text:
User talk:Robert Dober

Very nice message, thanks for the corrections, I am not a native speaker, but that kind of help will allow me to improve my (rusty) English. I hope I will find some more time to read on styleguides etc, it is too tempting to type very soon. See you around. Robert_Dober 19:10 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)

Hello there Robert, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit How does one edit a page and experiment at Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Nice work on the contract bridge-related articles. Cheers! --maveric149

Hello. I took out the links from Contract bridge playing technique, because I thought they couild maybe all go on the same page. But having seen the article on Finesse, I realise there's a probably lot to be said on each. All the same, I'm wary of the 3-tier setup we now have, with contract bridge at the top and the playing technique article in the middle. I'm pondering merging the technique article into the main bridge page, but that's awfully long too. Maybe we can syphon some of that off to History of bridge? I'll leave that up to you, as I'm not knowledgeable on this subject. One other thing though: it's important to link back to articles, for example Finesse should have a link back to contract bridge. People can land on articles from anywhere, so it's vital to establish the context of something. Welcome to the 'pedia! :) -- Tarquin 18:52 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)

I like that you're adding bridge techniques, and many of them (squeeze plays in particular) are not elsewhere covered well on the web. But they do tend to use some lower-level jargon that isn't here yet either. The squeezes, for example, talk about having the count or not; that is not covered here yet. Perhaps some more introductory material would be good. --LDC -- There is a note for you at Talk:Progressive squeeze

 * likewise Suicide squeeze and Squeezee. Please establish context! -- Tarquin 10:50 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Contract bridge playing technique
A tag has been placed on Contract bridge playing technique, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Robert Dober


text:
User:Ioapetraka

Articles I have started so far: Uncial, Boards Of Canada, 8-Track cartridge, Binaural recording

I don't talk about myself much.

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

title: User:Ioapetraka


text:
Talk:Daniel Bernoulli

Comments
"natural philosophy" in his day. What should we say here? -- Tarquin

Suggestion "He died at Bâle, where he was professor of natural philosophy, what would currently be a professorate in physics"

If you need a family tree for the Bernoullis, there is one on fr:Famille Bernoulli. Ma'ame Michu 10:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm doing a biography off of Daniel. so I searching on wikipedia.

ablest Bernoulli?
"Daniel Bernoulli was by far the ablest of the younger Bernoullis." -- Is this a neutral statement?! --TedPavlic 17:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Date of birth
Today Daniel's date of birth was changed from 8 Feb to 29 Jan, and his date of death was changed at well. I checked some of the online sources, and found that the St Andrews website says 8 Feb, Rouse Ball says 9 Feb, and the 1911 EB says 29 Jan. So I'm hoping that somebody with some time looks into this and can tell us which is correct, or whether we should just say that it is not known. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A brief case study in the writing of introductions
Observe the following introduction: "Daniel Bernoulli was a Swiss mathematician who spent much of his life in Basel where he died. A member of a talented family of mathematicians, physicists and philosophers, he is particularly remembered for his applications of mathematics to mechanics, especially fluid mechanics, and for his pioneering work in probability and statistics."

What doesn't make sense about this construction? Namely it's the first sentence, which implies that as "a Swiss mathematician", Bernoulli's major accomplishment is that he "spent much of his life in Basel where he died." I'm sure I don't need to point out what silly first sentence this is.

It makes much more sense for the introduction to begin: "Daniel Bernoulli was a Swiss mathematician, who is particularly remembered for his applications of mathematics to mechanics, especially fluid mechanics, and for his pioneering work in probability and statistics." Now the reader knows after one sentence that Bernoulli is known for his accomplishments in the field of mathematics, rather than for dying in Basel.

Fuzzform (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation?? German, French or Dutch? How long did Bernoulli stay in the Netherlands?
I was disappointed to find no indication of the pronunciation for the name Bernoulli. So I looked it up in the Duden 6 (Duden Aussprachewörterbuch), but I only found one transcription of the name, in German. The Duden dictionary either treated the name as German because that's what it is; or it turned around the problem by providing only a convenient pronunciation for when speaking in German (the Merriam-Webster dictionary does that for speakers of English). Next I checked the Collins English Dictonary. This provides a French and a German pronunciation. But Bernoulli - so the Wikipedia holds - was born in Groningen! How long did he stay there? Could Dutch have been his native language?? A Dutch phonetic rendering would NOT sound like a German one. Viktor Laszlo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Bernoulli was from a Swiss family and would probably have spoken Schweizerdeutsch at home and his parents would have pronounced their name that way. He was in Holland for five years, so he would have learned Dutch, but that is unlikely to have affected how his name was pronounced. Everyone I have heard say the name pronunce it Ber noo lee, with the accent on the noo. Apuldram (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point. It seems that Daniel's family was originally from Basle, they just travelled a lot. So altogether disregarding a Dutch pronuncation would seem to make sense. Was Basle actually Schweizerdeutsch-speaking in the 18th Century? ... A double transcription (German followed by French) seems to be appropriate for Bernoulli. You refer to the pronunciation as Ber noo lee. Is this when speaking English, German, or Schweizerdeutsch? The noo would suggest a long vowel. But the Duden 6 gives a German pronunciation with short /ʊ/. Viktor Laszlo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a pronunciation guide in http://www.beedictionary.com/meaning/bernoulli  Apuldram (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But that only provides English pronunciations of English and foreign words. It doesn't help. There need to be a German and a French pronunciation. Viktor Laszlo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Bernoullis were polyglots speaking German, French, Latin, etc. The Collins French pronunciation guide is not an authentic representation of the family name because of the last syllable. According to the tourist office of Basel, hometown of the Bernoullis, the correct French pronunciation is bernou-li, not bernou-ill-i. A French science forum on internet confirmed that the correct pronunciation in French is bernou-li, not bernou-ill-i. . May be this should be discussed at the Bernoulli family page instead of at the pages of individual family members. Ceinturion (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC) - Edit: removed clumsy IPA -
 * The article is in English, and the pronunciation guide is to help English readers know how to pronounce the name. As the accepted English pronunciation is, which from the contribution by Ceinturion in Talk:Bernoulli family is also how it is correctly pronounced in Basel and France, there is no conflict.  I will replace the pronunciation guide in the article. Apuldram (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

 * The above editing does not follow Wikipedia rules. Most articles where the pronunciation of a foreign name is shown present the original pronunciation, with or without the English one. See e.g. Antoine Lavoisier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavoisier ; Leonhard Euler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler. Deleting original language pronunciations makes no sense: the Wikipedia has opted for the IPA throughout for the purpose of showing pronunciations. If only the English pronunciations were to be given in the English WP, why use the IPA in the first place? something like bur-NOO-lee would do the job splendidly. But this is not how things are normally done - so far, there's been a need to transcribe a foreign name in its own language. The above two examples suggest that it's the English adapation that's optional. ... As a compromise, I have restored the original pronunciations and kept the English adaptation also. Unfortunately, that's not all. It is maintained that "/bərˈnuːli/) [...] is also how it is correctly pronounced in Basel and France, there is no conflict ". But only non-phoneticians would accept a statement as bold as that.  Which, if taken literally, would claim the phonotactical and prosodic structures of French, German and English to be similar if not identical to one another! Specifically, French and German have /ɛ/, not /ə/ in Bernoulli, and French could never have /ə/ in that position. French does not have (phonemic) long /u:/ as in English, in any word. German does not have long /u:/ in Bernoulli, but short /ʊ/. And these two vowels /u:/ and /ʊ/, despite being transcribed with the same symbols in both German and English, are phonetically very different in the two languages, which is why it's important each time to declare whether the transcription in question refers to one language or to the other. Think about /r/ in English and French: same phonological symbol, same sound?... The official IPA, finally, shows stress clearly and unambiguously. So "/bərˈnuːli/", with stress on the second syllable, is abnormal in French... Very questionable in this case. Now, wanna think again about the Collins and Duden transcriptions? Not perfect, perhaps, but the best contributions so far. Viktor Laszlo (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

