text:
Talk:Tertiary sector of the economy

Copyedit
This needs a copyedit. Goodnight! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.253.40.233 (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2003 (UTC)

Wrong headline
Tertiary sector of the "economy", not "industry" industry/manufacturing is the second sector agro/mining ecc. the primary

the classification is part of a french economic teaching.

Services is no part of "industry". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.254.158.128 (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2005 (UTC)

 * Your definition of the word "industry" is too wide .... consult an English dictionary for details. --Joy [shallot]   14:34, 10 January 2005 (UTC)

Somewhat confused
First, it would be a good idea to cite someone as the source of the primary/secondary/tertiary distinction. I don't know who the original source is, but somebody should. If not the source, at least someone should be able to find an early reference to this division. Second, primary does not just include agriculture; it includes everything appropriated directly from nature, including mining (cited here as secondary) and hunting and fishing. Third, is this a division of "industry," of "the economy," or of "economic activity"? I think it's the last. What happens over time is that fewer people are actively involved in primary activities, more shift their efforts to secondary activities, and then, finally, there is a shift away from both primary and secondary activities towards tertiary activities. Fourth, the subdivisions among tertiary activities--quaternary and beyond--seem out of keeping with the logic of the original scheme. Primary activities take from nature, secondary activities use materials taken from nature to create something new, and tertiary activities (to the extent that there is a hierarchy here) involve the use of secondary products to serve some economic purpose. Fifth, the stuff about "soft sector" employment is a nonsensical list of business school buzzwords. Somewhat Agree 01:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The correct and most used terminology is "Tertiary Sector of the Economy". Both the primary, seocndary and tertiary sector articles should be renamed to reflect this.--Lobizón 00:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a somewhat dated division of the economy, isn't it? That is one source of the "wealth-consuming" notion. The service sector now includes industries that provide services-at-a-distance (consulting, financial, insurance, intellectual property, franchising, as well as those in transportation and telecommunications/telecomputing). These are some of the most dynamic. DCDuring 18:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Given that the teriary sector may itself be either a net wealth generator, or an exporter, or both, and that it may include premium-skills areas such as medical research, IT standards development and IT generally, economics etc. etc. the term tertiary seems to obscure rather than enlighten. The present 'debate' about the relative merits of financial services vs. manufacturing seems to be part of this confusion. Does anyone know of a useful taxonomy that could be used in this article and preferably one in which figures for GDP contribution are available? Artowalos (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

An issue of long standing is the way the Examples of tertiary industries table is laid out. The only way to confirm that Consulting through Real Estate is not subordinate to Professional services is by bringing up that section up in edit. Can this be displayed in a less confusing manner? User:retrograde62 18:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.255.76 (talk)

Someone acted on my request, by compleley omitting that section. Now this article is exactley like the article for the secondary sector, dominated by that obnoxius graph that shows how the the sector is geographicly dispersed but very little on the component parts of the secor (i.e. Banking, real estate, consumption / hospitality)[User: retrograde62 27 November 2016] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.255.76 (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Is the service sector wealth consuming?
I don't believe either of the cited sources is actually saying that the service sector tends to be wealth consuming. Rather they appear to be saying that government services (as opposed to the service sector in general) are wealth consuming. Can anyone provide better sources?

Here is the text in the current article that concerns me:

''According to some economists, the service sector tends to be wealth consuming, whereas manufacturing is wealth producing. Sir Keith Joseph in his lecture Monetarism IS Not Enough, contrasted wealth producing sectors in an economy such as manufacturing with the service sector which tends to be a wealth consuming sector. He contended that an economy declines as its wealth producing sector begins to shrink. ''

12.65.36.163 12:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is such a quaint, dated notion that it should be in some kind of intellectual history section. When I get around to it, I will take a run at it unless there are strong (and reasoned) objections. DCDuring 18:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

-- Yes, it's a particularly unhelpful distinction. I suggest a short para to discuss this issue - perhaps quoting http://www.economist.com/node/21527107 - what does everyone else think? Artowalos (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The distinction made in those references are between the Private and Public sectors and not between Tertiary and Primary/Secondary industry sectors. For this reason, I've removed this paragraph. Rubisco (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

European Union
Is not a country and as such shouldn't be represented, or if it is agreed that it stands then other political unions should be listed.Twobells (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

What's with the terrorists???
There's a graph of "terrorist output" instead of tertiary output... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.185.19.83 (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

jobs to add to list
Advertising, Marketing, sales jobs in general, housing/real estate jobs should be included here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:c400:8c80:f8f2:cb3b:2113:7888 (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://lawgupshup.com/2018/05/india-law-offices-3/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sam Sailor 06:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Examples of tertiary industries
Who is the vandal who chronically redacts the "Examples of tertiary industries"? User:Nelsoc4 01:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.199.48 (talk)

title: Talk:Tertiary sector of the economy


text:
Talk:Paul Van Dyk

Sorry, but I think this article might be a little over-the-top with regard to Mr Van Dyk's skills; sentences such as "Now having reached certifiable legendary status as one of the top DJs and producers anywhere..." don't exactly express a Neutral Point of View. A bit of rewording required I would suggest, but I don't really know enough about Van Dyk to attempt a re-edit.

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

title: Talk:Paul Van Dyk


text:
Ilyushin Il-2

The Ilyushin Il-2 (Russian: Илью́шин Ил-2) is a ground-attack plane that was produced by the Soviet Union in large numbers during the Second World War. The word shturmovík (Cyrillic: штурмовик), the generic Russian term for a ground-attack aircraft, became a synecdoche for the Il-2 in English sources, where it is commonly rendered Shturmovik, Stormovik and Sturmovik.

To Il-2 pilots, the aircraft was known by the diminutive "Ilyusha". To the soldiers on the ground, it was called the "Hunchback", the "Flying Tank" or the "Flying Infantryman". Its postwar NATO reporting name was Bark.

During the war, 36,183 units of the Il-2 were produced, and in combination with its successor, the Ilyushin Il-10, a total of 42,330 were built, making it the single most produced military aircraft design in aviation history, as well as one of the most produced piloted aircraft in history along with the American postwar civilian Cessna 172 and the German then-contemporary Messerschmitt Bf 109.

The Il-2 played a crucial role on the Eastern Front. When factories fell behind on deliveries, Joseph Stalin told the factory managers that the Il-2s were "as essential to the Red Army as air and bread."

Origins

The idea for a Soviet armored ground-attack aircraft dates to the early 1930s, when Dmitry Pavlovich Grigorovich designed TSh-1 and TSh-2 armored biplanes. However, Soviet engines at the time lacked the power needed to provide the heavy aircraft with good performance. The Il-2 was designed by Sergey Ilyushin and his team at the Central Design Bureau in 1938. TsKB-55 was a two-seat aircraft with an armoured shell weighing 700 kg, protecting crew, engine, radiators, and the fuel tank. Standing loaded, the Ilyushin weighed more than 4700 kg, making the armoured shell about 15% of the aircraft's gross weight. Uniquely for a World War II attack aircraft, and similarly to the forward fuselage design of the World War I-era Imperial German Junkers J.I armored, all-metal biplane, the Il-2's armor was designed as a load-bearing part of the Ilyushin's monocoque structure, thus saving considerable weight. The prototype TsKB-55, which first flew on 2 October 1939, won the government competition against the Sukhoi Su-6 and received the VVS designation BSh-2 (the BSh stood for "Bronirovani Shturmovik" or armoured ground attack). The prototypes – TsKB-55 and TskB-57 – were built at Moscow plant #39, at that time the Ilyushin design bureau's base.

The BSh-2 was overweight and underpowered, with the original Mikulin AM-35 1022 kW engine designed to give its greatest power outputs at high altitude. Because of this, it was redesigned as the TsKB-57, a lighter single-seat design with the more powerful 1254 kW Mikulin AM-38 engine, a development of the AM-35 optimised for low-level operation. The TsKB-57 first flew on 12 October 1940. The production aircraft passed State Acceptance Trials in March 1941, and was redesignated Il-2 in April. Deliveries to operational units commenced in May 1941.

The 23 mm armament of Il-2 was subject to a competition. One of the first 1940 photographs of the Il-2 show it equipped with two MP-6 23 mm autocannons developed by Yakov Taubin (Яков Таубин) at OKB-16. The MP-6 gun weighed 70 kg and developed an initial muzzle velocity of 900 m/s. It operated on the short recoil principle and had a rate of fire of about 600 rpm. (The development of the MP-6 gun can be traced back to 1937. The initial version was tested in the spring of 1940 on a Messerschmitt Bf 110 bought from Germany, because there was no suitable Soviet aircraft on which to mount it. In the summer of 1940 it was tested on the Pashinin I-21.) Factory trials of the MP-6 gun on the Il-2 were conducted in August 1940. In the early Il-2 prototypes, these guns were fed by 81-round clips. In flight, these clips sometimes became dislodged because of their large surface, which caused them to experience significant aerodynamic pressure. Competitive tests were conducted in the spring of 1941 between the MP-6 gun modified to belt-fed and the newly developed, gas-operated Volkov-Yartsev VYa-23, which had otherwise rather similar characteristics. The VYa-23 was declared the winner at this trial. Subsequently, in May 1941, development of the MP-6 gun was terminated. Taubin was arrested and summarily executed in October that year for plotting to continue production of his failed weapon.

Technical description
The Il-2 is a single-engine, propeller-driven, low-wing monoplane of mixed construction with a crew of two (one in early versions), specially designed for assault operations. Its most notable feature was the inclusion of armor in an airframe load-bearing scheme. Armor plates replaced the frame and paneling throughout the nacelle and middle part of the fuselage, and an armored hull made of riveted homogeneous armor steel AB-1 (AB-2) secured the aircraft's engine, cockpit, water and oil radiators, and fuel tanks.

Production
In early 1941, the Il-2 was ordered into production at four factories, and was eventually produced in greater numbers than any other military aircraft in aviation history, but by the time Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941, only State Aviation Factory 18 at Voronezh and Factory 381 at Leningrad had commenced production, with 249 having been built by the time of the German attack.

