0^\infty \int_{-\infty}^\infty \phi_t y + \phi_x j(y) \,dx \,dt = - \int_{-\infty}^\infty \phi(x,0) y(x,0) \, dx $$

In the weak form all the partial derivatives of the density and current density have been passed on to the test function, which with the former hypothesis is sufficiently smooth to admit these derivatives.

Examples and applications

 * Advection
 * Mass conservation, or Continuity equation
 * Charge conservation
 * Euler equations (fluid dynamics)
 * inviscid Burgers equation
 * Kinematic wave
 * Conservation of energy
 * Traffic flow

title: Conservation law


text:
Talk:Chinese checkers

Translation Inconsistencies
There are serious inconsistencies with the Chinese version of this page. For instance, the image on the Chinese page (and the version I play with my in-laws) shows the pieces are 5-deep (15 pieces per player), versus the images on the English page show the pieces are 4-deep (10 pieces per player). This also implies a maximum of 3 players for the version on the Chinese page (since the corners of the "home" areas overlap when 5-deep).
 * Addressed. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Chinese translation indicates (assuming my reading is correct) that Stern-Halma moved from Germany to the US, whereas the English page says the opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejtttje (talk • contribs) 12:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Stern-Halma
Probably Stern-Halma deserves an article on its own. Apparently, the Chinese version has developed into many variations in the rules. It would be nice to have the desciption of the game with its original rules.

What is the history of Stern-Halma? When did it spread to China? Wouldn't it be a little sensitive that a star of David is used in a German game? Is the game still played in Germany?
 * A star made out of two triangles is quite a simple geometrical form, not an exclusive invention of any people. Besides, if it was privative of the Jews, wouldn't it be a little sensitive to use it in anyplace where Jews have suffered persecution and prejudice (id est, Europe, North Africa, Western Asia, United States or Argentina)?--Erri4a 01:24, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Curiously German Wikipedia's article de:Halma is about SternHalma--Erri4a 01:27, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Halma and Checkers are not one and the same, so it was confusing to have Halma link to the checkers article, so I'm going to unwiki it for now. -- Alex Stevens

is there a mathematical analysis of this game? (i've never seen it)

also, does any one know any computer programs that plays it? i know one on the mac but it's badly written Xah P0lyglut 08:05, 2003 Nov 29 (UTC)

 * I'd like to know if there was an analysis as well. As a teen there was a play we worked out where if the oponent did not make a specific set of moves at the start, it became impossible for them to win. At least I'm fairly certain it was impossible, but I've never seen a proof of that.

 * games.yahoo.com let you play it with someone on the Internet. I believe it uses the boring one space at a time rule.  Kowloonese 23:14, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just cleaned up the computer on the 'free' site: www.thinks.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.97.199 (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Capture
In the "fast-paced" version described at the end of the article, is it legal to capture your own pieces? --Juuitchan
 * I understand you don't have your own pieces. Colour is irrelevant. You just pick any piece, the one you think you're going to capture more with, go and capture all you can. Ain't it?--Erri4a 22:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes. exactly.  Kowloonese 22:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Clarified now. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Two player game initial layout
"In a two player game, each player can play one, two or three sets of marbles. [...] If three sets are played, the pieces usually go to the opponent's corner." Now this can be done in two ways: Which layout is/are used?--Erri4a 22:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * each player starts at the three adjacent triangles of one side of the star (aaabbb)
 * each player starts at three separated triangles, while the adjacent points are occupied by his opponent (ababab)

 * Good question. I always used aaabbb arrangement because of the sitting position so that all the pieces go across the table to the other side.  However, I don't see why the other variation can be played too.  The two players can always agree on one way or the other.  In fact, it can be a challenge to change the choice once in a while because playing strategies need to adjust according to the proximity of your own pieces.  Kowloonese 22:58, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I understand all possibilities are valid as long as participants agree, but we should state clear how people are actually playing. Now, another question. When playing   two players A and B with two colours each, leaving two star corners blank... how do they start?
 * blank A A blank B B (same players' sets together, separated from the adversary's)
 * blank A B blank A B (each of yor sets is between your opponent's and a blank triangle)

