text:
M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle

The Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) is a family of American automatic rifles and machine guns used by the United States and numerous other countries during the 20th century. The primary variant of the BAR series was the M1918, chambered for the .30-06 Springfield rifle cartridge and designed by John Browning in 1917 for the American Expeditionary Forces in Europe as a replacement for the French-made Chauchat and M1909 Benét–Mercié machine guns that US forces had previously been issued.

The BAR was designed to be carried by infantrymen during an assault advance while supported by the sling over the shoulder, or to be fired from the hip. This is a concept called "walking fire"—thought to be necessary for the individual soldier during trench warfare. The BAR never entirely lived up to the original hopes of the War Department as either a rifle or a machine gun.

The US Army, in practice, used the BAR as a light machine gun, often fired from a bipod (introduced on models after 1938). A variant of the original M1918 BAR, the Colt Monitor Machine Rifle, remains the lightest production automatic firearm chambered for the .30-06 Springfield cartridge, though the limited capacity of its standard 20-round magazine tended to hamper its utility in that role.

Although the weapon did see action in late 1918 during World War I, the BAR did not become standard issue in the US Army until 1938, when it was issued to squads as a portable light machine gun. The BAR saw extensive service in both World War II and the Korean War and saw limited service in the Vietnam War. The US Army began phasing out the BAR in the 1950s, when it was intended to be replaced by a squad automatic weapon (SAW) variant of the M14, and as a result the US Army was without a portable light machine gun until the introduction of the M60 machine gun in 1957.

History

The US entered World War I with an inadequate, small, and obsolete assortment of domestic and foreign machine gun designs, due primarily to bureaucratic indecision and the lack of an established military doctrine for their employment. When the United States declaration of war on Germany was announced on 6 April 1917, the high command was made aware that to fight this trench war, dominated by machine-guns, they had on hand a mere 670 M1909 Benét–Merciés, 282 M1904 Maxims and 158 Colt-Browning M1895s. After much debate, it was finally agreed that a rapid rearmament with domestic weapons would be required, but until that time, US troops would be issued whatever the French and British had to offer. The arms donated by the French were often second-rate or surplus and chambered in 8mm Lebel, further complicating logistics as machine gunners and infantrymen were issued different types of ammunition.

Development
Browning began to design the weapon later known as the BAR in 1910. He demonstrated the prototypes to the US military, which did not see an immediate use for the weapon until 1917.

In 1917, prior to America's entry to the war, John Browning personally brought to Washington, D.C. two types of automatic weapons for the purposes of demonstration: a water-cooled machine gun (later adopted as the M1917 Browning machine gun) and a shoulder-fired automatic rifle known then as the Browning Machine Rifle or BMR, both chambered for the standard US .30-06 Springfield (7.62×63mm) cartridge. Colt and the Ordnance Department arranged for a public demonstration of both weapons at a location in southern Washington, D.C. known as Congress Heights. There, on 27 February 1917, in front of a crowd of 300 people (including high-ranking military officials, congressmen, senators, foreign dignitaries and the press), the Army staged a live-fire demonstration which so impressed the gathered crowd, that Browning was immediately awarded a contract for the weapon and it was hastily adopted into service (the water-cooled machine gun underwent further testing).

Additional tests were conducted for US Army Ordnance officials at Springfield Armory in May 1917, and both weapons were unanimously recommended for immediate adoption. In order to avoid confusion with the belt-fed M1917 machine gun, the BAR came to be known as the M1918 or Rifle, Caliber .30, Automatic, Browning, M1918 according to official nomenclature. On 16 July 1917, 12,000 BARs were ordered from Colt's Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company, which had secured an exclusive concession to manufacture the BAR under Browning's patents (Browning's was owned by Colt). However Colt was already producing at peak capacity (contracted to manufacture the Vickers machine gun for the British Army) and requested a delay in production while they expanded their manufacturing output with a new facility in Meriden, Connecticut. Due to the urgent need for the weapon, the request was denied and the Winchester Repeating Arms Company (WRAC) was designated as the prime contractor. Winchester gave valuable assistance in refining the BAR's final design, correcting the drawings in preparation for mass production. Among the changes made, the ejection pattern was modified (spent casings were directed to the right side of the weapon instead of straight up).

Initial M1918 production

Since work on the weapon did not begin until February 1918, so hurried was the schedule at Winchester to bring the BAR into full production that the first production batch of 1,800 rifles was delivered out of spec; it was discovered that many components did not interchange between rifles, and production was temporarily halted until manufacturing procedures were upgraded to bring the weapon up to specifications. The initial contract with Winchester called for 25,000 BARs. They were in full production by June 1918, delivering 4,000 units, and from July were turning out 9,000 units per month.

Colt and Marlin-Rockwell Corp. also began production shortly after Winchester got into full production. Marlin-Rockwell, burdened by a contract to make rifles for the Belgian government, acquired the Mayo Radiator Co.'s factory and used it exclusively to carry out production of the BAR. The first unit from this source was delivered on 11 June 1918 and the company's peak output reached 200 automatic rifles per day. Colt had produced only 9,000 BARs by the time of the armistice due to the heavy demands of previous orders. These three companies produced a combined daily output of 706 rifles and a total of approximately 52,000 BARs were delivered by all sources by the end of the war. Between 1918 and 1919, 102,174 BARs had been manufactured jointly by Colt, Winchester, and Marlin-Rockwell.

By July 1918, the BAR had begun to arrive in France, and the first unit to receive them was the US Army's 79th Infantry Division, which took them into action for the first time on 13 September 1918. The weapon was personally demonstrated against the enemy by 2nd Lt. Val Allen Browning, the inventor's son. Despite being introduced very late in the war, the BAR made an impact disproportionate to its numbers; it was used extensively during the Meuse-Argonne Offensive and made a significant impression on the Allies (France alone requested 15,000 automatic rifles to replace their Chauchat machine rifles).

US Marines briefly took possession of the BAR. Troops from the First Battalion of the Sixth Marines had talked the "doggies" of the US Army's 36th Division into trading their BARs for their Chauchats. However, complaints from officers of the 36th resulted in the issuance of a command from Marine Lt. Col. Harry Lee on 9 October 1918: All Browning guns and equipment in Marine possession were to be turned in.

Design details and accessories
The M1918 is a selective-fire, air-cooled automatic rifle using a gas-operated, long-stroke piston rod actuated by propellant gases bled through a vent in the barrel. The bolt is locked by a rising bolt lock. The weapon fires from an open bolt. The spring-powered cartridge casing extractor is contained in the bolt and a fixed ejector is installed in the trigger group. The BAR is striker-fired (the bolt carrier serves as the striker) and uses a trigger mechanism with a fire selector lever that enables operating in either semi-automatic or fully automatic firing modes. The selector lever is located on the left side of the receiver and is simultaneously the manual safety (selector lever in the "S" position – weapon is safe, "F" – fire, "A" – automatic fire). The "safe" setting blocks the trigger.

The weapon's barrel is screwed into the receiver and is not quickly detachable. The M1918 feeds using double-column 20-round box magazines, although 40-round magazines were also used in an anti-aircraft role; these were withdrawn from use in 1927. The M1918 has a cylindrical flash suppressor fitted to the muzzle end. The original BAR was equipped with a fixed wooden buttstock and closed-type adjustable iron sights, consisting of a forward post and a rear leaf sight with 100 to 1,500 yard (91-1,372 m) range graduations.

As a heavy automatic rifle designed for support fire, the M1918 was not fitted with a bayonet mount and no bayonet was ever issued, though one experimental bayonet fitting was made by Winchester.

Variants and subsequent models

During its lengthy service life, the BAR underwent continuous development, receiving many improvements and modifications. The first major attempt at improving the M1918 resulted in the M1922 machine rifle, adopted by the United States Cavalry in 1922 as a troop-level light machine gun. The weapon used a new heavy profile ribbed barrel, an adjustable spiked bipod (mounted to a swiveling collar on the barrel) with a rear, stock-mounted monopod, a side-mounted sling swivel and a new rear buttplate, fixed to the stock retaining sleeve. The hand guard was changed, and in 1926 the BAR's sights were redesigned to accommodate the heavy-bullet 172-grain M1 .30-06 ball ammunition then coming into service for machinegun use.

In 1931, the Colt Arms Co. introduced the Monitor Automatic Machine Rifle (R 80), intended primarily for use by prison guards and law-enforcement agencies. Intended for use as a shoulder-fired automatic rifle, the Monitor omitted the bipod, instead featuring a separate pistol grip and butt stock attached to a lightweight receiver, along with a shortened, 458 mm, barrel fitted with a 4 in Cutts compensator. Weighing 16 lb empty, the Monitor had a rate of fire of approximately 500 rpm. Around 125 were produced; 90 were purchased by the FBI. Eleven went to the US Treasury Department in 1934, while the rest went to various state prisons, banks, security companies and accredited police departments. Although available for export sale, no examples appear to have been exported.

In 1932, a greatly shortened version designed for bush warfare was developed by USMC Maj. H.L. Smith and was the subject of an evaluative report by Capt. Merritt A. Edson, ordnance officer at the Quartermaster's Depot in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The barrel was shortened nine inches (229 mm) at the muzzle and the gas port and gas cylinder tube were relocated. The modified BAR weighed 13 lb and was only 34.5 in long overall. Though it proved superior to the M1918 in accuracy when fired prone in automatic mode and equal in accuracy to the standard M1918 at ranges of 500–600 yards (460–550 m) from a rest, it was less accurate when fired from the shoulder, and had a loud report combined with a fierce muzzle blast. Attaching a Cutts compensator materially reduced the muzzle blast, but this was more than offset by the increase in smoke and dust at the muzzle when fired, obscuring the operator's vision. Nor did it improve control of the weapon when fired in bursts of automatic fire. Though the report recommended building six of these short-barreled jungle BARs for further evaluation, no further work was done on the project.