 * In French the problem is not 'Bernou', but '(i)lli'. For a long time the French have been confused about the spelling and the pronunciation. As mentioned before (here): "Le nom de famille est parfois orthographié, par erreur semble-t-il, Bernouilli", and "il faut dire ber-nou-li, mais beaucoup de gens disent bernou-ill-i". The French are gradually abandoning the wrong spelling (for example, in 1994 Paris changed the name Rue Bernouilli into Rue Bernoulli). So the Collins pronunciation guide was acceptable in the past, but it is undesirable in today's wikipedia. We would better remove it here. Ceinturion (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Ceinturion (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A sensible argument. But my objection was about the choice of /u:/ in French, which in that case was incorrect as it doesn't occur in that context. I understand that "'(i)lli'" is more problematic than the other bits. Now, though, one problem remains. The reference for the "Swiss German" pronunciation is exactly the one I provided months ago. Fantastic. The quotation has been altered and now it's formally incorrect. Now it looks as if the famous Mangold provided a Swiss German pronunciation for "Bernoulli". How unusual for Mangold! This transcription is simply Standard German. Maybe the transcription for the two variants is the same, but the bottom line is, it's a misquote. Who's responsible for this? I am sick of this controversy, I'll leave it as it is. I just cannot spend my life correcting the referencing style of others. Viktor Laszlo (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A Mental Calculator?
I am just wondering is he a mental calculator? And if he is, is he a fully verified Mental Calculator from genuine sources? Iamnofool6 (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you mean was he a mental calculator? There is no evidence to support that and Bernoulli is not on the list of past mental calculators, like his friend Leonhard Euler. Apuldram (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Daniel Bernoulli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927032605/http://www.semel.ucla.edu/biomedicalmodeling/pdf/Bernoulli%26Blower.pdf to http://www.semel.ucla.edu/biomedicalmodeling/pdf/Bernoulli%26Blower.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070825121124/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Bernoulli to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Bernoulli

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Date of death
We say 27 March 1782. Many other sources say 17 March the same year. That almost suggests a confusion between Julian and Gregorian dates, except the difference by then was 11 days, not 10. Also, Basel had converted to Gregorian finally in 1700, so the whole question of which calendar was then applying should not arise at all.

Can we find out his accurate date of death? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Physics
Say the word of Bernoulli's 2405:201:C04A:7014:A127:20DB:DB98:F07 (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Porträt des_Daniel_Bernoulli_-_edit1.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for January 4, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-01-04. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! — Amakuru (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Plagiarized section?
The section on Bernoulli's research on blood pressure with Euler appears to be copied verbatim from this 1997 article by D. A. Quinney: (copyvio removed)

Can we rewrite it and properly cite the article the information is taken from? WP:PLAG Emflazie (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Usually, I'd file a cv-revdel, but an excerpt of the copyrighted text is above, too. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Now removed from the article and this page. Rev-del on the way. I hope someone can summarize without plagiarizing soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Now done. Thank you, Emflazie and Rotideypoc41352. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Daniel Bernoulli


text:
Hadad

Hadad, Haddad, Adad (Akkadian: 𒀭𒅎 DIM, pronounced as Adād), or Iškur (Sumerian) was the storm and rain god in the Canaanite and ancient Mesopotamian religions. He was attested in Ebla as "Hadda" in c. 2500 BCE. From the Levant, Hadad was introduced to Mesopotamia by the Amorites, where he became known as the Akkadian (Assyrian-Babylonian) god Adad. Adad and Iškur are usually written with the logogram dIM —the same symbol used for the Hurrian god Teshub. Hadad was also called Pidar, Rapiu, Baal-Zephon, or often simply Baʿal (Lord), but this title was also used for other gods. The bull was the symbolic animal of Hadad. He appeared bearded, often holding a club and thunderbolt and wearing a bull-horned headdress. Hadad was equated with the Greek god Zeus, the Roman god Jupiter (Jupiter Dolichenus), as well as the Babylonian Bel.

The Baal Cycle or Epic of Baal is a collection of stories about the Canaanite Baal, also referred to as Hadad. It was composed between 1400 and 1200 B.C. and rediscovered in the excavation of Ugarit, an ancient city in modern-day Syria.

The storm god Adad and the sun god Shamash jointly became the patron gods of oracles and divination in Mesopotamia.

Adad in Akkad and Sumer
In Akkadian, Adad is also known as Rammanu ("Thunderer") cognate with רעמא Raˁmā and רַעַם Raˁam, a byname of Hadad. Many scholars formerly took Rammanu to be an independent Akkadian god, but he was later identified with Hadad.

Though originating in northern Mesopotamia, Adad was identified by the same Sumerogram dIM that designated Iškur in the south. His worship became widespread in Mesopotamia after the First Babylonian dynasty. A text dating from the reign of Ur-Ninurta characterizes the two sides of Adad/Iškur as threatening in his stormy rage, and benevolent in giving life.

Iškur appears in the list of gods found at Shuruppak but was of far less importance, perhaps because storms and rain were scarce in Sumer and agriculture there depended on irrigation instead. The gods Enlil and Ninurta also had storm god features that diminished Iškur's distinct role, and he sometimes appears as the assistant or companion of these more prominent gods.

When Enki distributed the destinies, he made Iškur inspector of the cosmos. In one litany, Iškur is proclaimed again and again as "great radiant bull, your name is heaven" and also called son of Anu, lord of Karkara; twin-brother of Enki, lord of abundance, lord who rides the storm, lion of heaven.

In other texts Adad/Iškur is sometimes son of the moon god Nanna/Sin by Ningal and brother of Utu/Shamash and Inanna/Ishtar. He is also sometimes described as the son of Enlil.

The bull was portrayed as Adad/Iškur's sacred animal starting in the Old Babylonian period (early 2nd millennium BCE).

Adad/Iškur's consort (both in early Sumerian and the much later Assyrian texts) was the grain goddess Shala, who is also sometimes associated with the god Dagānu. She was also called Gubarra in the earliest texts. The fire god Gibil (Girra in Akkadian) is sometimes the son of Iškur and Shala.

He is identified with the Anatolian storm-god Teshub, whom the Mitannians designated with the same Sumerogram dIM. Occasionally he is identified with the Amorite god Amurru.

The Babylonian center of Adad/Iškur's cult was Karkara in the south, his chief temple being ; his spouse Shala was worshipped in a temple named. In Assyria, Adad was developed along with his warrior aspect. During the Middle Assyrian Empire, from the reign of Tiglath-Pileser I (1115–1077 BCE), Adad had a double sanctuary with Anu in Assur, and the two are often associated in invocations. The name Adad and various alternate forms (Dadu, Bir, Dadda) are often found in Assyrian king names.

Adad/Iškur presents two aspects in hymns, incantations, and votive inscriptions. On the one hand, he brings rain in due season to fertilize the land; on the other, he sends storms to wreak havoc and destruction. He is pictured on monuments and cylinder seals (sometimes with a horned helmet) with the lightning and the thunderbolt (sometimes in the form of a spear), and in hymns his sombre aspects predominate. His association with the sun-god Shamash, with the two deities alternating in the control of nature, tends to imbue him with some traits of a solar deity.

According to Alberto Green, descriptions of Adad starting in the Kassite period and in the region of Mari emphasize his destructive, stormy character and his role as a fearsome warrior deity, in contrast to Iškur's more peaceful and pastoral character.

Shamash and Adad jointly became the gods of oracles and divination, invoked in all the ceremonies to determine the divine will: through inspecting a sacrificial animal's liver, the action of oil bubbles in a basin of water, or the movements of the heavenly bodies. They are similarly addressed in royal annals and votive inscriptions as bele biri (lords of divination).

Hadad in Ugarit

In religious texts, Ba‘al/Hadad is the lord of the sky who governs rain and crops, master of fertility and protector of life and growth. His absence brings drought, starvation, and chaos. Texts of the Baal Cycle from Ugarit are fragmentary and assume much background knowledge.

The supreme god El resides on Mount Lel (Night?) where the assembly of the gods meets. At the beginning of the cycle, there appears to a feud between El and Ba‘al. El appoints one of his sons, called both prince Yamm (Sea) and judge Nahar (River), as king over the gods and changes Yamm's name from yw to mdd ’il (darling of El). El tells his son that he will have to drive off Ba‘al to secure the throne.

In this battle Ba‘al is somehow weakened, but the divine craftsman Kothar-wa-Khasis strikes down Yamm with two magic clubs and Ba'al is supreme. ‘Athtart proclaims Ba‘al's victory and salutes Ba‘al/Hadad as lrkb ‘rpt (Rider on the Clouds), a phrase applied by editors of modern English Bibles to Yahweh in Psalm 68.4. At ‘Athtart's urging Ba‘al "scatters" Yamm and proclaims that he is dead and warmth is assured.

A later passage refers to Ba‘al's victory over Lotan, the many-headed sea dragon. Due to gaps in the text it is not known whether Lotan is another name for Yamm or a character in a similar story. These stories may have been allegories of crops threatened by the winds, storms, and floods from the Mediterranean sea.