I'd like to know which variants choose other users. Besides, it also would be very helpful if any who understand Spanish and knows this game could review the Spanish version.--Erri4a 01:15, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Turns for several colours
Besides, when a player uses two of three different sets... I understand the turns correspond to the set, not the player. For instance, if playa A uses reds and whites, and playa B uses greens and blues:
 * A moves reds,
 * B moves greens,
 * would A be allowed to move reds again or must he move whites first? --Erri4a 22:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Another good question. I always played 1-2-3-1-2-3.  However, you can change the rule as long as both players agree.  Your alternative allows for a more flexible game, and it will accelerate the game because the best moves will be picked first regardless of which color.  Along the same thought, your suggestion can be modified further to let the player mix all his pieces.  i.e. instead of moving 3 sets of 10 pieces across, you can play a game of playing 30 pieces across. i.e. any of your own pieces can enter any of the three corners.  In this case, the players  pretend they are semi-color-blind.  The colors are divided into just "yours" and "mine".  Kowloonese 22:58, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hop across
Usually, in the fast paced version, a marble is allowed to enter into an empty corner in the middle of a series of hops, but must hop out again before the move is over. I understand there are two variants:
 * one in which players are not allowed to finish their turn leaving a marble in the extreme point of a star,
 * one in which anyone can finish their turn wherever.

Is this right?--Erri4a 22:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * We always played the no-stopping rule. Because the corners are often other players' destination, it is unfair to leave a piece in there to block their entry.  So the pieces are only allowed in your own starting, ending corner and the common playing field in the middle.  Transit into other corners are important to the game because it enables a lot of long distance catapulting which is the main factor that makes the fast paced version so much fun.  On the other hand, if both players agree, you can always change the rule.  However, the game may not be as fun.  Kowloonese 23:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Turtle players
which is the best way / rule variant to avoid turtling? (i.e. leaving one or more pieces on source triangle in order to deny opponent winning) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.235.153.96 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 5 April 2005

 * If a person keeps a piece inside their own territory from the beginning, then by the end no one will win. but to eliminate this from happening, as it would lead to no "winner," you can just change the winning conditions to be whoever has the most stones in the opposite corner, after a "draw" from turtling. 70.111.251.203 14:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Or you could decalre that after everyone's first move the first player to fill their destination point with pieces [i]from any player[/i] is declared the winner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.110.75 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 11 July 2007

 * I was just thinking about that myself. Why is there no mention in the article of this scenario?  In any case, we need to cover it properly – adding suggestions from random people of variations of the game that avoid this scenario won't do.  Besides, under the first suggestion, how would one decide when the game is drawn and it's time to count up?  The second suggestion would be a quite different game from CC.
 * I think what we need to do is look for published versions of the rules and computer implementations that add an extra rule to prevent turtling. One implementation that I've seen has an extra rule that is something like "If you can jump over an enemy piece so as to move a piece that is in your starting area away from your starting corner, you must."  The problem is that I forget the exact detail and where I found this implementation, but suspect it was Zillions of Games.  Anyway, anybody who has the knowledge/sources to help with this, please de-lurk and speak out! — Smjg (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer this "bumping" rule: "When moving a piece onto a location in one's destination area, opponents' pieces in the destination area may NOT be jumped, and they do not obstruct movement in any way. Each such opponent's piece is placed on the space just vacated by the moving piece." With this rule, an opponent's piece is moved at most 2 spaces, minimizing the consequences. It also eliminates ways of throwing the game with different corrective rules. One could use a similar rule for cases of multiple players walling off another player, but such a rule would significantly change the game. - 23:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Additions needed

 * 1) There needs to be a it about the game complexity,
 * 2) as well if the setup for 2 players can have the other stones in their corners while the players each only use one corner (opposite each other of course). This wouldn't allow the players to go into the corners that are not their own or their opponents.
 * 3) Also, there should be a tag/infobox for the wikibook on chinese checker strategy not a link.  70.111.251.203 14:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Name in Chinese not at the front
I took the attitude that this isn't really a Chinese game but an international game known in China. Putting the Chinese name for it at the front of the article suggests that the game originated in China, or is more a Chinese game than a Western one. If this rearrangement conveys the wrong sense, others may change it. Mark Foskey 15:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I read somewhere that the game is called "Chinese Checkers" in the US because US missionaries learned it in China from German missionaries and brought it back to the US assuming it was in fact a Chinese game. Can anybody prove or debunk this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.33.17 (talk) 06:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Figures
The figures are poor -- strictly, I believe only one figure demonstrates play. It does not seem to correspond to the text. — Xiong 熊 talk * 15:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Five players?
The rule guides to two separate Chinese Checkers sets that I own, both allow for five players. I have also seen how-to videos on C.C. which allow five people to play it. Perhaps some discussion as to variation in this particular area of the rules is warranted. 97.82.251.9 (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Problem is, 5 players is so weird it could be challenged whether it's WP:OR; we need a source that is WP:RS and WP:V. (A person can't "look up" the rule guides mentioned, to confirm. But the video could be sourcable if a published work. Can you identify it?  Can you access the content of the video too?)  Including variation for 5 in the article should be based on something.  But what do we have?  p.s. Am curious how to play a fair game with 5.  What do your rule guides say?  Thx. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Young children can play
The add supporting play by young children is from a reliable source. The context from the RS is consistent with the context in that part of the lead, i.e., why young children can play. There is no basis for calling the add "silly" except your own POV, and WP doesn't base content adds on editor POV. (You earlier added unsupported claim regarding "highly popular" among children. Did you have a source for that? There may be a source for it; we all "know" the game is popular with young children, but so far I haven't found a reference to support a claim regarding popularity.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