The M1918A1, featuring a lightweight spiked bipod with a leg height adjustment feature attached to the gas cylinder and a hinged steel butt plate, was formally approved on 24 June 1937. The M1918A1 was intended to increase the weapon's effectiveness and controllability firing in bursts. Relatively few M1918s were rebuilt to the new M1918A1 standard.

In April 1938, work commenced on an improved BAR for the US Army. The army specified a need for a BAR designed to serve in the role of a light machine gun for squad-level support fire. Early prototypes were fitted with barrel-mounted bipods as well as pistol grip housings and a unique rate-of-fire reducer mechanism purchased from FN Herstal. The rate reducer mechanism performed well in trials, and the pistol grip housing enabled the operator to fire more comfortably from the prone position. However, in 1939 the army declared that all modifications to the basic BAR be capable of being retrofitted to earlier M1918 guns with no loss of parts interchangeability. This effectively killed the FN-designed pistol grip and its proven rate reducer mechanism for the new M1918 replacement.

The final development of the M1918A2 was authorized on 30 June 1938. The FN-designed pistol grip and rate-reducer mechanism with two rates of automatic fire was shelved in favor of a rate-reducer mechanism designed by Springfield Armory, and housed in the butt stock. The Springfield Armory rate reducer also provided two selectable rates of fully automatic fire only, activated by engaging the selector toggle. Additionally, a skid-footed bipod was fitted to the muzzle end of the barrel, magazine guides were added to the front of the trigger guard, the hand guard was shortened, a heat shield was added to help the cooling process, a small separate stock rest (monopod) was included for attachment to the butt and the weapon's role was changed to that of a squad light machine gun. The BAR's rear sight scales were also modified to accommodate the newly standardized M2 ball ammunition with its lighter, flat-base bullet. The M1918A2's walnut butt stock is approximately one inch (2.5 cm) longer than the M1918 BAR's butt stock. The M1918A2's barrel was also fitted with a new flash suppressor and fully adjustable iron sights. Towards the end of the war a barrel-mounted carrying handle was added.

Because of budget limitations initial M1918A2 production consisted of conversions of older M1918 BARs (remaining in surplus) along with a limited number of M1922s and M1918A1s. After the outbreak of war, attempts to ramp up new M1918A2 production were stymied by the discovery that the World War I tooling used to produce the M1918 was either worn out or incompatible with modern production machinery. New production was first undertaken at the New England Small Arms Corp. and International Business Machines Corp. (a total of 188,380 new weapons were manufactured). In 1942 a shortage of black walnut for butt stocks and grips led to the development of a black plastic butt stock for the BAR. Composed of a mixture of Bakelite and Resinox, and impregnated with shredded fabric, the stocks were sandblasted to reduce glare. The Firestone Rubber and Latex Products Co. produced the plastic butt stock for the US Army, which was formally adopted on March 21, 1942. The M1922 machine rifle was declared obsolete in 1940, but they were used by Merrill's Marauders in Burma later in the war as a slightly lighter alternative to the M1918A2.

Production rates greatly increased in 1943, after IBM introduced a method of casting BAR receivers from a new type of malleable iron developed by the Saginaw division of General Motors, called ArmaSteel. After it successfully passed a series of tests at Springfield Armory, the Chief of Ordnance instructed other BAR receiver manufacturers to change over from steel to ArmaSteel castings for this part. During the Korean War M1918A2 production was resumed, this time contracted to the Royal McBee Typewriter Co., which produced an additional 61,000 M1918A2s.

A bullpup prototype existed as the Cook automatic rifle during the 1950s. It was developed at Benicia Armoury by US Army ordnance officer Lauren C. Cook. It used the gas operation of the M1918 BAR with the trigger group in front of the magazine. The operation fired from a closed bolt. The Cook automatic rifle was 30 inches retaining the barrel length of 18 inches.

The last US-made variant was produced in 7.62×51mm NATO, as T34 Automatic rifle.

Export models
The BAR also found a ready market overseas and in various forms was widely exported. In 1919 the Colt company developed and produced a commercial variant called the Automatic Machine Rifle Model 1919 (company designation: Model U), which has a different return mechanism compared to the M1918 (it is installed in the stock rather than the gas tube) and lacks a flash hider. Later the Model 1924 rifle was offered for a short period of time, featuring a pistol grip and a redesigned hand guard. These Colt automatic rifles were available in a number of calibers, including .30-06 Springfield (7.62×63mm), 7.65×53mm Belgian Mauser, 7×57mm Mauser, 6.5×55mm, 7.92×57mm Mauser and .303 British (7.7×56mmR). All of the 6.5×55mm-caliber Colt automatic rifles appear to have been sold directly to FN.

An improved version of the Model 1924, the Model 1925 (R75), achieved the highest popularity in export sales. It is based on the Model 1924 but uses a heavy, finned barrel, a lightweight bipod and is equipped with dust covers in the magazine well and ejection port (some of these features were patented: US patents #1548709 and #1533968). The Model 1925 was produced in various calibers, including .30-06 Springfield (7.62×63mm), 7.65×53mm Belgian Mauser, 7×57mm Mauser, 7.92×57mm Mauser, and .303 British (7.7×56mmR) (no Colt-manufactured Model 1925 rifles in 6.5×55mm appear to have been sold). A minor variant of the Model 1925 (R75) was the R75A light machine gun with a quick-change barrel (produced in 1942 in small quantities for the Dutch army). Between 1921 and 1928 FN Herstal imported over 800 Colt-manufactured examples of the Colt Machine Rifles for sale abroad.

All of the Colt automatic machine rifles, including the Colt Monitor, were available for export sale. After 1929 the Model 1925 and the Colt Monitor were available for export sale in Colt's exclusive sales territories per its agreement with FN. These Colt territories included North America, Central America, the West Indies, South America, Great Britain, Russia, Turkey, Siam (Thailand), India and Australia.

Belgium

A variant known as the FN Mle 1930 was developed in 7.65×53mm Belgian Mauser by FN Herstal and adopted by the Belgian army. The Mle 1930 is basically a licensed copy of the Colt Automatic Machine Rifle, Model 1925 (R 75). The Mle 1930 has a different gas valve and a mechanical rate-reducing fire control mechanism designed by Dieudonné Saive, located in the trigger guard-pistol grip housing. Some of these FN rate reducer mechanisms and pistol grip housings were later purchased by Springfield Armory for evaluation and possible adoption on a replacement for the M1918. The weapon also had a hinged shoulder plate and was adapted for use on a tripod mount. In 1932 Belgium adopted a new version of the FN Mle 1930 allocated the service designation FN Mle D (D—demontable or "removable"), which had a quick-change barrel, shoulder rest and a simplified take-down method for easier cleaning and maintenance. The Mle D was produced even after World War II in versions adapted for .30-06 Springfield (for Belgian service) and 7.92×57mm Mauser ammunition (for Egyptian service). The final variant in Belgian service was the Model DA1 chambered for the 7.62×51mm NATO cartridge and feeding from the 20-round magazines for the FN FAL battle rifle.

France
In 1922, the French Army considered the introduction of the BAR or of the Fusil-mitrailleur MAS modèle 1922, a copy of the BAR produced by the Manufacture d'armes de Saint-Étienne. The FM 24/29 light machine gun was eventually adopted.

Poland

Production of the BAR in Belgium began only after signing an agreement with Poland (on 10 December 1927) involving the procurement of 10,000 wz. 1928 light machine guns chambered in 7.92×57mm Mauser, which are similar to the R75 variant but designed specifically to meet the requirements of the Polish army. Changes to the base design include a pistol grip, different type of bipod, open-type V-notch rear sight and a slightly longer barrel. Subsequent rifles were assembled in Poland under license by the state rifle factory (Państwowa Fabryka Karabinów) in Warsaw. The wz. 1928 was accepted into service with the Polish army in 1927 under the formal name ''7,92 mm rkm Browning wz. 1928'' and—until the outbreak of World War II—was the primary light support weapon of Polish infantry and cavalry formations (in 1939 Poland had a total of approximately 20,000 wz. 1928 rifles in service). Additional detail modifications were introduced on the production line; among them were the replacement of the iron sights with a smaller version and reshaping the butt to a fish tail.

In the mid-1930s, Polish small-arms designer Wawrzyniec Lewandowski was tasked with developing a flexible aircraft-mounted machine gun based on the Browning wz.1928. This resulted in the wz. 1937. Changes included increasing the weapon's rate of fire to 1,100 rounds/min, eliminating the butt stock, adding a spade-type grip to the rear of the receiver, moving the main drive spring under the barrel and, most importantly, changing the feed system. Sustained fire was practically impossible with the standard 20-round box magazine, so a new feed mechanism was developed that was added to the receiver as a module. It contains a spring-loaded, bolt-actuated lever that would feed a round from a 91-round pan magazine located above the receiver and force the round into the feed path during unlocking. The machine gun was accepted in 1937 and ordered by the Polish Air Force as the ''karabin maszynowy obserwatora wz. 1937'' ("observers machine gun model 1937"). Eventually 339 machine guns were acquired and used as armament in the PZL.37 Łoś medium bomber and the LWS-3 Mewa reconnaissance aircraft.

