text:
Downtown

Downtown is a term primarily used in North America by English speakers to refer to a city's sometimes commercial, cultural and often the historical, political, and geographic heart. It is often synonymous with its central business district (CBD). Downtowns typically contain a small percentage of a city's employment. Sometimes, smaller downtowns are surrounded by lower population densities and lower incomes than suburbs. It is often distinguished as a hub of public transit and culture.

Origins
The Oxford English Dictionary's first citation for "down town" or "downtown" dates to 1770, in reference to the center of Boston. Some have posited that the term "downtown" was coined in New York City, where it was in use by the 1830s to refer to the original settlement, or town, at the southern tip of the island of Manhattan. As the town of New York grew into a city, the only direction it could grow on the island was toward the north, proceeding upriver from the original settlement, the "up" and "down" terminology coming from the customary map design in which up was north and down was south. Thus, anything north of the original town became known as "uptown" (Upper Manhattan), and was generally a residential area, while the original town – which was also New York's only major center of business at the time – became known as "downtown" (Lower Manhattan).

During the late 19th century, the term was gradually adopted by cities across the United States and Canada to refer to the historical core of the city, which was most often the same as the commercial heart of the city. "Uptown" also spread, but to a much lesser extent. In both cases, though, the directionality of both words was lost, so that a Bostonian might refer to going "downtown", even though it was north of where they were. "Downtown lay to the south in Detroit, but to the north in Cleveland, to the east in St. Louis, and to the west in Pittsburgh. In Boston, a resident pointed out in 1880, downtown was in the center of the city. Uptown was north of downtown in Cincinnati, but south of downtown in New Orleans and San Francisco."

Notably, "downtown" was not included in dictionaries as late as the 1880s. But by the early 1900s, "downtown" was clearly established as the proper term in American English for a city's central business district, although the word was virtually unknown in Britain and Western Europe, where expressions such as "city centre" (British English), "el centro" (Spanish), "das Zentrum" (German), etc are used. Even as late as the early part of the 20th century, English travel writers felt it necessary to explain to their readers what "downtown" meant.

Although American downtowns lacked legally-defined boundaries, and were often parts of several of the wards that most cities used as their basic functional district, locating the downtown area was not difficult, as it was the place where all the street railways and elevated railways converged, and – at least in most places – where the railroad terminals were. It was the location of the great department stores and hotels, as well as that of theaters, clubs, cabarets, and dance halls, and where skyscrapers were built once that technology was perfected. It was also frequently, at first, the only part of a city that was electrified. It was also the place where street congestion was the worst, a problem for which a solution was never really found.

But most of all, downtown was the place where the city did its business. Inside its small precincts, sometimes as small as several hundred acres, the majority of the trading, selling, and purchasing – retail and wholesale – in the entire area would take place. There were hubs of business in other places around the city and its environs, but the downtown area was the chief one, truly the central business district. And as more and more business was done downtown, those who had their homes there were gradually pushed out, selling their property and moving to quieter residential areas uptown.

Skyscrapers
The skyscraper would become the hallmark of the downtown area. Prior to the invention of the elevator – and later the high-speed elevator – buildings were limited in height to about six stories, which was a de facto limit set by the amount of stairs it was assumed that people would climb, but with the elevator, that limit was shattered, and buildings began to be constructed up to about sixteen stories. What limited them then was the thickness of the masonry needed at the base to hold the weight of the building above it. As the buildings got taller, the thickness of the masonry and the space needed for elevators did not allow for sufficient rentable space to make the building profitable. What shattered that restriction was the invention of first the iron- and then the steel frame building, in which the building's load was carried by an internal metal frame skeleton, which the masonry – and later glass – simply hung off of without carrying any weight.

Although first used in Chicago, the steel-framed skyscraper caught on most quickly in New York City in the 1880s, and from there spread to most other American cities in the 1890s and 1900s. The apparent lack of a height limitation of this type of building set off a fervent debate over whether their height should be restricted by law, with proponents and opponents of height limits bringing out numerous arguments in favor of their position. The question of height limits also had a profound implication for the nature of downtown itself: would it continue to be a concentrated core, or as it grew, would height limits force it to spread out into a larger area. In the short run, the proponents of height limits were successful in their efforts. By the 1910s, most of the large and medium-sized cities had height limits in effect, although New York, Philadelphia, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Minneapolis were notable holdouts.

Zoning
Ultimately, it was not simple height limits that restricted skyscrapers, but they were limited by comprehensive zoning laws which set up separate requirements for different parts of a city. Zoning rules would regulate not only height, but also a building's volume, the percentage of the lot used, and the amount of light the building blocked. Zoning regulations sometimes encouraged setbacks (step-like recessions in the outer wall, making higher-up segments of the building progressively narrower than the base) to reduce a building's bulk by allowing additional height per foot of setback – the exact amount depending on what zone the building was in. The ultimate effect of setbacks is to increase the sunlight and visible sky at street level. New York City was the first to do this, with the 1916 Zoning Resolution, which was prompted in large part by the construction of the Equitable Building in 1915. The Equitable Building was a 40-story building with straight sides and no setbacks, which raised fears of the downtown area becoming a maze of dark streets that never saw the sun. Worse yet, at least from a real estate perspective, this new building created 1.2 million square feet (111,000 m2) of office space, flooding into what was already a sluggish market. To many in the real estate industry, the zoning law was an example of a "reasonable restriction."

Once New York had passed its law, other cities followed, although proposed zoning measures did meet stiff resistance in some places, often because of the inclusion of overly restrictive height limits, and sometimes because the entire concept of zoning was seen as undemocratic and bordering on socialism. Eventually, a model law, the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act of 1922 was drawn up for the guidance of cities wishing to enact zoning regulations, which are now part of virtually every American city.

Central business district
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the downtown area was the business district of the American city, but beginning around the 1920s and 1930s, as cities continued to grow in size and population, rival business districts began to appear outside of downtown in outlying districts. This was the time when the term "central business district" began to appear as more-or-less synonymous with the downtown area. The phrase acknowledged the existence of other business districts in the city, but allocated to downtown the primacy of being "central", not only geographically, in many cities, but also in importance. And in many cases, the downtown area or central business district, itself began to grow, such as in Manhattan where the business district lower Manhattan and the newer one in midtown began to grow towards each other, or in Chicago, where downtown expanded from the Loop across the Chicago River to Michigan Avenue. In fact, the instability of downtown was a cause for concern for business and real estate interests, as the business district refused to stay where it had been, and shifted its location in response to numerous factors, although it generally stayed fairly compact – in the early 1930s even the largest took up less than 2% of the city's space, and most were significantly smaller – and remained the primary business district of the city.

Real estate interests were particularly concerned about the tendency of downtown to move because the downtown area had by far the highest land values in each city. One commentator said that if Chicago's land values were shown as height on a relief map, the Loop would be equivalent to the peaks of the Himalayas compared to the rest of the city. In 1926, Chicago's central business district, which took up less than 1% of the city, had 20% of the city's land value. The same relationship was true in St. Louis in the mid-20s (20%) and Los Angeles in the early 1930s (17%). So when a downtown area started to shift its location, some property owners were bound to lose a great deal of money, while others would stand to gain.

Decentralization
One way in which downtown changed from the late 19th century to the early part of the 20th century was that industrial concerns began to leave downtown and move to the periphery of the city, which meant that downtown's businesses were chiefly part of the burgeoning service sector. Brand new firms followed the older ones, and never came to downtown, settling at the edges of the city or the urban area. Industrial districts developed in these areas, which were sometimes specifically zoned for manufacturing. There, land was considerably cheaper than downtown, property taxes were lower, transportation of supplies and finished products was much easier without the constant congestion emblematic of downtown, and with the improvement of the telephone system, the industrial firms could still keep in touch with the companies they did business with elsewhere. As a result of this migration, manufacturing was no longer a significant part of the downtown mix of businesses.

Another sector which began to move away from downtown even before the turn of the 20th century were the great cultural institutions: museums, symphony halls, main libraries and so on. Not only was the high cost of land downtown a factor, but these institutions wanted larger plots of land than were available there, so that their buildings could themselves be easily perceived as works of art. Organizations such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the New-York Historical Society, the American Museum of Natural History and the Museum of the City of New York, all in Manhattan, moved out of downtown, as did the Museum of Fine Arts, the Boston Public Library, the Boston Symphony Orchestra, and the Massachusetts Historical Society in Boston, the Cleveland Museum of Art, the Baltimore Museum of Art, the Detroit Public Library and the Detroit Institute of Art, and most of the cultural institutions in Pittsburgh. Public reaction to these moves was mixed, with some bemoaning the loss of a counterbalance to the overall materialism of downtown, while others, particularly those involved in real estate, looked positively on the availability of the land which the cultural institutions left behind.

The loss of the major cultural institutions left downtown as a place primarily dedicated to business, but the loss of another sector, retail shopping, defined the type of business that was done there. The great retail outlets like the department stores had always had the tendency to move closer to the residential districts, to make it easier for their customers to get to them, but after 1920 they started to congregate in secondary business districts on the periphery of the city. The growth of chain stores such as J. C. Penney, F. W. Woolworth, Kresge and W. T. Grant, contributed to the increased importance of the outlying shopping districts, which began outselling those retail stores which had remained in the central business district, and provoked those stores to open branches in the secondary districts in attempt to go to where there customers were instead of having them come downtown to them.

