text:
William Webb Ellis

William Webb Ellis (24 November 1806 – 24 February 1872) was an English Anglican clergyman who, by tradition, has been credited as the inventor of rugby football while a pupil at Rugby School. According to legend, Webb Ellis picked up the ball and ran with it during a school football match in 1823, thus creating the "rugby" style of play. Although the story has become firmly entrenched in the sport's folklore, it is not supported by first hand evidence, and is discounted by most rugby historians as an origin myth.

The Webb Ellis Cup is presented to the winners of the Rugby World Cup.

Biography
William Webb Ellis was born in Salford, Lancashire, the youngest of three sons of James Ellis, a cornet in the 7th Dragoon Guards. The eldest son, James, died aged three and the second son, Thomas, of Dunchurch, Warwickshire, became a surgeon. Third son William was made a Lieutenant of the 3rd Dragoon Guards in 1809, joining them in Portugal. William's father James was married for a second time in Exeter in 1804 to Ann, daughter of William Webb, a surgeon, of Alton, Hampshire. His paternal grandfather was from Pontyclun in South Wales, a descendant of the Ellis family of Kiddal Hall, just off the A64 near Potterton, West Riding of Yorkshire.

After his father was killed during the Peninsular War in a cavalry action near Albuera on 1 July 1812, Mrs Ellis, in receipt of an allowance of £30 from His Majesty's Royal Bounty in recognition of her husband's service, decided to move to Rugby, Warwickshire, so that William and his elder brother, Thomas, would receive an education at Rugby School with no cost as a local foundationer (i.e. a pupil living within a radius of 10 miles of the Rugby Clock Tower). He attended the school in Town House from 1816 to 1825 and was recorded as being a good scholar and cricketer, although it was noted that he was "rather inclined to take unfair advantage at cricket". The incident in which William Webb Ellis supposedly caught the ball in his arms during a football match (which was allowed) and ran with it (which was not) is supposed to have happened in the latter half of 1823.

After leaving Rugby in 1826, he went to Brasenose College, Oxford, aged 20. He played cricket for his college, and for Oxford University against Cambridge University in a first-class match in 1827. He graduated with a B.A. in 1829 and received his M.A. in 1831. He entered the Church and became chaplain of St George's Chapel, Albemarle Street, London (closed c. 1909), and then rector of St Clement Danes in the Strand. He became well known as a low church evangelical clergyman. In 1855, he became rector of Magdalen Laver in Essex. A picture of him (the only known portrait) appeared in the Illustrated London News in 1854, after he gave a particularly stirring sermon on the subject of the Crimean War.

He never married and died in the south of France in 1872, leaving an estate of £9,000, mostly to various charities. His grave in le cimetière du vieux château at Menton in Alpes Maritimes was rediscovered by Ross McWhirter in 1958, was renovated by the Riviera Hash House Harriers in 2003 and is now maintained by the French Rugby Federation.

Origin
The sole source of the story of Webb Ellis picking up the ball originates with one Matthew Bloxam, a local antiquarian and former pupil of Rugby. On 10 October 1876, he wrote to The Meteor, the Rugby School magazine, that he had learnt from an unnamed source that the change from a kicking game to a handling game had "...originated with a town boy or foundationer of the name of Ellis, Webb Ellis".

On 22 December 1880, in another letter to The Meteor, Bloxam elaborates on the story:

"A boy of the name Ellis – William Webb Ellis – a town boy and a foundationer, ... whilst playing Bigside at football in that half-year [1823], caught the ball in his arms. This being so, according to the then rules, he ought to have retired back as far as he pleased, without parting with the ball, for the combatants on the opposite side could only advance to the spot where he had caught the ball, and were unable to rush forward till he had either punted it or had placed it for some one else to kick, for it was by means of these placed kicks that most of the goals were in those days kicked, but the moment the ball touched the ground the opposite side might rush on. Ellis, for the first time, disregarded this rule, and on catching the ball, instead of retiring backwards, rushed forwards with the ball in his hands towards the opposite goal, with what result as to the game I know not, neither do I know how this infringement of a well-known rule was followed up, or when it became, as it is now, a standing rule."

Bloxam's first account differed from his second one four years later. In his first letter, in 1876, Bloxham claimed that Webb Ellis committed the act in 1824, a time by which Webb Ellis had left Rugby. In his second letter, in 1880, Bloxham put the year as 1823.

1895 investigation
The claim that Webb Ellis invented the game did not surface until four years after his death, and doubts have been raised about the story since 1895, when the Old Rugbeian Society first investigated it. The sub-committee conducting the investigation was "unable to procure any first hand evidence of the occurrence".

Among those giving evidence, Thomas Harris and his brother John, who had left Rugby in 1828 and 1832 respectively (i.e. after the alleged Webb Ellis incident) recalled that handling of the ball was strictly forbidden. Thomas Harris, who requested that he "not [be] quote[d] as an authority", testified that Webb Ellis had been known as someone to take an "unfair advantage at football". John Harris, who would have been aged 10 years at the time of the alleged incident, did not claim to have been a witness to it. Additionally, he stated that he had not heard the story of Webb Ellis's creation of the game.

Thomas Hughes (author of Tom Brown's Schooldays) was asked to comment on the game as played when he attended the school (1834–1842). He is quoted as saying "In my first year, 1834, running with the ball to get a try by touching down within goal was not absolutely forbidden, but a jury of Rugby boys of that day would almost certainly have found a verdict of 'justifiable homicide' if a boy had been killed in running in."

It has been suggested by Dunning and Sheard (2005) that it was no coincidence that this investigation was conducted in 1895, at a time when divisions within the sport led to the schism: the split into the sports of rugby league and rugby union. Dunning and Sheard suggest that the endorsement of a "reductionist" origin myth by the Rugbeians was an attempt to assert their school's position and authority over a sport that they were losing control of.

Caid
One theory is that Webb Ellis was playing the ancient Irish game Caid, which was similar to Rugby. His father may have been familiar with this game as he had been stationed in Ireland as a soldier with the Dragoons.

Jem Mackie
An article by Gordon Rayner in The Sunday Telegraph about the origin of Rugby football says that Thomas Hughes told the 1895 investigation that in 1838–1839 a Rugby School boy called Jem Mackie "was the first great runner-in", and that later (in or before 1842) Jem Mackie was expelled from Rugby School for an unspecified incident; in 1845 boys at the school first wrote down an agreed set of rules for the version of football played at Rugby School, which is now rugby football. Gordon Rayner says that the reason for Jem Mackie's expulsion may have damaged Mackie's reputation so much that Bloxam transferred Mackie's part in inventing Rugby football to Webb Ellis, and that a big donation by Bloxam to Rugby School's library may have influenced school official acceptance of this Webb Ellis version.

Another theory is that Mackie's role may have been disregarded because the committee was seeking to prove Rugby School had invented the game, and thus may have preferred the earliest possible date. England Rugby says that William Webb Ellis's action (if it happened) did not lead to any immediate change in the rules but may well have inspired later imitators, though not Mackie, as Thomas Hughes said the Webb Ellis story had not survived into his own time (1834, which was before Mackie popularised running-in during 1838/39).

Plaque
A plaque, erected in 1895, at Rugby School bears the inscription:

THIS STONE COMMEMORATES THE EXPLOIT OF WILLIAM WEBB ELLIS WHO WITH A FINE DISREGARD FOR THE RULES OF FOOTBALL AS PLAYED IN HIS TIME FIRST TOOK THE BALL IN HIS ARMS AND RAN WITH IT THUS ORIGINATING THE DISTINCTIVE FEATURE OF THE RUGBY GAME A.D. 1823

Statue
A bronze statue depicting a young Webb Ellis running with a ball stands outside Rugby School. It was produced by the sculptor Graham Ibbeson who won a competition to produce it. It was unveiled in 1997.

title: William Webb Ellis


text:
Talk:Punt (gridiron football)

Cleanup
Punt is used in Rules as well, but not with the same meaning.

Better to add a para to this article?

Or rename it and leave the Aussie Rules punt for some other place?

Tannin 00:20 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Break up this article
I may sound like a nitpicker, but the paragraphs in this article are too long, and I think they need to be broken up.

How about separate sections for punting rules in American football and Canadian football?

206.72.11.195 6 July 2005 22:46 (UTC)]]

198 eh?
Someone mentions a 198 yard punt. Somehow I don't think that's even remotely possible. You'd have to kick the ball clean out of the stadium. And even if you did, yardage from punts is measured from the line of scrimmage to where the ball is downed. The longest punt possible is the length of the ball from one's own end zone to the length of the ball from the opposing end zone (so it does not break either plane.) In other words, just over 99.5 yards.

I checked, and the record is 98... might have just been a typo or someone being silly, either way, it's corrected now 132.42.128.28 11:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving picture?
This page is a prime candidate for a .gif image showing a punter in motion. bd2412 T 03:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction
The following seems self-contradictory:

''A player from the receiving team must be the first player to touch the ball after it has been kicked in American football; if the kicking team touches it first it is dead at the point that they touch it and the receiving team receives possession there. The only exception to this is that if the ball continues on into the end zone after the kicking team touches it then a touchback is called, and the receiving team gains possession at its own 20-yard line rather than at the point the ball was touched by the kicking team.''

If the ball is dead as soon as it is touched, the play is immediately over, so if the ball then rolls into the endzone (between plays), how can that affect anything? Something's wrong here, but I don't know American rules well enough to make the correction myself. Indefatigable 18:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, something is wrong here and in the "Rules" section also. It is quite common for the kicking team in American football to "down" a punt that the receiving team has allowed to drop to ground without attempting to field it and the play is simply ruled dead where it is touched by the kicking team. I used to ref HS football but it has been over 10 years and I can't remember all the details. I think maybe illegal or first touching may pertain to touching before the receiving team has had a chance to field the ball, if the ball is allowed to drop to the ground this wouldn't pertain. But certainly, if the ball is touched and then goes into the endzone, it is not a touchback, but is dead at the spot of touching. Wschart (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the rules section is correct. The quote from above was removed long ago. Also you are very confused. First off, you seem to be confusing kick catching interference with illegal/first touching. Secondly, your description of KCI is a not exactly right on anyways. No, the ball is not dead when K touches it. That is called first touching or illegal touching depending on the rule set being used. R has the option of taking the ball at the spot of the touching or taking the result of the down, things get sort of tricky when there are fouls during the play, but there is no need to get into that.--Smokedadro (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Breaking Sections
May I suggest breaking the rules section into two separate section, having one cover American football rules, and the other cover Canadian football. As it stands now, it is very hard to follow. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

illegal touching
if the kicking team touches it first it is called illegal touching (first touching under NFHS), and the receiving team may choose to take possession at the spot of illegal touching touching or elect to have the result of the down.