Sweden

In 1920, Belgian arms manufacturer Fabrique Nationale (FN) acquired sales and production rights to the BAR series of firearms in Europe from Colt. The first BAR model sold by FN was the Kg m/21 (Kg—Kulsprutegevär or "machinegun rifle") chambered for the 6.5×55mm m/94 cartridge. The m/21 is a variant of the Model 1919 designed to Swedish specifications and manufactured initially by Colt's and later under license at the Carl Gustafs Stads Gevärsfaktori in Eskilstuna. Compared to the Model 1919, the Swedish weapon has—apart from the different caliber—a spiked bipod and dust covers for ejection. The m/21 would become one of Sweden's main support weapons in the interwar years together with the water-cooled, belt-fed Ksp m/1914 medium machine gun (Swedish adaptation of the Austrian M07/12). Dissatisfied with the rapidly overheating fixed barrel of the m/21, Carl Gustaf began to design a new quick-detach mechanism for the barrel that mates the externally grooved chamber to a series of rotating flanges in the receiver operated by a locking lever. The barrel also received cooling fins along its entire length. These enhancements were incorporated into the fm/1935 prototype, which was favorably evaluated during trials in 1935. The final version was the Kg m/37, adopted for service in 1937, which uses a smooth-contour, unfinned barrel. Numerous m/21 guns were retrofitted with the screw-on receiver extension and quick-change barrel and renamed the Kg m/21-37. The m/37 remained in service until replaced by the FN MAG, but was still in second-line use until 1980. Carl Gustaf also developed a belt-fed prototype; however, it was never adopted.

China
The Chinese Nationalist Army used the FN Mle 1930 throughout the Second Sino-Japanese War. 29,550 were bought from Belgium between 1933 and 1939. The Chinese BAR was chambered for the German 7.92×57mm Mauser round, the standard rifle cartridge of the National Revolutionary Army. After the outbreak of the Pacific War, the Chinese Expeditionary Army in Burma was equipped with American BARs. Towards the end of World War II, small quantities of American equipment, including the BAR, made their way into mainland China.

Colt Monitor
With the cessation of WWI hostilities, Colt Arms Co. received the Browning patents to produce the BAR that had been withheld from issue during the war. This allowed Colt to make the BAR available for commercial sale, including to civilian owners. The Colt Automatic Machine Rifle Model 1919, initially made up of overruns from the M1918 military production contract, was the first of several commercial Colt BARs that would follow. However, the high price of the weapon and its limited utility for most civilian owners resulted in few sales. Ad Topperwien, a famous trick shooter of the early 1920s, purchased one of the first Colt-produced BARs to perform aerial target shooting exhibitions. Occasional BAR sales were made to civilian owners through distributors such as the Ott-Heiskell Hardware Co.

In 1931, the new Colt Monitor was made available to civilians during the Depression at $300 each, including a spare parts kit, sling, cleaning accessories and six magazines, but Colt records indicate no domestic sales to individuals.

Post National Firearms Act
After passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, civilian BAR ownership was restricted even further. Importation of machine guns for transfer between civilians was prohibited in 1968 and the production of machine guns for civilian transfer was banned in 1986. However, machine guns produced prior to 1986 are still transferable, and fully-automatic BAR models exist and occasionally come up for sale to qualified buyers.

21st century
Some companies continue to manufacture semi-automatic copies for sale to civilians, such as Ohio Ordnance Works, Inc., in Chardon, Ohio. Ohio Ordnance Works produces a contemporary semi-automatic variant of the M1918 called "1918A3-SLR", and a much modified lightened version called HCAR (Heavy Counter Assault Rifle), which are legal for civilians without an FFL (federal firearms license) to own.

Criminal and law enforcement use
Although the Colt Monitor version of the BAR failed to interest US civilian buyers in the midst of the Depression, the underworld was a lot more interested: in 1936 the price of a black-market Colt Monitor was $5,000, with military BARs going for somewhat less. The army's M1918 was a favorite of gangster Clyde Barrow, who obtained his through periodic robberies of Army National Guard armories in the Midwest. Barrow liked to use armor-piercing (AP) .30-06 ammunition he obtained from armory stores, and frequently modified his BARs to suit his own needs. Barrow taught his girlfriend Bonnie Parker to fire the M1918 as well, and by all accounts she was an excellent BAR operator. She used an M1918 on full-automatic to pin down unsuspecting law officers after they confronted the gang at a house in Joplin, Missouri. A Missouri highway patrolman at the scene, forced to dive for cover behind a substantial oak tree after Bonnie Parker opened up on him, later stated, "That little red-headed woman filled my face with splinters on the other side of that tree with one of those damned guns."

As the use of automatic weapons by criminal elements in the US became more widespread, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover ordered the agency to acquire and commence regular training with automatic shoulder weapons, including the Thompson submachine gun and the BAR. For its BARs the FBI turned to Colt, which sold 90 Colt Monitor automatic machine rifles to the agency. Some of the FBI's Monitors were distributed to field offices for use as support weapons if needed on a particular operation, while the remainder were retained at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, for training purposes. Colt sold an additional 11 Colt Monitors to the US Treasury Department in 1934, while 24 guns were sold to state prisons, banks, security companies and accredited city, county and state police departments. At least one member of the ambush team that killed Bonnie and Clyde was armed with a Colt Monitor.

Although it has sometimes been alleged that the M1918 or M1918A2 BAR was used by members of the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) in a shootout with Los Angeles police on May 17, 1974, no SLA members ever used such a weapon. The confusion arose out of Browning's decision in the 1970s to also designate its semi-automatic hunting rifle the Browning BAR. The SLA converted a .30-06 Browning BAR hunting rifle and a .243 Remington Model 742 to automatic fire by filing down the sear, and it was these weapons that were used in the shootout.

World War I

At its inception, the M1918 was intended to be used as a shoulder-fired rifle capable of both semi-automatic and fully automatic fire. First issued in September 1918 to the American Expeditionary Forces, it was based on the concept of "walking fire", a French practice in use since 1916 for which the CSRG 1915 (Chauchat) had been used accompanying advancing squads of riflemen toward the enemy trenches, as regular machine guns were too cumbersome to move with the troops during an assault.

In addition to shoulder-fired operation, BAR gunners were issued a belt with magazine pouches for the BAR and sidearm along with a "cup" to support the stock of the rifle when held at the hip. In theory, this allowed the soldier to lay suppressive fire while walking forward, keeping the enemy's head down, a practice known as "marching fire". The idea would resurface in the submachine gun and ultimately the assault rifle. It is not known if any of the belt-cup devices actually saw combat use.

The BAR only saw minor action in France during World War I, being brought into action only as late as September 1918, less than three months before Armistice Day. The intentional delay had been inspired by General Pershing, the AEF commander, in order not to let the BAR fall into enemy hands too early. Fifty-two thousand BARs were available by the end of the war in November.

Interwar use
During the interwar years, as the U.S. Army was reduced significantly in size, the BAR remained in the smaller extant Regular Army and by the 1930s, was also issued to state national guard units to be maintained at their armories. Given the part-time nature, smaller manning and lesser security of these national guard armories when compared to regular army installations, some BARs were subject to plunder by domestic civilian criminal elements.

The BAR was also standard issue to US naval landing forces during the period. The weapon was a standard item in US warship armories, and each BAR was accompanied by a spare barrel. Large capital ships often had over 200 BARs on board, with many of the US Navy BARs remaining in service well into the 1960s.

The BAR also saw action with US Marine Corps units participating in the Haitian and Nicaraguan interventions, as well as with US Navy shipboard personnel in the course of patrol and gunboat duty along the Yangtze River in China. The First Marine Brigade stationed in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, noted that training a man to use the BAR proficiently took a full two days of range practice and instruction, compared to half a day with the .45 caliber Thompson submachine gun.

Prior to World War II, both the US Army and Marine Corps had a separate BAR squad together with three rifle squads in the "square" organisation of the time. When converting to the "triangular" organisation the separate BAR squad was eliminated with BARs going to each rifle squad.

World War II

When the threat of a new war arose, Ordnance belatedly realized that it had no portable, squad light machine gun, and attempted to convert the M1918 BAR to that role with the adoption of the M1918A2 by the US Army on 30 June 1938. The BAR was issued as the sole automatic fire support for a twelve-man squad, and all men were trained at the basic level how to operate and fire the weapon in case the designated operators were killed or wounded. At the start of the war, infantry companies designated three-man BAR teams, a gunner, an assistant gunner, and an ammunition bearer who carried additional magazines for the gun. By 1944, some units were using one-man BAR "teams" with the other riflemen in the squad detailed to carry additional magazines or bandoliers of .30 ammunition. Contrary to certain claims, the BAR was issued to soldiers of various heights.

As originally conceived, US Army tactical doctrine called for one M1918A2 per squad, using several men to support and carry ammunition for the gun. Fire and movement tactics centered on the M1 riflemen in the squad while the BAR man was detailed to support the riflemen in the attack and provide mobility to the riflemen with a base of fire. This doctrine received a setback early in the war after US ground forces encountered German troops, well-armed with automatic weapons including fast-firing, portable machine guns. In some cases, particularly in the attack, every fourth German infantryman was equipped with an automatic weapon, either a submachine gun or a full-power machine gun.

In an attempt to overcome the BAR's limited continuous-fire capability, US Army divisions increasingly began to specify two BAR fire teams per squad, following the practice of the US Marine Corps. One team would typically provide covering fire until a magazine was empty, whereupon the second team would open fire, thus allowing the first team to reload. In the Pacific, the BAR was often employed at the point or tail of a patrol or infantry column, where its firepower could help break contact on a jungle trail in the event of an ambush. After combat experience showed the benefits of maximizing portable automatic firepower in squad-size formations, the US Marine Corps began to increase the number of BARs in its combat divisions, from 513 per division in 1943 to 867 per division in 1945. A thirteen-man squad was developed, consisting of 3 four-man fire teams, with one BAR per fire team, or three BARs per squad. Instead of supporting the M1 riflemen in the attack, Marine tactical doctrine was focused around the BAR, with riflemen supporting and protecting the BAR gunner.