Entertainment venues also contributed to the decentralization of commerce which affected the importance and influence of downtown and the central business district. Theaters, vaudeville houses, dance halls and night clubs had been primarily located in downtown, with nickelodeons spread throughout the city. When film became the dominant medium, and exhibitors started to build movie theaters to show them in, they at first built those venues downtown as well, but, as in retail shopping, chain exhibitors such as Loews began to construct them in locations convenient to the mass audience they were seeking; again, it was a matter of bringing their product to where the people were. By the late 1920s, movie houses outside of downtown far outnumbered those in the central district. Not all the movie theaters in the periphery were palaces, but some were, and the net effect was that downtown was no longer the entertainment center of the city.

With the loss of manufacturing, the major cultural institutions, much of the retail shopping in the city, and its loss of status as the entertainment center, the nature of downtown had changed considerably. It was still the location of banks, stocks and commodity exchanges, law and accounting firms, the headquarters of the major industrial concerns and public utilities, insurance companies, and advertising agencies, and in its confines continued to be built new and taller skyscrapers housing offices, hotels and even department stores, but it was still steadily losing ground as decentralization took its toll. Its daytime population was not keeping pace with the population growth of the city around it, and property values, while continuing to rise, were not rising as fast as those in the secondary business districts. Downtown was still the central business district, and was still the most important area for doing business and commerce, but it was no longer as dominant as it once was.

Cause and effect
The causes of decentralization, which decreased the importance of downtown in the life of American cities, have been ascribed to many factors, including each city's normal growth patterns; advances in technology like the telephone, which made it easier for business-to-business intercourse to take place over a distance, thus lessening the need for a centralized commercial core; the rise of the private automobile, which allowed shoppers to go to peripheral business districts more easily; a strong increase in streetcar fares; and the continuing problem of congestion in the narrow streets of the downtown area.

As much as people disagreed about what caused decentralization, they were even less in agreement about how decentralization would affect the central business district, with opinions varying all the way from the belief that it would diminish downtown sufficiently that it would eventually consist of only offices and the headquarters of corporate giants, to the belief that decentralization would lead to the (perhaps deserved) death of downtown entirely as unnecessary, a victim of its untameable traffic congestion. In between were those who saw a diminishment of the area's influence, but not enough to prevent it from remaining the "Sun" that the outlying business districts revolved around. Others doubted whether decentralization had as strong an impact as it was credited with. Positions were taken that downtown was a natural part of the evolution of a city, or the unnatural result of a de facto conspiracy by merchants and property owners, so the question of what decentralization would do to downtown became bound up with the question about the area's legitimacy.

Decentralization also increased the incidences of rivalry between downtown and burgeoning business districts. In Los Angeles, for instance, downtown and Wilshire Boulevard battled for dominance, and in Cincinnati the rivalry was between the old downtown centered around Fountain Square and the one on Canal Street. The diminishment of downtown by decentralization caused these battles to be between areas that were now more relatively equal.

The Great Depression
Like almost every other aspect of American life, the Great Depression had a major effect on the country's downtown area. Downtown was just coming off a major building boom, in which significant amounts of new commercial and office space, hotels, and department stores had been built. By 1931 there were 89 buildings of 30 stories or more in Manhattan, and between 1925 and 1931, office space nearly doubled; in Chicago, it increased by almost 75%, in Philadelphia by almost two-thirds, and by more than 50% in New Orleans and Denver. In the 1920s, 500,000 additional hotel rooms were built in New York, and from 1927 to 1931 there were 84 large hotels built there, an increase of hotel space by two-thirds.

When the boom was over, and the Depression had begun to have its effect, much of this new space became unneeded excess. Owners of smaller buildings who could not keep a sufficient number of tenants to pay their overhead, tore down their buildings, but whereas in the recent past they would have been replaced with taller buildings, now they became one- and two-story parking garages or ground-level parking lots. These were widely known as "taxpayers", as they generated enough revenue for the owner of the lot to pay the taxes on it. Rents fell, sometimes as much as 30%, and non-payment of rent increased. Even with the "taxpayers" taking away commercial space, vacancy rates rose precipitously. Owners went into default, and downtown real estate lost considerable value: 25–30% in the Chicago Loop – although values in other parts of the city, including the outlying business districts, fared even worse.

Department stores were hit hard; most managed to keep their doors open, but few made money. Hotels which needed to have large staffs, and required high occupancy rates to make a profit were also deeply affected; in Manhattan the hotel occupancy rate fell from 1929's 70% to around 50% in 1933. Room rates were slashed, revenue dropped, and many hotels closed or defaulted. By 1934, 80% of hotels in Manhattan were owned by their creditors.

Recovery
The slow recovery from the effects of the Great Depression began in the mid-1930s, decelerated at the end of the 1930s, and picked up speed with the start of World War II, so that by the early 1940s the country was for the most part out of the Depression. Excess commercial space began to be used, vacancy rates dropped, department store sales rose, hotel occupancy rates went up, and revenues increased.

Despite this recovery, the daytime population of the country's downtowns did not rebound. For instance, in Chicago between 1929 and 1949, the population of the city grew 7%, and that of the entire metropolitan area by about 14%, but the daytime population of The Loop only rose 1/3 of 1%. With a few exceptions, such as New York City, this pattern was typical across American cities, and was tied to the slowing down of the rate of growth of the cities themselves. Cities in the US grew much more slowly than during any other period in the history of the country, and some even lost population. Metropolitan regions grew faster than the cities inside them, indicating the start of the decades of urban sprawl, but they too grew at a slower pace than usual. Downtowns also had less daytime population because people now went to the outlying business districts, which were closer to their homes by car, for their shopping and entertainment, to do business, and to work. The increased use of automobiles over mass transit also damaged downtown, since the streetcar lines converged on downtown, while the roads went everywhere. All of these factors contributed to the lesser recovery of downtown relative to the city as a whole and the metropolitan area.

Another sign that downtowns were no longer as central to city life as they once were include the decreased portion of retail trade that took place there as compared to the peripheral business areas, which profited by the growth of the chain stores, to the detriment of the big downtown department stores. Furthermore, the "taxpayers", which many people had expected to disappear once the economy improved, remained in place, and even increased in number. In the Loop in Chicago, by the early 1940s, 18% of the land was vacant or was used for parking; in Los Angeles at the same time, the figure was 25%. Demand for commercial space was so light that it did not make financial sense to construct expensive new buildings, and banks began to refuse to make loans for that purpose, redlining whole neighborhoods in the central business district.

Characteristics
The typical American downtown has certain unique characteristics. During the postwar economic boom in the 1950s, the residential population of most downtowns crashed. This has been attributed to reasons such as slum clearance, construction of the Interstate Highway System, and white flight from urban cores to rapidly expanding suburbs. Due to well-intended but ineptly executed urban revitalization projects, downtowns eventually came to be dominated by high-rise office buildings in which commuters from the suburbs filled white-collar jobs, while the remaining residential populations sank further into unemployment, poverty, and homelessness. By the 1990s, many office-oriented businesses began to abandon the tired old downtowns for the suburbs, resulting in what are now known as "edge cities". One textbook, in explaining why edge cities are so popular, stated:

"The big central city comes with dirt, crime, subways, stress, congestion, high taxes, and poor public schools. Edge cities are not immune to all of these problems (especially congestion) but for now they largely avoid most of them."

Since then, between 2000 and 2010, downtown areas grew rapidly in population. In U.S. metro areas with at least five million people, the population within two miles of the city hall grew twice as fast as the overall population in the metro area.

Relative geography
The terms downtown and uptown can refer to cardinal directions, for example, in Manhattan, where downtown is also a relative geographical term. Anything south of where the speaker is currently standing, in most places, is said to be downtown. Anything north of the speaker is uptown. In the common New York City phrase "We're going to take the subway downtown", downtown refers to traveling in the geographic direction of south. A person standing on 121st Street and walking ten blocks south could also be said to have walked ten blocks downtown. The term uptown is used to refer to the cardinal direction north. Such concepts derive from Manhattan's elongated shape, running roughly north–south and nowhere more than 2 mi wide. As such, transportation on the island travels in the uptown/downtown directions. The other boroughs are wider, and "downtown" there refers to Lower Manhattan, Downtown Brooklyn, or some more local business district. Mercantile efforts to promote the South Bronx as "Downtown Bronx" have met with little success.

In some North American cities, downtown is the formal name of the neighborhood in which the city's central business district is located. Most major North American cities are located on major bodies of water, like oceans, lakes, and rivers. As cities expanded, people built further away from the water and their historical cores, often uphill. Thus the central business district of a North American city, or the historical core of the city, is often located "down", in altitude, relative to the remainder of the city. Many cities use the Manhattan model and continue to use downtown, midtown, and uptown both as informal relative geographical terms and as formal names for distinct districts. However, the city of Philadelphia uses the designation Center City, not downtown, due to the business district's central location, as well as Philadelphia's age and circumstances; "Center City" corresponds to the City of Philadelphia prior to its amalgamation with Philadelphia County in 1854, leaving it without a unique name, unlike the former boroughs surrounding it; the center of the city is also where Philadelphia City Hall is located within the city's original plat. New Orleans uses the term Central Business District (or CBD) for its downtown due to the historical French Quarter district taking up what would usually be considered the city's historical downtown district, and another area of the city south of the CBD being referred to as "downtown".