As a compromise, I've eliminated text re spelling, and counting. (But, your assertion that a mention of lack of requirement of counting is "silly" in the context of why young children can play, because some other children's games do not require counting, is a stretch. There are many games which do require counting. Saying "rules are simple" and "no counting is required" not only better explains why young children can play, but is supported by RS.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure how much you really know about this game, but the claim that counting is not part of it is incorrect. When a game is won, it is usual practice that the loser counts how many moves the game was won by.  Second, regardless of this "researcher's" claim, children of only 3 can quite easily be taught to count up to 10 at least [I teach mathematics] ... I'd like to see him teach a 3 yr-old how to play this game - with its hexagonal options ... little ones find it very difficult to jump directly over the marbles to the right space beyond!!
 * Popularity: Firstly, I did not originate the comment on popularity of the game among childrenLol! I did not introduce anything new in fact!! I simply rephrased what was originally put in previously, as it did not give viable credit to the need, like any other game, for strong strategy - that is, to play the game well.  (Personally, I have never lost to the computer ;) )
 * Just one other thought: the game IS highly popular among children ... or at least, it used to be - before the advent of electronic hand-held games!124.184.97.199 (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

 * "the claim that counting is not part of it is incorrect. When a game is won, it is usual practice that the loser counts how many moves the game was won by." That might be the play practice where you are, but it isn't part of the play practice in general (if it were, then why is there no mention of it in the article?). (I don't know, nor could I, what the local rules are in your area, and without more explanation, I couldn't know the purpose of the practice of counting how many moves the game was won by. I'm curious though, what is the purpose? Perhaps it contributes to a total point tally, for purpose of redefining a winner according to high total points after a series of games? But I am only guessing.) Again, it appears to be your local practice, if the practice were more widespread, there would be RSs for it, and it would be represented in the article, which it isn't currently.
 * The author Mohr didn't make a claim that young children cannot be taught to count. The author's claim was that the absence of counting in the game, reduced the complexity (or challenge) for young people to play. (So a slight to the author by using quotes as you did - "researcher" - is unfair since it was really your misinterpretation.)
 * I do not understand your next point ... First you changed this text: "The game involves some strategy but is popular even among young children", to this text: "... the rules are simple enough to also make the game highly popular even among children", but now you seem to be saying that you believe a 3-yr. old will or does have difficulty playing the game. So I don't know what your point is. The RS author Mohr simply said that the reduced complexity of the game allows even young children to play, and she made no assertion about any specific age, she just wrote "young children". So again, you seem to be ascribing words and claims to her she never made, and then arguing against them. Which would be unfair again.
 * "I did not originate the comment on popularity of the game among children Lol! I did not introduce anything new in fact!!" Well, you did change text "young children" to just "children", which has slight but not insignificant difference in message given the context how the game can be played by the very young because of the reduced complexity. Also, you changed "popular" to "highly popular", and the meaning is slightly but not insignificantly different there as well. (In fact by adding "highly popular" I think it makes the assertion likely to be challenged, thus I asked you if you had an RS for it. In fact there is no RS given for the "popular" comment too, but that is not to say that I was comfotable with even that claim, which I wasn't, but it wasn't an issue with me because it didn't seem likely challengable, and we both know "popular" is probably true. But when you injected "highly", that changed things in my view.) So those are two changes you introduced. (And there was a third as well, which you might not have been aware: By saying the reduced complexity "makes" the game popular among children, it could be misconstrued that you have introduced causality, 'A' results in 'B'. There is no RS for that, and neither did author Mohr say it, nor do I think you meant to say that either, yet, the text you introduced could read that way. So that makes three changes introduced that you weren't apparently aware. [And if I want to get really picky, you added a fourth change too, by asserting that "most skill based games involve strategy". It's an assertion that I won't deny, and I don't think anyone would deny, but it is an assertion that at least 51 percent of skill-based games involve strategy - an assertion nevertheless, that wasn't in the article before your change. So that's four changes, the last two of which get no objection from me, but they are changes nevertheless. No biggie.])
 * "Just one other thought: the game IS highly popular among children". Oh, I agree! (Did you think I didn't? I'm not aware what I said to lead you to think I didn't.) In fact I also think the game is "highly popular". But, WP doesn't work that way, that we can put what we "know" in articles. (It's generally considered WP:OR and if challenged or likely to be challenged, needs an WP:RS. But as already mentioned, I thought "popular" was ok, but when you added "highly" then in my view that could make it challengable, thus I took off your "highly" word, and while at it, removed "popular" too, since I was frustrated I could not even find an RS for it! That doesn't mean I would object if someone added word "popular" back in.)
 * I think even with electronic games, Chinese Checkers will remain a time-everlasting popular game w/ children. (I don't know, but presume vendors have added it to their softwares marketed to the young.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You've made quite some 'to do' about very little here, I Hardly think so - don't you??!! Overall, my statement was, "I did not originate the comment on popularity of the game among children Lol! I did not introduce anything new in fact!!" True ... I did not originate the comment on popularity for children; someone, I'm not sure if yourself or who, had already referred to such with children ... the apparent inclusion of the word "highly" by myself wasn't a 'deliberate' change as such: it was merely how it came out in my experience when I re-wrote from my restructure of the thoughts that, basically, were already previously written ... I also agree with you that we should reinstate the word popular with respect to children. The change from "young children" WAS deliberate, as in my much experience with lovely young folks, little children / young children of 3, 4, or 5 find this game quite difficult to play - certainly harder than for them to count!! ... as You say, my 'changes' were "no biggie" ... and as I said, 'They were certainly nothing particularly new from the general ideas that were already in place - just a different emphasis in some aspects - not what I would call, "new" anyway. The only newer observation I made was the preamble to the point of the sentence about "strategy". Why are you picking at straws?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.97.199 (talk) 11:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Different Game, Similar Name
When I was in 1st grade, a game called "Chinese Marbles" was particularly popular. A rather ironic name, as C C Violette Elementary School in Garden Grove, California, had a fair amount of Vietnamese students (which is to be expected, owing to refugees from the Vietnam War; see Operation Frequent Wind).