Production early in the war was slow because after the German invasion the aircraft factories near Moscow and other major cities in western Russia had to be moved east of the Ural Mountains. Ilyushin and his engineers had time to reconsider production methods, and two months after the move Il-2s were again being produced. The tempo was not to Premier Stalin's liking, however, and he issued the following telegram to Shenkman and Tretyakov:

"You have let down our country and our Red Army. You have the nerve not to manufacture IL-2s until now. Our Red Army now needs IL-2 aircraft like the air it breathes, like the bread it eats. Shenkman produces one IL-2 a day and Tretyakov builds one or two MiG-3s daily. It is a mockery of our country and the Red Army. I ask you not to try the government's patience, and demand that you manufacture more ILs. This is my final warning."

As a result, "the production of Shturmoviks rapidly gained speed. Stalin's notion of the Il-2 being 'like bread' to the Red Army took hold in Ilyushin's aircraft plants and the army soon had their Shturmoviks available in quantity."

Initial use and operational confusion
The first use in action of the Il-2 was with the 4th ShAP (Ground Attack Regiment) over the Berezina River days after German invasion began. The aircraft was so new that the pilots had no training in flight characteristics or tactics, and the ground crew no training in servicing or re-arming. The training received enabled the pilots only to take-off and land; none of the pilots had fired the armament, let alone learned tactics. There were 249 Il-2s available on 22 June 1941. In the first three days, 4th ShAP had lost 10 Il-2s to enemy action, a further 19 were lost to other causes, and 20 pilots were killed. By 10 July, 4th ShAP was down to 10 aircraft from a strength of 65.

New tactics
Tactics improved as Soviet aircrews became used to the Il-2's strengths. Instead of a low horizontal straight approach at 50 m altitude, the target was usually kept to the pilot's left and a turn and shallow dive of 30 degrees was used, using an echeloned assault by four to twelve aircraft at a time. Although the Il-2's RS-82 and RS-132 rockets could destroy armored vehicles with one hit, they were so inaccurate that experienced Il-2 pilots mainly used the cannon. Another potent weapon of the Il-2 were high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) shaped charge bomblets named protivotankovaya aviabomba (PTAB, "anti-tank aviation bomb"). They were designated PTAB-2.5-1.5, as they had a total weight of 2.5 kg, and an explosive charge of 1.5 kg. Up to 192 were carried in four external dispensers (cluster bombs) or up to 220 in the inner wing panels' internal ventral weapon bays. The charge could easily penetrate the relatively thin upper armor of all heavy German tanks. PTABs were first used on a large scale in the Battle of Kursk with little success, perhaps due to the poor bombing accuracy of the Il-2.

The Il-2 was thereafter deployed widely on the Eastern Front. The aircraft could fly in low light conditions and carried weapons able to defeat the thick armor of the Panther and Tiger I tanks.

Effectiveness as attack aircraft
The true capabilities of the Il-2 are difficult to determine from existing documentary evidence. W. Liss in Aircraft profile 88: Ilyushin Il-2 mentions an engagement during the Battle of Kursk on 7 July 1943, in which 70 tanks from the German 9th Panzer Division were claimed to be destroyed by Ilyushin Il-2s in just 20 minutes. In another report of the action on the same day, a Soviet staff publication states that: "Ground forces highly valued the work of aviation on the battlefield. In a number of instances enemy attacks were thwarted thanks to our air operations. Thus on 7 July enemy tank attacks were disrupted in the Kashara region (13th Army). Here our assault aircraft delivered three powerful attacks in groups of 20–30, which resulted in the destruction and disabling of 34 tanks. The enemy was forced to halt further attacks and to withdraw the remnants of his force north of Kashara."

In the Battle of Kursk (Operation Citadel), General V. Ryazanov became a master in the use of attack aircraft en masse, developing and improving the tactics of Il-2 operations in co-ordination with infantry, artillery and armored troops. Il-2s at Kursk used the "circle of death" tactic: up to eight Shturmoviks formed a defensive circle, each plane protecting the one ahead with its forward machine guns, while individual Il-2s took turns leaving the circle, attacking a target, and rejoining the circle. Ryazanov was later awarded the Gold Star of Hero of Soviet Union twice, and the 1st Assault Aviation Corps under his command became the first unit to be awarded the honorific title of Guards. In 1943, one aircraft was lost for every 26 Shturmovik sorties. About half of those lost were shot down by fighters, the rest falling to anti-aircraft fire.

Other studies of the fighting at Kursk suggest that very few of German armour losses were caused by the IL-2 or any other Soviet aircraft. In fact, total German tank losses in Operation Citadel amounted to 323 destroyed, the vast majority by anti-tank guns and armored fighting vehicles. In addition, it is difficult to find any first-hand accounts by German panzer crews on the Eastern Front describing anything more than the occasional loss to direct air attack. The vast majority, around 95–98%, of tank losses were due to enemy anti-tank guns, tanks, mines, artillery, and infantry assault, or simply abandonment as operational losses (due to causes such as mechanical breakdown or running out of fuel), which mostly happened during the last eleven months of the war.

During the Battle of Kursk, VVS Il-2s claimed the destruction of no less than 270 tanks (and 2,000 men) in a period of just two hours against the 3rd Panzer Division. On 1 July, however, the 3rd Panzer Division's 6th Panzer Regiment had just 90 tanks, 180 fewer than claimed as destroyed. On 11 July (well after the battle), the 3rd Panzer Division still had 41 operational tanks. The 3rd Panzer Division continued fighting throughout July, mostly with 48th Panzer Corps. It did not record any extraordinary losses to air attack throughout this period. As with the other panzer divisions at Kursk, the large majority of the 3rd Panzer Division's tank losses were due to dug-in Soviet anti-tank guns and tanks.

Perhaps the most extraordinary claim by the VVS's Il-2s is that, over a period of four hours, they destroyed 240 tanks and in the process virtually wiped out the 17th Panzer Division. On 1 July, the 17th Panzer Division had only one tank battalion (the II./Pz Rgt 39), with 67 tanks, 173 fewer than claimed destroyed by the VVS. The 17th Panzer Division was not even in the main attack sector, but further south with the 1st Panzer Army's 24th Panzer Corps. The 17th Panzer did not register any abnormal losses due to aircraft in the summer of 1943, and retreated westwards with Army Group South later in the year, still intact.

The main problem with the Il-2 was the inaccuracy of its attacks. Towards the end of war, the Soviets were able to concentrate large numbers of Shturmoviks to support their main offensives. The effect, however, was often more psychological than actual physical destruction of targets, particularly against dug-in and armored targets. In the 9 June offensive in the Karelian Isthmus in Finland, Finnish anti-aircraft forces were far too few in number to counter the armadas of Pe-2 and Il-2, but quickly found that the Il-2 attacks generally missed their marks widely, particularly with bombs. While some attacks against large unprotected targets such as horse and truck convoys and railyards had devastating results, attacks against dug-in point targets were usually ineffective. The frequent duels between dug-in 20 and 40 mm AA guns and Il-2 attackers never resulted in the complete destruction of the gun, while many Il-2s were brought down in these attacks.

The heavy armor of the Il-2 also meant that it would typically carry only comparatively light bomb-loads, which together with the poor accuracy of its attacks made it a far less deadly attack aircraft than contemporary Allied fighter-bombers such as the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt and Hawker Typhoon. The rocket projectiles especially were not effective, even the larger RS-132 (of which four were carried) having a warhead with only 0.9 kg of explosives, which compared poorly with the P-47's typical load of ten 5 in HVARs, each having 3.4 kg of explosives, or the eight to twelve RP-3 rockets on the Hawker Typhoon, each with 5.5 kg of explosives. Likewise, the Shturmovik's bombs were usually only 50 kg, or rarely 100 kg, too small to compensate for the typically wide variation from the target point. To compensate for the poor accuracy of the Il-2's bombsight, in 1943, the Soviet Command decided to use shaped-charge armor-piercing projectiles against enemy armored vehicles, and the PTAB-2.5-1.5 SCAP aircraft bomb was put into production. These small-calibre bombs were loaded directly into the bomb bays and were dropped onto enemy vehicles from altitudes up to 100 m. As each Il-2 could carry up to 192 bombs, a fire carpet 70 m long and 15 m wide could cover the enemy tanks, giving a high "kill" probability. Pilots of 291st ShAP were the first to use the PTAB-2.5-1.5 bombs. During one sortie on 5 June 1943, six attack aircraft led by Lt. Col. A. Vitrook destroyed 15 enemy tanks in one attack, and during five days of the enemy advance, the 291st Division claimed to have destroyed or damaged 422 enemy tanks.

The "flying tank"
Thanks to the heavy armor protection, the Il-2 could take a great deal of punishment and proved difficult for both ground and aircraft fire to shoot down.

A major threat to the Il-2 was German ground fire. In postwar interviews, Il-2 pilots reported 20 mm and 37 mm artillery as the primary threat. While the fabled 88 mm calibre gun was formidable, low-flying Il-2s presented too fast-moving a target for the 88's relatively low rate of fire, only occasional hits were scored. Similarly, Finnish attempts to counter the Il-2 during the summer of 1944 proved ineffective as a result of the low numbers of 20 and 40 mm AA in the field army. Heavier 76 mm guns drawn from homeland defence proved also relatively ineffective and few Il-2s were downed despite attempting different tactics with time-fused fragmentation, contact-fused, and shrapnel ammunition: the heavy guns simply lacked the reaction times to take advantage of the brief firing opportunities presented by the low-altitude Il-2 attacks. Single-barrel 20 mm anti-aircraft guns were also found somewhat inadequate due to limited firepower: one or two shells were often not enough to destroy the Il-2, and unless the Il-2 was attacking the gun itself, thus presenting effectively a stationary target, scoring more hits during a firing opportunity was rare.