Despite the improvements in the M1918A2, the BAR remained a difficult weapon to master with its open bolt and strong recoil spring, requiring additional range practice and training to hit targets accurately without flinching. As a squad light machine gun, the BAR's effectiveness was mixed, since its thin, non-quick-change barrel and small magazine capacity greatly limited its firepower in comparison to genuine light machine guns such as the British Bren and the Japanese Type 96. The weapon's rate-reducer mechanism, a delicately balanced spring-and-weight system described by one ordnance sergeant as a "Rube Goldberg device", came in for much criticism, often causing malfunctions when not regularly cleaned. The bipod and buttstock rest (monopod), which contributed so much to the M1918A2's accuracy when firing prone on the rifle range, proved far less valuable under actual field combat conditions. The stock rest was dropped from production in 1942, while the M1918A2's bipod and flash hider were often discarded by individual soldiers and marines to save weight and improve portability, particularly in the Pacific Theater of war. With these modifications, the BAR effectively reverted to its original role as a portable, shoulder-fired automatic rifle.

Due to production demands, war priorities, subcontractor issues, and material shortages, demand for the M1918A2 frequently exceeded supply, and as late as 1945 some Army units were sent into combat still carrying older, unmodified M1918 weapons.

After a period of service, ordnance personnel began to receive BARs with inoperable or malfunctioning recoil buffer mechanisms. This was eventually traced to the soldier's common practice of cleaning the BAR in a vertical position with the butt of the weapon on the ground, allowing cleaning fluid and burned powder to collect in the recoil buffer mechanism. Additionally, unlike the M1 rifle, the BAR's gas cylinder was never changed to stainless steel. Consequently, the gas cylinder frequently rusted solid from the use of corrosive-primered M2 service ammunition in a humid environment when not stripped and cleaned on a daily basis. While not without design flaws (a thin-diameter, fixed barrel that quickly overheated, limited magazine capacity, complex field-strip/cleaning procedure, unreliable recoil buffer mechanism, a gas cylinder assembly made of corrosion-prone metals, and many small internal parts), the BAR proved rugged and reliable enough when regularly field-stripped and cleaned.

During World War II, the BAR saw extensive service, both official and unofficial, with many branches of service. One of the BAR's most unusual uses was as a defensive aircraft weapon. In 1944, Captain Wally A. Gayda, of the USAAF Air Transport Command, reportedly used a BAR to return fire against a Japanese Army Nakajima fighter that had attacked his C-46 cargo plane over the Hump in Burma. Gayda shoved the rifle out his forward cabin window, emptying the magazine and apparently killing the Japanese pilot.

Korean War

The BAR continued in service in the Korean War. The last military contract for the manufacture of the M1918A2 was awarded to the Royal Typewriter Co. of Hartford, Connecticut, which manufactured a total of 61,000 M1918A2s during the conflict, using ArmaSteel cast receivers and trigger housings. In his study of infantry weapons in Korea, historian S.L.A. Marshall interviewed hundreds of officers and men in after-action reports on the effectiveness of various U.S. small arms in the conflict. General Marshall's report noted that an overwhelming majority of respondents praised the BAR and the utility of automatic fire delivered by a lightweight, portable small arm in both day and night engagements. In his autobiography Colonel David Hackworth praised the BAR as 'the best weapon of the Korean War'.

A typical BAR gunner of the Korean War carried the twelve-magazine belt and combat suspenders, with three or four extra magazines in pockets. Extra canteens, .45 pistol, grenades, and a flak vest added still more weight. As in World War II, many BAR gunners disposed of the heavy bipod and other accoutrements of the M1918A2, but unlike the prior conflict the flash hider was always retained because of its utility in night fighting.

The large amounts of ammunition expended by BAR teams in Korea placed additional demands on the assistant gunner to stay in close contact with the BAR at all times, particularly on patrols. While the BAR magazines themselves always seemed to be in short supply, Gen. Marshall reported that "riflemen in the squad were markedly willing to carry extra ammunition for the BAR man".

In combat, the M1918A2 frequently decided the outcome of determined attacks by North Korean and Chinese communist forces. Communist tactical doctrine centered on the mortar and machine gun, with attacks designed to envelop and cut off United Nations forces from supply and reinforcement. Communist machine gun teams were the best-trained men in any given North Korean or Chinese infantry unit, skilled at placing their heavily camouflaged and protected weapons as close to UN forces as possible. Once concealed, they often surprised UN forces by opening fire at very short ranges, covering any exposed ground with a hail of accurately sighted machine gun fire. Under these conditions it was frequently impossible for US machine gun crews to move up their Browning M1919A4 and M1919A6 guns in response without taking heavy casualties; when they were able to do so, their position was carefully noted by the enemy, who would frequently kill the exposed gun crews with mortar or machine gun fire while they were still emplacing their guns. The BAR gunner, who could stealthily approach the enemy gun position alone (and prone if need be), proved invaluable in this type of combat.

During the height of combat, the BAR gunner was often used as the 'fire brigade' weapon, helping to bolster weak areas of the perimeter under heavy pressure by communist forces. In defense, it was often used to strengthen the firepower of a forward outpost. Another role for the BAR was to deter or eliminate enemy sniper fire. In the absence of a trained sniper, the BAR proved more effective than the random response of five or six M1 riflemen.

Compared to World War II, US infantry forces saw a huge increase in the number of night engagements. The added firepower of the BAR rifleman and his ability to redeploy to 'hot spots' around the unit perimeter proved indispensable in deterring night infiltration by skirmishers as well as repelling large-scale night infantry assaults.

While new-production M1918A2 guns were almost universally praised for faultless performance in combat, a number of malfunctions in combat were reported with armory-reconditioned M1918A2s, particularly weapons that had been reconditioned by Ordnance in Japan, which did not replace operating (recoil) springs as a requirement of the reconditioning program. After decades of complaints, ordnance addressed the problem of maintaining the problematic gas piston on the BAR by issuing disposable nylon gas valves. When the nylon valve became caked over with carbon, it could be discarded and replaced with a fresh unit, eliminating the tedious task of cleaning and polishing the valve with wire brush and GI solvent (frequently in short supply to line units).

Vietnam War
The M1918A2 was used in the early stages of the Vietnam War, when the US delivered a quantity of "obsolete", second-line small arms to the South Vietnamese Army and associated allies, including the Montagnard hill tribespeople of South Vietnam. US Special Forces advisors frequently chose the BAR over currently available infantry weapons. As one Special Forces sergeant declared, "Many times since my three tours of duty in Vietnam I have thanked God for ... having a BAR that actually worked, as opposed to the jamming M16 ... We had a lot of Viet Cong infiltrators in all our [Special Forces] camps, who would steal weapons every chance they got. Needless to say, the most popular weapon to steal was the venerable old BAR."

A retrospective analysis by two American historians stated that Browning Automatic Rifle related shipments had provided "serviceable weapons" yet that the generally "short and slightly built" Vietnamese men using them experienced problems given the nature of "Western standards" around physicality.

Post-Vietnam use
Quantities of the BAR remained in use by the Army National Guard up until the mid-1970s. Many recipients of US foreign aid adopted the BAR and used it into the 1980s and 1990s.

Users

 * 🇩🇿 Algeria
 * 🇦🇷 Argentina
 * 🇦🇹 Austria
 * 🇧🇪 Belgium: Adopted in 1930, built under licence by Fabrique Nationale
 * 🇧🇷 Brazil: Two Colt Automatic Rifles were used in the 1923 revolution in Rio Grande do Sul by Loyalist forces. Used by the Brazilian Expeditionary Force in WWII
 * 🇰🇭 Cambodia
 * 🇨🇱 Chile
 * People's Republic of China: A large number were seized from the Republic of China during the Chinese Civil War.
 * Republic of China: Used by nationalist forces during the Second Sino-Japanese War and subsequent Chinese Civil War, most of them armed with FN Mle 30s
 * 🇨🇴 Colombia
 * 🇨🇷 Costa Rica
 * 🇨🇺 Cuba: Colt commercial BAR and M1918A2 BAR, used by Castro's rebels during the Cuban Revolution. Anticastrists machine gunners of the Brigade 2506 were also equipped with M1918A2 BARs.
 * 🇨🇾 Cyprus
 * 🇪🇬 Egypt: FN type D in 7.92 Mauser
 * 🇪🇹 Ethiopia: FN Mle 30 and M1918 BAR
 * 🇫🇮 Finland: FN Mle 30 and Swedish m/21
 * 🇫🇷 France: Supplied to Free French forces during World War II and later used during Indochina War and Algerian War. Known as the Fusil-mitrailleur 7 mm 62 (C. 30) M. 18 (B. A. R.).
 * Nazi Germany: The Wehrmacht captured a number of Polish-made Browning wz. 1928 guns and used them until the end of World War II under the designation IMG 28(p)
 * 🇬🇷 Greece
 * 🇭🇳 Honduras
 * Indonesian sailor firing FN Model D during exercise 2020.jpg sailor firing FN Model D during exercise in 2020]]🇮🇩 Indonesia: Used M1918A2 and FN Model D. In limited service.
 * 🇮🇱 Israel: Used FN Model Ds.
 * 🇮🇹 Italy: Used the M1918A2 as the Fucile Mitragliatore Browning (B.A.R.) cal. 7,62.
 * 🇯🇵 Japan: Used some FN Mle 30s. Most of them were taken from disarmed Chinese forces with original markings removed to use Japanese markings. Used M1918A2 post-war by National Police Reserve.
 * undefined: The Armed Forces received 1,198 M1918A2 before the Korean War, and 11,768 were in service with the Army by the end of the war. Also used as squad automatic weapon in early years of the Vietnam War by the ROK Forces in Vietnam.
 * Kingdom of Laos: Received from US Government during Laotian Civil War and Vietnam War.
 * 🇱🇷 Liberia
 * 🇳🇱 Netherlands: Introduced to the Korps Mariniers in 1943 with the creation of the Mariniersbrigade. Known as the Browning Automatisch Geweer M.1918 A2, 243 BARs were in use with the Mariniersbrigade. The Koninklijke Landmacht also used the M1918A2 whilst fighting in the Korean War under United Nations command.
 * 🇳🇮 Nicaragua: The Guardia Nacional de Nicaragua used the BAR, first supplied by the US Marines and later by the US Military Assistance Program (MAP) continuously from 1932 to 1979.
 * 🇳🇴 Norway
 * 🇵🇭 Philippines: used during the anti-Japanese guerillas and by the Armed Forces of the Philippines during the Hukbalahap Rebellion
 * 🇵🇱 Poland (Browning wz. 1928)
 * Spanish Republic
 * North Vietnam: Ex-French BARs used by the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army.
 * South Vietnam: Used by the ARVN, most provided as surplus
 * Soviet Union: Bought some Colt commercial BARs. Some ex-Polish wz. 1928s also used during the war.
 * 🇸🇩 Sudan Belgian origin FN type D BAR 7.92x57mm
 * 🇸🇪 Sweden
 * 🇹🇷 Turkey
 * 🇬🇧 United Kingdom: 25,000 bought from 1940, issued to the Home Guard units
 * 🇺🇸 United States
 * United States Armed Forces
 * Baltimore City Police Department Colt Monitor R80
 * 🇺🇾 Uruguay
 * 🇻🇪 Venezuela:FN Model D

title: M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle


text:
Wikipedia:Citation

You may be looking for:
 * Citing sources: Citing external sources in Wikipedia
 * Citing Wikipedia: Citing Wikipedia in external sources
 * Citation: Encyclopedia article on the topic of citation
 * Help:Citation Style 1: Help for family of CS1-style citation templates
 * Help:Citation Style 2: Help for CS2-style citation template
 * Inline citation, Help:Footnotes: Citing sources in-text

