text:
Shadow volume

Shadow volume is a technique used in 3D computer graphics to add shadows to a rendered scene. They were first proposed by Frank Crow in 1977 as the geometry describing the 3D shape of the region occluded from a light source. A shadow volume divides the virtual world in two: areas that are in shadow and areas that are not.

The stencil buffer implementation of shadow volumes is generally considered among the most practical general purpose real-time shadowing techniques for use on modern 3D graphics hardware. It has been popularized by the video game Doom 3, and a particular variation of the technique used in this game has become known as Carmack's Reverse.

Shadow volumes have become a popular tool for real-time shadowing, alongside the more venerable shadow mapping. The main advantage of shadow volumes is that they are accurate to the pixel (though many implementations have a minor self-shadowing problem along the silhouette edge, see construction below), whereas the accuracy of a shadow map depends on the texture memory allotted to it as well as the angle at which the shadows are cast (at some angles, the accuracy of a shadow map unavoidably suffers). However, the technique requires the creation of shadow geometry, which can be CPU intensive (depending on the implementation). The advantage of shadow mapping is that it is often faster, because shadow volume polygons are often very large in terms of screen space and require a lot of fill time (especially for convex objects), whereas shadow maps do not have this limitation.

Construction
In order to construct a shadow volume, project a ray from the light source through each vertex in the shadow casting object to some point (generally at infinity). These projections will together form a volume; any point inside that volume is in shadow, everything outside is lit by the light.

For a polygonal model, the volume is usually formed by classifying each face in the model as either facing toward the light source or facing away from the light source. The set of all edges that connect a toward-face to an away-face form the silhouette with respect to the light source. The edges forming the silhouette are extruded away from the light to construct the faces of the shadow volume. This volume must extend over the range of the entire visible scene; often the dimensions of the shadow volume are extended to infinity to accomplish this (see optimization below.) To form a closed volume, the front and back end of this extrusion must be covered. These coverings are called "caps". Depending on the method used for the shadow volume, the front end may be covered by the object itself, and the rear end may sometimes be omitted (see depth pass below).

There is also a problem with the shadow where the faces along the silhouette edge are relatively shallow. In this case, the shadow an object casts on itself will be sharp, revealing its polygonal facets, whereas the usual lighting model will have a gradual change in the lighting along the facet. This leaves a rough shadow artifact near the silhouette edge which is difficult to correct. Increasing the polygonal density will minimize the problem, but not eliminate it. If the front of the shadow volume is capped, the entire shadow volume may be offset slightly away from the light to remove any shadow self-intersections within the offset distance of the silhouette edge (this solution is more commonly used in shadow mapping).

The basic steps for forming a shadow volume are:

 * 1) Find all silhouette edges (edges which separate front-facing faces from back-facing faces)
 * 2) Extend all silhouette edges in the direction away from the light-source
 * 3) Add a front-cap and/or back-cap to each surface to form a closed volume (may not be necessary, depending on the implementation used)

Stencil buffer implementations
After Crow, in 1991 Tim Heidmann showed how to use the stencil buffer to render shadows with shadow volumes quickly enough for use in real time applications. There are three common variations to this technique, depth pass, depth fail, and exclusive-or, but all of them use the same process:

 * 1) Render the scene as if it were completely in shadow.
 * 2) For each light source:
 * 3) Using the depth information from that scene, construct a mask in the stencil buffer that has holes only where the visible surface is not in shadow.
 * 4) Render the scene again as if it were completely lit, using the stencil buffer to mask the shadowed areas. Use additive blending to add this render to the scene.

The difference between these three methods occurs in the generation of the mask in the second step. Some involve two passes, and some only one; some require less precision in the stencil buffer.

Shadow volumes tend to cover large portions of the visible scene, and as a result consume valuable rasterization time (fill time) on 3D graphics hardware. This problem is compounded by the complexity of the shadow casting objects, as each object can cast its own shadow volume of any potential size onscreen. See optimization below for a discussion of techniques used to combat the fill time problem.

Depth pass
Heidmann proposed that if the front surfaces and back surfaces of the shadows were rendered in separate passes, the number of front faces and back faces in front of an object can be counted using the stencil buffer. If an object's surface is in shadow, there will be more front facing shadow surfaces between it and the eye than back facing shadow surfaces. If their numbers are equal, however, the surface of the object is not in shadow. The generation of the stencil mask works as follows:

 * 1) Disable writes to the depth and color buffers.
 * 2) Use back-face culling.
 * 3) Set the stencil operation to increment on depth pass (only count shadows in front of the object).
 * 4) Render the shadow volumes (because of culling, only their front faces are rendered).
 * 5) Use front-face culling.
 * 6) Set the stencil operation to decrement on depth pass.
 * 7) Render the shadow volumes (only their back faces are rendered).

After this is accomplished, all lit surfaces will correspond to a 0 in the stencil buffer, where the numbers of front and back surfaces of all shadow volumes between the eye and that surface are equal.

This approach has problems when the eye itself is inside a shadow volume (for example, when the light source moves behind an object). From this point of view, the eye sees the back face of this shadow volume before anything else, and this adds a −1 bias to the entire stencil buffer, effectively inverting the shadows. This can be remedied by adding a "cap" surface to the front of the shadow volume facing the eye, such as at the front clipping plane. There is another situation where the eye may be in the shadow of a volume cast by an object behind the camera, which also has to be capped somehow to prevent a similar problem. In most common implementations, because properly capping for depth-pass can be difficult to accomplish, the depth-fail method (see below) may be licensed for these special situations. Alternatively one can give the stencil buffer a +1 bias for every shadow volume the camera is inside, though doing the detection can be slow.

There is another potential problem if the stencil buffer does not have enough bits to accommodate the number of shadows visible between the eye and the object surface, because it uses saturation arithmetic. (If they used arithmetic overflow instead, the problem would be insignificant.)

Depth pass testing is also known as z-pass testing, as the depth buffer is often referred to as the z-buffer.

Depth fail
Around the year 2000, several people discovered that Heidmann's method can be made to work for all camera positions by reversing the depth. Instead of counting the shadow surfaces in front of the object's surface, the surfaces behind it can be counted just as easily, with the same end result. This solves the problem of the eye being in shadow, since shadow volumes between the eye and the object are not counted, but introduces the condition that the rear end of the shadow volume must be capped, or shadows will end up missing where the volume points backward to infinity.

 * 1) Disable writes to the depth and color buffers.
 * 2) Use front-face culling.
 * 3) Set the stencil operation to increment on depth fail (only count shadows behind the object).
 * 4) Render the shadow volumes.
 * 5) Use back-face culling.
 * 6) Set the stencil operation to decrement on depth fail.
 * 7) Render the shadow volumes.

The depth fail method has the same considerations regarding the stencil buffer's precision as the depth pass method. Also, similar to depth pass, it is sometimes referred to as the z-fail method.

William Bilodeau and Michael Songy discovered this technique in October 1998, and presented the technique at Creativity, a Creative Labs developer's conference, in 1999. Sim Dietrich presented this technique at both GDC in March 1999, and at Creativity in late 1999. A few months later, William Bilodeau and Michael Songy filed a US patent application for the technique the same year entitled "Method for rendering shadows using a shadow volume and a stencil buffer". John Carmack of id Software independently discovered the algorithm in 2000 during the development of Doom 3.

Exclusive-or
Either of the above types may be approximated with an exclusive-or variation, which does not deal properly with intersecting shadow volumes, but saves one rendering pass (if not fill time), and only requires a 1-bit stencil buffer. The following steps are for the depth pass version:

 * 1) Disable writes to the depth and color buffers.
 * 2) Set the stencil operation to XOR on depth pass (flip on any shadow surface).
 * 3) Render the shadow volumes.

Optimization

 * One method of speeding up the shadow volume geometry calculations is to utilize existing parts of the rendering pipeline to do some of the calculation. For instance, by using homogeneous coordinates, the w-coordinate may be set to zero to extend a point to infinity. This should be accompanied by a viewing frustum that has a far clipping plane that extends to infinity in order to accommodate those points, accomplished by using a specialized projection matrix. This technique reduces the accuracy of the depth buffer slightly, but the difference is usually negligible. See 2002 paper "Practical and Robust Stenciled Shadow Volumes for Hardware-Accelerated Rendering", C. Everitt and M. Kilgard, for a detailed implementation.
 * Rasterization time of the shadow volumes can be reduced by using an in-hardware scissor test to limit the shadows to a specific onscreen rectangle.
 * NVIDIA has implemented a hardware capability called the depth bounds test that is designed to remove parts of shadow volumes that do not affect the visible scene. (This has been available since the GeForce FX 5900 model.) A discussion of this capability and its use with shadow volumes was presented at the Game Developers Conference in 2005.
 * Since the depth-fail method only offers an advantage over depth-pass in the special case where the eye is within a shadow volume, it is preferable to check for this case, and use depth-pass wherever possible. This avoids both the unnecessary back-capping (and the associated rasterization) for cases where depth-fail is unnecessary, as well as the problem of appropriately front-capping for special cases of depth-pass.
 * On more recent GPU pipelines, geometry shaders can be used to generate the shadow volumes.
 * On systems that do not support geometry shaders, vertex shaders can also be used to create shadow volumes by selectively extruding vertices that already reside within GPU memory.

title: Shadow volume


text:
Philip Francis (politician)

Sir Philip Francis GCB (22 October 1740 – 23 December 1818) was an Irish-born British politician and pamphleteer, thought to be the author of the Letters of Junius, and the chief antagonist of Warren Hastings. His accusations against the latter led to the impeachment of Warren Hastings and Elijah Impey by Parliament. He belonged to the Whig party.