The armored tub, ranging from 5 to 12 mm in thickness and enveloping the engine and the cockpit, could deflect all small arms fire and glancing blows from larger-caliber ammunition. Unfortunately the rear gunners did not have the benefit of all-around armor protection, especially from the rear and to the sides, and suffered about four times the casualties of pilots. Added casualties resulted from the Soviet policy of not returning home with unused ammunition, which typically resulted in repeated passes on the target. Soviet troops often requested additional passes even after the aircraft were out of ammunition to exploit the intimidating effect Il-2s had on German ground troops, who gave it the nickname the "flying tank". It was also called the "black death" by German troops. Luftwaffe pilots called it the Zementbomber (lit. 'concrete bomber'). The Finnish nickname maatalouskone (lit. 'agricultural machine' or 'tractor') derived from a word play with maataistelukone 'ground attack aircraft' (lit. 'ground combat aircraft'), where kone 'machine' in turn is shortened from lentokone 'aircraft' (lit. 'flying machine').

Rear gunner
Heavy losses to enemy fighters forced the reintroduction of a rear gunner; early Il-2s were field modified by cutting a hole in the fuselage behind the cockpit for a gunner sitting on a canvas sling armed with a 12.7 mm UBT machine gun in an improvised mounting. The semi-turret gun mount allowed the machine gun to be fired at angles of up to 35° upwards, 35° to starboard and 15° to port. Tests showed that maximum speed decreased by between 10 and 20 km/h and that the two-seater was more difficult to handle because the center of gravity was shifted backwards. At the beginning of March 1942, a production two-seat Il-2 with the new gunner's cockpit began manufacturer tests. The second cockpit and armament increased all-up weight by 170 kg so the flaps were allowed to be deployed at an angle of 17° to avoid an over-long takeoff run. The new variant had a lengthened fuselage compartment with an extended canopy offering some protection from the elements. Unlike the well-armoured cockpit of the pilot compartment with steel plating up to 12 mm thick behind, beneath and on both sides as well as up to 65 mm thick glass sections, the rear gunner was provided with 6 mm thick armour, effective only against rifle-calibre rounds.

To improve performance, the Mikulin Design Bureau started work on an uprated AM-38 engine. The new engines produced 1700 hp at takeoff and 1500 hp at 750 m. They gave an improved takeoff and low-altitude performance. On 30 October 1942, production Il-2s powered by AM38s were used on the Central Front for the first time when they successfully attacked Smolensk airfield occupied by Germans. The Shturmovik rear guns proved to be effective against hostile fighters, and during the service trials alone, gunners shot down seven Bf 109s and repulsed many attacks. In January 1943, two-seat attack aircraft powered by uprated AM-38F engines (Forseerovannyy – uprated) began to arrive at front line units.

Nonetheless, the death rate among the air gunners remained exceptionally high and it was only for late models produced after 1944 that the 13 mm rear plate of the armour shell was moved rearwards into the (wooden) rear fuselage to allow a gunner to sit behind the fuel tank. The armour did not extend to the rear or below although side armour panels were riveted to the rear armour plate to protect the ammunition tank for the UBT machine gun, providing some measure of protection. The modifications, including adding the rear gunner and gun, had added weight behind the center of gravity, resulting in "marginal" stability and handling characteristics that were "barely acceptable". The need to shift the aerodynamic center of the aircraft forwards due to the weight of the added rear gunner and lengthened cockpit was the reason for the swept back outer wings in later Il-2s.

In February 1945, the highest scoring German flying ace to be killed in action, Otto Kittel, was shot down by return fire from an Il-2.

Air-to-air combat
Owing to a shortage of fighters, in 1941–1942, Il-2s were occasionally used as fighters. While outclassed by dedicated fighters such as the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Focke-Wulf Fw 190, in dogfights, the Il-2 could take on other Luftwaffe aircraft with some success. German front line units equipped with the Henschel Hs 126 suffered most of all from the ravages of Il-2s. Il-2 pilots also often attacked close formations of Junkers Ju 87s, as the 7.92 mm machine guns of the Ju 87 Stukas were ineffective against the heavily armoured Shturmoviks. In the winter of 1941–1942, Il-2s were used against Luftwaffe transport aircraft, and became the most dangerous opponent of the Junkers Ju 52/3m. Pilots of 33rd GvShAP were the most successful in these operations. Other successful units were those in 1942–1943 operating near Stalingrad. Their targets were not only Ju 52s but also Heinkel He 111 and Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor bombers, delivering supplies to the besieged German troops.

While the Il-2 was a strong air-to-ground weapon, and even a fairly effective interceptor against slow bombers and transport aircraft, heavy losses resulted from its vulnerability to fighter attack. Losses were very high, the highest of all types of Soviet aircraft, though given the numbers in service this is only to be expected. Shturmovik losses (including the Il-10 type) in 1941–1945 were of 10,762 aircraft (533 in 1941, 1,676 in 1942, 3,515 in 1943, 3,347 in 1944 and 1,691 in 1945). The main defensive tactic was to fly low and reduce power as the enemy fighter closed in. This could make the fighter overshoot and fly into the Il-2's firing zone.

During the Battle in Karelian Isthmus, Vyborg Offensive in summer 1944, Finnish 24th and 34th Fighter Squadrons and Luftwaffe II./JG 54 took a toll on Soviet Il-2 squadrons. In just 30 days (10 June – 9 July), Finnish and German fighter pilots shot down 111 and 53 Il-2s, respectively.

Notable aircrew
Senior Lieutenant Anna Yegorova piloted 243 Il-2 missions and was decorated three times. One of these awards was the Gold Star of Hero of the Soviet Union that Yegorova had received "posthumously" in late 1944, since she was presumed dead after being shot down. She survived imprisonment in a German POW camp.

Guards Junior Lieutenant Ivan Drachenko, another Il-2 pilot, was one of only four men awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union and also a Full Cavalier of the Order of Glory as a recipient of each of the Order of Glory's three classes. Despite having lost his right eye as a result of injuries sustained in a combat mission on 14 August 1943, he returned to flying status and continued to fly combat sorties until war's end.

Recipient of the Hero of the Soviet Union award, T. Kuznetsov survived the crash of his Il-2 in 1942 when shot down returning from a reconnaissance mission. Kuznetsov escaped from the wreck and hid nearby. To his surprise, a German Bf 109 fighter landed near the crash site and the pilot began to investigate the wrecked Il-2, possibly to look for souvenirs. Thinking quickly, Kuznetsov ran to the German fighter and used it to fly home, barely avoiding being shot down by Soviet fighters in the process.

Lieutenant Colonel Nelson Stepanyan flew an Il-2 and took part in a number of aerial battles and bombing sorties. He was shot down once but returned to Soviet lines. On his final sortie in Liepāja, Latvia on 14 December 1944, his plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire, and although wounded, he flew his airplane into a German warship. Soviet sources assert that Stepanyan flew no fewer than 239 combat sorties, sank 53 ships, thirteen of which he did alone, destroyed 80 tanks, 600 armored vehicles, and 27 aircraft.

Cosmonaut Georgy Beregovoy flew the Ilyushin in 185 sorties, and was awarded the Hero of the Soviet Union title in 1944. He was the earliest-born cosmonaut, and the only cosmonaut to be a Hero of the Soviet Union for an earlier achievement unrelated to space travel.

Variants
The early two-seater prototype proved to be too heavy for the limited power of the early Mikulin AM-35 engine. A redesigned single-seat version was soon developed and saw combat, particularly in the early phase of the war in the Soviet Union. While the Il-2 proved to be a deadly air-to-ground weapon, heavy losses were caused by its vulnerability to fighter attack. Consequently, in February 1942, the two-seat design was revived. The Il-2M, with a rear gunner under the stretched canopy, entered service in September 1942 with the surviving single-seaters eventually modified to this standard. Later changes included an upgrade from 20 mm to 23 or cannons, aerodynamic improvements, use of wooden outer wing panels instead of metal and increased fuel capacity. In 1943, the Il-2 Type 3 or Il-2m3 came out with redesigned "arrow-wings" that possessed leading edges that were swept back 15 degrees on the outer panels, and nearly straight trailing edges, resulting in a wing planform somewhat like the AT-6 trainer. Performance and handling were much improved from the resulting shift of the Il-2's aerodynamic center rearwards with the revised "arrow wing" planform to correct the earlier problem, and this became the most common version of the Il-2. A radial engine powered variant of the Il-2 with the Shvetsov ASh-82 engine was proposed in 1942 to remedy projected shortages in the Mikulin inline engines. However, the Shvetsov ASh-82 was also used in the new Lavochkin La-5 fighter which effectively secured all available engines to the Lavochkin bureau. The radial engine Sukhoi Su-2 ground attack aircraft was produced in small quantities, but was generally considered unsuitable due to inadequate performance and lack of defensive armament.

 * TsKB-55
 * Two-seat prototype, AM-35 engine, first flight on 2 October 1939.

 * BSh-2
 * VVS designation for TsKB-55 prototype.

 * TsKB-57
 * Single-seat prototype, AM-38 engine, first flight on 12 October 1940.

 * Il-2 (TsKB-57P)
 * Single-seat serial aircraft, AM-38 engine, first flight on 29 December 1940, some delivered to combat units in May–June 1941. Renamed the Il-2 in April 1941. Cannons 20 mm ShVAK or 23 mm VYa-23 (depending on which factory the Il-2 was manufactured in).

 * Il-2 two-seat
 * Two-seat version, AM-38 engine, first action on 30 October 1942 near Stalingrad. Maximum bomb load reduced from 600 to 400 kg. Used on edges of flight formations for defense against German fighters. Quickly replaced by the "Il-2 production of 1943".

 * Il-2 production of 1943
 * Referred in the west as the "Il-2M". Powered by an upgraded AM-38F engine. Delivered to the front units from early 1943. In 1943, the 20 mm ShVAK armed Il-2s faded out, leaving only the 23 mm VYa variant.

 * Il-2 with NS-37
 * Referred in the west as the "Il-2 Type 3M". Based on the two-seat Il-2, armed with Nudelman-Suranov NS-37 in conformal gun pods under the wings, instead of the 20/23 mm cannons, this version is an attempt to create an anti-tank aircraft, first used in combat during the Battle of Kursk. However, the combat effectiveness was quite low and production of the variant was limited to about 3,500. Moreover, bomb load was decreased from 600 to 200 kg. It was replaced by the conventional Il-2 attackers armed with cassettes with cumulative bomblets.