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

title: Wikipedia:Citation


text:
User:Stephen Kennedy

Does it make any sense to put anything here?

title: User:Stephen Kennedy


text:
User talk:Stephen Kennedy

Yes it does! Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit How does one edit a page or how to format them visit our manual of style. Experiment at Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump or my talk page. Thanks for the copy edit in war elephant (i wrote it last night and i'm quite happy about it...)Cheers, Muriel Gottrop

vanity
Some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article may not be sufficiently well-known to merit articles of their own. The Wikipedia community welcomes newcomers, and encourages them to become Wikipedians. On Wikipedia, each user is entitled to a user page in which they can describe themselves, and this article's content may be incorporated into that page. However, to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia proper, a subject must be notable. We encourage you to write or improve articles on notable subjects. Dunc|☺ 18:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Why do you have two usernames?
It's very confusing. Dunc|☺ 19:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I was just about to register this name and redirect it to my user page, since I am also a 'Stephen Kennedy'. Since somebody beat me to it (and given Dunc's statement above) I should like to point out that this account is not me and is not under my control. And hello to the other Stephen! There are a few of us, alas, as indicated by my failure to get stephenkennedy.com or .co.uk! --kingboyk 20:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Stephen Kennedy


text:
Eamon Dunphy

Eamon Martin Dunphy (born 3 August 1945) is an Irish media personality, journalist, broadcaster, author, sports pundit and former professional footballer. He grew up playing football for several youth teams including Stella Maris. Since retiring from the sport, he has become recognisable to Irish television audiences as a football analyst during coverage of the Premier League, UEFA Champions League and international football on RTÉ.

As well as his slot with RTÉ, Dunphy has worked for its rival television station, TV3 (for which he has presented a chat show and a game show), and rival radio stations Today FM and Newstalk. He was the original presenter of The Last Word on Today FM. Between 2004 and 2006, Dunphy presented the breakfast programme on Dublin's local Newstalk 106 radio station before it became a national broadcaster. Later he moved to RTÉ Radio 1, where he presented a weekly programme, Conversations with Eamon Dunphy until 2009. He then returned to Newstalk, now broadcasting nationwide, only to leave again in 2011. Dunphy continues to write a column on football for the Irish Daily Star newspaper.

Early life
Dunphy grew up in Drumcondra, Dublin, in what he described as "a one-room tenement flat [with] no electricity, no hot water". He attended Saint Patrick's National School, Drumcondra. In 1958 he got a one year government scholarship to Sandymount High School but he had to work as a messenger at tweed clothing shop Kevin and Howlin.

Club career
A promising footballer, he left Dublin while still a teenager to join Manchester United as an apprentice. Dunphy did not break into the first team at United, and subsequently left to play for York City, Millwall, Charlton Athletic, Reading and Shamrock Rovers. It was at Millwall that Dunphy made the most impact; he was considered an intelligent and skilful player in the side's midfield.

Dunphy was a member of "The Class of '71", the Millwall side that failed by just one point to gain promotion to the Football League First Division.

He accompanied Johnny Giles back to Ireland to join Shamrock Rovers in 1977. Giles wanted to make the club Ireland's first full-time professional club, and hoped to make Rovers into a force in European football by developing talented young players at home who would otherwise go to clubs in England. Dunphy was originally intended to be in charge of youth development. However, despite an FAI Cup winners medal in 1978 (his only medal in senior football) and two appearances in the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup, Dunphy became disillusioned with the Irish game and dropped out of football altogether to concentrate on a career in journalism.

International career
Dunphy played 23 times for the Republic of Ireland and was Millwall's most capped international footballer with 22 caps, until surpassed by David Forde and Shane Ferguson.

He made his Ireland début on 10 November 1965 in the play-off at the Parc des Princes in Paris for the 1966 FIFA World Cup which Spain won 1–0, thanks to a José Ufarte goal. He went on to become, in his own words, "a good player, not a great player".

Journalism
After retiring from the game, Dunphy first began writing on football for the Sunday Tribune and then contributing regular columns on both football and current events for the Sunday Independent. He currently writes a column on football for the Irish Daily Star. He coined the term "Official Ireland" to refer to the establishment.

He has also worked for Ireland on Sunday (now The Irish Mail on Sunday), The Sunday Press (now defunct), and the Irish Examiner.

Since the 1980s, Dunphy has written a number of books. His first and most widely praised book is ''Only a Game? The Diary of a Professional Footballer'', which is an autobiographical account of his days playing for Millwall. Written in diary form, it recorded events from the dressing room of his 1973–74 season, which began well for him at Millwall but subsequently ended in disillusionment: after being substituted in a 27 October 1973 home loss to eventual league winners Middlesbrough, Dunphy did not play another game all season, the club finishing mid-table.

In 1985, rock band U2 and manager Paul McGuinness commissioned him to write the story of their origins, formation, early years and the time leading up to their highly successful album The Joshua Tree. His book Unforgettable Fire - Past, Present, and Future - The Definitive Biography of U2 was published in 1988. It received some favourable reviews, but critics close to the band spoke of many inaccuracies. A verbal war erupted in the press during which Dunphy called lead singer Bono a "pompous git".

Dunphy has also written a biography of long-serving Manchester United manager Matt Busby and in 2002 ghost wrote the autobiography of Republic of Ireland and Manchester United player Roy Keane.

Television
Since the mid-1980s, Dunphy has regularly appeared as an analyst during football coverage on Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ). Since RTÉ acquired the rights to show English football, he has been a regular contributor to Premier Soccer Saturday. He also contributes to analysis of UEFA Champions League games and, in international football, RTÉ's coverage of FIFA World Cups, UEFA European Football Championships and qualifying matches involving the Republic of Ireland national football team. He contributed to RTÉ Sport's coverage of the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa. Dunphy's earnings from RTÉ for his football analysis (plus a radio show) include €328,051 in 2008 and €285,915 in 2007.

In 2001, he became the first male host of the quiz show The Weakest Link, which aired on TV3, for just one series. In 2003, he was hired again by TV3 to host their new Friday night chat show, entitled The Dunphy Show. Pitted head-to-head with RTÉ's long-running flagship programme, The Late Late Show, Dunphy's show lost what was a highly publicised "ratings war", and was cancelled before its original run was to conclude.

He is the first presenter of a made-for-mobile television show on the 3 mobile network in Ireland. His rants and "Spoofer of the Week" are watched by thousands of 3 Mobile customers. The shows were awarded "Best Entertainment Show" at Ireland's Digital Media Awards. Dunphy admits he never uses a mobile himself but enjoys filming for a mobile audience from his living room in Ranelagh.

In 2009, he made an emotive outburst on The Late Late Show during a discussion regarding then-Taoiseach Bertie Ahern's financial affairs.

In July 2018, Dunphy announced that he was leaving RTÉ after 40 years with the broadcaster, and that he intended to focus on his podcast The Stand with Eamon Dunphy.

Radio
Dunphy has also had a prominent radio career with several stations, including Today FM, Newstalk and RTÉ Radio 1.

He was the original host in 1997 of the popular current affairs show The Last Word on Today FM. In September 2004, he took over The Breakfast Show slot on the Dublin radio station Newstalk 106 from David McWilliams. The show tried to court controversy and listeners in equal measure. He failed to attract the large listenership predicted, with only a few additional thousand tuning in. He announced in June 2006 his intention to leave Newstalk 106, citing an inability to sustain the demands of an early morning schedule. After his departure from Newstalk 106, he confirmed he was suffering from a viral illness. He later recovered.

In July 2006, RTÉ announced that Dunphy would present a new weekly programme as part of the new RTÉ Radio 1 autumn schedule.

He rejoined Newstalk but left again in 2011 "due to interference from management and a push to put a more positive spin on the news". On his last show he accused his boss Denis O'Brien of "hating journalism". He quit after Sam Smyth was sacked from Today FM (also owned by O'Brien), and said management at Newstalk were trying to remove "dissenting voices" like Constantin Gurdgiev from the airwaves.

Personal life
Dunphy was a daily Mass-goer until he was preparing for marriage to his first wife, Sandra from Salford, when he was 21. He was Catholic and she was Protestant. The priest instructing them for marriage disapproved strongly of the mixed couple, saying that he should not marry her because she was "not a proper person". Dunphy's observance was already weakening but he quit his daily Mass-going at this point. He and Sandra had two children, a boy and a girl, and Dunphy is now a grandfather. His first marriage ended and he moved to Castletownshend in Cork for two years in the early 1990s. He lived with another partner, Inge, before meeting his second wife, RTÉ commissioning editor Jane Gogan, in the Horseshoe Bar in Dublin in 1992. They married at the Unitarian Church on St Stephen's Green on 24 September 2009.