Early life
Born in Dublin, he was the only son of Dr Philip Francis (c. 1708–1773), a man of some literary celebrity in his time, known by his translations of Horace, Aeschines and Demosthenes. He received the rudiments of an excellent education at a free school in Dublin, and afterwards spent a year or two (1751–1752) under his father's roof at Skeyton Rectory, Norfolk, and elsewhere, and for a short time he had Edward Gibbon as a fellow-pupil. In March 1753, he entered St Paul's School, London, where he remained for three and a half years, becoming a proficient classical scholar.

In 1756, immediately on his leaving school, he was appointed to a junior clerkship in the secretary of state's office by Henry Fox (afterwards Lord Holland), with whose family Dr Francis was at that time on intimate terms; and this post he retained under the succeeding administration. In 1758 he was employed as secretary to General Bligh in the expedition against Cherbourg; and in the same capacity he accompanied the Earl of Kinnoull on his special embassy to the court of Portugal in 1760.

In January 1769 Philip Francis returned to London from a 'riotous fortnight' in Bath where he lived as a 'raike'; later that year he became one of the original shareholders in the project to build a new Assembly Rooms in the city.

Entry into politics
In 1761, he became personally known to William Pitt the Elder who, recognising his ability and discretion, made use of his services as private amanuensis from time to time. In 1762 he was appointed to a principal clerkship in the war office, where he formed a warm friendship with Christopher D'Oyly, Deputy-Secretary at War, whose dismissal from office in 1772 was hotly resented by Junius. On 27 February 1762 he married Elizabeth Macrabie, the daughter of a retired London merchant. His daughter, Catherine Francis (d. 11 Sep 1823) married George James Cholmondeley (b. 22 Feb 1752, d. 5 Nov 1830), the son of Mary Woffington.

His official duties brought him into direct relations with many who were well versed in the politics of the time. In 1763 the great constitutional questions arising out of the arrest of Wilkes began to be sharply canvassed. It was natural that Francis, who from a very early age had been in the habit of writing occasionally to the newspapers, should be eager to take an active part in the discussion, though his position as a government official made it necessary that his intervention should be carefully disguised.

Political career
He is known to have written to the Public Ledger and Public Advertiser, as an advocate of the popular cause, on many occasions about and after the year 1763; he frequently attended debates in both Houses of Parliament, especially when American questions were being discussed; and between 1769 and 1771 he is also known to have been favourable to the scheme for the overthrow of the Grafton government and afterwards of that of Lord North, and for persuading or forcing Lord Chatham into power. In January 1769 the first of the Letters of Junius appeared, and the series continued till 21 January 1772. They had been preceded by others under signatures such as "Candor", "Father of Candor", "Anti-Sejanus", "Lucius", and "Nemesis".

The authorship of the letters has been assigned to Francis on a variety of grounds, including a computer-aided analysis of the Junius texts in the 1960s. Comparing stylistic patterns from the letters with attributed writings of the period allowed a reasonable statistical conclusion to be drawn that Francis was by far the most likely author. Some evidence to support the claim of Sir Philip Francis is given in Macaulay's History of England in which Macaulay mentions the likely reference to Henry Luttrell, who although obscure to the British of the 1770s, would have been well known to the Irish and particularly to Sir Philip Francis who spent the early part of his life near Luttrellstown.

In March 1772 Francis finally left the war office, and in July of the same year he left England for a tour through France, Germany and Italy, which lasted until the following December. On his return he was contemplating emigration to New England, when in June 1773 Lord North, on the recommendation of Lord Barrington, appointed him a member of the newly constituted supreme council of Bengal at a salary of 10,000 pounds per annum. Along with his colleagues Monson and Clavering he reached Calcutta in October 1774, and a long struggle with Warren Hastings, the governor-general, immediately began. These three, actuated probably by petty personal motives, combined to form a majority of the council in harassing opposition to the governor-general's policy; and they even accused him of corruption, mainly on the evidence of Nuncomar.

The death of Monson in 1776, and of Clavering in the following year, made Hastings again supreme in the council. But a dispute with Francis, more than usually embittered, led in August 1780 to a minute being delivered to the council board by Hastings, in which he stated that he judged of the public conduct of Mr Francis by his experience of his private, which he had found to be "void of truth and honor"; such an opinion was aggravated by the various affairs Francis had during his stay in Calcutta, including one with Catherine Grand. A duel was the consequence, in which Francis received a dangerous wound. Though his recovery was rapid and complete, he did not choose to prolong his stay abroad. He arrived in England in October 1781, and was received with little favour.

Little is known of the nature of his occupations during the next two years, except that he was untiring in his efforts to procure first the recall, and afterwards the impeachment, of his hitherto triumphant adversary. In 1783 Fox produced his India Bill, which led to the overthrow of the coalition government. In 1784 Francis was returned to the House of Commons as Member of Parliament (MP) for the borough of Yarmouth, Isle of Wight; and although he took an opportunity to disclaim every feeling of personal animosity towards Hastings, this did not prevent him, on the return of the latter in 1785, from doing all in his power to bring forward and support the charges which ultimately led to the impeachment resolutions of 1787. Although excluded by a majority of the House of Commons from the list of the managers of that impeachment, Francis was nonetheless its most energetic promoter, supplying his friends Edmund Burke and Richard Sheridan with all the materials for their eloquent orations and burning invectives.

At the general election of 1790 he was returned member for Bletchingley. He sympathised warmly and actively with the French revolutionary doctrines, expostulating with Burke on his vehement denunciation of the same. In 1793 he supported Earl Grey's motion for a return to the old constitutional system of representation, and so earned the title to be regarded as one of the earliest promoters of the cause of parliamentary reform; and he was one of the founders of the Society of the Friends of the People.

Later life
The acquittal of Hastings in April 1795 disappointed Francis of the governor-generalship, and in 1798 he had to submit to the additional mortification of a defeat in the general election. He was once more successful, however, in 1802, when he sat for Appleby, and it seemed as if the great ambitions of his life were about to be realised when the Whig party came into power in 1806. His disappointment was great when the governor-generalship was, owing to party exigencies, conferred on Sir Gilbert Elliot (Lord Minto); he declined, it is said, soon afterwards the government of the Cape, but accepted a KB. Though re-elected for Appleby in 1806, he failed to secure a seat in the following year; and the remainder of his life was spent in comparative privacy.

Among the later productions of his pen were, besides the Plan of a Reform in the Election of the House of Commons, pamphlets entitled:
 * Proceedings in the House of Commons on the Slave Trade (1796),
 * Reflections on the Abundance of Paper in Circulation and the Scarcity of Specie (1810),
 * Historical Questions Exhibited (1818), and
 * Letter to Earl Grey on the Policy of Great Britain and the Allies towards Norway (1814).

His first wife, by whom he had six children, died in 1806, and in 1814 he married his second wife, Emma Watkins, who long survived him, and who left voluminous manuscripts relating to his biography. In his domestic relations he was exemplary, and he lived on terms of mutual affection with a wide circle of friends.

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

title: Philip Francis (politician)


text:
Kassa

Kassa may refer to:

Places

 * Kassa (Bithynia), a place in ancient Bithynia, Anatolia
 * Kassa, Mali, a commune
 * Kassa Dam, in Japan
 * Kassa Island, in the group of Îles de Los near Guinea
 * Košice (Kassa), a city in Slovakia

People

 * Kassa (name), a given and surname
 * Kassa (mansa), a ruler of the Mali Empire in 1360
 * Kassa of Kwara or Tewodros II (c. 1818–1868), Emperor of Ethiopia

Other uses

 * Kassa (TV program), a Dutch consumer protection TV program
 * Keeping All Students Safe Act (KASSA), legislative proposals introduced in 2011 in the United States Congress
 * Bombing of Kassa, in 1941 Kassa Hungary
 * Kassa, an episode of the Star Wars streaming series Andor.

title: Kassa


text:
Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport

The Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport (DDPS, Eidgenössisches Departement für Verteidigung, Bevölkerungsschutz und Sport, Département fédéral de la défense, de la protection de la population et des sports, Dipartimento federale della difesa, della protezione della popolazione e dello sport, ) is one of the seven departments of the Swiss federal government. It is headed by a member of the Swiss Federal Council, the Swiss defence minister.