The NFL.com rule digest says "12. Any member of the punting team may down the ball anywhere in the field of play. However, it is illegal touching (Official’s time out and receiver’s ball at spot of illegal touching). This foul does not offset any foul by receivers during the down."

This doesn't imply any choice for the receiving team. While I don't have a copy of the rulebook, so it may say something different, it does answer my question when reading this article of "how do they have the choice if they never get the ball to complete the play?". Can someone clarify? TheHYPO 22:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to suggest splitting the Rules section between Canadian and American, and just explaining one while explaining differences in the other afterwards. I'd do so myself, but I'm not familiar with CDN Football rules (despite being Canadian, ironically). TheHYPO 03:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

With regards to illegal touching - if the ball is down once a player from the kicking team touches it, then why does it matter whether they catch the ball outside of the end zone or not? This supposed rule doesn't explain why a kicking team player will catch and pass the ball in midair just before the goal line, passing it to a teamate that is outside of the endzone, to down the ball. Peoplesunionpro (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Touchbacks and Safeties
I can't tell from the rules section in this article whether if a receiving player fields the ball and is tackled in his own endzone, it counts as a touchback or a safety. Can someone who knows the rules better than me clarify that? Reyemile (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge Drop punt and Torpedo punt into this article
Drop punt and Torpedo punt into this article Punt (football) as they seem to describe different ways to kick the ball, and are not different tactics. If they are merged in to sections of the same name then redirects can be linked into those sections. --PBS (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Distinction from drop kick doesn't always apply
"A punt is in contrast to a drop kick, in which the ball touches the ground before being kicked." I don't follow sport[s] much at all, but surely this doesn't apply to American football. Kicking an American football on the bounce would be quite a feat of agility. Perhaps add "Except in American football [and rugby?]" to the front of the statement. Or qualify it by listing the sports where on-the-bounce drop kicks do happen. Jdrum00 (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a distinction between a punt kick and a drop kick in the gridiron codes. This is detailed on the drop kick page.Aspirex (talk) 10:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed mergers
Re: the banner on the article page proposing a merger with punt kick. I oppose this proposed merger: what I would suggest is that this article be moved to Punt (gridiron football), and that drop punt, torpedo punt, checkside punt, etc. all be merged into punt kick. Fundamentally, the punt in the context of the gridiron football codes is a discussion about the specific details about the special teams play; but, all of the other articles are about the skill, execution and physics of different punt kicks, which should be presented in a sport-neutral format. These articles should meet distinct aims, and should therefore be separate. Aspirex (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I could go with that. The rugby union section should be moved to punt kick and this renamed to exclusively focus Gridiron. Maybe a very trimmed down version could be written in punt kick with a main pointing here. AIR corn (talk) 07:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead is rather technical...
I understand that the article is directed to people possessing at least a passing familiarity with the sport, but perhaps the introduction could be a bit clearer for people who simply heard about "punting" somewhere and just want to know what that is—it took me a while to grasp the basic fact that it's a kick, and others might not get it at all. Waltham, The Duke of 09:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Thanks for pointing this out. I have added a basic explanation to the first sentence. I have been making minor tweaks to this article for years, but I need to remind myself to once in while read articles as if seeing them for the first time with no knowledge of the subject. Indefatigable (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

 * I sympathise; deep knowledge of a subject is practically impossible to ignore, and seeing it with a layman's eyes once again is easier said than done. As in this case, it generally takes an outsider, and I appreciate your rapid response to my suggestion. The introductory sentence is now wonderfully clear to people like me. Waltham, The Duke of 12:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Reception (American football) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Drop kick or not?
The description begins with this sentence:
 * "A punt in gridiron football is a drop kick performed by dropping the ball from the hands and then kicking the ball before it hits the ground."

But, the article on "drop kick" requires the ball to contact the ground before the kick, while the quoted sentence says, for a punt, the ball is kicked before it hits the ground." So, which is correct? Is a punt a drop kick or not? SlowJog (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Despite the fact that a punt involves dropping and kicking, it is not a drop kick. Back when drop kicks were a common part of the game, this would have been clear to everyone, but the rarity of drop kicks now obviously has some editors confused. Indefatigable (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Punt (gridiron football)


text:
The Blue Ox Babes

The Blue Ox Babes were an English pop group, formed in early 1981 by the former Dexys Midnight Runners guitarist Kevin 'Al' Archer, together with his girlfriend Yasmin Saleh, guitarist Nick Bache and former Dexys keyboard player Andy Leek. Archer was keen to mix the soul sounds of his previous group with folk styles. To this end he recruited fiddle player Helen O'Hara to play on demo tapes of the new songs he had written. When former colleague Kevin Rowland heard these demo tapes, he invited O'Hara to join Dexys, and adopted a similarly folk-influenced sound for his own group.

By the time the Blue Ox Babes finally released their debut single "There's No Deceiving You" on Go! Discs in 1988, the line-up consisted of Archer (guitar and vocals), Saleh (backing vocals), Pete Wain (piano), Nick Smith (saxophone), Ian Pettitt (drums), former Dexys members Steve 'Brennan' Shaw (fiddle), and Steve Wynne (bass).

"There's No Deceiving You" was only a minor chart entry, peaking at No. 92 in the UK. Two other singles, "Apples and Oranges" and "Walking On The Line", were released, but sales were disappointing and these singles did not chart. A planned album Apples & Oranges was recorded by the group but shelved, and the Blue Ox Babes broke up shortly thereafter.

In 2009, a CD of Apples & Oranges was finally released, containing all their recordings for Go! Discs, through Cherry Red Records. The package included all their singles plus many unreleased songs, and several additional demos were also made available as downloads.

Members

 * Kevin Archer — guitar, vocals (1981–88)
 * Yasmin Saleh — vocals (1981–88)
 * Nick Bache — guitar (1981–82)
 * Andy Leek — keyboards (1981–82)
 * Helen O'Hara — fiddle (1981–82)
 * Corin Winfield — bass (1981)
 * Pete Williams — bass (1982)
 * Pete Wain — piano (1988)
 * Nick Smith — saxophone (1988)
 * Ian Pettitt — drums (1981–88)
 * Steve 'Brennan' Shaw — fiddle (1988)
 * Steve Wynne — bass (1988)

Albums

 * Apples & Oranges (recorded 1988, issued 2009)

Singles

 * "There's No Deceiving You"/"The Last Detail"/"Take Me to the River" (1988)
 * "Apples and Oranges"/"Pray Lucky"/"Yes Let's"/"Russia in Winter" (1988)
 * "Walking on the Line"/"Four Golden Tongues Talk"/"What Does Anybody Ever Think About"/"Thought as Much" (1988)

title: The Blue Ox Babes


text:
Hall's marriage theorem

In mathematics, Hall's marriage theorem, proved by, is a theorem with two equivalent formulations. In each case, the theorem gives a necessary and sufficient condition for an object to exist:
 * The combinatorial formulation answers whether a finite collection of sets has a transversal—that is, whether an element can be chosen from each set without repetition. Hall's condition is that for any group of sets from the collection, the total unique elements they contain is at least as large as the number of sets in the group.
 * The graph theoretic formulation answers whether a finite bipartite graph has a perfect matching—that is, a way to match each vertex from one group uniquely to an adjacent vertex from the other group. Hall's condition is that any subset of vertices from one group has a neighbourhood of equal or greater size.

Statement
Let $$\mathcal F$$ be a finite family of sets (note that although $$\mathcal F$$ is not itself allowed to be infinite, the sets in it may be so, and $$\mathcal F$$ may contain the same set multiple times). Let $$X$$ be the union of all the sets in $$\mathcal F$$, the set of elements that belong to at least one of its sets. A transversal for $$\mathcal F$$ is a subset of $$X$$ that can be obtained by choosing a distinct element from each set in $$\mathcal F$$. This concept can be formalized by defining a transversal to be the image of an injective function $$f:\mathcal F\to X$$ such that $$f(S)\in S$$ for each $$S\in\mathcal F$$. An alternative term for transversal is system of distinct representatives.

The collection $$\mathcal F$$ satisfies the marriage condition when each subfamily of $$\mathcal F$$ contains at least as many distinct members as its number of sets. That is, for all $$\mathcal G \subseteq \mathcal F$$, $$|\mathcal G|\le\Bigl|\bigcup_{S\in \mathcal G} S\Bigr|.$$ If a transversal exists then the marriage condition must be true: the function $$f$$ used to define the transversal maps $$\mathcal G$$ to a subset of its union, of size equal to $$|\mathcal G|$$, so the whole union must be at least as large. Hall's theorem states that the converse is also true:

Examples

 * Example 1
 * Consider the family $$\mathcal F=\{A_1,A_2,A_3\}$$ with $$X=\{1,2,3,4,5\}$$ and $$

\begin{align} A_1&=\{1,2,3\}\\ A_2&=\{1,4,5\}\\ A_3&=\{3,5\}.\\ \end{align} $$ The transversal $$\{1,3,5\}$$ could be generated by the function that maps $$A_1$$ to $$1$$, $$A_2$$ to $$5$$, and $$A_3$$ to $$3$$, or alternatively by the function that maps $$A_1$$ to $$3$$, $$A_2$$ to $$1$$, and $$A_3$$ to $$5$$. There are other transversals, such as $$\{1,2,3\}$$ and $$\{1,4,5\}$$. Because this family has at least one transversal, the marriage condition is met. Every subfamily of $$\mathcal F$$ has equal size to the set of representatives it is mapped to, which is less than or equal to the size of the union of the subfamily.

 * Example 2
 * Consider $$\mathcal F=\{A_1,A_2,A_3,A_4\}$$ with $$

\begin{align} A_1&=\{2,3,4,5\}\\ A_2&=\{4,5\}\\ A_3&=\{5\}\\ A_4&=\{4\}.\\ \end{align} $$ No valid transversal exists; the marriage condition is violated as is shown by the subfamily $$\mathcal G=\{A_2,A_3,A_4\}$$. Here the number of sets in the subfamily is $$|\mathcal G|=3$$, while the union of the three sets $$A_2\cup A_3\cup A_4=\{4,5\}$$ contains only two elements.