A palace is built for Ba‘al with silver, gold, and cedar wood from Mount Lebanon and Sirion. In his new palace Ba‘al hosts a great feast for the other gods. When urged by Kothar-wa-Khasis, Ba’al reluctantly opens a window in his palace and sends forth thunder and lightning. He then invites Mot (Death, the god of drought and the underworld), another son of El, to join the feast.

But Mot, the eater of human flesh and blood, is insulted when offered only bread and wine. He threatens to break Ba‘al to pieces and swallow him, and even Ba‘al cannot stand against Death. Gaps here make interpretation dubious. It seems that by the advice of the sun goddess Shapash, Ba‘al mates with a heifer and dresses the resultant calf in his own clothes as a gift to Mot, and then himself prepares to go down to the underworld in the guise of a helpless shade. News of Ba‘al's apparent death leads even El to mourn. Ba‘al's sister ‘Anat finds Ba‘al's corpse, presumably really the dead calf, and she buries the body with a funeral feast. The god ‘Athtar is appointed to take Ba‘al's place, but he is a poor substitute. Meanwhile, ‘Anat finds Mot, cleaves him with a sword, burns him with fire, and throws his remains to the birds. But the earth is still cracked with drought until Shapsh fetches Ba‘al back.

Seven years later Mot returns and attacks Ba‘al, but the battle is quelled when Shapsh tells Mot that El now supports Ba’al. Mot surrenders to Ba‘al and recognizes him as king.

Hadad in Egypt
In the Amherst Papyrus, Baal Zephon (Hadad) is identified with the Egyptian god Horus: "May Baal from Zephon bless you", Amherst Papyrus 63, 7:3 and in 11:13–14: "and from Zephon may Horus help us". Classical sources translate this name as Zeus Kasios, since in Pelusium, the statue of Zeus Kasios was considered the image of Harpocrates (Horus the Child). Zeus Casius had inherited some traits from Apollo as well. They also recall his conflict with Typhon over that mountain (Mount Casius on the Syrian–Turkish border or Casion near Pelusium in Egypt). The reason why Baal could be both identified with Horus and his rival Set; is because in Egypt the element of the storm was considered foreign as Set was a god of strangers and outsiders, thus because the Egyptians had no better alternative to identify their native god Set with another neighboring deity, they tentatively associated him with Hadad since he was a storm-god, but when the god Baal (Hadad) is not specifically attributed the traits of rain and thunder and is instead perceived as a god of the sky generically, which is what is embodied by his form "Baal Zaphon" as the chief deity who resides on the mountain (for example a 14th-century letter from the king of Ugarit to the Egyptian pharaoh places Baʿal Zaphon as equivalent to Amun also), in that case he's more similar to the Egyptian Horus in that capacity (comparable to Baalshamin as well). The different interpretation could also be based on the fact that Set had been associated with Hadad by the Hyksos. Most likely originally Set referred to another deity also addressed by the title "Baal" (one of the many; an example of this would be the Baal of Tyre) who happened to display storm-like traits especially in Egypt since they were foreign and as such duly emphasized; when instead his weather features probably weren't all that prominent in other cultures who worshipped equivalents of him, but given that the only storm-god available for identification in Semitic culture was Hadad and in Hittite Sutekh (a war-god who's been hypothesized to be an alternative name of Teshub, but it remains unclear), the traits matched the characteristics of the Egyptian deity, and an association between the two was considered plausible, also given by the fact that both the Hittites and Semitic Hyksos were foreigners in the Egyptian land who brought their gods with them, and their main god happened to display storm-like traits and was also associated with these foreigners who came to Egypt, a characteristic that would make him similar to the perception that the Egyptians had of Set. This would once again echo the mythological motif of a previous chief of the Pantheon who gets replaced by the new generation of deities represented by the younger ascendant ruler and newly appointed chief of the gods, as is the case also for the Hittite "Cycle of Kumarbi" where Teshub displaces the previously established father of the gods Kumarbi. In Amherst XII/15 the same identification as before is once again stated: "Baal from Zephon, Horus" (BT mn Şpn Hr).

Hadad in Aram and ancient Israel
In the second millennium BCE, the king of Yamhad or Halab (modern Aleppo), who claimed to be "beloved of Hadad", received the tribute of statue of Ishtar from the king of Mari, to be displayed in the temple of Hadad in Halab Citadel. Hadad is called "the god of Aleppo" on a stele of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser I.

The element Hadad appears in a number of theophoric names borne by kings of the region. Hadad son of Bedad, who defeated the Midianites in Moab, was the fourth king of Edom. Hadadezer ("Hadad-is-help") was the Aramean king defeated by David. Later Aramean kings of Damascus seem to have habitually assumed the title of Ben-Hadad (son of Hadad). One was Ben-Hadad, the king of Aram whom the Judean king Asa sent to invade the northern Kingdom of Israel. A votive basalt stele from the 9th or 8th century, BCE found in Bredsh north of Aleppo, is dedicated to Melqart and bears the name Ben-Hadad, king of Aram. The seventh of the twelve sons of Ishmael is also named Hadad.

A set of related bynames include Aramaic rmn, Old South Arabic rmn, Hebrew rmwn, and Akkadian Rammānu ("Thunderer"), presumably originally vocalized as Ramān in Aramaic and Hebrew. The Hebrew spelling rmwn with Masoretic vocalization Rimmôn is identical with the Hebrew word meaning 'pomegranate' and may be an intentional misspelling and parody of the original.

The word Hadad-rimmon (or Hadar-rimmon) in the phrase "the mourning of (or at) Hadad-rimmon", has aroused much discussion. According to Jerome and the older Christian interpreters, the mourning is for something that occurred at a place called Hadad-rimmon (Maximianopolis) in the valley of Megiddo. This event was generally held to be the death of Josiah (or, as in the Targum, the death of Ahab at the hands of Hadadrimmon). But even before the discovery of the Ugaritic texts, some suspected that Hadad-rimmon might be a dying-and-rising god like Adonis or Tammuz, perhaps even the same as Tammuz, and the allusion could then be to mournings for Hadad such as those of Adonis festivals. T. K. Cheyne pointed out that the Septuagint reads simply Rimmon, and argues that this may be a corruption of Migdon (Megiddo) and ultimately of Tammuz-Adon. He would render the verse, "In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of the women who weep for Tammuz-Adon" (Adon means "lord"). No further evidence has come to light to resolve such speculations.

In the Books of Kings, Jezebel – the wife of the Northern Israelite King Ahab promoted the cult of Ba'al in her adopted nation. John Day argues that Jezebel's Baʿal was possibly Baʿal Shamem (Lord of the Heavens), a title most often applied to Hadad.

Sanchuniathon
In Sanchuniathon's account Hadad is once called Adodos, but is mostly named Demarûs. This is a puzzling form, probably from Ugaritic dmrn, which appears in parallelism with Hadad, or possibly a Greek corruption of Hadad Ramān. Sanchuniathon's Hadad is son of Sky by a concubine who is then given to the god Dagon while she is pregnant by Sky. This appears to be an attempt to combine two accounts of Hadad's parentage, one of which is the Ugaritic tradition that Hadad was son of Dagon. The cognate Akkadian god Adad is also often called the son of Anu ("Sky"). The corresponding Hittite god Teshub is likewise son of Anu (after a fashion).

In Sanchuniathon's account, it is Sky who first fights against Pontus ("Sea"). Then Sky allies himself with Hadad. Hadad takes over the conflict but is defeated, at which point unfortunately no more is said of this matter. Sanchuniathion agrees with Ugaritic tradition in making Muth, the Ugaritic Mot, whom he also calls "Death", the son of El.

title: Hadad


text:
User talk:Butik

Hello there Butik, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit How does one edit a page and experiment at Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. BTW, nice work on the system-on-a-chip article. Cheers! --maveric149

title: User talk:Butik


text:
Talk:Powell Doctrine

Date of the Maddow Interview
I'll check back in a day or two, but I believe that the interview was actually taken yesterday, "April 1, 2009." If no one speaks up, I am going to change that date before the weekend Kencomer (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC) I am changing it as I said that I would. Kencomer (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Unclear
As much as I admire General Powell, the 'Powell Doctrine' is not really original. The Chinese military strategist Sun Zi had already stated this 'doctrine' over 2000 years ago in his 'Art of War'. 5 Jan 07

 * You might well be right, but it's still extremely signficant from a historical point of view that he would adopt this approach and not others. It's interesting to note that the Iraq War failed on almost every count of the Powell Doctrine (except public approval, but that was due in large part to deceptive rhetoric about WMDs), and it's depressing that Powell himself didn't apply his own standards before supporting the conflict as Secretary of State.

This article leaves several things unclear for me.

First, regarding

 * Powell believes that forces should only be deployed when national interest, commitment, and support have been established.