As this game was played at school during recess, it was played outside thus: a small hole was dug into a patch of dry ground in an area free of vegetation (or a coin placed upon the carpet when indoors). Starting from an agreed distance from the hole, players would then take turns trying to get their marbles into the hole to win. The usual method of shooting a marble involved placing an index and ring finger on the ground, and launching the marble with the middle finger, not unlike a slingshot (holding the marble with the opposite hand, pulling back which builds tension in the middle finger, and then releasing to propel the marble forward). Shooting marbles by placing the index knuckle on the ground and curling the thumb behind it with the marble set in front of the thumb nail is also sometimes used, but more often at distances closer to the hole than when starting out.

Various rules were agreed upon and applied before the start of each game. Today (over 28 years later), I have little recollection of much of the game, but I recall something called "rainbows" in which the thumb is placed on the ground, and a bow shaped path is marked out by the fore fingers. The purpose of rainbows, could have been a way to eliminate other marbles, or getting closer to the hole (see golf term, Gimme). Other similar actions exist within the game with different effects, but this is the only one I can recall today.

This is the game we called Chinese Marbles. What I'd like to know is, does this version of marbles exist under a different name, why it was called Chinese Marbles, and how it fits into the main article of Chinese checkers (Chinese Marbles)? I would like to see someone with enough knowledge of the game I've described to create a new article, including the various terms/rules (in similar fashion to the Pinball page). I think the children of today would enjoy playing this game when they can be pulled away from the videogames, and thus would be highly worthwhile to share. Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Diamond game variant?
The Diamond game 'variant' from S Korea and Japan is really just an alias for the standard hop-across game, isn't it? From its description, it seems to have exactly the same rules. Blubro (talk)

Maybe they call it "Diamond" because it's more descriptive, and they don't want to use the word "Chinese" because it's not really Chinese. Maybe that section should be renamed "Different Names" rather than "Versions" 60.242.231.163 (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