A lower bound on the different number of transversals that a given finite family $$\mathcal F$$ of size $$n$$ may have is obtained as follows: If each of the sets in $$\mathcal F$$ has cardinality $$\geq r$$, then the number of different transversals for $$\mathcal F$$ is either $$r!$$ if $$r\leq n$$, or $$r(r-1)\cdots(r-n+1)$$ if $$r>n$$.

Recall that a transversal for a family $$\mathcal F$$ is an ordered sequence, so two different transversals could have exactly the same elements. For instance, the collection $$A_{1}=\{1,2,3\}$$, $$A_{2}=\{1,2,5\}$$ has $$(1, 2)$$ and $$(2, 1)$$ as distinct transversals.

Graph theoretic formulation
Let $$G=(X,Y,E)$$ be a finite bipartite graph with bipartite sets $$X$$ and $$Y$$ and edge set $$E$$. An $$X$$-perfect matching (also called an $$X$$-saturating matching) is a matching, a set of disjoint edges, which covers every vertex in $$X$$.

For a subset $$W$$ of $$X$$, let $$N_G(W)$$ denote the neighborhood of $$W$$ in $$G$$, the set of all vertices in $$Y$$ that are adjacent to at least one element of $$W$$. The marriage theorem in this formulation states that there is an $$X$$-perfect matching if and only if for every subset $$W$$ of $$X$$: $$|W| \leq |N_G(W)|.$$ In other words, every subset $$W$$ of $$X$$ must have sufficiently many neighbors in $$Y$$.

Necessity
In an $$X$$-perfect matching $$M$$, every edge incident to $$W$$ connects to a distinct neighbor of $$W$$ in $$Y$$, so the number of these matched neighbors is at least $$|W|$$. The number of all neighbors of $$W$$ is at least as large.

Sufficiency
Consider the contrapositive: if there is no $$X$$-perfect matching then Hall's condition must be violated for at least one $$W\subseteq X$$. Let $$M$$ be a maximum matching, and let $$u$$ be any unmatched vertex in $$X$$. Consider all alternating paths (paths in $$G$$ that alternately use edges outside and inside $$M$$) starting from $$u$$. Let $$W$$ be the set of vertices in these paths that belong to $$X$$ (including $$u$$ itself) and let $$Z$$ be the set of vertices in these paths that belong to $$Y$$. Then every vertex in $$Z$$ is matched by $$M$$ to a vertex in $$W$$, because an alternating path to an unmatched vertex could be used to increase the size of the matching by toggling whether each of its edges belongs to $$M$$ or not. Therefore, the size of $$W$$ is at least the number $$|Z|$$ of these matched neighbors of $$Z$$, plus one for the unmatched vertex $$u$$. That is, $$|W|\ge |Z|+1$$. However, for every vertex $$v\in W$$, every neighbor $$w$$ of $$v$$ belongs to $$Z$$: an alternating path to $$w$$ can be found either by removing the matched edge $$vw$$ from the alternating path to $$v$$, or by adding the unmatched edge $$vw$$ to the alternating path to $$v$$. Therefore, $$Z=N_G(W)$$ and $$|W|\ge |N_G(W)|+1$$, showing that Hall's condition is violated.

Equivalence of the combinatorial formulation and the graph-theoretic formulation
A problem in the combinatorial formulation, defined by a finite family of finite sets $$\mathcal F$$ with union $$X$$ can be translated into a bipartite graph $$G=(\mathcal F,X,E)$$ where each edge connects a set in $$\mathcal F$$ to an element of that set. An $$\mathcal F$$-perfect matching in this graph defines a system of unique representatives for $$\mathcal F$$. In the other direction, from any bipartite graph $$G=(X,Y,E)$$ one can define a finite family of sets, the family of neighborhoods of the vertices in $$X$$, such that any system of unique representatives for this family corresponds to an $$X$$-perfect matching in $$G$$. In this way, the combinatorial formulation for finite families of finite sets and the graph-theoretic formulation for finite graphs are equivalent.

The same equivalence extends to infinite families of finite sets and to certain infinite graphs. In this case, the condition that each set be finite corresponds to a condition that in the bipartite graph $$G=(X,Y,E)$$, every vertex in $$X$$ should have finite degree. The degrees of the vertices in $$Y$$ are not constrained.

Topological proof
Hall's theorem can be proved (non-constructively) based on Sperner's lemma.

Applications
The theorem has many applications. For example, for a standard deck of cards, dealt into 13 piles of 4 cards each, the marriage theorem implies that it is possible to select one card from each pile so that the selected cards contain exactly one card of each rank (Ace, 2, 3, ..., Queen, King). This can be done by constructing a bipartite graph with one partition containing the 13 piles and the other partition containing the 13 ranks. The remaining proof follows from the marriage condition. More generally, any regular bipartite graph has a perfect matching.

More abstractly, let $$G$$ be a group, and $$H$$ be a finite index subgroup of $$G$$. Then the marriage theorem can be used to show that there is a set $$T$$ such that $$T$$ is a transversal for both the set of left cosets and right cosets of $$H$$ in $$G$$.

The marriage theorem is used in the usual proofs of the fact that an $$r\times n$$ Latin rectangle can always be extended to an $$(r+1)\times n$$ Latin rectangle when $$r<n$$, and so, ultimately to a Latin square.

Logical equivalences
This theorem is part of a collection of remarkably powerful theorems in combinatorics, all of which are related to each other in an informal sense in that it is more straightforward to prove one of these theorems from another of them than from first principles. These include:

 * The König–Egerváry theorem (1931) (Dénes Kőnig, Jenő Egerváry)
 * König's theorem
 * Menger's theorem (1927)
 * The max-flow min-cut theorem (Ford–Fulkerson algorithm)
 * The Birkhoff–Von Neumann theorem (1946)
 * Dilworth's theorem.

In particular, there are simple proofs of the implications Dilworth's theorem ⇔ Hall's theorem ⇔ König–Egerváry theorem ⇔ König's theorem.

Marshall Hall Jr. variant
By examining Philip Hall's original proof carefully, Marshall Hall Jr. (no relation to Philip Hall) was able to tweak the result in a way that permitted the proof to work for infinite $$\mathcal F$$. This variant extends Philip Hall's Marriage theorem.

Suppose that $$\mathcal F = \{A_i\}_{i\in I}$$, is a (possibly infinite) family of finite sets that need not be distinct, then $$\mathcal F$$ has a transversal if and only if $$\mathcal F$$ satisfies the marriage condition.

Marriage condition does not extend
The following example, due to Marshall Hall Jr., shows that the marriage condition will not guarantee the existence of a transversal in an infinite family in which infinite sets are allowed.

Let $$\mathcal F$$ be the family, $$A_{0}=\mathbb N$$, $$A_{i}=\{i-1\}$$ for $$i\geq 1$$. The marriage condition holds for this infinite family, but no transversal can be constructed.

Graph theoretic formulation of Marshall Hall's variant
The graph theoretic formulation of Marshal Hall's extension of the marriage theorem can be stated as follows: Given a bipartite graph with sides A and B, we say that a subset C of B is smaller than or equal in size to a subset D of A in the graph if there exists an injection in the graph (namely, using only edges of the graph) from C to D, and that it is strictly smaller in the graph if in addition there is no injection in the graph in the other direction. Note that omitting in the graph yields the ordinary notion of comparing cardinalities. The infinite marriage theorem states that there exists an injection from A to B in the graph, if and only if there is no subset C of A such that N(C) is strictly smaller than C in the graph.

The more general problem of selecting a (not necessarily distinct) element from each of a collection of non-empty sets (without restriction as to the number of sets or the size of the sets) is permitted in general only if the axiom of choice is accepted.

Fractional matching variant
A fractional matching in a graph is an assignment of non-negative weights to each edge, such that the sum of weights adjacent to each vertex is at most 1. A fractional matching is X-perfect if the sum of weights adjacent to each vertex is exactly 1. The following are equivalent for a bipartite graph G = (X+Y, E):

 * G admits an X-perfect matching.
 * G admits an X-perfect fractional matching. The implication follows directly from the fact that X-perfect matching is a special case of an X-perfect fractional matching, in which each weight is either 1 (if the edge is in the matching) or 0 (if it is not).
 * G satisfies Hall's marriage condition. The implication holds because, for each subset W of X, the sum of weights near vertices of W is |W|, so the edges adjacent to them are necessarily adjacent to at least |W| vertices of Y.

Quantitative variant
When Hall's condition does not hold, the original theorem tells us only that a perfect matching does not exist, but does not tell what is the largest matching that does exist. To learn this information, we need the notion of deficiency of a graph. Given a bipartite graph G = (X+Y, E), the deficiency of G w.r.t. X is the maximum, over all subsets W of X, of the difference |W| - |NG(W)|. The larger is the deficiency, the farther is the graph from satisfying Hall's condition.

Using Hall's marriage theorem, it can be proved that, if the deficiency of a bipartite graph G is d, then G admits a matching of size at least |X|-d.

Generalizations

 * A characterization of perfect matchings in general graphs (that are not necessarily bipartite) is provided by the Tutte theorem.
 * A generalization of Hall's theorem to bipartite hypergraphs is provided by various Hall-type theorems for hypergraphs.

title: Hall's marriage theorem


text:
USS Nimitz

USS Nimitz (CVN-68) is an aircraft carrier of the United States Navy, and the lead ship of her class. One of the largest warships in the world, she was laid down, launched, and commissioned as CVAN-68, "aircraft carrier, attack, nuclear powered", but she was later redesignated as CVN-68, "aircraft carrier, multi-mission, nuclear-powered", on 30 June 1975, as part of a fleet-wide realignment that year.

The ship was named after World War II Pacific fleet commander Chester W. Nimitz, USN, (1885–1966), who was the Navy's third fleet admiral. Nimitz had her homeport at Naval Station Norfolk until 1987, when she was relocated to Naval Station Bremerton in Washington (now part of Naval Base Kitsap). Following her Refueling and Complex Overhaul in 2001, her home port was changed to Naval Air Station North Island in San Diego County, California. The home port of Nimitz was again moved to Naval Station Everett in Washington in 2012.

In January 2015, Nimitz changed home port from Everett back to Naval Base Kitsap. With the inactivation of USS Enterprise (CVN-65) in 2012 and decommissioning in 2017, Nimitz is now the oldest U.S. aircraft carrier in service, and the oldest serving aircraft carrier in the world.