In an interview with An Phoblacht, Dunphy, who had previously written highly critical articles on the Provisional IRA and Sinn Féin, stated that he is now a Sinn Féin supporter and declared he had voted for them in the 2011 general election. He described their representatives as "incredibly hard-working and incredibly intelligent".

He published his autobiography entitled The Rocky Road in October 2013.

Today, Dunphy generally resides at his home near Ranelagh in Dublin. He also owns a holiday home in Deauville, France.

In May 2017, he said that he is a Liverpool supporter.

Controversies
In 1999 a High Court jury awarded £300,000 to politician Proinsias de Rossa over a 1992 article by Dunphy in the Sunday Independent alleging that De Rossa was aware, while a member of the Workers' Party, of the Official IRA's alleged illegal activities, including bank robberies and forgery

In 2002 Dunphy was banned from driving for a decade after being arrested for drunk driving and had eight previous convictions under the Road Traffic Act

In 2020 one of the Sunday Independent's most senior executives admitted that the paper went too far in the vindictive nastiness of its attacks on John Hume mounted by Dunphy in an incendiary back page piece

In popular culture
The deceased satirist and actor Dermot Morgan, known to international audiences as Father Ted, did a much-admired Eamon Dunphy impression on the satirical radio show Scrap Saturday. Different sketches had him engaged in apparent inane and ridiculous arguments. They ranged from his criticism of Mother Teresa for "not being a real nun" to his attack on the week's weather. Dunphy left RTÉ's analysis team the day before the 1986 FIFA World Cup Final, when he objected to Morgan's portrayal of him and Giles as monosyllabic.

Dunphy's hyperbole was parodied on RTÉ's Après Match show lampooning celebrities, footballers and broadcasters.

Oliver Callan also does impersonations of Dunphy, one of which Dunphy approved for a radio charity advertisement.

title: Eamon Dunphy


text:
Talk:Boldness

Some content has been moved to Forty-nine charismatic virtues. Peter Manchester 13:11, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_boldRedPanda84 (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC) "Boldness is a trait that wise people should possess." seems an odd thing for the article to say. 212.127.30.42 (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Boldness
Having boldness is having the characteristic of strength or presence. Being able to command attention in the room, as if you are a celebrity or famous political figure such as the current US President Donald Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Pacilio (talk • contribs) 16:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Typing.nguyen (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

test message
test message Seniorstudent1212 (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

thank you for your kind words
Thanks for the feedback! It makes me feel very welcome! I am still learning the ropes, but I now know when to ask questions if I get confused!PeanutJr (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You are welcome.PeanutJr (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Boldness


text:
Talk:Forgiveness

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rdblakely. Peer reviewers: Paddyiranmanesh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wanting to explain the connection between punishment and forgiveness (and the confusion)
I wanted to write a subtopic, for forgiveness, called "The Paradox of Forgiveness (+ Punishment)", which is taken from the article from Leo Zaibert, in which he eloquently explains the paradoxical phenomenon of forgiveness as follows: "There is, then, a purely analytic connection between punishment and forgiveness worth our attention: only what is punishable is forgivable, and only what is forgivable is punishable. Not merely wrongdoing, however, but  culpable  wrongdoing, is a logical precondition of both punishment and forgiveness." This paradox, becomes solvable if you are able to think about Daniel Kahneman's idea (from his book Thinking Fast + Slow) of two selves: the experiencing self, and the remembering self. The proposed solution being, that it is the experiencing self that is punishing, it is the remembering self that is forgiving (i.e. overcoming resentment). That the paradox suggests an either or, when in reality the proposed solution shows that you can do both at the same time, and be logically consistent, as well as in real-life practice.

Why I have decided to write this in the talk page, rather than make a full-on edit, is because I am piecing these two pieces of information together, to propose an explantion for why punishment is indepentend of forgiveness. Even though my sources are factual (i.e. they are experts), the proposed ideas were never originally meant to be put together, for this proposed solution. While I think that we all intuitively understand that there is some connection between forgiveness and punishment, some people interpret that connection as being that forgiveness means forgoing punishment. I believe you can do both, and be logically, and practically, consistent and congruent with both concepts. However, this is a proposed explanation, more than sourced from others; it is an original blend of sources, to explain my opinion/idea: I don't know how correct it is, and I am unsure whether wikipedia merits having this subtopic (or if I should just write it in a book or blog). I do, however, understand that wikipedia is a big place for public education, and understanding forgiveness in this way, is the safest way I know (one where an individual can pursue self-defense and/or punishment, and at the same time overcome resentment). I would like to hear thoughts, on whether this should be added or not. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Robot 2020 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Readability
I did not read this entire page, but I did read the "Forgiveness in Relationships" topic. The information under this tab is so grammatically incorrect that I question whether or not it was written by a Native Speaker of English, and whether or not it has been proofread by anyone.

It would take a serious investigation and dedication of time I do not, unfortunately, have into the subject matter and the sitations to fix this topic, but I just wanted to point this out. Thanks. Cttr22 (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 * I agree. This page was recently the target of Pedantle, and was hard to solve (though 2000 did). The prose is turgid and uses many long and specialised terms. The concept is not difficult, and at least the introduction should use ordinary words and plain language. Begging your pardon for this criticism out of the blue. 79.64.177.100 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Moral science
Forgiveness 2402:8100:2056:3462:D5AA:2449:7B6B:A36D (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

English
The power of forgiveness 41.13.170.224 (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Forgiveness


text:
Talk:Obedience (human behavior)

Forty-nine charismatic virtues
Some content has been moved to Forty-nine charismatic virtues. Peter Manchester 13:13, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Cleanup
This article consist of snippets of what it seems to be original research. We need attributions and citations from notable sources to substatitate the current text. Please help make this article compliant with Wikipedia policies. Thanks. --ZappaZ 23:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Already done it, my friends :-) JCraw 12:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Spelling and grammar
This article needs extensive copyediting for grammar and spelling. -- The Anome 12:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

...and substantial improvement in every other regard. Flagged for {expert} attention. -- The Anome 13:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Why? It's been referenced, i've checked the book in it's 3 editions, and the information is valid. I reverted because again, i can't shake the feeling this was done with far less than neutral intentions; afterall, this topic has, and is used by SEVERAL examination boards in the United Kingdom, as well as other european countries. Unless this is SEVERELY wrong, which is juxtaposed to the quanitifcation process which goes on in these places; i.e Creationism not being in biology. Very very suspicious. James S 20:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, can you explain what "which is juxtaposed to the quanitifcation process" means? -- The Anome 23:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hofling hospital experiment
The Hofling hospital experiment article is more-or-less orphaned. I don't want to add experiments willy-nilly to this article, but I'm leaning toward adding a short bit on it. Any objections?Cretog8 (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Knock yourself out -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

 * It's good to see this well-known study added. Neezes (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Spelling and grammar problems
I have begun fixing up the spelling and grammar. Kathy (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I finished copyediting this article. Someone might want to check to make sure none of my edits changed the meaning. I don't think they did, but some of the language was so dense I had trouble understanding what it meant myself. The article still does not read very gracefully, but at least you can understand what you're reading now. Kathy (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a read through to check everything is alright! Pheebalicious (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything seems to good to me. Very readable. Pheebalicious (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit and footnote tags
I found this article in the January 2007 section of WP:COPY and discovered only minimal copyediting was required. However, I did object to the text "obedience to God" being linked to Religion because not all religion is about that; if the in-text reference to religion is necessary (and I believe it is not as it is quite obvious), feel free to add something to the effect of "(eg. religion)". I also removed the footnote tag because the article's reference list is presented as in-text citations. If more citations are required, please use the template. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

military?
Is there anything at all on obedience from the standpoint of the military? That'd be something neat to add. I'm researching for an essay on Milgram, and was wishing I could snag some nice sources from a Military Obedience section.... Darn. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Obedience or Just do it dumb
Obedience is a form of operant conditioning in which a subject submitts to moral engagements through demand. Also known as a positive response to request for compliance and conformancy.-Hines2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.218.86 (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Moral Assimilation or Stringent Conformancy
Human Compliance or Dog Training? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.218.86 (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

traducir al ingles
ara atender esta población de animales se tiene la participación de 120 trabajadores (contemplando médicos veterinarios y auxiliares de zootecnistas), teniendo presente que el zoológico depende de una Dirección General de Zoológicos de la Ciudad de México y que se trabaja los 365 días del año a cada especie de ave se le alimentaba con una dieta especifica a sus necesidades. Se contaba con un equipo de 300 personas destinadas exclusivamente a la atención de los animales y su salud. La colección también incluía grandes jaulas de madera que alojaban carnívoros diseñadores, ingenieros, biólogos y veterinarios, trabajó en todos los aspectos del proyecto, buscando cubrir los cuatro objetivos fundamentales de un zoológico moderno, es decir; recreación, educación, investigación y conservación de especies silvestres. Durante más de setenta años, la exhibición se clasificó de acuerdo a los grupos taxonómicos: primates felinos, cánidos, herbívoros, aves, reptiles, etc. El concepto cambió para reflejar el hecho de que los animales viven juntos en la naturaleza, por lo que ahora se agruparon conforme a zonas bioclimáticas de acuerdo con su hábitat natural. Se presentaron cuatro climas; frió y húmedo ( bosque templado y litoral ), frío y seco (pradera), cálido y húmedo (selva húmeda tropical) cálido y seco (zonas áridas y sabana). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.163.26.90 (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Live Long and Prosper
One of the stipulations of long life and prosperity is Obedience to parents..... the other is respect/honor ........see Eph6:1-3

Live Long and Prosper
One of the stipulations of long life and prosperity is Obedience to parents..... the other is respect/honor ........see Eph6:1-3

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.39.98.186 (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Updates and expansions to the experimental section
The experimental section is one area in this article that could be improved. I am currently working on reviewing some of the more modern literature (beyond Milgram) on obedience, and will try to update it within the next few days. Some of the areas that I am working on include the relationship between obedience and disobedience, obedience and college students, and obedience to tax authorities to name a few. jataylor90 (talk), 20:22 18 April 2012

Student edit timeline, Spring 2012
As a senior capstone project, students are working improve the content of selected articles. More details are on the course page. Student first edits are due April 20, then we'll spend a week reviewing. Final project is due by May 14, 2012. Thanks for your encouragement and support. Greta Munger (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Senior Capstone Peer Edit #1
Hey Jackson, below are some suggestions I have regarding your obedience page updates.