 * I agree. After reading the description of Diamond Checkers, I came here to suggest that there was no difference -- or to ask what the difference was. This is two years after the above comment.Kdammers (talk) 11:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I have a Japanese diamond game from the 80's that's the same as the 10 piece Chinese checkers sold in the US. Im not sure what the trademark status is in Japan because the trademark search website is currently down https://www.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp/ --Saledomo (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Naming: Chinese checkers vs. Sternhalma
I recognize that the term “Chinese checkers” is a common marketing name for Sternhalma. It’s known to many as this name. I think that’s important insofar as education and finding the page itself. That being said, The name Chinese checkers undeniably has racist origins and I believe in addition to the responsibility to provide accurate information, I think there’s an additional responsibility to discontinue the prominent use of such a name as it will undoubtedly hurt others. I don’t think there is anything real to lose by changing the page name to Sternhalma, as the page itself recognizes and addresses the name “Chinese checkers” making it easily findable with that term. Of course, the page “Chinese checkers” can still exist as a redirect, which would solve for people ending up there. While I presume there will be disagreement on the “popular” or “colloquial” name, and that should be considered when making this decision, I also think it should be considered if this name does harm, both to Chinese people who feel the name is racist and German people who invented the game. We owe it to the English-speaking global population to present the page with the real name of the game, not one that two men decided it should be marketed as. For reference, Othello is a brand name (of a seemingly inconsequential variant so it could be patented), but Reversi is the true name of the game. Both can be mentioned in the page, but Reversi is the title of its page. Louie Mantia (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Personally I think "diamond game" is a fine name because "stern" is German and "halma" is Ancient Greek while "diamond game" is already awesome.  There are some online discussion threads that suggest "diamond gsme" is not a registered trademark. I own a diamond game board from the 80's that have the same rule as sternhalma aka Chinese checkers, and it doesn't have King pieces. To suggest "diamond game" is always a different board game altogether is a stronger claim that requires citation IMHO. --Saledomo (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The game was introduced to Chinese-speaking regions mostly by the Japanese?
Though a source is given, it is a 560-page book and the page number or chapter title is not specified, so it's hard to verify whether the source supports the claim. I searched for "Chinese checkers", "Chinese chequers" and "Sternhalma" in this book with Google Books and could not find relevant results.

Since the game in Chinese-speaking regions is the same as that in English-speaking countries but differs from the Japanese version both in naming and rules, a more solid and concrete source is needed to claim that the Japanese introduced the game to the Chinese.

I will remove that sentence for now. If someone has a specified verifiable source, please add it back. Betty (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Stalemate
what happens if a player never gets a marble or 2 out of their starting area causing their opponent unable to get all marbles in? Is game over with no winner? 2601:601:9680:F850:599:320A:F117:E34 (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Aw, you're such a spoilsport. Seriously, since Chinese Checkers is an offshoot of Halma, they have the same winning objective and the same problem you've described. There is already a suggested fix at . Here's another:"As the rules of the two-player game stand, a player can keep a man in his yard indefinitely and so prevent its total occupation. An additional rule is suggested: when one player vacates his yard his opponent must vacate his own yard on successive plays, that is, the opponent cannot move a man that is outside his yard until the yard is empty."Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ESL Workshop
— Assignment last updated by 杰尼尼尼 (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chinese checkers


text:
Chord

Chord or chords may refer to:

Art and music

 * Chord (music), an aggregate of musical pitches sounded simultaneously
 * Guitar chord, a chord played on a guitar, which has a particular tuning
 * The Chords (British band), 1970s British mod revival band
 * The Chords (American band), 1950s American doo-wop group
 * The Chord (painting), a c.1715 painting by Antoine Watteau
 * Andrew Chord, a comic book character who is the former mentor of the New Warriors

Mathematics

 * Chord (geometry), a line segment joining two points on a curve
 * Chord (graph theory), an edge joining two nonadjacent nodes in a cycle

People

 * Chord Overstreet, American actor and musician
 * Chords (musician), a Swedish hiphop/reggae artist

Programming

 * Chord (concurrency), a concurrency construct in some object-oriented programming languages
 * Chord (peer-to-peer), a peer-to-peer protocol and algorithm for distributed hash tables (DHT)

Science and technology

 * Chord (astronomy), a line crossing a foreground astronomical object during an occultation which gives an indication of the object's size and/or shape
 * Canadian Hydrogen Observatory and Radio-transient Detector (CHORD), a proposed successor to the CHIME radio telescope
 * Chord (aeronautics), the distance between the front and back of a wing, measured in the direction of the normal airflow. The term chord was selected due to the curved nature of the wing's surface
 * Chord in truss construction – an outside member of a truss, as opposed to the inner "webbed members"
 * In British railway terminology, a chord can refer to a short curve of track connecting two otherwise unconnected railway lines.
 * Mouse chording, the capability to perform an action when holding multiple buttons on a computer mouse.
 * Chord keyboard, a computer device allowing for input based on pressing multiple keys simultaneously

title: Chord


text:
Car Talk

Car Talk refers to the work of Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers, Tom and Ray Magliozzi, that includes a website, and a podcast of reruns that is currently hosted by Apple Podcasts, NPR Podcasts, and Sticher. Car Talk was originally a radio show that ran on National Public Radio (NPR) from 1977 until October 2012, when the Magliozzi brothers retired. Tom died on November 3, 2014, aged 77, in Belmont, Massachusetts, of complications from Alzheimer's disease.

The Car Talk radio show was honored with a Peabody Award in 1992, and the Magliozzis were both inducted into the National Radio Hall of Fame in 2014 and the Automotive Hall of Fame in 2018.