Can anyone elaborate here? What would Powell say about:

 * how the "national interest" is to be determined?
 * the meaning of "commitment" and "support"? Are they to be taken as they are implicitly defined in Weinberger's principles of "Will we commit sufficient resources to win?" and "Is there reasonable expectation that the public and Congress will support the operation?" I assume "resources" means chiefly money and troops, but maybe there are other factors for Powell?

Second, I assume Powell himself did not prepackage a particular core of beliefs and label it as the "Powell doctrine". If not, though, does anyone know how the term arose? Who created it? Is "doctrine" meant reverently? Disparagingly?

Finally, is the Powell doctrine, in a nutshell, the belief attributed to Powell quoted above? Or is it a more nebulous thing, that can't really be put into a nutshell at all? Or perhaps it has components not mentioned in this article?

-- Mon Oct 7, 2002

Misquote?
I have a problem with this line:

''This part is perhaps best illustrated by his quote (as Secretary of State during the second Iraq War) about the Iraqi Army: "First we're going to cut it off, then we're going to kill it." ''

I remember during the 1991 Persian Gulf War Powell said this when he was Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. CNN showed it all the time. Correcting.

--Hoshie

Weinberger Doctrine
This article would be improved if mention was made of the antecedent Weinberger Doctrine, of which the Powell Doctrine is a refinement or restatement. Hopefully someone with more time than I will make the edits, maybe even write a Weinberger Doctrine article. --Kevin Myers 06:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I believe that a discussion of both Weinberger and Powell's doctrinal positions should be clarified under the context of Clausewitz. Though this is already just a short stub of an article, the lack of proper contextual background leaves much to be desired since only those with an understanding of these would get much benefit out of this article. 16:18 18 JUN 2005 (PST)

Defenition was incorrect
The line "Powell believes that forces should only be deployed when national interest, commitment, and support have been established" has nothing to do with the Powell Doctrine. The Powell Doctrine has nothing to do with when or why a nation should go to war, only how. I fixed the defenition accordingly.

Should there be a mention of Gulf War II failing the Powell Doctrine test?
I don't trust my own judgment here, since I'm so personally involved in the antiwar movement. But I would put it to any objective editor who sees this to think about discussing the historical context of the Powell Doctrine.

That context ought to include the irony of the second war Powell himself was involved with after his criteria for going to war was popularized. That is, the run up to Gulf War II involved almost a point by point refutation of those criteria (lack of public support, lack of exit strategy, and lack of sufficient or overwhelming force for completing the mission). (unsigned)

Split the difference- "Some opponents of Operation Iraqi Freedom maintain that the execution of this war violates the Powell doctrine..." or words to that effect. Roundeyesamurai 06:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Bush should have read this before rushing into war. By the way, we do NOT delare war against countries or states that have not attacked us. The "good guys" look pretty bad World wide.

Rumsfeld's Transformation
To be more inclusive it would be interesting to have the article include how Rumsfeld's Transformation repudiates The Powell Doctrine (compare Gulf War I vs. Gulf War II) in terms of clearly defined goals, it being a "just war", and the use (or failure to use) overwhelming force.

Does the Powell Doctrine breach the Principle of Proportionality?
It is said that "This (the Powell Doctrine) may oppose the principle of proportionality, but there are grounds to suppose that principles of Just War may not be violated". Surely, there should be an exact description of what those grounds are? Otherwise, the Powell Doctrine seems to be special pleading for a practice that runs exactly counter to the the principle of proportionality and accordingly contravenes the criteria for the Just War  and of both Jus in bello and Jus ad bellum.

Fenton Robb 21:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The idea is to make the fight as unfair as one can, in order to bring hostilities to a conclusion as quickly as possible. The idea is not to kill as many of the enemy as you can, which would, indeed, be an immoral goal. Martin | talk • contribs 05:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Use of overwhelming force results in the least casualties on both sides. Proportionality means different things when it comes to before, during, and after the war. Before (jus ad bellum), "The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms", during (jus in bello), "An attack cannot be launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality).", and after (just pos bellum), "Any terms of surrender must be proportional to the rights that were initially violated.". Use of overwhelming force is actually more in line with jus ad bellum and jus in bello. If you merely restricted yourself to using an amount of force equal to the aggressive parties, they would be more likely to bleed themselves dry fighting, rather than surrendering quickly. It's more about showing what you could do, than actually doing it.65.0.172.246 (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Does the Powell Doctrine really advocate breaching the laws governing Military Occupation?
By advising "After victory, the military should leave the field of engagement, rather than staying around as peacekeepers" the Doctrine advises breaching the laws governing military occupation which require the occupying power to preserve law and order and not to leave until a properly constituted authority is established. Surely the Powell Doctrine was qualified - if so - how?

Fenton Robb 22:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Interesting point. I suppose it could be argued however that the occupying force need not be the invading force, and that the invaders could hand over power to a third party while local government is re-established. For example NATO invaded Kosovo, but it was the UN which took over as the long term occupying force while the region's constitutional mess was sorted out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.47.250 (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Response to Fenton Robb
I'm going to address both of the above questions in a single statement, simply because they fit together very well (and it keeps me from having to type everything twice).

The Powell doctrine is intended to minimize loss of life on both sides of conflict while allowing for the fastest and most secure military victory. These goals are not contradictory at all- to wit:

1) Overwhelming force- This does not refer to "outnumbering" enemy personnel- during Operation Desert Storm, for instance, the Iraqi forces outnumbered the Coalition forces which participated in combat (though the Coaliation had a greater number of total personnel). It refers to overwhelming the enemy's military capabilities.  This means, in short, utilizing more than a sufficient amount of force to eliminate the enemy's weapons systems, communications, and supply distribution as quickly as possible.  An army which has nothing to fight with, no communication between commanders and troops, and no supplies, cannot wage war for very long (as seen in Desert Storm).  Personnel occupying such equipment (which will never be more than a small fraction of a nation's total military personnel count) are incidental- they are fired upon only in self-defense, as personnel alone are not important in a short-term war of this type (Ref. Desert Storm).

The second part of "overwhelming force" is in its dynamic nature. The greatest casualties for both sides (and the greatest exposure to defeat) comes when combat is static (like the trench fighting in World War One). Quickly moving to, engaging, defeating, and moving forward from the battle accomplishes the task with fewer casualties for both sides (ref. Desert Storm).

The intent of proportionality is to prevent military "bullying", for lack of a better term- the use of military force by a very large, powerful army against much smaller, much weaker armies. In other words, to prevent conquest.

2) Occupation- Powell's doctrine doesn't advocate fighting with a country and then immediately leaving it in chaos (bear in mind the "Pottery Barn" doctrine). It advocates leaving as soon as is practicible, in order to avoid the circumstance which leads to the second greatest loss of life- guerilla war (ref. Soviet occupation of Afghanistan; current war in Iraq).

This is achievable because of the aforementioned elimination of military hardware as a primary goal- a nation doesn't need tanks, warships, missile launchers, and the like, to maintain internal order. It does need personnel for this task- personnel frequently left displaced after their tanks, warships, missile launchers, etc., have been destroyed. These same displaced personnel would, in a protracted occupation, be the instigators and primary participants in a guerilla campaign. So, the decision is to either leave quickly and allow them to police their own nation (ref. Operation Desert Storm), or stay and fight them as an insurgency (ref. current war in Iraq).

I hope this clears things up. Roundeyesamurai 06:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Still, overwhelming force is not a proportional means to a just war. Is there any conceivable situation in which overwhelming force doesn't violate proportionality? Overwhelming force is inherently not proportitional.

 * Marpeck 17:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Marpeck, I have to ask: Do you actually have military experience? It seems to me that you're trying to sound as though you have knowledge of a subject which you evidently do not.

"Proportionality" means exactly what I described: It prevents a nation with a very large army from "bullying" nations with very small armies. The fact that one side maneuvers multiple units together to engage a single unit, or that vehicles are used against infantry, or anything of that nature, doesn't violate the law of proportionality. It's simply sound tactical doctrine.

Your definition of "proportionality" would require that both sides in a battle be on precisely equal footing- not only is it impracticable, but it would result in an absolute slaughter on both sides (see the aforementioned examples of this phenomenon).

Aside: For the sake of clarity, I moved your comment to below mine, so that each user's comments may be read uninterrupted.