 * Il-2 production 1944 "wing with arrow"
 * Referred in West as "Il-2M3" or "Il-2 Type 3". As more duralumin became available for the Soviet aviation industry, the Il-2 received a set of all-metal wing panels. At the same time, the outer wing planform was swept back, with a straight trailing edge, since the centre of gravity was shifted rearwards after the gunner was added. The wing planform change regained controllability of the two-seat Il-2 back to level of the single-seat Il-2.

 * Il-2U
 * Training version, also known as UIl-2.

 * Il-2T
 * Torpedo bomber version for the Soviet Navy with the VYa-23 cannons removed to save weight, it was able to carry a single 45 cm torpedo. Evidently, it was only a design as the 23rd Attack Air Regiment of the Black Sea Fleet flew regular Il-2M-3s fitted with torpedo racks as a field modification, and that no such aircraft were ever noted in the battle sortie logs.

 * Il-2I
 * Armoured fighter, prototype only. Concept based on several dogfights between Il-2 and Luftwaffe bombers. Proved infeasible due to its low speed, which causes it to be able to intercept only older Luftwaffe bombers.

 * Il-2R
 * Il-2 fitted with a rocket motor in the rear, prototype only. The design was part of a concept to have units of Il-2R´s as part of a rapid response force, spread across the front to counter sudden counter-attacks. The rocket motor would aid in take-off and climbing, allowing the Il-2R´s to reach their target faster. The concept was abandoned before the go-ahead was given for production in 1945, as by then it was considered obsolete.

 * Il-2 with M-82/M-82IR engine
 * A backup project prepared while plants producing AM-35/AM-38 were evacuated. Compared to the original Il-2 it had additional armor, a rear gunner and Shvetsov ASh-82 or geared Ash-82IR engine. It had deteriorated rate of climb and field performance however it retained the same handling qualities. Recommended for production in Plant No.381 and Plant No.135, with 678 to be delivered by 1943. Cancelled because AM-38 production stabilized.

Military operators

 * 🇧🇬 People's Republic of Bulgaria
 * Bulgarian Air Force – received 120 Il-2 and 10 training Il-2U in 1945. The type was operated between 1945 and 1954.
 * Hungarian Air Force – received an unknown number of aircraft. The type was operated from 1945 to 1952.
 * 🇲🇳 Mongolian People's Republic
 * Mongolian People's Army Aviation – received 71 Il-2 in 1945. The type was operated between 1945 and 1954
 * Mongolian People's Army Aviation – received 71 Il-2 in 1945. The type was operated between 1945 and 1954
 * Czechoslovakian Air Force – received 33 Il-2 and 2 training Il-2U aircraft. This type was operated between 1944 and 1949.
 * Air Force of the Polish Army – (after 1947 Polish Air Force) received about 230 Il-2 aircraft between 1944 and 1946. All were retired in 1949.
 * Soviet Air Force
 * Soviet Naval Aviation
 * SFR Yugoslav Air Force – received 213 aircraft in Il-2M3 and UIl-2 versions and used them until 1954. Used by:
 * 421st Assault Aviation Regiment (1944–1948)
 * 554th Assault Aviation Regiment (1945–1948)
 * 422nd Assault Aviation Regiment (1944–1948)
 * 423rd Assault Aviation Regiment (1944–1948)
 * 3rd Training Aviation Regiment (1945–1948)
 * 81st Assault Aviation Regiment (1948–1953)
 * 96th Assault Aviation Regiment (1948–1954)
 * 107th Assault Aviation Regiment (1948–1953)
 * 111th Assault Aviation Regiment (1948–1952)
 * 185th Mixed Aviation Regiment (1949–1952)
 * 107th Assault Aviation Regiment (1948–1953)
 * 111th Assault Aviation Regiment (1948–1952)
 * 185th Mixed Aviation Regiment (1949–1952)

Bulgaria

 * On display
 * Il-2m3
 * S/N unknown - at the National Aviation Museum in Krumovo, Plovdiv.

Czech Republic

 * On display
 * Il-2m3
 * 12438 – at the Kbely Aviation Museum in Kbely, Prague.

Hungary

 * On display
 * Il-2
 * S/N unknown - unrestored at the Airplane Museum of Szolnok in Szolnok, Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok. Recovered from a lake. Engine #259059.

Norway

 * On display
 * Il-2m3
 * 3035560 – at the Grenselandsmuseet in Kirkenes, Finnmark. It was recovered from a lake on the Norwegian side of the border in 1985 and restored in Russia.

Poland

 * On display
 * Il-2m3
 * 21 - at the Museum of the Polish Army in Warsaw, Mazovia. It was used by the 3rd Assault Aviation Regiment (3 Pułk Lotnictwa Szturmowego).

Russia

 * Airworthy
 * Il-2
 * 1872452 – Airworthy with the Wings of Victory Foundation in Moscow. It was recovered in 2015 from the bottom of a lake near Murmansk and restored by Aviarestoration on a commission from UAC.
 * On display
 * Il-2
 * 2440 – displayed in Novorossiysk, Krasnodar Krai.
 * 7826 - (forward fuselage only) displayed unrestored at Patriot Park in Kubinka, Moscow Oblast. The aircraft was reportedly shot down in the Kerch Strait on 1 November 1943, and was recovered in 2015.
 * S/N unknown - displayed in Dubna, Moscow. It was recovered locally.
 * S/N unknown - displayed in Lebyazhye, Leningrad.
 * S/N unknown - displayed in a traffic circle in Samara. This particular plane was shot down in 1943 over Karelia, but the heavily wounded pilot, K. Kotlyarovsky, managed to crash-land the plane near Lake Oriyarvi. The aircraft was returned to Kuybyshev in 1975.
 * S/N unknown - displayed at the UMMC Museum Complex in Verkhnyaya Pyshma, Sverdlovsk.
 * Il-2m3
 * 301060 – Il-2m3 on static display at the Central Air Force Museum in Monino, Moscow.
 * Under restoration or in storage
 * Il-2
 * 1870930 - Under restoration to airworthy condition by the Wings of Victory Foundation in Moscow. It is the only surviving single-seat Il-2 built before 1942.

Serbia

 * On display
 * Il-2m3
 * 308831 – at the Aeronautical Museum Belgrade in Surčin, Belgrade.

United Kingdom

 * Under restoration or in storage
 * Il-2
 * 1878576 - in storage at Wickenby, Lincolnshire, England.
 * Il-2m3
 * 1870710 - under restoration for display at Wickenby, Lincolnshire, England for Royal Air Force Museum London.

United States

 * Airworthy
 * Il-2m3
 * 305401 – at the Flying Heritage & Combat Armor Museum in Everett, Washington. It incorporates parts of four different wrecked aircraft recovered from Russia and was restored by Retro Avia Tech with a reversed Allison V-1710-113.
 * On display
 * Il-2
 * 5612 – Il-2 on static display at the Pima Air & Space Museum in Tucson, Arizona.
 * Under restoration
 * Il-2
 * Composite – undergoing restoration at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Chantilly, Virginia. Formerly held in storage at the Paul E. Garber Preservation, Restoration, and Storage Facility of the National Air and Space Museum in Suitland, Maryland.

title: Ilyushin Il-2


text:
BerliOS

BerliOS (short for "Berlin Open Source") is a project founded by the Fraunhofer Institute for Open Communication Systems (FOKUS), Berlin, to coordinate the different interest groups in the field of open source software (OSS) and to assume a neutral coordinator function. The target groups of BerliOS were developers and users of open source software on the one side and OSS-related companies on the other. its website was still accessible, though hosting no projects.

Overview
BerliOS consisted of several subprojects:
 * DocsWell, a database for open source related documentation
 * SourceWell, a news service for open source projects
 * SourceLines, a "best practice" database for successful open source projects
 * SourceBiz, a list of open source companies
 * DevCounter, a database of open source developer profiles
 * OpenFacts, a wiki-based open source knowledge database (using the MediaWiki software)
 * SourceAgency (beta), a platform for coordinating open source funding

Closure
The operators of the BerliOS project announced that BerliOS would close at the end of 2011 due to lack of sufficient funding and support. As the news of the pending closure spread, BerliOS received numerous rescue proposals. As a result, it was later announced that BerliOS would continue as a non-profit institute run by a combination of volunteers, donations and corporate sponsorship.

On February 23, 2012, BerliOS announced on their blog that a cooperation agreement had been signed with SourceForge, which meant that all projects hosted on BerliOS' systems would be automatically mirrored in new and separate projects on SourceForge. On April 4, 2012, SourceForge reiterated this statement on their blog and provided more specifics about the collaboration.

In January 2014 BerliOS announced that they would disable their hosting services on 30 April 2014.

title: BerliOS


text:
Cultural subsidy

A cultural subsidy is a payment from the government to specific cultural industries to ensure that some public policy purpose in culture (e.g. multiculturalism, bilingualism, minority and languages, and preservation of traditional dance, music, food, art or other practices) are preserved and maintained in society. Cultural subsidies work similarly to other forms of subsidies such as industrial and consumer subsidies and have similar goals of expansionary economic results and increased utility for their targeted recipients.

Implementation
Cultural subsidies are distributed in the form of grants and payment from the government to various institutions, groups or citizens who are seen to meaningfully contribute to their society's culture. Some of the most familiar efforts are: free museum entrances for children and seniors, public art instalments, government funding for afterschool art-based programs and government grants to culturally focused non-profits.

A common emphasis for cultural subsidies is the provision of resources for underserved communities or groups, whose cultural background and heritage may be at risk without additional financial support, or who traditionally lack access to mainstream cultural events and participation. For example, the National Endowment for the Arts states that 40% of their activities support high-poverty neighbourhoods, 36% of their grants are awarded to organisations that serve those with disabilities, in institutions and veterans, while 33% of their grants are awarded to serve low-income audiences.