Organisation
The department is composed of the following administrative units:

 * General Secretariat
 * Swiss Armed Forces
 * Land Forces
 * Air Force
 * Armed Forces Logistics Organisation
 * Armed Forces Command Support Organisation
 * Federal Office for Civil Protection (FOCP)
 * Coordination of the civil protection services of the cantons and municipalities
 * National Emergency Operations Centre
 * Spiez Laboratory, responsible for weapons of mass destruction research and protection
 * Federal Office of Sport: responsible for sport policy, the National Youth Sports Centre Tenero and the Youth and Sport organisation.
 * Federal Office for Defence Procurement (armasuisse): Responsible for armaments procurement, technology and research
 * Federal Office of Topography (Swisstopo): compiles and manages geographical reference data and maps
 * Office of the Armed Forces Attorney General / Military Justice: The military prosecutor's office.
 * Federal Intelligence Service (FIS): Switzerland's civil intelligence service.

Name of department

 * 1848: Military Department
 * 1979: Federal Military Department
 * Since 1998: Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport

List of heads of the department
• 1848–1854: Ulrich Ochsenbein

• 1855–1859: Friedrich Frey-Herosé

• 1860–1861: Jakob Stämpfli

• 1862 only: Constant Fornerod

• 1863 only: Jakob Stämpfli

• 1864–1866: Constant Fornerod

• 1867–1868: Emil Welti

• 1869 only: Victor Ruffy

• 1870–1871: Emil Welti

• 1872 only: Paul Cérésole

• 1873–1875: Emil Welti

• 1876–1878: Johann Jakob Scherer

• 1879–1888: Wilhelm Hertenstein

• 1889–1890: Walter Hauser

• 1891–1897: Emil Frey

• 1897–1898: Eduard Müller

• 1899 only: Eugène Ruffy

• 1900–1906: Eduard Müller

• 1907 only: Ludwig Forrer

• 1908–1911: Eduard Müller

• 1912–1913: Arthur Hoffmann

• 1914–1919: Camille Decoppet

• 1920–1929: Karl Scheurer

• 1930–1940: Rudolf Minger

• 1940–1954: Karl Kobelt

• 1955–1966: Paul Chaudet

• 1967–1968: Nello Celio

• 1968–1979: Rudolf Gnägi

• 1980–1983: Georges-André Chevallaz

• 1984–1986: Jean-Pascal Delamuraz

• 1987–1989: Arnold Koller

• 1989–1995: Kaspar Villiger

• 1996–2000: Adolf Ogi

• 2001–2008: Samuel Schmid

• 2009–2015: Ueli Maurer

• 2016–2018: Guy Parmelin

• Since 2019: Viola Amherd


text:
John Manners, 3rd Duke of Rutland

John Manners, 3rd Duke of Rutland KG PC (21 October 1696 – 29 May 1779) was an English nobleman, the eldest son of John Manners, 2nd Duke of Rutland and Catherine Russell. Styled Marquess of Granby from 1711, he succeeded to the title in 1721, cutting short a brief career in the House of Commons, where he had represented Rutland as a Whig.

Biography
He held a variety of government and court positions including Lord Lieutenant of Leicestershire 1721–1779, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 1727–1736, Lord Steward of the Household 1755–1761, and Master of the Horse 1761–1766.

He represented Rutland in the British Parliament from January 1719 to February 1721. He was one of the directors of the Royal Academy of Music, establishing a London opera company which commissioned numerous works from Handel, Bononcini and others.

In 1722 he became a Knight of the Order of the Garter and in 1727 was sworn of the Privy Council. He supported the creation of London's Foundling Hospital and was one of its founding governors when it received its royal charter in 1739. The city of Rutland, Vermont is named after him.

Art collection
John Manners, the 3rd Duke, was a collector of art. He started buying in 1742 and for two decades bought paintings, drawings and prints at the London art auctions. Agents bought for him at other auctions and he bought privately too, through dealers. On the death of his father, John, the 2nd Duke of Rutland, in 1721, the 3rd Duke had inherited the family collection of paintings acquired by his forebears including Old Masters and an uninterrupted run of ancestral portraits.

He liked small pictures and was reported to have said that "A man did not deserve a good picture that would not carry it home himself". As a result, he spent less on his collection than other collectors who preferred bigger, more expensive paintings. For example, he did not buy on par with his grandson, Charles, the 4th Duke of Rutland, friend and patron of Sir Joshua Reynolds. Nevertheless, he was a serious collector whose eye and temperament led him to buy smaller works of all the major European painters including Raphael, Titian, Bassano, Veronese, Guido Reni, and the Italianate northerners, especially Claude and the two Poussins. He is known to have spent some £3,210 on paintings but this figure must be taken as approximate and open to revision if new records come to light. By way of comparison, the building of his London townhouse in the same period, cost some £4,432.

For an unknown reason, the Duke sold 200 paintings in 1758–1759.

Chess variant
In 1747 the Duke launched into the world an expanded form of the game of chess, on a board with 140 squares (ten ranks and fourteen files), each player having, in addition to the usual array, a concubine (combining the moves of rook and knight), two crowned rooks (rooks with the added power of taking a diagonal step), two extra bishops, an extra knight, and six extra pawns. This game became popular among the leading players of the time (Abraham Janssen, for example), and is still played.

Family
In 1717 he married Bridget Sutton, the 17-year-old heiress of Robert Sutton, 2nd Baron Lexinton. They had eleven children, most of whom died young:
 * Lady Catherine Rachel Manners (b. 1718), died young
 * Lady Caroline Manners (b. spring 1719), died young
 * Lady Frances and Lady Bridget Manners (d. 30 December 1719), twins died young
 * John Manners, Marquess of Granby (1721–1770)
 * Lord Robert Manners-Sutton (1722–1762)
 * Lord George Manners-Sutton (1723–1783)
 * Lord William Manners (29 July 1724 – 11 March 1730), died young
 * Lady Leonora Manners (d. June 1740), died young
 * Lady Frances Manners (c. 1726 – 3 February 1739), died young
 * Lord Frederick Manners (b. 17 February 1728)

He died in 1779 at the age of 82 at Rutland House, Knightsbridge, London and was buried in the Belvoir Castle mausoleum.

title: John Manners, 3rd Duke of Rutland


text:
Albanian National Front Party

The Albanian National Front Party (Partia Balli Kombëtar Shqiptar, PBK) is a nationalist political party in Albania, Kosovo, and North Macedonia.

History
In the 2001 elections it was part of the Union for Victory (Bashkimi për Fitoren) coalition which received 37.1% of the vote and 46 members of parliament.

PBK Council
Members of the Council:
 * Chairman: Adriatik Alimadhi
 * Deputy Chairman: Majlinda Toro
 * Chairman of National Council: Luan Myftiu
 * Secretary General: Arben Hoxha
 * Organizing Secretary: Kujtim Lamaj

title: Albanian National Front Party


text:
Elefant

Elefant (German for "elephant") was a heavy tank destroyer (self propelled anti-tank gun) used by German Panzerjäger (anti-tank units) during World War II. Ninety-one units were built in 1943 under the name Ferdinand (after its designer Ferdinand Porsche) using VK 45.01 (P) tank hulls which had been produced for the Tiger I tank before the competing Henschel design had been selected.

Following their use at the battle of Kursk, in January to April 1944 the surviving Ferdinands received modifications and upgrades. They were renamed Elefant in May 1944. The official German designation was Panzerjäger Tiger (P) and the ordnance inventory designation was Sd.Kfz. 184.

Development history
Porsche GmbH had manufactured about 100 chassis for their unsuccessful proposal for the Tiger tank, the "Porsche Tiger", in the Nibelungenwerk factory in Sankt Valentin, Austria. Both the successful Henschel proposal and the Porsche design used the same Krupp-designed turret—the Henschel design had its turret more-or-less centrally located on its hull, while the Porsche design placed the turret much closer to the front of the superstructure. Since the competing Henschel Tiger design was chosen for production, the Porsche chassis were no longer required for the Tiger tank project. It was therefore decided that the Porsche chassis were to be used as the basis of a new heavy panzerjäger, Ferdinand, mounting Krupp's newly developed 88 mm Panzerjägerkanone 43/2 (PaK 43) anti-tank gun. This precise long-range weapon was intended to destroy enemy tanks before they came within their own range of effective fire.

The Ferdinand was intended to supplant previous light panzerjägers, such as the Marder II and Marder III, in the offensive role. A similar gun was used in the lightly armored Hornisse (later known as Nashorn) tank destroyer and was also used in the Tiger II heavy tank, built at the same time.

Chassis
The petrol–electric transmission made it much easier to relocate the engines than would be the case on a mechanical-transmission vehicle (the engines can be mounted anywhere, and only the length of the power cables needs to be altered, as opposed to re-designing the driveshafts and locating the engines for the easiest routing of powershafts to the gearbox), so without the forward-mounted turret of the Porsche Tiger prototype, the twin engines were relocated to the front, where the turret had been, leaving room ahead of them for the now-isolated driver and assistant-driver only. The now empty rear half of the hull was covered with a heavily armored, full five-sided casemate with slightly sloped upper faces and armored solid roof, and turned into a crew compartment, mounting a single 8.8 cm Pak 43 cannon in the forward face of the casemate. The initial Ferdinand conversions were thus among the first physical examples of what became known as the dedicated Jagdpanzer tank destroyers, all of which had completely enclosed casemates, but most of which were designed with the casemate as an integral component of the vehicle's hull armor from the start; the Ferdinand was more of a cross between the earlier, thinly armored, high-profile, "three-side" (open-top/rear) Panzerjäger and the later, more heavily armored, lower-profile, rear-engined Jagdpanzer. The driver and assistant driver were in a separate compartment at the front. As the engines were placed in the middle, the assistant driver and the driver were isolated from the rest of the crew and could be addressed only by intercom.