Construction

Nimitz was authorized by the U.S. Congress in fiscal year 1967 and Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. in Newport News, Virginia, was awarded the $106.5 million contract (equivalent to $ million today). The keel was laid down on 22 June 1968. The vessel was christened on 13 May 1972, by Catherine Nimitz Lay, the daughter of the late Admiral Nimitz, six years after his death. Nimitz was delivered to the Navy in 1975, and was commissioned at Naval Station Norfolk on 3 May 1975, by the 38th President of the United States, Gerald R. Ford.

Nimitz Carrier Strike Group
Nimitz is part of Carrier Strike Group Eleven (CSG-11) with Carrier Air Wing Seventeen (CVW-17) embarked, with Nimitz as the flagship of the strike group and the home of the commander of Destroyer Squadron 9.

Ships of Destroyer Squadron 9

 * USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG-54)
 * USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62)
 * USS Gridley (DDG-101)
 * USS Sampson (DDG-102)

Squadrons of CVW-17

 * Strike Fighter Squadron 22 (VFA-22) "Fighting Redcocks" with Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornets
 * Strike Fighter Squadron 94 (VFA-94) "Mighty Shrikes" with F/A-18E Super Hornets
 * Strike Fighter Squadron 137 (VFA-137) "Kestrels" with F/A-18E Super Hornets
 * Strike Fighter Squadron 146 (VFA-146) "Blue Diamonds" with F/A-18E Super Hornets
 * Electronic Attack Squadron 139 (VAQ-139) "Cougars" with Boeing EA-18G Growlers
 * Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 116 (VAW-116) "Sun Kings" with Northrop Grumman E-2C Hawkeyes
 * Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 6 (HSC-6) "Screaming Indians" with Sikorsky MH-60S Seahawks
 * Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron 73 (HSM-73) "Battle Cats" with MH-60R Seahawks
 * Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 30 Detachment 1 (VRC-30) "Providers" with Grumman C-2 Greyhound

1970s
USS Nimitz first deployed to the Mediterranean Sea on 7 July 1976, with Carrier Air Wing 8 embarked in company with the nuclear-powered cruisers USS South Carolina (CGN-37) and USS California (CGN-36). In November 1976, Nimitz was awarded the Battle "E" from Commander, Naval Air Force U.S. Atlantic Fleet, for being the most efficient and foremost aircraft carrier in the Atlantic Fleet. The cruise was uneventful, and the carrier returned to Norfolk, Virginia on 7 February 1977.

A second uneventful Mediterranean cruise was conducted from 1 December 1977, to 20 July 1978. The third deployment began on 10 September 1979, to the Mediterranean. The ship moved to the Indian Ocean in response to the Iran hostage crisis in which the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran, was overtaken and 52 hostages were held. Prior to this trip, the ship took part in the shooting of the 1980 film The Final Countdown, whose story was specifically set aboard the Nimitz. After four months on station, Operation Evening Light was launched from Nimitz's decks in an attempt to rescue the U.S. Embassy staff. The mission was aborted after a helicopter crashed at a refueling point in the Iranian desert. The ship returned home 26 May 1980, having spent 144 days at sea.

1980s
On 26 May 1981, a Marine Corps EA-6B Prowler assigned to Carrier Air Wing 8 (CVW-8) crashed on the flight deck, killing 14 crewmen and injuring 45 others. The Prowler was fuel-critical after a "bolter" (missed approach), and its crash and the subsequent fire and explosions destroyed or damaged nineteen other aircraft. Autopsies showed later that the pilot had had six times the normal level of the stimulant brompheniramine in his blood. Despite having no connection to the accident, the media focused on the autopsy results of several members of the Nimitz's enlisted flight deck crew who were killed, who tested positive for marijuana. In an article by Robert Reinhold in the 17 June 1981, edition of The New York Times, it was reported that "Experts at the National Institute on Drug Abuse say that it would probably be impossible to establish conclusively that any of the Nimitz crew had been smoking marijuana on the night of the crash because the test does not directly detect the component of marijuana smoke that acts on the brain. Because the metabolites may persist in the blood for many days, the test may detect marijuana that was used many days earlier long after the effects have worn off". As a result, President Ronald Reagan instituted a "Zero Tolerance" drug policy across all of the U.S. armed services, which started the mandatory drug testing of all U.S. military personnel.

Nimitz deployed again to the Mediterranean on 3 August 1981. The ship, in company with USS Forrestal (CV-59), conducted a Freedom of Navigation exercise in international waters in the Gulf of Sidra near Libya on 18 and 19 August 1981. On the morning of 19 August 1981, two Grumman F-14 Tomcats of VF-41 were engaged by two Libyan Su-22's, resulting in the two Libyan aircraft being shot down in what became known as the Gulf of Sidra incident.

Nimitz's fourth deployment, from 10 November 1982, to 20 May 1983, was to the Caribbean Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. Nimitz deployed for a fifth time on 8 March 1985. On 14 June 1985, two Lebanese gunmen hijacked TWA Flight 847, which carried 153 passengers and crew and included Americans. In response, Nimitz was deployed to the coast of Lebanon, where the ship remained until August 1985. The embarked Airwing 8 flew continuous sorties for 67 days, bombing several sites in Beirut including the runways of Beirut Rafic Hariri International Airport. The ship returned to Norfolk on 4 October 1985.

Nimitz, again with CVW-8 embarked, departed Norfolk for the sixth and final Mediterranean deployment on 30 December 1986. After four months and numerous Mediterranean port visits, the carrier crossed the equator en route to Rio de Janeiro. From Rio de Janeiro, she proceeded south around Cape Horn and into the Pacific Ocean. After a brief stop in San Diego, to offload the East Coast air wing, Nimitz arrived at her new home port of Bremerton, Washington, on 2 July 1987.

Nimitz deployed to the Western Pacific with Carrier Air Wing 9 embarked on 2 September 1988. During the 1988 Olympic Games in Seoul, Nimitz provided security off the coast of South Korea, then in October, operated in the North Arabian Sea participating in Operation Earnest Will, the protection of reflagged Kuwaiti tankers. On 30 November 1988, while in the Arabian Sea, a 20 mm cannon accidentally fired during maintenance, striking a KA-6 Intruder. The ensuing fire spread to six other aircraft, and two sailors were killed. Nimitz returned to Bremerton on 2 March 1989.

1990s
On 25 February 1991, Nimitz departed Bremerton for the Persian Gulf in relief of USS Ranger (CV-61) in the aftermath of Operation Desert Storm, returning to Bremerton on 24 August 1991. Nimitz again deployed to the Persian Gulf on 1 February 1993, in support of Operation Southern Watch, returning on 1 August 1993. On 27 November 1995, Nimitz deployed to the Western Pacific, Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf with Carrier Air Wing Nine (CVW-9). In March 1996, the ship patrolled the waters off Taiwan amid missile tests conducted by the Chinese in the area, becoming the first American warship to pass through the Taiwan Strait since 1976. Nimitz also cruised the Persian Gulf in support of Southern Watch prior to returning from deployment on 20 May 1996.

Between 14 and 24 July 1997, Nimitz participated in Joint Task Force Exercise 97-2 (JTFEX 97–2) off the coast of southern California, which also served as a "Revolution in Strike Warfare" demonstration. The latter event was designed to demonstrate the capability of an aircraft carrier and an embarked air wing to project carrier-based airpower into littoral warfare. On 20 July 1997, Nimitz and Carrier Air Wing Nine began a high-intensity strike campaign. When flight operations were completed four days later, Nimitz and Carrier Air Wing Nine had carried out 771 strike sorties while dropping 1,337 bombs on target. Carrier Air Wing Nine flew 975 fixed-wing sorties during this four-day surge operation. Almost 80 percent of the sorties flown were strike sorties, with strike support accounting for another 10 percent. F/A-18 Hornet strike fighters flew nearly 80 percent of the strike sorties. Of the 771 strike sorties, 727 were loaded with ordnance, while 44 were electronic support by EA-6B Prowlers. During this four-day period, only a portion of the medium-range interdiction strikes required tanking support. KC-135 and KC-130 tanker aircraft provided most of this support. S-3 Vikings conducted recovery tanking and supplied more than one-third of the fuel passed to Carrier Air Wing Nine aircraft during this surge operation. This surge had been preceded by a 16-hour preparation after undergoing four days that had generated about 700 fixed-winged sorties. A following study by the Center for Naval Analyses determined that Nimitz and Carrier Air Wing Nine could have maintained this high-sortie operational tempo for another twelve to twenty-four hours before requiring equipment maintenance, rest for the crews while ordnance and aviation fuel stocks to be replenished.

On 1 September 1997, Nimitz began an around the world cruise, again supporting Southern Watch, which ended in Newport News, Virginia on 2 March 1998. She next spent the next three years undergoing a nuclear Refueling and Complex Overhaul that ended on 25 June 2001.

2000s

On 21 September 2001, after sea trials in the Virginia Capes, Nimitz began to transit around South America to the new home port of NAS North Island in San Diego, California, arriving there on 13 November 2001. Aircraft from Carrier Air Reserve Wing 20 were embarked for the transit. From January to May 2002, a four-month post-shakedown maintenance availability was completed at North Island; during this time Advanced combat direction system was installed.

Nimitz's eleventh operational deployment began on 3 March 2003. The group relieved USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) in the Persian Gulf in mid-April 2003, launching Carrier Air Wing 11 aircraft sorties over Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). She returned to San Diego on 5 November 2003. Nimitz and CVW-11 were awarded the 2003 Battle "E" and Flatley Award in early 2004.

In November 2004, Nimitz was contacted by USS Princeton (CG-59), which was tracking reported unidentified flying objects. Princeton subsequently contacted two Navy F/A-18F fighters from Nimitz whose cockpit instrumentation recorded data and imagery that some pilots interpreted as an object accelerating and maneuvering at extraordinary speeds. The incident was publicized in December 2017 along with details of the Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program.

Nimitz, again with CVW-11 embarked, deployed to the Persian Gulf on 7 May 2005, returning on 8 November 2005. This deployment marked three decades of service, and was depicted in the Emmy award-winning 2008 PBS documentary series Carrier. In June 2006, Nimitz was awarded the 2005 Battle "E".

The carrier departed North Island for her thirteenth deployment on 2 April 2007, to the Arabian Sea, relieving USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) in support of OIF. The carrier anchored off Chennai, India on 2 July 2007, as part of efforts to expand bilateral defense cooperation between India and the United States. Sailors participated in community work in Chennai prior to departing, on 5 July 2007, along with the destroyer USS Pinckney (DDG-91) towards the Persian Gulf, and then returned to North Island on 30 September 2007.