Cultural subsidy implementation in the US
The National Council for the Arts was established by US President Lyndon B. Johnson through the National Arts and Cultural Development Act of 1964 and is the US federal program which provides cultural subsidies. Its purpose is to review and recommend applications for grants, funding guidelines and leadership initiatives in the US. to the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts. There are eighteen Presidentially appointed members of the council, with six additional members of Congress serving two-year, non-voting terms. Members are selected for their extensive knowledge, expertise and interest in the arts as well as outstanding backgrounds in service or recognition within the arts.

The annual budget for the National Council for the Arts is set by Congress and currently receives .004% of the total, or US$149.8 million. 40% of their grant budget is directly received by states via regional arts agencies who distribute the funds, with stipulations that every state and regional partnership allocates a portion of funding for underserved communities. Direct awards to organisations and individuals who apply through the National Endowment for the Arts make up the remaining 60% of their annual budget.

Intended economic effects
Like other subsidies, cultural subsidies are utilized with the intent to expand economic growth and utility within a specific area. The functionality of cultural subsidies can be seen through typical supply and demand graphs like those pictured below.

As prices for arts and culture related items, events and classes increase, the demand for them decreases. On the other hand, as prices increase, the supply also increases as more artists and cultural entities seek gains. Where the two forces of supply and demand meet is the equilibrium point (e1).

When cultural subsidies are applied from the demand-side that means they focus on growing the demand from consumers for art and culture related products. This most often is reflected in free or discounted ticket sales for art and culture events and purchases for pieces of art that consumers would otherwise not be able to buy due to budget constraints. The ultimate goal in utilising demand-side cultural subsidies is to increase the demand for art at every price level it is offered. Below, we can see the result is an outward shift of the demand curve to the right, and an increase in both the equilibrium supply and demand (e1 to e2). The difference from P1 to P2 is the amount which is compensated by the subsidy, and the total area of from P2, e2 and Q2 is the cultural sector's revenue. Demand-side subsidies are typically viewed as an effective way to increase both the output of the cultural sector and increase incomes for the providers within it.

Governments can also approach cultural subsidies from the supply-side in an effort to increase the economic power of those who supply cultural products. This allows cultural providers the opportunity to produce and supply more than they would be able to without subsidised assistance. Instead of raising both the price and quantity of cultural products, as the demand-side subsidies do, supply-side subsidies lower price while increasing quantity, as show in the model below. Supply shifts downward, to the right and the new equilibrium moves from e1 to e2. Total revenue shifts from the blue rectangle to the red rectangle, which demonstrates an expansion of cultural sector output (Q1 to Q2), but not necessarily an increase in economic growth.

Issues facing cultural subsidies
As with other sectors reliant on subsidies, the cultural sector is constantly subject to the budget decisions made by the government. In the US, government subsidies for arts and culture have steadily been declining as spending emphasis shifts elsewhere. Cultural providers are forced to turn to state and private philanthropic groups and individuals for greater and greater percentages of their funding.

In 2017, the Donald Trump administration proposed to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts, the US grant-making organization responsible for cultural subsidy provision. The main argument behind this comes from the private taxation of citizens to fund the program. Policymakers in favour of reduced taxes often view cultural subsidies as a non-necessary expense, and one which should be privately, versus publicly funded.

Opinions on the importance of cultural subsidies vary widely by each nation, as well as the levels of investment in cultural products by consumers and cultural professions by suppliers. In Australia, there is a current over-supply in the cultural sector which has been supported through supply-side subsidies from the government. This issue, paired with a drastic increase in the number of cultural professionals in the early 2000s, has been blamed for steadily declining salaries for cultural suppliers. Advocates for reform are stressing the importance of demand-side policies in the country as an alternative way to increase artist salary and most importantly, increase demand for the large supply of cultural products available.

title: Cultural subsidy


text:
Liberal Wars

The Liberal Wars (Guerras Liberais), also known as the War of the Two Brothers (Guerra dos Dois Irmãos), was a war between liberal constitutionalists and conservative traditionalists in Portugal over royal succession that lasted from 1828 to 1834. Embroiled parties included the Kingdom of Portugal, Portuguese rebels, the United Kingdom, France, the Catholic Church, and Spain.

Roots of the conflict

The death of King John VI in 1826 created a dispute over royal succession. While Dom Pedro, the Emperor of Brazil, was the king's oldest son, his younger brother Miguel contended that Pedro had forfeited his claim to the throne by declaring Brazilian independence and by declaring war on the Kingdom of Portugal, therefore violating the succession rules mentioned in the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom. Pedro briefly entitled himself King Pedro IV of Portugal. Neither the Portuguese nor the Brazilians wanted a unified monarchy; consequently, Pedro abdicated the Portuguese throne in favor of his daughter, Maria, a child of 7. In April 1826, to settle the succession dispute, Pedro revised the first constitution of Portugal granted in 1822 and left the throne to Maria, with his sister Isabel Maria as regent.

A new constitution
In the Portuguese Constitutional Charter, Pedro attempted to reconcile traditionalists and liberals by allowing both factions a role in the government. Unlike the Constitution of 1822, this new document established four branches of government. The Legislature was divided into two chambers. The upper chamber, the Chamber of Peers, was composed of life and hereditary peers and clergy appointed by the king. The lower chamber, the Chamber of Deputies, was composed of 111 deputies elected to four-year terms by the indirect vote of local assemblies, which in turn were elected by a limited suffrage of male tax-paying property owners. Judicial power was exercised by the courts; executive power by the ministers of the government; and moderative power by the king, who held an absolute veto over all legislation.

Discontent
The traditionalist party of the landowners and the Church, however, were not satisfied with this compromise, and they continued to regard Miguel as the legitimate successor to the throne on the grounds that according to the Portuguese succession rules (approved by the Cortes after the 1640 Restoration), Pedro had lost the right to the Portuguese crown, and therefore to choose a successor, when he took possession of a foreign crown (Brazil). They were alarmed by the liberal reforms that had been initiated in Spain by the detested Revolutionary French (reforms from which the Portuguese feudal aristocracy had been spared) and took heart at the recent restoration of the autocratic Ferdinand VII in Spain (1823) who was eradicating all the Napoleonic innovations. In February 1828, Miguel returned to Portugal, ostensibly to take the oath of allegiance to the Charter and assume the regency. He was immediately proclaimed king by his supporters, who pressed him to return to absolutism. A month after his return, Miguel dissolved the Chamber of Deputies and the Chamber of Peers and, in May, summoned the traditional Cortes of the three estates of the realm to proclaim his accession to absolute power. The Cortes of 1828 assented to Miguel's wish, proclaiming him king as Miguel I of Portugal and nullifying the Constitutional Charter.

Rebellion
This alleged usurpation did not go unchallenged by the Liberals. On May 18, the garrison in Porto, the center of Portuguese progressives, declared its loyalty to Pedro IV and his daughter Maria II, and the Constitutional Charter. The rebellion against the absolutists spread to other cities. Miguel suppressed these rebellions, and many thousands of Liberals were either arrested or fled to Spain and Britain. There followed five years of repression.

Meanwhile, in Brazil, relations between Pedro and Brazil's agricultural magnates had become strained. In April 1831, Pedro abdicated in Brazil in favor of his son, Pedro II, and sailed for Britain. He organized a military expedition there and then went to Terceira island in the Azores, which was in the hands of the Liberals, to set up a government in exile. The government of Miguel blockaded the island, but the blockading squadron was attacked by a French squadron during the run-up to the Battle of the Tagus, where several Miguelist ships were captured. (Half of the liberal army consisted of French, British, Spanish and Belgian soldiers). In July 1832, with the backing of Liberals in Spain and Britain, an expedition led by Pedro landed near Porto, in the Landing at Mindelo, which the Miguelites abandoned and where, after military activities including the Battle of Ponte Ferreira, Pedro and his associates were besieged by Miguelite forces for nearly a year. To protect British interests, a naval squadron under Commander William Nugent Glascock in HMS Orestes was stationed in the Douro, where it came under fire from both sides.

In June 1833, the Liberals, still encircled at Porto, sent to the Algarve a force commanded by the Duke of Terceira supported by a naval squadron commanded by Charles Napier, using the alias 'Carlos de Ponza'. The Duke of Terceira landed at Faro and marched north through the Alentejo to capture Lisbon on July 24. Meanwhile, Napier's squadron encountered the absolutists' fleet near Cape Saint Vincent (Cabo São Vicente) and decisively defeated it at the fourth Battle of Cape St. Vincent. The Liberals were able to occupy Lisbon, where Pedro moved from Porto and repulsed a Miguelite siege. A stalemate of nine months ensued. Following the death of Ferdinand VII Spain changed sides and started to support the liberals. Towards the end of 1833, Maria da Glória was proclaimed queen, and Pedro was made regent. His first act was to confiscate the property of all who had served under King Miguel. He also suppressed all religious houses and confiscated their property, an act that suspended friendly relations with Rome for nearly eight years, until mid-1841. The absolutists controlled the rural areas, where they were supported by the aristocracy, and by a peasantry that was galvanized by the Church. The Liberals occupied Portugal's major cities, Lisbon and Porto, where they commanded a sizable following among the middle classes. Operations against the Miguelites began again in earnest in early 1834, a year marked by the end of Spanish support which had changed sides to the liberals in 1833. Meanwhile, the Liberal army had suffered a sound defeat at Alcácer do Sal, which proved that, despite the Duke of Terceira's recent march from Faro to Lisbon, the south was still loyal to the Miguelites. In the southernmost region of Continental Portugal, the region of Algarve, a man known as Remexido, hidden in the mountainous terrain around São Marcos da Serra, became a legend as a guerrilla loyal to the legitimist, antiliberal Miguelites until well after the end of the Liberal Wars.

Peace
The Battle of Asseiceira, fought on May 16, 1834, was the last and decisive engagement of the Portuguese Civil War. The Miguelist army was still formidable (about 18,000 men), but on May 26, 1834, at Evoramonte, to end the bloodbath in the country after six years of civil war a peace was declared under a concession by which Miguel formally renounced all claims to the throne of Portugal, was guaranteed an annual pension, and was definitively exiled. Pedro restored the Constitutional Charter, but he died September 24, 1834. In truth this was the official peace as Miguellist groups were still in action until the 1840s.