Add-on armor of 100 mm was bolted to the front plates, increasing the plate's thickness to 200 mm and adding another 5 tonnes of weight.

Drive
The two Porsche Type 101 15-litre gasoline V-10 air-cooled engines each developing 310 PS in each vehicle had considerable problems with cooling difficulties and excess oil consumption during testing. An improved type 101/2 engine with better cooling seems not to have been installed. The Porsche engines were replaced by two 300 PS (296 hp; 221 kW) Maybach HL120 TRM engines. The engines drove a single Siemens-Schuckert 500 kVA generator each, which powered two Siemens 230 kW (312.7 PS) individual-output electric motors, one each connected to each of the rear sprockets. The electric motors also acted as the vehicle's steering unit. This "petrol–electric" drive delivered 0.11 km/L (909 litres/100 km or 0.26 miles per gallon) off-road and 0.15 km/L (667 litres/100 km or 0.35 mpg) on road at a maximum speed of 10 km/h off-road and 30 km/h on road. In addition to this high fuel consumption and poor performance, the vehicle was maintenance-intensive; the sprockets needed to be changed every 500–900 km. Furthermore, the radiators for the water-cooled Maybach engines took up extra space in the cramped engine compartment, and the engines often over-heated.

Porsche had experience of this form of petrol–electric transmission extending back to 1901, when he designed a car that used it.

Suspension for the "slack track" equipped Ferdinand consisted of six twin bogies (three per side) with longitudinal torsion bars, without any overlapping wheels or return rollers. There are sprockets at both ends of the vehicle. The drive sprockets are at the rear, while the front pair contain a drum brake system.

Armament
The vehicle was fitted with an 88 mm Panzerjägerkanone 43/2 gun (early designation 8,8 cm Stu.K. 43/1). This 71 caliber-long gun had originally been developed as a replacement for the well-known 88 mm anti-aircraft gun that had been used against Allied tanks in the Western Desert Campaign and on the Eastern Front. It had a much longer barrel than the L/56 guns, which gave it a higher muzzle velocity, and fired a different, longer cartridge. These improvements gave the 88 mm L/71 significantly improved armor penetration ability over the earlier 88 mm. Although it lost the competition to the 8.8 cm Flak 41 and never became an anti-aircraft weapon, it was turned into the very successful Pak 43 anti-tank gun.

As fitted, the gun was capable of 28° traverse and -8° and +14° depression/elevation.

Production
Ninety-one existing "Porsche Tiger" chassis were converted (chassis number 150010 to 150100). The work was completed in just a few months from March to May 1943. Three Bergepanzer Ferdinands (the recovery vehicle variant of the Ferdinand tank destroyer) were produced at the Nibelungenwerke in summer 1943.

Kursk
Ferdinands first saw combat in the Battle of Kursk, where eighty-nine were committed, the largest deployment of the vehicle during its service.

The Ferdinand was optimized for destroying Soviet T-34 medium tanks and 76.2 mm anti-tank guns from behind the front line with its 88 mm gun at a range of over 3 kilometres, a role which it performed well. Its most significant problem at Kursk was mine damage and mechanical failure. Any damage to the tracks or suspension negated the protection of the armor, as crews were forced to dismount and attempt repairs. The immense weight of the Ferdinand made towing difficult: the standard armored recovery vehicle in German service at the time was the Bergepanzer IV, a variant of the Panzer IV tank. Although it could tow a single Panzer IV without assistance it was insufficient for larger vehicles; a Tiger I heavy tank required three Bergepanzer IVs to be towed, and the Ferdinand needed five linked together to pull the vehicle off the field.

In addition, the Ferdinand was hampered by flaws such as the lack of peripheral vision blocks, or a machine gun as secondary defensive armament. Apocryphal reports say that Soviet infantry, quickly recognizing this flaw, could easily hide in their trenches until the Ferdinand advanced through their lines, then swarm the vehicle with their grenades and Molotov cocktails from the sides. However, losses to Soviet infantry are disputed in after-action reports. On the other hand, Heinz Guderian himself complained in his autobiography that the Elefant, much as other failed designs, suffered from lack of close-range protection against infantry assaults.

In the initial stages of the Kursk battle, when the Germans were on the offensive, vehicles could be recovered and repaired with relative peace at night; this at first allowed the majority of knocked-out Ferdinands to be rescued, repaired and returned to duty. However, once the tide of battle had turned against the Germans and they fell back on the defensive, with fewer vehicles to spare, functional Ferdinands with minor damage to their tracks or suspensions had little hope of recovery, and crews were usually forced to destroy the vehicle to prevent a mostly intact Jagdpanzer from falling into the hands of the Soviets.

The units were deployed at a company level, sometimes sub-divided into platoons, with infantry or tanks in accompaniment to protect the flanks and rear of the vehicles. On the attack, this Jagdpanzer was a first-strike vehicle; while in defence, they often comprised a mobile reserve used to blunt enemy tank assaults.

Post-Kursk modifications
The surviving Ferdinands fought various rear-guard actions in 1943 until they were recalled to be modified and overhauled, partially based on battle experience gained at Kursk. Returned to the Nibelungenwerke factory in Austria, on 2 January 1944, upgrades commenced on 48 of the 50 surviving vehicles. The most visible exterior upgrades were 1) the addition of a ball-mounted MG 34 in the hull front, 2) a new commander's cupola (modified from the standard StuG III cupola) for improved vision, 3) re-designed armored engine grates (for better bullet and shrapnel protection) and 4) the application of Zimmerit anti-magnetic mine paste.

The first eleven complete and updated Ferdinands were ready in February 1944. They were issued to the 1st company of the 653rd Heavy Panzerjäger Battalion (German: schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung 653, sPzJgrAbt 653), which was immediately deployed in Italy in response to the Allied landing at Anzio-Nettuno. The remaining 37 vehicles were completed in April, issued to the 2nd and 3rd companies of sPzJgrAbt 653, and sent by train to the Tarnopol battles in Ukraine.

On 1 May 1944, the Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH, the German Army High Command,) issued an order to formally change the name from "Ferdinand" to "Elefant". This order forbade future use of Ferdinand and even directed units in the field to edit their records. Though there is a belief that the name change was linked to the January–April mechanical upgrades to the Ferdinand panzerjäger; the name change was purely administrative in nature.

Three Bergepanzer Elefant armoured recovery vehicles were converted from Ferdinand/Elefant hulls and issued with the 2nd and 3rd companies of sPzJgrAbt 653 to the Eastern Front in the summer of 1944.

Although the modifications improved the vehicles, some problems could never be fully fixed. In 1944, Elefants served on the Italian front, but were rather ineffective as their weight of nearly 70 tonnes did not allow them to use most Italian roads and bridges. As at Kursk, most losses were not as a direct result from combat, but resulted when mechanical breakdowns and lack of spare parts compelled their crews to destroy and abandon them. One company of Elefants saw action during the Soviets' January 1945 Vistula–Oder offensive in Poland, and the last surviving vehicles were in combat at Zossen during the Battle of Berlin.

Conclusions
The Ferdinand/Elefant may have been the most successful mass-produced tank destroyer employed during the war in kills per loss, reaching an average claimed ratio of approximately 10:1. During the Battle of Kursk, sPzJgrAbt 653 claimed to have knocked out 320 enemy tanks, for the loss of 13 Ferdinands. This impressive average ratio was due to its superior firepower and protection, which gave it an enormous advantage when used in head-on combat or a static defensive role. However, poor mobility and mechanical unreliability greatly diminished its operational capability.

The Elefant and Nashorn were both superseded by the Jagdpanther. All three vehicles mounted the same gun, with only some minor differences between them. The Jagdpanther—a true jagdpanzer—was a successor to the other two, combining acceptable mobility and good, sloped armour while retaining the excellent gun, mostly solving the reliability, mobility, and/or protection problems that the earlier vehicles had.

Survivors
Only two of these vehicles survived the war.

One Ferdinand was captured by Soviet forces at Kursk, and it was sent to NII BT testing facility in Kubinka, Moscow for testing. It was on display at the Kubinka Tank Museum outside Moscow. Its gun mantlet was painted red. Its chassis number was unknown, either No. 150090 or No. 501.