Roundeyesamurai 20:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Marpeck, you misunderstand what proportionality means. It doesn't mean your forces should be small, it means the casualties and damage you cause should be as low as possible. It means that your USE of force should be the lowest needed, but that says nothing about the SIZE of the force deployed. A huge army is huge but if it attacks no one then it causes less destruction than a bloodthirsty small army.
 * If you use a small force to attack the enemy, you will need to inflict a lot of damage in order to secure a surrender from the enemy, and there will be a lot of deaths. If you use a massive, hugely overwhelming amount of technology and/or troops then the enemy is far more likely to surrender with barely a shot being fired. In many cases during the first Gulf War that's exactly what happened, Iraqi units would surrender without even fighting because they knew the US forces were overwhelmingly more powerful.
 * In cases like these, deploying overwhelmingly powerful forces can actually be more proportional than a small number of troops, because an overwhelmingly more powerful army makes faster, less bloody surrenders far more likely, and so keeps casualties and damage to the lowest possible level.
 * The point I'm trying to make is there's a difference between having lots of soldiers and those soldiers actually causing a lot of destruction. Usually, having lots of soldiers actually means you're less likely to have to use them, because few countries want to start a war that they know they might lose.

Decisive Force
I recall Powell commenting on his doctrine in interviews saying that he has been misquoted. It is not necessarily overwhelming force that should be used in assuring victory. Rather one should use decisive force; that is the right mix of numbers of combatants, types of units, and equipment necessary to achieve victory. As others have stated above, the US would want to avoid the appearance of bullying or using inappropriate or disproportionate force to achieve its military and political goals. Also as alluded to above, overwhelming force connotes outnumbering one's enemies on the battlefield. However, with superior technology and better trained personnel, a smaller military force can achieve a decisive victory over a larger one. The US military is fond of talking about force multipliers--the notion that technology, training and tactics can allow one US soldier to do the job of several enemy soldiers. Anyway, I would challenge someone to do the research (sorry I'm too lazy!) to find out about "decisive force" and include more thorough citations in this article. Mego2005 15:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

On that note.....

I am unable to find reference to Powell "asserting that when a nation is engaging in war, every resource and tool should be used to achieve decisive force against the enemy, minimizing US casualties and ending the conflict quickly by forcing the weaker force to capitulate." What Powell said to Rachel Maddow (April 1, 2009) was "Decide what you are trying to achieve politically and if it can’t be achieved through political and diplomatic and economic means, you have to use military force, then make sure you know exactly what you’re using the military force for and then apply it in a decisive manner." Maddow Interview with Powell

What Powell does say in his "doctrine" article is this: [excerpts] From: U.S. FORCES: CHALLENGES AHEAD. Powell, Cohn L. Foreign Affairs; Winter92, Vol. 71 Issue 5, p32-45, 14p

 * It is in the category of the use of "violent" force that views begin to differ.

 * Occasionally these differences in view have been categorized quite starkly as the "limited war" school and the "all-out war" school. For the man or woman in combat, however, such academic niceties are moot.

 * All wars are limited. As Carl von Clausewitz was careful to point out, there has never been a state of absolute war. Such a state would mean total annihilation. The Athenians at Melos, Attila the Hun, Tamerlane, the Romans salting the fields of the Carthaginians may have come close, but even their incredible ruthlessness gave way to pragmatism before a state of absolute war was achieved`

 * Objectives for which we use "violent" force can range from hurting an enemy enough so that he or she ceases to do the thing that is endangering our interests (air strikes against Libya in 1986 to prevent further Libyan-sponsored terrorism), to unseating the enemy's government and altering fundamentally his or her way of life (World War II).

 * When the political objective is important, clearly defined and understood, when the risks are acceptable, and when the use of force can be effectively combined with diplomatic and economic policies, then clear and unambiguous objectives must be given to the armed forces. These objectives must be firmly linked with the political objectives.

 * Decisive means and results are always to be preferred, even if they are not always possible. We should always be skeptical when so-called experts suggest that all a particular crisis calls for is a little surgical bombing or a limited attack. When the "surgery" is over and the desired result is not obtained, a new set of experts then comes forward with talk of just a little escalation--more bombs, more men and women, more force. History has not been kind to this approach to war-making. In fact this approach has been tragic--both for the men and women who are called upon to implement it and for the nation. This is not to argue that the use of force is restricted to only those occasions where the victory of American arms will be resounding, swift and overwhelming. It is simply to argue that the use of force should be restricted to occasions where it can do some good and where the good will outweigh the loss of lives and other costs that will surely ensue. Wars kill people. That is what makes them different from all other forms of human enterprise.

By "decisive" I believe Powell means to be "resolute" as in "Firm or determined; unwavering" in meeting the objectives laid out for the use of the force deemed appropriated. Powell does not advocate using "every tool and resource" available to achieve decisive force, that would lead to total war. What he does support is using decisive means to obtain the objectives laid out, meaning that once force is deemed necessary, be firm, determined, and unwavering until you meet that objective or another objective becomes more appropriate. As Powell says: "We owe it to the men and women who go in harm's way to make sure that this is always the case and that their lives are not squandered for unclear purposes." Jeff.R.Bowman (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Reflist Update
I'm a new wikipedia user but the second reference on the page refers to a reuters article that no longer exists.

I found the original and was wondering if someone could update it.

http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/2007/09/is-iraq-like-vietnam-lessons-learned.html

Nonissue (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"noted as not fully applicable for"
I removed this paragraph in the spirit of "be bold", given it lacks citation, its verbal phrase is "has been noted" (by whom?) and its link to "war of choice" redirects to "war of aggression". It's clearly contentious and anyone who favors the paragraph is free to restore it when they have supporting references with which to defend it.

All that said, I also quote the paragraph I elided here for the convenience of its proponents:

The Doctrine has been noted as not fully applicable for policy in conflicts that are humanitarian intervention, war of choice, protracted counter-insurgency or anti-terrorism, and the criteria are subjective or ambiguous.

Another version of the Powell Doctrine
I'm no expert in this area, but I happened to be glancing through an ebook edition of In chapter 14 there, titled "IN THE SHADOW OF VIETNAM : The Powell Doctrine and Small Wars in the 1990s", I see a version of the Powell Doctrine which differs markedly from the version given in this article. The version given there is (quoting):

For comparison, from the article:
 * 1) Is a vital national security interest threatened?
 * 2) Do we have a clear attainable objective?
 * 3) Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
 * 4) Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
 * 5) Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
 * 6) Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
 * 7) Is the action supported by the American people?
 * 8) Do we have genuine broad international support?

I looked at the source cited in support of the version given in the article, and do not see support there for the version given in the article.

It seems to me that this deserves a look by editors with more topical expertise than I. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I've googled around a bit, and come across this. Appendix A (and, probably, more than that) in there looks to me as if it may be of some use as background here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Powell Doctrine


text:
User talk:Dark ferret

Hello there Dark ferret, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit How does one edit a page and experiment at Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

I know of a topic that isn't listed, how do i create the page for it. (topic is Suleyman the Magnificent)

 * One easy way, even though it's indirect is (1) make a link to the topic with double square brackets, like this: Suleyman the Magnificent then (2) click on the question mark at the end of the link! --Ed Poor

 * But note that we already have an article on Suleiman the Magnificent as he is often known. You might be better adding to that -- Derek Ross 19:38 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

 * ...which illustrates a handy tip -- always do a search before creating an article. welcome to the wikipedia :-) -- Tarquin 19:45 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dark ferret


text:
Chaitanya

Chaitanya or Chaithanya may refer to

Philosophy

 * Chaitanya (consciousness), Hindu philosophical concept

People

 * Chaitanya (name)
 * Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486–1533), founder of Gaudiya Vaishnavism

Media

 * Chaitanya (film), a 1991 Telugu film
 * Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (film), a 1953 Hindi biopic film
 * Chaitanya Mangala, a 16th-century hagiographical work
 * Chaitanya Charitamrita, a biography of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu
 * Chaitanya Bhagavata, a hagiography of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu

Education

 * Sree Chaitanya Mahavidyalay, a college in India
 * Chaitanya Bharathi Institute of Technology in India
 * Chaitanya Engineering College in Visakhapatnam, India
 * Sree Chaitanya College in India
 * Sri Chaitanya Techno School, Eluru in India

title: Chaitanya


text:
User talk:Bbtommy

Hello there Bbtommy, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit How does one edit a page and experiment at Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Ta maveric149! I'm enjoying it, it's an interesting resource... Bbtommy

Hello. Please note that the first sentence of an article should be a complete sentence like any other, not a dictionary definition, and the title phrase should be highlighted very early in the article, preferably on the first line and usually at or near the beginning of the first line. For example, notice how I edited your Touch Rugby. 131.183.81.100 22:42 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

I see that you run your own wiki on your own site. I am hoping to do the same thing. But I need advice. What software are you using? How much space does it take up? Is the editing syntax close to that of Wikipedia? etc. etc. etc. Kingturtle 02:07 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I'm using wakkawiki []. It's quite small, maybe 100 or so K, and uses up 5 MySQL tables. You can lock pages, it has commenting, a Recent Changes page. The editing syntax is not similar to Wikipedia, but uses a LotsOfWordsPutTogetherWithNoSpacesInBetween naming system. All in all, it's quite good. The best thing is to look around, Tiki looks quite good. Anyway, gotta go to bed! -- Bbtommy

PostNuke
A template has been added to the article PostNuke, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. Jackaranga 12:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Bbtommy! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is an  Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Martin Parr -

Proposed deletion of Permissive society

The article Permissive society has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "As presented, not an encyclopedic topic, covered in other parts of the encyclopedia."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bbtommy


title: User:DrewT2


text:
Military doctrine

Military doctrine is the expression of how military forces contribute to campaigns, major operations, battles, and engagements. A military doctrine outlines what military means should be used, how forces should be structured, where forces should be deployed, and the modes of cooperation between types of forces. "Joint doctrine" refers to the doctrines shared and aligned by multinational forces or joint service operations.