Maria da Glória resumed her interrupted reign as Maria II of Portugal.

title: Liberal Wars


text:
The Flowers of Romance (British band)

The Flowers of Romance was an early punk band, formed in mid-1976 by Jo Faull and Sarah Hall, girlfriends at the time of Steve Jones and Paul Cook of the Sex Pistols. The band did not release any recordings and, like London SS and Masters of the Backside, are more famed for the number of band members that later became well known, including: Sid Vicious of the Sex Pistols, Keith Levene (an early member of The Clash and later of Public Image Ltd), and Palmolive and Viv Albertine of The Slits. Despite never playing live, they were interviewed by SKUM fanzine in which Sid Vicious proclaimed "I'll just be the yob that I am now".

The highly controversial song "Belsen Was a Gas", about the Nazi concentration camp Bergen-Belsen, was written for this band by Vicious and Levene. It was performed live by the Sex Pistols, Public Image Ltd, and Sid Vicious' solo act. Viv Albertine wrote "So Tough" for the band, with the song eventually appearing on The Slits' debut album Cut.

The band's name was suggested by Johnny Rotten, and subsequently became the title of an early Sex Pistols song, as well as a 1981 Public Image Ltd album and its title track.

Personnel

 * Sid Vicious – Vocals, guitar, saxophone
 * Keith Levene – Guitar
 * Viv Albertine – Guitar
 * Jo Faull – Guitar
 * Marco Pirroni – Guitar (very briefly)
 * Steve Walsh - Guitar

 * Sarah "Rouge" Hall – Bass
 * Steve Spittle - Bass

 * Palmolive – Drums
 * Kenny Morris - Drums

title: The Flowers of Romance (British band)


text:
100 Club Punk Special

The 100 Club Punk Special (sometimes referred to as the 100 Club Punk Festival) was a two-day event held at the 100 Club venue in Oxford Street, London, England on 20 and 21 September 1976. The gig showcased eight punk rock bands, most of which were unsigned. The bands in attendance were each associated with the then evolving punk rock music scene of the United Kingdom. Historically, the event has become seen as marking a watershed moment for punk rock, as it began to move from the underground and emerge into the mainstream music scene.

Promotion
In early September 1976, concert promoter Ron Watts approached Malcolm McLaren, manager of the Sex Pistols, the leaders of the new British punk rock scene, and proposed that they headline the event. After that, they presented the idea to the Damned and the Clash, both of which quickly agreed to participate. Siouxsie Sioux directly approached Watts and requested to join the line-up as well. McLaren then volunteered the French band Stinky Toys and a handful of other bands from Manchester.

The enthusiasm for this event was partly due to the very positive and extensive promotion by Melody Maker journalist Caroline Coon.

The line-up
Monday evening, 20 September 1976
 * Subway Sect
 * Siouxsie and the Banshees
 * The Clash
 * Sex Pistols

Tuesday evening, 21 September 1976
 * Stinky Toys
 * Chris Spedding & the Vibrators
 * The Damned
 * Buzzcocks

Performances
The Vibrators were a new group that had only recently begun to write their own music and, at the encouragement of Ron Watts, they decided to act as backing band for established artist Chris Spedding for the show. Spedding, who had been booked to play the second night but didn't have a band behind him, taught The Vibrators a few songs in the dressing room immediately prior the actual show, leaving no time for an actual rehearsal. Siouxsie and the Banshees' set, however, was completely improvisational. They didn't know or play any songs, and their act had a purely "performance art" quality. Siouxsie, for instance, recited the Lord's Prayer and similar memorised pieces of text.

None of the shows were rehearsed, says Ron Watts, "It was just people, getting up and trying to do something."

Attendees
Attendance at the event later become a badge of honour for punk rock fans, but it is probable that a lot of claims were apocryphal. Indeed, a great many people who were later to become involved in the punk scene claimed to have "been there" during the two-day festival, but this is unlikely to be true since the venue had only a 600-person capacity. However, amongst the verified attendees were: Paul Weller of the Jam, Shane MacGowan (later of the Nipple Erectors and the Pogues), Shanne Bradley (of the Nipple Erectors and the Men They Couldn't Hang), Colin Newman of Wire, Viv Albertine of the Slits, Chrissie Hynde (later of the Pretenders), Jah Wobble (later of PiL), Vivienne Westwood (McLaren's then partner and co-manager of the Chelsea boutique Sex), Kevin Haskins and his brother David J (later of Bauhaus), Gaye Advert and T. V. Smith (later of The Adverts), as well as members of the Bromley Contingent, the punk fashion avant-garde, Andrew Czezowski (ex-manager of the Damned) and Susan Carrington, who went on to start the Roxy with Barry Jones..

Incident with Sid Vicious
The event was marred by violence when a beer glass, thrown by then Banshees drummer and later Sex Pistols bass player Sid Vicious during the Damned's performance shattered against a pillar, blinding a young girl in one eye. Vicious was arrested shortly after the incident and spent several days in jail.

title: 100 Club Punk Special


text:
Talk:Lord Kelvin

Nationality again (April 2023)
The multiple discussions on what to label his nationality in the lede need to be resolved. I suggest saying "British" but adding an explanatory footnote elaborating that he is Irish and Scottish, and will collectively be referred to as British. Thoughts?

Pinging participants of former discussions: @Centuryofconfusion @Donn300 @Gpinkerton @Sandstable @Dirac66 @Interpuncts @DeFacto @Philip Trueman BhamBoi (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly see the need to expand beyond 'British' with immediacy within the lead, and think it would look sloppy if attempted. #Early life and work is the place for this. · | (t - c) 14:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would leave it alone. "... a British mathematician, mathematical physicist and engineer born in Belfast." is true and summarizes the facts.Dirac66 (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No replies for 14 days - it seems that the status quo is settled. · | (t - c) 10:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why leave out Irish only for this one person when so many other Irish contemporaries even on Wikipedia are listed as Irish? JamPowWex (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In order to declare the nationality of British as settled I think it is only correct to remove Scottish from Alexander Graham Bell and all other contemporary scientists of the time. Equally remove English and Welsh as nationality from all scientists on Wikipedia and have only British as a nationality for all three countries (and for Ireland between 1801 and 1922). I make this point as an extreme example because Kelvin is one of extremely few examples I have found of Wikipedia where his nationality is deliberately obscured in this way. It's not logically consistent to engage in such linguistic gymnastics to say he was born in Belfast but is not Irish when the same effort is not made for other scientists and notable figures of the time. JamPowWex (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As evidence I've selected a random contemporary scientist. Look how much more clearly and sensibly his nationality description and his place of birth and death is to read.
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell JamPowWex (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @JamPowWex, how other people's nationality is treated in other articles is outside the scope of this talkpage. All we need to concentrate on here is what we know about Kelvin from the reliably sourced biographies concentrating on him. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. Consistency is vital. All of Kelvin's contemporaries born in Ireland are listed as Irish unless there is a record of the change to another nationality. The onus is on you to prove that he was not Irish. In the absence of good evidence either way he should be treated like any other person. For example Ernest Rutherford, listed as New Zealand when New Zealand was a British colony, moved to Canada after his education there and finished out his career and died in England. Unless you can provide a good argument why Maxwell is Scottish and Rutherford is a New Zealander but Kelvin is not Irish when all three would have been contemporaneous and entitled to British citizenship then it is absurd to pick this one individual and say he be treated differently. JamPowWex (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Sir William Thomson, Baron Kelvin by T. & R. Annan & Sons.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 26, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-06-26. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. (200th anniversary of his birth) If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.6% of all FPs. 04:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Succession-Box At Bottom
I thought that there was some "bot" that went through Wikipedia articles and found inconsistencies. It is the USUAL practice in Wikipedia articles about peers/nobles that their peerage/noble title is included in the succession-boxes so that someone can QUICKLY track the route of the title from person to person. I can't do that here, because the succession-box doesn't include "Baron Kelvin" (or, if it's atypical, "Baron OF Kelvin"). Why isn't that title included in the succession-boxes in this case, and why isn't its absence AUTOMATICALLY called to the attention of some person? I'm going to have to search this article itself to find out what happened to the title when this man died.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson
 * After reading the article (something I shouldn't have had to do), I find that this man's title "Baron Kelvin" died with him, but the curious statement that it's because he had neither children nor close relations. So, apparently, this title was conferred with an atypical remainder such that absent "legitimate [heirs][male heirs] of the body", it could be inherited by, say, a brother and the brother's descendants or male-line descendants, etc.. That is done of course, (the Dukedom of Wellington was engineered to lower the probability that it would ever become extinct), but if it was done in this case, then say so. Spell it out. Also, the article says he was enobled as much for his opposition to Irish Home Rule as for science. Could that be fleshed out a bit, such as by including the text of the royal action? I've done a word-search on this article for "Irish", "Ireland", and "Home Rule" and I can't find anything about him opposing Irish Home Rule.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

 * As it says in the infobox, he had no children so he was the first and last. --Cavrdg (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You're only telling that if I take the time to look elsewhere in the article then I could find what I SHOULD have been able to find by an instantaneous down-scroll to the end and check of the succession-boxes. You've done nothing to convince me that the absence of the "Baron Kelvin" title is in accordance with some Wikipedia rule. (And I don't think it IS in accordance with the rules, and if there IS some rule for this article to be allowed to be inconsistent with other articles about peers, then what is that rule and how soon can it be repealed?)2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson
 * I just read through what I think you mean by "info-box", and all that it says there is that he had no children. Not only is that not as fast as a quick end-scroll to the bottom, but it's not dispositive of the issue. It DOES NOT say (as you allege) that because he had no children he was the end of the line for this title. All it says is that he had no children, which doesn't settle it. If the title had been granted with an atypical succession, such as allows inheritance through other relatives, his having had no children wouldn't cause the title to die with him. And the article contradicts that anyway, because the article says "His title died with him, as he was survived by neither heirs nor close relations", which implies that his title could have been inherited by someone other than a child had such existed. If the grant of the title provided for a succession ONLY to his children, and he had no children, then that would cause the title to go extinct, and the sentence I quoted would have said (assuming a desire for accuracy which I'm probably a fool to assume) "His title died with him, as he was survived by no children".2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