An Elefant, numbered "102" of sPz. Jgr. Abt 653, was captured at Anzio by the Americans, and is now part of the United States Army Ordnance Training Support Facility's collection at Fort Gregg-Adams, VA. This example was restored to display condition in 2007–2008, as documented on the show Tank Overhaul, but not in its original paint scheme. The Elefant was loaned to the Bovington Tank Museum in Dorset, UK as part of the museum's "Tiger Collection" display from April 2017 until January 2019, and later returned to the United States. This display brought all the members of the Tiger family together in one place for the first time (the Sturmtiger was represented by its gun).

title: Elefant


text:
Liberal Democratic Union (Albania)

The Liberal Democratic Union (Bashkimi Liberal Demokrat) is a political party in Albania.

History
It was founded in 1995 with the name Social Democratic Union of Albania. The party began as a breakaway faction of the Social Democratic Party of Albania. The break-away was motivated by the Social Democratic Party leaving the governing coalition with the Democratic Party and the desire of some members to maintain their ministerial posts or other high governmental appointments. Initially, the break-away faction, consisting of those wanting to keep their posts, was known as the Social Democratic Union, later changing its name to the Liberal Democratic Union.

In the 2001 elections it was part of the Union for Victory (Bashkimi për Fitoren) coalition which received 37.1% of the vote and 46 members of parliament. On its own, the Liberal Democratic Union consistently has received under 1% of the vote in general elections.

In the 2005 elections, BLD was part of the Alliance for Freedom, Justice, and Welfare. BLD won one seat through the proportional quota of the Democratic Party of Albania. It did not itself receive sufficient votes for any representation in Parliament.

title: Liberal Democratic Union (Albania)


text:
National Urban League

The National Urban League (NUL), formerly known as the National League on Urban Conditions Among Negroes, is a nonpartisan historic civil rights organization based in New York City that advocates on behalf of economic and social justice for African Americans and against racial discrimination in the United States. It is the oldest and largest community-based organization of its kind in the nation. Its current President is Marc Morial.

History

The Committee on Urban Conditions Among Negroes was founded in New York City on September 29, 1910, by Ruth Standish Baldwin and Dr. George Edmund Haynes, among others. It merged with the Committee for the Improvement of Industrial Conditions Among Negroes in New York (founded in New York in 1906) and the National League for the Protection of Colored Women (founded in 1905), and was renamed the National League on Urban Conditions Among Negroes. Haynes served as the organization's first Executive Director.

In 1918, Eugene K. Jones took the leadership of the organization. Under his direction, the League significantly expanded its multifaceted campaign to crack the barriers to black employment, spurred first by the boom years of the 1920s, and then by the desperate years of the Great Depression.

In 1920, the organization took its present name, the National Urban League. The mission of the Urban League movement, as stated by the National Urban League, is "to enable African Americans to secure economic self-reliance, parity, power and civil rights." When the organization expanded its facilities to conduct more research in 1920, the new Department of Research came under the charge of Lillian Anderson Turner Alexander, a rising civil rights activist recruited by Jones.

Jones played a significant role in President Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration, taking leave from the League to head the Department of Commerce unit for the study of "Negro problems", and serving as part of a group of African-American advisors known as the "Black Cabinet".

In 1941, Lester Granger was appointed Executive Secretary and led the NUL's effort to support the March on Washington proposed by A. Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin and A. J. Muste to protest racial discrimination in defense work and the military. A week before the March was scheduled to take place, President Roosevelt issued an executive order creating the Fair Employment Practices Committee.

In the wake of World War II, Black veterans who fought racial hatred overseas returned to the United States determined to fight it at home, giving new energy to the Civil Rights Movement. As hundreds of thousands of new jobs opened up, shifting the economy from industrial manufacturing to a white-collar, service-oriented economy, the National Urban League turned its attention to placing HBCU graduates in professional positions.

In 1961, Whitney Young became executive director amidst the expansion of activism in the civil rights movement, which provoked a change for the League. Young substantially expanded the League's fund-raising ability and made the League a full partner in the civil rights movement. In 1963, the League hosted the planning meetings of A. Philip Randolph, Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders for the August March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. During Young's ten-year tenure at the League, he initiated programs such as "Street Academy", an alternative education system to prepare high school dropouts for college; and "New Thrust", an effort to help local black leaders identify and solve community problems. Young also pushed for federal aid to cities.

Clarence M. Pendleton, Jr., was, from 1975 to 1981, the head of the Urban League in San Diego, California. In 1981, U.S. President Ronald W. Reagan tapped Pendleton as the chairman of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, a position which he held until his sudden death in 1988. Pendleton sought to steer the commission in the conservative direction in line with Reagan's views on social and civil rights policies.

In 1994, Hugh Price was appointed as president of the Urban League.

In 2003, Marc Morial, former mayor of New Orleans, Louisiana, was appointed the league's eighth President and Chief Executive Officer. He worked to reenergize the movement's diverse constituencies by building on the legacy of the organization and increasing the profile of the organization.

Current status
Today, the National Urban League has 92 affiliates serving 300 communities, in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The National Urban League provides direct services in the areas of education, health care, housing, jobs, and justice—providing services to more than 3 million people nationwide. The organization also has a Washington Bureau that serves as its research, policy and advocacy arm on issues relating to Congress and the Administration.

The National Urban League is an organizational member of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, which advocates gun control. In 1989, it was the beneficiary of all proceeds from the Stop the Violence Movement and their hip hop single, "Self Destruction".

In May 2017, the National Urban League produced the State of Black America TV Town Hall, which aired on TV One in 2017 and 2018. The TV Town Hall elevated social issues related to African Americans through an interview style format with celebrity guests. The show was executive produced by Rhonda Spears Bell.

In February 2018, the National Urban League launched a weekly podcast, For the Movement, which discusses persistent policy, social and civil rights issues affecting communities of color.

State of Black America
The State of Black America is an annual report published by the league.

Presidents
The Presidents (or Executive Directors) of the National Urban League have been:

Archives

 * National Urban League Records (1900–1988) held at the Library of Congress Manuscripts Division
 * Greater Lansing Urban League, Inc. 1964–1976. At the Bentley Historical Library University of Michigan
 * The Seattle Urban League Records 1930–1997. 103.2 cubic feet. At the Labor Archives of Washington, University of Washington Libraries Special Collections.
 * Civic Unity Committee Records. 1938–1965. 24.8 cubic feet (58 boxes). Contains material related to the National Urban League, Seattle Urban League, and Portland Urban League. At the Labor Archives of Washington, University of Washington Libraries Special Collections.

title: National Urban League


text:
Talk:Catapult

Catapults are good for launching cats onto people's heads. Get it? Cat-apult?

Untitled
There is a Mangonel article...I'm not sure if it will help you though, it's pretty stubby. Adam Bishop 18:55, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Try onagerIt's the same thing. Tofor

 * Can someone cite a source for this claim?:
 * "Originally, "catapult" referred to a dart-thrower, while "ballista" referred to a stone-thrower, but the two terms swapped meaning sometime in the fourth century AD." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.33.153 (talk • contribs) 13 June 2006

 * well now it says the opposite, that the cat was originaly a stone thrower and the ballista a dart thrower and that it switched in the 4th century

which seems odd to me seeing as i have always thought of a catapult as a stone thrower and the ballista as a dart thrower i'm going to remove the statement in 3 days if there is no objections raised in that time--Manwithbrisk 22:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Catapults are good for launching cats onto people's heads. Get it? Cat-apult!
 * Well, it doesn't seem improbable to me, and a quick survey of the web seems to indicate that catapults indicates any large object-throwing siege device (i.e.: www.catapults.info. Googling "define: catapult" gave me the following two contradicting answers: "A class of siege engines designed to throw spears and heavy bolts.""Stone-throwing engine, usually employing torsion."

However, another source (Wise Geek) stated that catapult was a generic term for war machines throwing projectiles, and that the first of these were throwing bolts, what I'd assume was called a ballista. I also thought catapults meant stone-throwing, and had always done so, but initial evidence tends to say this controversial statement (that it originally refered to bolts but now refers to rocks) might be true. More likely, however, is that it refers to any war machine that propulses projectiles.

 * It definately needs a source to justify, but I wouldn't call it an outright wrong statement.

 * Just something to consider for anyone who actually has the knowledge to edit it correctly. --Quantum Omega 02:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Espringale
The term espringale redirects to this page, but the term espringale does not appear on this page. Any chance of including it where it ought to be? I encountered the term in an Ellis Peters novel set in the 12th century, in her Brother Cadfael series. Prairieplant (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC) There is now a nice list of different device names. Is espringale appropriate to the list? The specific novel was Brother Cadfael's Penance, which described a 12th century siege in some detail. If this article is being considered for B class, could that link issue be cleared up, preferrably with some text here? Prairieplant (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

link
a reference article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kowloonese (talk • contribs) 20 April 2006

====Missile launche.

Ok the way i see it there are two possibilities, either the catapult was invented by yankee doodle or a monkey beacuse it does not work!!!! GBC 04:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Did Catapults Exist?
I think that catapults and other big siege machinery couldnt exist as a part of an invading army because of logistic problems and simply the invading army losing the speed advantage of their faster troops.What is the point of getting to the enemy strongpoint in a few days and have to wait for weeks or more for the slowest part of your supply line to come? I doubt you can find proper boulders and wood to build the machines on the spot. Please correct me if im wrong.