Major downtowns
United States (50 most populous American cities)
 * Downtown Albuquerque
 * Downtown Arlington, Texas
 * Downtown Atlanta
 * Downtown Austin
 * Downtown Baltimore
 * Downtown Boston
 * Financial District, Boston
 * Uptown Charlotte
 * Chicago Loop
 * Downtown Colorado Springs
 * Downtown Columbus
 * Downtown Denver
 * Downtown Detroit

 * Downtown Dallas
 * Downtown El Paso
 * Downtown Fort Worth
 * Downtown Fresno
 * Downtown Houston
 * Downtown Indianapolis
 * Downtown Jacksonville
 * Downtown Kansas City
 * Downtown Las Vegas
 * Downtown Long Beach
 * Downtown Los Angeles
 * Downtown Louisville
 * Downtown Memphis
 * Downtown Mesa

 * Downtown Miami
 * Downtown Milwaukee
 * Downtown Minneapolis
 * Downtown Nashville
 * Downtown New Orleans
 * Midtown Manhattan, New York City
 * Financial District, New York City
 * Downtown Brooklyn, New York City
 * Downtown Oakland
 * Downtown Oklahoma City
 * Downtown Omaha
 * Center City, Philadelphia
 * Downtown Phoenix
 * Downtown Portland
 * Downtown Raleigh

 * Downtown Sacramento
 * Downtown Saint Paul
 * Downtown San Antonio
 * Downtown San Diego
 * Downtown San Francisco
 * Downtown San Jose
 * Downtown Seattle
 * Downtown Tampa
 * Downtown Tucson
 * Downtown Tulsa
 * Downtown Virginia Beach
 * Downtown, Washington, D.C.
 * Downtown Wichita

Canada
 * Downtown Calgary
 * Downtown Edmonton
 * Downtown Halifax
 * Downtown Montreal
 * Downtown Ottawa
 * Downtown St. John's
 * Downtown Toronto
 * Downtown Vancouver
 * Downtown Victoria
 * Downtown Winnipeg

title: Downtown


text:
Artemas Ward

Artemas Ward (November 26, 1727 – October 28, 1800) was an American major general in the American Revolutionary War and a Congressman from Massachusetts. He was considered an effective political leader, President John Adams describing him as "universally esteemed, beloved, and confided in by his army and his country".

Early life
Artemas Ward was born at Shrewsbury in the Province of Massachusetts Bay in 1727 to Nahum Ward (1684–1754) and Martha (Howe) Ward. He was the sixth of seven children. His father had broad and successful career interests as a sea captain, merchant, land developer, farmer, lawyer and jurist. As a child he attended the common schools and shared a tutor with his brothers and sisters. He graduated from Harvard in 1748 and taught there briefly.

On July 31, 1750, he married Sarah Trowbridge (December 3, 1724 – December 13, 1788), the daughter of Reverend Caleb Trowbridge and Hannah Trowbridge of Groton. The young couple returned to Shrewsbury where Artemas opened a general store. In the next fifteen years they would have eight children: Ithamar in 1752, Nahum (1754), Sara (1756), Thomas (1758), Artemas Jr. (1762), Henry Dana (1768), Martha (1760), and Maria (1764).

Township assessor
In 1751, at age 23 or 24, he was named a township assessor for Worcester County, the first of many public offices he was to fill. In 1752 he was elected a justice of the peace and to the first of many terms in the Massachusetts provincial assembly, or "general court."

French and Indian War (1754–1758)
Between 1755 and 1757, Ward was called to active duty at intervals that alternated with his attendance at the General Court. In 1755 the Massachusetts militia was restructured for the war; Ward was made a major in the 3rd Regiment which drew its company mainly from Worcester County. The 3rd primarily served as a garrison force along the frontier in western Massachusetts. In 1757 he was promoted to regimental colonel of the 3rd Regiment of the militias of Middlesex and Worcester counties. In 1758 the regiment marched with Abercrombie's force to sortie on Fort Ticonderoga, but Ward was sidelined during the campaign by an "attack of the stone."

Between wars
By 1762, Ward returned to Shrewsbury permanently and was named to the Court of Common Pleas. In the General Court (the provincial assembly) he, with Samuel Adams and John Hancock, was appointed to the taxation committee. On the floor, he was second only to James Otis in speaking out against the acts of parliament in London. His prominence in these debates prompted the Royal Governor Francis Bernard to revoke his military commission in 1767. At the next election in 1768, Bernard voided the election results for Worcester and banned Ward from the assembly, but this didn't silence him.

In the growing sentiment favoring rebellion, the 3rd Regiment resigned en masse from British service on October 3, 1774. They then marched on Shrewsbury to inform Ward that they had unanimously elected him their leader. Later that month the governor abolished the assembly. The towns of Massachusetts responded by setting up a colony-wide Committee of Safety. One of the first actions of the committee was to name Ward as general and commander-in-chief of the colony's militia.

American Revolutionary War
Following the Battle of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, the rebel (colonial) forces followed the British troops back to Boston and deployed to start the Siege of Boston, cutting all land access to the city. At first Ward directed his forces from his sickbed (in Shrewsbury), later moving his headquarters to Cambridge. Soon, both the New Hampshire and Connecticut provisional governments named him commander of their forces participating in the siege. Most of his efforts during this time were devoted to organization and supply problems.

Additional British forces arrived by sea in May, and in June, Ward learned of their plan to attack Bunker Hill. He gave orders to fortify the point, setting the stage for the Battle of Bunker Hill on June 17, 1775. Command during the battle devolved upon General Israel Putnam and Colonel William Prescott.

Meanwhile, the Continental Congress was creating the Continental Army. On June 17, Congress commissioned Ward a major general, and appointed him second in command to General George Washington. (Ward was one of the original four major generals in the Continental Army along with Charles Lee, Philip Schuyler and Israel Putnam.) Over the next nine months he helped convert the assembled militia units into the Continental Army.

After the British evacuation of Boston on March 17, 1776, Washington led the main body of the army to New York City. Ward took command of the Eastern Department and held that post until March 1777, when ill health forced his resignation from the army.

Post-war and death
Even during his military service, Ward also served as a state court justice in 1776 and 1777. From 1777 to 1779, as President of the state's Executive Council, he effectively served as governor before the ratification of the Massachusetts Constitution in 1780. He was continuously elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives from 1779 through 1785, leading it as Speaker in 1785.

Ward was appointed a delegate to the Continental Congress in 1780 and 1781, and from 1791 to 1795 was elected twice to the United States House of Representatives. He was one of nine representatives to vote against final passage of the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Ward died at his home in Shrewsbury on October 28, 1800, and was buried with Sarah in the town's Mountain View Cemetery. (His great-grandson Artemas Ward wrote The Grocer's Encyclopedia, published in 1911.)

Ward, Massachusetts
Ward, Massachusetts was incorporated in 1778 in honor of Artemas Ward. In 1837, the town was renamed to Auburn, Massachusetts after complaints from the U.S. postal service that the name Ward was too similar to the nearby town of Ware.

Artemas Ward House
Wards's lifelong home had been built by his father, Nahum, about the time Artemas was born. The home is now known as the Artemas Ward House and is a museum preserved by Harvard University. Located at 786 Main Street in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts it is open to the public for limited hours during the summer months.

Ward Circle

Ward Circle is a traffic circle at the intersection of Nebraska and Massachusetts Avenues in Northwest Washington, D.C. The land on three sides of Ward Circle is owned by American University. The circle contains a statue of Ward.

The great-grandson of Ward gave over four million dollars to Harvard University on the condition that they erect a statue in honor of Ward, and maintain his home in Shrewsbury. Harvard's initial offer in 1927 of $50,000 toward the statue was enough for a statue, but inadequate to provide the general with a horse.

The statue was unveiled on November 3, 1938 by Maj. Gen. Ward's great-great-great-granddaughter, Mrs. Lewis Wesley Feick. Although there are no crosswalks for pedestrian access to the circle, the base of the statue bears this inscription: ARTEMAS WARD 1727–1800 SON OF MASSACHUSETTS GRADUATE OF HARVARD COLLEGE JUDGE AND LEGISLATOR DELEGATE 1780–1781 TO THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS SOLDIER OF THREE WARS FIRST COMMANDER OF THE PATRIOT FORCES

American University
American University named the Ward Circle Building, home of the American University School of Public Affairs, in honor of Artemas Ward.

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

title: Artemas Ward


text:
Battle of the Yalu River (1894)

The Battle of the Yalu River (黄海海戦; lit. 'Naval Battle of the Yellow Sea') was the largest naval engagement of the First Sino-Japanese War, and took place on 17 September 1894, the day after the Japanese victory at the land Battle of Pyongyang. It involved ships from the Imperial Japanese Navy and the Chinese Beiyang Fleet.

The battle is also known by a variety of names: Battle of Haiyang Island, Battle of Dadonggou, Battle of the Yellow Sea and Battle of Yalu, after the geographic location of the battle, which was in the Yellow Sea off the mouth of the Yalu River and not in the river itself. There is no agreement among contemporary sources on the exact numbers and composition of each fleet, but both were of a similar size, and the battle is considered to be one of the Imperial Japanese Navy's greatest victories.