On 24 January 2008, Nimitz deployed to the Pacific for a "surge"-deployment. On 9 February 2008, two Russian Tu-95 'Bear' bombers overflew the carrier in the Western Pacific. Four F/A-18C Hornets were launched when the bombers were 500 mi away from the US ships, and intercepted the bombers 50 mi south of Nimitz. Two F/A-18s trailed one of the bombers, which twice flew over the deck of the carrier at an altitude of 2000 ft, while the other two F/A-18s trailed another Tu-95 circling about 50 mi away from the carrier. Reportedly, there was no radio communication between the American and Russian aircraft. According to the Department of Defense, one of the two aircraft was said to have flown above Nimitz at an altitude of 2000 ft. On the same day, Russian aircraft entered Japanese airspace, which caused the Japanese to raise protest to the Russian ambassador in Tokyo.

Again, on 5 March 2008, a Russian bomber came within 3 to 5 nmi and flew 2000 ft above Nimitz, and the battle group. Two F/A-18 fighters intercepted the Russian aircraft and escorted it out of the area.

Nimitz was awarded the Navy Battle "E" for battle efficiency for 2007 along with the Ney award for food service excellence, and returned to her home port of San Diego on 3 June 2008.

The Nimitz Strike Group, including CVW-11, departed the States for a scheduled Western Pacific deployment on 31 July 2009, and began to fly combat missions in support of Operation Enduring Freedom 21 September.

2010s
In January 2010, while in the Persian Gulf, the ship was awarded the Meritorious Unit Commendation for back-to-back deployments in support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008. The award was presented by Admiral Gary Roughead in a ceremony on the ship on 6 January 2010.

Nimitz visited Hong Kong for five days in February 2010 to allow the crew to rest and visit the city. The visit occurred despite China previously preventing a visit by the carrier USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63).

On 9 December 2010, the Navy formally announced that Everett, Washington was to be the new home port for Nimitz. This move was expected to save the Navy $100 million. On 9 March 2012, Nimitz arrived at her new homeport of Naval Station Everett after spending nearly a week at sea conducting post overhaul sea trials.

In March 2012, Nimitz arrived at the new home port of Naval Station Everett in Washington state after more than a year of maintenance work in Bremerton, replacing sister carrier, Abraham Lincoln. On 3 August 2012, Nimitz departed from Pearl Harbor after a two-day port call, arriving at NAS North Island on 9 August 2012, to begin Fleet Replacement Squadron carrier qualifications. On 6 October 2012, a Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft from squadron VMM-165 landed and refueled on board Nimitz. This operation was part of an evaluation of the feasibility of the MV-22 as a potential replacement for the C-2 Greyhound carrier onboard delivery (COD) cargo transport aircraft.

The BBC reported that Nimitz was located in the Persian Gulf, ready to contribute to an operation against Syria when President Obama ordered a military strike. Two days later it was reported that the carrier task group had been re-routed westwards across the Arabian Sea.

It was reported that Nimitz, after eight months at sea, transited the Suez Canal on 20 October 2013, into the U.S. 6th Fleet area of responsibility, where the Navy intended to keep her for a few weeks conducting joint training with allied nations before returning home. Nimitz returned to Everett on 16 December 2013.

In late 2014, following the completion of work up qualifications, Nimitz participated in her first deployment, a two-week multi-national fleet exercise involving the Third Fleet, as well as ships from the Royal Canadian Navy and JMSDF. Following the conclusion of the exercise, on 3 November the first F-35C Lightning II to land on an aircraft carrier recovered aboard Nimitz to begin a two-week Development Testing I deployment. This saw a pair of aircraft from VX-23 undertaking carrier operations of launch, recovery and handling aboard ship in both day and night conditions. The initial deployment was completed on 14 November 2014. In 2015, Nimitz transferred to Bremerton to undergo a 16-month maintenance cycle.

On 1 June 2017, Nimitz left Naval Base Kitsap for her next scheduled deployment. This deployment was against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Her F/A-18s played an important role in the Battle of Tal Afar, providing precision air support for advancing Iraqi soldiers.

On 1 March 2018, Nimitz entered dry dock at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard for ten months of overhaul.

COVID-19 pandemic
In April 2020, the coronavirus was reported to have spread to Nimitz when the first case was reported on 7 April. One sailor had received a positive result the previous week after exhibiting symptoms, and was subsequently placed in isolation and removed from the ship. Another crew member also tested positive, but was reported to have not been working on the ship. On 27 April, Nimitz completed a 27-day quarantine and began COMPTUEX training.

On 5 July 2020, the ship was deployed in the South China Sea along with USS Ronald Reagan.

On 31 December 2020, acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller ordered Nimitz to return directly to her home port following a nearly ten-month deployment in the Fifth Fleet area of operation. The carrier was at the time supporting the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Somalia along with USS Makin Island (LHD-8) and her amphibious ready group.

On 3 January 2021, in an abrupt reversal, acting Defense Secretary Miller ordered Nimitz to redeploy due to "Recent threats issued by Iranian leaders against President Trump and other U.S. government officials."

In May 2022, Nimitz led Carrier Strike Group 11 in the Eastern Pacific Ocean.

On 28 November 2022, Nimitz departed Kitsap and sailed to San Diego to pick up the carrier strike group leadership. She left San Diego on 3 December 2022, for her Pacific deployment leading Carrier Strike Group 11 and embarking Carrier Air Wing 17. On 21 January 2023, she made a port call to Singapore. She departed Singapore on 26 January 2023. On 26 February 2023, Nimitz made a port call in Guam. She arrived in Busan for a scheduled port visit on 28 March 2023. Nimitz logged her 350,000th arrested landing on 22 April 2023. On 24 April 2023, Nimitz arrived in Laem Chabang, Thailand for a scheduled port visit. She returned to homeport on 2 July 2023.

Planned retirement
The Nimitz-class carriers have a lifespan of approximately 50 years. Estimates on decommissioning for Nimitz herself were updated in April 2022, with the Navy Press Corps indicating that, “USS Nimitz (CVN 68) is planned to be removed from the battle force in fiscal year (FY) 2025, when the ship's Terminal Off-load Program begins, with inactivation scheduled to begin in 2027.”

Overhauls

 * October 1975 to December 1975 – Post Shakedown Availability
 * May 1977 to July 1977 – Selected Restricted Availability
 * October 1978 to January 1979 – Selected Restricted Availability
 * October 1980 to January 1981 – Selected Restricted Availability
 * April 1982 to June 1982 – Selected Restricted Availability – waist catapult bridle catcher removed.
 * June 1983 to July 1984 – Complex Overhaul – forward port sponson added; 3 Mk-25 BPDMs replaced with 2 Mk-29; 3 CIWS added; SPS-49 search radar replaces SPS-43.
 * November 1985 to March 1986 – Selected Restricted Availability – forward port sponson changed/enlarged.
 * August 1987 to February 1988 – Selected Restricted Availability
 * August 1989 to March 1990 – Selected Restricted Availability
 * October 1991 to May 1992 – Selected Restricted Availability
 * December 1993 to January 1995 – Selected Restricted Availability – port bow catapult bridle catcher removed.
 * June 1996 to January 1997 – Selected Restricted Availability
 * May 1998 to June 2001 – Refueling and Complex Overhaul – starboard bow catapult bridle catcher removed; top two levels of the island replaced; new antenna mast; new radar tower; RAM replaced CIWS at forward port sponson; RAM added to aft starboard sponson; 2 CIWS at island/stern removed.
 * February 2004 to August 2004 – Planned Incremental Availability – catwalk grating was replaced and flight deck resurfaced.
 * March 2006 to September 2006 – Planned Incremental Availability
 * July 2008 to January 2009 – Planned Incremental Availability
 * November 2010 to March 2012 – Planned Incremental Availability – 2 CIWS added to forward starboard sponson enlargement/new port stern sponson.
 * January 2015 to October 2016 – Planned Incremental Availability
 * March 2018 to (approximately) May 2019 – Docked Planned Incremental Availability

In popular culture
The Final Countdown, a 1980 alternate history science fiction film about a contemporary aircraft carrier that travels through time to the day before the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, was set and filmed on board the real-life USS Nimitz.

Nimitz is the focus of The Big Aircraft Carrier in Little Mammoth Media's BIG Adventure Series. In it, they talk how the navy ship works for children including a complete tour of the carrier, how the sailors and pilots work and even all the training they undertake.

The PBS series Carrier followed the May–November 2005 deployment of Nimitz to the Persian Gulf, documenting the life and shipboard routines of the crew over 10 episodes.

Official

 * USS Nimitz – Official website
 * HSC-6 – Official website
 * Story archive – U.S. Navy – USS Nimitz (CVN-68)
 * USS Nimitz (CVN 68) - Commander, Naval Air Force, US Pacific Fleet
 * USS Nimitz (CVN 68) - Commander, Naval Air Force, US Pacific Fleet

Additional

 * USS Nimitz Association
 * "USS Nimitz Dry Dock – Episode 1" (or: "USS Nimitz… a documentary – Episode 1")
 * "USS Nimitz Dry Dock – Episode 2"
 * "USS Nimitz Dry Dock – Episode 3"
 * "USS Nimitz Dry Dock – Episode 4, 'Many Hands'"
 * "USS Nimitz Dry Dock – Episode 5"
 * "USS Nimitz Dry Dock – Episode 6, 'The Climb'"
 * "USS Nimitz Dry Dock – Episode 7, 'Heavy Work'"
 * "USS Nimitz Dry Dock – Episode 8, 'Readiness'"

Images

 * USS Nimitz information and images
 * Maritimequest USS Nimitz CVN 68 Photo Gallery

title: USS Nimitz


text:
Panzer VI

Panzer VI can refer to three different German tanks:

 * Krupp PzKpfw NbFz VI, one of the Neubaufahrzeug prototype tanks
 * Panzer VIE, or Tiger I
 * Panzer VIB, or Tiger II

 * Type of Vehicle = Tank Model

title: Panzer VI


text:
List of Go players

This article gives an overview of well-known professional and amateur players of the board game Go throughout the ages. The page has been divided into sections based on the era in which the Go players played and the country in which they played. As this was not necessarily their country of birth, a flag of that country precedes every player's name. For a complete list of player articles, see Category:Go players.

The important dates that this separation is based on are:
 * The establishment of the Four go houses at the start of the Tokugawa Shogunate.
 * The demise of the houses in the Meiji Period (end 19th century) followed by their replacement by the Nihon Kiin in 1924.
 * The start of international tournament Go in 1989

A Japanese census on Go players performed in 2002 estimates that over 24 million people worldwide play Go, most of whom live in Asia. Most of the players listed on this article are professionals, though some top level amateurs have been included. Players famous for achievements outside Go are listed in their own section.