There are three broad categories of military doctrines: (1) Offensive doctrines aim to punish an adversary, (2) Defensive doctrines aim to deny an adversary, and (3) Deterrent doctrines aim to disarm an adversary. Different military doctrines have different implications for world politics. For example, offensive doctrines tend to lead to arms races and conflicts.

Defining doctrine
NATO's definition of doctrine, used unaltered by many member nations, is: Fundamental principles by which the military forces guide their actions in support of objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgement in application.

In 1998 the Canadian Army stated: Military doctrine is a formal expression of military knowledge and thought, that the army accepts as being relevant at a given time, which covers the nature of conflict, the preparation of the army for conflict, and the method of engaging in conflict to achieve success ... it is descriptive rather than prescriptive, requiring judgement in application. It does not establish dogma or provide a checklist of procedures, but is rather an authoritative guide, describing how the army thinks about fighting, not how to fight. As such it attempts to be definitive enough to guide military activity, yet versatile enough to accommodate a wide variety of situations.

A U.S. Air Force Air University staff study in 1948 defined military doctrine functionally as "those concepts, principles, policies, tactics, techniques, practices, and procedures which are essential to efficiency in organizing, training, equipping, and employing its tactical and service units".

A U.S. Army essay written in 2016 similarly defined military doctrine as "consist[ing] of tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs)".

In 2005 Gary Sheffield of the Defence Studies Department of King's College London/JSCSC quoted J F C Fuller's 1923 definition of doctrine as the "central idea of an army".

In 1965 the Soviet Dictionary of Basic Military Terms defined military doctrine as "a state's officially accepted system of scientifically founded views on the nature of modern wars and the use of the armed forces in them. ... Military doctrine has two aspects: social-political and military-technical." The social-political side "encompasses all questions concerning methodology, economic, and social bases, the political goals of war. It is the defining and the more stable side." The other side, the military-technical, must accord with the political goals. It includes the "creation of military structure, technical equipping of the armed forces, their training, definition of forms and means of conducting operations and war as a whole".

Development of doctrine
Before the development of separate doctrinal publications, many nations expressed their military philosophy through regulations.

United Kingdom
Field Service Regulations were issued by the War Office in 1909, 1917, 1923, 1930, and 1935. Similar publications under various names were subsequently published. Formal British Military Doctrine was first published in 1988 and in 1996 became British Defence Doctrine applicable throughout the armed forces.

France
The development of military doctrine in France came about in the aftermath of the nation's defeat during the Franco-Prussian war. The École supérieure de guerre, under the direction of its commandant, Ferdinand Foch, began developing a consistent doctrine for handling armies, corps, and divisions. Foch's 1906 work, Des principes de la guerre (translated by Hilaire Belloc as The Principles of War) expressed this doctrine.

Prussia and German Empire
Prussian doctrine was published as Regulations for the Instruction of the Troops in Field Service and the Exercises of the larger Units of the 17th June, 1870. The doctrine was revised in 1887 and published in English in 1893 as The Order of Field Service of the German Army, by Karl Kaltenborn und Stachau, and once again in 1908 as Felddienst Ordnung ("Field Service Regulations").

Soviet Union
Soviet doctrine was greatly influenced by M. V. Frunze.

United States
In the period between the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War, doctrine was defined by the War Department in "Field Service Regulations". In addition, many officers wrote military manuals that were printed by private publishers, such as Hardee's Tactics, used by both Confederate and Union forces. General George B. McClellan wrote a cavalry manual, Regulations and Instructions for the Field Service of the U.S. Cavalry, in 1862.

The General Staff became responsible for writing Field Service Regulations. They were published in 1908, were revised in 1913 and again in 1914 based on experiences of European powers in the first months of the war.

As late as 1941 U.S. Army doctrine was published in Field Service Regulations – Operations. This designation was dropped and replaced by U.S. Army Field Manuals (FM).

Relationship between doctrine and strategy
Military doctrine is a key component of grand strategy.

NATO's definition of strategy is "presenting the manner in which military power should be developed and applied to achieve national objectives or those of a group of nations." The official definition of strategy by the United States Department of Defense is: "Strategy is a prudent idea or set of ideas for employing the instruments of national power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve national or multinational objectives."

Military strategy provides the rationale for military operations. Field Marshal Viscount Alan Brooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff and co-chairman of the Anglo-US Combined Chiefs of Staff Committee for most of the Second World War, described the art of military strategy as: "to derive from the [policy] aim a series of military objectives to be achieved: to assess these objectives as to the military requirements they create, and the pre-conditions which the achievement of each is likely to necessitate: to measure available and potential resources against the requirements and to chart from this process a coherent pattern of priorities and a rational course of action."

Instead, doctrine seeks to provide a common conceptual framework for a military service:
 * what the service perceives itself to be ("Who are we?")
 * what its mission is ("What do we do?")
 * how the mission is to be carried out ("How do we do that?")
 * how the mission has been carried out in history ("How did we do that in the past?")
 * other questions.

In the same way, doctrine is neither operations nor tactics. It serves as a conceptual framework uniting all three levels of warfare.

Doctrine reflects the judgments of professional military officers, and to a lesser but important extent civilian leaders, about what is and is not militarily possible and necessary.

Factors to consider include:
 * military technology
 * national geography
 * the capabilities of adversaries
 * the capability of one's own organization

China
Chinese military doctrine is influenced by a number of sources including an indigenous classical military tradition characterized by strategists such as Sun Tzu and modern strategists such as Mao Zedong, along with Western and Soviet influences. One distinctive characteristic of Chinese military science is that it places emphasis on the relationship between the military and society and views military force as merely one part of an overarching grand strategy.

According to French newspaper Le Monde, the Chinese nuclear doctrine is to maintain a nuclear force allowing it to deter and respond to a nuclear attack. However, new evolutions show that China could allow use of its nuclear arsenal in more situations.

France
Following the defeat of the French Army in the Franco-Prussian War, the French military, as part of its movements to increase professionalism, emphasized officer training at the École de Guerre. Ferdinand Foch, as an instructor, argued against the concept of a commander moving units without informing subordinates of his intentions. In doing so, a common doctrine served as a point of training.

"We have then, a doctrine. All the brains have been limbered up and regard all questions from an identical point of view. The fundamental idea of the problem being known, each one will solve the problem in his own fashion, and these thousand fashions, we may very well be sure, will act to direct all their efforts to a common objective."Prior to WWI, France had an offensive military doctrine.

In the aftermath of WWI, France adopted a defensive military doctrine where the Maginot Line played a central role in its deterrence of Germany.

Germany
Prior to WWI, Germany had an offensive military doctrine exemplified by the Schlieffen Plan. Germany also devoted considerable resources to building a fleet of battleships, which provoked fears among European powers. During World War II, Germany deployed an operational strategy sometimes referred to as Blitzkrieg in its offensives against Poland and France.

German military doctrine incorporates the concept of Auftragstaktik (Mission-type tactics), which can be seen as a doctrine within which formal rules can be selectively suspended in order to overcome "friction". Carl von Clausewitz stated that "Everything in war is very simple but the simplest thing is difficult". Problems will occur with misplaced communications, troops going to the wrong location, delays caused by weather, etc., and it is the duty of the commander to do his best to overcome them. Auftragstaktik encourages commanders to exhibit initiative, flexibility and improvisation while in command.

India
The current combat doctrine of the Indian Army is based on the effective combined utilization of holding formations and strike formations. In the case of an attack, the holding formations would contain the enemy and strike formations would counter-attack to neutralize enemy forces. In the case of an Indian attack, the holding formations would pin enemy forces down whilst the strike formations attack at a point of Indian choosing.