Japan's strategy
Japan's initial strategy was to gain command of the sea, which was critical to its operations in Korea. Command of the sea would allow Japan to transport troops to the mainland. The Imperial Japanese Army's Fifth Division would land at Chemulpo on the western coast of Korea, both to engage and push Chinese forces northwest up the peninsula and to draw the Beiyang Fleet into the Yellow Sea, where it would be engaged in decisive battle. Depending on the outcome of this engagement, Japan would make one of three choices; If the Combined Fleet were to win decisively, the larger part of the Japanese army would undertake immediate landings on the coast between Shanhai Pass and Tianjin in order to defeat the Chinese army and bring the war to a swift conclusion. If the engagement were to be a draw and neither side gained control of the sea, the army would concentrate on the occupation of Korea. Lastly, if the Combined Fleet was defeated and consequently lost command of the sea, the bulk of the army would remain in Japan and prepare to repel a Chinese invasion, while the Fifth Division in Korea would be ordered to hang on and fight a rearguard action.

Chinese moves
With tensions with Japan increasing over the situation on the peninsula, the Chinese government chartered three steamers to carry reinforcements to Korea in late July to bolster their position there. The three troopships were escorted by three naval vessels, the cruiser CHINESE CRUISER Jiyuan and the gunboats Kwang-yi and CHINESE GUNBOAT Tsao-kiang. A Japanese force consisting of the cruisers JAPANESE CRUISER Akitsushima, JAPANESE CRUISER Yoshino and JAPANESE CRUISER Naniwa intercepted the three Chinese warships off Pungo Island, precipitating the action. Within one hour, the engagement ended in a Japanese victory, with Jiyuan forced to flee, Kwang-yi stranded on a shoal and Tsao-kiang captured. Although the first two of the three troopships arrived safely in Korea, on 25 July 1894, Naniwa intercepted the third, Kowshing, which was carrying 1,200 Chinese troops. When the Chinese troops on board refused to surrender or to be interned Naniwa sank the vessel. Over 800 Chinese soldiers died in the action.

Admiral Ding Ruchang had learned about the engagement at Pungdo on the morning of 26 July, when, at 6:00 am, the damaged cruiser Jiyuan arrived at Weihaiwei. Although the Chinese admiral had not been aware of the sinking of Kowshing, he considered the destruction of Kwang-yi and shelling of Jiyuan as an act of war. On the same day, without even notifying Li Hongzhang, he left Weihaiwei with eleven warships and seven torpedo boats and headed for the Korean coast, while the damaged Jiyuan sailed to Lüshunkou for repairs. After arriving in Korean waters on the morning of the following day, the Chinese ships cruised the area looking to engage the enemy. However, the abrupt change in the weather made the patrolling of the Korean waters more arduous, especially for the small torpedo boats and consequently the Chinese fleet returned to Weihaiwei on 28 July. The Chinese warships immediately resupplied themselves with coal while the weather improved, and the main force of the Beiyang Fleet was put to sea again on the following day but without the torpedo boats, heading for the Korean coast. This second cruise lasted longer, until 3 August, but the fleet did not encounter the Japanese.

At the beginning of September, Li Hongzhang decided to reinforce the Chinese forces at Pyongyang, by employing the Beiyang Fleet to escort transports to the mouth of the Taedong River. About 4,500 additional troops were to be redeployed, these had been stationed in the Zhili. On 12 September, half of the troops embarked at Taku on five specially chartered transports and headed to Dalian where two days later, on 14 September, they were joined by another 2,000 soldiers. Initially, Admiral Ding wanted to send the transports under a light escort with only a few ships, while the main force of the Beiyang Fleet would locate and operate directly against Combined Fleet, in order to prevent the Japanese from intercepting the convoy. However, the appearance near Weihaiwei of the Japanese cruisers Yoshino and Naniwa, which were on reconnaissance sortie, thwarted these plans. The Chinese mistook them for the main Japanese fleet. Consequently on 12 September, the entire Beiyang Fleet departed Dalian, heading for Weihaiwei and arriving near the Shandong Peninsula the following day. The Chinese warships spent the entire day cruising the area, waiting for the Japanese. However, since there was no sighting of the Japanese, Admiral Ding decided to return to Dalian, arriving there in the morning of 15 September.

The Japanese victory at Pyongyang had succeeded in pushing Chinese troops north to the Yalu River, in the process removing all effective Chinese military presence on the Korean peninsula. Shortly before the convoy's departure, Admiral Ding received a message concerning the battle at Pyongyang. Although it was rather inaccurate, it informed him about the defeat and subsequently made the redeployment of the troops to near the mouth of the Taedong River unnecessary. Admiral Ding, who then correctly assumed that the next Chinese line of defence would be established on the Yalu River, decided to redeploy the embarked soldiers there. On 16 September, at about 1:00 am, the convoy of five transport ships departed from the Dalian Bay under escort from the main force of the Beiyang Fleet which included the ironclad battleships CHINESE IRONCLAD Dingyuan and CHINESE IRONCLAD Zhenyuan, the small coastal defence battleship CHINESE GUNBOAT Pingyuan, the cruisers CHINESE CRUISER Jingyuen, CHINESE CRUISER Laiyuan, Jiyuan, CHINESE CRUISER Jingyuan and CHINESE CRUISER Zhiyuen, the small cruisers CHINESE CRUISER Yangwei, CHINESE CRUISER Chaoyong and CHINESE CORVETTE Kwan Chia, torpedo gunboat Guangbing, the gunboats Zhennan and Zhenzhong as well as the torpedo boats CHINESE TORPEDO BOAT Fulong and Zuo 1. They reached the mouth of the Yalu River at about 6:00 pm. The transports, escorted by Pingyuan, Guangbing, Zhennan, Zhenzhong, together with both torpedo boats, immediately steamed up the river and dropped their anchors approximately 12 – from the mouth of the Yalu. The troops were disembarked and the landing operation lasted until the morning of 17 September. Meanwhile, the remaining warships of the Beiyang Fleet anchored in shallow waters about 7 - 8 nmi from the shore, south-west of the mouth of the river, where they remained for the rest of the day and the entire night. On 17 September, at 9:20 am, the fleet left its position and conducted a one-and-a-half-hour training exercise before returning to their previous anchorage. Soon thereafter, at 11:28 am, observers on board the Chinese warships spotted smoke from unknown vessels heading from the south-west.

Fleet composition
The Japanese Combined Fleet consisted of two formations. A flying squadron, composed of the four fast cruisers Yoshino, JAPANESE CRUISER Takachiho, Akitsushima, and Naniwa, was under the command of Tsuboi Kōzō. The main fleet consisted of the cruisers JAPANESE CRUISER Matsushima (flagship), JAPANESE CRUISER Chiyoda, JAPANESE CRUISER Itsukushima, JAPANESE CRUISER Hashidate, the ironclads JAPANESE IRONCLAD Fusō, and JAPANESE IRONCLAD Hiei, under the command of Admiral Itō Sukeyuki. There were also two dispatch vessels, the converted liner Saikyō Maru under the command of Swedish-born merchant navy captain John Wilson, and the gunboat JAPANESE GUNBOAT Akagi. The Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Kabayama Sukenori was on a tour of inspection and aboard Saikyō Maru.

Admiral Ding attempted to form his fleet into a southward-facing line abreast with the strongest ships (Dingyuan, Zhenyuan) in the center. The newer Jiyuan, Guangjia, CHINESE CRUISER Zhiyuan, Jingyuan, Laiyuan, Jingyuen, and the obsolete Chaoyong and Yangwei, were lined from left to right. The four-ship group led by Pingyuan, having escorted a convoy upriver, had to catch up, and only joined the action around 2:30 pm, in time to chase off Saikyō Maru.

The Beiyang Fleet had completed escorting a convoy to the mouth of the Yalu River, and was returning to its base at Lüshunkou when it was engaged by the Japanese Navy. On paper, the Beiyang Fleet had the superior ships, including two ironclad battleships, Dingyuan and Zhenyuan, for which the Japanese had no counterparts. The Beiyang Fleet could also call on the assistance of numerous military advisers, including Prussian Army major Constantin von Hanneken, recently from Korea, who was appointed as the naval adviser to Ding. W. F. Tyler, a sub-lieutenant in the Royal Navy Reserve and an Imperial Maritime Customs officer, was appointed as von Hanneken's assistant. Philo McGiffin, a graduate of the US Naval Academy at Annapolis and now a soldier of fortune and an instructor at the Weihaiwei Naval Academy, was appointed to Jingyuan as an adviser or co-commander.

However, examination reveals the truth about China's seemingly advantageous position, as most of their warships were over-age and obsolescent; the ships were also not maintained properly and indiscipline was common among their crews. The greater armour of major Chinese warships and the greater weight of broadside they could fire were more than offset by the number of quick-firing guns on most first-line Japanese warships, which gave the Japanese the edge in any sustained exchange of salvos. The worst feature of both Chinese battleships was actually their main armament; each was armed with short-barreled guns in twin barbettes mounted in echelon which could fire only in restricted arcs. The short barrels of the Chinese main armament meant that the shells had low muzzle velocities and poor penetration, and their accuracy was also poor at long ranges.

Tactically, Chinese naval vessels entered the war with only the crudest sets of instructions – ships that were assigned to designated pairs were to keep together and all ships were to fight end-on, as far forward from the beam as possible, a tactic dictated by the obsolescent arrangement of guns aboard Chinese warships. The only vague semblance of a fleet tactic was that all ships were to follow the visible movements of the flagship, an arrangement made necessary because the signal book used by the Chinese was written in English, a language with which few officers in the Beiyang Fleet had any familiarity.