Prior to 17th century
Wei Qi was recorded throughout the history of China. The first record of Wei Qi player was by Mencius.

17th through 19th centuries
In the 17th, 18th and 19th century, Go was popular in both Japan (Edo period) and China (period of the Qing dynasty). In Korea, a Go variant called Sunjang baduk was played.

Japan
At the start of the Tokugawa Shogunate, four Go academies were established. This table lists all heads of these houses, as well as some that were appointed heir but died before they became head of the house. Tokugawa also established the post of Godokoro (minister of Go), which was awarded to the strongest player of a generation. Such players were dubbed Meijin (brilliant man), which was considered equal to a 9 dan professional grade. Over the 300-year period covered here, only ten players received the title of Meijin. Several other players (16 total) received the title of Jun-Meijin (half-Meijin), which is considered to equal an 8 dan professional grade and listed as such below. In some houses it was the custom that the head of the house was always named the same according to the iemoto system (家元). All heads of the house Inoue (井上) were named Inseki (因碩), heads of the house Yasui (安井 ) were named Senkaku (仙角) from the 4th head onward, and heads of the house Hayashi (林) were named Monnyu (門入) from the second head onward. To distinguish between these players, the names listed below are the names they had before becoming head of their house, or after their retirement. The house Honinbo (本因坊) had no such tradition, although heads would often take one character from the name of their predecessor into their own name, notably the character Shu (秀) from the 14th head onward.

 * All ranks are professional dan grades unless otherwise noted.

China
*Players could achieve the level of Guoshou (literally National Hand), which is best in the nation and ranked 1 pin 品. This title is a derivation of Mencius description of Yi Qiu (弈秋), Qiu the Yi player in 《孟子·告子章句上》: 今夫弈之为数，小数也. 不专心致志，则不得也. 弈秋，通国之善弈者也. 使弈秋诲二人弈，其一人专心致志，惟弈秋之为听；一人虽听之，一心以为有鸿鹄将至，思援弓缴而射之，虽与俱学，弗若之矣！as being "通国之善弈者", literally the finest Yi player of the whole nation. It is considered to be equal to the Japanese title of Meijin. The term Qi Sheng (棋圣) was first mentioned by Ge Hong (葛洪) in 《抱朴子》：“棋之无敌者，则谓之棋圣. ” The literal meaning is the Invincible Qi player is called the Saint of Qi (Qi Sheng). Note that both Guoshou and Qisheng were not tournament winner titles; instead they were honorific titles used by Wei Qi players and historians respectively to refer to the best players who were invincible in highest graded tournaments. Guoshou was the normal term used to refer to the promo player while he was alive, whereas Qisheng was used more as posthumous fame. The ranking of players began in West Han dynasty (2nd century BCE) and formally recognized by the Governments during the North and South Dynasties Period (3rd to 6th century CE). There were 9 ranks called pin 品 in the system, the same as the ranking system for government officials. The lowest rank was 9 pin, then 8 pin, etc. up to 1 pin. The difference of the lower 5 pin was about 1 zi (子, piece or stone), and the difference between the top 4 pin was half zi.

China

 * Note: China formally adopted dan ranking in the early 1980s. Taiwan still uses pin ranking in addition to dan ranking.

Taiwan

 * Note: Taiwan still uses pin ranking in addition to dan ranking.

title: List of Go players


text:
The Bureau (band)

The Bureau were an English new wave soul group formed in November 1980 in Birmingham, England, when the original line-up of Dexys Midnight Runners split up. The Bureau retained their Dexys roots and played powerful brass-driven soul sounds.

Formation
Ex-Dexys members Pete Williams (bass), Geoff Blythe (tenor saxophone), Steve Spooner (alto saxophone), Stoker (drums) and Mick Talbot (keyboards) engaged the services of manager Dave Corke, a previous manager of Dexys Midnight Runners, and promoted concerts in Birmingham to raise money to finance the group.

In December 1980, the band was joined by Rob Jones (guitar and trumpet), Tony Bischoff (bass) and Archie Brown (vocals) from a group called The Upset, which had supported Dexys on tour. The Bureau began rehearsals with a trombonist known only as Jake (formerly of the R&B, soul, funk act Gonzalez), who came and went.

"Only For Sheep"
In February 1981, The Bureau signed a deal with record label WEA and recorded their debut single, "Only For Sheep" / "The First One", with producer Pete Wingfield (who had produced Dexys' album Searching for the Young Soul Rebels) at London's Vineyard Studios. A video was recorded for "Only For Sheep" before the band left the UK for debut tour dates in the Netherlands and Belgium. Permanent trombone player Paul Taylor was recruited at the eleventh hour and joined the group for the dates. The first gig in Apeldoorn, the Netherlands, was reviewed in UK music paper NME and the second gig at the Paradiso Club, Amsterdam, was recorded for Dutch radio. "Only For Sheep" was released in March 1981 and was a hit in Australia, reaching No. 5, but failed to reach the UK Singles Chart.

On 12 March, The Bureau played their first British gig, a showcase, at Ronnie Scott's in London. At the end of March 1981, the band rehearsed and recorded new songs for their debut album including the follow-up single "Let Him Have It", inspired by the Derek Bentley/Christopher Craig case. In April 1981, The Bureau made a debut live TV appearance on BBC Midlands show Look Here and recorded four more songs for the debut album. They embarked on an extensive UK and Ireland tour beginning at the Forum Ballroom in Kentish Town, London, on 16 April and ending at The Lyceum on 17 May. The single "Let Him Have It" / "The Noose" was released in May 1981 and listed as "Record Of The Week" in UK music paper Record Mirror but failed to chart. In June 1981, The Bureau played a gig supporting Hazel O'Connor and The Specials at Butts Athletic Stadium in Coventry. Their performance was described as "triumphant" by music journalist Simon Tebbutt. They then supported The Pretenders on tours of the UK and America between July and September 1981. Some gigs included members of The Bureau appearing with The Pretenders for a cover of Jackie Wilson's "Higher And Higher", a recording of which appears on the CD reissue of The Pretenders album Pretenders II.

Albums
The album The Bureau was released in 1981, but only in Canada and Australia. The Canadian version of the album (catalogue number XWEA 58357) was eponymous but, in Australia, the album was titled Only For Sheep (catalogue number 600104). In Australia the song "Let Him Have It" was titled "Let Him Have It (Sweet Revenge)".

The Bureau embarked on a second UK tour in November and December 1981 sharing the bill with the Mo-dettes, and Roddy Radiation and The Tearjerkers. The tour was dubbed "The Good, The Bad And The Ugly Tour" and ended at The Venue, Victoria, London, on 23 December 1981. The band dissolved soon after completing the tour.

The album finally became available in the UK when it received a CD release in 2005. The CD includes extra tracks not available on the original release, including an eleven-track concert and the video for "Only For Sheep".

The band reunited to play two launch gigs in London and Birmingham in February 2005, prompting the members to write and rehearse new material. October 2008 saw the release of a second, new album in the UK entitled And Another Thing..., which was released through the band's website and promoted via live gigs in Newcastle, Birmingham and London, and an appearance on Jools Holland's BBC Radio 2 show.

Post-breakup
Talbot went on to enjoy greater success as the co-founder with Paul Weller of The Style Council, while Brown formed Flag with ex-Secret Affair guitarist Dave Cairns. His current band, Archie Brown and The Young Bucks, is based in Newcastle, with a catalogue of nine albums and a line-up of Brown (vocals, saxophone, guitar), Patrick Rafferty (vocals, accordion, guitar, lap steel guitar, keyboards), Ian Thompson (bass), Phil Screaton (lead guitar) and Neil Ramshaw (drums). Blythe teamed up with former colleague Big Jim Paterson in The TKO Horns. Pete Williams went on to form the band These Tender Virtues in the mid-1980s and, more recently, Baseheart.

During the early 2000s, Williams and Talbot joined Kevin Rowland in a reformed Dexys to record new material, but nothing was released at that time.

2011 saw the emergence of a new project, GI Blythe, featuring Geoff Blythe (saxophones) and Archie Brown (vocals), along with Big Jim Paterson (ex-Dexys Midnight Runners, trombone), Larry Baeder (guitars), Joe "Bearclaw" Burcaw (bass), Pete Levin (keyboards) and Crispin Taylor (drums). The band released a debut album entitled Lost In Space in January 2012. At the same time, Williams, Talbot, and Paterson were recording One Day I'm Going to Soar with Rowland and the new Dexys, which was released in June 2012.

Pete Williams also released a solo album, SEE, in January 2012 to critical acclaim; Richard Hawley guests on guitar along with Paul Taylor on trombone. Williams released Roughnecks and Roustabouts in March 2015 with guests Mick Talbot and Josie Lawrence.

Paul Taylor has been touring and recording with Roberto Pla and Snowboy & The Latin Section for decades and now also has a solo project, Trombone Poetry. He has published several poetry books with Redriff Press.

Singles

 * "Only for Sheep" / "The First One" (1981) (AUS No. 5)
 * "Let Him Have It" / "The Noose" (1981)

Albums

 * The Bureau / Only for Sheep (1981) (AUS No. 59)
 * And Another Thing... (2008)

title: The Bureau (band)


text:
Go Seigen

Wu Chuan, courtesy name Wu Ching-yuan (June 12, 1914 – November 30, 2014), better known by the Japanese pronunciation of his courtesy name, Go Seigen (ご せいげん), was a Han Chinese master of the game of Go. He is considered by many players to have been the greatest Go player in the 20th century.

Biography
Born on June 12, 1914, in Minhou County, Fujian Province, southeast China, Go Seigen did not start learning Go until he was nine, a relatively late age for a professional (Honinbo Dosaku first learned go at seven and Honinbo Shusaku before he was six). His father, who had taken go lessons from Honinbo Shuho while studying in Japan, was responsible for introducing him to the game. Go Seigen quickly excelled and soon became known as a Go prodigy. By the time he was 12, less than three years after first learning the game, he was already of professional strength, as evidenced by his games against the visiting Japanese player Iwamoto Kaoru, 6p in 1926.

The next year, he was able to reach a draw in a two-game match against another Japanese professional, Inoue Kohei, 5p. In 1928, still only 14 years old, he twice defeated Hashimoto Utaro, 4p. Go Seigen's reputation spread to Japan, then the leading Go powerhouse, and a movement was started there to bring him to Japan. He subsequently emigrated to Japan in 1928, at the invitation of Baron Kihachiro Okura and Inukai Tsuyoshi (later prime minister of Japan), and embarked on a professional career. He was tutored by Segoe Kensaku, the same teacher as Hashimoto Utaro and Cho Hunhyun.