-The intro section seemed like it needed more citations. Many of the sentences were assertions and statements that would be helpful to be supported with a specific citation.

-Also in the intro, I liked the statement about sin and virtue, but felt it didn't belong in the first few sentences of the definition. Maybe you can put that later in the intro and have a leading sentence connect the remark better.

-In the section "Modern Methods" the sentence, "Burger's method was identical to Milgram's except when the shocks reached 150 volts, participants decided to do and then the experiment ended (base condition)" didn't make sense to me. It seems like the "decided to do" part was a typo. Could you clarify the difference in this study better?

-I'm not convinced this is the best way to do it, but have you thought about putting "Classic Methods" and "Classic Results" together and then "Modern Methods" and "Modern Results"? I had a little bit of a challenge remembering what result matched what method when reading multiple methods and then multiple results. Organizing this info in a different way may help.

-Add a citation after the first sentence under the "Implications" section

-Can you add any more information to the "Applications of Obedience" section? I thought this section was pretty interesting but only had one sentence regarding findings. Perhaps you could describe the research further or reasoning behind their findings?

-I think you should put in a formal citation under the Hofling hospital experiment. The link is helpful, and the research is well described, but a formal link could be helpful for anyone wanting to see the paper. Also, the section while important to the subject, seemed a little random. Perhaps this section would be better placed in the "Classic Methods" section? Or maybe you could talk about the research further on how it applies cultural obedience or obedience training, since those are the sections it's next to.

-I liked the section on obedience training but is there any sort of empirical research you can cite some of the statements to? Have there been any studies on military obedience that you can reference?

Overall, I really enjoyed reading your page on obedience! I thought you covered a wide area of the subject and did a great job explaining major methods and results. My major suggestions would be to put in citations in areas where they're needed and see if there is a more fluid way you can organize the page. I think you have a lot of good information, but the organization seemed a little random for some parts. Good luck, and let me know if you want me to clarify any of my suggestions. Maxwellshaw (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer Edit #2
My recommendations would be:

-The introduction needs a bit of revision for citations and clarification. I think that the sin and virtue example is interesting, but a bit colloquial. I don't know if it can be worked in anywhere else, but I think that the objective explanation of obedience below that is sufficient for the introduction.

-The Methods section could use headings for the Milgram and Stanford experiments. I think that this would make it easier for someone to skim through to find what they need. I also think that some of the wording in the Methods is a bit confusing, so clarification of some results would be good.

-There are two headings of Cultural Attitudes to Obedience. I think that the longer one was your improvement to the original, but be sure to remove or combine those. Also, the sections need citations.

-The order could be reworked a bit. I think that the methods presented separately from the later field experiment is kind of confusing. The field experiment just seemed plopped in the middle of unrelated information. I think that it could be placed in with the Methods, especially if you add headings for Milgram and Stanford. I agree with Max that the Classical and Modern methods and results could possibly be combined to provide an explanation that is easier to follow without having to refer back to previous sections as much.

-The Experimental Studies of Human Obedience is repetitious and can probably be removed.

I think that the information that you added is very comprehensive and interesting. The explanations of the studies and their findings are all in the article, just need to be reworked to flow a bit better. You have a lot of information to work with, so good job getting all of that. A few supplemental additions and reworking will make this page great! Let me know if you need any clarifications of the recommendations! Good work so far!

Anna B. Smith (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You should also mention somewhere the notion of "Just following orders", or a few sentences on the role of obedience legally....though this may be outside the scope of your pysch class.Smallman12q (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Response to peer edits & my contributions to the page
I am writing this to clarify my edits to this page. I did not write the obedience intro, I just added a quote by Milgram at the end. My contributions were adding the methods (both classical and modern) sections and their results. I also added in the sections regarding some of the implications and applications of obedience research. I was told by Dr. Munger that I the scope of my contribution was to be working the sections that I added, not making alterations to the existing article where I did not have the citations needed to rework it (although I did move around some of the existing research so that it fit better with what I added). Also, below is a list of the references that I used for my sections (per Dr. Munger's request). I am still working on the final edits, but the majority of my contributions have already been added.

References

Blass, T. (1991). Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interactions. Journal of Personality and Social 	Psychology, 60, 398-413.

Blass, T. (1995). Right-Wing authoritarianism and role as predictors of attributions about obedience to authority. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 99-100.

Burger, J. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64, 1-11.

Burger, J., Girgis, Z., & Manning, Z. (2011). In their own words: Explaining obedience to authority through an examination of participants’ comments. Social Psychological and 	Personality Science, 2, 460-466.

Burley, P., & McGuinness, J., (1977). Effects of social intelligence on the Milgram paradigm. Psychological Reports, 40, 767-770.

Cadsby, C., Maynes, E., & Trivedi, V. (2006). Tax compliance and obedience to authority at home and in the lab: A new experimental approach. Experimental Economics, 9, 343-359.

Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69-97.

Haslam, S., & Reicher, S. (2007). Beyond the banality of evil: Three dynamics of an interactionist social psychology of tyranny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 615-622.

Hinrichs, K. (2007). Follower propensity to commit crimes of obedience: The role of leadership 	beliefs. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14, 69-76.

Kilham, W.; Mann, L. (1974). "The level of destructive obedience as a function of transmitter and executant roles in the Milgram obedience paradigm". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29: 696-702.

Meeus, W., & Raaijmakers, Q. (1986). Administrative obedience: Carrying out orders to use psychological-administrative violence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 311-324.

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.

Miranda, F.; Caballero, B., Gomez, & Zamorano M. (1981). "Obediencia a la autoridad [Obedience to Authority]". Psiquis 2: 212-221.

Navarick, D. & Bellone, J. (2009) Time of semester as a factor in participants’ obedience to instructions to perform an aversive task. The Psychological Record, 60, 101-114.

Passini, S. & Morseli, D. (2010). The obedience-disobedience dynamic and the role of responsibility. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1-14.

Shanab, M.; Yahka, K. (1978). "A cross-cultural study of obedience". Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 11: 530-536.

Skitka, L., Bauman, C., & Lytle, B. (2009). Limits on legitimacy: Moral and religious convictions as constraints on deference to authority. Journal of Personality and Social 	Psychology, 97, 567-758.

jataylor90 (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"(Coleman,2006)"
In the intro, the words ‘a form of social influence in which a person yields to explicit instructions or orders from an authority figure’ are then followed by the citation reference "(Coleman,2006)".

We shouldn't be quoting material we can't provide a cite for, and we shouldn't be inserting references to sources for which we don't have a real cite, either. I've come up blank trying to use Google scholar to source this. An Amazon book search on Colman's Oxford Dictionary of Psychology (which is presumably what was intended) comes up blank, too.

Can anyone come up with a real cite for this sentence? -- The Anome (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

 * ✅ Got it! "social influence in which a person yields to explicit instructions or orders from an authority figure" comes from -- The Anome (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Factors
There is some useful information on power/prestige, but a lot more could be said about factors that influence confomity level. For example, Milgram (1974) did a number of variations of his study and compared results based on factors such as was the victim in the same room or not, was the authority figure in the same room or not, what happens if other people dissent/disobey... These as well as individual differences such as personality (e.g. authoritarian personality, self-esteem, age, etc could be added. Neezes (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Obedience
What is obedience 63.143.124.234 (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Davidson College supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Obedience (human behavior)


text:
Talk:Availability

Definition
Some content has been moved to Forty-nine charismatic virtues. Peter Manchester 13:15, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a definition of Availability that can be sensibly used in a legal document relating to a web site hosting service. The current definition on Wikipedia doen't seem to fulfil this requirement. I'm sure there is a service-related definition of Availability in ITIL somewhere, but I haven't yet found it. Can anybody help with this?

Dubious definition
The article states the following:

Limiting (or steady-state) availability is represented by

A = \lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} A(t). $$

Limiting average availability is also defined on an interval $$(0,c]$$ as,

A_{\infty}=\lim_{c \rightarrow \infty} A_c = \lim_{c \rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{c}\int_0^c A(t)\,dt,\quad c > 0. $$

I don't see how this can be accurate, however. The steady-state availability definition as stated doesn't look like it would converge. This appears to be more of an "instantaneous" availability that is evaluated as t gets large, which seems like a dubious procedure to me. I suspect a definition like:

A = \lim_{c \rightarrow \infty} A_c. $$

is probably more accurate for steady-state (limiting) availability. 70.250.239.119 (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Inherent and Operational Availability
I read earlier today on Talk:Mean down time:

From Jones, Logistics Support Analysis Handbook (TAB Books inc.), the time clock for MTTR starts and ends only with the corrective maintenance cycle (fault detection, isolation through checkout). MDT accounts for all including delays where spares, support personnel or tools are not immediately available. MTTR is used in calculating Ai (Inherent Availability) where MDT is used in calculating Ao (Operational Availability).

This is good info, I'd like to include it, but I'm not sure what the best way to do that is. At a minimum, I believe the article needs to mention inherent availability and operational availability. 70.250.239.119 (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Mission Capable Rate
The military's notion of mission capable rate is a special case of system availability, so I've linked a number of pages that mention this term to this page. We should probably redirect mission capable rate to this page also. 70.250.190.30 (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds swell. I've created the redirect.  bahamut0013  words deeds 02:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Available isn't available ?
The current definition seems MIL-STD based, should there be mention of alternative views?