Though well drilled, the Chinese had not engaged in sufficient gunnery practice beforehand. This lack of training was the direct result of a serious lack of ammunition. Corruption seems to have played a major role; many Chinese shells appear to have been filled with cement or porcelain, or were the wrong caliber and could not be fired. Philo McGiffin noted that many of the gunpowder charges were "thirteen years old and condemned". What little ammunition there was, was to be preserved for real battle. Live ammunition training was rarely carried out. Li wanted to delay the battle against the Japanese fleet, thus allowing the Chinese more time to equip their ships with additional ammunition. However, the Imperial Court called him a coward and his recommendation was turned down. The Chinese fleet was bigger and armed with bigger guns. The Japanese fleet was much faster. As a result, the Japanese would have an advantage in open water.

Initial contact and engagement
Late in the morning the two fleets approached each other, in contrasting formations. The Chinese had intended to form a line abreast, but due to confusion in signals and the differing speeds of the ships, they were in a wedge formation, with the two battleships at the fore and the other vessels trailing behind on both flanks. The Japanese were in column formation with the Flying Squadron in front, followed by the main squadron.

When the enemy was well in sight Admiral Sukeyuki Ito ordered the Flying Squadron to attack the Beiyang Fleet's right flank. The Chinese opened fire at a range of 5000 m, which was far too great to cause any damage. The Japanese, meanwhile, held their fire for another twenty minutes as they headed diagonally across the Beiyang Fleet at twice the speed. On the signal of Admiral Ito, the Japanese squadrons divided. The flying squadron under Tsuboi increased speed from 8 to 14 kn and headed for the very centre of the Chinese formation; the tactic held the puzzled enemy in position. Turning slightly to port, the flying squadron then moved around the right flank of the Chinese formation to strike at the weakest units there. Holding fire until they were in effective range, the cruisers battered Chaoyong and Yangwei. The flying squadron then moved northward to engage Chinese reinforcements coming from the Yalu River.

The main squadron of the Japanese fleet initially followed the same course as the flying squadron towards the Chinese left but completed the turn all the way round to circle behind the Chinese fleet. As the flying squadron again turned south, the Beiyang Fleet was caught between the two Japanese squadrons. Dingyuan and Zhenyuan resisted the heaviest bombardment as a result of their armour; however, the quick firing Japanese guns decimated crews on their decks.

The Flying Squadron meanwhile re-engaged, sinking the cruiser Zhiyuan that had attempted to ram one of the Japanese cruisers, then set off in pursuit of one of several ships on the Chinese left which were deserting their fleet and had fled toward the shallow waters to the north. The squadron successfully hunted down and destroyed the cruiser Jingyuan, but in doing so inadvertently allowed the other Chinese vessels to escape. By this time the main Japanese squadron under Admiral Itō was circling what remained of the Chinese force, the major Japanese ships fired their heavy and quick-firing guns that swept the decks of the Chinese ships and smashed their superstructures. Many of the Japanese ships, however, also received major damage. Yoshino was hit and Akagi and Saikyō Maru were put out of action. JAPANESE IRONCLAD Hiei also sustained serious damage as a result of her inferior speed, her captain decided not to try to follow the Flying Squadron on its sweep around the Chinese fleet, but instead to pass directly through the Chinese line. This maneuver made Hiei an easy target and it sustained a number of serious hits before the ship moved out of range. The damage to Matsushima, however, was the most severe; where the lack of armour was made apparent when she was struck by two 12-inch shells that tore open the deck and ignited ready ammunition causing nearly one hundred casualties and forcing Admiral Itō to transfer his flag to Hashidate.

By sunset the Beiyang Fleet's main formation was near the point of total collapse with both wings gone (the two ships of the Port wing had fled and four units of the Starboard wing destroyed); the four units of the centre were variously damaged and the two largest ships Dingyuan and Zhenyuan were nearly out of ammunition.

Several different explanations have been put forward as to why the Beiyang Fleet did not change their formation to react to the Japanese tactics more effectively. Per Royal Navy Lieutenant William Ferdinand Tyler, stationed on Dingyuan, Admiral Ding ordered his ships to change course in such a way that would have exposed his ship, the flagship, but put the rest of the squadron in a good position to fire on the Japanese fleet. However, Dingyuan's captain deliberately did not acknowledge this order or pass it on to the rest of the fleet. Instead, he ordered Dingyuan to fire its main guns before the Japanese were in range. There is a long-repeated legend that firing the main battery directly forward resulted in the destruction of the flying bridge, but it was a mistranslation of Philo T. McGiffin's memoir, which says that he and Ding were "catapulted" by the shockwave. Now historians agree it was Japanese gunfire that destroyed the flying bridge, leaving Admiral Ding with his legs crushed under the wreckage and thus out of combat for the remainder of the battle. Most of his staff officers on the bridge were likewise injured or killed. The situation was worsened when the Japanese destroyed Dingyuan's foremast, making it impossible for the flagship to signal the rest of the fleet. The Chinese fleet, with some foresight, had anticipated something like this happening and formed into three pairs of mutually supporting vessels to carry the fight on.

According to an account from James Allan, an officer aboard the U.S.-flagged supply ship Columbia, who witnessed the battle, rumors abounded that Admiral Ding deferred command to Major Constantin von Hannecken. He opined that it was not surprising that the Chinese had suffered such losses if an army officer was directing a naval fleet.

The Chinese fleet opened fire on the Japanese fleet as they passed from port to starboard, across the bows of the Chinese vessels. They failed to score any significant hits on the Japanese with their 12 in and 8.2 in guns. At about 3000 yd (the Chinese had been steadily closing the range), the Japanese concentrated their fire on the right flank of the Chinese line, with devastating barrages poured into Chaoyong and Yangwei. Both those vessels burst into flames, because of their heavily varnished and polished wooden surfaces. Burning fiercely, both tried to save themselves by beaching.

As the Japanese ships opened fire, Jiyuan turned and fled, followed by Guangjia. Jiyuan was hit only once, while Guangjia became lost, ran aground, and was scuttled a few days later by its own crew. Some sources also say Jiyuan collided with Yangwei, causing her sinking.

The Japanese had intended to swing the flying division around the right flank of the Chinese line in an encirclement, but the timely arrival of the Kuang Ping and Pingyuan, along with the torpedo boats Fu Lung (built at Schichau) and Choi Ti (a Yarrow-built vessel), diverted this maneuver.

The Japanese fast cruisers veered to port and were then dispatched by Admiral Itoh to go to the assistance of Hiei, Saikyō Maru and Akagi, which had been unable to keep up with the main line, and had then been engaged by the left-hand vessels of the Chinese line when Saikyō Maru tried to finish off the beached Yangwei.

At 3:20 pm, the severely crippled and burning Zhiyuan tried to ram Naniwa (Chinese source says Yoshino) but failed. She sank along with her captain, Deng Shichang.

The Japanese fleet's more reliable, better-maintained ordnance and overwhelming superiority in rapid-firing guns gave it a tactical advantage over the Beiyang Fleet, which fought with limited stocks, consisting of older foreign ammunition and shoddy domestic products. Japanese shells set four Chinese vessels ablaze, destroying three. However, firefighting was well organized on the Chinese vessels. For example, Laiyuan burned severely, yet kept firing. Dingyuan stayed afloat and had casualties of 14 dead and 25 wounded. A total of about 850 Chinese sailors were killed in the battle, with 500 wounded.

The Chinese severely damaged four Japanese warships and lightly damaged two others. Japanese losses were roughly 180 killed and 200 wounded. The Japanese flagship Matsushima suffered the worst single-ship loss, with more than 100 dead or wounded after being hit by a heavy Chinese round. Hiei was severely damaged and retired from the conflict; Akagi suffered from heavy fire, with great loss of life. Saikyō Maru, the converted liner, urged on by Admiral Kabayama Sukenori despite its lack of offensive armament, had been hit by four 12-inch (305 mm) shells and was left sailing virtually out of control as a result.

Analysis
As it was the first fleet encounter since Lissa in 1866, the battle was studied for its tactical lessons not only by the Japanese Navy General Staff, but by naval staffs around the globe. The lessons to a degree were unclear, since the two fleet encounters seemed to be contradictory and cancelled each other out. At Lissa, the Austrians had used the ram in a bows-on frontal attack, in a line abreast formation, whereas the Yalu had been won by broadside naval gunfire delivered from a line ahead formation. What also remained unresolved by the encounter was the debate between the proponents of the big gun and advocates of armor. Although the Canet guns of the Sankeikan-class cruisers had malfunctioned and thus the heaviest Japanese shells had not hit the two Chinese battleships, no other shells had penetrated their armor belts deeper than 4 inches.

However, there were some conclusions that could be drawn from the course and outcome of the battle. The first was that the line ahead was the best formation which preserved the greatest flexibility and simplicity of movement, minimized tactical confusion and also maximized broadside fire. The case against the line abreast formation was not yet absolutely certain, but the wedge formation adopted purposely or accidentally by the Chinese could only have been effective in the hands of a commander whose ship captains had mastered fleet movements, which Ding's subordinates had not. Secondly, the one common denominator between Lissa and the Yalu appeared to be that the victor had fought in separated squadrons. This arrangement provided tactical flexibility and consequently widened the options for maneuver during the chaos of battle.