Go Seigen began his rise to the top of the professional go world early. By the time he was 18 he was already a top-flight player belonging to a very small elite. In 1933, along with his great friend Kitani Minoru, Go Seigen developed and popularized the Shinfuseki that broke away from the traditional opening patterns. It is for this very important contribution that Go Seigen and Kitani are recognized as the fathers of modern Go.

Starting in 1939, Go Seigen began a spectacular series of Jubango matches against other top players of the day. It was through these matches that Go Seigen convincingly demonstrated an overwhelming dominance over his contemporaries. Go Seigen had only two formal disciples—Rin Kaiho, Honorary Tengen and Rui Naiwei, who was the strongest female go player ever and won open Guksu title.

In the 1940s, Go Seigen became involved in the Jiu (璽宇) shinshūkyō, which sprouted out of Oomoto. After the Jikoson incident in 1947, he and his wife distanced themselves from the cult. In November 1948, both had formally left.

Retirement and death
In the summer of 1961, Go Seigen was struck by a motorcycle and was hospitalized for two months, and again for a longer period a year later. He suffered nerve damage, and his stamina and concentration greatly deteriorated as a result. The accident marked the beginning of the end for Go Seigen's career, as he was unable to play effectively in grueling long matches due to nausea and dizziness. He gradually played less and less often, and went into virtual retirement in 1964, although he did not "officially" retire until 1983.

After his retirement, Go Seigen remained active in the Go community by teaching, writing, and promoting the game around the world. He authored a number of books on go, some of which include A Way of Play for the 21st Century, Modern Joseki Application Dictionary, and Fuseki and Middle-game Attack and Defense. Go Seigen held study sessions with other professional players such as O Rissei, Michael Redmond, Rui Naiwei, and others.

In 1987, Go Seigen was awarded the Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun, 3rd Class, Gold Rays with Neck Ribbon, for his lifetime contributions to Go.

In 1999 Mr. Teramoto, Go Seigen's manager, told go writer Pieter Mioch "He [Go Seigen] is one of three Go players who will still be notable several hundred years from now. The other two are Dosaku (1645 – 1702) and Shusaku (1829 – 1862)."

In the early morning of 30 November 2014, Go Seigen died of natural causes at a hospital in Odawara, Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan, at the age of 100.

According to his wishes, he was buried at his hometown Fuzhou, China.

Professional record
Go Seigen is commonly considered to be among the best to have ever played go, and is frequently deemed to have been the best player of the 20th century. He dominated professional go for more than a quarter of a century. He maintained a brilliant match record and successively defeated all the leading players of the day in a series of notable jubango (contests between two players consisting of ten games), even forcing them down to handicaps. Some of the defeated were Kitani Minoru, Karigane Junichi, Hashimoto Utaro, Iwamoto Kaoru, Fujisawa Hosai, Sakata Eio, and Takagawa Kaku. Go lost just one jubango, and that was against Fujisawa Hosai. However, the match was played with Fujisawa taking the josen handicap throughout, and Fujisawa only managed to win with a score of 6 to 4. Some ten years later, Go Seigen took revenge on Fujisawa by beating him in two consecutive jubango with lopsided scores of 7–2 and 5–1 respectively. These jubango matches were all played without komi, and indeed the same applied to the vast majority of games Go Seigen played during his career. Go Seigen won the Oteai six times, and won a special Nihon Ki-in championship tournament in 1933.

A table of Go's jubango record is below.

Style
Go Seigen was notable for his fast-paced development and playing, fighting style, positional judgment and accurate reading. He settled his groups quickly, got to the big points first, and regularly used much less time in a game than his opponents. He was exceptional at using thickness and making large exchanges. His reading was fast and accurate, and his intuition and positional judgment were often praised. It was also noted that he rarely lost a ko fight that he initiated. Like many players of his time he mastered the Shusaku Opening before switching to his later style.

Theory
In addition to being a peerless match player, Go Seigen has also made great contributions to go theory, especially in the area of fuseki. He is well known, along with Kitani Minoru, as one of the two leading exponents and innovators of the shinfuseki, a period of revolutionary experimentation in the opening of the game that broke away from traditional moves. Go attributed some of his ideas to Honinbo Shuei, for whom he had much respect. As a result of their substantial contributions to go theory, Go Seigen and Kitani Minoru are regarded as the founders of modern go. He was inventor of the notable and revolutionary uchimagari (inward bending) avalanche joseki variation. It was first played during a match against Takagawa Kaku in 1957.

Matches against the Honinbos
During the 1950s, apart from playing the jubango, Go Seigen participated in many three-game special matches against the Honinbo title holders and other notable players. His opponents in these matches included many illustrious names, such as Hashimoto Utaro, Sakata Eio, Takagawa Shukaku, and the ex-Honinbo Iwamoto Kaoru. Go Seigen was also matched against Kubouchi Shuchi, a player from the Kansai Ki-in who had a strong individual style. In these matches, Go Seigen demonstrated an equal dominance over his rivals. He had an excellent record against Takagawa, whose main achievement was winning the Honinbo title for nine consecutive years. In the period between 1951 and 1960, Go won 22 of their games, and Takagawa won 13. By 1960, Sakata had emerged as Go Seigen's most serious rival, but the results of their games between 1950 and 1960 told the same kind of story. Go had 14 wins to Sakata's 9 and one jigo, or draw. At the time the games were played, there was no Komi (in modern era, Black's initial advantage of moving first is offset by komi of 6.5–7.5 points). Because Go Seigen held white most of the time, his record is even more impressive than it appears.

Notable game against Honinbo Shusai

In 1933, Go Seigen won a special Nihon Ki-in tournament to have the opportunity to play a game against Honinbo Shusai Meijin. At that juncture, Honinbo Shusai embodied the highest go authority and tradition in Japan. In addition to inheriting the hereditary title of Honinbo, he was also the holder of the prestigious position of Meijin. The game between Go Seigen and Shusai was thus highly anticipated. The newspapers thought it would be a good business idea to publicize the game as a confrontation between Japan and China. As a consequence, Go Seigen became the unfortunate victim of rising Japanese nationalism. Before and during the game, he was often harassed and threatened by nationalists, and the windows of his house were smashed in.

The game itself began on October 16, 1933, with Go Seigen taking black and lasted for a period of almost three months. During the opening of the game, Go Seigen caused quite a sensation by playing his first three moves at 3-3 (San San), 4-4 (Hoshi) and center (Tengen) points. Such a fuseki had never before been witnessed in a professional game, and the newspapers covering the game recorded top sales all throughout the match. This marked one of the seminal events that pushed the "Shin Fuseki" movement into the mainstream. The match ended with Honinbo Shusai winning by two points. However, his victory was surrounded by controversies. At the time of the match, the tradition dictated that the player holding white had the right to adjourn the game at any time, and there was no sealing of moves before adjournment. This meant that Shusai, being the nominally stronger player and thus holding white, could adjourn the match whenever it was his turn to move and continue deliberating at home before the match resumed. Shusai shamelessly abused this privilege by adjourning the game more than a dozen times, all at his turn to play. For instance, on the eighth day of the match, Shusai played first, and Go Seigen replied within two minutes, Shusai then thought for three and a half hours, only to adjourn the game. It was no secret that Shusai, during adjournments, discussed and studied the game with his students to come up with the best moves. Go Seigen was therefore put into an especially adverse position for having to take on the entire Honinbo establishment.

Shusai had been trailing all throughout the match when, on the 13th day of the game, he made a brilliant move (W160) that in a single stroke brought him back into the game and guaranteed his victory. However, it was widely rumored that it was not Shusai but one of his students—Maeda Nobuaki—who authored this ingenious move. Even Maeda himself hinted that this move was indeed his idea. Years later, when presented with the opportunities to debunk this rumor, he neither confirmed nor denied it. The game became known as the game of the century. Five years later in 1938, Go Seigen's great friend Kitani Minoru also played a notable game against Honinbo Shusai (see The Master of Go by Yasunari Kawabata). Due in no small part to having witnessed the treatment Go Seigen received from Shusai in their previous match, Kitani Minoru demanded that the moves be sealed before each adjournment. Initially, Shusai's camp opposed this, but Kitani vehemently insisted, and Shusai eventually gave in. Kitani won that game by a comfortable margin of five points.

In popular culture
In 2006, Chinese director Tian Zhuangzhuang made an award-winning biopic film about him entitled The Go Master, starring Taiwanese actor Chang Chen as Go Seigen.

In another film, An Unfinished Game, a 1982 Sino-Japanese co-production, the life of one of the characters has similarities with the life of Go Seigen. The film marked the 10th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties between Japan and the People's Republic of China. This film is informally known as The Go Masters in the United States, and also is award-winning.

Tournament victories and runners-up
Go was often not allowed or invited to participate in the Japanese tournaments of the day due to political reasons involving his racial background. Additionally, half of Go's career was before the rise of title matches. As such, there are very few title or tournament victories by him. Nonetheless, his strength was most aptly demonstrated in his famed one-on-one matches with the peers of his day.

title: Go Seigen


text:
Talk:Japanese people

Jomon-Yayoi ratio.

 * "The estimated population of Japan in the late Jōmon period was about one hundred thousand, compared to about three million by the Nara period. Taking the growth rates of hunting and agricultural societies into account, it is calculated that about one and half million immigrants moved to Japan in the period.[citation needed]"

This paragraph gives in impression that the Jomon-Yayoi contribution ratio in the Japanese was 1:15, while in reality it was between 1:1 or 1:2 on the direct male line, and the Jomon contribution was probably even more pronounced overall. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edits
I reverted a mass of edits by : none has an edit summary, some are clearly controversial (like moving the paragraph on Christianity to the beginning of the section), some strange (rearranging paragraphs out of chronological sequence, removing images). The editor appears to have a history of not responding to questions, so revert is the next step ("BRD"). Imaginatorium (talk) 05:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The above is my justification for reverting your contributions. Please read WP:BRD; this is the "Discuss" step, and means you have to provide a justification for your edits. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Japanese and descendants in the Philippines
Numbers given have ranged from 20,000 to 200,000, but there are no definitive sources that have been given. The 255,000 number that was here recently had no cites at all. Here is what I have been able to find:
 * The Japan Times article cites Oka, head of an advocacy group for Japanese descendants as estimating the number of Japanese descendants in the Philippines at 120,000 (the number previously in this article). The same article also said "The number of Japanese-Filipinos was estimated at around 10,000 in 1994.... The Philippines and Japan keep no records of these children."
 * Elswehere, Oka estimated the number in Manila at 3,000, and the same article said the total number is unknown; this probably would not project out to 200,000
 * the academic source formerly given here, written by Ohno Shun, explicitly said 20,000 was a claim by The Federation of Nihonjin-kai Philippines
 * MOJ says there were 16,570 Japanese nationals residing in the Philippines in 2017
 * ethnicgroupsphilippines.com says 200,000, but does not appear to be a reliable source and the websites it links to are dead with the exception of The Japan Times. It is unclear where their number comes from, particularly because we know both governments don't keep track.