India's nuclear doctrine follows the policy of credible minimum deterrence, No first strike, No use of nuclear weapons on Non-nuclear states and Massive nuclear retaliation in case deterrence fails.

India has recently adopted a new war doctrine known as "Cold Start" and its military has conducted exercises several times since then based on this doctrine. "Cold Start" involves joint operations between India's three services and integrated battle groups for offensive operations. A key component is the preparation of India's forces to be able to quickly mobilize and take offensive actions without crossing the enemy's nuclear-use threshold. A leaked US diplomatic cable disclosed that it was intended to be taken off the shelf and implemented within a 72-hour period during a crisis.

Strategic doctrine
Israel's military doctrine is formed by its small size and lack of strategic depth. To compensate, it relies on deterrence, including through a presumed nuclear weapons arsenal. It tries to overcome its quantitative disadvantage by staying qualitatively superior. Its doctrine is based on a strategy of defense but is operationally offensive, by pre-empting enemy threats and securing a quick, decisive victory if deterrence fails. Israel maintains a heightened state of readiness, advanced early warning systems, and a robust military intelligence capability to ensure attackers cannot take advantage of Israel's lack of strategic depth. Early warning and speedy victory is also desired because the Israel Defense Forces rely heavily on reservists during major wars; lengthy mobilization of reservists is costly to the Israeli economy. Israeli doctrine is constructed with the assumption that Israel would be largely self-sufficient in its war-fighting, without nearby allies to assist.

Israel's emphasis on operational offense was espoused by its first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, as early as 1948 (during the 1948 Arab–Israeli war): "If [the Arabs] attack us as they did this time, we shall transfer the war to the gates of their country. ... We do not intend to conduct ... a static defensive war at the venue where we were attacked. If they attack us again, in the future, we want the war to be waged not in our country, but in the enemy's country, and we want to be not on the defensive but on the attack."

Yitzhak Rabin, who was Chief of the IDF Staff during the Six-Day War, offered a similar explanation for Israel's pre-emptive beginning to the war: "The basic philosophy of Israel was not to initiate war, unless an act of war was carried out against us. We then lived within the lines prior to the Six-Day War, lines that gave no depth to Israel—and therefore, Israel was in a need, whenever there would be a war, to go immediately on the offensive—to carry the war to the enemy's land."

Tactical doctrine
IDF command has been decentralized since the early days of the state, with junior commanders receiving broad authority within the context of mission-type orders. Israeli junior officer training has emphasized the need to make quick decisions in battle to prepare them appropriately for maneuver warfare.

Russia and the Soviet Union
The Soviet meaning of military doctrine was very different from U.S. military usage of the term. Soviet Minister of Defence Marshal Andrei Grechko defined it in 1975 as "a system of views on the nature of war and methods of waging it, and on the preparation of the country and army for war, officially adopted in a given state and its armed forces".

In Soviet times, theorists emphasised both the political and "military-technical" sides of military doctrine, while from the Soviet point of view, Westerners ignored the political side. However, the political side of Soviet military doctrine, Western commentators Harriet F Scott and William Scott said, "best explained Soviet moves in the international arena".

Soviet (and contemporary Russian) doctrine emphasizes combined-arms warfare as well as operational warfare. It emphasizes the initiation of military hostilities at a time, date, and location of its choosing on terms of its choosing and the extensive preparation of the battlespace for operations.

Former Soviet/Russian doctrine sacrifices tactical flexibility and adaptability for strategic and operational flexibility and adaptability; tactical personnel are trained as relatively inflexible executors of specific, detailed orders, while the operational-strategic level of Russian military doctrine is where most innovation takes place.

The Soviet response to problems of nuclear strategy began with classified publications. However, by 1962, with the publication in the Marshal of the Soviet Union Vasily Sokolovsky's volume, Military Strategy, the Soviets laid out their officially endorsed thoughts on the matter, and their ideas on how to cope with nuclear conflict.

Sweden
In the 2000s and early 2010s, the Moderate Party–led governments transformed the Swedish Armed Forces from a Cold War posture of defence to one of participation in international operations. The assumption was that Sweden's homeland would face minimal external threats. Supreme Commander Sverker Göranson estimates that as of 2014, Swedish forces could resist a limited enemy attack for only one week.

The 2014 Crimean Crisis and the subsequent invasion of Ukraine has stirred debate within Sweden that a return to significant defensive forces and a closer alliance with NATO is necessary in the wake of Russia's actions in Ukraine.

United Kingdom
For some 280 years the British Army did not have a formal 'Military Doctrine', although a huge number of publications dealing with tactics, operations and administration had been produced. However, during his tenure as Chief of the General Staff (1985–89) General Sir Nigel Bagnall directed that British Military Doctrine was to be prepared, and tasked Colonel (later General) Timothy Granville-Chapman (an artillery officer who had been his Military Assistant in Headquarters 1st British Corps) to prepare it. The first edition of British Military Doctrine (BMD) was published in 1988. It led to the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force developing their own maritime and air-power doctrines. However, in 1996 the first edition of British Defence Doctrine (BDD) was published, drawing heavily on the BMD. The Army adopted BDD as their Military Doctrine. The fourth edition of BDD was published in 2011; it uses the NATO definition of doctrine.

NATO underpins the defence of the UK and its Allies, while also providing deployable expeditionary capabilities to support and defend UK interests further afield. However, until recently, most NATO doctrine has been mirrored by equivalent, but different, national Joint Doctrines. This has often caused a dilemma for UK Armed Forces committed to operations as part of a NATO-based coalition.

In 2012, the Chief of Defence Staff and Permanent Undersecretary for Defence issued direction on how the UK contribution to NATO could be improved, stating that 'We should use NATO doctrine wherever we can, and ensure coherence of UK doctrine with NATO wherever we cannot.'

The 2014 edition of Joint Doctrine Publication (JDP) 0-01 UK Defence Doctrine reflects this change in policy.

However, the British Army had formal publications for a long time, and these amounted to its doctrine. Field Service Regulations (FSR), on the Prussian pattern, were published in 1906 and with amendments and replacement editions lasted into the Second World War. They required each arm and service to produce their own specific publications to give effect to FSR. After the Second World War FSR were replaced by various series of manuals, again with specific training pamphlets for each arm and service. These deal with operational and tactical matters.

The current capstone publication for the army is Army Doctrine Publication Operations alongside maritime and air-power equivalents and joint warfare publications all under the umbrella of BDD. The four layers constituting "land doctrine" are summarised as:
 * British Defence Doctrine – provides philosophy
 * Joint (and Allied) Operational Doctrine and Capstone Environmental Doctrine (JDP 01 Joint Operations AJP-01 Allied Joint Operations  ADP Operations – provides principles
 * Joint Functional and Thematic Doctrine such as JDP 5-00 Campaign Planning and JDP 3-40 Security and Stabalisation provide doctrine on specific areas or themes. JDP 5-00 JDP 3-40
 * Army Field Manual (two volumes) – provides practices
 * Land component handbooks and special to arm publications – provide procedures

The Army Field Manual comprises Volumes 1 (Combined Arms Operations) in 12 parts led by "Formation Tactics" and "Battlegroup Tactics", and Volume 2 (Operations in Specific Environments) in 6 parts (desert, urban, etc.).

BDD is divided into two parts: "Defence Context" and "Military Doctrine". Defence Context deals with two matters. First, the relationship between Defence policy and military strategy, and—while highlighting the utility of force – emphasizes the importance of addressing security issues through a comprehensive, rather than an exclusively military, approach. Second it expounds the Nature of and the Principles of War, the three Levels of Warfare (Strategic, Operational and Tactical) and its evolving character. The ten Principles of War are a refined and extended version of those that appeared in FSR between the two world wars and based on the work of JFC Fuller.

The Military Doctrine states that it comprises national Joint Doctrine, Higher Level Environmental Doctrine, Tactical Doctrine, Allied Doctrine and doctrine adopted or adapted from ad hoc coalition partners. The part deals with three matters. First it describes the likely employment of the British Armed Forces in pursuit of Defence policy aims and objectives. Next it explains the three components of fighting power (conceptual, physical and moral components) and the criticality of the operating context to its effective application. Finally it describes the British approach to the conduct of military operations—"the British way of war". This includes mission command, the manoeuvrist approach and a warfighting ethos that requires accepting risks.

The BDD is linked to a variety of unclassified policy documents such as Defence White Papers and Strategic Defence Reviews, as well as classified Strategic Planning Guidance. The current, 2011, edition of BDD is underpinned by recent developmental and conceptual publications such as The DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme 2007–2036 and The High Level Operational Conceptual Framework, which comprises specific army, navy and air force publications.