Due to the Chinese Navy's weak preparations for the battle, faulty ammunition, and a lack of communication and discipline, which was the cause of at least one account of fragging, the Japanese forces were able to operate under very desirable conditions. Their victory in the battle established naval supremacy, demonstrated the weakness of the Chinese military, and by extension, the strength of their own. The New York Times would liken the battle to Waterloo.

Aftermath
The remnants of the Beiyang Fleet retired into Lüshunkou for repairs, but were withdrawn to Weihaiwei to avoid a second encounter with the Japanese fleet during the Battle of Lüshunkou. The Japanese did not pursue the retreating ships, as Dingyuan and Zhenyuan were only slightly damaged, and the Japanese had no way of knowing that the battleships suffered from a lack of ammunition. What remained of the Beiyang Fleet was finally destroyed during a combined Japanese land and naval attack at Weihaiwei.

The defeat of the Beiyang Fleet at the Battle of Yalu River was a major propaganda victory for Japan, with many major European newspapers, including the London Times, Le Temps and Sankt-Peterburgskie Vedomosti, providing front-page coverage and crediting the Japanese victory to its rapid assimilation of western methods and technology. Many credited the prompt action of foreign advisers in the Beiyang Fleet (most notably McGiffin) from keeping the fleet from total annihilation, and for keeping even the most heavily damaged Chinese ships fighting until the very end of the engagement. Some contemporary military analysts, notably U.S. Secretary of the Navy Hilary A. Herbert, called the battle 'nearly a draw' – although the Chinese had lost several warships, the Japanese had suffered considerable damage, and if the Chinese ammunition had been of higher quality, the outcome might have been different. In addition to Herbert, several other American officials published analyses of the battle, including Alfred Thayer Mahan and William F. Halsey Sr.

However, other factors were responsible for the Chinese defeat such as that most of the Chinese ships were over-age, obsolescent and ill-maintained. Additionally undisciplined crews and deficient naval tactics were also at fault. Mark Peattie and Davids Evans state the principal factors in the Japanese victory was their superiority in firepower, particularly an overwhelming advantage in quick-firing guns which proved to be devastating in the hands of well-trained and disciplined gun crews. At the time fire control systems were in their infancy with significant advances still some years away, neither side achieved more than a fraction of hits out of the total number of rounds fired. A contemporary European diplomat also concurs, observing that Japan's naval "victories were due to the skill and daring of her sailors, and not to the ships which they manned".

The Chinese government, after initially denying that its fleet had been defeated, put the blame for the Chinese defeat on Viceroy Li Hongzhang and Admiral Ding Ruchang, both of whom were demoted and stripped of honors. Their subordinates and relatives suffered similar fates. However, both men remained in their posts, and would oversee the final destruction of the Beiyang Fleet at Weihaiwei. However, this attempt to save face were insufficient, as the foreign press would come to find that many of China's claims were false, discrediting them in the eyes of the international community. The Battle of the Yalu and the naval defeats of 1894–1895 in general have been the topic of extensive discussion among Chinese historians and naval officers since events held to mark the 120th anniversary in 2014.

While it was not the first battle involving pre-dreadnought technology on a wide scale (the Battle of Fuzhou in the 1884 Sino-French War predated it), there were significant lessons for naval observers to consider.

Liu Kunyi was replaced by Zhang Zhidong as head of the Nanyang fleet as the Grand Council due to his refusal to send reinforcements north from the fleet. Zhang began organising 5 cruisers from the Nanyang fleet to reinforce the Beiyang fleet which would negate the losses of the Beiyang fleet.

Order of battle
{| border="0" style="margin:1em auto;" {|
 * valign="top" |
 * valign="top" |

Japan
Flying Squadron: Main Fleet: Others:
 * JAPANESE CRUISER Yoshino (4150 t, 20 kn, 4–6, 8–4.7) (Kawara Yōichi, RA Tsuboi Kōzō)
 * JAPANESE CRUISER Takachiho (3650 t, 15 kn, 2–10.2, 6–6) (Nomura Tadashi)
 * JAPANESE CRUISER Naniwa (3650 t, 16 kn, 2–10.2, 6–6) (Tōgō Heihachirō)
 * JAPANESE CRUISER Akitsushima (3150 t, 16 kn, 4–6, 6–4.7) (Kamimura Hikonojō)
 * JAPANESE CRUISER Matsushima (4277 t, 14 kn, 1–12.6, 12–4.7) (Omoto and Dewa Shigetō, VA Itō Sukeyuki) – Damaged
 * JAPANESE CRUISER Chiyoda (2450 t, 19kts, 10–4.7) (Uchida Masatoshi)
 * JAPANESE CRUISER Itsukushima (4277 t, 14 kn, 1–12.6, 11–4.7) (Arima Shin'ichi)
 * JAPANESE CRUISER Hashidate (as Itsukushima) (Hidaka Sōnojō)
 * JAPANESE IRONCLAD Fusō (3718 t, 11 kn, 4–9.4, 2–6) (Arai)
 * JAPANESE CORVETTE Hiei (2200 t, 9 kn, 9–6) (Sakurai Kikunojō) – Damaged
 * JAPANESE GUNBOAT Akagi (615 t, 8 kn, 2–4.7) (Sakamoto Hachirota)
 * Saikyō Maru (merchantman, 2913, 10 kn, small guns) (Kanō Yunoshin)
 * valign="top" |

China (Beiyang Fleet)
Left Wing, left to right
 * CHINESE CRUISER Jiyuan (2,355 t, 15 kn, 2–8.3, 1–5.9, 10MG, 4TT) (Fang Boqian) – Fled at start perhaps then collided with Chaoyung
 * CHINESE CORVETTE Kwan Chia (1,290 t, 16 kn, 1–4.7, 4–5, 8MG) (Wu Ching-jung) – Fled at start, ran aground, scuttled
 * CHINESE CRUISER Zhiyuen (2,300 t, 18 kn, 3–8.3, 2–5.9, 16MG, 4TT) (Teng Shih-chang) – Sunk
 * CHINESE IRONCLAD Dingyuan (flag, 7,355 t, 15 kn, 4–12.2, 2–5.9, 12MG,3TT) (Ding Ruchang & Liu Pu-chan)

Right Wing, left to right
 * CHINESE IRONCLAD Zhenyuan (This vessel is known as Chen Yuen in Capt. McGiffin's reports) (7,430 t, 15 kn, 4–12.2, 2–5.9, 12MG, 3TT) (Lin Tai-tseng & McGiffin, Philo) – Left group to join flag. Damaged
 * CHINESE CRUISER Laiyuan (2,830 t, 15 kn, 2–8.3, 2–5.9, 16MG, 4TT) (Chiu Pao-jen) – Aft on fire, damaged
 * CHINESE CRUISER Jingyuan, 1887 (2,850 t, 15 kn, 2–8.3, 2–5.9. 8MG, 4TT) (Lin Yongsheng) – Caught fire, sank
 * CHINESE CRUISER Jingyuen, 1886 (2,300 t, 18 kn, 3–8.3, 2–5.9, 16MG, 4TT) (Yeh Tus-kuei) – Stayed back to avoid shelling
 * CHINESE CRUISER Chaoyong (1,350 t, 16 kn, 2–10, 4–4.7, 6MG) (Huang Chien-hsun) – Quickly caught fire, sank or beached
 * CHINESE CRUISER Yangwei (1,350 t, 16 kn, 2–10, 4–4.7, 6MG) (Lin Li-chung) – Quickly caught fire, beached, wreck torpedoed next day

Joined Halfway, front to rear, moved to the right flank Order of battle party sourced from JC Perry's The Battle off the Tayang (1964).
 * CHINESE GUNBOAT Pingyuan (2,100 t, 12 kn, 1–12.2, 2–6, 8MG, 4TT) (Li Ho-lien)
 * Guangbing (1,000 t, 16 kn, 3–4.7, 8MG, 4TT) (Chen Pi-kuang)
 * CHINESE TORPEDO BOAT Fulong (torpedo-boat, 128 t, 15 kn, MGs, 3TT) (Choy)
 * Zuo 1 (torpedo-boat, 69 t, 16 kn, MGs, 3TT) (?)
 * }
 * }

title: Battle of the Yalu River (1894)


text:
Nero Decree

The Nero Decree (Nerobefehl) was issued by Adolf Hitler on 19 March 1945, ordering the destruction of German infrastructure to prevent its use by Allied forces as they penetrated deep within Germany. It was officially titled Decree Concerning Demolitions in the Reich Territory (Befehl betreffend Zerstörungsmaßnahmen im Reichsgebiet) and has subsequently become known as the Nero Decree, after the Roman Emperor Nero, who, according to an apocryphal story, engineered the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD. The decree was deliberately disobeyed by Albert Speer shortly before the fall of the Nazi regime.

Background
By the beginning of 1945, the situation for Germany was desperate. Most of the conquered territories had been liberated or recaptured, the Ardennes Offensive had failed, and Allied armies were advancing on Germany proper from both the East and the West. However, Hitler was not willing to accept the terms of unconditional surrender, and considered this as repeating the same shame as Versailles. Moreover, according to some around him, Hitler came to view the German people as having failed him, unworthy of their great mission in history and thus deserving to die alongside his regime.