Premise
Car Talk was presented in the form of a call-in radio show: listeners called in with questions related to motor vehicle maintenance and repair. Most of the advice sought was diagnostic, with callers describing symptoms and demonstrating sounds of an ailing vehicle while the Magliozzis made an attempt to identify the malfunction over the telephone and give advice on how to fix it. While the hosts peppered their call-in sessions with jokes directed at both the caller and at themselves, the Magliozzis were usually able to arrive at a diagnosis. However, when they were stumped, they attempted anyway with an answer they claimed was "unencumbered by the thought process", the official motto of the show.

Edited reruns are carried on XM Satellite Radio via both the Public Radio and NPR Now channels.

The Car Talk theme music was "Dawggy Mountain Breakdown" by bluegrass artist David Grisman.

Call-in procedure
Throughout the program, listeners were encouraged to dial the toll-free telephone number, 1-888-CAR-TALK (1-888-227-8255), which connected to a 24-hour answering service. Although the approximately 2,000 queries received each week were screened by the Car Talk staff, the questions were unknown to the Magliozzis in advance as "that would entail researching the right answer, which is what? ... Work."

History
In 1977, radio station WBUR-FM in Boston scheduled a panel of local car mechanics to discuss car repairs on one of its programs, but only Tom Magliozzi showed up. He did so well that he was asked to return as a guest, and he invited his younger brother Ray (who was actually more of a car repair expert) to join him. The brothers were soon asked to host their own radio show on WBUR, which they continued to do every week. In 1986, NPR decided to distribute their show nationally.

In 1989, the brothers started a newspaper column Click and Clack Talk Cars which, like the radio show, mixed serious advice with humor. King Features distributes the column. Ray Magliozzi continues to write the column, retitled Car Talk, after his brother's death in 2014, knowing he would have wanted the advice and humor to continue.

In 1992, Car Talk won a Peabody Award, saying "Each week, master mechanics Tom and Ray Magliozzi provide useful information about preserving and protecting our cars. But the real core of this program is what it tells us about human mechanics ... The insight and laughter provided by Messrs. Magliozzi, in conjunction with their producer Doug Berman, provide a weekly mental tune-up for a vast and ever-growing public radio audience."

In 2005, Tom and Ray Magliozzi founded the Car Talk Vehicle Donation Program, "as a way to give back to the stations that were our friends and partners for decades — and whose programs we listen to every day." Since the Car Talk Vehicle Donation Program was founded, over 40,000 vehicles have been donated to support local NPR stations and programs, with over $40 million donated. Approximately 70% of the proceeds generated go directly toward funding local NPR affiliates and programs.

As of 2012, it had 3.3 million listeners each week, on about 660 stations. On June 8, 2012, the brothers announced that they would no longer broadcast new episodes as of October. Executive producer Doug Berman said the best material from 25 years of past shows would be used to put together "repurposed" shows for NPR to broadcast. Berman estimated the archives contain enough for eight years' worth of material before anything would have to be repeated. Ray Magliozzi, however, would occasionally record new taglines and sponsor announcements that were aired at the end of the show.

The show was inducted into the National Radio Hall of Fame in 2014.

Ray Magliozzi hosted a special Car Talk memorial episode for his brother Tom after he died in November 2014. However, Ray continued to write their syndicated newspaper column, saying that his brother would want him to.

The Best of Car Talk episodes ended their weekly broadcast on NPR on September 30, 2017, although past episodes would continue availability online and via podcasts. 120 of the 400 stations intended to continue airing the show. NPR announced one option for the time slot would be their new news-talk program It's Been a Minute.

On June 11, 2021, it was announced that radio distribution of Car Talk would officially end on October 1, 2021, and that NPR would begin distribution of a twice-weekly podcast that will be 35–40 minutes in length and include early versions of every show, in sequential order.

Hosts
The Magliozzis were long-time auto mechanics. Ray Magliozzi has a Bachelor of Science degree in humanities and science from MIT, while Tom had a Bachelor of Science degree in economics from MIT, an MBA from Northeastern University, and a DBA from the Boston University School of Management.

The Magliozzis operated a do-it-yourself garage together in the 1970s which became more of a conventional repair shop in the 1980s. Ray continued to have a hand in the day-to-day operations of the shop for years, while his brother Tom semi-retired, often joking on Car Talk about his distaste for doing "actual work". The show's offices were located near their shop at the corner of JFK Street and Brattle Street in Harvard Square, marked as "Dewey, Cheetham & Howe", the imaginary law firm to which they referred on-air. DC&H doubled as the business name of Tappet Brothers Associates, the corporation established to manage the business end of Car Talk. Initially a joke, the company was incorporated after the show expanded from a single station to national syndication.