'''The same could be said of any time before internal combustion engines of transporting gunpowder artillery such as cannon and rockets. Perhaps they didn't exist.''' --Calypsoparakeet (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

''You are wrong. To ask a counter-question - what is the point of turning up to an enemy's fortifications if all you can do is stand around waving, or wasting countless lives attempting to storm them intact? Try reading the article on the Trebuchet for some general background on the use of seige weapons around that time.'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.31.52.131 (talk • contribs)

 * Siege weapons were usually built on-site, with only the hard-to-make parts (ropes to use as springs, metal fittings for the hinges, trigger, and sling hook) brought along with the army. --Carnildo 07:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Me again. Unsigned, they used ladders to storm fortifications because they were easier to build and long small trees were fairly plentiful and didnt need to be a specific type or have a specific trait. Carnildo, certain types of trees had to be used and they had to be dry to be of any use. Educated manpower would be needed to assemble the parts of the catapult that werent assembled (they also didnt have sawmills back then)and last time ive heard, there wasnt much education back then. They also didnt have capabilities to build all those "hard-to-make parts" unless they had a Home Depot a short drive away :P

 * There was a class of soldier known as an engineer (yes, "engineer" originally meant "guy who builds siege engines"). These were generally the best-educated men in the army: they often could read, write, do arithmetic, and had years to decades of experience.

 * Catapults were typically built from sections of tree trunk. You don't need a sawmill to make the parts; an axe will do.  Any tree that has a straight trunk will work for building a catapult, with stronger wood making for a more powerful catapult.

 * As for specialized parts, the typical catapult has three and pizza is good: a 20- to 100-foot length of thick rope for the mainspring, a hook to hold the free end of the sling in place, and a trigger hook. For more reliable operation, you could use metal bearings for the windlass and main axle, and a metal loop for the trigger hook to attach to, but these are optional.  The mainspring rope would be made by the same guys who make rops for ships, and any blacksmith could hammer out some hooks. --Carnildo 02:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Engineer? This isnt a video game.

 * Carnildo is right; the historic evidence for siege engines is overwhelming (look at Warwolf at the siege of Stirling Castle--the entire narrative of the siege was dependent upon the existence of a massive trebuchet. Keep in mind that this was before maneuver warfare; being able to travel quickly was not important for an army.  Additionally, while literacy may have been low the "education" required to build a siege engine is almost exclusively practicle.  Ladders are discouraged for attacking because they expose your soldiers for a withering fire and when attacking a castle the requisite ladder could be unmanageably long.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.125.230 (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it would help "unsigned" to know that sieges were battles that went on for weeks or months. A siege was a long term assault on a walled city or fortress. Speed was really not that important. Cutting the enemy off from resources, preventing them from standing in plain sight on the city walls, and terrorizing people within those walls were the purposes of the catapult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battling McGook (talk • contribs) 23:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I screwed it up
Could somebody correctly revert that annoying vandalism? --Taraborn 21:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC) yo im sorry

nonsensical sentence
According to them, the fort of Raja Dahir was safe until the religious flag mounted on top of the fort was safe. What exactly did they believe? That the fort was safe as long as the flag was safe? Or, as the sentence says, that the fort was safe up to the point where the flag mounted upon it was safe? In the latter case, why did they put the flag there in the first place? If someone knows of this, maybe they could clarify that sentence. --Quantum Omega 02:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

grammatical error
In first sentence: A catapult is any one of a number of mechanical devices (used) to throw a projectile a great distance; Missing used. 68.144.80.168 (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

suggestion
If possible, I would like to see a "construction of" section, as that is the reason I visited this site in the first place. It is definitely relevent information. 68.144.80.168 (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Even older catapults?
After I read the following

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/05/051216.hamoukar.shtml

in particular the part about 4" clay ball projectiles (note that this is "baked" clay which is more or less stone) I wondered if they were using some kind of early catapult. Either that or some really big slingers.Ploversegg (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)ploversegg

 * They could also have been thrown off the city walls onto the heads of attackers. --Carnildo (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I can see your argument against the large 4" clay balls as slung projectiles, but from the other side of the argument, a 4" projectile from a siege-weapon would be fairly ineffective against anything but infantry. The article states that the projectiles were found in or around the city wall, thus they were dropped from the wall or hurled against it.  I will have to side against the idea of even earlier catapult-like weapons. --TechSan 21:22, 28 July 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.118.8.15 (talk)

Catapults before 700BC
A possible even older catapult is described in the Bible. It was built by skilled workers during the reign of King Uzziah circa 800 B.C.. The King James Version in 2 Chronicles Chapter 26, verse 15 states, " And he made in Jerusalem engines, invented by cunning men, to be on towers and upon the bulwarks, to shoot arrows and great stones withal. ..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.32.52 (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Using catapults to cast nets over animals or fish to capture them
Are there any accounts in history of people using small to medium-sized catapults to cast nets over animals in a hunt? For instance, were there any maharajas in India that went 'hunting' animals with nets, and medium-sized catapults mounted on the backs of elephants? I think I read some cases in the English Reports where throwing/fixing nets over entire creeks was an improper way of capturing fish, short of having in place a license to do so, first, but that begs the question of whether there was ever a practice of using catapults to throw very large nets over a herd in hopes of capturing a few of the animals migrating. 198.177.27.13 (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Which type of catapult is this?
The catapult type on the image I added, does that have a name? I think it's a classical type of catapult, but I can't find the name of it in any article. --Kri (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

 * If anyone finds out about the name of this catapult, it maybe would be good to put it in the article or in the image text. --Kri (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

doesnt have what i need!

I believe it is called a mangonel or onager, according to the rest of the page. I know this is a very old question, but maybe someone should still do as Kri suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katanaka (talk • contribs) 19:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I'd say this is a modern artist's depiction of what he thinks a catapult would look like. It doesn't look like it would function at all. it looks like it is supposed to be tension-powered like a bow. But the arm can clearly travel a lot farther than that "bow" can bend. The only bow-powered catapults I've seen or heard of are ballistas. And if that's not supposed to be a bow, I can't imagine it's purpose. It should probably be pulled from the article. On the other hand, to be fair, pretty much every catapult in existence today is an artist's depiction. Perhaps the best question is, where did this image come from. 131.142.52.246 (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a petraria arcatinus, which may or may not have existed, and if it did exist, may or may not have actually looked like the photo.Battling McGook (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Please help me and my son to build a catapult
I need instructions on how to build a small catapult for my sons 4th grade project.I have no clue how to do it.Can somebody please help me????Please!!!!It would be deeply appreciated... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.21.134.237 (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC) okay what do u neeed ragean shepherd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.228.62 (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC) I don't think this is an appropriate place to look for instructions on how to build a catapult. Disoriented Person (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Pre-Greek catapults
The thing is...there were none and all scholars are agreed on that. The Greeks invented the catapult, all references to pre-Greek catapults are either later interpolations or anachronism committed by ancient writers. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: The passage in the Bible is a translation error: The Hebrew text, however, gives karim which means battering-rams, so that the person who translated Ezekiel's work into Greek, at a time when artillery was very common, was led into making a simple, but understandable, mistake. Incidentally, those responsible for the Authorized and Revised Versions of the English Bible avoided the error. Thus, the evidence for early artillery in Biblical texts is misleading and due to human failings in their composition and transmission. (E. W. Marsden: "Greek and Roman Artillery. Historical Development", At the Clarendon Press, Oxford 1969, pp. 48–64 (53)) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure what you're referring too. The biblical reference I know of (and mentioned by someone here in a bad edit that should be moved to another section) is Chronicles 2, chapter 26, where inventions are described which throw or hurl arrows and large stones.  There's no single word translation issue.  The phrase is descriptive, with several very well known and understood words.  From everything I've read, there's not a lot of dispute about the general meaning.  There's nothing at all about a battering ram.  Maybe you were referring to a different bible reference?
 * The time period of King Uzziah in this story (700 BCE ish) predates known records of catapults. However, Chronicles was written between 400 and 450 BCE, which is more in line with the known history of the development of the catapult.  Either way though, nothing here predates ancient greeceso in that since you are on track.
 * From what I've read, scholars don't all agree on anything. In fact they seem to be all over the map, especially scholars from different eras, or even different decades.  There's lots of hints about very early catapults.  It's unclear exactly how early or who invented them.  I'd say that Greeks remain the front runners, but the historical record is so spotty that far back that we should remain open to other possibilities.  From what I've seen there are certainly quite a few interesting hints in various old sources.Battling McGook (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Inproper Link
The couillard link leads to trebuchet page, when there is a valid page for the former item. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eligitine (talk • contribs) 15:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

How could Alexander use arcuballistae?
Since arcuballistae weren't invented yet? I guess the paragraph may have been garbled, but it's unclear what else it could be claiming he used - perhaps gastraphetes? 173.66.211.53 (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It's controversial whether the arcuballista was at all similar to the crossbow
And many modern sources identify the arcuballista with the torsion-coil cheiroballistra. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

HIST406-13JJANG741 (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Critique: Catapult

The topic I chose had to do with a technology from warfare, the Catapult. The Article does a fairly good job of describing the catapult and its history. It describes how the catapult gained its name, who was the first to utilize it and its connection to the crossbow. I really liked the fact that it mentioned the appearance of the crossbow in the writings of different Greek authors and how it evolved. The article did a great job in describing how the catapult came into play, first from bows, crossbow’s, fire-arrow crossbows and the use of the catapult as new technology involving torsion was introduced.