This was not the first time Hitler had tried to destroy infrastructure before it could be taken. Shortly before the Liberation of Paris, Hitler ordered explosives to be placed around important landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower, and key transportation hubs. If the Allies came near the city, the military governor, General Dietrich von Choltitz was to detonate these bombs, leaving Paris "lying in complete debris". Von Choltitz, however, did not carry out the order and surrendered to the Allies, later alleging that this was the moment he realised that "Hitler was insane". Similarly, Hitler had issued orders to enact a scorched earth policy upon the Netherlands in late 1944, when it became obvious that the Allies were about to retake the country, but Arthur Seyss-Inquart, the Reichskommissar in charge of the Netherlands during its occupation, was able to greatly limit the scope to which the order was executed.

Decree
The order's most pertinent section reads as follows:

It is a mistake to think that transport and communication facilities, industrial establishments and supply depots, which have not been destroyed, or have only been temporarily put out of action, can be used again for our own ends when the lost territory has been recovered. The enemy will leave us nothing but scorched earth when he withdraws, without paying the slightest regard to the population. I therefore order:

1) All military transport and communication facilities, industrial establishments and supply depots, as well as anything else of value within Reich territory, which could in any way be used by the enemy immediately or within the foreseeable future for the prosecution of the war, will be destroyed.

Actions
The decree was in vain. The responsibility for carrying it out fell to Albert Speer, Hitler's Minister of Armaments and War Production. According to him, Speer was appalled by the order and lost faith in the Führer. Just as von Choltitz had several months earlier, Speer deliberately failed to carry out the order. Upon receiving it, he requested to be given exclusive power to implement the plan, instead using his power to convince the generals and Gauleiters to ignore the order. Hitler apparently remained unaware of this until the very end of the war. Speer would later claim that during his last ever meeting with Hitler on 22 April in the Berlin Führerbunker, he admitted to having deliberately disobeyed his instructions. Hitler was allegedly angry with Speer, but allowed him to leave nonetheless. However, Speer's recollection has been disputed by some historians, with Richard J. Evans describing it as "pure invention." Hitler committed suicide on 30 April 1945, forty-two days after issuing the order. Shortly afterwards, on 7 May 1945, General Alfred Jodl signed the German military surrender, and on 23 May Speer was arrested on the orders of U.S. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, together with the rest of the provisional German government led by Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz, Hitler's successor as head of state.

authors: نوفاك اتشمان

title: Nero Decree


text:
Cauldron

A cauldron (or caldron) is a large pot (kettle) for cooking or boiling over an open fire, with a lid and frequently with an arc-shaped hanger and/or integral handles or feet. There is a rich history of cauldron lore in religion, mythology, and folklore.

Etymology
The word cauldron is first recorded in Middle English as caudroun (13th century). It was borrowed from Norman caudron (Picard caudron, chaudron). It represents the phonetical evolution of Vulgar Latin *caldario for Classical Latin caldārium "hot bath", that derives from cal(i)dus "hot".

The Norman-French word replaces the Old English ċetel (German (Koch)Kessel "cauldron", Dutch (kook)ketel "cauldron"), Middle English chetel. The word "kettle" is a borrowing of the Old Norse variant ketill "cauldron".

History
Cauldrons can be found from the late Bronze Age period; these include vast ones with a volume of 60–70 L.

Symbolism and mythology
Cauldrons have largely fallen out of use in the developed world as cooking vessels. While still used for practical purposes, a more common association in Western culture is the cauldron's use in witchcraft—a cliché popularized by various works of fiction, such as William Shakespeare's play Macbeth. In fiction, witches often prepare their potions in a cauldron. Also, in Irish folklore, a cauldron is purported to be where leprechauns keep their gold and treasure.

In some forms of Wicca, appropriating aspects of Celtic mythology, the cauldron is associated with the goddess Cerridwen. Welsh legend also tells of cauldrons that were useful to warring armies. In the second branch of the Mabinogi in the tale of Branwen, Daughter of Llŷr, the Pair Dadeni (Cauldron of Rebirth) is a magical cauldron in which dead warriors could be placed and then be returned to life, save that they lacked the power of speech. It was suspected that they lacked souls. These warriors could go back into battle until they were killed again. In Wicca and some other forms of neopagan or pagan belief systems, the cauldron is still used in magical practices. Most often a cauldron is made of cast iron and is used to burn loose incense on a charcoal disc, to make black salt (used in banishing rituals), for mixing herbs, or to burn petitions (paper with words of power or wishes written on them). Cauldrons symbolize not only the Goddess but also represent the womb (because it holds something) and on an altar, it represents earth because it is a working tool. Cauldrons are often sold in New Age or "metaphysical" stores and may have various symbols of power inscribed on them.

The Holy Grail of Arthurian legend is sometimes referred to as a "cauldron", although traditionally the grail is thought of as a hand-held cup rather than the large pot that the word "cauldron" usually is used to mean. This may have resulted from the combination of the grail legend with earlier Celtic myths of magical cauldrons.

The common translation for ding is often referred to as a cauldron. In Chinese history and culture, possession of one or more ancient dings is often associated with power and dominion over the land. Therefore, the ding is often used as an implicit symbolism for power. The term "inquiring of the ding" (Chinese: 问鼎; pinyin: wèn dǐng) is often used to symbolize the use of divination or for the quest for power. One example of the ding cauldron and gaining power over the traditional provinces of China is the Nine Tripod Cauldrons (whether regarded as myth or history).

Archeologically intact actual cauldrons with apparent cultural symbolism include:
 * the Gundestrup cauldron, made in the 2nd or 1st century BC, found at Gundestrup, Denmark
 * a Bronze Age cauldron found at Hassle, Sweden
 * Ceremonial cauldrons from the ancient Armenian state of Urartu
 * the cauldron where the Olympic Flame burns for the duration of the Olympic Games

Cauldrons known only through myth and literature include:
 * Dagda's Cauldron
 * The Cauldron of Dyrnwch the Giant
 * Pair Dadeni
 * Cauldron of Hymir

title: Cauldron


text:
Chalice

A chalice (from Latin calix 'mug', borrowed from Ancient Greek κύλιξ (kylix) 'cup') or goblet is a footed cup intended to hold a drink. In religious practice, a chalice is often used for drinking during a ceremony or may carry a certain symbolic meaning.

Christian

The ancient Roman calix was a drinking vessel consisting of a bowl fixed atop a stand, and was in common use at banquets. In Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Lutheranism and some other Christian denominations, a chalice is a standing cup used to hold sacramental wine during the Eucharist (also called the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion). Chalices are often made of precious metal, and they are sometimes richly enamelled and jewelled. The gold goblet was symbolic for family and tradition.

Chalices have been used since the early Church. Because of Jesus' command to his disciples to "Do this in remembrance of me." , and Paul's account of the Eucharistic rite in, the celebration of the Eucharist became central to Christian liturgy. Naturally, the vessels used in this important act of worship were highly decorated and treated with great respect. A number of early examples of chalices have a large bowl and two handles. Over time, the size of the bowl diminished and the base became larger for better stability. Eventually, official church regulations dictated the construction, blessing, and treatment of chalices. Some religious traditions still require that the chalice, at least on the inside of the cup, be gold-plated.

In Western Christianity, chalices will often have a pommel or node where the stem meets the cup to make the elevation easier. In Roman Catholicism, chalices tend to be tulip-shaped, and the cups are quite narrow. Roman Catholic priests will often receive chalices from members of their families when first ordained.

In Eastern Christianity (Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches), chalices will often have icons enameled or engraved on them, as well as a cross. In Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism, all communicants receive both the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ. To accomplish this, a portion of the Lamb (host) is placed in the chalice, and then the faithful receive Communion on a spoon. For this reason, eastern chalices tend to have larger, rounded cups. In the Russian Orthodox Church, the faithful will often kiss the "foot" (base) of the chalice after receiving Holy Communion. In other traditions, they will kiss the cup. Although Orthodox monks are not permitted to hold personal possessions, the canons permit a hieromonk (i.e., a monk who has been ordained to the priesthood) to keep a chalice and other vessels necessary to celebrate the Divine Liturgy.

In the early and medieval church, when a deacon was ordained, he would be handed a chalice during the service as a sign of his ministry. In the West the deacon carries the chalice to the altar at the offertory; in the East, the priest carries the chalice and the deacon carries the paten (diskos). Only wine, water and a portion of the Host are permitted to be placed in the chalice, and it may not be used for any profane purpose.

The chalice is considered to be one of the most sacred vessels in Christian liturgical worship, and it is often blessed before use. In the Roman Catholic Church and some Anglo-Catholic churches, it was the custom for a chalice to be consecrated by being anointed with chrism, and this consecration could only be performed by a bishop or abbot (only for use within his own monastery). Among the Eastern Churches, there are varying practices regarding blessing. In some traditions, the very act of celebrating the Sacred Mysteries (Eucharist) is the only blessing necessary; in others, there is a special rite of blessing. In some Eastern traditions, this blessing may be done only by a bishop, in some it may be done by a priest. In any case, in both the East and the West, once a chalice has been blessed, it may only be touched by an ordained member of the higher clergy (bishop, priest or deacon). In the Russian Orthodox Church, a subdeacon is permitted to touch the holy vessels, but only if they are wrapped in cloth.

The Holy Chalice

In Christian tradition, the Holy Chalice is the vessel which Jesus used at the Last Supper to serve the wine. New Testament texts make no mention of the cup except within the context of the Last Supper and give no significance whatsoever to the object itself. Herbert Thurston in the Catholic Encyclopedia 1908 concluded that "No reliable tradition has been preserved to us regarding the vessel used by Christ at the Last Supper. In the sixth and seventh centuries pilgrims to Jerusalem were led to believe that the actual chalice was still venerated in the church of the Holy Sepulchre, having within it the sponge which was presented to Our Saviour on Calvary." Several surviving standing cups of precious materials are identified in local traditions as the Chalice.