Key concepts
Most modern US doctrine is based around the concept of power projection and full spectrum operations, which combine offensive, defensive, and stability or civil support operations simultaneously as part of an interdependent joint or combined force to seize, retain, and exploit the initiative. They employ synchronized action—lethal and nonlethal—proportional to the mission and informed by a thorough understanding of all dimensions of the operational environment.

Offensive operations defeat and destroy enemy forces, and seize terrain, resources, and population centers. They impose the commander's will on the enemy. Defensive operations defeat an enemy attack, gain time, economize forces, and develop conditions favorable for offensive or stability operations.

Stability operations encompass various military missions, tasks, and activities conducted abroad to maintain or reestablish a safe and secure environment, provide essential governmental services, emergency infrastructure reconstruction, and humanitarian relief. Civil support operations are support tasks and missions to homeland civil authorities for domestic emergencies, and for designated law enforcement and other activities. This includes operations dealing with the consequences of natural or manmade disasters, accidents, and incidents within the homeland.

Under President Lyndon Johnson it was stated that the US armed forces should be able to fight two—at one point, two-and-a-half—wars at the same time. This was defined to mean a war in Europe against the Soviet Union, a war in Asia against China or North Korea, and a "half-war" as well—in other words, a "small" war in the Third World. When Richard Nixon took office in 1969, he altered the formula to state that the United States should be able to fight one-and-a-half wars simultaneously.

This doctrine remained in place until 1989–90, when President George H. W. Bush ordered the "Base Force" study which forecast a substantial cut in the military budget, an end to the Soviet Union's global threat, and the possible beginning of new regional threats. In 1993, President Bill Clinton ordered a "Bottom-Up Review", based on which a strategy called "win-hold-win" was declared—enough forces to win one war while holding off the enemy in another conflict, then moving on to win it after the first war is over. The final draft was changed to read that the United States must be able to win two "major regional conflicts" simultaneously.

The current strategic doctrine, which Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued in his Quadrennial Defense Review of early 2001 (before the 9/11 attacks), is a package of U.S. military requirements known as 1-4-2-1. The first 1 refers to defending the US homeland. The 4 refers to deterring hostilities in four key regions of the world. The 2 means the US armed forces must have the strength to win swiftly in two near-simultaneous conflicts in those regions. The final 1 means that the US forces must win one of those conflicts "decisively".

The general policy objectives are to (1) assure allies and friends; (2) dissuade future military competition, (3) deter threats and coercion against U.S. interests, and (4) if deterrence fails, decisively defeat any adversary.

United States Department of Defense
The Department of Defense publishes Joint Publications which state all-services doctrine. The current basic doctrinal publication is Joint Publication 3-0, "Doctrine for Joint Operations".

United States Air Force
Headquarters, United States Air Force, publishes current USAF doctrine. The lead agency for developing Air Force doctrine is the LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and Education; the Air Staff International Standardization Office works on multinational standardization, such as NATO Standardization Agreements (STANAGs), and agreements between the American, British, Canadian, and Australian Armies and Navies (ABCA) that affect the Air Force. Currently the basic Air Force doctrinal documents are the 10-series of Air Force publications.

United States Army
The United States Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) is responsible for developing Army doctrine. TRADOC was developed early in the 1970s as a response to the American Army's difficulties in the Vietnam War, and is one of the reforms that improved Army professionalism. Currently the capstone Army doctrinal document is Army Doctrine Publication 3-0, Unified Land Operations (published October 2011).

United States Navy
The Naval Warfare Development Command (NWDC) Doctrine Department coordinates development, publication, and maintenance of United States Navy doctrine. Currently the basic unclassified naval doctrinal documents are Naval Doctrine Publications 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. NWDC is also the United States Navy lead for NATO and multinational maritime doctrine and operational standardization.

United States Marine Corps
The Marine Corps Combat Development Command (MCCDC) has responsibility for United States Marine Corps doctrine. The capstone doctrinal document is Warfighting (MCDP1), along with MCDP's 1-1, 1–2, and 1–3 (Strategy, Campaigning, and Tactics, respectively). MCDP 1-0 (Marine Corps Operations) translates the philosophical-based capstone/keystone publications into operational doctrine.

United States Coast Guard
Headquarters, United States Coast Guard, published Coast Guard Publication 1, U.S. Coast Guard: America's Maritime Guardian, which is the source of USCG doctrine.

SFR Yugoslavia
With the passing of the National Defense Law of 1969, Yugoslavia adopted a total war military doctrine named Total National Defense or Total People's Defense. It was inspired by the Yugoslav People's Liberation War against the fascist occupiers and their collaborators in the Second World War, and was designed to allow Yugoslavia to maintain or eventually reestablish its independent and non-aligned status should an invasion occur. According to it, any citizen who resists an aggressor is a member of the armed forces, thus the whole population could be turned into a monolithic resistance army.

Starting from the elementary school education, over high schools, universities, organizations and companies, the authorities prepared the entire population to contest an eventual occupation of the country and finally to liberate it. For this purpose, the Territorial Defense Forces (TO) would be formed to mobilize the population in case of an aggression. The combat readiness of the TO meant that the steps of organization and training could be bypassed after the start of hostilities. The TO would supplement the regular Yugoslav People's Army, giving it greater defensive depth and an armed local population ready to support combat actions. Large numbers of armed civilians would increase the cost of an invasion to a potential aggressor.

The most likely scenario in the doctrine being used was a general war between the NATO and the Warsaw Pact. In such a situation, Yugoslavia would remain non-aligned, and it would not accept foreign troops of either alliance on its territory. The doctrine recognized the likelihood that one side or the other might try to seize Yugoslav territory as a forward staging area, to ensure lines of communication or simply to deny the territory to enemy forces. Such action would be considered aggression and would be resisted. Regardless of ideology, the occupiers would be considered Yugoslavia's enemy.

Territorial Defense Forces
The Territorial Defense Forces (TO) were formed in 1969 as an integral part of the Yugoslav Total National Defense doctrine. The TO forces consisted of able-bodied civilian males and females. Between 1 and 3 million Yugoslavs between the ages of 15 and 65 would fight under TO command as irregular or guerrilla forces in wartime. In peacetime, however, about 860,000 TO troops were involved in military training and other activities.

The TO concept focused on small, lightly armed infantry units fighting defensive actions on a familiar local terrain. A typical unit was a company-sized detachment. More than 2000 communes, factories, and other enterprises organized such units, which would fight in their home areas, maintaining local defense production essential to the overall war effort. The TO also included some larger, more heavily equipped units with wider operational responsibilities. The TO battalions and regiments operated in regional areas with artillery and antiaircraft guns and some armoured vehicles. Using their mobility and tactical initiative, these units would attempt to alleviate the pressure of enemy armored columns and air strikes on smaller TO units. In the coastal regions, TO units had naval missions. They operated some gunboats in support of navy operations. They were organized to defend strategic coastal areas and naval facilities against enemy amphibious landings and raids. They also trained some divers for use in sabotage and other special operations.

The TO was helped by the fact that most of its citizen-soldiers were one-time JNA conscripts who had completed their term of compulsory military service. However, TO recruitment was somewhat limited by the army's desire to include as many recently released conscripts as possible in its own military reserve. Other sources of TO manpower lacked prior military service and required extensive basic training.

The TO organisation was highly decentralized and independent. TO units were organized and funded by the governments in each of the Yugoslav constituent republics: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia.

title: Military doctrine


text:
User talk:DrewT2

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit How does one edit a page and experiment at Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Hi! Thanks for the warm welcome! -- DrewT2

 * No problemo. :) --mav

Hello DrewT2, could you please put the mathematicians back on the List of mathematical topics? That list is there so that people can easily track changes on the math pages (using the "Watch links" feature from the sidebar); it should contain links to everything remotely related to math. The overlap between the math topics list and the mathematician list is no problem. Thanks, AxelBoldt 03:37 Oct 9, 2002 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pf-dsotm-eclipse.ogg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Pf-dsotm-eclipse.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — M o e   ε  01:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pf-dsotm-ontherun.ogg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Pf-dsotm-ontherun.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — M o e   ε  01:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tmbg flood birdhouseinyoursoul.ogg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Tmbg flood birdhouseinyoursoul.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — M o e   ε  01:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tmbg flood minimumwage.ogg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Tmbg flood minimumwage.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — M o e   ε  01:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tmbg flood particleman.ogg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Tmbg flood particleman.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — M o e   ε  01:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:DrewT2


text: User:Oystein

title: User:Oystein