In comparison to an entry in the encyclopedia, the Wikipedia entry is like a book. The encylopedia entry only has two types of definitions, one is a noun and the other a transitive verb. However the Wikipedia entry does a lot more. It does a good job with the history for the most part. It introduces the origins, Greek and Roman. It also briefly tells of the introduction of the catapult in Greek literature. One of factors that made this entry informative was its discussion of Greeks switching from flexible crossbows to the torsion propelled catapult and how the Romans also began incorporating the catapult into their society. I also liked the fact that the article did not end with just a brief history and the origins of the catapult. Instead, the article also includes a list of the different types of catapults that were used and also modern use of the catapult in our military. I thought that was an interesting tidbit that tied together the initial technology in history and how it is still in use today.

Unfortunately, not all the sources for the article appear to be of academic origin or possess a scholarly background. In some cases, the in-text citations do not have a full citation in the bibliography. This creates a dilemma since many of the citations do appear to be legitimate. Most are from two books: one by Eric William Marsden called "Greek and Roman Artillary: Historical Development" published by The Claredon Press and the second by Duncan Campell called "Greek and Roman Artillary 399 BC-AD 363" published by Osprey publishing. Because so much of the article relies on only two sources, it is unclear whether the article can be believed without questioning certain facts.

The images and illustrations were a great add-on to the article, they had multiple pictures showcasing the different taypes of catapults, both historical paintings and pictures of modern catapults which was great so that one could see the changes in design and modernity of the same technology.

The article itself was informative, not filled with unrelevant information or unnecessary facts. However, although the article did do a good job of presenting an informative yet brief history, it was not perfect. It did not talk about how torsion was introduced,who exactly invented the technology or catapult and its evolution in conjunction with torsion. It only discussed its use by the Greeks and its introduction in literature and the different types of catapult.

Overall the article was well-written, the illustrations added to the overall effect of making the article appear professional and academic since there were a variety of images used. The only suggestions I have would have to deal with incorporating more information about torsion and how it led to the creation of the catapult and how that technology was harnessed. I would also suggest including more sources from scholarly journals, books or articles so that the basis of the article was not from just two sources alone since the technology of the catapult cannot be adequately described from just two books alone. It would also be nice to know who invented the technology or who played a pivotal role in developing torsion or the catapult form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-13JJANG741 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

(Comment)
I can't believe that the Biblical reference to catapults in 2 Chronicles 26 is not even mentioned as a possibility. Present the evidence and let people decide for themselves. You can even include the fact that most scholars believe that catapults were invented by the Greeks, but to leave out this clear reference smacks of religious hatred and censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.178.121 (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Time to remove 2008 demand for references -- greatly improved
This article now has multiple references in the bibliography, generously sprinkled throught the text. The text is organized better, more readable and well illustrated with photos and old artwork. As this is a protected article, can there be some review by the approved editors to update that general and very old critique? --Prairieplant (talk) 09:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2014
208.248.108.30 (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Couillard
Couillard is not linked in the list at the end and editing of the article seems to be blocked so I can't add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.227.15.253 (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Catapults in India
Hi. I'm going to create a section right before Medieval Catapults, called Other Ancient Catapults. I'd like to mention that the first recorded use of the Catapult as a siege weapon in India was in the 5th century BCE by Ajatshatru, and it may have been the first historically recorded catapult as well. I'm not going to state that however, merely mention Ajasthatru's use of it, though i would like some consensus on whether we can reword the following section "Onomarchus of Phocis first used catapults on the battlefield against Philip II of Macedon", since it is incorrect. Ajatshatru's was the first recorded use that I know of (it is older than Onomarchus) and there are some biblical and chinese and perhaps Persian/Mesopotamian claims as well. Thus we cannot say that Onomarchus of Phocis was the first to use Catapults. Whether we should say that for Ajatshatru should first be determined here, since I do not want to initiate an edit war.

Source for Ajashatru's 5th century catapult useage http://books.google.co.in/books?id=H3lUIIYxWkEC&pg=PA272&lpg=PA272&dq=Ajatshatru+catapult&source=bl&ots=xddD5PaRjF&sig=B84IsTz4TPhjpCV42ZeryxeUITw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j_NbU8WYNsWHrQeWn4HQAw&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Ajatshatru%20catapult&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tca achintya (talk • contribs) 18:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I glanced at that source and it seems pretty darned sketchy and non-specific. A one sentence claim that there were catapults from a secondary source isn't that convincing.  There's all kinds of claims all over the place for ancient catapults and they are notoriously hard to verify.
 * I do see that "Mahasilakantaka" is used in different sources to refer to either a war or a weapon of Ajatasatru. And the wikipedia page which refers to it as a war says "by the divine influence of the Indras even the pebbles, straws, leaves hurled by Ajatasatru's men fell like rocks on the army of Chetaka".  This doesn't inspire a lot of confidence, hinting that the notion of hurling large stones could be a literal interpretation of a metaphor.
 * I have no idea what to make of this. I'm not saying you are wrong, and I'm not even saying that catapults were unlikely then or there.  But I suggest you read more about this, and see if there's any sort of agreement that they had actual catapults then.  And provide additional sources.Battling McGook (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Well Upinder Singh is a very well respected historian, so i thought it would do. Some additional sources - http://books.google.co.in/books?id=wsiXwh_tIGkC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=Ajatshatru+catapult&source=bl&ots=OWmN2KurgL&sig=rmKrM1hCUyS8I_bK2xKSLrOfj8g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7aZeU4LFFoyMrAekkIDwDw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=catapult&f=false

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=U2gRUVIF2joC&pg=PT79&lpg=PT79&dq=Ajatshatru+catapult&source=bl&ots=lojaj-c-gF&sig=wgpe2-nsTdMhdBuzlGVYOxaV1JY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7aZeU4LFFoyMrAekkIDwDw&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Ajatshatru%20catapult&f=false

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=5Gcj3LJDheYC&pg=PA1415&lpg=PA1415&dq=Ajatshatru+catapult&source=bl&ots=oWAZYK2jmt&sig=utS0gcMb9D2ie3GYi06QpOIk_kE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7aZeU4LFFoyMrAekkIDwDw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Ajatshatru%20catapult&f=false

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=wZyLVdkA7cIC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=Ajatshatru+catapult&source=bl&ots=1vNfaoj8wP&sig=OmdOtUzkykgr1gPgMnY3_zrendM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7aZeU4LFFoyMrAekkIDwDw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Ajatshatru%20catapult&f=false

Would these do? I've tried to cover from a variety of sources, thus one is a generic history text, one is a preparatory manual for the Civil Service exams, one is a young reader's history text. Of-course Upinder Singh quotes the Original Jaina text, and has referenced the statement i believe, but I'm not sure i have the original Jain text on file. Also, could you tell me if there is some problem with the credibility of Upinder Singh's text or was it just a lack of sourcing that was problematic?--Tca achintya (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