The two were commencement speakers at MIT in 1999.

Executive producer Doug Berman said in 2012, "The guys are culturally right up there with Mark Twain and the Marx Brothers. They will stand the test of time. People will still be enjoying them years from now. They're that good."

Tom Magliozzi died on November 3, 2014, at age 77, due to complications from Alzheimer's disease.

Adaptations
The show was the inspiration for the short-lived The George Wendt Show, which briefly aired on CBS in the 1994-1995 season as a mid-season replacement.

In July 2007, PBS announced that it had green-lit an animated adaptation of Car Talk, to air on prime-time in 2008. The show, titled Click and Clack's As the Wrench Turns is based on the adventures of the fictional "Click and Clack" brothers' garage at "Car Talk Plaza". The ten episodes aired in July and August 2008.

Car Talk: The Musical!!! was written and directed by Wesley Savick, and composed by Michael Wartofsky. The adaptation was presented by Suffolk University, and opened on March 31, 2011, at the Modern Theatre in Boston, Massachusetts. The play was not officially endorsed by the Magliozzis, but they participated in the production, lending their voices to a central puppet character named "The Wizard of Cahs".

At the end of the show, Ray warns the audience, "Don't drive like my brother!" to which Tom replies, "And don't drive like my brother!" The original tag line was "Don't drive like a knucklehead!" There were variations such as, "Don't drive like my brother ..." "And don't drive like his brother!" and "Don't drive like my sister ..." "And don't drive like my sister!" The tagline was heard in the Pixar film Cars, in which Tom and Ray voiced anthropomorphized vehicles (Rusty and Dusty Rust-eze, respectively a 1963 Dodge Dart and 1963 Dodge A100 van, as Lightning McQueen's racing sponsors) with personalities similar to their own on-air personae. Tom notoriously once owned a "convertible, green with large areas of rust!" Dodge Dart, known jokingly on the program by the faux-elegant name "Dartre".

title: Car Talk


text:
Talk:Caligula

Graves novel
Does anyone have access to the NYT archives? This 1934 article might provide the cite we seek. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

 * You're in luck: ProQuest at WP:Library has old scans of NYT stories. In a day or two, I'll be on the case and once I locate it, I'll cite it for you. (H/T WP:GAR.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Years
I'm not looking to get into the "AD" versus "CE" controversy, but there are two potential issues with the way the years are referenced in this article. First, does every single mention of a year have to have "AD" appended to it? Once it's established that we're in the early first century AD/CE, can't the numbers of the years just stand alone? Second, if every single mention of a year must have "AD" appended to it, shouldn't it be consistently before or after the year number? I'm not changing anything, but someone should. CasparRH (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Things are fine as-is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.250 (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Assassination infobox
An Assassination infobox has been added by a new or newly registered user. Opinions are invited on whether it should stay, go, or be further edited. Caligula is not particularly notable for the fact of his assassination. Questions hang over the circumstances, plotters and assassins themselves. So I'd rather remove it. Haploidavey (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

 * I'm mixed to it. On one hand, I think it's notable enough as he was one of the first 5 Roman emperors as well as being one of the evilest emperors in Roman history, but on another hand, I agree that his assassination in itself wasn't very notable. I'm more leaning it to be removed, but I'd be fine if it'd stayed as well. Hellmann775 (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Kings and kingship
Pasting this here for now, as it doesn't directly relate to the section on divinity. It also suffers the same original research issues as almost all of the article. Not good, indeed.

 * Suetonius claims that Caligula ended a squabble over precedence among several client kings with the Homeric line: "Let there be one lord, one king," referring to himself. In Roman Republican tradition, kingship was anathema.

Haploidavey (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

 * I saw your edit summary, This article needs such a thorough rewriting it's hard to know where to go from here. I think perhaps the best place to go would in fact be a through rewrite. There fortunately exist quality modern sources (though not cited here except portions on his early life which I wrote based on CAH² 10). I would maintain parallel citations (eg in Julius Caesar Morstein-Marx 2021, p. 107, citing Suet. Iul., 16.) and it would of course take a rather large amount of time to read those sources, the literature review (I think the Julio-Claudian section of Potter's Roman history: imperial, 31 BCE to 284 CE is relevant), and then write up an article but it is feasible. Ifly6 (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Re bibliography: CAH2 10 (1994); Barrett Caligula (2nd ed, 2015) (First ed cited but not really used); Seager Tiberius (2nd ed, 2005); and Winterling Caligula (2003; English trans 2011) seem of most value. I would avoid Fratantuono Caligula (2018) per the negative BMCR review (little more than survey [of the] main literary sources for the reign of Caligula... Anyone hoping for a standard biography of Caligula must look elsewhere). Ifly6 (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