"The first British scientist to be elevated to the House of Lords"
I cannot think of a counter-example, but the citation claiming to support this statement (a Britannia article) does not seem to make this claim. Can we find a reference? Beware of sources that derived their information from this Wikipedia article. Second, I wonder why there is the qualification of "British" here. Was there some foreign scientist who earlier had been elevated to the (British) House of Lords? Or can we remove the "British"? JMCHutchinson (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

 * It's in ODNB, quite specifically "the first" (and without any "British" qualification). Done.AntientNestor (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The term scientist was coined by Whewell in 1833. The House of Lords included George Campbell, 8th Duke of Argyll, from 1847, and from 1852 he served as Lord Privy Seal. He was also a scientist (or man of science) and became president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1855. He was still prominent and active in 1892 when Kelvin was elevated to the House of Lords, but of course Argyll inherited the title rather than being elevated as a scientist. . .dave souza, talk 06:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lord Kelvin


text:
Talk:Airbus Beluga

Reworking the lead
I think the lead needs to be heavily reworked - right now it mentions the entry to service date of its successor aircraft, but not even the entry to service date of itself! My attempt at this has been flushed out entirely without discussion (on the apparent basis that it covers material mentioned in the article aka what a lead is supposed to?), so I guess it's up to somebody else to try to reform it to decently cover its subject. Kyteto (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Airbus Beluga


text:
The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour

The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour is an American comedy and variety show television series hosted by the Smothers Brothers and initially airing on CBS from 1967 to 1969.

The series was a major success, especially considering it was scheduled against the major NBC television series Bonanza, with content that appealed to contemporary youth viewership with daring political satire humor and significant popular music performers such as Buffalo Springfield, Pete Seeger, Cream, and the Who. Despite this success, continual conflicts with network executives over content led to the show being abruptly pulled from the schedule in violation of the Smothers' contract in 1969.

History
The evolution of The Comedy Hour was unique to a medium that was fearful of change. The show debuted in the winter of 1967 as a slightly "hip" version of the typical comedy-variety show of its era. But within weeks it rapidly evolved into a program that extended the boundaries of what was considered permissible in television satire. The roster of writers and performers included Hal Goldman and Al Gordon (who had written for The Jack Benny Program), Jim Stafford, Steve Martin, Don Novello, Rob Reiner, Lorenzo Music, perennial presidential candidate Pat Paulsen, Bob Einstein ("Officer Judy"), and Leigh French ("Share a Little Tea with Goldie"). The show also introduced audiences to pop singer Jennifer Warnes (originally billed as Jennifer Warren or simply "Jennifer"), who was a regular on the series. The television premiere of Mason Williams' hit record, "Classical Gas," took place on the show, and Williams himself received an Emmy for his work as a staff writer; during the show's run, Warnes provided vocals for several tracks of Williams' album, The Mason Williams Ear Show.

Musical guests
The series showcased new musical artists that other comedy-variety shows rarely gave airtime to, due to the nature of their music or their political affiliations. George Harrison, Joan Baez, Buffalo Springfield, Cass Elliot, Harry Belafonte, Cream, the Who, Donovan, the Doors, Janis Ian, Yank Barry, Jefferson Airplane, Peter, Paul and Mary, Spanky and Our Gang, Steppenwolf, Simon & Garfunkel, Ray Charles, Hello People, Pete Seeger and Ike and Tina Turner were showcased during the latter years of the show despite the advertiser-sensitive nature of their music.

Seeger's appearance on the season two premiere which aired on September 10, 1967, was his first on network commercial television in 17 years since being blacklisted in 1950. His performance of "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy" was dropped from the broadcast after his refusal to comply with CBS's request to remove the sixth verse. The song, its story related to the present by the controversial stanza, was a metaphor for President Lyndon B. Johnson and his Vietnam War policy. Seeger was eventually allowed to reappear on the show to perform the song again on Episode 24 later that season.

In 1968, the show broadcast several promotional films (later known as "music videos") for the Beatles' songs "Hey Jude" and "Revolution" and several songs of the Bee Gees. Before a rowdy crowd at the Los Angeles Forum, Jimi Hendrix dedicated "I Don't Live Today" to the Smothers Brothers, as heard on The Jimi Hendrix Box Set.

Controversies and cancellation
The show became both popular and controversial for those same references to youth culture and the issues that both interested and affected this particular target audience. Whereas most older and more conservative audiences were tuning into shows such as the western Bonanza, the younger, more liberal generation—ages 15–25—were watching the Smothers' more socially relevant humor. However, despite the reputation both brothers earned, Tom Smothers later acknowledged in 2006 that he was in reality the "little bit looser" of the two brothers, stating that he and Dick "still disagree about everything" and even describing Dick as "more conservative politically" and "very pragmatic."

The brothers soon found themselves in regular conflicts with CBS' network censors. At the start of the 1968–69 season, the network ordered that the Smothers deliver their shows finished and ready for air ten days before airdate so that the censors could edit the shows as necessary. In the season premiere, CBS deleted an entire segment featuring Belafonte singing "Lord, Don't Stop the Carnival" against a backdrop of the havoc during the 1968 Democratic National Convention, along with two lines from a satire of their main competitor, Bonanza. As the year progressed, battles over content continued, including a David Steinberg sermon about Moses and the Burning Bush.

With some local stations making their own deletions of controversial sketches or comments, the continuing problems over the show reached a boiling point after CBS showed a rerun on March 9, 1969. The network explained the decision by stating that because that week's episode did not arrive in time to be previewed, it would not be shown. In that program, Joan Baez paid tribute to her then-husband David Harris, who was entering jail after refusing military service, while comedian Jackie Mason made a joke about children "playing doctor." When the show finally did air, three weeks later, the network allowed Baez to state that her husband was in prison, but edited out the reason.

Despite the conflict, the show was picked up for the 1969–70 season on March 14, seemingly ending the debate over the show's status. An episode slated for an April 13 broadcast was refused by CBS because the brothers had brought back Steinberg to perform another sermon routine; the original sermon on October 27, 1968, had been met with hundreds of angry viewer letters. However, the episode was aired in Canada on CTV on a pre-release, which was a common occurrence at that time. Network CEO and president William S. Paley abruptly canceled the show on April 4, 1969, citing the Smothers' failure to meet the contractual pre-air delivery dates required for local affiliate screening. Another of the network's presidents, Robert Wood, stated that it became evident that the brothers "were unwilling to accept the criteria of taste established by CBS." Hee Haw replaced the Smothers Brothers that summer.

This cancelation led the brothers to file a breach of contract suit against the network. On April 6, 1973, after four years of litigation, a federal court ruled in favor of the Smotherses and ordered CBS to pay them US$776,300 (equivalent to $4,613,305 in 2020), and in 1975, the duo returned to television, hosting the tamer (and unsuccessful) The Smothers Brothers Show that aired on NBC.

The show won the Emmy Award that year for Outstanding Writing for a Comedy, Variety or Music. The story of its cancelation is the subject of a 2002 documentary film, Smothered: The Censorship Struggles of the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour.

Revival
In February, 1970, The Return of the Smothers Brothers aired. The hour-long special was written by Tom Smothers, David Steinberg, and Bob Einstein. Guests included Peter Fonda and Glen Campbell.

The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour was revived for the 1988–89 television season. The revival, which included the return of cast regular Pat Paulsen alongside new performers, lasted one season. The revived Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour began production during the 1988 Writers Guild of America strike, resulting in the brothers resorting to performing their own material.

In 1993, the series was repackaged for broadcast on the E! Network featuring introductions by the Smothers Brothers and new interview footage by participants in the original series.

Home media
In celebration of the 50th Anniversary of The Smothers Brothers, The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour was first released on DVD by Time-Life Entertainment with "The Best of Season 3" that features 11 episodes from the third and final season of the show, presented in its uncensored and uncut original broadcast form, including extra features that were never-before-released on DVD. Time Life released a second DVD collection on October 20, 2009, "The Best of Season 2." Previously, in 2002, Time Life Entertainment released Bravo's documentary special, Smothered: The Censorship Struggles of The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour on DVD.

title: The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour


text:
Talk:Pontiff States

I suspect this article was created by someone whose native language is Italian, who failed to realize that "papal states" is the correct term in English. If such a person searches on "Pontiff States", they will need the redirect in order to learn the correct term. Michael Hardy 01:59 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pontiff States


text:
Duel in the Sun (film)

Duel in the Sun is a 1946 American epic psychological Western film directed by King Vidor, produced and written by David O. Selznick, and starring Jennifer Jones, Joseph Cotten, Gregory Peck, Lillian Gish, Walter Huston, and Lionel Barrymore. Based on the 1944 novel of the same name by Niven Busch, it follows a young orphaned Mestiza woman who experiences prejudice and forbidden love, while residing with her white relatives on a large Texas ranch.

Plot
Pearl Chavez is orphaned after her father Scott Chavez kills her mother, having caught her with a lover. Before Scott Chavez is executed as a punishment for killing his wife, he arranges for his daughter Pearl to live with his second cousin and old sweetheart, Laura Belle in Texas.

Arriving by stagecoach, Pearl is met by Jesse McCanles, one of Laura Belle's two grown sons. He takes her to Spanish Bit, their enormous cattle ranch. The gentle and gracious Laura Belle is happy to welcome her to their home, but not so her husband, the Senator Jackson McCanles, who uses a wheelchair. He calls Pearl "a half-breed" and jealously despises Pearl's father.

The second son, Lewt, is a ladies' man with a personality quite unlike that of his gentlemanly brother Jesse. He expresses his interest in Pearl in direct terms and she takes a strong dislike to him. Laura Belle calls in Mr. Jubal Crabbe, the "Sinkiller", a gun-toting preacher, to counsel Pearl on how to avoid the evils of temptation. Pearl is determined to remain "a good girl".