For example in Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International SEMI-E10 specification or Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability, see http://www.semi.org/en/Standards/CTR_031244 -- see paper on Measuring Supercomputer RAS. I've also seen Availability and the different ways to calculate it

The alternative seems looking from a viewpoint of post-fact reporting on actual production measurements rather than a calculated KPP. I'm also thinking the military KPP usage has availability measured against time supposed to be up -- so 'scheduled downtime' does not count - and the SEMI usage has any downtime counted as downtime, and then focuses on how much uptime went to engineering tasks, idle time, and how much of actual runtime is in restart and rework time.

Anyone have viewpoint on including other measures in the article ? Markbassett (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Availability. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413164657/https://dap.dau.mil/glossary/Pages/2045.aspx to https://dap.dau.mil/glossary/Pages/2045.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413164705/https://dap.dau.mil/glossary/Pages/1380.aspx to https://dap.dau.mil/glossary/Pages/1380.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130312154509/https://dap.dau.mil/glossary/Pages/Archived/1476.aspx to https://dap.dau.mil/glossary/Pages/Archived/1476.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessarily formal and verbose first sentences.
As a reader coming from the CAP theorem article via a link to "Availability", the leading definitions in this article do not help me to understand what Availability means at a high level.

The CAP article, with which this article is linked (implying they refer to the same "Availability") states:

"Availability: Every request receives a (non-error) response, without the guarantee that it contains the most recent write"

This article does not cover that definition, or if it does, it does it in an overly formal way from the get-go. AnonGUser (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Availability


text:
Province of Silesia

The Province of Silesia (Provinz Schlesien; Prowincja Śląska; Prowincyjŏ Ślōnskŏ) was a province of Prussia from 1815 to 1919. The Silesia region was part of the Prussian realm since 1742 and established as an official province in 1815, then became part of the German Empire in 1871. In 1919, as part of the Free State of Prussia within Weimar Germany, Silesia was divided into the provinces of Upper Silesia and Lower Silesia. Silesia was reunified briefly from 1 April 1938 to 27 January 1941 as a province of Nazi Germany before being divided back into Upper Silesia and Lower Silesia.

Breslau (present-day Wrocław, Poland) was the provincial capital.

Geography
The territory on both sides of the Oder river formed the southeastern part of the Prussian kingdom. It comprised the bulk of the former Bohemian crown land of Upper and Lower Silesia as well as the adjacent County of Kladsko, which the Prussian King Frederick the Great had all conquered from the Austrian Habsburg monarchy under Empress Maria Theresa in the 18th century Silesian Wars. It furthermore included the northeastern part of Upper Lusatia around Görlitz and Lauban (Lubań), ceded to Prussia by the Kingdom of Saxony according to the resolutions of the Congress of Vienna in 1815.

The province bordered on the Prussian heartland of Brandenburg (including the newly acquired lands of Lower Lusatia) in the northwest, and on the Grand Duchy of Posen (Province of Posen from 1848) in the north, i.e. the Greater Polish lands that before the 18th century Partitions of Poland had belonged to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. In the northeast, Upper Silesia bordered on Congress Poland, i.e. the Kingdom of Poland which had been reconstituted from the Duchy of Warsaw and was made up of former parts of the Prussian and Austrian partitions; Congress Poland was in a personal union with the Russian Empire until 1867 when it was formally integrated as the Vistula Land. In the east lay the Austrian share, the Lesser Polish Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria with the Free City of Kraków (until 1846), and in the south the remaining Bohemian crown lands of Austrian Silesia, Moravia and Bohemia proper. The incorporated Upper Lusatian strip of land in the west touched the remaining territory of the Saxon kingdom and in the furthest west the Prussian Province of Saxony.

Prussian Silesia, 1742–1815
The coronation of Maria Theresa as queen regnant of the Kingdom of Bohemia immediately triggered an invasion of the region of Silesia by King Frederick the Great of Prussia, thereby starting the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–1748). By the end of the First Silesian War in 1742, the Prussian forces had conquered almost all of the Habsburg crown land in Silesia, while according to the peace treaties of Breslau and Berlin, only some smaller parts in the extreme southeast, like the Duchy of Cieszyn as well as the southern parts of the duchies of Troppau and Nysa, remained possessions of the Habsburg monarchy as Austrian Silesia. Attempts by Maria Theresa to regain the crown land in the Second Silesian War (1744–1745) failed and she ultimately had to relinquish her claims over Silesia by the Treaty of Dresden.

The Third Silesian War (1756–1763), a theatre of the Seven Years' War, once again confirmed Prussian control over most of Silesia, and due to its predominantly Protestant population especially in Lower Silesia, it became one of the most loyal territories of the House of Hohenzollern. When the Prussian territories were reorganized upon the Congress of Vienna, the Province of Silesia was created out of the territories acquired by Prussia in the Silesian Wars, as well as those Upper Lusatian territories which King Frederick Augustus I of Saxony had to relinquish due to his indecisive attitude in the Napoleonic Wars. As the lands had been part of the Holy Roman Empire until 1806, Silesia was among the western Prussian provinces that lay within the borders of the German Confederation.

Kingdom of Prussia and German Empire
In 1815, after the Napoleonic wars, Prussian Silesia was formally reorganized into the Province of Silesia. The character of the province's eastern third, Upper Silesia, had been much lesser shaped by the medieval German Ostsiedlung. According to the census of 1905, about three-quarters of the Silesian inhabitants were German–speaking, while a majority of the population to the east of the Oder river spoke Polish (including Silesian and Lach dialects). The indigenous Polish and Sorbian population was subjected to Germanisation policies. Sorbian-language Lutheran preparations for Confirmation were prohibited with the ban lifted only after World War I. Because of the extended iron ore and black coal deposits of the Upper Silesian Coal Basin, there was considerable industrialization and urbanization in Upper Silesia and many people from neighbouring Posen and Congress Poland immigrated at that time. In 1871, Silesia became part of the German Empire as a province of Prussia following the unification of Germany. The Upper Silesian Industrial Region was the second largest industrial agglomeration of the German Empire after the Ruhr area. Over decades the mainly Catholic Upper Silesian citizens in majority voted for the German Centre Party, while the Lower Silesian constituencies were dominated by the Free-minded Party and the Social Democrats. Ethnic tensions rose on the eve of World War I, with politicians like Wojciech Korfanty separating from the Centre Party and giving utterance to distinct Polish interests.

Weimar Republic
In 1919, a year after the war ended, the parts of Silesia remaining in Weimar Germany were re-organized into the two provinces of Lower Silesia (Niederschlesien) and Upper Silesia (Oberschlesien, the former Regierungsbezirk Oppeln). After three Silesian Uprisings and the 1921 Upper Silesia plebiscite, the East Upper Silesian part of the province around the industrial city of Katowice was transferred to the Second Polish Republic and incorporated into the Silesian Voivodeship in 1922. Further, in 1920 the Hlučín Region was ceded to Czechoslovakia according to the Treaty of Versailles.

Nazi Germany
On 1 April 1938 the Province of Silesia was re-established by Nazi Germany by uniting the existing Upper Silesia and Lower Silesia provinces. Nazi German persecution of Poles in the province intensified in 1938-1939 with expulsions of Polish activists, distributors of Polish press, priests, craftsmen, farmers, students etc., attacks on Polish cultural centers, banks, enterprises, schools, churches and houses, seizure of Polish libraries, confiscations of Polish press, arrests and deportations of Polish activists to concentration camps and even assassinations. In 1938, Nazi authorities forced the Lutheran Church not to staff bilingual German-Sorbian parishes with new Sorbian preachers, and the Bund Deutscher Osten demanded a ban on Sorbian church masses, but only a limit of two such masses per month was imposed. There were instances of expulsions of Sorbian pastors.

During the German invasion of Poland, which started World War II in September 1939, Gestapo carried out mass arrests of Polish activists, teachers, journalists, entrepreneurs, library directors and chairmen of local branches of the "Sokół" Polish Gymnastic Society, shut down Polish newspapers and seized the funds of Polish banks from the pre-war German Province of Silesia. The arrested Poles were deported to concentration camps. Polish church services were abolished, with the last Polish service held in the Saint Martin church in Wrocław on 17 September 1939. Soon the border was extended eastwards when parts of Polish Silesia were annexed into the province. In the annexed pre-war Polish part the occupiers conducted the genocidal Intelligenzaktion campaign and expulsions of Poles.

The Germans also established the Gross-Rosen concentration camp and multiple prisoner-of-war camps with numerous forced labour subcamps in the region, including Stalag VIII-A, Stalag VIII-B, Stalag VIII-C, Stalag VIII-E, Oflag VIII-A, Oflag VIII-B, Oflag VIII-C, Oflag VIII-F, for Polish POWs and civilians, and French, Belgian, Dutch and later also other Allied POWs.

On 27 January 1941, during World War II, the province of Silesia was divided again by reverting into Upper Silesia and Lower Silesia.

Demographics
According to the Prussian census of 1890, the province of Silesia had a population of 4,224,458, of which 3,105,843 (73.52%) spoke German, 973,596 (23.05%) spoke Polish, 68,781 (1.63%) spoke Czech, 26,257 (0.62%) spoke Sorbian and 48,045 (1.14%) identified as bilingual.

Regierungsbezirk Liegnitz - 1,047,405 (96.41% German, 2.51% Sorbian, 0.53% Polish, 0.11% Czech, 0.38% bilingual).

Regierungsbezirk Breslau - 1,599,322 (95.63% German, 3.08% Polish, 0.59% Czech, 0.64% bilingual).

Regierungsbezirk Oppeln - 1,577,731 (58.23% Polish, 35.91% German, 3.69% Czech, 2.14% bilingual).

title: Province of Silesia