Holy Grail
An entirely different and pervasive tradition concerns the cup of the Last Supper. In this highly muddled though better-known version, the vessel is known as the Holy Grail. In this legend, Jesus used the cup at the Last Supper to institute the Mass. Other stories claim that Joseph of Arimathea used the cup to collect and store the blood of Christ at the Crucifixion.

Unitarian Universalism
At the opening of Unitarian Universalist worship services, many congregations light a flame inside a chalice. A flaming chalice is the most widely used symbol of Unitarianism and Unitarian Universalism (UU), and the official logo of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) and other Unitarian and UU churches and societies. The design was originated by the artist Hans Deutsch, who took his inspiration from the chalices of oil burned on ancient Greek and Roman altars. It became an underground symbol in occupied Europe during World War II for assistance to help Unitarians, Jews, and other people escape Nazi persecution. The chalice is often shown surrounded by two linked rings. The two linked rings were used as an early symbol for the Unitarian Universalist Association, signifying the joining of Unitarianism and Universalism.

There is no standardized interpretation of the flaming chalice symbol. In one interpretation, the chalice is a symbol of religious freedom from the impositions of doctrine by a hierarchy and openness to participation by all; the flame is interpreted as a memorial to those throughout history who sacrificed their lives for the cause of religious liberty. In another interpretation, the flaming chalice resembles a cross, symbolic of the Christian roots of Unitarian Universalism.

Wicca
In Wicca, a chalice, as a feminine principle, is often used in combination with the Athame (ceremonial black-handled knife), as male principle. Combining the two evokes the act of procreation, as a symbol of universal creativity. This is a symbol of the Great Rite in Wiccan rituals. A chalice is also used in the Small Rite.

Neo-Paganism
Some other forms of Neo-Paganism make use of chalices in their rituals as well. A chalice may be placed on an altar or on the ground. The chalice may contain wine, whiskey, water, or other liquids. It is used to represent the genitalia of the goddess or female deity.

Rastafarian
Rastafaris sometimes smoke ganja in a chalice (waterpipe or bong) during an activity called reasoning intended to put participants in touch with peaceful feelings, unity, and "consciousness."

Poisoned chalice
The term "poisoned chalice" is applied to a thing or situation which appears to be good when it is received or experienced by someone, but then becomes or is found to be bad. The idea was referred to by Benedict of Nursia in one of his exorcisms, found on the Saint Benedict Medal: ''Vade retro Satana! Nunquam suade mihi vana! Sunt mala quae libas. Ipse venena bibas!'' (Begone Satan! Never tempt me with your vanities! What you offer me is evil. Drink the poison yourself!).

William Shakespeare uses the expression in Act I Scene VII of Macbeth. It occurs in the opening soliloquy of the scene when Macbeth is considering the ramifications of the murder he is plotting.

But in these cases We still have judgment here; that we but teach Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return To plague the inventor: this even-handed justice Commends the ingredients of our poison'd chalice To our own lips.

Heraldry
The use of chalices as heraldic devices is not unusual, especially in ecclesiastical heraldry. A number of cities and regions also make use of the chalice. For instance, the coat of arms of the municipality of Fanas in the district of Prättigau/Davos in the Swiss canton of Graubünden bears a gold chalice on a solid blue background. The coat of arms of Staufen im Breisgau contains the three golden chalices (i.e. drei staufen in ancient German) of the Lords of Staufen (de), advocates of the monastery of St. Trudpert. A golden chalice (or in some instances three or five) on blue background has been used as coat of arms for the Kingdom of Galicia since at least the late Middle Ages, and is still central in its renewed heraldry.

Québec
In French-Canadian culture, particularly in and around Quebec, the use of the names of holy objects such as "câlice" (a variation of calice, which is the French word for chalice) can be an alternate form of cursing. Somewhat equivalent to the American word "goddam" or the phrase "God damn it", the use of "câlice" or "tabarnak" (a variation of tabernacle) as an interjection is not uncommon in Quebec. For example: "Câlice! I forgot to lock the front door" or muttering "tabarnak" under one's breath after they get a flat tire. This is presumably a derivation of "taking the Lord's name in vain".

Czech Republic
With reference to the Hussite movement in the Kingdom of Bohemia, besides religious use, the chalice also became one of the unofficial national symbols of the Czechs. It is frequently used in Czech national symbolism and it is part of many historical banners.

title: Chalice


text:
Talk:Rainbow Warrior

Conversion to general disambiguation page
As this talk page has already been classified for ship disambiguation, I am converting the page to a general disambiguation page to accommodate other uses of the term "Rainbow Warrior." The Greenpeace vessel descriptions have been shortened to more conventional disambiguation summaries as each article already contains pertinent information of the respective ships. KimChee (talk) 08:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Discussions regarding the original Greenpeace vessel and its sinking have been moved to Talk:Rainbow Warrior (1955). KimChee (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rainbow Warrior


text:
Maniac

Maniac (from Greek μανιακός, maniakos) is a pejorative for an individual who experiences the mood known as mania. In common usage, it is also an insult for someone involved in reckless behavior.

Maniac may also refer to:

Film

 * Maniac (1934 film), an exploitation film directed by Dwain Esper
 * Maniac (1963 film), directed by Michael Carreras
 * The Ransom (aka Maniac!), 1977 film with Oliver Reed
 * Maniac (2011 film), directed by Shia LaBeouf

Literature

 * Maniac, a 1995 novel by John Peel
 * The MANIAC, 2023 novel by Benjamin Labatut

Television

 * Maniac (Norwegian TV series), a Norwegian television series
 * Maniac (miniseries), an American TV series based on the Norwegian series

Medicine

 * Melanocytic nevus with intraepidermal ascent of cells

Games

 * Ideal Maniac, a handheld electronic LED game created by the Ideal Toy Company

Music

 * Maniac (producer), grime producer from London
 * Stage name of Norwegian musician Sven Erik Kristiansen
 * Maniac (band), a band from Los Angeles, California, US

Songs

 * "Maniac" (Michael Sembello song), used in the 1983 film Flashdance
 * "Maniac" (Girlicious song), a 2010 song
 * "Maniac" (Conan Gray song), a 2019 song
 * "Maniac" (Stray Kids song), a 2022 song
 * "Maniac" (Macklemore song), a 2022 song
 * "Maniac", by Clap Your Hands Say Yeah from their album Hysterical
 * "Maniac", by Jhené Aiko
 * "Maniac", by Kid Cudi from his album Man on the Moon II: The Legend of Mr. Rager
 * "Maniac", by Merrill Nisker from her album Fancypants Hoodlum
 * "Maniac", by Caravan Palace from their album Panic
 * "Maniac", by Carpenter Brut featuring Yann Ligner

Sports

 * Maryland Maniacs, a United States indoor football team
 * "Maniac" Mike Davis (1956–2001), American professional wrestler
 * "Maniac" Jimmy Deo, a professional wrestler; one half of the tag-team Assault and Battery
 * The Maniacs, Ultras group of FK Željezničar Sarajevo
 * Shaquille Leonard (born 1995), American football player

Other

 * MANIAC I, an early computer
 * MANIAC II, an early computer
 * MANIAC III, an early computer

title: Maniac


text:
BLT (disambiguation)

A BLT is a sandwich with bacon, lettuce and tomato.

BLT may also refer to:

Art, entertainment, and media

 * B.L.T. (album), a 1981 blues rock LP
 * Beautiful Lady & Television, a monthly periodical (issued from 1997)
 * Brian Lester "BLT" Thomas, a character in the Degrassi High TV series (aired 1987–1991)
 * Bolek Lolek and Tola, a trio in the show Bolek and Lolek Polish animated series (appearance 1972–1986)

Businesses

 * Baselland Transport, a Swiss bus and tram operator
 * BHP, an Australian mining multinational (LSE stock symbol: BLT)
 * Blackwater Airport, a BHP-owned aerodrome in Queensland (IATA code: BLT)

Science, technology and mathematics

 * Basic Linguistic Theory, a linguistic typology framework
 * Balanced ligamentous tension, in medicine
 * Bit blit, a computer graphics method
 * BLT theorem, in mathematical analysis

Other uses

 * Bhagwa Love Trap conspiracy theory, popularised in 2020
 * A battalion landing team of the U.S. Marines
 * Bear-Lion-Tiger, a trio of bonded animals at the Noah's Ark Animal Sanctuary from 2001

title: BLT (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Anting

[Untitled]
I Chinese-Yahooed 安亭德国镇 or 安亭德国村 ("Anting German Town") and found no hits. But the original author (from the German article), Markus Bahlmann, has lived in Shanghai for two years. Not sure how this works. --Menchi 09:43 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The external links no longer work. Is it possible to find replacements? --Orangutan123 16:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Map requested
Unfortunately, the self-appointed owner of this article refuses to allow it to be improved, so I'm using the talk page to request that a location map like the ones adjacent be added to the article so that readers know where Anting is. Angr (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Replacing the localized locator map with a national one isn't an improvement, just add the national one - ideally the article should have both maps. Removed the map requested template, that's for if you need one made, which you've already done here.   Kmusser (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Anting


text: File:Led Zeppelin - Presence.jpg

title: File:Led Zeppelin - Presence.jpg