 * The problem is a more general one. All of the sources we have available today have been heavily filtered and diluted over time.  The Jain texts you refer to seem to have been written around (very roughly) the same time as the popular notion of the invention of the catapult in 399 BCE.  This makes them quite similar in time frame with the Biblical source describing a catapult.  In both cases, these are people writing down oral histories that had been passed down for some time.  Oral histories are subject to rapid change over time, but once written down, become (somewhat) stable.
 * If you want my personal opinion, both the Jain texts and the Biblical text are solid sources in terms of catapults existing (and being common) at the time of the writings, but not so great as to how they pertain to the direct contents of the writing. This is also good indications that the popular 399 BCE claim of invention (which I think was written much much later than that so in my opinion probably suffers from similar oral history issues) is probably not correct.  It seems likely that everyone was probably claiming for a period of a least a hundred years and maybe more that their particular king or hero or race or culture or god or whatever was the one that created these new machines of war.  I haven't looked at catapult research in a while.  I remember there are several other references available that hint that catapults might have existed as far back as 550 BCE, though as I recall there was not enough for any consensus.  There is even a claim of a picture of a catapult from 800ish BCE on a Nimrud relief, although the only images I've seen in relation to that claim look nothing at all like catapults.
 * It's great that you have several sources. However I'd suggest you make sure that these are not in fact all simply several people all repeating the opinion of secondary source.  This is how myths get created and perpetuated (e.g. "catapults were invented in 399 BCE").  If there is more than one person who has translated or interpreted the meaning of the Jain text that would be a big reassurance.  I see that happen all to often on other subjects I'm interested in.  If there are translations available of the text being referred to that would also be helpful.
 * My favored approach for writing about such things (in general and on wikipedia) is to include lots of sources like the one you've added and the biblical source which has been asked for but not included, along with an honest discussion of what this might really mean. It doesn't sound as clean as a plain statement like "catapults were invented in 399 BCE", but it would get across to the reader the honest fact that nobody is very sure or in very much agreement about exactly when catapults were invented or which culture might have been first.
 * I should be clear that most of what I've said here is opinion and goes way above and beyond wikipedia rules. I appreciate your contribution.  I just hope to make it clear that the interpretation of history this old is a very messy proposition. Battling McGook (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I haven't changed the Greek section of the Catapults. The sources do say that Ajatshatru used a catapult against the Licchavis. I do not want to get into an edit war by going to "who used the catapult first" so i haven't made any changes in that respect, and i thought there should be some consensus on that aspect. Based on the sources provided, I think the sentence is ok, since it says that Ajatshatru is recorded as having used a catapult. I don't want to add in OR on that front by claiming that this would be the first recorded use of catapults on a battlefield without consensus. On the biblical front, i've heard about it, but since i have no sources, i cannot add it into the page, since i cannot make a determination as to which scholars are reputable and acceptable and which are not when it comes to biblical history. I will not be making any further changes until some people weigh in on whether there need to be more changes. Thank you for your help --Tca achintya (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Bricole
Britannica 1911 describes a Bricole as "a military engine for casting heavy stones" along with some secondary meanings, I guess obsolete. Bricole simply redirects to Siege engine (which does not mention the term), but that must be wrong as it's apparently more of a catapult than a battering ram. Where would it fit in the list of Medieval Catapults in this article? Would it be better, at a minimum, to redirect Bricole to Catapult? David Brooks (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ETA - French Wikipedia says it is an intermediate development between the Pierrière and the Mangonel. I think for now I'll redirect it to Mangonel and maybe one day translate the French article. David Brooks (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nomenclature in catapults is a nightmare of confusion, because of terms being exported back and forth between different languages and across different eras. Modern sources are all over the map about what almost any catapult name actually refers to.  I will say though that it is fairly safe to assume that "siege engine" in modern terms can refer to any engine that was used during a siege, not just battering rams and siege towers.  This of course would include catapults of all types. Battling McGook (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2015
please let me edit this I would be very happy.

207.190.182.254 (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

❌ This is not the place to request extra rights, I believe the correct place is here WP:PERM. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Dubious statement
The Modern Use section here says "Ships also use them to launch torpedoes and deploy bombs against submarines". I'm a bit dubious about this; I'm guessing the editor who put it there is thinking of the WWI “bomb-thrower”, or the later “depth-charge thrower”, but AFAIK both those used an explosive to give the propulsive effect. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Moonraker12 (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Etymology
I gave the text on the history of the word its own section title, Etymology. This takes the topic out of the lead, and into the article. The lead should include the highlights of the article, and etymology probably is not one, but other items might yet be added to the lead. This article is full of interesting information. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Is given etymology correct? I mean, καταπέλτης - κατά+πέλτης, "against"+"shield" (see πελταστής) seems obvious. 87.117.189.244 (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The etymology is sourced. Do you debate the sources? Do you have other sources? --Prairieplant (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Torsion vs Tension
This article says the Ballista used torsion. The article for Springald says the Springald also used torsion. Then this article says the Springald was similar to the Ballista, in that it used tension. I think that should be torsion, instead of tension. Although I'm not sure, so I'll let someone else change that. - 72.184.128.205 (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catapult. 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/20160112160714/http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/war/CatapultTypes.htm to http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/war/CatapultTypes.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

 * The link should this one: be https://web.archive.org/web/20160228044238/http://www.hellenicaworld.com:80/Greece/Technology/en/CatapultTypes.html which goes directly to the article on catapults. Link supplied goes to a page that requires one to click on the notice that the material is moved to the link I supplied. Do I just change it, or does this helpful Bot need to fix it? I will say need help=yes to learn what happens when I do that. Never did it before. --Prairieplant (talk) 10:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Dubious "has been discontinued"
The article says:
 * Until recently, catapults were used by thrill-seekers to experience being catapulted through the air. The practice has been discontinued due to fatalities, when the participants failed to land onto the safety net.

This reads as if it applies worldwide, but the two cites provided each refer to the same occurrences at a single location. If the article wasn't semi-protected I'd tag it  at least, but since it is, I'm just posting this here. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

 * Good point. The text has been modified to feature the specific trebuchet in England, with an additional citation that tells the full story of the device's use and the fatality. It was discontinued. --Prairieplant (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

East Asian beginnings for catapults
This wiki on catapults used to be a lot more balanced with the east asian catapults from 4th-5th century BC mentioned but I now noticed they have been completely removed. There are descriptive passages on the building of catapults mentioned in Mohist texts, a translation of the full canon by Prof. Robin Yates.

You read this entire article on catapults and the omission is glaring.

There are references to east asian catapults here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_engine

There are also records of the Pipil catapults used against the Spanish in central America or a mysterious reference to some rock throwing device used against vikings by North American indians. The Japanese also had an indigeneous catapult called the Oyumi which is found in description only (no illustrations have survived or been found yet).

The development of the hinged counterweight is very likely a middle eastern improvement over the traction catapults of east asia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trebuchet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3003:2001:133A:3021:E4C1:A834:872F (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC) nah mate the baicaster — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.129.255 (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Greek and Roman catapults
Stones sometimes set on fire? I assume this should refer to arrows, more likely these were sometimes set on fire? BobKilcoyne (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Catapult


text:
Yin Zheng (pianist)

Zheng Yin is a Chinese pianist from Shanghai.

Career
Zheng has performed at Carnegie Hall and Steinway Hall. She has worked with pianists such as Paul Badura-Skoda, Alicia de Larrocha, Vladimir Viardo, Jacques Rouvier, Russell Sherman, Anne-Marie McDermott, Claude Frank and John Perry.

She trained at the Secondary School affiliated to the Shanghai Conservatory at an early age. Zheng studied with Dominique Cornil in the Royal Conservatory of Brussels, Belgium, where she graduated with "Highest Distinction" in both Piano and Theory. In the summer of 2007, she earned her Doctor of Musical Arts from the Eastman School of Music under the tutelage of Nelita True.

In 2006, she was Assistant to Artistic Director of the Shanghai International Summer Piano Academy and was engaged for Mozart double and triple piano concerto performances with Nelita True in the Oriental Arts Center, collaborating with the Shanghai Philharmonic Orchestra.

Zheng was appointed Assistant Professor of Piano and Coordinator of the Keyboard Program at Oakland University in Michigan in fall, 2007. Zheng was guest soloist at the 2007 State Conference of Michigan Music Teachers’ Association and the opening gala of Pontiac Oakland Symphony 2007-8 concert season. In the summer of 2008, she was the first pianist from North America to perform at the Kirovohrad Spring Music Festival in Ukraine.

A chamber musician, Zheng founded the “Eastman Triana” with Eastman alumni Julianne Kirk and Anyango Yarbo-Davenport (violin and clarinet). She ventured into the third stream by working and performing with jazz violinist Regina Carter. Her extramusical experiments with French-Canadian studio artist Jean Detheux synchronized live acoustic performance and visual elements in seek of “Abstract Expressionism”. Their collaborative works were presented at film festivals and will be featured at the 29th Annual New Music Festival organized by the MidAmerican Center for Contemporary Music at Bowling Green State University, Ohio.

In summer 2008, Zheng joined the piano faculty of the Blue Lake Fine Arts Camp. She is an judicator at the Music Teachers’ National Association Young Artist Competitions. During the 2008-2009 academic year she toured as visiting artist at Auburn University, Louisiana State University, University of North Carolina at Charlotte and SUNY Potsdam Crane School of Music.

Recognition
Zheng won first prizes in the 28th Frinna Awerbuch International Piano Competition held by New York Piano Teachers’ Congress and the Empire State Piano Competition of the New York State Music Teachers Association. Her chamber performance was recorded by Radio Suisse Romande. She won the Eastman Concerto Competition and performed K.595, Mozart’s last piano concerto, with the Eastman Philharmonic Chamber Orchestra in 2006.

title: Yin Zheng (pianist)


text:
Kossuth

Kossuth may refer to:

Hungary

 * Kossuth tér, or Lajos Kossuth Square, Budapest
 * Kossuth Lajos tér (Budapest Metro), a station on the M2 (East-West) line of the Budapest Metro

United States

 * Kossuth, Indiana, an unincorporated place in Washington County, Indiana
 * Kossuth County, Iowa
 * Kossuth, Mississippi, a village
 * Kossuth, Ohio, an unincorporated place in Auglaize County
 * Kossuth Colony Historic District, an area in Dayton, Ohio
 * Kossuth, Wisconsin

Other uses

 * Kossuth (surname)
 * Lajos Kossuth, Hungarian statesman
 * "Kossuth" (Bartók), Sz. 75a, BB 31, a symphonic poem by Béla Bartók inspired by Lajos Kossuth
 * Kossuth (Dungeons & Dragons), an elemental fire deity in the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game

title: Kossuth