When she submits to Lewt's aggressive advances one night, Pearl is angry with him and ashamed of her own behavior. But she also cannot help but be flattered by his lust and attentions. Jesse, meanwhile, is ostracized by his father and no longer welcome at the ranch after siding with railroad men, headed by Mr. Langford, against the Senator's personal interests. Jesse is in love with Pearl but he leaves for Austin to pursue a political career and becomes engaged to Helen Langford, Langford's daughter.

Offended when Lewt reneges on a promise to marry her, Pearl takes up with Sam Pierce, a neighboring rancher who is smitten with her. She does not love him but says yes to his proposal. Before they can be married, however, Lewt picks a fight with Pierce in a saloon and guns him down. He insists that Pearl can belong only to him. Lewt becomes a wanted man.

On the run from the law, Lewt finds time to derail a train and occasionally drop by the ranch late at night and press his attentions on Pearl. She cannot resist her desire for him and lies for Lewt to the law, hiding him in her room. Afterward, he walks out on her, despite her pleas that she loves him.

Laura Belle's health takes a turn for the worse and the Senator admits his love for her before she dies. Jesse returns to visit but is too late; his mother is dead. The Senator continues to shun him, as does Lewt, their family feud finally resulting in a showdown. Lewt tosses a gun to his unarmed brother but Jesse stands his ground without attempting to pick it up. Jesse warns that Lewt will eventually be hanged as a murderer, and Lewt responds by shooting Jesse.

The Senator's old friend, Lem Smoot, tells him that Jesse's wound is not mortal and the old man softens up towards his son and reconciles. Pearl is relieved that Jesse is going to survive. When Helen arrives, she invites Pearl to leave Spanish Bit forever and come live with them in Austin. Pearl agrees, but when she is tipped off by one of the Spanish Bit hands that Lewt intends to come after Jesse again, she arms herself and engages in a shootout with Lewt in the desert. They die in each other's arms.

Themes and analysis
Duel in the Sun was released the same year as John Ford's film My Darling Clementine and has been described as taking "the moment of sadism" from Ford's film to extremes. Released in the postwar years during a period of economic boom and the changing role of women in society including marriage, sexuality and inclusion in the work force left some Americans feeling alienated. Psychological westerns, popular in the 1940s, featured characters plagued by a dark torment that reflected the post-war attitudes. The march of progress is symbolized by an advancing railroad cutting across a senator's cattle lands.

The "civilizing forces" of the American West are represented by the characters of Pearl's father, Laura Belle and Jesse, while Lewt and Senator McCanles are constant reminders that she is not part of the white patriarchal order. After being raped by Lewt, Pearl is not able to meet the Victorian-era standards for moral conduct. Her identity as part Indian is "linked to notions of uncontrollable drives, the fading of subjectivity, and the loss of conscious agency". Believing she encouraged the rape, Jesse ends their romantic relationship. The "dark" or savage element of her sexuality and unrestrained passions has a racial dimension, contrasted with the white feminine ideal in the film's imagery, it is something needing to be tamed. She is "too sexual to be a proper wife, too dark to be a comfortable part of [white] society, and too passionate to be controlled with anything but violence".

As Pearl is already "spoiled" by the rape she no longer needs to control her sexuality and enters into a sadomasochistic relationship with Lewt who treats her viciously and with racist abuse like calling her a "bob-tailed little half-breed". Marriage with Pearl is out of the question for Lewt due to his father's expectations that the family ranch not be "turned into an Injun reservation" though Lewt continues to exhibit jealous, controlling behaviors including attempting to murder his brother Jesse when he makes plans for Pearl to attend school in Austin. While in many ways the typical hero of American westerns, Lewt crosses over into the realm of the "savage" or "uncivilized". The violence Pearl encounters from Lewt leads her to develop gradually into a femme fatale type character who eventually murders him even as she loves him in order to protect the goodness of Jesse and his fiancée Helen.

Development
The film was adapted by Oliver H. P. Garrett and David O. Selznick from the novel by Niven Busch.

Busch wrote the novel after working on the script for The Westerner which made him convinced he could write a better Western. He went to Arizona to research a book and got the idea for the novel. According to Busch: "The idea was, simply, instead of writing about two guys and wondering how to get a girl in, to write about a girl and let the guys come in as they happened. Having a woman was new, especially a very sexy woman in a family consisting entirely of men. It was dynamite—like the whore and the lighthouse." Busch said the novel "had great success right off" and "was a huge bestseller in paperback".

Busch set up the film as producer at RKO and hired Garrett to write the script. John Wayne was going to play Newt because he had an obligation with the studio. Busch had difficulty casting the female lead. He wanted Veronica Lake; they offered it to Hedy Lamar, who fell pregnant. Busch's then-wife Terese Wright did not want to play the role as she felt it did not suit her. Then the role was offered to Jennifer Jones. Her lover (and future husband) David O. Selznick started making a series of demands so RKO's head of production Charles Koerner sold the project at a profit to Selznick to produce.

The film proved to be a turbulent experience for Selznick and Vidor, with several directors being left uncredited for their work in the film, such as Josef von Sternberg, William Dieterle, William Cameron Menzies, Otto Brower, Sidney Franklin and Selznick himself. Production unit managers Glenn Cook and William McGarry were also uncredited.

Busch said Selznick "had deteriorated a lot. He was taking sleeping pills at night and benzedrine by day. And he was beginning to get very sloppy and very arrogant. Then he tried to hoist Vidor out of there".

Filming
Duel in the Sun had a protracted filming process that last approximately a year and a half, with principal photography beginning March 1, 1945, and concluding in September 1946. The film was largely shot in Wildwood Regional Park in Thousand Oaks, California. The train derailment scenes were filmed on the Sierra Railroad in Tuolumne County, California, using a combination of a real train and large scale models.

Censorship
As shot, the film could not make it past the Hays Code censors or religious review boards and so was heavily edited by state censor boards while several states (mostly in the South but also in New England) refused to license the film. It was nicknamed Lust in the Dust, which eventually became the name of another film. A scene in which Pearl does a seductive dance for Lewton was cut from the film before it was released.

Box office
Duel in the Sun had its world premiere in Los Angeles on December 31, 1946 at the Egyptian Theatre. It opened in New York City on May 8, 1947. The film was shown at increased admission prices which boosted its earnings to $8.7 million in rentals in the United States and Canada during its initial release.

Because of the film's huge production costs, rumored to be over $6,000,000 (equivalent to approximately $ in ), its $2,000,000 advertising campaign (unheard of at the time) and Selznick's costly distribution tactics, the film only broke even.

Critical reaction
Bosley Crowther of The New York Times wrote: "For, despite all his flashy exploitation, Mr. Selznick can't long hide the fact that his multimillion-dollar Western is a spectacularly disappointing job... Those are also harsh words about a picture which promises very much and which, even for all its disappointments, has some flashes of brilliance in it. But the ultimate banality of the story and its juvenile slobbering over sex (or should we say "primitive passion", as says a ponderous foreword?) compels their use." William Brogdon of Variety gave the film a favorable review: "As a production it adds no class distinction to David O. Selznick but assures him a top commercial success. The star lineup is impressive. Vastness of the western locale is splendidly displayed in color by mobile cameras. Footage is overwhelmingly expansive, too much so at times considering its length."

Harrison's Reports deemed the film as a glorified' Western, produced on an immense scale. Its theme is tragic love-making, with tragic consequences...Some of the photographic shots are extremely effective; they make the film look immense." Edwin Schallert of the Los Angeles Times praised the film as "a picture of terrific in fact, well-nigh bewildering impact. It embodies a strange tragical drama of love, hate and death, set against wild western desert wastes and mesas and fierce mountain fastnesses. Historical in pattern, the narrative, as told on the screen, seems to draw from the most elemental sources, with few of its characters that are not, at times, motivated by the most primitive and even brutal impulses. A tremendously strong production, lurid and violent in the handling of many of its scenes, it still possesses a bigness of design which commands appreciation and respect."

Niven Busch called it "Great showmanship. It had a few good scenes, and it had a big expansive canvas. It wasn’t the way I would have made the picture. But I took the money and ran. It sold a lot of books for me, so why should I complain? It was an extravaganza rather than realistic. There were more people in the charge down to the railroad than there were in Texas at that time. But what a grand piece of panorama. It did not have the quality of Gone with the Wind, but it had the same kind of scope."

Home media
The film never received a LaserDisc release, though 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment did issue a VHS edition of the film. Anchor Bay Entertainment released the film on DVD in 1999 in a standard edition, followed by a "Roadshow Edition" (featuring its original theatrical musical overture, narration, and outro) in 2001.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Home Entertainment released a subsequent DVD edition on May 25, 2004. The film was released for the first time on Blu-ray by Kino Lorber (in the "Roadshow Edition") on August 15, 2017.

Legacy
The film was one of the first to be honored by a record album, featuring selections from Dimitri Tiomkin's musical score. Rather than use excerpts from the soundtrack, RCA Victor recorded some of the music with the Boston Pops Orchestra conducted by Arthur Fiedler. The music was split into approximately three-minute sections and released on 10-inch 78-rpm discs in 1946. A musical prelude lasting nine and a half minutes as well as a two-minute overture preceded the film with Tiomkin conducting the studio orchestra; this recording was later issued on LP and CD.

Duel in the Sun was first shown on American television on ABC on January 23, 1972.

Martin Scorsese has stated to James Lipton on Inside the Actors Studio that this was the first film he saw and holds it in high regard. He mentioned it in his documentary of American films. David Stratton has also stated a similar high opinion of the film, at the ACMI's "Desert Island Flicks" on March 10, 2010. He first saw the film at the age of six.

Many of the film's plot points (such as the Pearl/Lewt/Sam love triangle) were reused in the Hindi film Janbaaz (1986). In February 2020, the film was shown at the 70th Berlin International Film Festival, as part of a retrospective dedicated to King Vidor's career.

Duel in the Sun was remade as Saiyan in Hindi, and was released in 1951.

title: Duel in the Sun (film)