 * What a welcome reply, Ifly6. Such a vast topic. I'm happy to put it aside until I've a better grasp of the problems - or any grasp at all. Is a standard biography possible? Desirable? Alas, I was raised on Robert Graves. Just imagine that. I can see why folks are wary of tackling this one. Such flimsy historiography, too many choices, too many perspectives. The closer one looks, the greater the unravelling. The closest I've come to such complexity is the so-called Imperial cult; with Elagabalus as a close second. Or the Magna Mater. So much reading to be done, and I'm not even sure I have the capacity. The Brynmawr review is a very useful appraisal, and at least it leaves one asking the right questions. Unfortunately I lost most of my electronic CAH, which would have at least given a framework. Let's wait and see what happens next. Haploidavey (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

 * I guess "standard biography" is beyond our remit. Haploidavey (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The standard biography seems to be that of Barrett (cited alone in Potter's bibliography and OCD4), now in its second edition, with Winterling's biography also well received. I would also review CAH2 10, of course, for more background. Ifly6 (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

 * One of our generous G&R editors has sent me what's needed: Very many thanks to Ifly6 for the above, and to T8612 for repairing and expanding my library of sources. Haploidavey (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

 * After several very intensive days rewriting the section on Caligula and religion, I'm very relieved to find that Barrett's bibliography happens to support most of what I've written so far (or will do so with a minimum of fiddling and fudging). Yes, that's not really how it should be done but it seems to bode well for the article as a whole. So thanks again. Haploidavey (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Burned after an American attack?
Does this mean that Caligula’s ships were still in existence in 1944? Where? How? 203.40.132.51 (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Yes, as the source describes in detail. NebY (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * See Nemi ships, which includes photos... you can still see the bronze fittings from the ships on the 1st floor of the Palazzo Massimo and they are well worth the visit. Furius (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Julius
I fear Winterling is overreaching if he asserts first that Julius "was willing to abandon the city of Rome and rule the empire from Alexandria, in Egypt, as a divine monarch", and second that "He was designated Jupiter Julius, and was voted a temple by the senate to honour his clementia (clemency). Mark Antony was chosen as his high priest - all this while Caesar still lived." As I remember and find eg in Scullard, that Caesar considered moving to Alexandria was a rumour "probably ... set on foot by his political enemies in order to discredit him". Also, so far I've failed to find that the rumour was that he planned to rule there as divine, but that may well be my lack of sources and skills. The second is perhaps based on Cicero and Cassius Dio. Crawford translates Cicero's Second Philippic, 110 "... do you really love him now that he is dead? What honour did he achieve greater than the right to have a sacred couch, an image, a house like a temple, a priest? So just as there is a priest of Jupiter, of Mars, of Quirinus, is M. Antonius now the priest of the divine Julius?" It's great rhetoric and insinuation, and has caused much debate. Dio has more; I admit I generally suspect Dio of filling in colourful details (his account of Boudica's revolt is so much more dramatic than Tacitus') but on this, he perturbs actual scholars too - as does Cicero (eg which includes Dio's conflation of evidence,  including the baffling silences). Beard, North and Price in Religions of Rome (I, 140-141) have "The honours ... suggest that he had been accorded the status of a god - or something very like it: he had, for example, the right to have a priest (flamen) of his cult, to adorn his house with a pediment (as if it were a temple) and to place his own image in formal processions of images of the gods .... Ever since ... these honours - particularly those granted before his death - have been the focus of debate... you will not find a clear answer ... both Roman writers and moder scholars offer different and often contradictory views... taken together, they attest only the impossibility of fixing a precise category". Might we make our statements a little less definitive? NebY (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

 * I'm away to family early tomorrow, and won't be back until Thurs. Will reply then. I've changed the source and some sequences but frankly any errors in citing Winterling are liable to be mine, not his. This is probably what comes of incautiously writing what seems obvious, unaided by scholars, attribution or scholarship. Have a good holiday! Haploidavey (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No rush. I'm enjoying your work here, and fell happily down a rabbithole wondering if the Senate voted those divine honours to Caesar's genius or quite outrageously to him in his lifetime. Enjoy your well-earned holiday! NebY (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You too, Neby. Though the effects of two whole days without public transport of any sort are hard to imagine... Haploidavey (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Are questions allowed?
There's a question in the second paragraph of 'Conflict with the Senate', "If they had acted against Caligula's family, then why not against Caligula himself?". Should it be changed? Solus Bane (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Interesting point. It's a summary of source material from Winterling (especially pp. 96 - 98) and as I added it in the first place, I'm hardly likely to object. It has a rather rhetorical edge, seeming to speak for Caligula but it's offered in Winterling's voice, not Wikipedia's. Haploidavey (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Caligula