I have not been able to find anything more helpful in Japanese. There are other advocacy groups but they don't tend to make numerical claims. A large number of Filipino people in Japan have/claim Japanese descent, but that is not material for the number in this article. The removals and reversions here have also been quite tendentious, including what at first glance could be taken to be editing while logged out. I suggest that we return the number to 120,000 and retain all three sources, which readers can judge according to their own standards. I don't think there is any justification for keeping only the high figure from an unreliable source. Pinging Nihonjoe, Johanry. Dekimasu よ! 05:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 * Johanry, you're going to need to stop with your reverting and discuss this as you are beginning to edit war. At least two editors (both of whom are very familiar with Japan and sources related to Japan) disagree with your edits. Also, what does "The reference is doubled already" mean? . ··· 日本穣  ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 19:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 * I agree with that ethnicgroupsphilippines.com is not a RS. It's a privately run site with hardly more than one contributor—that's my guess. Like its mother project friendlyborders.org, there is no person or organization explicitly mentioned who runs it. The source list of the second site is hair-raising (Instagram, WP...).
 * The other figures dug up by Dekimasu are at least attributable, but all appear to be rough estimates, except for the one by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As long we can't find a source which gives data for the number of people that primarily self-identify as Japanese (would all people of mixed descent do so?), I'd stick to the official figure as the only reliable one, and propably add a note about the range of estimates for people of Japanese-Filipino mixed descent.
 * And I agree with that the edit warring (unexplained reverting!) by  and the IP is untenable. –Austronesier (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

 * Go ahead and revert to the 120k figure with the three sources. We can leave it at that until and unless more recent reliable sources can be found with different figures. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 22:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Difference of views between the English-speakers and the Japanese
The article says: In recent decades, there has also been an increase in the number of multiracial people with both Japanese and non-Japanese roots, including half Japanese people., which is totally true. In a previous version I edited, it also said: in some cases, these people may also identify or be regarded as Japanese., but this information has been deleted. Is it because, in the English-speaking countries, it is "bad" to say that having one parent belonging to Ethnic Group #1 may not necessarily and automatically give you the status of being a member of the Ethnic Group #1? I have the impression that, contrary to Japan, you see ethnicity as basically a synonym of race (or a sub-division of big races). If this is true, then yes, anyone with Japanese roots is ethnically Japanese; for example, the Nikkei people would be ethnically Japanese, which is, seen from Japan, not correct, because ethnicity is not only a matter of biological heritage, but it is also necessary to speak Japanese natively, to be culturally Japanese (behaviors, cultural references, etc.), and lastly, in general, to be a Japanese national. In that sense, Japanese ethnicity is inherited from one's parents (or just one parent for the so-called hāfu, etc.), but unlike to the racial thing, there are also important environmental factors to take into account.

For example, Naomi Osaka, a Japanese national, may generally not seen as Japanese on an ethnic level, because, first and foremost, she cannot speak Japanese (almost) at all. (Of course she may be seen as Japanese, in the sense that she is a compatriot and has a Japanese genealogy in part).

People are free to self-identify to what they want, but fixing boundaries for the studied concepts is necessary in any scientific approach, I think. The point is not to say that half-Japanese are never regarded as ethnically Japanese (many are), but that it actually depends on many factors, i.e. an ethnic group is not just a biological concept. Maidodo (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

 * I appreciate your perspective, but I believe you are overthinking this to some extent. After you added the phrasing in question in July, I was the one who eventually removed it with the edit summary "I think the intention was to clarify the scope of the article, but removing the clause entirely is probably preferable to focusing on gatekeeping of ethnic purity." This was mostly in reaction to subsequent edits between our work on the article, but in other words, the fact that they are mentioned in the lede of this article is an indication that they are within the article's scope. Who considers those people to be Japanese, or whether they identify as Japanese, is not something that we need to evaluate in order to write this article.
 * Separately, your addition today to the effect that "Ethnic Japanese speak the Japanese language as their mother tongue" does not seem to me to be appropriate in the context of this article. This would exclude not only Naomi Osaka, but many people who have ethnic ties (yes genealogical, but also cultural, traditional, religious, historical, etc.) who do not speak Japanese, such as Nikkei communities in Hawaii, Brazil, etc.
 * The question is actually more fraught in the case of this ethnic group than in the case of many others, as descendants overseas were treated as imperial subjects during the imperial period regardless of their ties to Japan (or lack thereof). This has been studied in terms of soft colonialism, but again, it is not necessary for us to deal with that here. The scope of the article is adequately defined without making active or passive attempts to exclude anyone, and it is doubtful that this is a difference on this point between English speakers and Japanese speakers. (Your question avoids the question of people who are bilingual, and there are Japanese researchers who have argued that Japanese ethnicity should not be determined by linguistic ability. To go further down this path would simply force us to add several different and contradictory definitions to the article, with sources, and I doubt that would be helpful for readers.) Dekimasu よ! 08:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your reply or sorry if my English (a foreign language for me) is not always correct or seems childish. I will just add some comments on two points. (1) The question of including or excluding some groups as such the Nikkei communities. I agree that you can have a broad definition that would include them, and a narrow definition that would not. Probably American general perception is that Japanese (as a category in the census) is above all a matter of genealogy, versus the Japanese general perception that Nikkei communities are ethnic groups are not identical to the Japanese ethnic group, i.e., rather groups affiliated or closely related to the Japanese as a ethnic group (I am not talking about the first generation of immigrants). Japanese almost never use the word "Nihonjin" or "Nihon minzoku" when it comes to Nikkei communities or those communities' individual members. In other words, the broad definition may be recognized and personally I fully respect it, but the article seems to ignore the Japanese common sense which much emphasizes the narrow definition. It is, to me, a bit weird. I am trying to argue that you should change everything in the article, but some consideration for the Japanese common sense, in the case of an article about Japanese People, does not look as irrelevant. (2) I don't have a scientific source on hand, but my view is that Japanese language (mother tongue) is the No. 1 factor when it comes to defining the present Japanese ethnicity (in the sense of "Nihon minzoku" in the narrow sense). It is at least as important as the genealogy. That's why I thought it is worth mentioning in the first part of the article. I am saying that the language is almost a necessary condition. However, I am not saying that this is a sufficient condition. Maidodo (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Perhaps I was too quick to say that there is no difference of opinion here between Japanese speakers and English speakers, because you are using those words differently from the way I would (to me, you speak both Japanese and English, and I speak both Japanese and English; this is not inherently connected to whether one or both of us is a "Japanese person").
 * This article is indeed about the English-language topic "Japanese people", and it is possible that this does not match the scope of an article titled nihonjin or nihon minzoku on the Japanese Wikipedia. In such cases, we should in fact rely upon the English meaning of the term, and the Japanese terms can be qualified or removed if necessary. Further, "English meaning" does not equal "American meaning" here.
 * In many cases in discourse inside Japan, ethnicity and nation have been conflated—sometimes, but not always, for nationalistic reasons. However, Japan has never been monoethnic, and the many different definitions of Japaneseness have changed over time. Rather than it being the case that "foreign" perspectives are based primarily on genealogy (note that this itself assumes the existence of an authentic native perspective on Japanese ethnicity, which is not necessarily correct), I believe you are overemphasizing measurable concepts, up to and including genealogy. Ethnic borders are permeable and self-identification is one important component. For example, you write "Japanese almost never use the word 'Nihonjin' or 'Nihon minzoku' when it comes to Nikkei communities." In your sentence, "Japanese" means "Japanese people in Japan" or perhaps "citizens of Japan." However, people in Nikkei communities may indeed refer to themselves as nihon minzoku or even nihonjin. The most obvious distinction to make between English-language and Japanese-language usage is that (whether ethnicity is tied to language, or genealogy, or something else), ethnicity is not tied directly to citizenship in English-language sources. Whether that is a valid distinction in terms of anthropology/sociology/history/international relations is probably something to be negotiated in scholarship outside of Wikipedia, rather than here. Dekimasu よ! 03:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your interesting perspectives. Japan, especially among countries or area with a decent size, is one the most homogeneous place you can find on this planet. For sure, if you go into details, there are nuances to add, but negating this feature is like, you take a man of 90 years old and say, actually he is not old, humans can live quite longer. Yet, the subject I proposed for this discussion is the boundaries of the Japanese ethnicity when it comes to the descendants of the Japanese who emigrated from Japan to the Americas (mainly), or when it comes to the multiracial people with Japanese blood.
 * By the way, I am totally fine with the need to clearly distinguish ethnicity and citizenship, here. I basically agree also when you say that "Ethnic borders are permeable and self-identification is one important component". This is also true that both (ethnic) Japanese in Japan and the diaspora share the same ancestry group; this element may unify them under a common identity when it comes to ancestry. One can say the same thing about multiracial people, despite they have several ancestry groups to refer. But if you look the definition of an ethnic group (as you know minzoku in Japanese), you have linguistic and cultural features. Those features can be lost if some people get separated from the "mother" group.
 * That's why I think a more balanced view is to acknowledge that the Japanese ethnic group (Nihon-minzoku) is a anthropological group that primarily live in Japan and, very importantly, which bear the Japanese culture (日本文化を担う), which obviously include the language. But this would not deny the right for other groups or individual (for example Nikkei communities in America, or half Japanese person without the full usual set of Japanese cultural features) to identify themselves as affiliated or strongly tied with the Japanese ethnic group, through ancestry and possibly other things. I am not thinking that the article should literally exclude those people but, it would be beneficial, for the sake of understanding of what Japanese ethnicity means in reality, to better distinguish between the Japanese ethnic group stricto sensu and the related groups or groups derived from it. Maidodo (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender, Race and Computing
— Assignment last updated by Racoon dolphin (talk) 06:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Japanese people